Jael M wrote:
The frumpy chick turned into billboard material:

Frumpy. I like that luv.

It's true that capitalism exacerbates the situation because there's profit in it. But to call that "the reason" why women are dissatisfied with their appearance is overly simplistic, because:

There would be just as much profit in keeping men dissatisfied with their appearance, but there's no men's beauty industry (or at least, not much of one)

If capitalism was the reason, we could expect to see in pre-capitalist Western society and non-capitalist contemporary societies a majority of women contented with their appearance and devoting little time and effort to it.

...But we don't.

Lamonica wrote:
I hate this crap... a real woman has a vagina (that she was born with, not surgically created) and tits (big, small and in between.)

Beauty (imo) is just that, an opinion. I've had people tell me that I'm gorgeous and others tell me that I look like a cracked out spider monkey. I can care less what either say because what I think about myself is what really matters.

I don't need some corporation, who is just out to make millions, telling me how to be beautiful. If you are one of those people who uses the media to dictate what they look like, I feel sorry for you.

Like my mom always says, "Not even people in Hollywood look they way they look"

LO-LPN wrote:
Dove has teamed up with EDEN (The Eating Difficulties Education Network).

Isn't Dove owned by the same people who own McDonald's? (j/k)

It's Mayor McCheese who is beautiful

We're part of Unilever.

http://www.unilever.com/ourbrands/

Although this part of the message will get conveniently passed over, Unilever's mission statement is to bring products that enhance quality and vitality to life. As trite as that may sound, I have seen nothing yet while working there that conflicts with that statement. And there's nothing wrong with a corporation trying to remain profitable while doing so. This is supposed to be called a win-win situation.

One of the biggest cynicisms that currently exist in present-day culture is that in order to bring a positive value to people lives', the provider must do so for strictly altruistic reasons (read: they must give it away).  Thanks to heads of companies like Enron and Worldcom, corporations are now perceived to be automatically part of the Dark Side...

Marketing is marketing. I think we're all adult enough in spite of advertising to figure out whether a product actually works for us or not.  If it does, buy it. If it doesn't, don't.

Tom Winstead wrote:
I'm with Stephen. I never use Photoshop that much. I mostly just use the healing brush to remove minor scars and blemishes.

Unless it's a photoshop manipulation kinda shoot, I don't use much photoshop either, just adjust contrast and sharpen image... A great phtographer is the one who uses raw images as they come out of the camera

Primox Studios wrote:

Yeah Brain... we need a new plan for world domination...

Pinky.

SNARF!!

Kinetic Photography wrote:
isnt it funny that you never hear about men crying because they saw some other guy at the beach with better abs or bigger pecs.  "please men, why must we be so meanie pants with each other, lets just accept ourselves for our true inner beauty" I have some advice for you girls..........

SHUT THE FUCK UP AND STOP CALLING EACH OTHER FAT BITCHES AND SLUTS AND STOP BUYING 20 MAGAZINES EVERYDAY WITH MODELS IN THEM, ITS YOUR OWN FAULT.

This is definitely going to get more models to contact you!

Kinetic Photography wrote:
isnt it funny that you never hear about men crying because they saw some other guy at the beach with better abs or bigger pecs.  "please men, why must we be so meanie pants with each other, lets just accept ourselves for our true inner beauty" I have some advice for you girls..........

SHUT THE FUCK UP AND STOP CALLING EACH OTHER FAT BITCHES AND SLUTS AND STOP BUYING 20 MAGAZINES EVERYDAY WITH MODELS IN THEM, ITS YOUR OWN FAULT.

Whoa. You could have stopped at the end of the first paragraph. Not all us models are like that. I've never dissed or been dissed and I don't buy any magazines. If you've lost faith in us you need a new hobby or at least to stop working with female models. That's not 'advice for you girls,' that's a rant. Pull it together man.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
This is definitely going to get more models to contact you!

If I recall his other thread correctly, I believe we can see why he wasn't getting any responses from models.

Kinetic Photography wrote:
... ITS YOUR OWN FAULT.

Pot, meet Kettle.

Legacys 7 wrote:
To apply to this lipstick history. The lipstick was also worn to resemble the vigina. I saw this some years ago on tv. But I had to make sure that this was correct. It actually is. The whores were the first to wear lipstick to attract the Johns. This attracted the Johns, giving the illusion that red lips was a sign of good moisture like the vagina. Better oral performance, that performed like the vigina.

way to spell vagina wrong.  Twice.  .

Kinetic Photography wrote:
isnt it funny that you never hear about men crying because they saw some other guy at the beach with better abs or bigger pecs.  "please men, why must we be so meanie pants with each other, lets just accept ourselves for our true inner beauty" I have some advice for you girls..........

SHUT THE FUCK UP AND STOP CALLING EACH OTHER FAT BITCHES AND SLUTS AND STOP BUYING 20 MAGAZINES EVERYDAY WITH MODELS IN THEM, ITS YOUR OWN FAULT.

So I guess I'm the only one who thinks the second paragraph is kind of good advice?

Wynd Mulysa wrote:
way to spell vagina wrong.  Twice.  .

ohhh...too many jokes, can't deal, must get air.

Wynd, you slay honey

Jael M wrote:
This is interesting..... have to love photoshop! This also answers the question about the "photoshop vs MUA"....as you can see the MUA was very important (and stylist).

The frumpy chick turned into billboard material:

With my style of work you can`t skimp on MUA/Styling or Wardrobe, I use very little retouching (I don`t use photoshop) I start off with a beautiful gal to begin with and getting it right the first time makes all the difference.......I wish I had all the money they wasted on making that "frumpy" gal
(good word) over, I`d invest even MORE $$$ into my Retro clothes and MUA......... but then companies CAN smoke money needlessly can`t they?

Mayanlee wrote:

We're part of Unilever.

http://www.unilever.com/ourbrands/

Although this part of the message will get conveniently passed over, Unilever's mission statement is to bring products that enhance quality and vitality to life. As trite as that may sound, I have seen nothing yet while working there that conflicts with that statement. And there's nothing wrong with a corporation trying to remain profitable while doing so. This is supposed to be called a win-win situation.

One of the biggest cynicisms that currently exist in present-day culture is that in order to bring a positive value to people lives', the provider must do so for strictly altruistic reasons (read: they must give it away).  Thanks to heads of companies like Enron and Worldcom, corporations are now perceived to be automatically part of the Dark Side...

Marketing is marketing. I think we're all adult enough in spite of advertising to figure out whether a product actually works for us or not.  If it does, buy it. If it doesn't, don't.

No, it's not going to get passed over. I said my peace in the previous post. The second, the one that you quoted, was just a comic kind of flourish. I don't have a problem with making money. I have a problem with being SINGLED OUT. Because I am thin I am not considered a "real Beauty". Are you going to tell me I am the only one who finds that offensive? Because I am thin I am now an outcast? Because I look like I do and I am a model I MUST have an eating disorder because "real" people don't just NOT gain weight when they eat.

Next thing ya know, we'll get pushed farther out until society views us as freaks.

"It's OK to be fat. It's not your fault. It's your cortisal and it's caused by stress". We can’t even take responsibility for our own bodies. We have managed to blame our culture and our government and corporate America for just about everything that’s wrong with us. The blame game was out of hand 10 years ago. 5 years ago it got ridiculous. Now it’s in my backyard and it’s got me against a fence and I am FORCED to deal with it.

Heres what’s gonna get glossed over little sister. My intent to show that apparently the marketing campaign is not only about making money but the abandonment of our health. Americans are getting fatter by the minute and NOW we have an excuse. The one that all of the fat people have been waiting for.

“It’s OK to be fat, your just as beautiful”…that used to be the calling card.

“You are beautiful, it’s those skinny bitches who are ugly”…this is where we are now.

Can anyone contradict what I am saying? Is that not exactly what THE CAMPAIGN is about? The web address is www.campaignforrealbeauty.com. It’s just another in a long line of pitiful excuses for laziness. There are many, too many to list. Lazy people who don’t respond to e-mails. People who are constantly backing out of plans. Our Global Warming problems are caused by lazy people. Car pooling takes extra time and effort. Get in rush hour and see how many cars there are with one person each. People are simply saying, “fuck it” more often than we used to. We are getting lazier and lazier.

I for one eat normally. I just work harder.

I would like to know what about my two previous posts you are actually addressing. Your point is well taken, but why quote me and why quote that passage?

LO-LPN wrote:
Dove has teamed up with EDEN (The Eating Difficulties Education Network)
FACT.

Isn't Dove owned by the same people who own McDonald's? (j/k)
JOKE (j/k = just kidding)

It's Mayor McCheese who is beautiful
JOKE

I fail to see the connection between what I am saying and your explanation. Not that I don’t agree with you at all, I don’t. I am just wondering how we got tangled up in each others webs.

BTW, I think YOU ARE beautiful…the “passionate lovers” in the corner really trip

LO-LPN wrote:
Dove has teamed up with EDEN (The Eating Difficulties Education Network)
FACT.

Isn't Dove owned by the same people who own McDonald's? (j/k)
JOKE (j/k = just kidding)

It's Mayor McCheese who is beautiful
JOKE

I fail to see the connection between what I am saying and your explanation. Not that I don’t agree with you at all, I don’t. I am just wondering how we got tangled up in each others webs.

BTW, I think YOU ARE beautiful…the “passionate lovers” in the corner really trips my trigger, if’n ya know what I am sayin’

I know you were just kidding in that line.

The connection I made was the culmination of several posts (and yes, I'm lazy; I'm not going to quote all the pertinent passages from several different posters).

Responsibility ultimately lies with the consumer and how they decide to spend their hard-earned disposable income. Marketing is just marketing; when did the tide turn in making corporations and their advertising agencies responsible for our personal well-being? At its core, you and I agree with the same ideology.

Smoking is bad for me. I know this; I have all the information pointing to the same direction. But I still smoke. I make the choice to smoke. No Marlborough Man campaign makes me think I'm gonna be riding free on the open range if I stick one in my mouth and light up. I won't be suing Philip Morris for misleading me...

Some advertising methods are more ethically responsible than others. Some are downright offensive on several fronts and some are offensive only to particular demographics. As far as ethics are concerned, the original intent of the Campaign for Real Beauty was not supposed to send the message that it's okay to obviate your personal responsibility in taking care of yourself; it's supposed to say that everyone has something to feel good about themselves despite what modern culture would have you believe. Being outwardly perfect isn't the point; take the best care of yourself mind and body and that's something to feel good about.

Much of the ongoing programs sponsored by Dove are aimed at young girls (10 - 14 yrs) to cultivate self-esteem that's NOT centered around how they look.

It will be interesting to convey some of the responses here to the marketing group for Dove at Unilever, but ultimately each person will receive the message differently. I'm with the legal group, not marketing. Our job is simply to try to make sure that nothing in the advertising and marketing goes out that can't be backed up with evidence (re not making false claims). And at the end, I'm not sure it will make a hill of beans in one manner of thinking.... all advertising is meant to generate attention to the product. It certainly looks like it did that.

Thanx much for the thumbs up, too. Melvin always manages to find the right shot at the right time with me.

Wynd Mulysa wrote:

way to spell vagina wrong.  Twice.  .

That's ok, as long as you get the point.

Israel wrote:
What a waste! The could have just started with a beautiful model and saved all that work.

I thought she was beautiful when she first sat down. I like her better before than after.

Anjel Britt wrote:
our perception of EVRYTHING is distorted!

knowing that is the first step to authenticity

BRAINWASH ME I AM BEAUTIFUL but brainwash me you are too
;-)

Jeff Cohn::X-Pose.net:: wrote:
4 pages

145 comments

Its a sucessful campaign, they got what they wanted.

Now let's talk about that awesome "cuddly wuddly" commercial with the muppets frightened by the SUV, man that's a great one.

Muppets....got to love them...I think they are over Photo Shopping Kermit again though. Anyone else notice that? He must have put it in his new contract, because his wrinkles are starting to show more.  I hear Piggy got ANOTHER nose job....scandal...

-Jael-

Jael M wrote:
This is interesting..... have to love photoshop! This also answers the question about the "photoshop vs MUA"....as you can see the MUA was very important (and stylist).

The frumpy chick turned into billboard material:

http://www.campaignforrealbeauty.com/ho … ion_v2.swf

As one who creates art using photoshop, I find it far easier and more satisfactory to use a good model than to alter one in photoshop.  It is far better to get a good shot of the model in camera using makeup, lighting and posing.  While watching that, all I was reminded of were the things done in photoshop that were purposely left out due to time constraints (trying to make the transformation look easier than it is).

Julia wrote:
http://fishki.net/comment.php?id=15834

I like the idea of the dove campaign..but this is funny as hell.

Rolly wrote:

I like the idea of the dove campaign..but this is funny as hell.

I thought it was too :0)