when geekery turns bad: the evils of Photoshop

I think the "after" image is indeed created from the "before" -- the folds in the dress seem identical to me, for one, and it seems like that might not be the case if the images were different. The reason some of the patterns on the dress seem to have moved is because her body has been stretched and distorted. Still, whether the "before" was the source for the "after" or whether it was a different image from the same shoot, the point is still the same: the photo editor dramatically altered her body into some sort of plasticine approximation of womanhood. Women's magazines are fuckin' nightmares. The coverlines (and the stories inside, of course) are always about how we're too fat but should be baking and eating this AWESOME fudgy chocolate cake anyway, and how we aren't having sex right and aren't reading the minds of our men properly. I don't know why any woman would be reading this shit. I worked at *McCall's* magazine as a copywriter for six months in 1990, and it was the most soul-crushing job I've ever had. And *McCall's* was one of the lesser offensive of these magazines.