Fashion Garments

To publish nude shots of Jennifer Hawkins under the pretext of improving women’s poor body image issues is priceless.

It’s almost akin to saying that the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse photos would reduce terrorism. Don’t get me wrong, as an aesthete I enjoyed the shots so much that I’ve used one as a screensaver for a few days.

But let’s stop pretending this has anything to do with improving women’s perception of their own figures and everything to do with improving the magazine’s circulation figures.

Let’s stop calling Hawkins, a professional model, brave for posing with sympathetic lighting in full hair and make-up. Hawkins is young, gorgeous and has built a fortune based primarily on her looks.

She is no ordinary girl next door, she is the cheerleader who went on to win the 2004 Miss Universe title. Honestly, I could not think of a more unrealistic role model for young girls. Is this really the example we want to hold up in front of tweens and teenagers?

However, it is not Hawkins who deserves our criticism for her decision to nude-up in some misguided effort to reduce eating disorders.

No, the woman who deserves condemnation is Frank, who somehow managed to keep a straight face while explaining how a former Miss Universe posing nude will improve young girls’ body image issues.

This is the same woman who saw fit to lecture the government about its response to eating disorder issues, but was a judge on the short-lived show Make Me a Supermodel, (incidentally hosted by Hawkins) where a dangerously thin teenager was put through to the finals despite the protests of anorexia experts who slammed the decision.

AND now, after having her flimsy arguments so comprehensively examined by bloggers and Mia Freedman, Frank has pulled out the old solidarity card.

She has implored women not to criticise each other, in some fanciful show of sisterhood.

I’m sorry, Ms Frank, but I refuse to support your stance and your transparent arguments just because you happen to be a woman.

Stop treating your readers like idiots by pretending this has anything to do with improving self-image.

Almost anyone would be able to tell you that it is indeed images like this that fuel women’s insecurities.

Frank is now arguing that the response to the photos and the subsequent debate justify her decision. Perhaps she just doesn’t understand that the controversy hasn’t been caused by Hawkins posing nude but instead by the reasons given for the entire exercise.

Here’s the bottom line. A nude Hawkins will certainly sell magazines but the shoot would have never caused controversy if the editor hadn’t seriously misjudged the intelligence of the average woman by suggesting that the exposure of Hawkins’s flawless body would somehow reduce eating disorders among girls desperate to look like her.

If you want images of a genuinely brave celebrity that may actually alleviate body image issues, then look no further than Jamie Lee Curtis, the Hollywood star who posed in her underwear in unforgiving light and – importantly – without spending hours in hair and make-up.

She is also in great shape but the images show her flaws, her age and something perhaps more beautiful than the carefully posed Hawkins shots. There is an inner beauty and strength that is evident despite the wrinkles and extra “insulation” around the torso.

Now that is brave.

source:http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/nude-logic-is-flawed/story-e6frfhqf-1225816735520