Opinion |Sexuality

Photoshop, Patriarchy, and Protection of the Vulnerable

Should it be so shocking to seriously consider censoring the consumer arts?

"That's not real, right?"

As a friend and I walked through downtown Manhattan, a bus wrapped in an ad featuring a Victoria's Secret model—who was at once alarmingly taut and seductively squishy in all the right places—zoomed past us.

"No sweetie," I assured her, "it's not real." I confess, it was a little matronizing.

Though my intelligent friend suspected that the image had been digitally doctored and that the model likely had not eaten a carb in months, she was clearly rattled by the smooth two-dimensional Amazon beauty who had just zipped by.

Had she been walking London's cobbled streets, she would have been afforded greater protection from the unwanted visual assault.

British activists, recognizing the negative impact of aesthetically improved photos of human faces and bodies, especially on women and girls, lobbied Parliament in 2009 for the regulation of digitally altered images. As a result, the current UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising, Sales Promotion and Direct Marketing ...

Subscriber access only You have reached the end of this Article Preview
To continue reading, subscribe now. Subscribers have full digital access.
Already a CT subscriber? for full digital access.
July/August
Subscribe to CT and get one year free.

Read These Next

hide this
Access The Archives

Member-Only Access

Subscribe to Christianity Today to continue reading this article from CT's digital archives.

Subscribe

Already a subscriber? to continue reading.