The magazine calls Mila Kunis "effortlessly sexy". This is true; she is an incredibly beautiful woman. But I have one question: if the magazine is supposedly celebrating Mila Kunis's effortless beauty, then why did they airbrush her?
Seriously, take a look. No moles, no freckles, no scars, no blemishes - no reality.
This magazine poses numerous self-contradictions. It boasts of promoting a view of "healthy sex", yet it has a frightening section on STDs (um, that would be the opposite of healthy...the last word there is "disease"). It claims to celebrate the beauty of women and to encourage women to love their bodies, yet their articles feature tips on crushing hunger (without which we would die, by the way, as the human body needs food in order to live), on losing weight and toning our bodies "now!" (what if I don't want to be toned? What if I'm comfortable with my marshmallow physique? Which I am by the way), and it falsifies the beauty of one of the most gorgeous women alive. Why is that necessary??? Um, hello, she's ALREADY gorgeous! A little too revealed in the photo(also likely a result of the airbrush) for modesty's sake, but the female body is BEAUTIFUL regardless, and IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE ALTERED FROM ITS NATURAL STATE.
Seriously, Cosmo writers, don't you ever stop and think about the countless ways that you contradict your ideal of celebrating women, the very philosophy upon which your magazine is founded? I recommend you read the Theology of the Body. It would greatly improve your literary value.
No comments:
Post a Comment