Every magazine seems to be working on a weight issue these first months of the new year. Take for instance the Australian edition of Marie Claire. Would you have given it any real thought if there wasn’t for this incredibly beautiful cover with Miss Universe 2004, Jennifer Hawkins?
I respectfully admit I most certainly wouldn’t have! Jennifer Hawkins bares it all for Marie Claire February 2010! Wearing only makeup, she makes the no-Photoshop statement of this year’s debut! (the story continues right after the jump)
Jennifer Hawkins is not your average catwalk model, no sir! She’s svelte enough to make it into the models ranks but there’s more to her than bones and skin (luckily!). Her Marie Claire statement honors the Butterfly Foundation (which helps Australian with eating disorders), posing entirely without photoshop retouches (you can see the signs of minor dimples formations on her thighs).
Why they didn’t go for normal women instead of – true, not skinny, but still – unearthly good looking former Miss Universe? Maybe because they also need to sell the magazine in order to spread the message? Would you have bought it if there was a regular Jane Doe on the cover? (via 1, 2)
9 comments
Sorry, I wouldn’t give this cover and the magazine a second look after I discovered another undressed woman on the cover.
About the weight issue: I read somewhere that an English dating site for only beautiful people has dumped some of their members because of “over-weight”! As Ellington always say: yegads!!! :P
No I would not buy this issue as I have no idea who she is. As for her being naked I agree with Adriana. :)
And yes Adriana when I read about that jank dating site in England I did think “Ye gads, how lame!” :P
What makes her think it’s ‘charitable’ to see her in the nude? Get some clothes on! Marie Claire is not a men’s magazine.
It’s not her, there’s something very wrong in our society!
Jennifer Hawkins is a great Australian celebrity but this cover is a joke because of two reasons. Firstly she hardly needs any photoshopping & secondly because next month the cover subject will be some photoshopped movie star. Totally pointless.
Let’s not get our knickers in a knot. She’s not that great. Just another naked blonde, nothing we’ve never seen before.
And let’s not pretend she’s a saint, she’s just making money and trying to get her name in the news again seeing as staged wardrobe malfunctions don’t seem to work.
The Butterfly Foundation receives money from corporations that promote a thin but healthy image: Sportsgirl, Lovable, & Dove (and Dove is owned by Unilever which uses thin and sexualised images of girls in Lynx ads to sell their product while hypocritically campaigning for “real beauty” under their brand name Dove).
The whole issue is a farce, just a publicity stunt. The only people who look stupid in this whole situation are Jackie Frank, Jennifer Hawkins, and the population of people who believe that she’s perfect. Far from it. If you want to see what Jennifer Hawkins really looks like without all that makeup, airbrushing, hair dye, fake tandoori tan, and so on, just do a google image search for “Jennifer Hawkins Secretary” and “Jennifer Hawkins Cheerleader”. Trust me, it’ll make you feel a lot better about yourself when you realise how many people it takes to make one tall average looking bogan look similar to a “model”.
Jaqui, I trust you for 100% how many effort and people and money it takes to make one tall average looking bogan look similar to a “model”. I do even realise that it take a lot off all the above I mentioned to make a MODEL look so or an actress on a red carpet spectactular!
God, now I feel so much better about myself. Thank you! :)
haha! that bogan comment really made me giggle – thanks for that. Didn’t realise she was a bogan
I think everyone should stop being photoshopped. Puts unrealistic expectations on everyone these days. Atleast we know now that through hard work (exercise) and healthy eating, Jen’s body can be obtainable.
Leave a Comment