Most of us have long agreed that it's ridiculous for fashion magazines to Photoshop their already starved models to even more skeletal figures, and it seems that magazines have finally started to see things our way.
First, her royal magazineness, Anna Wintour, banned size 0 models from appearing on the pages of "Vogue," which was met with public applause from readers and fashion bigwigs alike.
See more: How to Self-Tan Your Body Like a Pro
Then a 14-year-old blogger named Julia Bluhm, launched a national petition asking "Seventeen" magazine to feature real girls -- and got the bigwig editors to capitulate.
And now, in an effort to embrace the "real women" community, magazines have jumped on a whole new bandwagon called reverse retouching.
Instead of using the magic of Photoshop and other such tools to make models look skinnier, magazines like "SELF," "Cosmo," and "British Vogue" have admitted to digitally fattening them up by making the models larger and curvier to look healthier and more "real."
Is it just me, or is that missing the point entirely?
While I'm completely on board with magazines stopping to proliferate ridiculous body ideals, reverse retouching sounds just as bad as making "fat" ones "skinny" -- and I'd expect, that the models feel the same.
What do you think? Are magazines are on the right track with "enhancing" their models, or should they just start hiring normal-sized people in the first place and leave the CGI enhancements to the folks at Pixar?