"A healthy body image will be adopted when people are allowed to feel safe in their own bodies..."

I agree. This will be achieved when women can say "I aren't as good-looking as that model, photoshop or no photoshop" without getting criticised. The problem is (well intentioned) people, saying "oh no, you cannot say that, you have to think that you are absolutely gorgeous or you have a mental problem called low self-esteem." We all know what attractive looks like and how we compare. Expecting every woman to think of themself as beautiful is unrealistic, over-protective and is setting them up to fail.

All this discussion proves is that Marie Claire were absolutely right to run the article, and the photographs.

The media commentary has been worth many millions to them in advertising . It has allowed their editor to appear on morning TV, which is a PR coup. And the existence of the piece will undoubtedly sell many more copies of Marie Claire, this and future editions, than would otherwise have been the case.

Do you believe they really care whether it degrades/empowers/upsets/delights anybody?

Thank you, Melinda, for taking the time to highlight the problems with this type of 'empowerment' stunt for women. It beggars belief that Frank and the Butterfly Foundation wouldn't have come up with the same concerns when this 'fundraising' initiative was first dreamt up--and if they didn't they should have hired you as a consultant to think through the obvious implications. As you point out, there is no point in generating pictures that add to the sexualised culture surrounding girls, when it's this culture that has contributed to their eating disorders in the first place. I think the Butterfly Foundation should seriously review its organisational mission if it really can't see the problem with this means of 'fundraising'.

I'm inclined to think this whole body image thing is just symptomatic of rampant consumerism.
How many billions of dollars are spent every year on everything from curtains to cars, handbags to houses, jewellery, perfumes, colognes, shampoo etc, etc., just so people can feel more happy about themselves -in comparison to others?
There just isn't any money in people accepting themselves -and each other- as being who and what they are.
Pericles is right. If they chose an ordinary person, with ordinary 'flaws', why would anyone buy the mag?

I Dont always agree with MTR but I do on this issue. This is ridiculous. How can Marie Claire possibly hold up a supermodel as a model to make women love themselves just as they are?
More to the point what a lot of bull about Jen being 'brave'? what is so brave about a lingerie model taking nude photos as a publicity stunt? Nor, for that matter, can you see any more than you would in a lingerie shoot.
Oh and labeling these photos 'untouched' is horrendous as it seems to suggest they are totally natural. Um... hello? Natural would mean not sitting getting hair and make up done for hours, then setting up lighting and poses etc. These photos are HIGHLY contrived to make her look good. Just bc they weren't photoshopped does not mean thats what she naturally looks like

Why is she held up as a role model? How is this other women any better? Who is she anyays? Why do nobodies feel the need to go naked on a cover of a magazine nobody buys and why do we care? Haven't we got any decent role models? She justs looks nice in a frock, big deal. Or out of a frock, wow so important.

Same as men, we have a man who hits balls around a field and he is paid trillions and upsets everyone when he fails the image test? A ball whacker? We hold a ball whacker up as a role model? He gets paid all that for such a moronic task?

I don't think wrinkles and dimples is the real problem here.