greenlizard0 said:It's not sexist; all of the women on the page clearly needed more time under the photoshop scalpel then the men do. I just said what I saw that's all.
Or, imagine when you're out and about look at men and women. They all look good on a saturday night:
Men - shave, hair product, possibly some face cream if you're a bit metro.
women - well, the amount that women spend on make up and hair products each year says it all.
ElRazur said:Ok i see your point but you should have been more precise initially.![]()
punky_munky said:That Paris Hilton one is good. Who's the girl sitting next to her? They've made her a lot less wide.
Read: Darryl Hannah.Matteh said:some of them look so boney and haggard in the before shots :/
Kell_ee001 said:Me too
The first ones leg is one of the funniest, followed by the 2 lass's on the couch and the lass kneeling on the 3rd page![]()
I thought the same thing about [is that Rebecca Romijn, page 1, column 1, row 2?] - the before pic looks better than the after.Kami said:Jessica Biel actually looked better before they edited the size of her bum and legs IMO![]()
Le_Petit_Lapin said:Dear god.....Page 1, 5th one down on the right side.
After: Hello there...
Before: Stay back you crack fiend!!![]()
Desmo said:Hopefully more women will realise that these "superbabes" don't actually exist![]()
Kell_ee001 said:I was just commenting something similar to some mates while looking at these. A lot of the photo's really aren't bad in the before pictures - they simply look more human. (Crack fiend not included)
Would that be of the woman lying down, where her nork looks obviously fake?cyKey said:In one of the shots they did some nork reconstruction to change gravity.
Spunkey said:Would that be of the woman lying down, where her nork looks obviously fake?
Matteh said:Its Nicole Ritchie. Its strange because its not like she is that wide in the first place - I guess they just did it so that her and Paris Hilton were more in proportion with eachother.
:/