Kit Steinkellner
October 07, 2015 1:34 pm

Oh, Photoshop. When you are obvious and cringeworthy you are SO obvious and cringeworthy. Case in point,  as Mashable reports, this recent Victoria’s Secret ad for “cheeky” underwear, that gets several “cheeky” points knocked off for, um, well, straight-up Photoshopping out one of the butt cheeks (oh, also, a solid chunk of thigh). Take a gander.

We are scratching our heads big time trying to figure out how this photo saw the light of day. Real talk, there are a lot of Victoria’s Secret employees that had to have seen this photo before it went out into the world to promote “cheeky” underwear. And there was no one who said “Yeah, her hair is on point, and the thigh-highs are a nice touch and all, but… isn’t she missing part of her butt?” We don’t think it’s too much to ask for to ask a digital retoucher to leave butts/thighs intact, and if a big brand like Victoria’s Secret would rather put out an embarrassing Photoshop job than a pic of a model with her IRL body replete with IRL butt, well, to quote Harold Hill, ya got trouble, my friends.

Of course, this is far from the first time Victoria’s Secret has gotten in trouble for being not-so-body-positive. There was the time the lingerie brand launched its “Perfect ‘Body'” campaign with solely  a bunch of ultra-thin models, and this year Lane Bryant launched their #ImNoAngel lingerie campaign in criticism of Victoria’s Secret’s very narrow definition of what qualifies a model to be a Victoria’s Secret Angel.

Apparently, Victoria’s Secret’s narrow definition has gotten SO narrow, it no longer includes whole butts/entire thighs. Please do better and give us realistic-looking, anatomically correct models, we really don’t think that’s too much to ask for, Victoria’s Secret, do you?

Related:

There are multiple petitions calling for change at Victoria’s Secret. Here’s why.

Why Lane Bryant’s “I’m No Angel” campaign matters

Image via Victoria’s Secret

Advertisement