A little white turtleneck...and a smile

The current issue of Esquire Magazine, on stands now, touts the upcoming 75th anniversary of the publication. In celebration of "Women We Love," it features a posse of Victoria’s Secret models, all dressed in creamy white turtlenecks, matching stilettos, and nothing else. The iconic pose is one Esquire has used before – remember Britney in her heyday, pre- faux British accent? She graced the cover in the same outfit in 2003 (Actually, do a sweater and heels constitute an “outfit?” It’s more like football Sunday loungewear for me, but I digress.) What I didn’t know was that the woman who inspired these two latter covers was Angie Dickinson, who set more than few hearts aflutter when a photo of her from the sixties,baring all on the bottom for the magazine, appeared on the front of the August 1993 “Sixty Years of Women We Love” issue.

As I paged back and forth between the three cover shots (we get Esquire at our home. I read it for the articles, I swear!), I was pretty startled by the stark contrast between the smooth, new car shininess of the VS models – their mile-long legs are completely blemish-, vein-, and dimple-free. Sinewy muscle in the thighs suggest hours on the treadmill combined with a genetic jackpot. They look like they were painted on the page.

But screen siren Angie Dickinson’s figure appears much more..well, much more REAL. Her butt is not airbrush-sleek. Her sweater is a bit loose around the waist. Her left leg, extended back slightly in a coy position, shows an indentation in her butt muscles whereas the same area on Britney is rounded and reflects light...and in the Victoria’s Secret layout, the area is actually defined with a curve of muscle on model Selita Ebanks.

I wonder, Are these changes a result of fitness levels increasing and skin-smoothing serums proliferating over the past few decades? Or do we all look pretty much the same naked when Photoshop is the great equalizer? Clearly, the Angie D. photo has not been retouched…at least nowhere near the amount it would be today. And she still somehow managed to turn the heads of, ohhh, Frank Sinatra, Burt Bacharach and about a zillion other fellas. I feel like if that picture were to run today, it would be splashed across some tabloid or “pro-skinny” website with the headline, “Angie’s ANGRY over cellulite!”

Take a look below - what do you think? Who looks the sexiest? The most natural/relatable? Any readers out there who are old enough to remember when Angie Dickinson was a hot Playboy Playmate? How is it different now that women are encouraged – nay, rewarded – when their bodies resemble those of blow-up dolls?

PS Happy National Love Your Body Month! More to come throughout February…

Have a wonderful weekend,
XoX,
Leslie

Comments

I was at the bookstore and saw this magazine on the rack from far away. I was intrigued as to why the VS models had no pants on and in one in case looks like the girl doesn't even have any panties on. So, I flipped to the article, and looked at all the pictures.

I have to say that all the photoshopping on the VS models when put next to an un-touched photo like Angie's made the VS girls look like un-real plastic glamazons. The thing is that these girls are naturally stunning so why not just leave them alone, digitally.

Angie's pic is also far more warmer and welcoming. I think it's a far sexier picture than the highly retouched VS pic. Also, it's much nicer to see a woman who looks more like someone I could know.

I agree, I think the photo of Angie Dickinson is much sexier. She looks earthy and sexy and real, while the others look like newly-painted mannequins.
Photoshop is everywhere. "Imperfections" are not allowed to grace the pages of magazines, so they are all erased. It's pretty sad actually; we spend so much time trying to look like the women on the magazine covers, and THEY don't even look like that!

I agree with Stephanie, it is much nicer to see a picture of someone that looks like people we know.

The celeb pics on these magazines don't even look like them anymore. I wonder what they think when they see themselves on the cover like that? Does it make them more self conscious of their imperfections? I would feel that way!

Wow - I'm afraid I don't find any of these covers attractive. I can't get over the fact that they're just... not wearing any pants. It doesn't look skimpy or provocative to me, it almost seems like a joke. You know, "Hmmm, got my fave sweater and the heels that totally make my legs look rockin' but something's missing... think! Think!" And then everyone on the subway laughs at them.

PS> Stephanie - I think none of the girls have panties on. Ironic, considering they work for Victoria's Freaking Seceret.

I think the 3rd one i.e. the VS one looks best.

My name is Harold Palacios and I train several celebrities and models. This blog caught my eye when I noticed you were speaking about one of my clients, Selita Ebanks.

I can tell you that Selita gained 10lbs of weight, primarily muscle and this has happened in a total of a 2yr span. I have seen her muscle tissue mature from our continuous efforts in exercise and nutrition. She takes her fitness very serious and is always more than eager to try new workout programs. We have trained after hours before photo shoots and I have traveled with her, to keep her shape perfect. She loves to eat what she wants, so she needs to exercise. Some of her favorite exercises our walking lunges and my famous Shaker squats on a Bose. And one last thing: she has genetics when it comes to body not only looks. That is why she is a Victoria Secret Supermodel.

I can tell you that Selita gained 10lbs of weight, primarily muscle and this has happened in a total of a 2yr span.