Egads!  Britney Spears has been photographed for a Candie’s ad campaign…and has agreed to let the unretouched photos be published, too.  Avert thine eyes!  Surely we’re all going to burst into flames at the unimaginable horror of seeing a body in its disgusting unairbrushed form.

Oh, wait, you mean–that’s what Britney looks like naturally?  Still looks awesome?

Glad people are getting paid thousands of dollars to remove 2 millimeters from celebrity calves in photos.

When I tried, a few weeks back, to sing the Britney Spears song “Womanizer” to my friend–who obviously has much better musical taste than I, as she’d never heard it–it was pure comedy.  “So, the lyrics go: ‘Womanizer, womanizer, you’re a womanizer, womanizer, womanizer, womanizer, oh!’  It’s catchy!”

Nobody ever said it was Shakespeare.

Brit-Brit’s album, Circus, drops November 24th, and she looks pretty and soft on the cover–especially thanks to the obvious airbrushing and flattering lighting.  Tawny skin, pink lips, flowing locks, smokey eyes?  This is a Britney I can get on board with!  (A little self-tanner and a lot of shimmer powder and mascara go a very, very long way.)

The below promotional still, however, is laughable in its artifice.  Are we meant to think this is a real photo?  If you’re going to airbrush–we know, we know, you’ve gotta do it–please use at least a little restraint, so the subject in question looks human, and not like a cartoon rendering of a wax doll. 

Kate Winslet is one of my all-time girl crushes, and I think you can see why here in the December issue of Vanity Fair.  The Great Kate channels Catherine Deneuve in a stunning photoshoot that is coming under lots of fire by critics claiming Kate has been airbrushed to high heaven.  (Kate, by the way, denies the claims, having publicly chastised GQ in the past for digitally–and unnecessarily–slimming her.)

Guess what?  Every single magazine cover you will ever see is airbrushed.  Period.  End of story.  All of them.  Moles are wiped away, skintone is corrected, undereye circles vanish, and, most disgustingly, limbs are often slimmed, because God forbid an actress should look like she weighs more than 105 pounds.  It’s gross, but it’s nothing new.  So why are the media outlets suddenly gasping in Shock! and Confusion! over this magazine cover?  Could it be because, historically, Kate Winslet has been seen as a “chubby” actress, and for her to look gorgeous (and, yes, slender, though not unrealistically so) in a magazine means it must be 100% illusion?  Come on!  The whole industry is an illusion: the hair, the makeup, the body sheen, the military precision of the poses, the expensive clothes, the flattering lighting.  The only image below that rubs me the wrong way is that of Kate in a black dress on the floor; her arms, legs and hips do, indeed, look altered, but how am I to know?  Maybe Kate’s been spending time at the gym.  Maybe it’s all lighting, shadows and Spanx.  Or, maybe, Kate Winslet’s body is none of my damn business, and I can stick to admiring her because she’s talented as they come, and absolutely stunning…at any size.