Victoria's Secret Exposed - The Missing Cheek

@Rollo1 (16676)
Boston, Massachusetts
October 9, 2015 3:49pm CST
Facebook users were both shocked and amused by a photo that Victoria's Secret posted on their Facebook page. And they let VS know about it. The photo was of a young woman who was (how do I say this? back side view? rear view?) facing the other way. Yes! Phew. She was clad in only a pair of VS panties, which didn't cover much. But that's not the reason the photo drew attention. For once, that is not the reason. The reason is that the picture is obviously very badly photoshopped. Forget the alien arms with no perceivable wrists, though. The real photoshop error is something else that is missing. It's a certain line, a shadow even. See, everyone has two of these, but this girl was missing one of them. That is, on one side, you saw the expected cheek, but on the other, nothing but a thigh that went straight up to her waist. Aside from the question of how they could not notice this error and erasure of her anatomy before they posted it, is the more important question: Why is it photoshopped at all? To be a Victoria's Secret model, a woman has to be perfect, have the perfect figure and be beautiful beyond belief. But that's not good enough. They then photoshop the photos to make these women look beyond human. Forget the way that makes average women feel, how about the model? She works out, diets and does everything possible to be attractive enough to be hired as a Victoria's Secret model. But then, that's not good enough. They photoshop out her "faults". If the standards of beauty are so high that even VS models can't meet them, I don't think there's any hope for the rest of us.
People have been quick to point out a grave error made by the lingerie company
13 people like this
12 responses
@Asylum (47893)
• Manchester, England
9 Oct 15
If they use Photoshop to correct any defects then I may stand a chance of getting a modelling job myself.
6 people like this
@Rollo1 (16676)
• Boston, Massachusetts
10 Oct 15
@Asylum I was thinking something similar. Why do they bother to pay beautiful women big money to model for them if they are just going to photoshop them? Pay average women average money. What's the difference?
3 people like this
@wiLLmaH (8801)
• Singapore, Singapore
10 Oct 15
@Asylum (8126) we all do! :)
1 person likes this
@Asylum (47893)
• Manchester, England
10 Oct 15
@Rollo1 The same scenario applies to models in magazines, who have often been Photoshoped after the photograph was taken.
@Jessicalynnt (50523)
• Centralia, Missouri
10 Oct 15
saw the photo and giggled, but then it made me sad. Her bum looked SO much better with cheek.
3 people like this
@Rollo1 (16676)
• Boston, Massachusetts
10 Oct 15
I just noticed the leg without a bum has a really huge fat thigh, but it's down around her knees. Someone obviously posted the wrong picture.
2 people like this
@pgntwo (22405)
• Derry, Northern Ireland
10 Oct 15
@Rollo1 Someone in the Publicity dept was a little legless...
1 person likes this
@jstory07 (148771)
• Roseburg, Oregon
10 Oct 15
Actually that is a very ugly picture.
3 people like this
@Rollo1 (16676)
• Boston, Massachusetts
10 Oct 15
It's not going to sell me underwear, that's for sure.
1 person likes this
@wiLLmaH (8801)
• Singapore, Singapore
10 Oct 15
Bad publicity is still a publicity. VS never put down photo until now in their facebook page.
2 people like this
@Rollo1 (16676)
• Boston, Massachusetts
10 Oct 15
I think that works if you're a film star, but if you are selling the idea that this lingerie makes you look sexy but even the models need to be photoshopped, it ruins the image.
1 person likes this
@wiLLmaH (8801)
• Singapore, Singapore
10 Oct 15
@Rollo1 everybody now going to their facebook page. :) does facebook page pays the companies for their hits?
@LadyDuck (502812)
• Italy
10 Oct 15
This photo is horrible, even if forgetting about the missing cheek, it is not pleasant at all. I cannot believe that a photographer of such a big company can publish a so ugly photo.
2 people like this
@Rollo1 (16676)
• Boston, Massachusetts
10 Oct 15
Someone must have sent the wrong file or chosen the wrong file. But it not only damages their look, which is supposed to be sexy and glamorous, it also damages their reputation. Someone probably lost his job.
1 person likes this
@LadyDuck (502812)
• Italy
10 Oct 15
@Rollo1 I have read something about the diet of the "Angles" and it sounds stupid. Only liquid for the 10 days before the shows and nothing at all (not even water) the 24 hours before the show. They would look tired and dehydrated, I think that the media think that people are stupid.
@jaboUK (64346)
• United Kingdom
9 Oct 15
I think that's a horrible image - even if it showed the normal cheek I think the stance is unattractive.
3 people like this
• Preston, England
10 Oct 15
It's the lack of symmetry that makes the photo-shopping obvious - unless a lob-sided model turns up to prove she really does look like that.
1 person likes this
@Rollo1 (16676)
• Boston, Massachusetts
10 Oct 15
There is so much wrong with the picture, she couldn't look like that and not be an alien.
1 person likes this
• Preston, England
11 Oct 15
@Rollo1 maybe that's the Secret - Victoria employs Martians - a real equal opportunities employer
@simone10 (54180)
• Louisville, Kentucky
10 Oct 15
I saw this on TV last night and was shocked that first it was photoshopped and second that it was so badly done. It even makes the poor girl look like her one leg is deformed/bowed.
1 person likes this
@Tampa_girl7 (54736)
• United States
10 Oct 15
How amusing.
@bluesa (15022)
• Johannesburg, South Africa
10 Oct 15
Pardon the pun, but, what a cheek! To as you say, take someone who is supposed to have a "perfect" body and photoshop them! That is why, I will eat what I want, and be chubby and happy.
• United States
10 Oct 15
I hadn't seen or heard about this....interesting mess for VS
@Fleura (35124)
• United Kingdom
10 Oct 15
What a cheek! Those pants don't look comfortable either.
1 person likes this
@Fleura (35124)
• United Kingdom
10 Oct 15
@Rollo1 so their partner could check for bum fluff?