March 19, 2012 • 32 mins
The United Kingdom has regulations against airbrushing in advertising, and the American Medical Association has an anti-airbrushing warning -- so how bad can airbrushing be? Join Cristen and Caroline as they explore the history of photo manipulation.
Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Brought to you by the reinvented two thousand twelve camera.
It's ready. Are you welcome to stuff mom never told you?
From how Stuff Works dot Com. Hello, and welcome to
the podcast. I'm Kristen and I'm Caroline, and today, since
(00:21):
we are talking about air brushing, I gotta admit I
have a subscription to to Lady Meg's as they're referred
to on the Internet's Glamour and Harper's Bizarre and Harper's
Bazaar isn't quite Uh, I don't know. It's it's it's
(00:43):
not quite as air brush friendly as Glamour is. And
I would be lying if I said I have not
flipped through and made a game out of looking for
obvious air brushes in um like on cover shots or
in ad tise mints. Right. Yeah, there comes a point
when you start looking at ads thinking, you know, you
(01:06):
you might think, gosh, they don't have any pores, and
then you realize they don't have any pores. Uh, they
start to look like paintings. Oh and especially now that
the swimsuits season is coming upon us, all of those
advertisements for a swimwear with just those smooth, those impossibly
smooth buttocks is what's the plural of buttocks butt buttocks
(01:31):
buttocks e Um, Yeah, there's no We've talked about cellulite
before on the podcast, and the takeaway from that is
that everyone has it, unless you are an air brushed
model or someone with cellulite free jeans, which is really rare.
And uh, there's a lot of silly lite free celebrities.
(01:53):
In this Jezebel slide show that we looked at, they
they showed some of the the worst. They might not
have cellulite, but they didn't have waste or arms or
sometimes legs either. And I feel like we have to
give some credit to Jezebel as one of the first big,
at least online whistleblowers of um air brushing and green
(02:15):
these unrealistic portraits of women, whether maybe models or celebrities. Yeah,
but unrealistic to some people, uh, point of admiration and
pride for others. According to the editors itself, they said
that the cover that they posted of Kelly Clarkson a
while ago all air brushed and thin, down from what
(02:38):
she naturally looks like. They said, it's not as in
a news photograph journalism. It is, however, meant to inspire
women to be their best? What what? But so by
slimming someone down to what she doesn't look like, we
should idealize the idealized version of someone else. Just blew
my mind. No. Um, there's also that great Newsweek cover
(03:01):
of Martha Stewart. Um, I wish I knew exactly what
year was from, but it was I want to say
it was jail. She was okay, it was while she
was doing some time and they pasted her head on
a model's body. And Martha Stewart is not She doesn't
need a model's body, you know, to sub for her own,
like already fit enough body, right. Well, they said it
(03:24):
was a photo illustration because they couldn't get a hold
of her body because that body was in jail. So
they were like, we're just gonna take a photo. But yeah, exactly,
why didn't they just use a picture of her that
already existed? And celebrities have also taken umbridge at being
excessively airbrushed. For instance, there was Kate Winslet speaking out
publicly against a g Q cover in which she was
(03:47):
spin down. Yeah, and actually, if you look at the
before and after, she looks great in the before and
she she agrees. She said that the re touching is excessive.
I do not look like that, and more importantly, I
don't desire to look like that. And she said that
by her estimation, it looked like they reduced the size
of her thighs by a third. But of course we
(04:07):
also have to mention the most egregious example of extreme
air brushing from an October two thousand nine Ralph Lauren
ad featuring model of Philippa Hamilton's, who was already very
model esque, very spelt, and her waist they some I
don't know what the graphic designer was doing, and also
(04:30):
the person who signed off on this advertisement who because
it just it looks almost grotesque, almost snapper in half. Yeah,
it almost. Her waist was trimmed down so much it
looked incredibly unnatural and almost painful. Like when you see that,
you you don't think, oh, look at those nice Ralph
Lauren clothes. I would like to look like that. You think, oh,
(04:52):
oh no, her waist exactly, poor girl, what happened to her?
But yeah, this is not just limited to to mod
earn day celebrities and some models. Even Audrey Hepburn wasn't
immune to this and in a book released for the
fiftieth anniversary Breakfast at Tiffany's last year that included a
photo a promotional photo over and it had before and aftershots.
(05:14):
She looks gorgeous in both photos, but the before photo
had the little grease pencil markings of where to to
do some air brushing snooth around a little bit. This
is before even before the days a photoshop, because they
had to really want to do it, I know, and
she looks she looks great. And we also have to
point out to before we go any further that this
issue of air brushing is not just about women's bodies. Um.
(05:38):
Male models are also subject to this as well. I mean,
think of pick up a cover of of Men's Fitness
and you probably will see some very air brush. You
could abdominals, you could store things in some of those
ab crevices, right, Um, and there was I believe Brad
Pitt came out he was going to be on the
cover of W magazine and explicitly stated beforehand that he
(06:00):
did not want to be airbrushed at all, and even
requested that Chuck Close photograph him because Close is known
for his extremely realistic um photography that that shows off
all of your quote unquote blemishes in a very interesting
and almost even more attractive way. And it's not just
(06:20):
about body measurements, but it's also about skin tone too.
There have been controversies over loreale Um lightning, allegedly lightning
Beyonce's skin tone and certain advertisements. Some people said that
it was an issue of the lighting, but they just
used really bright lighting to show how shiny your hair is,
or you just made her look pale. So this clearly
(06:42):
isn't just a reflection of a thin ideal, but it's
this white, thin ideal. Um. But before we get into
this issue of whether or not it is creating, you know,
negative body images, um, creating these idealized standards that we
will never be able to live up to, we had
to recognize that photo manipulation is by no means a
(07:04):
new thing and has been happening ever since the advent
of photography. Yeah uh. Dartmouth College professor Haney for Reid
pointed out on the Smithsonian website that Lincoln Lincoln. So
first we have Audrey Hepburn and now Lincoln. What is
the world coming to? But Lincoln's head was plopped onto
the body of John Calhoun, which is kind of ironic
(07:25):
considering he was a Southern pro slavery politician and back
around the same era, Civil War photographer Matthew Brady also
doctored photos to create a more dramatic scene, and he
wasn't the only one. Stalin, Mao and Castro are just
a few of the leaders who have had their political
enemies airbrushed out of photos. I wonder if they were
(07:46):
airbrushed out of life as well. Probably, um yeah, just
as an example of some of the historical photo manipulation
that is going because it seems like this affected photo
manipulation affected men, unlike how it seems to be more
of this women's issue today, probably because uh, you know,
men were the the ones being photographed from their seats
(08:10):
of power. For instance, in nineteen o two, there's this
photograph of Ulyssus Grant on a horse in front of
as I'm I'm sitting sitting here pretending to uh to
have my my hands on the reins of a horse,
and he's sitting in front of an encampment. But indeed, no, no, no,
(08:32):
that never actually happened because it was actually three photos
spliced together. It was a different general's body. Grant's head
came from a completely different photo of him leaning against
a tree, and then the background of the encampment was
from yet a third photograph, and it does look kind
of I don't I don't think this guy did a
(08:53):
great job. I mean, it kind of looks like a weird,
weird tidy. Grants had on a robust body standing in
front of a background. But it was nineteen o two. Yeah, okay, okay,
I'll cut them a little slack for their early manipulation.
And then there's also the controversy over the Pulitzer Prize
winning photo of that was taken at Kent State of
(09:15):
a student leaning over one of the other students who
had been shot and killed by National guardsman Um and
Life magazine editors decided to airbrush out a poll that
was behind the girl's head in the background, And yes
it does, and the original does look like there's a
poll sticking out of her head. But the original photographer,
(09:36):
I can't remember what his name is, but he was
insensed that Life magazine would do that because it's still
even though it's you say, it's just a poll, but
is just a pull the slippery slope down to Philippa
Hamilton's Ralph Lauren models impossibly tiny waste exactly, and it's
that slippery slope that authorities are fighting against, particularly advertising,
(10:03):
the advertising standards authority in the UK. This is coming
from ad Age and in July, uh the authority in
the UK band to Loreal magazine ads. So so not
we're not talking anymore about the same thing with the
history and the horses and the encampments. Now we're into uh,
lying about the effects of or oh I'm sorry, exaggerating
(10:26):
the effects of makeup. Right there was The two ads
in question feature Julie Roberts for Landcombe and Christy Turlington
from Mabelin. Now Ms Roberts and Miss Turlington both goalgeous
women who need no air brushing. Um. But if you
(10:46):
if you look at the ads, they have again the
poor less skin dewey, yes, very very dewey, and they
were banned in the UK for exaggeration and for being misleading,
basically saying, hey a Landcombe and Mabelin, there is no
way on earth that the makeup products that these two
(11:07):
women are advertising actually can remove even the mere sight
of a pork can make your skin look that completely perfect,
you're misleading consumers, right, And as a rule that Loriale
provided insufficient evidence that it had not overly airbrushed the images.
They said that on the basis of the evidence we received,
we could not conclude that the ad image accurately illustrated
(11:29):
what the effect of the product could achieve. So they
are making an effort to protect consumers and try to
maybe raise awareness and media literacy. Right. It's not necessarily
the issue of the negative body image standards saying, you know,
Julia Roberts face shouldn't be in a magazine because she's
just too darn pretty. It's more an issue of what
they're saying about or trying to lead us to believe
(11:49):
about a product. And then on February one, two thousand twelve,
the A s A took action again banning a Loreal
ad featuring Rachel white Um and she is hawking a
product for anti aging cream. And if you look at
the ad, I my impression of it was, what a
beautiful watercolor. It's because she's so it's like she is
(12:14):
formed out of fine fluff. I mean, you can't even
see there are no wrinkles, no pores, no nothing. It's
like she doesn't even cast a shadow. And again, Rachel Wife,
another beautiful, non airbrush needed, non airbrush needed. That's that's
poor grammar, but you guys get what I mean. She's
so upset that she's throwing around negative she then I
(12:36):
think it was on either Slate or Salon dot com
that had a side by side photo of the airbrushed ad,
which was lovely and watercolor esque, and then a picture
a close up picture of her from a red carpet
and still lovely and also very calming to my soul
to see that if you look closely, she does have
(12:58):
pores and slight crow's feet. Yeah, a little bit of
adult acne. T tod just like us, we are covered
found great um well. In response to the banning of
this Rachel Wife, ad Lourel said they didn't believe that
the ad exaggerates the effect that can be achieved using
(13:18):
this product, to which I say, are you kidding me?
But maybe it's something that we should expect by now
that okay, think about think about all of those mascara advertisements.
I mean there's if you I love looking at those
as I'm flipping through my Glamour and my Harper's bizarre.
The mascara advertisements are my most favorite because I will
(13:42):
stare at those just the individual hairs that were obviously
superimposed onto them. There is no way that you that
any mascara product can separate each each individual some hair.
Some of these companies would beg to differ or if
there is someone because I need to get my hands
on it. Um. But these a s A rulings against
(14:02):
advertisements are led by MP Joe Swinson in the UK.
She's a co founder of the Campaign for Body Confidence
and a former marketing manager and she has been fighting
against unrealistic images of women in advertising and she's usually
at the helm of these anti makeup ad campaigns. Yes,
(14:23):
and her opinion is shared by the American Medical Association,
which in June adopted a policy to encourage advertising associations
to develop guidelines to discourage photo alterations that could promote
unrealistic expectations of appropriate body image. So now we're getting
we've gotten past the history where photos are being manipulated
for leaders purposes whatever to achieve some sort of end,
(14:48):
and then it was to just make women's skin look good.
And now we're getting into concerns about how this photoshopping
air brushing stuff can affect people children teenagers, right, because
the as A ruling saying hey pull those Loreal or
land coom ads are all about um advertising and consumer
habits and really just hitting the your wallets. But the
(15:09):
A m A coming out against photoshopping has more to
do with what is what it's doing to our brains.
But I will say that their statement was kind of
vague in their rationale fighting a quote large body of literature,
no specific studies UM that link exposure to media propagated
images of unrealistic body image to eating disorders and other
(15:32):
child and adolescent health problems, and that that correlation makes sense.
There are all of these corellary relationships between media exposure,
seeing excessively thin models or excessively air brushed models, and
then internalizing those images as to what you should then
see in the mirror. But in terms of establishing a
(15:56):
causational relationship between air brushing and eating disorders, we get
into some sketchier areas, right. Elizabeth pearl Over at Huffington's
Post followed this A m A rolling up by saying
that photoshop isn't the issue, It's part of a much
larger issue about women and the media and impressions that
(16:19):
we give to our kids. Specifically, she says that the
pervasive use of image alteration software is only one small
piece of the strong sexist undercurrent that continues to dehumanize
women as objects in the vast majority of these images.
And she said that really the issues that women and
men are still under pressure to be thin enough to
(16:40):
even be on the cover, right, is it so much
about the air brushing that's happening or the standard those
men and women are being airbrushed to, whether that's lightning
of the skin, whether that's um racing crow's feet, or
minimizing waste or carving out you know, trenches of six
packs in men's in men's waste, um and and going
(17:05):
along those same lines. Eating disorder specialists Carrie Arnold was
quoted by psychologists Vivian diller Um kind of also debunking
this idea of air brushing being the root of all evil.
Um she was saying that we don't think ads for
disinfectants somehow promote O c D, and so we also
(17:25):
don't think that those bluetooth headsets promote schizophrenia because it
looks like you're talking to yourself. It does. I am
fooled all the time by people with headsets. I'm sorry,
what were you saying? Oh, I just wear a Bluetooth headset,
so it's more acceptable when I am talking to myself.
A right, Well, she says that Arnold says that condemning
photoshop may be good for a good story. It might
(17:47):
raise controversy. We're talking about it, but she questions its validity,
the validity of the connection between these eating disorders, body
image and air brushing. Well, I think it might be
an easy scapegoat to say, oh, it's the knowledgey these days,
this new fangled thing. But but no, it's been going
on for a really long time. Think about that that
Audrey Hepburn photo. But I mean, so these people are
(18:11):
sort of raising questions, they're being skeptical about it. But
I still think it's an important point to bring up. Absolutely,
um that you know, it's airbrushing is not the most
evil thing. Obviously, we need to work on media portrayal
of women and men and men, but yeah, just airbrushing
is part of that. To me, it's more an issue
of media savvy, which is one reason why Haney f reed,
(18:36):
who you mentioned earlier. UM has developed away or well,
I should say he's developed a mathematical model to measure
the amount of photo shopping done on an image. Yeah.
Each he presented these some photos to some people, and
each altered photograph was scored between one and five, with
five for heavy retouching. And the the human volunteer is
(19:00):
that they put it. UH scored photos from one to five,
and they found a close correlation between the people's assumption
of how much something had been airbrushed and the actual
airbrushing done. So it seems like people are more savvy
than we give them credit for. UM. But he is
saying that there should be a rating next to a
photo according to his mathematical model. That way you could
(19:22):
automatically know that a photo has been retouched. For instance, UM.
A lot of news magazines will clarify, they'll footnote if
UM an image is a photo illustration like the Newsweek
cover of Martha Stewart with Martha Stewart's head on someone
else's body, that is a photo illustration. It is a
(19:42):
compositive something else that and they want to clarify that
to make sure that they aren't misleading readers into altering
their their sense of reality. And so for read to
saying that you can use this kind of one to
five rating skill scale to do the same thing, and
I think that could be pretty helpful, right, And for
Red is not the only one who wants disclaimers alongside photos.
(20:04):
The founders of off Our Chests recently launched a Self
Esteem Act campaign to pass a bill that would regulate
the digital retouching of models and magazines and advertisements, and
so they want disclaimers alongside photos too. So a lot
of people want it to be very clear that these
photos are airbrush. So it sounds like that Self Esteem
at campaign would be the the US sort of companion
(20:28):
to those u k s advertising standards that have become
more strict. I mean, I don't know that there would
ever come a point that that the government would legislate
how much a model's body can be airbrushed on the
cover of Glamour. I think that it's easier to um
to tie it into advertising standards. Mean, if she's sitting
(20:49):
there holding a bottle of shampoo, then they might be
able to institute something. But I don't think airbrushing is
going anywhere anytime soon, which is why common sense media
dot org Um really encourages parents to make sure the
kids know that celebrities have stylists and hairdressers and personal trainers.
And you know what, it's not just the kids, it's
you know. I have to remind myself of that when
(21:11):
I'm flipping through Glamour, especially if I might be feeling
dumpier one day and I'm flipping through and I see
those individually separated eyelashes and the cellulite less buttocks. Is
so I haven't figure I gotta figure out the plural
to buttocks. Bottoms, bottoms, all those all those smooth bottoms,
(21:31):
and and I have to remind myself that, you know
what this is. This is a product of technology. This
is a product of it being someone's job to look fantastic.
It's well, it's their job to look fantastic. It is
someone else's job to sell the product to us. You know.
I look at my pores sometimes, going back to pores,
(21:52):
and I'm like, oh my god, I have buckets on
my face. And then I look back and I'm like, oh, no,
you look like a normal person. Your pores aren't huge. Self,
don't worry about it. Don't be taken in by those
altered images and I can't see your pores at all. Thanks.
And it's not just because I'm I'm not that good
with sight seeing, but I do think too, by the
same token that kids are more knowledgeable of this, then
(22:17):
we might give them credit for There was a forum
on The New York Times asking kids whether or not
air brushed images of models affected them, like if they
saw an image of a model, if it made them,
if they internalized that and it made them feel bad
about their bodies, and if you screw I mean granted,
I mean you have to think about the kind of
(22:38):
self selected population of kids who are going on. They're
probably already pretty stute if they're commenting on the New
York Times when they're thirteen years old. Um. But by
and large, scrolling through the two plus comments, a lot
of them said, without prompting, well, we know that this
is just how they're supposed to look. They know what
air brushing is. They have photoshop there on their laptops exactly.
(23:02):
They yes, they know, and they are aware. And that's excellent.
I think those are great strides that have been made.
But not to ham her home anything. Beat me dead
horses here, but if eat dead horse. I'm gonna it's
it is. It's still part of that larger cultural shift
that needs to happen. We need, you know, part of
that effort to get people with more real bodies just
(23:24):
depicted in ads and whatnot. Right, Um, but then we
have to we have to play devil's advocate for just
a second, because yes, there is some devil's advocacy to this,
and it's the kind of contrived notion that air brushing
is a way to combat ages. M Right, wait for it.
(23:46):
Eric comes former model Tara Moss in the Sydney Morning Herald.
She was part of a big there was like a
big giant clump of opinions about air brushing, and she
said that the rise of air brushing has given us
glossier images, but it has its virtues. She says that
few forty something models and celebrities were on magazine covers
(24:06):
before this huge rise in uh, you know, photoshopping little
blemishes and whatnot out. So basically she's saying that it
is keeping a select group of attractive forty some models
and and I know, like apparently we wouldn't pay attention
to Meryl Streep anymore if we didn't have airbrushing. But
(24:28):
I'm reading this because Tarra Moss. Doesn't that just feed
this whole the whole botox culture of saying, hey, oh wow,
look at that model. She looks incredible and she's forty five.
Looks like I need some lip filler. Well, you know,
I was talking. I was actually talking with Kristen about
this the other day. There was some magazine article several
years ago. I feel like it was in one of
(24:49):
my mother's magazines, and it featured Jamie Lee Curtis, but
she was adamant that she would not be airbrushed. I
don't know, I don't know about the cover, but inside
the magazine she had a photo had taken of her
in like shorts and a sports bra, letting it all
hang out. She no makeup, obviously, no shirt, so you
could see a little bit of celebrity muffin top. And
(25:11):
I thought that was a pretty good move. Yeah, one
of my one of my favorite kind of attempts by
a magazine to show the natural, natural beauty. Um was
it was? I guess. In two thousand eleven, there was
a Harper's Bizarre cover of Lady Gaga and the big
headline was Gaga no makeup, but she clearly had on makeup,
(25:33):
but it was just makeup to make it look like
she didn't have makeup. I'm sure Gagata took all of
her makeup off, she'd be a lovely gal nonetheless. Um,
but I just think it's funny how how magazines are
clearly cognizant of this air brushing issue, but they still
try to get around it by embracing natural beauty, but
(25:55):
naturally enhanced with very good lighting and can feeler. And
the fact of the matter is to Caroline that a
lot of women are not averse to personal touch ups
and air brushing. That is certainly true. Uh. There was
a Glamour poll of a thousand women. Forty one percent
of women ages eighteen to twenty four said they had
(26:17):
retouched their own photos. Of women aged thirty to thirty
four said they've done so. And this ranges, you know,
from Facebook photos to online dating shots too, you know whatever.
Sixty percent said it's okay to tweak personal photos. Of
the women who actually did it remove skin imperfections. A
few fewer women a ray stray hairs, and thirty four
(26:40):
percent white and teeth, So apparently skin is way more
important than hair. That's what I'm getting from this. Well.
I wondered too, though, if the Glamour poll results are
also the product of that self selection like I was
talking about with the the New York Times, because you
you might be able to make the argument that maybe
these women are more open to air brushing because they
(27:00):
are regular Glamour readers. Comes full circle, right, and they
want you know, they they expect to look or try
aspire to look as great as their favorite airbrush celebrities.
Whether we know it's like we know it in our
head that that's not exactly what um what is it
Star magazine that has the segment on like Stars without makeup? Uh,
(27:26):
you know, we we know that that is more of
the reality. But it's the images that we're fed that
are are so heavily were touched in our lovely to
look at that we might internalize more than we think. Yeah,
and there are cameras. Cameras can do it. You don't
even have to get the software anymore. There are cameras
that are sold now with airbrushing capabilities, so you can
(27:47):
you can get rid of your red eye and white
and your teeth, but you can also apply makeup, which
is so strange, and I don't know how people come
out of that and not looking like cartoons. I mean,
the hipstomatic filter on my iPhone is pretty flattering for
your inflection. I'm not gonna lie, So I think it's
time now to turn this over to the listeners. Is
air brushing creating unrealistic beauty standards or is this just
(28:12):
another byproduct of the unrealistic beauty standards that we have
established long ago and have only perpetuated through time. Yeah,
how A where are you of the air brushing that
goes into these magazines and does it bother you? Does
it still sort of make you feel like your poor
should be smaller or guys that your abdominals should be
(28:32):
much much more defined and carved out like cubbyholes. Yes,
and younger listeners out there too. I especially want to
hear from you all to know whether or not when
you see those images of of models, whether you internalize
it or if something clicks in your head saying hey,
you know, I know what that is. It's air brushing,
(28:53):
and you go about your day. All these things we
would like to know. Mom. Stuff at Discovery dot Calm
is where you can send your letters and You can
always hit us up on Facebook and Twitter as well
at Mom's Stuff podcast, and we got a couple of
emails here to share in the meantime. Yeah, this one's
(29:15):
from Alan in response to our foster care podcast. Uh
years ago, I had a neighbor friend, single train wreck
of a mom doing an abysmal job raising a darling
little girl who deserved as most children, so much more
more than once babysitters or nanny's called child Protective Services.
I was one of the key people besides the mom
that they interviewed. I had to make a choice whether
(29:35):
to let this girl go into foster care or lie
to the social workers in order to keep her out.
I decided that if I helped raise this little girl
and be a positive influence as I could, even with
the negative influences in her home, it would still be
better to at least have a mom and one home
rather than the foster care system. My responsibilities raising this
girl grew to the point in which her mom was
(29:55):
away for a time and I was her legal guardian
when her mom was away at with the opportunity to
move her upstate to a rural community. She is now
a young teenager doing all the things that teenage girls do.
She plays soccer, basketball, and softball, does well enough in school,
and loves fashion and boys. Her mom has since moved nearby,
so while I take most of the responsibility of raising
this young lady, she is still able to spend time
(30:17):
as she wishes with her biological mother. Well, I got
an email here from Adrian and this is in response
to our episode about whether or not in doctors are
listening to us, and she has had her own sort
of medical runarounds and she's now in school for medical sociology.
And she had a list of things to share with
us that are helpful for for going into the doctor.
(30:40):
Things to do before you see the doc to make
a list of all your symptoms, even if they seem
small and unrelated. This way you will not get flustered
and forget when the doctor seems to be breezing past
you during the quick visit. Keep a diary of your
systems and note every day that you experience something. And
if you're having g I systems, you may even want
to keep a diary of food at intake. If you're
(31:01):
on a lot of medication, always keeping up to date
date list of what you were on. Once you receive
a diagnosis, look for support groups on Facebook. I've learned
more about having, living and coping with chronic pancreaitis through
support groups on Facebook than I ever have from any doctors. Five.
Ask for copies of tests and medical records. Six. If
(31:21):
you don't like one doctor's opinion, seek the advice of
another doctor. And finally, don't be afraid to ask questions
or call the nurse back later. I'm sure we have
all at the doctor's office and immediately afterward thought of
something that you missed before. So thanks to Adrian and
Alan and everyone else who has written in mom Stuff
at Discovery dot com. Is the email address if you'd
like to send us a letter, or you can also
(31:43):
leave a comment on faith page and give us a
like tell us all you're doing. You can follow us
on Twitter as well at mom Stuff Podcast, and finally,
you can check out the blog during the week It's
stuff Mom Never told You from how Stuff Works dot com.
Be sure to check out our new video podcast, Stuff
from the Future. Join how staf Work staff as we
(32:06):
explore the most promising and perplexing possibilities of tomorrow. The
How step Works iPhone app has a ride. Download it
today on iTunes, Brought to you by the reinvented two
thousand twelve camera. It's ready, are you
Brought to you by the reinvented two thousand twelve camera.
It's ready. Are you welcome to stuff mom never told you?
From how Stuff Works dot Com. Hello, and welcome to
the podcast. I'm Kristen and I'm Caroline, and today, since
(00:21):
we are talking about air brushing, I gotta admit I
have a subscription to to Lady Meg's as they're referred
to on the Internet's Glamour and Harper's Bizarre and Harper's
Bazaar isn't quite Uh, I don't know. It's it's it's
(00:43):
not quite as air brush friendly as Glamour is. And
I would be lying if I said I have not
flipped through and made a game out of looking for
obvious air brushes in um like on cover shots or
in ad tise mints. Right. Yeah, there comes a point
when you start looking at ads thinking, you know, you
(01:06):
you might think, gosh, they don't have any pores, and
then you realize they don't have any pores. Uh, they
start to look like paintings. Oh and especially now that
the swimsuits season is coming upon us, all of those
advertisements for a swimwear with just those smooth, those impossibly
smooth buttocks is what's the plural of buttocks butt buttocks
(01:31):
buttocks e Um, Yeah, there's no We've talked about cellulite
before on the podcast, and the takeaway from that is
that everyone has it, unless you are an air brushed
model or someone with cellulite free jeans, which is really rare.
And uh, there's a lot of silly lite free celebrities.
(01:53):
In this Jezebel slide show that we looked at, they
they showed some of the the worst. They might not
have cellulite, but they didn't have waste or arms or
sometimes legs either. And I feel like we have to
give some credit to Jezebel as one of the first big,
at least online whistleblowers of um air brushing and green
(02:15):
these unrealistic portraits of women, whether maybe models or celebrities. Yeah,
but unrealistic to some people, uh, point of admiration and
pride for others. According to the editors itself, they said
that the cover that they posted of Kelly Clarkson a
while ago all air brushed and thin, down from what
(02:38):
she naturally looks like. They said, it's not as in
a news photograph journalism. It is, however, meant to inspire
women to be their best? What what? But so by
slimming someone down to what she doesn't look like, we
should idealize the idealized version of someone else. Just blew
my mind. No. Um, there's also that great Newsweek cover
(03:01):
of Martha Stewart. Um, I wish I knew exactly what
year was from, but it was I want to say
it was jail. She was okay, it was while she
was doing some time and they pasted her head on
a model's body. And Martha Stewart is not She doesn't
need a model's body, you know, to sub for her own,
like already fit enough body, right. Well, they said it
(03:24):
was a photo illustration because they couldn't get a hold
of her body because that body was in jail. So
they were like, we're just gonna take a photo. But yeah, exactly,
why didn't they just use a picture of her that
already existed? And celebrities have also taken umbridge at being
excessively airbrushed. For instance, there was Kate Winslet speaking out
publicly against a g Q cover in which she was
(03:47):
spin down. Yeah, and actually, if you look at the
before and after, she looks great in the before and
she she agrees. She said that the re touching is excessive.
I do not look like that, and more importantly, I
don't desire to look like that. And she said that
by her estimation, it looked like they reduced the size
of her thighs by a third. But of course we
(04:07):
also have to mention the most egregious example of extreme
air brushing from an October two thousand nine Ralph Lauren
ad featuring model of Philippa Hamilton's, who was already very
model esque, very spelt, and her waist they some I
don't know what the graphic designer was doing, and also
(04:30):
the person who signed off on this advertisement who because
it just it looks almost grotesque, almost snapper in half. Yeah,
it almost. Her waist was trimmed down so much it
looked incredibly unnatural and almost painful. Like when you see that,
you you don't think, oh, look at those nice Ralph
Lauren clothes. I would like to look like that. You think, oh,
(04:52):
oh no, her waist exactly, poor girl, what happened to her?
But yeah, this is not just limited to to mod
earn day celebrities and some models. Even Audrey Hepburn wasn't
immune to this and in a book released for the
fiftieth anniversary Breakfast at Tiffany's last year that included a
photo a promotional photo over and it had before and aftershots.
(05:14):
She looks gorgeous in both photos, but the before photo
had the little grease pencil markings of where to to
do some air brushing snooth around a little bit. This
is before even before the days a photoshop, because they
had to really want to do it, I know, and
she looks she looks great. And we also have to
point out to before we go any further that this
issue of air brushing is not just about women's bodies. Um.
(05:38):
Male models are also subject to this as well. I mean,
think of pick up a cover of of Men's Fitness
and you probably will see some very air brush. You
could abdominals, you could store things in some of those
ab crevices, right, Um, and there was I believe Brad
Pitt came out he was going to be on the
cover of W magazine and explicitly stated beforehand that he
(06:00):
did not want to be airbrushed at all, and even
requested that Chuck Close photograph him because Close is known
for his extremely realistic um photography that that shows off
all of your quote unquote blemishes in a very interesting
and almost even more attractive way. And it's not just
(06:20):
about body measurements, but it's also about skin tone too.
There have been controversies over loreale Um lightning, allegedly lightning
Beyonce's skin tone and certain advertisements. Some people said that
it was an issue of the lighting, but they just
used really bright lighting to show how shiny your hair is,
or you just made her look pale. So this clearly
(06:42):
isn't just a reflection of a thin ideal, but it's
this white, thin ideal. Um. But before we get into
this issue of whether or not it is creating, you know,
negative body images, um, creating these idealized standards that we
will never be able to live up to, we had
to recognize that photo manipulation is by no means a
(07:04):
new thing and has been happening ever since the advent
of photography. Yeah uh. Dartmouth College professor Haney for Reid
pointed out on the Smithsonian website that Lincoln Lincoln. So
first we have Audrey Hepburn and now Lincoln. What is
the world coming to? But Lincoln's head was plopped onto
the body of John Calhoun, which is kind of ironic
(07:25):
considering he was a Southern pro slavery politician and back
around the same era, Civil War photographer Matthew Brady also
doctored photos to create a more dramatic scene, and he
wasn't the only one. Stalin, Mao and Castro are just
a few of the leaders who have had their political
enemies airbrushed out of photos. I wonder if they were
(07:46):
airbrushed out of life as well. Probably, um yeah, just
as an example of some of the historical photo manipulation
that is going because it seems like this affected photo
manipulation affected men, unlike how it seems to be more
of this women's issue today, probably because uh, you know,
men were the the ones being photographed from their seats
(08:10):
of power. For instance, in nineteen o two, there's this
photograph of Ulyssus Grant on a horse in front of
as I'm I'm sitting sitting here pretending to uh to
have my my hands on the reins of a horse,
and he's sitting in front of an encampment. But indeed, no, no, no,
(08:32):
that never actually happened because it was actually three photos
spliced together. It was a different general's body. Grant's head
came from a completely different photo of him leaning against
a tree, and then the background of the encampment was
from yet a third photograph, and it does look kind
of I don't I don't think this guy did a
(08:53):
great job. I mean, it kind of looks like a weird,
weird tidy. Grants had on a robust body standing in
front of a background. But it was nineteen o two. Yeah, okay, okay,
I'll cut them a little slack for their early manipulation.
And then there's also the controversy over the Pulitzer Prize
winning photo of that was taken at Kent State of
(09:15):
a student leaning over one of the other students who
had been shot and killed by National guardsman Um and
Life magazine editors decided to airbrush out a poll that
was behind the girl's head in the background, And yes
it does, and the original does look like there's a
poll sticking out of her head. But the original photographer,
(09:36):
I can't remember what his name is, but he was
insensed that Life magazine would do that because it's still
even though it's you say, it's just a poll, but
is just a pull the slippery slope down to Philippa
Hamilton's Ralph Lauren models impossibly tiny waste exactly, and it's
that slippery slope that authorities are fighting against, particularly advertising,
(10:03):
the advertising standards authority in the UK. This is coming
from ad Age and in July, uh the authority in
the UK band to Loreal magazine ads. So so not
we're not talking anymore about the same thing with the
history and the horses and the encampments. Now we're into uh,
lying about the effects of or oh I'm sorry, exaggerating
(10:26):
the effects of makeup. Right there was The two ads
in question feature Julie Roberts for Landcombe and Christy Turlington
from Mabelin. Now Ms Roberts and Miss Turlington both goalgeous
women who need no air brushing. Um. But if you
(10:46):
if you look at the ads, they have again the
poor less skin dewey, yes, very very dewey, and they
were banned in the UK for exaggeration and for being misleading,
basically saying, hey a Landcombe and Mabelin, there is no
way on earth that the makeup products that these two
(11:07):
women are advertising actually can remove even the mere sight
of a pork can make your skin look that completely perfect,
you're misleading consumers, right, And as a rule that Loriale
provided insufficient evidence that it had not overly airbrushed the images.
They said that on the basis of the evidence we received,
we could not conclude that the ad image accurately illustrated
(11:29):
what the effect of the product could achieve. So they
are making an effort to protect consumers and try to
maybe raise awareness and media literacy. Right. It's not necessarily
the issue of the negative body image standards saying, you know,
Julia Roberts face shouldn't be in a magazine because she's
just too darn pretty. It's more an issue of what
they're saying about or trying to lead us to believe
(11:49):
about a product. And then on February one, two thousand twelve,
the A s A took action again banning a Loreal
ad featuring Rachel white Um and she is hawking a
product for anti aging cream. And if you look at
the ad, I my impression of it was, what a
beautiful watercolor. It's because she's so it's like she is
(12:14):
formed out of fine fluff. I mean, you can't even
see there are no wrinkles, no pores, no nothing. It's
like she doesn't even cast a shadow. And again, Rachel Wife,
another beautiful, non airbrush needed, non airbrush needed. That's that's
poor grammar, but you guys get what I mean. She's
so upset that she's throwing around negative she then I
(12:36):
think it was on either Slate or Salon dot com
that had a side by side photo of the airbrushed ad,
which was lovely and watercolor esque, and then a picture
a close up picture of her from a red carpet
and still lovely and also very calming to my soul
to see that if you look closely, she does have
(12:58):
pores and slight crow's feet. Yeah, a little bit of
adult acne. T tod just like us, we are covered
found great um well. In response to the banning of
this Rachel Wife, ad Lourel said they didn't believe that
the ad exaggerates the effect that can be achieved using
(13:18):
this product, to which I say, are you kidding me?
But maybe it's something that we should expect by now
that okay, think about think about all of those mascara advertisements.
I mean there's if you I love looking at those
as I'm flipping through my Glamour and my Harper's bizarre.
The mascara advertisements are my most favorite because I will
(13:42):
stare at those just the individual hairs that were obviously
superimposed onto them. There is no way that you that
any mascara product can separate each each individual some hair.
Some of these companies would beg to differ or if
there is someone because I need to get my hands
on it. Um. But these a s A rulings against
(14:02):
advertisements are led by MP Joe Swinson in the UK.
She's a co founder of the Campaign for Body Confidence
and a former marketing manager and she has been fighting
against unrealistic images of women in advertising and she's usually
at the helm of these anti makeup ad campaigns. Yes,
(14:23):
and her opinion is shared by the American Medical Association,
which in June adopted a policy to encourage advertising associations
to develop guidelines to discourage photo alterations that could promote
unrealistic expectations of appropriate body image. So now we're getting
we've gotten past the history where photos are being manipulated
for leaders purposes whatever to achieve some sort of end,
(14:48):
and then it was to just make women's skin look good.
And now we're getting into concerns about how this photoshopping
air brushing stuff can affect people children teenagers, right, because
the as A ruling saying hey pull those Loreal or
land coom ads are all about um advertising and consumer
habits and really just hitting the your wallets. But the
(15:09):
A m A coming out against photoshopping has more to
do with what is what it's doing to our brains.
But I will say that their statement was kind of
vague in their rationale fighting a quote large body of literature,
no specific studies UM that link exposure to media propagated
images of unrealistic body image to eating disorders and other
(15:32):
child and adolescent health problems, and that that correlation makes sense.
There are all of these corellary relationships between media exposure,
seeing excessively thin models or excessively air brushed models, and
then internalizing those images as to what you should then
see in the mirror. But in terms of establishing a
(15:56):
causational relationship between air brushing and eating disorders, we get
into some sketchier areas, right. Elizabeth pearl Over at Huffington's
Post followed this A m A rolling up by saying
that photoshop isn't the issue, It's part of a much
larger issue about women and the media and impressions that
(16:19):
we give to our kids. Specifically, she says that the
pervasive use of image alteration software is only one small
piece of the strong sexist undercurrent that continues to dehumanize
women as objects in the vast majority of these images.
And she said that really the issues that women and
men are still under pressure to be thin enough to
(16:40):
even be on the cover, right, is it so much
about the air brushing that's happening or the standard those
men and women are being airbrushed to, whether that's lightning
of the skin, whether that's um racing crow's feet, or
minimizing waste or carving out you know, trenches of six
packs in men's in men's waste, um and and going
(17:05):
along those same lines. Eating disorder specialists Carrie Arnold was
quoted by psychologists Vivian diller Um kind of also debunking
this idea of air brushing being the root of all evil.
Um she was saying that we don't think ads for
disinfectants somehow promote O c D, and so we also
(17:25):
don't think that those bluetooth headsets promote schizophrenia because it
looks like you're talking to yourself. It does. I am
fooled all the time by people with headsets. I'm sorry,
what were you saying? Oh, I just wear a Bluetooth headset,
so it's more acceptable when I am talking to myself.
A right, Well, she says that Arnold says that condemning
photoshop may be good for a good story. It might
(17:47):
raise controversy. We're talking about it, but she questions its validity,
the validity of the connection between these eating disorders, body
image and air brushing. Well, I think it might be
an easy scapegoat to say, oh, it's the knowledgey these days,
this new fangled thing. But but no, it's been going
on for a really long time. Think about that that
Audrey Hepburn photo. But I mean, so these people are
(18:11):
sort of raising questions, they're being skeptical about it. But
I still think it's an important point to bring up. Absolutely,
um that you know, it's airbrushing is not the most
evil thing. Obviously, we need to work on media portrayal
of women and men and men, but yeah, just airbrushing
is part of that. To me, it's more an issue
of media savvy, which is one reason why Haney f reed,
(18:36):
who you mentioned earlier. UM has developed away or well,
I should say he's developed a mathematical model to measure
the amount of photo shopping done on an image. Yeah.
Each he presented these some photos to some people, and
each altered photograph was scored between one and five, with
five for heavy retouching. And the the human volunteer is
(19:00):
that they put it. UH scored photos from one to five,
and they found a close correlation between the people's assumption
of how much something had been airbrushed and the actual
airbrushing done. So it seems like people are more savvy
than we give them credit for. UM. But he is
saying that there should be a rating next to a
photo according to his mathematical model. That way you could
(19:22):
automatically know that a photo has been retouched. For instance, UM.
A lot of news magazines will clarify, they'll footnote if
UM an image is a photo illustration like the Newsweek
cover of Martha Stewart with Martha Stewart's head on someone
else's body, that is a photo illustration. It is a
(19:42):
compositive something else that and they want to clarify that
to make sure that they aren't misleading readers into altering
their their sense of reality. And so for read to
saying that you can use this kind of one to
five rating skill scale to do the same thing, and
I think that could be pretty helpful, right, And for
Red is not the only one who wants disclaimers alongside photos.
(20:04):
The founders of off Our Chests recently launched a Self
Esteem Act campaign to pass a bill that would regulate
the digital retouching of models and magazines and advertisements, and
so they want disclaimers alongside photos too. So a lot
of people want it to be very clear that these
photos are airbrush. So it sounds like that Self Esteem
at campaign would be the the US sort of companion
(20:28):
to those u k s advertising standards that have become
more strict. I mean, I don't know that there would
ever come a point that that the government would legislate
how much a model's body can be airbrushed on the
cover of Glamour. I think that it's easier to um
to tie it into advertising standards. Mean, if she's sitting
(20:49):
there holding a bottle of shampoo, then they might be
able to institute something. But I don't think airbrushing is
going anywhere anytime soon, which is why common sense media
dot org Um really encourages parents to make sure the
kids know that celebrities have stylists and hairdressers and personal trainers.
And you know what, it's not just the kids, it's
you know. I have to remind myself of that when
(21:11):
I'm flipping through Glamour, especially if I might be feeling
dumpier one day and I'm flipping through and I see
those individually separated eyelashes and the cellulite less buttocks. Is
so I haven't figure I gotta figure out the plural
to buttocks. Bottoms, bottoms, all those all those smooth bottoms,
(21:31):
and and I have to remind myself that, you know
what this is. This is a product of technology. This
is a product of it being someone's job to look fantastic.
It's well, it's their job to look fantastic. It is
someone else's job to sell the product to us. You know.
I look at my pores sometimes, going back to pores,
(21:52):
and I'm like, oh my god, I have buckets on
my face. And then I look back and I'm like, oh, no,
you look like a normal person. Your pores aren't huge. Self,
don't worry about it. Don't be taken in by those
altered images and I can't see your pores at all. Thanks.
And it's not just because I'm I'm not that good
with sight seeing, but I do think too, by the
same token that kids are more knowledgeable of this, then
(22:17):
we might give them credit for There was a forum
on The New York Times asking kids whether or not
air brushed images of models affected them, like if they
saw an image of a model, if it made them,
if they internalized that and it made them feel bad
about their bodies, and if you screw I mean granted,
I mean you have to think about the kind of
(22:38):
self selected population of kids who are going on. They're
probably already pretty stute if they're commenting on the New
York Times when they're thirteen years old. Um. But by
and large, scrolling through the two plus comments, a lot
of them said, without prompting, well, we know that this
is just how they're supposed to look. They know what
air brushing is. They have photoshop there on their laptops exactly.
(23:02):
They yes, they know, and they are aware. And that's excellent.
I think those are great strides that have been made.
But not to ham her home anything. Beat me dead
horses here, but if eat dead horse. I'm gonna it's
it is. It's still part of that larger cultural shift
that needs to happen. We need, you know, part of
that effort to get people with more real bodies just
(23:24):
depicted in ads and whatnot. Right, Um, but then we
have to we have to play devil's advocate for just
a second, because yes, there is some devil's advocacy to this,
and it's the kind of contrived notion that air brushing
is a way to combat ages. M Right, wait for it.
(23:46):
Eric comes former model Tara Moss in the Sydney Morning Herald.
She was part of a big there was like a
big giant clump of opinions about air brushing, and she
said that the rise of air brushing has given us
glossier images, but it has its virtues. She says that
few forty something models and celebrities were on magazine covers
(24:06):
before this huge rise in uh, you know, photoshopping little
blemishes and whatnot out. So basically she's saying that it
is keeping a select group of attractive forty some models
and and I know, like apparently we wouldn't pay attention
to Meryl Streep anymore if we didn't have airbrushing. But
(24:28):
I'm reading this because Tarra Moss. Doesn't that just feed
this whole the whole botox culture of saying, hey, oh wow,
look at that model. She looks incredible and she's forty five.
Looks like I need some lip filler. Well, you know,
I was talking. I was actually talking with Kristen about
this the other day. There was some magazine article several
years ago. I feel like it was in one of
(24:49):
my mother's magazines, and it featured Jamie Lee Curtis, but
she was adamant that she would not be airbrushed. I
don't know, I don't know about the cover, but inside
the magazine she had a photo had taken of her
in like shorts and a sports bra, letting it all
hang out. She no makeup, obviously, no shirt, so you
could see a little bit of celebrity muffin top. And
(25:11):
I thought that was a pretty good move. Yeah, one
of my one of my favorite kind of attempts by
a magazine to show the natural, natural beauty. Um was
it was? I guess. In two thousand eleven, there was
a Harper's Bizarre cover of Lady Gaga and the big
headline was Gaga no makeup, but she clearly had on makeup,
(25:33):
but it was just makeup to make it look like
she didn't have makeup. I'm sure Gagata took all of
her makeup off, she'd be a lovely gal nonetheless. Um,
but I just think it's funny how how magazines are
clearly cognizant of this air brushing issue, but they still
try to get around it by embracing natural beauty, but
(25:55):
naturally enhanced with very good lighting and can feeler. And
the fact of the matter is to Caroline that a
lot of women are not averse to personal touch ups
and air brushing. That is certainly true. Uh. There was
a Glamour poll of a thousand women. Forty one percent
of women ages eighteen to twenty four said they had
(26:17):
retouched their own photos. Of women aged thirty to thirty
four said they've done so. And this ranges, you know,
from Facebook photos to online dating shots too, you know whatever.
Sixty percent said it's okay to tweak personal photos. Of
the women who actually did it remove skin imperfections. A
few fewer women a ray stray hairs, and thirty four
(26:40):
percent white and teeth, So apparently skin is way more
important than hair. That's what I'm getting from this. Well.
I wondered too, though, if the Glamour poll results are
also the product of that self selection like I was
talking about with the the New York Times, because you
you might be able to make the argument that maybe
these women are more open to air brushing because they
(27:00):
are regular Glamour readers. Comes full circle, right, and they
want you know, they they expect to look or try
aspire to look as great as their favorite airbrush celebrities.
Whether we know it's like we know it in our
head that that's not exactly what um what is it
Star magazine that has the segment on like Stars without makeup? Uh,
(27:26):
you know, we we know that that is more of
the reality. But it's the images that we're fed that
are are so heavily were touched in our lovely to
look at that we might internalize more than we think. Yeah,
and there are cameras. Cameras can do it. You don't
even have to get the software anymore. There are cameras
that are sold now with airbrushing capabilities, so you can
(27:47):
you can get rid of your red eye and white
and your teeth, but you can also apply makeup, which
is so strange, and I don't know how people come
out of that and not looking like cartoons. I mean,
the hipstomatic filter on my iPhone is pretty flattering for
your inflection. I'm not gonna lie, So I think it's
time now to turn this over to the listeners. Is
air brushing creating unrealistic beauty standards or is this just
(28:12):
another byproduct of the unrealistic beauty standards that we have
established long ago and have only perpetuated through time. Yeah,
how A where are you of the air brushing that
goes into these magazines and does it bother you? Does
it still sort of make you feel like your poor
should be smaller or guys that your abdominals should be
(28:32):
much much more defined and carved out like cubbyholes. Yes,
and younger listeners out there too. I especially want to
hear from you all to know whether or not when
you see those images of of models, whether you internalize
it or if something clicks in your head saying hey,
you know, I know what that is. It's air brushing,
(28:53):
and you go about your day. All these things we
would like to know. Mom. Stuff at Discovery dot Calm
is where you can send your letters and You can
always hit us up on Facebook and Twitter as well
at Mom's Stuff podcast, and we got a couple of
emails here to share in the meantime. Yeah, this one's
(29:15):
from Alan in response to our foster care podcast. Uh
years ago, I had a neighbor friend, single train wreck
of a mom doing an abysmal job raising a darling
little girl who deserved as most children, so much more
more than once babysitters or nanny's called child Protective Services.
I was one of the key people besides the mom
that they interviewed. I had to make a choice whether
(29:35):
to let this girl go into foster care or lie
to the social workers in order to keep her out.
I decided that if I helped raise this little girl
and be a positive influence as I could, even with
the negative influences in her home, it would still be
better to at least have a mom and one home
rather than the foster care system. My responsibilities raising this
girl grew to the point in which her mom was
(29:55):
away for a time and I was her legal guardian
when her mom was away at with the opportunity to
move her upstate to a rural community. She is now
a young teenager doing all the things that teenage girls do.
She plays soccer, basketball, and softball, does well enough in school,
and loves fashion and boys. Her mom has since moved nearby,
so while I take most of the responsibility of raising
this young lady, she is still able to spend time
(30:17):
as she wishes with her biological mother. Well, I got
an email here from Adrian and this is in response
to our episode about whether or not in doctors are
listening to us, and she has had her own sort
of medical runarounds and she's now in school for medical sociology.
And she had a list of things to share with
us that are helpful for for going into the doctor.
(30:40):
Things to do before you see the doc to make
a list of all your symptoms, even if they seem
small and unrelated. This way you will not get flustered
and forget when the doctor seems to be breezing past
you during the quick visit. Keep a diary of your
systems and note every day that you experience something. And
if you're having g I systems, you may even want
to keep a diary of food at intake. If you're
(31:01):
on a lot of medication, always keeping up to date
date list of what you were on. Once you receive
a diagnosis, look for support groups on Facebook. I've learned
more about having, living and coping with chronic pancreaitis through
support groups on Facebook than I ever have from any doctors. Five.
Ask for copies of tests and medical records. Six. If
(31:21):
you don't like one doctor's opinion, seek the advice of
another doctor. And finally, don't be afraid to ask questions
or call the nurse back later. I'm sure we have
all at the doctor's office and immediately afterward thought of
something that you missed before. So thanks to Adrian and
Alan and everyone else who has written in mom Stuff
at Discovery dot com. Is the email address if you'd
like to send us a letter, or you can also
(31:43):
leave a comment on faith page and give us a
like tell us all you're doing. You can follow us
on Twitter as well at mom Stuff Podcast, and finally,
you can check out the blog during the week It's
stuff Mom Never told You from how Stuff Works dot com.
Be sure to check out our new video podcast, Stuff
from the Future. Join how staf Work staff as we
(32:06):
explore the most promising and perplexing possibilities of tomorrow. The
How step Works iPhone app has a ride. Download it
today on iTunes, Brought to you by the reinvented two
thousand twelve camera. It's ready, are you
Stuff Mom Never Told You News
Hosts And Creators
Anney Reese
Samantha McVey
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.