"We considered that consumers were likely to expect a degree of glamour in images for beauty products and would therefore expect Twiggy to have been professionally styled and made-up for the photo shoot, and to have been photographed professionally," it said. "We concluded that, in the context of an ad that featured a mature model likely to appeal to women of an older age group, the image was unlikely to have a negative impact on perceptions of body image among the target audience and was not socially irresponsible." (Not surprisingly, that's pretty much what Procter and Gamble is saying as well.) But actually, says Liberal Democrat MP Jo Swinson, who's launched a campaign against out-of-control retouching, "Experts have already proved that airbrushing contributes to a host of problems in women and young girls such as depression and eating disorders."

In November, leading authorities on body image sent a paper to U.K. advertising authorities (available as a Word document here) outlining the relevant research. Over 100 published studies have documented "a detrimental effect of idealised media images" on girls and women -- and increasingly, boys and men. Body dissatisfaction is linked to damaging behaviors such as "unhealthy dieting regimes and problematic eating behaviours (starving, bingeing, and purging), clinical eating disorders (anorexia, bulimia), cosmetic surgery, extreme exercising, and unhealthy muscle-enhancing behaviours in boys and men (such as taking steroids or other supplements). It is also linked to depression, anxiety, sexual dissatisfaction, and low self-esteem." And as for claims that a "mature audience" should be savvy about what goes into creating a print ad, the paper says, "Although most people know in some abstract, general sense that media models are 'artificial' as a creation of make-up artists, hair stylists, and flattering clothing and camera angles, people are typically not aware of the extent to which models are altered, particularly by digital retouching and imaging techniques that reduce or enhance the size of virtually any body part, making eyes larger, waists slimmer, and legs longer and thinner."

Even when you are aware, in theory, of how much is possible via Photoshop, it can still come as a shock to see the difference between that ad and a current picture of Twiggy, or a Vanity Fair portrait of 60-year-old Meryl Streep and a shot of her with only the benefit of professional hair, make-up and photography. Of the latter, Susannah Breslin at the Frisky writes, "I understand Photoshopping. I really do. But I just don't get the point here. Increasingly, it seems like women who really don't need to be Photoshopped to death are getting altered into unrecognizable oblivion." And over time, those of us who consume these images get so used to seeing a particular look, we can lose sight of the fact that it's not only unrealistic for the average woman to aspire to, but literally impossible. Twiggy and Meryl Streep have teams of professionals to make them look their best in person and erase any "imperfections" in post-production, but the rest of us can only shell out for miracle eye cream, cross our fingers, and hate our aging bodies. I applaud the ASA for acknowledging that the Olay ad promised more than it could possibly deliver -- but to say the ad isn't socially irresponsible is to ignore a growing mountain of evidence that images "altered into unrecognizable oblivion" have far-reaching and sometimes devastating effects on real people.

The 48-year-old insurance executive has admitted to taking hotel rooms adjacent to Andrews on three occasions and filming her twice. In addition to posting the material he shot, he also tried to sell it to TMZ.

In court yesterday, Andrews said, "I have nightmares. I walk in crowds and I see him in my peripheral vision. When I'm alone in my house, I have fears he's going to come in and hurt me... My career has been ripped apart, something I've worked very hard for. I am subjected to crude comments, suggestions that I have partnered in this crime. I walk into stadiums, and fans say obscene things to me."

How could anybody treat a woman who'd been the victim of a stalker as complicit the crime? Well, maybe it has something to do with the fact that the 31-year-old Andrews is blonde and pretty, a fact that rarely goes unremarked -- or uneditorialized --  in the media coverage of her case.

Yesterday "The New York Post," ever a bastion of taste and restraint, headlined the story as "Andrews Bares Her Torment" and made sure to note Andrews's "four-inch heels." "The New York Daily News," perhaps rusty on their Greek mythology, referred to the "ESPN beauty" meanwhile as a "sportscasting siren."  And we're sure she'll be thrilled to know she's in the running for "Playboy's Sexiest Sportscaster of 2009," especially after earning that top honor last year. Oh, and as Andrews noted yesterday, the videos are still out there.

But the field is not entirely riddled with journalistic peeping Toms. SI.com did a fine job yesterday of describing Andrews's emotional courtroom plea without leering at her. Between Barrett's forthcoming sentencing and Andrews's ongoing campaign for better hotel security, there will no doubt be ample further opportunities for reporters to test their ability to cover stories of voyeurism without stooping to ogle their subjects themselves.

Compare that to an online survey published earlier this year by CosmoGirl.com and the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy which found that 20 percent of teens have "sexted." At the time, I wrote about the research and noted that although voluntary polls tend to be self-selecting, "the results seem obvious, maybe even understated" -- because, hey, I still vividly remember what it was like being post-pubescent with access to the Internet and all manner of new technology. According to the Pew study, though, teenagers must be far less pervy and far more well-behaved than they were back in my day.

Well, that or they aren't relying on their cellphones to conduct their naughty business. Remember, the study only takes into account sex and cellphones, which leaves out e-mail, MySpace, Facebook, chat rooms and -- the list goes on. Plus, the study was conducted in late summer and early fall of this year, well after "sexting" hysteria in the media had reached its peak. Considering the extent of parental handwringing and the number of high-profile cases of kids being charged as sex offenders for sending explicit texts, they would have been smart to find another outlet -- and teenagers are nothing if not smart about findings ways to do what they want without adults finding out. 

So, unable to access a safe and legal abortion, Amy used "herbal abortifacient supplements ordered online... her sanitized rifle cleaning rod and a laundry pin" to induce a miscarriage. The first time she tried it, she lost a tremendous amount of blood, but remained pregnant. The second time, she became so ill afterwards, she sought help from a female supervisor. After being taken to a military hospital, she miscarried alone, got a $500 fine for having sex in a war zone, and eventually asked to be sent home -- a request granted because a military psychiatrist was easily persuaded that Amy was unstable. "They convinced themselves that anyone who would do a self-abortion is crazy," she told Joyce. "It's not a crazy thing. It's something that rational, thinking women do when they have no options."

It's something that rational, thinking women do when they have no options. Today, when an entire generation of American pro-choice activists was born after Roe v. Wade, when those of us who've been geographically and financially able to access legal abortion -- and/or had the education, available contraception and good fortune to avoid pregnancy -- hear the words "back alley" and only picture Cynthia Rhodes hemorrhaging prettily in "Dirty Dancing," that point cannot be emphasized enough. Banning abortion does not stop women from seeking to end unwanted pregnancies; it drives them to risk their own lives and health to do so. And that's continued even since the Supreme Court declared that abortion is a Constitutionally protected right, thanks to restrictions on when and where abortions can be performed, and who pays for them. The military ban, Joyce writes, creates "just one more category of women -- including those below the poverty line, federal employees, those cared for by Indian Health Service and Peace Corps volunteers -- who fall into the canyons created by sweeping bans on federal funding for abortion." Now, anti-abortion clauses in the healthcare reform bill threaten to add middle-class women to the list -- meaning we'd essentially be right back in 1972, with safe abortion services available only to wealthy women who can afford to skirt the restrictions. The military ban may seem like a low-priority issue to pro-choice activists who aren't among the 200,000 female service members (not to mention spouses and dependents on military bases) directly affected by it, but it's a sobering example of how cutting off access to abortion services endangers people's health and lives. Says Joyce, "Going forward, the failure in care that military women have long had to contend with could be shared by all American women."

Huh. I don't know about you, but that doesn't make me want to go the "natural" makeup route -- it just makes me want to forgo lipstick altogether.