Perhaps not the best fo comparisons, but.. ...athletes have this little thingy where it's prohibited to juice/use forbidden substances.. ...yet in the world of selling image to females, photoshop gets off scott free.
I'm not sure I understand the question. Juicing is illegal because it's a matter of competition. Photoshopping modls is because capitilism and selling as much of something that they can. It's really an apples and oranges thing I think. Not unless it was a photography contest. But to be fair, all I know about the modelling industry I learned from one too many episodes of Just Shoot Me. It just occured to me right now that said photoshopped pictures would have a very real impact on a model's career, giving them a compeititive edge over others.
Never mind photoshop, if we want to consider modeling, why not then compare performance enhancing drugs to plastic/cosmetic surgery?? Liposuction, botox, breast implants,...the list goes on, and yet for competition, are these things considered when being judged?
I know comparing the two is a wii bit of a stretch to say the least, however both are forms of enhancing performance (one in a physical, other in visual sense), and both bank off of the results. It's more about the mindframe of consumers (especially women in this case), who buy into the unobtainable imagery sold.. That would be a much better comparison, of course.. And what I find so odd about it is that 20 years ago, plastic surgery seldomly got mentioned, and when it did, it was always about Pamela Anderson. But today, women get elective procedures done just to get a job, to compete with younger females, etc..it's sad. The worst part about it, it's literally destroying good looking women who didn't need any in the first place.
They should allow everything in sports,if everyone can use whatever they want then you would be looking at skill and not people who found a way to get around the law or hide what they doing. Cigarettes legal,weed isn't.