Lauren Conrad’s Cosmo Cover
October 10, 2008 in Lauren Conrad, Photoshop Job by Versus
A little bustier than usually? I’ll answer “Yes”.
Say your thoughts on Lauren’s Cosmopolitan cover!
Photo credit: Cosmopolitan Magazine
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Lauren Conrad’s Cosmo Cover
8 Comments
Leave a Reply
I don’t get the whole Lauren Conrad thing. Whenever she ‘loses’ weight, I can’t see any difference at all. She must just tone up because I just don’t see it!
I don’t think she ever needed to lose weight. She has always looked like a healthy, fit, normal girl. This goal for the perfect body is impossible to obtain. If they are a size 0 they are scary skinny. If there are above a 4 they are fat. Why can’t we just accept peoples bodies for what they are? Doesn’t make them any less pretty or attractive. There is someone for everyone. As women, I think we need to be more open-minded and accepting of “other” body types. Just because they don’t fit in this “little” mold that everyone thinks is the “perfect size,” we start to criticize them. Women can be so cruel to each other.
PS- My opinion had nothing to do with your comment Emma.
Cosmo ALWAYS makes their cover girls bustier. Always always. This is no surprise.
I agree with Jo
I AGREE with Jo. Cosmopolitan makes all their “models” look fatter and unprettier than they really are. Expecially fatter. I just hate it.
They definitely digitally enhanced her bust for that cover. Her bust does not look like that at all. It’s kind of sad they have to enhance them. She looks great already how she is! Why does Cosmo do this??
I agree with Jo…
Her boobs do look bigger