Magazine cover straight out of the 70s. So depressing

[EmilyDickinson]

I was shopping in the supermarket and stopped to look at the magazines. I bought my husband a running magazine recently and it had lots of useful articles in, so, as I run myself and I’m interested in getting healthier, I stopped to look at the Women’s Health magazine.

So shocked and depressed. It’s like something out of the 70s. The image seems designed purely to titillate any men looking at the magazine - why? No woman would actually exercise dressed like that. Highcut leotard? On a bike? Impractical and uncomfortable. Hair not tied back. Leg warmers?! And high heels, WTF? Plus, of course, the woman isn’t exercising, just posing for the male gaze. It feels like we’re just going backwards in the way women are perceived. We couldn’t possibly actually want to exercise like men do. We’re just sex objects.

Notice the blurring on his abs?
But many young men will see that physique and strive to attain it and end up with body image issues.
It's a far more unrealistic physique than the woman on the WH cover.

I agree it's much more unrealistic, especially because it can't be attained solely by being slim and having good genes - it takes loads of training.

Tbf, a lot of male fitness models do look close to that physique but many are on the juice. Literally all pro bodybuilders are, to the point they actually have 'natural' categories nowadays. For comparison it's interesting to look at photos of bodybuilding shoes from the '50s. None of the guys are stonkingly massive.

1950s vs current day.