Would you photoshop to the point of anorexia?

I understand photoshopping stars on magazine covers is something we have to live with. [Check out Faith Hill's transformation here from Jezabel] In the past few months it's been more and more prevalent, in my opinion. But I'm not sure if that's just because I've only started to notice the obvious fake-ness because my own Photoshopping skills have increased, or because they're just using the technology more and more.



But the recent issue of GQ really troubles me. Strangely bizarre pose aside, the girl still looks sickly. The question is, is she really anorexic, or was she just photoshopped to look that way?

In my analysis above, I pointed with red arrows to body parts I feel could have been photoshopped, the work given away by the clean lines and uber-perfect lighting on their skin. Seriously, if you took Ugly Betty's arms and examined them alone, or Faith Hill's back (it's hard to tell with the cover line over it) or the left side of Rachel Bilson's stomach, all these seem a little too perfect.

I sincerely hope GQ didn't photoshop in that right oblique muscle below her rib cage, because that would be alarming. GQ isn't a women's magazine, so putting Bilson on the cover isn't directly intended to screw with women's self-esteem as much as Glamour or Redbook. Instead, you would think GQ puts Bilson on there because that's what the guys obsess over...so does this mean guys want to sleep with a pile of bones? God help us if this is what turns men on...