Bethenny Frankel reveals her unaltered PETA ad photo

frankel-peta

Sometimes I wish I was a Catholic, just because Catholics get to have the best reactions when seeing something this sketchy for the first time. I would imagine it would involving crossing oneself, and yelling “Santa Maria!” like in the movies. Anyway, Santa Maria! Us Weekly got their hands on Bethenny Frankel’s unaltered, un-Photoshopped PETA ad, and it is heinous. Granted, I’m not a huge fan of Bethenny, but does Photoshop have to do all the work? Couldn’t they slap some makeup on her so her “before” photo wouldn’t look so jacked? Oh, and Bethenny was the one to release the unaltered photo because she’s all about being “honest and upfront”. Well… I can respect that, actually. But the unaltered photo still make me want to cross myself.

Bethenny Frankel is no shrinking violet. The pregnant Real Housewives of New York star posed nude for a PETA billboard that was unveiled Dec. 15 in Manhattan’s Times Square. Now, she’s talking back to the housewives and other haters who have suggested that the butt-baring photo was heavily airbrushed — and she’s shared the photo evidence (the original, untouched image) exclusively with UsMagazine.com.

“Everything I’m about is being honest and being upfront,” Frankel, 39, tells UsMagazine.com. “So if people are talking and saying [the photo] was airbrushed…then, you know what? Here’s the picture. Have it your way.”

The author of new cookbook The Skinnygirl Dish adds that she would “never, ever allow them to put up a billboard that was really far from the truth.”

Now four months pregnant with her first child, Frankel disrobed for the shots on a Manhattan rooftop in September. Although she’s never posed nude before, she says “I wasn’t that freaked out about it. I don’t know why. PETA has no interest in making me look sleazy. It was such an honor.”

As for the pregnancy? “It’s been great. I haven’t been particularly nauseous, and I get a decent night’s sleep, which is refreshing. My boobs are big, but other than that, nothing’s crazy.”

Still, she confides that expecting a baby is a “weird” experience, “To be honest, being pregnant is weird. Whoever says any different is probably lying. It’s a strange, strange thing.”

The dad-to-be is Frankel’s fiance, Jason Hoppy. Although the couple announced their engagement in October, they have put off planning their nuptials until after Frankel gets through her pregnancy, a book tour, the third season of Housewives (which just wrapped shooting) and her new untitled solo reality show. “There’s no plan whatsoever!” Frankel says.

[From Us Weekly]

Can you imagine if this had happened to Demi Moore? The tweets would have been neverending. Demi would have spent the next month bitching and moaning about how she just naturally looks perfect and her lawyers would be suing everyone in sight. So I’m actually giving Bethenny credit for this, and she gets a temporary pass in my book, just for being honest enough to release a God-awful photo of herself. I will give her a word of advice though – sunscreen, night cream and lots of water will help with how damaged your skin is. Seriously. Just try a little Oil of Olay. It works really well!

Unaltered PETA ad courtesy of Us Weekly. Original PETA ad courtesy of Huffington Post.

frankel-peta-original

 

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

42 Responses to “Bethenny Frankel reveals her unaltered PETA ad photo”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. diva says:

    She shouldn’t even be on a billboard in the first place. PETA needs to get a real celebrity who people actually know and like to represent them. What made them think a 4 months pregnant weathered looking housewife was a good ad campaign?

  2. LolaBella says:

    She looks like a boobless, elbowless amputee and she’s pooping buildings in the photoshopped pic…

    That said she has a nice butt in the unphotoshopped pic

  3. marie says:

    People need to make up their mind. When celebs are photoshopped they are given hell for allowing it. If not they are ridiculed for their imperfections. You can’t win with the media.

  4. Bonfire Beach says:

    To me it looks like most of the Photoshopping was to even out her skintone.

  5. Birdie says:

    I agree with Bonfire Beach, I don’t think Bethenny looks half bad in the first photo. All things considered, the woman has a rocking body even if her face looks a big haggard (and she’s pregnant!) wow…

  6. embertine says:

    She looks fine in the unphotoshopped one. I agree that it was mostly to artificially smooth out her skin. I guess the boob removal was an editorial choice after the shoot. Pity, the angle of her arm looks weird in the ‘after’ pic.

  7. BW says:

    They made her thighs a lot thinner. Measure them. Why do they even bother using humans? The buildings are all different, too.

  8. ligeia says:

    this is how everyone gets used to unrealistic standards and feels inadequate because trying to live up to them is impossible. she looks like a healthy fit 40 yr old woman in the unaltered picture, but peta felt the need to make her look like a plastic 20 yr old mannequin. i would like to see a mature unphotoshopped woman in a magazine or on a poster just once….it seems that having wrinkles and aging is something only men are allowed to do.

  9. princess pea says:

    My favorite part is how she’s not actually naked. The tagline should read : I’d rather go naked in theory, but not really, than wear fur.

  10. Leek says:

    I’m not a fan but that was brave. I’ll throw some credit her way, too.

  11. crash2GO2 says:

    Yeah pea, ‘I’d rather wear panties than wear fur’.

    She looks awesome in the unretouched photo, who are you kidding Kaiser?! Holy smokes.

  12. Kaiser says:

    Her body looks great, but I just couldn’t get over her sun-damaged skin. It seriously looks like they didn’t put any makeup on her whatsoever and were already making plans to Photoshop the hell out of her. Her skin was the “heinous” part I was talking about. Everything else is fine.

  13. Sigh. says:

    I guess it’s easier (read cheaper) to use sub-standard photogs and make-up artists than to just find talented artists who know how to cover, compensate, and/or correct.

    Photograph, then Photoshop is all of marketing new mantra.

    If they wanted a barely known nubile waif, they should have used an ultrasound pic.

  14. ng says:

    She looks her age, and her body looks good for 40. No fat or flab, no cellulite. And as for her skin, well she’s 40! Of course her skin is not going to look smooth.

  15. Sumodo says:

    Her father (estranged, yes) is rolling in his grave.

  16. the truth says:

    she looks good in the first pic not many women her age or younger looks this good..

  17. TaylorB says:

    Is she wearing some sort of underpants in that first one or is that a major tan line?

    Either way, I think she looks lovely and has nothing to be ashamed of in that first pic. But everybody has different tastes.

  18. Laura says:

    I can’t believe some of you are even saying she looks like crap! It’s nice to see what probably all of Hollywood and the Model world looks like without being Photoshopped. And kudos to her for being willing to share the original image. For real though; shame on bashing how she naturally looks.

  19. Peanut says:

    LOL, I can’t believe the negative comments! I think the unphotoshopped pic looks pretty damn good. We’re obviously de-sensitized to what real people actually look like.

  20. lrm says:

    I don’t even know who she is-have hardly heard of her,but she looks great for 39 and newly pregnant in the original pic,to me.

    What’s so ‘santa maria’ about the unphotoshopped? Sure,not something to look at up close w/building in the background-

    But then again,most of these ads are really meant for ‘paintings’ of people,not photographs. Hence,the airbrushing.

    Still,she looks good.

  21. Jenna says:

    I think the only thing “wrong” with her in unaltered photo is that her skin tone is a little uneven. She’s really fit looking and has nice hair.

  22. fizXgirl314 says:

    her thighs are a lot thinned out too… And in all fairness, that pose is very flattering… I have quite a few photos of myself in that position looking very bootylicious… it’s quite a falttering pose for the butt…

    anyway, her skin is all busted… THIS is why I stay out the sun even though looking orange is all the rage these days :/

  23. cm says:

    She looks amazing in the first photo, come on! what reality are people living in, really? i am 38 and though i am thin, have many more bumps on the backs of my thighs. and we all know that no one’s skin isn’t airbrushed for mags…they even airbrush the men like crazy.

  24. GatsbyGal says:

    That ad is fucking sick…it looks like her arm is just an amputated stump.

  25. juiceinla says:

    What is sad is that un-retouched her body looks phenomenal. Yet they photoshop the hell out of it.

  26. AC says:

    She looks great in the before… it’s just we’re so used to seeing airbrushed skin that if they hadn’t airbrushed it people would have freaked out. I don’t understand why they made her leg thinner… whats the point of that. She looked FINE before. If you want to color correct and smooth out skin tone, fine. But why alter someone who’s already really nice looking? It’s so stupid.

  27. qb says:

    don’t get your pantied in a bunch , that’s not even her natural body , she haves a horrible boob job (i mean really horrible the nipples are having a fight and they are running from each other) plus she has a history of eating disorders. is kind of funny that she is doing an ad for peta but she owns a blue birkin , hermes raises their own crocodiles to make their exotic bags and I don’ t think they are doing pleather. she is a hypocrite so she is perfect for peta.

  28. Well, that was nice of her. I guess. She doesn’t look that bad. How old is she?

    -meream

  29. WTF?!? says:

    PETA is a militant group of morons who kill pets and just want everyone to do what they say. Animal exploitation is bad, but exploiting women is a-ok! Hypocritical numbnuts, all of them.
    Give your money, time and support to the ASPCA instead, folks.

  30. ! says:

    I agree, WTF. PETA also funds domestic and foreign terrorism with their financial contributions to the Animal Liberation Front. Screw them.

    I’m not a huge fan of Bethenny’s or anything but I appreciate her attitude. Damned if you damned if you don’t–but at least she was upfront and real about it.

  31. gg says:

    Interesting how they moved around the buildings to accentuate her butt.

  32. Spooky says:

    I have no idea who this lady is but I think she looks great for almost 40 and pregnant. Also, it’s nice that she’s not denying it like SOME people *cough* Demi *cough..

    Peta really needs to get a better ad campaign, I mean isn’t this I’d rather go naked thing a bit played out?

  33. Books says:

    Apparently the comment I left previously was deleted.

    But I will say it again: I’m incredibly happy that for once someone is willing to fess up and show how much Photoshop distorts our image of how a woman’s body should look. She looks good. Not perfect, but then again–who does without Photoshop?

  34. EMV says:

    She looks like an amputee…and what happened to her boob? I mean since when does PETA hate boobs?

  35. MaiGirl says:

    Yeah, she really should have used sunscreen back in the day, but other than that (and yes, the bad boob job), she looks great. It really does seem like the photographer wasn’t even trying, and where is the foundation to even out her face? Man–has photoshop really reduced us to this? If so, I guess it’s time for my talentless a** to take up photograpy!

  36. Jag says:

    Yeah, I like her butt in the before pic better. Good for her for showing how much Photoshop is actually done, even for a Peta ad.

  37. NicoleAM says:

    Her body ain’t bad, but it’s pretty startling to see the difference with her face. They shaved off 15 years! But still, hats off to her. (Are you listening Demi?)

  38. Spooge says:

    Kinda looks like the before and after photos from a nuclear accident or something. Face it… chicks just don’t look good anymore after they hit their late 30′s. Especially after the whole ‘pregnancy, dress like a housewife, cut the hair short, develop a schizoid personality disorder’ syndrome all women seem to go through.

  39. TaylorB says:

    Spooge,

    Interesting comment… I must say that your screen name is apropos.

  40. Praise St. Angie! says:

    TaylorB…

    Spooge=TROLL.

    just trying to stir things up.

    Like a stray, you can’t feed them or they’ll hang around forever.

  41. Nicole says:

    If you look closely, they made her butt smaller and really smoothed her skin out..the photo is most definitely altered, no matter what she says. Still I am impressed that she released the “before” pic, which looks perfectly fine and normal, by the way.