The question is not whether Dawn's bodyshape is average or not or how many women have what bodyshape.

The question is, as long as you can't give proof that a certain exact shape exists in the real world, you can't claim it's "realistic".

Yes, that's a very narrow definition of "realism", but now that photomanipulation is so rampant everywhere, I think it's necessary to use very strict definitions.

How else would you distinguish between an undoctored photograph of a human being and one that was "improved" via photoshop ?

It's still a photograph of a human, but is it still "realistic" ?

Reality is just what it is, not what we want it to be.

So if you want me to accept something as "real" you have to proof it to me.

If I build a scale model, I have to provide photographs and blueprints before I can claim it's "realistic". Otherwise, my fellow modelers will dismiss my work as "fantasy" or "guesswork".

I don't have a problem with Dawn looking like she does. It's a bit boring to have just another "hawt" girl, but that's just my personal taste.

But unless proven otherwise, I won't accept her shape to be "realistic".

 

Of course that will change nothing in the grand scheme of things.

The folks photoshopping people for magazine covers will still insist that they just "improve things a bit" and that their work is 100% perfectly "realistic".

My point is just:

I see what you're doing and I don't fall for it.

That's all.

Don't take this as criticism at Dawn.

Not sure if "more of the same" can actually break V4's current reign.

I do hope so, though.

:-)