Jennifer Hawkins Bares all for Marie Claire 2010

Written on January 3rd, 2010 bySassi Sam in Fashion

I’m so excited to reveal the untouched images of Miss Universe 2004 Jennifer Hawkins baring all for Australian Marie Claire’s February 2010 issue.

Jennifer Hawkins appears both naked and un-retouched on the cover of Marie Claire’s February issue, to encourage positive attitudes to body image and support the Butterfly Foundation.

I know everyone is going to say the same things that they did when Sarah Murdoch went ‘untouched’ on the front cover of the Australian Women’s Weekly that Jen is beautiful anyway and doesn’t represent ‘real’ people but it’s her job to be beautiful and keep herself in shape, that’s what she’s paid to do!

As you know I’ve met Jen and she looks amazing in real life and I cannot imagine the pressure that she would be under to maintain that perfection of beauty! She doesn’t look too skinny, she looks incredibly healthy, espouses a healthy life style in every way and I think that is what we should focus on as a positive role model rather than her actual body per se. Yes she is genetically blessed but she’s still human and has the same insecurities as us! And that’s what the Butterfly Foundation supports, healthy living in all facets of our lives!

And as I’ve said previously, we do not want to see ‘real’ people on the covers of our magazines, we see them in our lives everyday, magazines are about aspirations!

In an exclusive 5 page feature, Jen not only reveals her amazing body but also the pressures she faced since being crowned Miss Universe in 2004 and rising to fame.

In marie claire’s exclusive interview with Jackie Frank, Jennifer Hawkins confesses that she never could have done a shoot like this two years ago.

“I would have been worried about what people thought, whether it was the right decision – a thousand different things… But over the past year and a half I’ve grown into myself, and I’m more confident and comfortable within the modeling industry. I did it for the experience… It felt quite sensual and sexy. I felt empowered”.

While naturally slim, and with a body most of us would do just about anything for – Jen tells marie claire about the hard work that goes into her success, which includes keeping her body in great condition through regular exercise and a balanced diet. Jen speaks candidly about the highs and lows she has experienced in her rise to fame and her plans for the future, which includes moving in with her boyfriend Jake Wall in the year to come.

On Australian newsstands January January 6th 2010.

4th January Update: Of course this has created a big debate going on about positive body image. There are talks of this just being a stunt by Marie Claire, of course it is we know that we’re not dumb, for me what I don’t understand is why can’t Jen be a positive role model? Bianca Dye made some really great comments this morning on the Today Show (Jen bares all video front page) and I agree with her and think she’s incredibly brave to bare all herself (and she looked amazing and she always does when I bump into her out and about), but I also think we are smart enough to know that us ‘normal’ everyday people know that we will never be able to look like Jen and that we are just looking at unphotoshopped images which is what we’re all supposedly demanding from magazines. To me this ‘stunt’ is not about presenting Jen as your everyday person and that we can look like her if we live her lifestyle, it’s about showing us unphotoshopped images of someone who looks amazing but I concede may be they could have used someone else that looked really different un-photshopped, she doesn’t really look different!

But to me the Ralph Lauren and Kelly Clarkson photoshopping scandals is what we should be worried about and hold magazines accountable for.

FINAL UPDATE: What has come out of today’s debate is that people ‘blame’ images for how they feel. Images cannot make you FEEL anything, if you feel ‘bad’ about yourself after looking at this picture of Jennifer Hawkins, that means you need to look at why you do. You have take ownership of your feelings, magazines are not responsible for how you feel and boosting your self esteem!

Read Julie Parker the General Manager from the Butterfly Foundation’s thoughts on the debate.

And read my gorgeous friend Erica Bartle from Girl with a Satchel’s thoughts.

Images courtesy of Marie Claire.

Love,
Sassi
Your Pop Culture Gossip Girl

Tags: Covers, Fashion, jen hawkins naked, Jennifer Hawkins, Marie Claire 2010, Miss Universe, naked, nude

Colin Kovacs
All the fat ugly chicks need to get over it and realise their negative comments just tell the world they are sooooo jealous.What sort of moron didicules someone for getting it right.I’m not handsome and i don’t have a body most women would desire. So what. Jen Hawkins IS the most beautiful model in the world bar none.I’m just proud she is a fellow Australian.This girl has worked her way to the pinacle of her chosen career, what have you done? Ignore these fleas Jen; your star shines brighter than the lot of them put together.Well done girl. Colin Kovacs.
Pingback: Jessica Gomes Bares All for Madison November 2010 | Sassi Sam Girlie Gossip Files
Pingback: sardonicsmile » 8th of june
Pingback: Beauty Pics: U Can’t (re)touch This | Signature9 UK
Pingback: Hats Off to Jennifer Hawkins says Behavioural Expert « TOURISM MARKET
Pingback: Hats off to Hawkins says Behavioural Expert | Australian Women Online
Pingback: Jennifer Hawkins Marie Claire Photoshopped
Pingback: Fotos da modelo Jennifer Hawkins nua em Marie Claire 2010 | Tretando.com - Fotos e Vídeos com humor !
Milorad
@Kate… so much for your expertise on me and my moods. Perhaps you could try applying that same critical thinking to the bullshit you’re being fed here. Jackie frank calls these unretouched and real, and you gobble down the crap exactly as she expects you will.
Your opinion of me is hardly notable, given you and most of the commenters here are easily influenced superficial thinkers.
Sure was nice to come back and read all the brilliant opinions on how this affects body image in the media, or about serious issues being used as marketing propaganda by manipulative exploitative and deceptive industry figures like Jackie Frank.
No, still not angry, but very vocal and disappointed. I don’t blame you for not recognising it for what it is, given so few people seem to bother actually saying anything with their keystrokes.
Pingback: Shock Mansion Entertainment » Blog Archive » Mumma Mia! Jennifer Hawkins Bares all for Marie Claire 2010
Pingback: Bold & Bright with Vogue China
Andrew
Good on Jeniferr for doing this. She looks really good in those photos. However, I couldn’t believe that in the media yesterday they were talking about her “flaws”. They were making comment on her slightly dimpled front right thigh and the tiny crease of skin on the left side of her waist. They need to get over themselves and grow up. All these things are completely natural and make her look even better.
Just imagine what someone who has four or five or more folds of skin on them is going to feel like after hearing stupid comments like this. Jennifer is very hot, but really people with several folds of skin are even more appealing to me than Jennifer is with her one fold.
There is no such thing as the perfect body shape, everyone has different tastes in the opposite sex. Some like really skinny and some like really big people. Personally I like women who actually have a bit of meat and folds of skin on them. Not huge women, but definately not really skinny one’s.
I agree with what Bianca Dye said about putting underwear models on magazines. She looked very good in her naked photo shoot, even if she had more folds of skin she would still look hot. Instead of putting untouched photos of naked models on the cover of magazines they need to start putting untouched photos of naked normal people on the cover of magazines. People that you see in the street that you even find slighty attrative. They also need to stop covering up their so called “private parts” in these naked photo shoots. What’s wrong with seeing people’s bottom’s and genetals? What’s the difference between seeing a persons arms and legs compared to seeing their bottom or their genetals? Also, boobs, men’s are seen everywhere but women’s are always covered, Why? Both men’s and women’s are made up of fatty tissue, a nipple, and mammary (milk) glands, there is absolutely no difference!
By covering these areas of the body up, it might also send out the message those parts of the body are to awful and to dirty to be seen by anyone, when clearly that is not the case. It is highly likely that there are alot more germs on your hand than there are on your genetrals or your anus. I know magazines probably can’t show these areas due to legal reasons but I think the law should be changed so they can. The whole of society needs to change in regards to these issues.
http://deathwearsdiamondjewellery.wordpress.com sarah hannah
bianca dye just sounds bitter that her own naked & unretouched photoshoot didn’t cause as much media attention.
REAL women include those with curves and those who are slim and genetically blessed.
this is a FASHION MAGAZINE. of course whoever features on the cover is going to be beautiful. jen hawkins is showing us that just because she may have hit the gene jackpot, she is still human, with body hang ups like everyone else. she says she has grown into her body and has accepted her cellulite and admits she wouldn’t have done a shoot like this a few years ago. which is role model material to me.
the day a fashion magazine features a ‘normal’ woman on its cover is the day i won’t buy it. i can look in the mirror, not the pages of a glossy magazine thanks very much.
Winston
Hi,
Truly agree with your update, especially the point about holding magazines accountable. JF has come out and issued public statements declaring that the Jenn Hawk exercise was to inspire and help women. Let’s hope those are true sentiments. Personally, I wouldn’t declare as an editor that the magazine cares about much else other than profits and sustainability; words always have a way of coming back to bite you. On the other hand, if MC leads the ‘revolution’ and continues to ‘help’ and inspire women through unaltered photos, we will all do our best to build a groundswell of goodwill to sustain a worthy magazine.
http://www.plboriginal.com Amy
She a model…………airbrushed or not she represents a tiny portion of Aussie women, well women in general. Not impressed with this shoot or article at all. Boo hoo you have a tiny crease in your hip and a little cellulite on your legs……………..welcome to humanity. Looking at her un touched pictures makes me feel no less attractive and no less any thing really, just gets up my nose a little. Use a 20 or 30 something year old woman with a few kids, a lazy husband and a part time job, some one that lives a real life with real time constraints.
Any ways every one is different not 2 people are the same, maybe next time do a shoot with an array off different people, famous, not famous and even infamous a broad spectrum to get a fair idea. A little sick of spending $10 to read about models body hang ups and that us normal folk should be happy with what we have got, we shouldn’t really we should all strive to be the best person we can be in side and out
Gen
Great post Sam. I agree with your comment – “we do not want to see ‘real’ people on the covers of our magazines, we see them in our lives everyday, magazines are about aspirations!”
With that in mind, it is great to have something more ‘real’ to aspire to! Rather than photoshopped perfection, Jen is showing us natural, real beauty. She exercises, she eats healthily, and her body isn’t perfect in this shot, but it looks damn good! If it were photoshopped, she would look perfect and present completely unattainable ideals.
I love what Marie Claire is trying to do here and I love your positive comments Sam! Keep it up.
Winston
Really enjoyed reading all the comments as well as looking over all of Hawko’s pics.
Was just wondering if the public would now allow Marie Claire to get away with this publicity stunt or hold Jackie Frank accountable for ensuring we only see unedited photos in her mags from here on. We already know the answer but it would be nice to see a major magazine perish in its own flames of hypocrisy, nothing like a good shake down to start of the year.
http://marloestelle.blogspot.com Marlo
I love Jen, so I will agree with everything she has done…BUT I disagree with those saying how it’s easy for her, or she’s not real.
Ummm….yes, yes she is.
This whole ‘non photoshop’ debate was not about putting obese or unattractive people in magazines (that’s a whole other issue) it was about the existing subjects of magazine covers and photoshoots being portrayed in their real light.
Jen is constantly on magazine covers, so this is is the perfect example of where the campaign was headed. (ditto with Sarah Murdoch).
To say that she is under good lighting etc…well, sure. But the photographer still has a job to do as well. They shouldn’t have to ruin their reputation, nor that of the model, by making them look BAD, they’re just being made to look NATURAL and to some extent, flawed. (Although not in Jen’s case!)
Anyway- she looks fabulous, good on her. She is the perfect example of a woman who eats, drinks, exercises, laughs and lives. She is a real woman and if she can help even one girl feel good about themselves (which I think she has already done before the shoot just by being such a gorgeous and lovely person) then she has achieved what she and Marie Claire set out to do.
Lisa
Well said, Brooke. My thoughts exactly.
Kat79
Yes Jen has got a fine body. But is her unnecessarily surgically enhanced face going to remain the white elephant in the room forever?
http://www.treslola.com Kate
I dunno Milorad, you seem pretty worked up to me.
http://www.tammerly.com Tammerly
I too love Jen & having seen her twice in real-life, I can honestly agree with Sam – Jen is so gorgeous! I am locing her brazen & bold attitude that she represents in this shoot and give her full credit for doing so.
Milorad
It isn’t anger – it’s just an entirely pointless time-wasting debate about nothing of substance whatsoever. The author’s tweet invited a “tear down”, so I approached with gusto. Blame the author.
http://www.treslola.com Kate
Good on Jen Hawkins. She looks gorgeous and healthy. She is a really great role model for young women. Good on Marie Claire for stirring up debate, even the seemingly negative input of folks like Milorad is valuable as it shows how much of a reaction the decision to run this cover has stirred. (Even if it happens to be a reaction of anger, as it seems to be in the case of that particular commenter.) It’s great that people are having this conversation around body image, health and the practices of magazines when it comes to re-touching.
http://www.trovedesigns.com Brooke
I love Hawko. Absolutely, she is a stunning woman and it’s easier to make someone as beautiful as her look heavenly, with no touchups, but so what?! It’s so simple to look at someone like her and proclaim, “But it’s easy for her, she’s beautiful/slim/wealthy/whatever.” I have no doubt that the reality is quite different and that there is a lot of hard work involved. She won the genetic lottery – good for her!
I think it’s time women stopped being so hard on each other and accepted each of us for who we are as individuals.
Milorad
No problem, I’ll come as invited.
Pointless tripe by you and Jackie Frank, honestly. Take the same pic without the laboriously-crafted lighting and makeup. Then we’ll talk.
http://bit.ly/harshlight vs http://bit.ly/softlight
Everyone wants to get on the “real woman” bandwagon whilst going nowhere near reality. Give me a god damned break. If — as you say — you don’t want to see real women in magazines then why the hell does it matter if they’re retouched or not? Why bother bolding all the manipulative tripe you’ve highlighted above?
Hypocrisy in this area is really doing my head in.
laura jade
love her! epitome of perfect, untouched and all! umm can i please be her?! x