Jessica Simpson’s size 14 body was DRAMATICALLY slimmed down for 2010 magazine cover about singer embracing her curves, former editor admits as she issues public apology for ‘insulting’ mistake

A magazine editor has admitted to slimming down Jessica Simpson’s body on a 2010 cover, which featured the pop star talking about “finally learning to love” her physique.

Kim France — who was editor-in-chief of Lucky Magazine for more than a decade — recently revealed that she and her team photoshopped the now 43-year-old singer’s appearance to make her look “skinny” when she posed for the show. publication as measure 14.

The journalist reflected on the decision in a recent article blog postand admitted it’s not something she’s “particularly proud of.”

“In 2010, when I was managing editor of Lucky, we scored Jessica Simpson for our September cover,” she wrote.

The journalist reflected on the decision in a recent blog post, admitting it’s not something she’s “particularly proud of.” Jessica is seen in 2010

Kim France (seen in 2008) — who was editor-in-chief of Lucky Magazine for a decade — revealed that she and her team had Photoshopped the singer’s appearance to make her look “skinny.”

“This was exciting, because Lucky was pretty low down the celebrity hierarchy, and she was a big deal.”

Kim explained that when she watched the photo shoot, she “could see that Jessica was about a size 44.”

And while that’s “considered normal by many rational standards,” she said it wasn’t considered slim enough by “glossy magazine standards.”

“I’d like to tell you that I fearlessly insisted that we put her on the cover anyway, and look like what she really looked like. I didn’t,” she continued.

“We made her skinnier, much skinnier than she really was. I slid right down that slippery slope.’

The editor explained that when the magazine hit stores, people noticed the Photoshop work almost immediately, and they weren’t happy with the outlet.

To make matters worse, the words “Jessica Simpson finally loves her body” were next to the heavily edited photo.

“I wish I could give a really good reason why I let those hilariously stupid words go around, but I don’t have one,” Kim commented.

Kim explained that Jessica (seen in 2010, a month after the shoot) was a size 14 at the time, and that while that’s “considered normal by many standards,” it doesn’t work with magazines.

“I’d like to tell you that I fearlessly insisted that we put her on the cover anyway, and look like what she really looked like. I didn’t,” Kim continued (seen). ‘We made her skinnier’

Kim added in her blog post that she was fired “a few weeks” after the magazine came out and that she believes the cover played a role in her firing. Jessica was seen last September

“Jessica Simpson has undergone a remarkable personal style evolution, inspired, she says, by coming to terms with some serious body issues over the course of the past year,” read an excerpt from the magazine article.

For example, she stopped fighting her hourglass silhouette after realizing that “we’re all obsessed with looking like the perfect Barbie type, and that’s not always what’s beautiful.” It’s about making peace with yourself.’

Kim added in her blog post that she was fired “a few weeks” after the magazine came out.

And while the reaction to Jessica’s cover “wasn’t cited as the reason” she was fired, she theorized it played a big part in the decision.

What could I have done differently in 2010? From a professional perspective? Honestly only one thing and that would have been, and I hate to say it, not to book someone of that stature in the first place,’ she concluded.

“Once we shot a size 44 woman for the cover, that cover wouldn’t have made it out the door and past the bosses unless she slimmed down.

And so I did, to an insulting degree. It was said that Jessica Simpson herself hated the cover, and who could have blamed her?’

Over the years, many stars have lashed out at magazines for retouching their bodies.

Zendaya denounced Moedeliste Magazine in 2015 for “manipulating” her hips. The edited photo can be seen (left) and the original can be seen (right)

“A new shoot had come out today and I was shocked to discover that my 19-year-old hips and torso had been manipulated quite a bit,” the actress wrote. ‘These are the things that make women self-aware’

Emily Ratajkowski didn’t hold back when the French magazine Madame Figaro improved its features in 2017. The edited photo can be seen (left) and the original can be seen (right)

Spider-Man star Zendaya was “shocked” after she posed for Moedeliste Magazine in 2015 and found they had “manipulated” her hips to make them smaller.

At the time, she shared her dismay on Instagram, sharing the “real image” in an effort to end the “unrealistic beauty ideals.”

“A new shoot had come out today and I was shocked to discover that my 19-year-old hips and torso had been manipulated quite a bit,” the actress wrote.

“These are the things that make women self-conscious, that create the unrealistic ideals of beauty that we have.

‘Anyone who knows who I am knows that I stand for honest and pure self-love. So I took it upon myself to release the real photo and I love it.”

She concluded her post by thanking the magazine for removing the images and fixing the “problem.”

Emily Ratajkowski didn’t hold back when French magazine Madame Figaro improved her features when she posed for the cover in 2017.

She called the outlet on Instagram and admitted she was “extremely disappointed” to see her “lips and breasts have changed.”

She shared the original cover photo and the photo that was published side by side, and it was clear that the two images were very different.

Her mouth seemed thinned out, while her chest looked smaller and lifted.

Everyone is uniquely beautiful in their own way. We all have insecurities about the things that make us different from a typical beauty ideal,” she wrote.

“I, like so many of us, try to get past those insecurities every day. I hope the fashion industry will finally learn to stop suppressing the things that make us unique and celebrate individuality instead.”