Walk into the campus bookstore or log onto your computer and chances are you will see the glossy face of a celebrity or model staring back at you from a magazine or advertisement. With the widespread use of programs like Photoshop to digitally retouch photos, newsstands across the country have become showcases of flawless skin, bright white grins and anatomically impossible hip-to-waist measurements. In today’s media, it is undeniably clear that perfection is being marketed as the norm.

While most of us are guilty of “de-tagging” unflattering photos on Facebook, and can easily relate to the desire to look our best in a picture, the prevalence of excessively airbrushed photos is alarming.

In early October, designer Ralph Lauren was heavily criticized for running an ad of model Filippa Hamilton, whose image had been altered to look so drastically thin, her head appeared wider than her body. The 5-foot-10-inch, 120-pound model later admitted to being fired from Ralph Lauren after being told she was overweight.

In 2003, actress Kate Winslet spoke out against digital retouching when a much slimmer version of herself appeared on the cover of GQ Magazine.

Similarly, actress Kiera Knightly took a stand against Photoshop in 2008 during the filming of her movie “The Duchess,” when she refused the studio’s request to digitally enhance her breasts for promotional posters.

In early 2009, Kelly Clarkson acknowledged the use of Photoshop on the cover of her album “All I Ever Wanted.”

“Whoever she is, she looks great,” Clarkson famously told the media.

Dr. Ann Merriwether, a professor of psychology, said that the misrepresentation of women in the media is likely to have a negative consequences for young girls.

“Unrealistic images of women contribute to unrealistic expectations about what bodies should look like. I think it’s problematic,” Merriwether said.

While often designers and magazines will defend these retouched images, arguing that their intention is merely to present the celebrity in the most flattering light, these publications are nonetheless portraying and unrealistic and unattainable standards of beauty. This has sparked a debate as to whether excessively altered images can contribute to teens and young adults developing a negative body image.

“Right now, for a large percentage of teenage girls, having something you don’t like about your body is normative,” Merriwether said. “I would say it adversely affects development.”

In both Britain and France, lawmakers are taking steps to protect young people from the potentially damaging effects of a society obsessed with being perfect.

In September, French politicians proposed a law that would require a “health warning” on all press photographs, art photography and advertisements that have been digitally altered to look more appealing.

In Britain, members of Parliament have proposed a Photoshop ban on all advertisements targeted at teens under the age of 16, while a disclosure of digital alterations would be required on all images targeted at adults.

In America’s image-obsessed culture, where roughly 8 million people suffer from eating disorders, one has to wonder when America will join what Perez Hilton has deemed the “anti-airbrush movement.”

Many students, it seems, agree with foreign lawmakers in that celebrity airbrushing promotes an unrealistic and detrimental body image,

“Because of these photos, normal people like us have a very unrealistic view of what a perfect body is. Nobody looks like that, but young girls see these pictures and think that they are supposed to look like these women,” Diane Kim, a sophomore School of Management student said.

Kim went on to say that she views these attempts at curtailing airbrushing as noble, but highly unlikely.

“A Photoshop ban is not realistic. If magazines got rid of it, the overall visual effect wouldn’t be as appealing,” Kim explained. “They wouldn’t sell as many magazines. I think it’s a nice effort, but it’s not realistic at all.”