"What Haworth isn’t saying, too, is that the bar of what we consider “perfection” is constantly being raised-by cultural imagery, by the surgeon’s own recommendations, and by eyes that become habituated to interpreting every deviation as “defect.” Ann, a prospective patient described in the same “Vogue” article, has a well toned body of 105 pounds but is obsessed with what she sees as grotesque fat pockets on her inner thighs. “No matter how skinny I get, they get smaller but never go away,” she complains. It’s unlikely that Ann, whom Haworth considers a perfect candidate for liposuction, will stop there. “Plastic surgery sharpens your eyesight,” admits a more honest surgeon, “You get something done, suddenly you’re looking in the mirror every five minutes-at imperfections nobody else can see.” Where did Ann get the idea that any vestige of fat must be banished from her body? Most likely, it wasn’t from comparing herself to other real women, but to those computer-generated torsos-in ads for anti-cellulite cream and the like-whose hips and thighs and buttocks are smooth and seamless as gently sloping sand-dunes. No actual person has a body like that. But that doesn’t matter-because our expectations, our desires, our judgments about bodies, are becoming dictated by the digital. When was the last time you actually saw a wrinkle-or cellulite-or a drooping jowl-or a pucker or a pocket-in a magazine or video image? Ten years ago Harper’s magazine printed the invoice Esquire had received for retouching a cover picture of Michelle Pfeiffer. The picture was accompanied by copy that read: ”What Michelle Pfeiffer needs … is absolutely nothing.” What Pfeiffer’s picture alone needed to appear on that cover was actually $1,525 worth of chin trimming, complexion cleansing, neck softening, line removal, and other assorted touches."