<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Crystal Renn: Those Photos Were Retouched!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.styleite.com/media/crystal-renn-photoshop/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.styleite.com/media/crystal-renn-photoshop/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 08:37:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2012.06</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jackie</title>
		<link>http://www.styleite.com/media/crystal-renn-photoshop/#comment-1038</link>
		<dc:creator>Jackie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Jul 2010 18:57:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.styleite.com/?p=42773#comment-1038</guid>
		<description>First, a size 10 being large would be on someone who is 5 feet tall!  Secondly, the news never specifies is this size 10 for JUNIORS or MISSES.  HUGE difference!  She is beautiful BEFORE the photochopping!  Why is it necessary that models be so thin that there is no muscle definition, the bones are visible?  That is &quot;sexy&quot; and/or &quot;attractive?&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>First, a size 10 being large would be on someone who is 5 feet tall!  Secondly, the news never specifies is this size 10 for JUNIORS or MISSES.  HUGE difference!  She is beautiful BEFORE the photochopping!  Why is it necessary that models be so thin that there is no muscle definition, the bones are visible?  That is &#8220;sexy&#8221; and/or &#8220;attractive?&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

