Playboy made me do it

and then, omg, maybe they'll start having sex!

---

אָרַח

and according to every sexual study, men are far more image-based in their attraction to things than women. get that? men are the ones more concerned with image.now, don't get me wrong. i'm not saying that the entertainment and fashion industry is not partially to blame for screwing up womens' self esteem. i'm just saying, well, grow up and deal with it like everybody else. yes. when a man sees an image of an attractive woman selling him something, our mental cue is "you're not good enough to get this chick, but if you have this, you can be." our image is partly monetary, not just physical. no, actually. most of us got over our self-concious awkward stages in high school. we don't blame our problems on society or some magazine we don't even read. been to a gym recently? they're not exactly cheep either. uh, actually surgery is responsible for saving many peoples' lives. for instance, had my father not gotten surgery to have his gall bladder removed, he'd be dead right now from toxic shock syndrome. going under the knife ≠ death and disfigurement.yes, SILICONE was a bad choice for breast implants. but the person who originally designed them could have told you that.now, let's talk the benefits of implants for a second. ever hear of something called a mastectomy? would you be opposed to a woman getting an implant to compensate for a lost breast? why or why not? something like 90% of the people who start going to a gymn don't go longer than two weeks. that's why gyms charge for a year or two up-front. you know that, right? this is like when people blamed video games for school shootings. not everyone lives in their fantasy world 24/7. most of us can tell the difference between reality and fantasy. we KNOW not all women look like the ideal, it's actually a tautology. if all women looked like the ideal, it wouldn't be the ideal. it'd be the average.most of us know that. for the last time, eating disorders RARELY have anything to do with weight issues.while we're on the topic, care to compare the body dissatisfaction increase with the obesety increase? or is this a no-brainer for everyone else here? welcome to sexual selection.think that only works for women?This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 07-18-2005 08:32 PM

---

אָרַח

because preference in boob size fluctuates. also, they were WILDLY popular when they first hit the market. that's the way trends work. everybody has to have the newest thing, but the effect wears off after a while.watch hbo's "breat men" movie. it's very interesting.

---

אָרַח

"dude," it's called SEVENTEEN.think about that for a second. think about that one for a second too. when you were 9?

---

אָרַח

i dunno, but it's done it for longer than we've had the entertainment industry, hasn't it? compare:

---

אָרַח

yes.and this is a problem with the tobacco industry. if this is really as dangerous and schraf thinks, wouldn't it also be a problem for seventeen and co?

---

אָרַח

oh yes, i agree. i want to make it especially clear here that i'm not arguing that the media is not damaging, nor am i arguing that their message is appropriate.i'm just saying that it is also a parent's responsibility to parent their children, and teach them the difference between hollywood fantasy and reality so that the two don't get as confused as schraf thinks they are.i'm also arguing that playboy in particular has little or nothing to do with it, as it does not fit the trend very well. magazines like cosmo and seventeen, and the fashion industry are more to blame.

---

אָרַח

being the stalker that i am, i've determined your age, just for sake of argument. i'm gonna a year or two, just to be safe, and because covers of seventeen are REALLY hard to find.so here's a seventeen magazine from your pre-pubescent childhood. here's the corresponding issue of playboy: now, this is a skinnier, smaller busted model, so you lucked out. but here's the pmoy for that year (the next month, btw): so. are "seventeen" and "playboy" even promoting the same image? This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 07-19-2005 11:07 PM

---

אָרַח

because, you said:

quote:

---

And I don't see that there's all that mych difference between Cosmo and Playboy, other than the target audience.

​

I always viewed the women in both kinds of magazines as what I was supposed to look like.

---

(i've substituted seventeen for cosmo, since you actually read seventeen, and mentioned both at around the age of 9)if they're not portraying the same ideal, how can you expect that you were supposed to look like both? any other votes on the matter? i think the differences are pretty clear. the model on the cover of seventeen is clearly underage, and at least 5 years younger than the playboy models. the model on seventeen has considerably paler skin. the model on seventeen is clearly skinnier than the second playboy image, as well as having less curves -- especially in the chest area, one of the topic of this thread.the first playboy model could be said to represent a similar ideal to the seventeen model, but it's pretty plain to see that the playmate of the year bears no resemblance to the seventeen model at all.

---

אָרַח

yes, well. i'm a creepy guy, what can i say? do you honestly think those are minute differences? 5 years between 15 and 20 is a big difference. enough to get a guy arrested. considerably more well-endowed. the seventeen model barely has anything -- she's considerably younger. the seventeen model is considerably skinnier, with more of a boyish figure. remember, schraf, you were quibbling over 2 inches in 50 years. i'm talking about probably half a foot within a month. probably so. the seventeen model is several shades paler than either playboy model. and remember, you were talking small degrees OVER FIFTY YEARS. this is within a month. considerably younger. 12-24, apparently. that would include all of the teenage years, and not so many of the young-girl years. yeah, that's also j.lo.

---

אָרַח

yes, we had howard hughes. who got in trouble with the film industry for showing too much (fully clothed) boob. [similarly, i hear lindsay lohan's breasts were digitally reduced in every frame of the new herbie movie.]well, hey, weight a minute, that brings up a good point! lindsay lohan just lost a ton of weight, didn't she? she was rounder before, a more normal figure. now, she's gone kate moss. notice something? her popularity went down! that's right, we liked her kind of chubby before. oh yes, because some sneaky men in the shadows are manipulating us like marionettes with the entertainment industry as the strings so our ideal boob size keeps changing. yeah, that's it. it's a big conspiracy.guess what? the entertainment industry sells what there's a market for. they're actually a reflection of societal preference more than they are a manipulator of it.

---

אָרַח

not all advertising is aimed at men -- the most plainly damaging are the ones AIMED AT WOMEN.we're not avoiding it. and we're not saying that media puts forth an unhealthy repitition of the ideal. we're saying that it's not the only cause, that this happened for a long time, and that playboy in particular is not even a major source of it.you seem bent on sticking blame for something, schraf. blame it on society, and blame society on playboy. you're waging a very narrow-minded war here. just women's images, that somehow when shown brainwash young girls who obviously can't think for themselves. it's so pervasive that magazines are now running young girl's lives, like some kind of cult. free will? ha. flush that down the toilet with your vomit and dignity, girls. and blame it all on a magazine you read once or twice as a young girl.because obviously, sexy women were never seen in the media or arts before playboy. imagine how damaging it must have been after a millions of only seeing ugly women in clothing!This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 07-20-2005 10:37 AM

---

אָרַח

to women. that's how this bit started, and i'm addressing the original topic. the bits that are most damaging to women are the things aimed at women, not the ones aimed at men. why is that a hard concept? it's pretty much always been that ideal of female beauty has been narrow. that's why i was showing you all those 500 year old pictures.male standards of physical beauty seem to be relatively new. i'll get to that in a second. understanding of what, exactly? that some magazine is actually responsible for your psychological issues? i'm sorry, the logic just isn't standing. eating disorders do not stem from poor body image. playboy does not represent the same ideal as the one you find damaging; women's magazines do. this is a standard feminist argument: something's wrong, men used to run society, blame men. it's men's fault that some women have low self esteem, because they like looking at pretty pictures. and that christie hefner, ceo of playboy, well, she's a man too! how about "blame it on your parents" for not teaching you the difference between fantasy and reality. and an easy target. hey, look, playboy objectifies women. it portrays them as things that can be bought to play with. how chauvenistic and evil it must be. let's go get it! have you even been paying attention to this thread? it's been pretty clearly demonstrated that the image playboy presents is NOT in line with society's expectations of the female ideal. hell, botticelli's venus is more in line with that.you MIGHT have argument if the two were the same -- but even your biggest counterexaple of the obviously horrendously fat and ugly kate winslet failed miserably. she's been in playboy more than once. so society must be getting its definitions from somewhere else.do i think that definition is often stupid and hurtful to women, as well as unhealthy? sometimes, yes. i happen to think kate winslet's sexy. evidently a very minor part of it. it doesn't seem to have much sway if kate winslet gets listed as one of the sexiest movie stars and then gets call fat by society. there's no notice on summer action movies either that says "warning, if you drive like this you will probably die and/or get arrested." most people are bright enough to know that it's special effects, and NOT REAL.but it does come with another warning label: 18+ only. that's a little stronger than pg, don't you think? pg, of course, standing for parental guidance. think about it, for a second. it's not a radical idea! this is the very idea i specifically mentioned that i am not disagreeing with. what i am disagreeing with is spearheading a completely biased and illogical crusade against one tiny portion of that effect that has far less to do with it than other glaringly obvious aspects.playboy is just attracting attention because it's on the tip of peoples' tongues. we all know the name. it's popular, and shows images of atractive naked women. so obviously, it must be something bad, displayign women like meat for sale.want to find the problem? look a little closer to home. look at the stuff you actually watch, the stuff you actually read, and the movies you go to. look at the things your parents taught you or didn't teach you. if a majority of the 9 year old girls in america regularly read playboy, maybe you'd have a case. but i'm willing to bet that most have subscriptions to other magazines. that's the nature of exageration, schraf. looks kind of ridiculous, doesn't it? magazines running people's lives, telling them how to think. no, actually, there isn't. it's still the presentation of ideal. it's still the concept of what a beautiful woman should look like. why is that we're seeing more fat people than ever in recorded history?advertising is one aspect. media is one aspect. these aspects might not even be related to excessive excercising, and certainly aren't to eating disorders. modern life might be a good cause -- eating disorders are caused by a desire to control, because you can't control your surroundings.

---

אָרַח

like i said:

quote:

---

Psychological factors that contribute to eating disorders are: factors like poor parental relationships and family dynamics. Poor self-image or a rebellious nature due to authoritarian parenting and emotional instability at home are a few other causes.

---

self-image is a pretty small part there, schraf. know anything about indian family life? here's the part you liked, i'm sure: (just so i'm nto accused of quote-mining)

quote:

---

Social factors that have resulted in a rise in eating disorders are: the increased emphasis on thinness and physical attributes with media exposure.

---

think playboy did it there? i think bollywood is a better candidate.

---

אָרַח

photography is my area of forte.are they real? no. not exactly. ansel adams recognized that a photo is not a duplication of reality, but an interpretation of it. a creation. no camera truly records; every camera is subject to the distortions of the lens, and the limits of tones/colors of the medium. a picture is not the actual object. people called adam's pictures of yosemite realism, but as many people will note, yosemite does not look like an ansel adams picture. ansel adams considered his work fantasy.the problem may partly be a photographic one here. people see the world now through the lens of a camera. we're used to looking at things like that, and when we see a photo, we accept the reality of it inherently. but the photo is not the real thing. here's the key though, schraf. a photograph *IS* an artist's rendering.

---

אָרַח