Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Playboy made me do it
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 121 of 183 (224537)
07-18-2005 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by crashfrog
07-18-2005 9:33 PM


Oh, yeah, and cigarettes marketed with cartoons can't possibly be targeted to children, because you have to be 18 to smoke!
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by crashfrog, posted 07-18-2005 9:33 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by crashfrog, posted 07-18-2005 10:40 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 122 of 183 (224538)
07-18-2005 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by arachnophilia
07-18-2005 10:35 PM


if this is really as dangerous and schraf thinks, wouldn't it also be a problem for seventeen and co?
Yeah, probably. Personally I don't think it's as dangerous as Schraf thinks, but there's an undeniable angle of marketing something that influences children in a potentially negative way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by arachnophilia, posted 07-18-2005 10:35 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by arachnophilia, posted 07-19-2005 12:01 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 123 of 183 (224542)
07-19-2005 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by crashfrog
07-18-2005 10:40 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by crashfrog, posted 07-18-2005 10:40 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by nator, posted 07-19-2005 9:27 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 124 of 183 (224580)
07-19-2005 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by arachnophilia
07-19-2005 12:01 AM


Yes, I saw my first playboy when I was about 9 years old, in the bathroom at a friend's house.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by arachnophilia, posted 07-19-2005 12:01 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by roxrkool, posted 07-19-2005 1:48 PM nator has not replied
 Message 126 by arachnophilia, posted 07-19-2005 11:03 PM nator has replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 125 of 183 (224638)
07-19-2005 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by nator
07-19-2005 9:27 AM


I was probably about the same age as you when I saw my first Playboy.
Starting before I was born, my father received Playboy every month for about 40 years. Interestingly, that experience had an odd effect on me.
The fact that my father received that magazine didn't bother my mother in the least - and my mom is a very traditional and devout Mexican Catholic woman who closes her eyes during even the briefest nudity in movies. My mom did not feel the least bit jealous or angry about my father reading that magazine. She was confident enough in herself, my father's love, and in their marriage that Playboy was a complete non-issue to her.
As a result, I think I turned out to be a pretty confident woman. I'm not a jealous or overly possessive person. I never felt insecure or angry when my husband went to strip bars or even when women openly flirted with him in front of me. Hell, he's been to a few cat houses for bachelor parties and I didn't care. I guess I also have always trusted him and knew what I meant to him. I'm sure that is a large part of it.
It's interesting how different people react to similar situations. I never once felt like I had to look like those Playboy girls. I'd have to say reading Cosmo had a much more negative effect than any porn mag.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by nator, posted 07-19-2005 9:27 AM nator has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 126 of 183 (224782)
07-19-2005 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by nator
07-19-2005 9:27 AM


playboy's ideal = seventeen's?
I always viewed the women in both kinds of magazines as what I was supposed to look like.
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?
roxrkool writes:
I'd have to say reading Cosmo had a much more negative effect than any porn mag.
This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 07-19-2005 11:07 PM

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by nator, posted 07-19-2005 9:27 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by nator, posted 07-20-2005 8:11 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 127 of 183 (224836)
07-20-2005 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by arachnophilia
07-19-2005 11:03 PM


Re: playboy's ideal = seventeen's?
Why is it important that they be promoting the same image?
OTOH, all three are pretty similar.
Long legs, tan, quite slim (though not as skinny as the models are these days), and young. Two out of the three are also blonde.
And the ages seem pretty similar. I doubt there's more than 5 or 6 years between the model on the cover of Seventeen and the other two.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by arachnophilia, posted 07-19-2005 11:03 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by arachnophilia, posted 07-20-2005 8:34 AM nator has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 128 of 183 (224838)
07-20-2005 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by nator
07-20-2005 8:11 AM


Re: playboy's ideal = seventeen's?
Why is it important that they be promoting the same image?
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?
OTOH, all three are pretty similar.
any other votes on the matter? i think the differences are pretty clear.
And the ages seem pretty similar.
the model on the cover of seventeen is clearly underage, and at least 5 years younger than the playboy models.
tan
the model on seventeen has considerably paler skin.
quite slim (though not as skinny as the models are these days
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by nator, posted 07-20-2005 8:11 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by nator, posted 07-20-2005 8:47 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 129 of 183 (224839)
07-20-2005 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by macaroniandcheese
07-18-2005 8:24 PM


Re: pop quiz.
quote:
advertisement is not the only thing where image is enforced.
Of course. But can you imagine a men's magazine with page after page of ads for weight loss, wrinkle cream, fake tanner, undergarments to make their guts stick out less, and lots and lots of skin tight, revealing clothing?
quote:
what about john wayne/james bond movies (etc) and professional sports?
Sports stars and famous actors are famous for being skilled at something or being a hero. That's why you can have many boys who admire and want to emulate somebody like John Elway even though he's not particularly attractive.
My point in bringing up models is that they are famous and desired solely for being physically beautiful.
Nobody knows any male models, do they?
quote:
how about this. when are boys picked on the most by other boys for being overweight? in high school? no. boys establish their social structure in elementary school. at least girls get a chance to establish a healthy self-image (influenced by parents) prior to middle and high school.
There's a pretty good body of evidence which points to a general sharp decline in positive self-image in girls right around puberty which is much greater than that of boys. Many girls struggle at this time, even if they have been raised in a good home environment.
quote:
men have been in competition based on prowess for how many thousands of years. but what has always been at stake for them has been life, not self-esteem.
And that's why it's new, and that's why it sucks.
Now, a narrow standard of physical beauty, which you may or may not be born with and can do little about if you aren't, is becoming an issue with men and boys in our culture where before it was accomplishements, skill, abundent resources and prowess that was the standard.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by macaroniandcheese, posted 07-18-2005 8:24 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 130 of 183 (224842)
07-20-2005 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by arachnophilia
07-20-2005 8:34 AM


Re: playboy's ideal = seventeen's?
Well, perhaps you are more skilled at seeing minute differences in women's bodies, but I really don't see much difference between all of them.
Sure, the POTY is more well-endowed (don't her natural breasts look strange these days?), but they are all slender, long-legged, tan (sorry, they are all tan, it's just a matter of small degree. None of them are NOT tan), and two of them are blonde.
The Seventeen model just looks a bit younger, and is obviously fully clothed.
Here is a more recent cover of Seventeen Hair magazine.
Remember, the target audience of this magazine is young girls, not teenagers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by arachnophilia, posted 07-20-2005 8:34 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by arachnophilia, posted 07-20-2005 9:05 AM nator has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 131 of 183 (224848)
07-20-2005 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by nator
07-20-2005 8:47 AM


Re: playboy's ideal = seventeen's?
Well, perhaps you are more skilled at seeing minute differences in women's bodies,
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.
Sure, the POTY is more well-endowed (don't her natural breasts look strange these days?)
considerably more well-endowed. the seventeen model barely has anything -- she's considerably younger.
but they are all slender
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.
long-legged
probably so.
tan (sorry, they are all tan, it's just a matter of small degree. None of them are NOT tan)
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.
The Seventeen model just looks a bit younger, and is obviously fully clothed.
considerably younger.
Remember, the target audience of this magazine is young girls, not teenagers.
12-24, apparently. that would include all of the teenage years, and not so many of the young-girl years.
Here is a more recent cover of Seventeen Hair magazine.
yeah, that's also j.lo.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by nator, posted 07-20-2005 8:47 AM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 132 of 183 (224854)
07-20-2005 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by arachnophilia
07-18-2005 9:33 PM


Re: unpopularity of implants
Both of those pictures are from times when we certainly had an entertainment industry. We had the movies.
When you think about why preferences fluctuate so much, you will understand my argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by arachnophilia, posted 07-18-2005 9:33 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by arachnophilia, posted 07-20-2005 9:30 AM nator has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 133 of 183 (224856)
07-20-2005 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by nator
07-20-2005 9:23 AM


Re: unpopularity of implants
Both of those pictures are from times when we certainly had an entertainment industry. We had the movies.
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.
When you think about why preferences fluctuate so much, you will understand my argument.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by nator, posted 07-20-2005 9:23 AM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 134 of 183 (224857)
07-20-2005 9:33 AM


why won't anyone address this?
quote:
if you weren't so shallow and self-absorbed, maybe you could see that this pressure is NOT just on women, and that it actually affects other people.
Of course I see it. That has been one of my major points that I have repeated many times in this thread but that everyone has avoided; with the recent advent of more advertizing aimed at men which puts forth a narrow physical ideal as something to strive for, we have seen a corresponding increase in body dissatisfaction, eating disorders, fear of fat, and exessive exercising in boys and men.

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by arachnophilia, posted 07-20-2005 10:34 AM nator has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 135 of 183 (224866)
07-20-2005 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by nator
07-20-2005 9:33 AM


because you're still not getting it.
with the recent advent of more advertizing aimed at men which puts forth a narrow physical ideal as something to strive for,
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by nator, posted 07-20-2005 9:33 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by nator, posted 07-21-2005 8:18 AM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 137 by nator, posted 07-21-2005 8:21 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024