Playboy made me do it

quote:

---

not all advertising is aimed at men -- the most plainly damaging are the ones AIMED AT WOMEN.

---

Damaging to whom? I don't quite follow your meaning.

quote:

---

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.

---

Has it really happened for a long time, though?Has it really been the case that men and boys have have always had a narrow standard of physical beauty that they felt pressure to strive for?

quote:

---

you seem bent on sticking blame for something, schraf.

---

Understanding, mostly, is what I'm bent upon.

quote:

---

blame it on society,

---

How about "blame mass media and advertising?"

quote:

---

and blame society on playboy.

---

Playboy is a part of society. A very well-known, iconic part of society that, in part, defines for society what is beautiful and sexy in a women's appearence.All I'm saying is that many things in our culture conspire to make everyone (these days) feel insecure and inadequate WRT body image, it begins at a very young age, and Playboy is part of it.

quote:

---

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.

---

Like I said, there's no notice on those images that say;"Warning: model doesn't actually look as she appears in this picture. The image has been digitally altered. Do not attempt to look like this because it's not possible."Look, as a culture we start sending messages about what is expected of people from the very moment they are born. Parents unsonsciously (and consciously) treat male and female infants differently, for example.Why is it so radical an idea that children are sent messages by the culture regarding how they are supposed to look and act?

quote:

---

it's so pervasive that magazines are now running young girl's lives, like some kind of cult.

---

I never said anything remotely like that.

quote:

---

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.

---

I don't blame it all on that. It was significant, though.

quote:

---

because obviously, sexy women were never seen in the media or arts before playboy.

---

There is a big difference between sexy women in the arts (as in paintings)which hung in people's homes and photographs of actual women used to sell products reaching many millions of people once a month.

So, why not answer the question?Why is it that we are seeing more body dissatisfaction, exessive exercising, and eating disorders among men and boys since advertising and the media has been presenting them with an narrower standard of physical beauty?

Brenna sarcastically mentioned eating disorders and the thinness of women in India to me in a previous message, saying that I am only mining quotes. Well, I found this article about the increase in eating disorderd in India that nobody has responded to.

quote:

---

there's an awful lot of very small and very slender women in india. why don't you mine me some stats about eating disorders there (among the higher classes).

---

No webpage found at provided URL: http://health.indiatimes.com/articleshow/195337.cmsIndia Times Article

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

Just a note to schraf that I'll be back with a reply at some point... Monday at the latest.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

All what papers? I see one article which has a bunch of names and dates but no titles, and more importantly no actual data. Not only cannot I not say whether they are wrong, I cannot say whether the author of the article is using them properly.That it was produced by an eating disorder "center", I have some suspicions about whether they are using the data in a greater than self serving manner. However let's look at some of the articles they discuss... One of the thing you and indeed most feminists and social progressives miss is the difference between correlation and causation. Even a direct positive correlation may not be indicative of a causative model.We already know (from other studies you have posted) that along with an increase in eating disorders there is also an increase in unhealthy weight correlated with a decrease in ideal weight in media (if one accepts the ideal weaight decrease for sake of argument). You have yet to deal appropriately with that contrary evidence.If media is a strong socio-cultural power, why are most people growing rather than becoming anorexics and bulimics? Can you think of a third or fourth factor which might explain all three of these correlative findings in a causative model? It certainly appears using media as the cause is not sufficient. I have already agreed that internalization of any ideal will lead to dissatisfaction. If it can be shown that a growing number of people are internalizing the ideal and thus not able to distinguish between fantasy and real life, that would not be suprising.The problem then would not be the ideal itself, but rather the environmental factors which lead people to internalize ideals and/or believe social conformation to expectations regarding appearance is important for an individual. I want to point out that the above is a solid reinforcement of my position. I have no idea if the stated studies are well done, or are being quoted properly, but at least the connection is a bit more satisfying for me, and wholly undercuts your own position.You do understand it refutes your position, and supports my own, right?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

I have already agreed that internalization of any ideal will lead to dissatisfaction. If it can be shown that a growing number of people are internalizing the ideal and thus not able to distinguish between fantasy and real life, that would not be suprising.

​

The problem then would not be the ideal itself, but rather the environmental factors which lead people to internalize ideals and/or believe social conformation to expectations regarding appearance is important for an individual.

---

Then we agree. This is basically all I have been saying.While you and others in this thread want to focus upon the pathology of the people (which I concede exists and is an important part of the equation), I have always been focused upon the pathology of the environment, which I believe has been unduly downplayed and ignored.There's been a lot of talk in this thread about the failings of people who "cannot seperate fantasy from reality", but my point is that fantasy and reality are not always clearly defined in the culture, and that the culture has a profound affect upon the people within it.I want to reiterate that humans are highly social creatures. It is very natural for us to want to fit in to our culture's expectations. Indeed, people who do not feel any societal pressure to follow any rules at all are commonly called sociopaths. Even people with mild problems with social interaction suffer a lot of anxiety and pain from rejection and loneliness.

Fantasy and reality are increasingly being blurred by our culture and that is bad (unhealthy). Unfortunately, your arguments only add fuel to that problem.The reality is that Playboy is about fantasy, purely fantasy. Anyone taking away a message regarding reality from that magazine's photographs is making a large error.You continually argue that Playboy is part of the cultural problem because it shows an ideal, but that can only be the case if it is relating something about that ideal being a reality instead of a fantasy. That is not the case.If you want to disarm the cultural problem of people suffering because they cannot tell fantasy from reality, then you should be helping people distinguish what is what, and not fostering the illusion that people can learn about reality from a fantasy magazine. That in itself is yet another fantasy.And it further does not help by demonizing the ideal seen elsewhere in the media (outside porn). That is also creating a fictitious enemy which is not there in reality and so wastes energy rather than actually solving our cultural problem.Why not just get involved and help people with their personal coping skills, instead of demonizing others and trying to make them say things (show things) that might upset people who are sensitive to imagery of others different than themselves?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

Fantasy and reality are increasingly being blurred by our culture and that is bad (unhealthy). Unfortunately, your arguments only add fuel to that problem.

​

The reality is that Playboy is about fantasy, purely fantasy. Anyone taking away a message regarding reality from that magazine's photographs is making a large error. You continually argue that Playboy is part of the cultural problem because it shows an ideal, but that can only be the case if it is relating something about that ideal being a reality instead of a fantasy. That is not the case.

---

I disagree.If it was pure fantasy, Playboy wouldn't be using actual women but would instead be a magazine filled with artist's renderings or computer generated images of idealized women.Those are real, live people in the photographs, even though they are retouched. The women at the Grotto are real live women from the fantasy. Rockstars, millionaires and actors date and marry Playmates as status symbols. Many Playmates get lots of attention, modeling and acting careers.Are those careers and marriages only fantasy?

quote:

---

If you want to disarm the cultural problem of people suffering because they cannot tell fantasy from reality, then you should be helping people distinguish what is what, and not fostering the illusion that people can learn about reality from a fantasy magazine. That in itself is yet another fantasy.

---

So, the women in the photographs aren't real women?

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

quote:

---

here's the key though, schraf. a photograph *IS* an artist's rendering.

---

Yes, especially once every "imperfection" is removed from the woman's body in the image, cleavage and leg length "improved", etc.I was 9 years old when I saw my first Playboy image, and much younger than that when I began regularly seeing images of models, rockstars, and actresses. How was I supposed to know all of that fancy philosophy by Ansel Adams, or even that the images were heavily retouched?On the other hand, they are real women in the Grotto, and dating the actors and rock stars, no?Those are the same women on the pages, right?

that's what parents are for. they have to teach their children the difference between fantasy and reality. tell me schraf, when you were 9 did you think every movie you saw was a documentary of real life? yes. no. those are PICTURES on the pages. depictions. not the real women.

---

אָרַח

Whether a thing is regarding fantasy or reality depends on its purpose and not on what it uses as its medium. Let me rephrase the above statement to make this clear...If it was pure fantasy, James Bond movies wouldn't be using actual people but would instead be movies filled with artist's renderings or computer generated images of idealized men and women.Would that make any sense? And if you are going to say there is a difference between the photo spreads in Playboy and James Bond films, I'd like to know what that difference is. As far as I have always known, those photospreads are obviously erotic entertainment, not infomercials. Playmates marry rockstars and actors as status symbols. Believe it or not it cuts both ways.In any case, in the grotto or in marriage those same girls cannot look like or be like the 2d altered photographic images. That would be like someone marrying Sean Connery and expecting James Bond.You almost hit it on the head when you said they get acting and modelling careers, as that is exactly what they did as a playmate: acted and modelled. I generally expect the people who marry playmates understand they are marrying a girl who played a playmate, or is a model who was a playmate, and not that they married the playmate centerfold image. That does not address the point you were purporting to address. I said if you want to solve the problem of people being unable to discern between fantasy and reality then you should be helping point out the differences, and not promote ideas that people can learn about reality from fantasy magazines.Real women certainly did pose for the photos. However photos are not real women. More importantly the photos in playboy are not even real photos of women. And most importantly the photos in Playboy are of a specific and narrow range of idealized imagery that will sell to the most amount of people and so a depiction of fantasy that appeals to the broadest masses, and as such does not suggest what is appealing (or not) in reality nor in general.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

If you viewed a Playboy at that age, and felt the images were of unattractive women yet you had to look like them, or that they were attractive and you were not because at 9 you did not look like 18+ women, then you had a problem discerning fantasy from reality (as well as some personal integrity issues) before encountering playboy.If you are anywhere above 14, and clearly above 25, and regardless of what you thought at 9, cannot recognize that whether the images were beautiful or not they are only one form of beauty for purposes of masturbatory fantasy, then you have a problem now.For example at 9 I might have still believed Santa Claus was real and all those news reports Xmas night of Santa being spotted on radar were real. At any point above 13, my continuing to be effected by that myth shows some problem internal to me and not associated with society wide fantasies regarding a jovial present bearing saint.If I don't get presents at 25+ it is not because I am on Santa's "naughty" list. If you don't getting hit on when 25+ it is not because you are not on the pages of Playboy. No. Cameras takes images which alter 3d reality into 2d space and so the 3d women in the grotto may be nothing like the posed and altered 2d photos of them in the magazine.Photogenic people may not be as attractive in real life and vice versa.I had one gf who was drop dead gorgeous in real life, yet it was rare to find an image where she did not look like a troll (I am not kidding, some absolutely frightened me). Despite being hit on constantly by men, she could NEVER make it as a model. Mel Gibson on the other hand looks like a hunk on screen, only to disappoint throngs of women in person.You are confusing fantasy with reality if you take any photo and assume anything about the reality of a person who was the subject of the photo. A good example was when national geographic went looking for that young girl whose hypnotic face was plastered on one of their front covers. Finding her resulted in much of an anticlimax.This message has been edited by holmes, 08-01-2005 09:13 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)