Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Playboy made me do it
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 141 of 183 (225159)
07-21-2005 2:16 PM


i'll be back
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)

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 142 of 183 (227148)
07-28-2005 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by nator
07-18-2005 12:56 PM


Re: lots of references in this paper
Are all of these papers wrong because the researchers are greedy and want to hide The Truth?
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 strongest messengers of sociocultural pressures may well be the mass media (Stice, Schupak-Neuberg, Shaw, & Stein, 1994). Irving (1990) discovered a direct relation between media exposure and eating disorder symptomatology over the last several decades. The increase in eating disorders through the years has coincided with a decrease in women's ideal body weight as portrayed in the media (Wiseman, Gray, Mosimann, & Ahrens, 1992).
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.
The internalization of the media's thin ideal produces heightened body dissatisfaction which leads to the engagement in disordered eating behavior.
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.
Although most women are exposed to the media portrayed thin-ideal images, only a small proportion develop eating disorders. It may be that women with perfectionistic tendencies are more inclined to feel dissatisfied with their bodies when they compare themselves to those images presented in the media. Coping skills may also moderate the relation between negative affect, binge eating and restricting, as women with better coping skills would likely ameliorate negative affect in more adaptive ways (e.g., seeking social support) (Stice & Shaw, 1994; Stice et al, 1994)
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by nator, posted 07-18-2005 12:56 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by nator, posted 07-31-2005 9:56 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 144 of 183 (228106)
07-31-2005 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by nator
07-31-2005 9:56 AM


Re: lots of references in this paper
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.
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by nator, posted 07-31-2005 9:56 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by nator, posted 07-31-2005 4:49 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 149 of 183 (228370)
08-01-2005 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by nator
07-31-2005 4:49 PM


Re: lots of references in this paper
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.
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.
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.
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.
So, the women in the photographs aren't real women?
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by nator, posted 07-31-2005 4:49 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by nator, posted 08-01-2005 10:59 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 150 of 183 (228377)
08-01-2005 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by nator
07-31-2005 7:13 PM


Re: photography
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.
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.
Those are the same women on the pages, right?
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by nator, posted 07-31-2005 7:13 PM nator has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 153 of 183 (228439)
08-01-2005 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by nator
08-01-2005 10:59 AM


A Playmate doesn't use a pseudonym.
Are you kidding me? These are MODELS, some use stage names. You are likely not to know their real names just as much as actors and actresses who you know by their stage names. Perhaps what you mean is they don't have a character name, like Sean Connery plays Bond.
The rest I simply cannot believe. Unlike Bond, which is one character, people do try and get into action movie parts like bond... guess what they have to look like? They also do calls for Bond girls, and indeed sometimes Playboy does features on Bond girls.
Whether Bond is a fictional character or not, the intent of the BOND MOVIES is to entertain, and so is Playboy. The MODELS go in just like connery and have pictures taken and have them presented to create a fantasy for men to jerk off to.
Whether Playboy lists their actual likes and dislikes (I have no idea) is irrelevant, as the point is only to add to the fantasy of availability.
Look this is really simple. Isn't Playboy about jerking off, and aren't playmates models posing for images used for people to masturbate to?
If you believe anything other than that, and especially that Playboy is some real contact magazine for people to meet in Hef's grotto, then there is a serious deficiency in discerning fantasy from reality.
Thank you for conceding that to be a Playmate confers status upon a woman as beautiful and desireable.
Conceding would have to entail that I disagreed at some other point in time. I recognize that fact and have for some time now. They are obviously chosen as beautiful by staff at Playboy in hopes that it fits with the most common tastes of beauty, and it apparently is successful.
That's like winning any other contest or title. What's the big deal?
If you mean it confers upon that woman a status of beautiful that all must recognize and believe, and suggests that there are no other ways of measuring beauty (not to mention other titles that can be held on that subject), then I disagree.
Playboy is just one among many, and it is not an official stamp people must accept, it is recognized because most have agreed with the choices.
Do you think they are generally beautiful or not?
How was I supposed to know that as a kid? How are most adults supposed to know that?
All adults should know that if they have any knowledge of cameras and photos and real people. They should be telling kids about this, though it is true a kid may not have learned that yet. Kids often have a problem distinguishing fantasy from reality. That does not excuse anyone above 13 from having that problem, unless they live where there is no such thing as cameras and real people.
I am talking about the rest of the culture who sees that a Playmate has her options for relationships become much wider, and her options for living the high life become much greater, because she Posed in Playboy.
I'm sorry, but what is wrong with that? Anyone who gets public exposure generally has wider choices in life, that's what fame is all about.
The fantasy is that these are real women.
Yeah, that's right. That is exactly right. The FANTASY is that these are real women who you are able to have sex with right then and there, or might attain. Playboy is selling that masturbatory FANTASY.
Then there is real life. Playboy is filled with fantasy for masturbation, and you have to look for a real woman if you are really going to have real sex with a real woman.
The idea that the images and the messages in any culture are determined solely by the recipients and not by the senders is simply naive.
It is a mix of feedback loops so I do not deny that cultural "senders" play a part in defining culture, but one is able to move beyond mere "receiver", specifically with relation to determining fantasy from reality.
It is naive to blame senders to the degree you do, and more so to blame the message they send. That is attacking a mirror for what you do not like to see. And the only real result will be to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I am still waiting for you to explain what use your criticism is. What does it do but create impotent rage and demonize innocent people for just talking about what they like, if it does not move further to censor free expression?
Let's assume just for sake of argument that everything you say about images in society are true, and Playboy is a part of that.
My proposal is to work on people's coping skills and learning to tell the difference between fantasy and reality. What is your proposed answer?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by nator, posted 08-01-2005 10:59 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by nator, posted 08-02-2005 10:29 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 160 by nator, posted 08-03-2005 9:38 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 156 of 183 (228672)
08-02-2005 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by arachnophilia
08-01-2005 6:46 PM


Re: lots of references in this paper
holmes mentioned james bond. and with good reason. see, james bond, aside from being a spy, is what they call "a playboy." he's the person that playboy is marketted to. if you've ever read playboy, you'd notice it favors expensive toys, and high class -- and attractive women... but at the end of the day, most of us know that that will never happen. it's just a fantasy. it's entirely unrealistic.
Your entire post was dead on, and I'm glad to see someone understood why I chose Bond as my example when discussing Playboy.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by arachnophilia, posted 08-01-2005 6:46 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 158 of 183 (228795)
08-02-2005 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by nator
08-02-2005 10:29 AM


Playboy takes pains to create an illusion of reality. They do not list the girls' turn ons as "expensive cars, wealthy men, and Italian villas". It's usually something like "walking in the rain, a great sense of humor, and sincerity".
I'm not sure how what you just said is any different than what I said, which is adding to the fantasy of availability. If it was going to be real then it would say "expensive cars, wealthy men, and italian villas" because indeed that is what they'd likely be interested in... as your own statement about who they marry would suggest.
Yes, it is describing a more realistic scenario than a Bond film, but again you are making some very strange distinctions. I was talking about purpose, not format.
In the end both of these are the same purpose which is entertainment. As much as Playboy may try and portray the girls as real and available as part of the fantasy, the images themselves are patently ideal fantasy of "beautiful".
If you blame someone for falling for something that was designed to make them think it was real, then I really don't think you are capable of understanding my argument.
Blair Witch was designed to make the viewer think everything was real. Indeed many morons fell for it as a real story.
What they forgot to do is remember (apparently as the movie started) that they went to see a fictional movie. A person who picks up Playboy and thinks they are about to see something about reality, and not masturbatory fantasy, has made the same moronic mistake. They picked up a jerk off magazine and suddenly think they are looking at what? A documentary?
Penthouse letters are also meant to sound real. People pretty much have a handle on the fact that they are fantasy. Are you suggesting people should be expected to fall for that as well?
Before opening any sexually explicit magazine, a person should be clear about what it is (or at least the pictorial parts)... fantasy for masturbation.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by nator, posted 08-02-2005 10:29 AM nator has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 161 of 183 (229160)
08-03-2005 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by nator
08-03-2005 9:38 AM


Playboy is more than that.
Its articles are not for jerking off to, its images are. If you want me to rephrase my question I will:
Aren't the images in Playboy about jerking off, and aren't playmate models posing for images used by people to masturbate to?
Whether the rest of the magazine has any other content is besides the point. And I think you know that it is a cliched joke for a man to say he reads Playboy for the articles.
Why shouldn't little girls want to look like a Playmate? It is clearly what the most people approve of and find attractive.
Little girls shouldn't want to because they can't look like Playmates at their age. There is nothing wrong with them hoping to look like that when they grow up, though they should learn as they grow up that it isn't necessary.
It is one of the most recognized and most agreed upon measures of beauty and desireability in our culture.
This is already an agreed upon point. It is recognized and agreed upon measures of beauty. That is because it is carefully stocked with imagery that would appeal to the greatest number, and not that it has some mind control power to influence the majority on what is beautiful.
Playboy does not wag the dog, even if it helps reinforce the dog wagging its tail.
Appearance and attractiveness matters, especially to men, who are typically the more visual of the genders.
Men are less picky than women when it comes to partners. Only if you are talking about ideal fantasy types might men get somewhat pickier.
You know, I think we're only a few decades away from full makeup for men.
You do understand that western culture used to have, and other cultures as well had and still have, full makeup for men? Men used to wear wigs as a matter of course.
I have no problem with the idea that most people would like to be beautiful to the most numbers of people. The idea that one is likely to achieve that is sheer fantasy. It is one of those personal expectations that have to be dealt with early on.
The fact that one is not likely to be adored by a majority, or a thin minority, of the masses does not act as a criticism of the masses for not finding one attractive, nor any of their magazines.
I am interested in your explaining what useful action your criticism can generate? If we stop debating your position and grant it is real for sake of argument... what next?
It appears the only choice is to start censorship to create new standards of beauty that are more egalitarian which will create new classes of ugly people, and demonize people for having preferences that are not this new norm.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by nator, posted 08-03-2005 9:38 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by nator, posted 08-03-2005 3:53 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 165 of 183 (229565)
08-04-2005 4:40 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by nator
08-03-2005 3:53 PM


No, it is exactly the point. There is a reason it's "OK" for nearly any woman to pose in Playboy if they will have her and definitely not OK for most women, especially if they want a career in hollywood, to pose in Great Big Jugs magazine.
Okay, you've lost me. Whether a magazine acts as a better way to get into Hollywood because it is more famous or because it contains more straightlaced articles around its porn (and so is less scandalous), definitely seems besides the point we are discussing.
How does Playboy's better ability to launch careers have anything to do with whether the images are pure fantasy?
No, they should learn that it isn't possible, and they should learn that long before they grow up.
Well that's plain BS. Why can't they possibly be a model, who looks like those photographed, especially with digital alteration?
I agree they should learn to discern fantasy from reality regarding imagery, and expectations regarding what is attractive, but some girls will grow up to be Playboy Playmates... and it doesn't seem something one has to poison.
But I would disagree that it isn't necessary. It's a well-known fact that beautiful people, especially women, flat out get treated better by pretty much everybody than less attractive people.
I also don't know what you are talking about here. Check out queens and prime ministers and secretaries of state... all very powerful and respected women who get treated better than most. Most of them have not been attractive.
It is true that good looks can set the stage better for a career based on looks, as well as people cutting you some slack in other areas of your life. But good looks do not guarantee you anything.
And in any case it is certainly not necessary to look like a playmate in order to be found attractive. Regardless of whether Playboy picks models that are most likely to be found attractive to the most amount of people, they do not have a stranglehold on the definition of beauty. Other people can be found beautiful, including to vast numbers of people. That is why Playboy competitors have succeeded by chucking Playboy's formula.
Are competitors as iconic? Not really. But the reason is pretty obvious. Playboy was first and set the industry running as a whole, and competitors who focus on more "real" images also seem more scandalous as they do not try to make their porn highbrow.
It is not sheer fantasy.
If it is not sheer fantasy that anyone can end up looking attractive to most of the people in society, then what is your problem? The risks involved? If one wants to impress the masses one usually has to take great risks, surgery or not.
In any case, I still believe it is sheer fantasy that most people, regardless of surgery will end up being found attractive to the vast majority of people.
Now, did each and every one of those women have poor parents who didn't explain the difference between fantasy and reality? I happen to know at least two of them were well aware of the narrow cultural standard and how damaging it was but they didn't care. They wanted to be skinny like the women on TV and in the movies.
Body dissatisfaction occurs to everyone, including the models. Increased techniques for altering the body, and increased knowledge regarding the viability of these techniques means more people may want to engage in them.
If they believed it was necessary to do this, or that images in Playboy are the only true standards of beauty and they must look like that, then they all had a problem telling the difference between fantasy and reality. And yes maybe all of their parents didn't raise them properly to make such a distinction. Why should that possibility be shocking in a nation where the majority of people have lost the ability to discern between fantasy in reality.
When over 60% of Americans believed Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11 I am sure that many people could relate stories of standing around talking to groups of people with opinions based on that errant belief. Does that get them off the hook? No.
Body manipulation to attain beauty, including wholly unrealistic and "nonnatural" beauty, and even devastatingly harmful beauty, has been with mankind forever and attached to both men and women. It seems a bit odd to be blaming it on tv and Playboy.
If you want to change the ideal, why not start putting out alternatives and helping people realize there are many forms of beauty, rather than punking on a viable form of beauty or an idealized form of beauty. Trying to put down others is not attractive at all.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by nator, posted 08-03-2005 3:53 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by nator, posted 08-04-2005 9:17 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 169 by nator, posted 08-04-2005 9:49 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 170 of 183 (229665)
08-04-2005 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by nator
08-04-2005 9:17 AM


If we're going to be consistent and say that the images are unrealistic, fantastic depictions, then nobody grows up to actually be a Playmate. That would be impossible.
You are now quotemining. Check the sentence directly before the sentence you quoted from me to deliver your reply and you will find I already dealt with that point.
I will only add that the digital alteration does not have to be massive, and usually isn't. Brushing off cellulite and enhancing cleavage is not that huge.
Have you completely forgotten how the press was obsessed with Janet Reno's unattractiveness and the clothes she wore?
I was not suggesting that ugly powerful people were called beautiful, I was saying that powerful people that are ugly or not get treated better than the rest of us. Are you seriously going to argue Reno was not a powerful person, treated better than most?
Even Playmates do not manage to avoid criticism including for their looks. Several people, including me, have already criticized some in this thread.
No, actually it matters in nearly all careers. You still have to be interviewed by somebody and probably interact with other people on the job.
You are now shifting away from what I am talking about. An employer does not look at a Playboy magazine to find his next research chemist. You said yourself that scientists do not have to impress others with looks.
I understand that looking good will help one interact with others. One does not have to be a Playmate to look good, and looking good does not allow one to skip qualifications for most jobs.
No, but all other things being equal, better looking people get treated better than less good looking people. It has to do with evolution. Sexual selection, to be specific. Things like hip to waist ratios and facial symmetry.
I agree better looking people get treated better. What is better looking is not easily definable between people, especially when one gets to the individual level.
Evo Psych is crap, and your references to it do not impress me. If you wish to defend it there are at least two threads outstanding on that topic. It appears no one is willing to explain and or defend any of the studies and their conclusions. It is the same as ID, but using "evolution" as the convenient smokescreen instead of god.
But they are pretty much all slender, tan, long-haired, young, long-legged.
Do you even know what Playboy's actual competitors are? I already told you that what Playboy lists is not necessarily its main competitors, and the growing indie market caters to more looks. Hustler was famous for including amputees, which throws long-legged right out the window.
Maybe it's a natural, normal response to a damaging environment.
Maybe its a natural response to tragic events that occur in life. Perhaps if there is any greater depression it is that Americans have lesser coping skills to deal with lifes imperfections due to an decreased ability to discern fantasy from reality.
My one solid guess is that it has nothing to do with Playboy nor the ideals of beauty that society might hold.
You all want to blame people for failing to recognize and reject societal pressure from an early age, and I want to give people, who have been raised since infancy in this environment (where thinness and beauty is highly valued and highly rewarded), the benefit of the doubt.
You have built a strawman of my position. I don't want to blame anyone for what occurs early on in life. I am merely recognizing what has lead people to have issues, and suggest what people need to do to deal with reality in a healthful way.
Again I ask you directly... will I ever get an answer... what is a person supposed to take away from your position? All I can see is a drive to censor, and demonize others, or to stew in impotent rage.
If you want to paint my recognizing what a person has to do to deal with reality, and the lack of people doing so (even with experience) as "blaming" individuals for harming themselves, then what is your position but blaming others for not censoring themselves as to what they like just to make you feel good?
That is different. They weren't watching commercials with propaganda regarding Hussein and 9/11 since they were 4.
The people wanting liposuction and certain medical procedures were not seeing those since they were 4 either... at least not the ones of voting age. The mistake being made is all the same.
I don't only blame TV and Playboy, but they are both cultural forces which reinforce the cultural beauty ideals.
I have said that both reinforce ideals from the very start. That some commercial enterprises would take advantage of this is not surprising.
Where is the wrong in this? Cultural ideals will change again and the same reinforcers will reflect that change.
You seem to be blaming the messenger and the message, rather than learning how to deal with the message.
According to this culture, there aren't really that many forms of beauty.
Ha! That just goes to show that traditional feminists are part of the problem. I mean that was your answer to my suggestion that you get involved in the media to reinforce other images of beauty? To throw up your hands and reinforce the mainstream by default, just so you can continue having an enemy to spit at?
I have already shown you that there are outlets for other forms of beauty. Not all are mainstream but that does not make them any less depictions of forms of beauty. What is wrong with accepting where you are wanted and desired, or trying to get alternatives raised up within the mainstream in ways other than censorship?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by nator, posted 08-04-2005 9:17 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by arachnophilia, posted 08-04-2005 7:01 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 171 of 183 (229675)
08-04-2005 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by nator
08-04-2005 9:49 AM


But why is body dissatisfaction so much greater in some places and not in others?
It depends on the cultural acceptance of body and reality. That said all cultures contain ideals and will contain people dissatisfied with their appearance.
And has there been a sudden rash of bad parenting that just happened to coincide with the introduction of television in Fiji in 1995?
Yes and no. You have just done it again. I cannot believe how bad you are at quoting studies. Okay let's break this down...
No one said that the Fijians did not have their own ideals. In fact they said there were ideals but they were more rotund... which itself may not be naturally or healthy rotund.
With the introduction of images from the west the Fijians began to change their ideal toward that of the west, and there was increased disastisfaction with their own looks. Gosh, can't you figure out what this actually means? They believe these fantasy images represent real life in the US, and having an unrealistic view of the US in general (it would be exotic to them) decide to emulate the images they see.
That is no different than oriental women having their eye lids changed to look mor western, because they want to emulate the west (which they felt was more superior and/or exotic). Nor different from women in the west trying to tan or change their hair color to look more exotic.
If you could not read that article and see that it was saying that Fijians were mistaking fantasy for reality, and so making an error, not to mention doing the very human thing of emulating something new within the culture... what can I say?
You might note that when a pilot used a Pacific Island as a supply location, islanders created cargo cults believing the men to be gods and their equipment mystical. The emulated the men and the equipment in bizarre and almost comical ways. Are you seriously going to say they did not make an error?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by nator, posted 08-04-2005 9:49 AM nator has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 180 of 183 (231145)
08-08-2005 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by nator
08-08-2005 10:10 AM


Re: I'm done
1) That culture has a strong influence on people from an early age.
This has not been questioned. But what that means exactly for an individual's self perception as well as sexual interests has not been made explicit by you in any credible way.
Within your own citations are statements linking lack of coping skills and reliance on fantasy imagery to negative self-image. That fits in exactly with my position that it is not cultural ideals of beauty which is the problem, but cultural influences which have eroded coping mechanisms as well as the ability to discern between fantasy and reality.
You have chosen to never answer my refutations on this point, including direct references to your own literature.
2) That our culture places a high value upon the attainment of unrealistic physical beauty, youthful appearence, and thinness for girls and women, and that women who meet these physical ideals are greatly rewarded (regardless of if they meet those ideals by unhealthy or extreme means) and those who do not are socially punished.
This has been true for all cultures across time. The ideal has generally been youthful and some manner of unattainable "perfection". In some cultures... which have absolutely no connection to mass media and corporate commercialism... the ideals of beauty have been downright deadly and debilitating to both men and women in ways that breast implants cannot match.
You have greatly exaggerated the rewards and punishments involved with beauty. Faced with counterexamples, you fled.
3) Playboy, along with other mass media and the fashion industry, all influence the culture (which includes everyone) regarding what people should find beautiful and sexy.
But it is only a small piece and there are other pieces of the media with other standards of beauty. This has been ignored by you. You have also ignored the fact that Playboy bends to trends driven by society so it is not just a driver.
This is supported by the fact that the recent introduction of the very thin physical ideal presented in American television programs to other cultures resulted in a sharp increase in the prevalence of disordered eating in adolescent girls.
No it isn't. I have answered this assertion of yours at least twice within this thread and you have only resurfaced to reassert your position. This is plain evidence of your fanaticism to traditional feminist dogma as any creo or id theorist to their dogma.
CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION. It is the true sign of ignorance to cling to such simple paradigms, when counterexplanations and counterexamples have been placed before you.
And then she giggled and said it was so amazing that she ended up in Playboy and even became one of Hefners "Girlfriends", and that "It was like a dream come true." and that she couldn't imagine a better life.
So what?
Holmes set the stage for his own argument by stacking the deck against me when he chose a strawman, inaccurate, cartoon version of my argument to be the title of the thread.
It was a jokey title, so what? The argument within the thread is what counts. It was not a strawman. Your version of my position has often seemed both cartoonish and a strawman... that is when it is ever addressed.
Holmes, IIRC, has also claimed that he is incapable of being influenced by his own persoanl bias when evaluating any research study
That is true, that was my training, so what? More importantly, I addressed the few vague citations you made, and asked if you wanted me to take them apart more methodically. I even pointed to several contrary findings to your position within your own references. You have disappeared at each turn.
So even if you want to pretend that my saying I have no bias means something, my addressing them should have shown otherwise.
Nice ad hominem there.
and also that the entire field of Evolutionary Psychology is "crap" on the basis of his evaluation of a few studies, so I'm not sure it's even possible to get a fair hearing from him.
I do believe Evo Psych is crap. Its as solid as ID. But you say a "few" studies? How many would that be? How many do I need to read to have my opinion count? More than the "best" that field has to offer?
If you want to stick up for Evo Psych there are two threads waiting for answers from its proponents. To blast me as if I am wrong on that subject when you have offered no defense but assertions of the true believer, leaves me pretty cold.
I might add that if you looked at some of the debate we have had on that subject you will find my position was near identical to that of Gould as well as one of the evo psych pioneers who now cautions its overuse/overreference by evo psych "gurus" like Pinker.
Yeah, don't trust me and don't trust Gould. Guess we should disbelieve him about all that "evolution" stuff anyway, right? Can't get a fair hearing from him on ID and Creo, right?
Nice ad hominem again, to try and save your position. Don't bring up evidence, just attack me... nice.
His argument (and Arach's as well) seems to rest largely on the idea that people are dumb and wrong for being influenced by the culture, the social environment, they live in.
No, that is a strawman. While one is influence by culture, one also has the ability to overcome or cope with cultural influences and other "negatives" one might face in life.
There are many obstacles one has to face in life besides not being able to be a Playmate. There are many cultural expectations one will never be able to match besides not being able to be a playmate. There are many personal expectations one will never be able to match, besides not being a playmate.
In the end a human being has to learn to cope with life, by discerning between ideals/fantasy and reality so as to live with the reality of who one is. Whatever ideals one saw as a child can and should be viewed differently as an adult. Is there a question about this?
Modern culture is losing its ability to discern between fantasy and reality. Parents are not helping their kids with this, and the media is certainly not helping with this. The ideals portrayed are not the problem, the inability of people to recognize ideals as ideals and not reality is the problem.
The imagery in Playboy is masturbatory fantasy. That is the reality.
I will end with this quote from cognitive scientist Stephen Pinker's book, How the Mind Works:
Yeah, and? Throughout this thread you have been provided examples of other sources of imagery. If you have a steady daily diet of freakishly beautiful imagery, then you are the one that has the problem. TV stations can be turned, other magazines can be read, and if you have a front door you can walk out into the world and experience real people.
I will end by pointing out that I asked you no less than three times what anyone is supposed to make of your criticism, assuming it was true. You disappeared every time. Thus even if I fully conceded your argument, you were not prepared to make the next step and deal with its problematic conclusions.
The fight itself appears to be what is important to you, the demonization of some "other", just like creos and ID theorists. Too bad. You may quit posting here, but you are hardly done. It appears you still have a bit of learning and maturing to do.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by nator, posted 08-08-2005 10:10 AM nator has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 181 of 183 (231223)
08-09-2005 4:09 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by nator
08-08-2005 10:10 AM


Playboy vs Evolution (or Feminism vs Evo Psych)
I just realized something interesting. In the threads on Evo Psych I was defending the notion that culture and personal experience plays a lot in forming preferences and other psychological mechanisms against those stating that evolution had preprogrammed certain mechanisms which we cannot change culturally.
Yet here we have someone stating that culture is a dominating force in creating our psych mechanisms while at the same time defending Evo Psych and quotes an Evo Psych author who describes a process of culture impressing a standard.
That about wraps up Evo Psych to me. Like Creo and ID, which flit back and forth on their own dogma in order to support moral positions, here we have Evo Psychers doing the same.
If this is not inconsistent, then I want it explained. Supposedly beauty can be quantified and qualified according to evolutionary demands, yet here we have people arguing that culture can change our desires into wholly unhealthy and unreal expectations.... how can it be both?
Can hip to waist ratio interests be changed by society? If so, one major study by Evo Psych (and quoted earlier here by schraf) is shot down. If not, then how can Playboy be selling to people except by conforming to evolutionarily formed ideas of beauty that represent health for humans?
It seems to me that traditional feminist doctrine regarding the media and Evo Psych stand opposed to each other, though its not surprising to find them strange bedfellows given that each of them emerge from the "liberal progressive" intellectual sphere.
Doesn't there need to be an explanation of how they can coincide within the same model of human behavior?
This message has been edited by holmes, 08-09-2005 06:12 AM

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by nator, posted 08-08-2005 10:10 AM nator has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 183 of 183 (231234)
08-09-2005 5:55 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by arachnophilia
08-09-2005 5:19 AM


Re: I'm done
Actually what she was refering to were studies that she was unable to understand beyond a correlation. It showed, assuming that the study was accurate, that since the introduction of western media to nonwestern nations there was a switch in ideals from chubby to nonchubby and an increase in body dissatisfaction.
What she failed to understand and point out that the study itself suggested, that:
1) The cultures themselves had ideals that were not necessarily average
2) That they mistakenly assumed western media fictional shows were accurate depictions of real life in the west (which totally supports your and my position regarding mistaking fantasy for reality)
3) That they switched their ideal to emulate the life depicted in this new and interesting culture, just as every culture has done from well before commercial media existed. I gave her specific examples of this, including eyelid surgery in Japan and the sadly comical cargo cults.
She decided not to reply to the rather obvious points I made, as well as her cited study made, to repeat her initial unsupported assertions within her "summary".
There are true believers everywhere, including the left. This seems to be a case.
This message has been edited by holmes, 08-09-2005 06:14 AM

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by arachnophilia, posted 08-09-2005 5:19 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