Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-19-2019 1:12 PM
30 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 857,044 Year: 12,080/19,786 Month: 1,861/2,641 Week: 370/708 Day: 64/81 Hour: 7/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
5Next
Author Topic:   Playboy made me do it
nator
Member (Idle past 365 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 137 of 183 (225069)
07-21-2005 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by arachnophilia
07-20-2005 10:34 AM


Re: because you're still not getting it.
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by arachnophilia, posted 07-20-2005 10:34 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 365 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 138 of 183 (225080)
07-21-2005 9:02 AM


and there's been no response to this, either
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).

http://health.indiatimes.com/articleshow/195337.cmsIndia Times Article

Over the past few years, with the social emphasis on thinness, and a media playing up the ‘slim’ image, there’s been a rise in eating disorders all over the world. But what was essentially a Western concept has now transcended to most cultures.

Now this disorder is on the rise in India.

How Common Are Eating Disorders

5% adolescent girls/young women show symptoms of eating disorder.
It is 10-20 times more in females.
Upper class, educated, professionals, and urban women are more prone to these disorders.
It is now being seen in young men and adolescent boys too.
The prevalence of anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa has significantly increased since the late 1960s.

The Causes Of Eating Disorders

Genetics and certain hormonal factors are the biological parameters of this illness.

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.

All these factors result in increased vulnerabilities to eating disorders.

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


Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by arachnophilia, posted 07-21-2005 11:14 AM nator has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 365 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 143 of 183 (228063)
07-31-2005 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Silent H
07-28-2005 3:59 PM


Re: lots of references in this paper
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Silent H, posted 07-28-2005 3:59 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Silent H, posted 07-31-2005 12:01 PM nator has responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 365 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 145 of 183 (228155)
07-31-2005 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Silent H
07-31-2005 12:01 PM


Re: lots of references in this paper
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Silent H, posted 07-31-2005 12:01 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by arachnophilia, posted 07-31-2005 5:51 PM nator has responded
 Message 149 by Silent H, posted 08-01-2005 8:37 AM nator has responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 365 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 147 of 183 (228210)
07-31-2005 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by arachnophilia
07-31-2005 5:51 PM


Re: photography
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by arachnophilia, posted 07-31-2005 5:51 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by arachnophilia, posted 07-31-2005 9:56 PM nator has responded
 Message 150 by Silent H, posted 08-01-2005 9:09 AM nator has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 365 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 151 of 183 (228400)
08-01-2005 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by arachnophilia
07-31-2005 9:56 PM


Re: photography
quote:
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?

You are gravely underestimating the power of culture.

On the other hand, they are real women in the Grotto, and dating the actors and rock stars, no?

quote:
yes.

Those are the same women on the pages, right?

quote:
no. those are PICTURES on the pages. depictions. not the real women.

We aren't talking about your College Art History/Philosophy education.

We are talking about kids growing up in a culture.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by arachnophilia, posted 07-31-2005 9:56 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by arachnophilia, posted 08-01-2005 6:37 PM nator has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 365 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 152 of 183 (228415)
08-01-2005 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Silent H
08-01-2005 8:37 AM


Re: lots of references in this paper
quote:
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.

A Playmate doesn't use a pseudonym. That's her real name, her real measurements, her supposed real turn ons and turn offs. According to the website, they are supposed to be "real women", and husbands and boyfriends are encouraged to send in photos of their wives and girlfriends. They do not advertise that the photos are not realistic depictions at all and in fact encourage everyday people to want to be in the magazine.

James Bond is a wholly fictional character, fighting unrealistic villians using unrealistic weapons and performing unrealistic acrobatics. It's silly and comical because it's so stylized and formula-based. There are credits related to special effects at the ends of the movies and it is commonly known that stunt men and women perform many of the more dangerous actions and not the actor. The studio does not encourage wives and girlfriends to send in video tapes of their boyfriends and husbands scaling walls and jumping off cliffs so they can be the next James Bond.

The line is more blurred with Playboy.

quote:
Playmates marry rockstars and actors as status symbols. Believe it or not it cuts both ways.

Thank you for conceding that to be a Playmate confers status upon a woman as beautiful and desireable.

quote:
In any case, in the grotto or in marriage those same girls cannot look like or be like the 2d altered photographic images.

How was I supposed to know that as a kid? How are most adults supposed to know that?

quote:
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.

I'm not talking about the actual people who get married to Playmates.

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.

(it doesn't matter if this is true for most Playmates or not; it's what is commonly shown as a benefit of posing)

[qs]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.[/quote]

Right. The images in Playboy are blendsof reality and fantasy.

How much is real and how much is fake? Playboy isn't telling. Playboy doesn't even want anyone to realize that the photos are altered. And that's why Playboy is part of the problem. They don't credit their special effects department for creating illusions. The fantasy is that these are real women.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Silent H, posted 08-01-2005 8:37 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Silent H, posted 08-01-2005 11:59 AM nator has responded
 Message 155 by arachnophilia, posted 08-01-2005 6:46 PM nator has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 365 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 157 of 183 (228780)
08-02-2005 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Silent H
08-01-2005 11:59 AM


quote:
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.


No, the point of adding the turn on & offs is to add the illusion of reality.

Bond films take pains to make everything in them seem much much larger than life and completely unrealistic.

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".

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Silent H, posted 08-01-2005 11:59 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Silent H, posted 08-02-2005 10:56 AM nator has not yet responded
 Message 159 by arachnophilia, posted 08-02-2005 6:18 PM nator has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 365 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 160 of 183 (229106)
08-03-2005 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Silent H
08-01-2005 11:59 AM


quote:
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?

Big Huge Jugs magazine is solely for jerking off to.

Playboy is more than that.

It's iconic. People wear clothing with the bunny head logo, people want to be invited to the Grotto, people brag that they date Playmates, Playmates can put that they posed in Playboy on their resume as a legitimate and very positive accomplishment when trying to get into TV, movies, or modeling.

Why shouldn't little girls want to look like a Playmate? It is clearly what the most people approve of and find attractive.

quote:
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.

It is one of the most recognized and most agreed upon measures of beauty and desireability in our culture.

I think it's perfectly natural for people to want to be considered beautiful and desireable, and also to want the most people to find them as so. We are social creatures and we are told (especially females but males more so these days) that we must look a certain way to be accepted.

The fact that it is human nature to make snap judgements about others when we meet them belies our generally superficial judgement of people. Appearance and attractiveness matters, especially to men, who are typically the more visual of the genders.

And hey, I just saw a commercial last night from the Loreal cosmetics company launching a new men's line of facial mosturizers with sunscreen in them meant to fight off the effects of aging.

You know, I think we're only a few decades away from full makeup for men.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Silent H, posted 08-01-2005 11:59 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Silent H, posted 08-03-2005 12:26 PM nator has responded
 Message 163 by arachnophilia, posted 08-03-2005 6:41 PM nator has responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 365 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 162 of 183 (229312)
08-03-2005 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Silent H
08-03-2005 12:26 PM


quote:
Aren't the images in Playboy about jerking off, and aren't playmate models posing for images used by people to masturbate to?

Yes

quote:
Whether the rest of the magazine has any other content is besides the point.

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.

One is a plus, an advantage, and the other is a minus, a disadvantage.

quote:
And I think you know that it is a cliched joke for a man to say he reads Playboy for the articles.

It sure is. But I don't remember mentioning the articles in Playboy.

quote:
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.

No, they should learn that it isn't possible, and they should learn that long before they grow up.

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.

quote:
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.

It is not sheer fantasy.

There is a multi-billion dollar industry (cosmetics and cosmetic surgery) telling everyone that it is quite possible. There is even a reality show called The Swan based upon taking a "ugly" person and putting them through a great many surgical and other cosmetic procedures to make them beautiful. All of the people have been willing and eager to risk surgical complications purely for superficial, physical reasons.

I can also relate a personal story. About 10 years ago I was working at a specialty food shop in a different city. Most of the people who worked there were college-age women, although our assistant manager at the time was a little bit older. Almost to a woman, they were all very conventionally attractive with slender bodies, great skin, etc.

One day during a slow time the five of us were standing around and someone asked the question, "If money was no object, what cosmetic surgery would you get done?" Every single one of these very pretty women took the question completely seriously and started talking about liposuction, nose jobs, breast enlargements, etc. I piped up and said that I'd like to get a third eyeball in the back of my head so I could see in front of me and in back of me at the same time.

You should have seen the look they all gave me. The fact that I made this subject into a joke was not approved of.

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.

And I really can't blame them.

This message has been edited by schrafinator, 08-03-2005 03:54 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Silent H, posted 08-03-2005 12:26 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by arachnophilia, posted 08-03-2005 6:47 PM nator has responded
 Message 165 by Silent H, posted 08-04-2005 4:40 AM nator has responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 365 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 166 of 183 (229603)
08-04-2005 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by arachnophilia
08-03-2005 6:41 PM


quote:
yes. it's a STATUS SYMBOL.

Right. And that's what makes it more than Great Big Jugs magazine, more than just a magazine to masturbate to. Which was my point.

quote:
it's a status thing. and what you don't seem to realize is that most people know they will never be in the top 1%. it's kind of a tautology -- not everyone can be at the top. if they were, it'd be the middle.

There is a multi-billion dollar industry devoted to telling everyone, and often it is the truth, that they can make you more beautiful and desireable.

quote:
and the funny thing, as i've pointed out numerous times, playboy is NOT that certain way.

Well, then you are going to have an argument with both Holmes and I because he and I agree that the images of women in Playboy represent that which is considered beautiful and sexy to the most people in our culture. The mass market.

So Playboy IS that certain way.

quote:
and society is not telling people that they have to look a certain way to be accepted and loved by others.

So, most little boys aren't given toy trucks and most little girls aren't given dolls? oys aren't dressed in boy clothes and girls aren't dressed in girl clothes? Girls aren't taught that they should style their hair and shave their legs and armpits, and boys aren't taught to be good at sports and to want to be interested in electronics and machines?

quote:
hollywood, maybe. but most people know hollywood is full of shit.

why don't you?


Oh, I know that hollywood is full of shit, but I very strongly disagree that most people know that it is full of shit.

Otherwise, you wouldn't have thousands of young actors living in LA who are going to auditions, trying to be the next Courtney Cox or Tom Cruise.

It's becoming more and more acceptable and normal for everyday people to get cosmetic surgery. We are seeing more and more normal weight boys and men becoming worried about their weight, overexercising, taking steroids, and pining after having perfect washboard abs and huge pecs.

Is this not from the culture? I not, then where is it coming from?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by arachnophilia, posted 08-03-2005 6:41 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by arachnophilia, posted 08-04-2005 6:48 PM nator has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 365 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 167 of 183 (229607)
08-04-2005 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by arachnophilia
08-03-2005 6:47 PM


Come on.

You can't just completely dismiss my anecdote as completely meaningless.

If you asked a bunch of 5 year old girls the same question I'll bet none of them would have answered the same way. I think it's likely that they wouldn't want any surgery at all, because they haven't been in the culture long enough (and haven't hit puberty) to know that that their bodies are considered inadequate in some way.

I'll bet you would get a different answer from a group of attractive, fit college age men.

I'll bet a question like that would be very unlikely to even come up spontaneously among a group of attractive college age men.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by arachnophilia, posted 08-03-2005 6:47 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by arachnophilia, posted 08-04-2005 6:55 PM nator has responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 365 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 168 of 183 (229621)
08-04-2005 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by Silent H
08-04-2005 4:40 AM


quote:
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

No, some girls will grow up to be the basis of a Playmate. They can't grow up to look like a Playmate, because the images of the women on those pages have been significantly altered and enhanced, right?

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.

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.

quote:
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.

You have GOT to be kidding me!

Have you completely forgotten how the press was obsessed with Janet Reno's unattractiveness and the clothes she wore?

quote:
It is true that good looks can set the stage better for a career based on looks,

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.

In fact, I just worked a short consulting gig at the NYC Fancy Food Show last month where the person who had hired my business to hire people for her openly stated that she wanted attractive people. The person actually doing the interviews told us that and let us know that she wasn't about to make that a consideration when choosing. But it easily could have been if other people had been involved.

quote:
as well as people cutting you some slack in other areas of your life. But good looks do not guarantee you anything.

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 also read that when they were taken grocery shopping, more attractive babies are more likely to be buckled into grocery cart seats and less likely to be allowed out of their mothers' sight than less attractive babies.

quote:
And in any case it is certainly not necessary to look like a playmate in order to be found attractive.

No. But if you do, it's so much more the better. And there's lots of surgeons to help you get closer.

quote:
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.

No, they don't.

But it is what the mainstream (therefore the most people) uses as a definition.

quote:
Other people can be found beautiful, including to vast numbers of people. That is why Playboy competitors have succeeded by chucking Playboy's formula.

I wouldn't say that most of the people in the major skin mags which are Playboy's competitors look all that physically different from Playboy models. They just do different things and there's maybe more ethnic diversity. But they are pretty much all slender, tan, long-haired, young, long-legged.

quote:
Body dissatisfaction occurs to everyone, including the models.

Probably especially the models. When you are highly regarded primarily for your appearance, and any minute perceived imperfection is a basis for a potential employer rejecting you, it's got to be rough.

quote:
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.

Hmm, this reminds me of something I read about major depression.

30% of all Americans get at least one major depressive episode in their life, and that it seems a bit strange to call a condition that such a huge percentage of the population gets, a "mental illness." Perhaps it isn't really an abnormality; a mental illness. Maybe it's a natural, normal response to a damaging environment.

And this is what I have been talking about all along. 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.

quote:
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.

That is different. They weren't watching commercials with propaganda regarding Hussein and 9/11 since they were 4.

quote:
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.

I don't only blame TV and Playboy, but they are both cultural forces which reinforce the cultural beauty ideals.

Come on, though. Reality TV based upon turning ugly people into beautiful people through major surgery? There's two shows out there that do this, the Swan and Extreme Makeover. Don't you think cosmetic surgeons everywhere are rejoicing? Lots of free propaganda for their industry, and lots of reinforcement for the idea that you will be happier and more accepted if you are beautiful.

And they would be right.

quote:
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.

According to this culture, there aren't really that many forms of beauty.

This message has been edited by schrafinator, 08-04-2005 09:31 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Silent H, posted 08-04-2005 4:40 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Silent H, posted 08-04-2005 10:35 AM nator has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 365 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 169 of 183 (229639)
08-04-2005 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by Silent H
08-04-2005 4:40 AM


quote:
Body dissatisfaction occurs to everyone, including the models.

But why is body dissatisfaction so much greater in some places and not in others?

And has there been a sudden rash of bad parenting that just happened to coincide with the introduction of television in Fiji in 1995?

http://www.focusanthro.org/essays/yoder--03-04.html

Increased access to television has been shown to affect body image ideals. In Fiji, after the introduction of television in 1995, many young girls said they viewed themselves as overweight and began to display patterns of disordered eating, despite the fact that traditionally, the ideal body shape for Fijians has been more rotund (Becker 1999). The rapid transition in preferred body type is hypothesized to be a result of the inundation of images of thin women on the country’s only available channel, which broadcasts programs such as Melrose Place and ER. Anne Becker (1999) notes that many Fijians believe that these television shows represent real life in the United States, and that some young girls use the thin and attractive career women in these programs as role models.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Silent H, posted 08-04-2005 4:40 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Silent H, posted 08-04-2005 10:46 AM nator has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 365 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 175 of 183 (229937)
08-04-2005 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by arachnophilia
08-04-2005 6:55 PM


Don'ty have time to reply other than this little bit, but:
quote:
for one, they wouldn't be getting breast implants.

Sure they would.

Here's a before and after.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by arachnophilia, posted 08-04-2005 6:55 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by arachnophilia, posted 08-05-2005 10:53 AM nator has responded

    
Prev123
4
5Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019