Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 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 1 of 183 (222223)
07-06-2005 3:39 PM


In another thread, on the erosion of free speech and especially sexually graphic material, schraf entered into an argument against Playboy. To her Playboy is not just iconic as a part of sexual entertainment history, it is a big part of our culture which tells women to look unhealthy and dislike their bodies.
The thread was closed with two replies waiting for a reply from me. And so I continue the debate here...
There was a much wider range of male body types which were considered attractive and sexy. Now things are getting narrower for the men, and we see the resulting body dissatisfaction and abuse of steroids and incidence of eating disorders in boys and men as a result.
I'm not sure what you are talking about. In the past as well as now, the ideal man has been strong and fit.
Yes there was a broad range of body types that were found acceptable and sexy, but that is still true today with women.
You need to stick to a subject, are we dealing with the ideal (which is the most generally accepted, broadest appealing), or the actual range of what is found appealing?
Bullshit. Footbinding in China is the result of the progressive movement's effects in the US? Female Genitial Mutilation in Africa? Corsets in Europe?
Yep, that's Bullshit. I was talking about in the US. Last time I checked China, Africa, and Europe were not in the US.
In addition, I myself pointed out how footbinding, and now I will add all these others, are actually counterexamples to your own proposed mechanism: capitalism.
None of the above, with the possible exception of corsets (depends on how you want to define them) are the result of commercial capitalism. They are the result of societies pushing an ideal which some will choose to follow, or in some cases (like mutilation) must follow.
Footbinding is an especially good parallel to what I was suggesting the problem actually is: people losing the distinction between fantasy and reality. Footbinding began as an attempt to match a fantasy figure described in a book (or poetry, I forget).
My position has never been that the loss of distinction between fantasy and reality, or an enforcement of that problem by society at large, did not happen at any other time or place. My only position is that with regard to modern issues of body consciousness within the US, such that people in the US are obsessed with looks and perfection in general, we can trace it directly back to the Progressive movement.
You don't need fancy philosophy to figure out that if you can convince people they are inadequate, then you can sell them stuff that will make them more socially acceptable.
That's true. The problem is that fancy philosophical figures figured that same gimmick could be used to push their fancy philosophies and legal agendas. It has had a synergistic effect within US society.
If advertising didn't work, then advertising agencies wouldn't be paid such large amounts of money.
That is simply a mantra. The idea is to get brand names out into the public arena. That is why they get paid so much. Yes they can help distort facts or try and create more demand for something which is not necessary.
They cannot brainwash you, unless you let them.
It is natural and human nature for children to absorb what is expected of them from the culture around them.
I have already agreed that if a child's only cultural experiences and social environment was modern media, they would have a skewed conception about reality.
Which has been created.
Yes, by women wanting to change themselves. The desire came from within. The loss of self-satisfaction came from within, not from Playboy.
Children aren't born believing that their bodies are inadequate. They have to be taught that.
Actually this is not correct. Well sure children aren't born believing anything, but as they interact with the world they do become frustrated with what they perceive as limitations and defects. Indeed some individuals come to view no defects as defects.
The idea that beauty is the sole determiner of value is more likely instilled in children and teens by fairy tales and Disney movies, than Playboy. The women of value are always beautiful, and the men of value are always handsome. Evil is always ugly, save beauty and the beast, hunchback of Notre Dame (and I suppose Shrek).
The fact that people are forcing children to be "innocent" beings with some idyllic life based on fairy tales where everything ends "happily ever after" is a definite part of the problem. We used to believe children are raised into adults, now they are treated like treasured dolls who are marred by growing up "too soon". Hence little contact with reality, and forced into a stuffy fairy tale existence. No wonder there are increasing dissatisfactions.
That's like blaming a child who was raised in the south for having a southern accent.
Perhaps for continuing to have one, when it is realized that that accent is doing herself real harm and she can train herself to drop the accent.
It's a "the entire culture made me do it" argument.
So you agree with the antigay movement that increased tolerant messages about gays in the media, as well as depicting them in a positive light, will in fact change people to desire to be gay and try it out themselves?
Or that the overt violence of US entertainment is to blame for violence within the nation?
We are agreed that cultural elements are having ill effects, the question are which elements. Your suggestion is media saturation of specific ideals intent on selling product.
My suggestion is an environment where people (regardless of commercials) are stressing that one must attain ideals set by society or be considered failures, and that all ideals are attainable if one just tries hard enough (or are "good" enough). This is in addition to the victim culture created by traditional feminists and worked into a real art usable by many different factions.
But what if we actually ARE victims? Corporations don't particulary care about ethics or people, they just care about making profits.
I think that is really unfair. Not all corporations are bad. Not even the majority of them. While they are all about making profits, it does not have to be at the expense of ethics.
Weren't you the one backing me up on this very point against Tal?
Now, that doesn't mean they can't recover, but they were injured regardless. There is no shame in victimhood.
Yes there is. Don't be a victim. You can be victimized and so have been a victim in the past. If you allow that to make you a victim forever, then that is you victimizing yourself. Victimhood is a word which really creeps me out.
Don't you think I would love to completely erase my negative body obsessions and feel really confident and positive? I do feel great sometimes, and I consider that a victory, but I had to do the work to make that possible all on my own, as an adult, after the damage had been done. It's a lot more difficult to repair than build right in the first place.
That's true. It is always harder to build or rebuild, than to knock down, or get knocked down. Holding on to what "knocked you down" does not help you move on and build.
Frankly, I am insulted that you are basically denying my experience. I have a pretty good idea where my body image problems come from. And they are not my fault. I was just a little kid, or a teenager. I was impressionable, and my peers and the culture told me what I should believe about myself.
How can I be denying your experience? I have already said I had the same kind. The fact that you are still letting it get to you is YOUR problem. Just because you are a kid, and don't know better about something, does not mean that you can't have done something wrong and be held accountable for it.
It sounds like you had a lot of harassment. So did I, and I felt miserable. Perhaps the mistake I did not make was continuing to look for answers outside myself for internal validation. You seem to have latched on to feminism which allows you to gain validation through identifying yourself as victim, with some evil "culture" which injured you and which you need to change.
They are using you, and you do not need them. Not to mention you are hot and have successfully gained a partner which is all you set out to have, correct? These latter facts mean that you were not injured in any real way.
The environment we live in here in the US screams at us from nearly every rooftop that our physical appearence (particularly for women) is of very high importance, and that normal female body fat is to be feared and hated.
Don't confuse commercial media with "the environment". Yes, if that is all a kid is exposed to as an environment then that kid is about to have some setbacks. But that is the fault of the parents for not providing a real environment.
You say that you are trying to reject that culture, and so am I, but it's hard, isn't it?
It is hard to get others to evaluate themselves and change their ways. It is not hard for me to analyze what is being said to me and not take it badly. I do not like the fact that I am not generally attractive and so am denied the attention I would like to receive. That can get very depressing. But that does not mean that I am objectively unattractive, nor that attractiveness is some objectively important criteria for success.
I certainly do not take it personally when most guys in the media look different than me and I recognize that generally people think they look better than me. I can even think they look better than me, and not get depressed about that.
regarding Ann Nicole Smith... Not when she was in Playboy. She was quite small-waisted and had a flat stomach, but had much more of a womanly body instead of a teenage boy body... She was remarkable because she was a departure from the trend away from curvy women in Playboy and fashion.
She is an example of what I am talking about. I don't believe she was a playmate. You may say she was remarkable as a departure, but my question to you is based on what experience that you have with Playboy?
As I have stated numerous times at this point, they have featured an array of body types. With the exceptions I noted, so yes no very large women, there is plenty of different looks one can get from Playboy and so no concrete ideal one must have in mind. You (and now gnojek) have brought up this blonde thing. If Playboy was such an influential dictator of preference, and had this strong bias, how did I as an avid user, manage to pick up the exact opposite taste?
The answer is simple, there really are other kinds of girls in Playboy, and I kept my disinterest (preferences) just the same.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by nator, posted 07-08-2005 8:48 AM Silent H has replied

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


Message 2 of 183 (222543)
07-08-2005 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
07-06-2005 3:39 PM


quote:
I'm not sure what you are talking about. In the past as well as now, the ideal man has been strong and fit.
But not with washboard abs and huge pecs and very low body fat. And a thin man without a lot of muscle could be sexy, too, like Mick Jagger. Or really large men with considerable body fat, like football players.
Now that men are being shown images like Markey Marks's underwear ad all over the place they are starting to feel the pressures that women have felt.
And that's why we are seeing more steriod abuse, eating disorders, cosmetic surgery, and body dissatisfaction in males in our culture.
quote:
Yes there was a broad range of body types that were found acceptable and sexy, but that is still true today with women.
No, it really isn't. At least, not from my perspective. Sure, you can point me to those websites where the nerdy girls with glasses are featured but this seems like more of a fetish than anything else.
quote:
The problem is that fancy philosophical figures figured that same gimmick could be used to push their fancy philosophies and legal agendas. It has had a synergistic effect within US society.
So you say, but I'm not really buying it yet. I think it's the money that is the impetus. Capitalism combined with the lingering effects of a past where a woman's only power in a male-dominated culture was her beauty, and a more recent effects of male whim determining what they found beautiful in the female form.
quote:
The idea is to get brand names out into the public arena. That is why they get paid so much. Yes they can help distort facts or try and create more demand for something which is not necessary.
They cannot brainwash you, unless you let them.
You are using purposefully extreme language to downplay advertising's highly influential role in our culture. EVERYONE, even you, is influenced by advertising and the culture, even if you are media savvy. It's just a matter of degree.
You don't need to brainwash people to have a noticeable effect. Clearly, we see a measurable, noticeable negative affect upon women's self-image when they look at fashion magazines, but they are not brainwashed.
However, if a person was shown thousands and thousands of such images from the time they were a small child, in many forms, it becomes part of them, and therefore perpetuated through the culture at large.
I have already agreed that if a child's only cultural experiences and social environment was modern media, they would have a skewed conception about reality.
But kids take what they learn from the media and apply it to themselves, which means they bring it to "real life". My niece LOVED Britney Spears and Christina Aguillera when she was 8 years old, and couldn't understand why she wasn't allowed to dress like them. She loved the Olsen twins at the same time and couldn't understand why she wasn't allowed to wear high heels and tight mini dresses like they did (I think the wins were around 13 years old at the time).
This girl hardly watches any TV, was going to a great elementary school, has very intelligent, involved parents who do a great job raising her, but she was still heavily influenced by the culture and wanted to be just like the pop and TV stars of the day.
Was she brainwashed?
It's a "the entire culture made me do it" argument.
quote:
So you agree with the antigay movement that increased tolerant messages about gays in the media, as well as depicting them in a positive light, will in fact change people to desire to be gay and try it out themselves?
Yes, sort of.
I don't think it will turn people gay who aren't, but I do think it will allow less shame to be felt if people explore homosexual feelings they already have. IOW, I believe that lots of people are capable or responding sexually to both genders and that a gay-positive culture will allow all of those people more freedom to express their sexuality.
quote:
Or that the overt violence of US entertainment is to blame for violence within the nation?
I think we have a greater tolerance for violence in the US, particularly anonymous violence, because of our violence-saturated media, yes. I am not sure if this means a greater amount of violence is caused by our increased callousness towards it, but it believe there is a correlation.
quote:
The idea that beauty is the sole determiner of value is more likely instilled in children and teens by fairy tales and Disney movies, than Playboy. The women of value are always beautiful, and the men of value are always handsome. Evil is always ugly, save beauty and the beast, hunchback of Notre Dame (and I suppose Shrek).
Don't forget, the villian in Snow white was beautiful, and actually dressed up as a ugly hag to be less threatening to give Snow White the poison apple.
But in general, I agree that Disney is part of the problem.
Of course, Disney movies are clearly not real people. They are cartoons. Photographs of real women are a lot easier to compare oneself to. That's why they show the before and after photographs on the weight loss and cosmetic surgery ads.
quote:
Perhaps for continuing to have one, when it is realized that that accent is doing herself real harm and she can train herself to drop the accent.
So then do you agree that the culture gives children a body image "accent" that is harmful?
I think that is really unfair. Not all corporations are bad. Not even the majority of them. While they are all about making profits, it does not have to be at the expense of ethics.
It is often at the expense of ethics, sorry. The larger the corporations are, the worse the ethics, usually.
I talk to lots of business people who come through the store, attend the seminars, and also people who came to work for my company because they wanted to leave the unethical, impersonal corporate world behind.
Corporations are not generally encouraged to be ethical, particularly if they are publically held. If they were, we wouldn't need government oversight, OSHA, a minimum wage law, child labor laws, anti-trust law, etc. etc. etc.
I work for an ethical company, and we are unusual. That's why we get written about in the business magazines.
quote:
Yes there is. Don't be a victim. You can be victimized and so have been a victim in the past. If you allow that to make you a victim forever, then that is you victimizing yourself. Victimhood is a word which really creeps me out.
OK, so let me rephrase. There is no shame in having been victimized. there is also no shame in being injured, and those injuries having lasting effects. Lastly, there is no shame in never fully recovering from your injuries.
You never asked to be victimized nor injured. You may be left with scars.
quote:
Holding on to what "knocked you down" does not help you move on and build.
The problem is, though, that while I am pretty sure I have identified what "knocked me down" in the first place, lots of people, including you, deny it outright. You instead want to blame what got me to even realize that it wasn't me that was at fault in the first place. You would like me to reject the lifeline that Naomi Wolf's "The Beauty Myth" threw me 15 years ago.
quote:
She (Anna Nicole Smith) is an example of what I am talking about. I don't believe she was a playmate.
Dude, not only was she a Playmate, she was Playmate Of the Year in 1993.
What you call a "variety" of looks in Playboy pretty much look the same to me. I've flipped through it a few times and looked at the website coverpages.
Come on, can you really say that the looks portrayed are widely varied? I don't mean that a few times a year they feature a black woman with hair extensions.
Oh, and I found these weight ranges for 5'6" women.
linl 117-154
link114-145
link125-174
link(in shoes) 120 to 133 lb light frame, 130 to 144 lb medium frame, 140 to 159 lb heavy frame
So, you can see that the average Playmate is at the very low end of normal, but only for some of the ranges. She is below normal on others. And, since we are using an average, that means that a fair portion of the playmates are actually below ideal or normal for their height.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-08-2005 09:17 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 07-06-2005 3:39 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Silent H, posted 07-08-2005 11:19 AM nator has replied

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


Message 3 of 183 (222565)
07-08-2005 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by nator
07-08-2005 8:48 AM


But not with washboard abs and huge pecs and very low body fat. And a thin man without a lot of muscle could be sexy, too, like Mick Jagger. Or really large men with considerable body fat, like football players.
You continue to flit between men that are found attractive and men that are found attractive as an ideal. Mick Jagger... besides his fame... is not an ideal. Huge football players are also not an ideal.
I have know clue what you are talking about regarding Marky Mark. It is true that there is more imagery of men for the purposes of attracting women in commerce than there was in the past, and thus more showing of ideals. That is because women are becoming more of a target consumer base attracted by sexual appeals (a given for men in the past).
It is the increased concern with physical beauty in general (look at queer eye for the straight guy) which is now accepted by men. Images themselves did nothing. Indeed I would not want to look like Marky Mark.
No, it really isn't. At least, not from my perspective.
Yes it really is, and your perspective is skewed. Just as you pointed out the range (from thin to fat) of men that are attractive to women, so goes it for women that are attractive to men. The absolute mainstream generally limit themselves to the mainstream and so the narrow range closest to the ideal.
That is why "nerdy girls" type sites will look like fetish sites if you view anything outside of mainstream as fetish. What it is is independent, and so catering to markets outside the large corporate owned media which by its nature will focus on mainstream.
By the way, I was only trying to find sites which focused on posing models. If you wander into actual sex sites, then there are many many many indies devoted to normal looking women as they are run by normal looking couples. Most are a little older and a little heavier.
Capitalism combined with the lingering effects of a past where a woman's only power in a male-dominated culture was her beauty, and a more recent effects of male whim determining what they found beautiful in the female form.
Avoiding a lengthy discussion of how wrong this is from my own understanding, I would like to ask you what else is supposed to drive what men find beautiful in women except male whims?
You are using purposefully extreme language to downplay advertising's highly influential role in our culture. EVERYONE, even you, is influenced by advertising and the culture, even if you are media savvy. It's just a matter of degree.
Heheheh... I should have put the word "brainwashing" in quotes as I took it from you. Go back and check out the part of your post that I was referring to.
I do agree people are influenced by advertising, but more important than a matter of degree is a matter of how they are influenced.
I don't believe people get their notions of what must be beautiful from those alone, unless that is all they are surrounded with as an environment. Until advertising is our entire environment, your scenario just isn't true.
Clearly, we see a measurable, noticeable negative affect upon women's self-image when they look at fashion magazines, but they are not brainwashed.
How do people feel after hearing a beautiful performance by someone younger than them, or just plain look into the sky and think of how vast it is? Usually small and lesser in comparison.
If you view someone that you think is more beautiful than you, and dwell on that fact, then you are likely to feel down. If you don't think they are more beautiful then no matter how much everyone says so (and the pictures appear everywhere) you will likely not feel bad. In any case, dwelling on such things is the bad habit which must be addressed.
Was she brainwashed?
Yes she was. A girl found something that she thought was beautiful and interesting, and then a bunch of grownups told her it was "inappropriate" for her to find it beautiful and interesting. She was taught (explicitly or otherwise) that looks have meaning and she would have to conform rather than simply enjoy what she liked.
Unless you are going to argue that a child couldn't have found those looks beautiful and interesting without some form of social coercion, and so the relatives were "saving" this girl from some dire fashion fate?
Frankly I am at a loss for understanding why she inherently couldn't wear those outfits.
I think we have a greater tolerance for violence in the US, particularly anonymous violence, because of our violence-saturated media
I thought you liked Michael Moore? Have you not seen Bowling for Columbine? The idea that violence saturated media leads to anything is completely disproven... same goes for sex in media. The Japanese for example have violence in media second to NONE, yet have smaller rates of violence.
I am greatly saddened to see you believing there is even a possible connection.
Of course, Disney movies are clearly not real people. They are cartoons. Photographs of real women are a lot easier to compare oneself to. That's why they show the before and after photographs on the weight loss and cosmetic surgery ads.
This is true but for kids fantasy and reality are more mixed, which is why parents providing an environment where they learn the difference is important. The problem is that Disney is being used as a babysitter and pretty much has its messages replayed by parents and the "real people" which make up the rest of their environment. Pressure to reach ideals and conform is pretty great right now.
I don't think kids are that much affected by cosmetic ads.
So then do you agree that the culture gives children a body image "accent" that is harmful?
Yes and no. I do agree that a child can be raised in an environment such that it is likely (boy or girl) to have body issues, or problems which lead to body issues later, that can be detrimental.
I do not hold "culture" to blame, as parents are supposed to be raising their kids and not the market place or society at large. If the parents fail at that, then that is their fault.
If a child turns out with these habits it is a shame. Most will NOT have problems like this, but those that do are tragic. It will be upon them to learn how to overcome their problem, not on everyone else to dumb down their lives to fit that person's issues.
It is often at the expense of ethics, sorry. The larger the corporations are, the worse the ethics, usually.
I cannot agree with your position, though neither can I offer evidence to disprove it. I will agree that corporations are more impersonal as they grow bigger, and they are not encouraged to be ethical.
There is oversight not because they are more likely to be unethical or that they are intrinsically unethical, but that that is how you prevent certain unethical actions from occuring.
I really do agree that modern corporate capitalism raises problems, but I find them to be much more practical problems, than what you are describing.
You never asked to be victimized nor injured. You may be left with scars.
Absolutely. But it is wrong to then live your life focused on those scars and trying to "fix" the world so that others will not have those same scars, by blaming culture as a whole and demanding they change what they like.
If your injury is that you have come to hate yourself and want to alter yourself, because of broadcasts regarding what other people like the best, then it is partly your fault and that is entirely where you should focus your attention on what to fix.
You instead want to blame what got me to even realize that it wasn't me that was at fault in the first place. You would like me to reject the lifeline that Naomi Wolf's "The Beauty Myth" threw me 15 years ago.
I don't mean to say that there was no value in feminist literature such that you could not gain by it. The problem is not realizing, once you are moving on to health, that it has some problems and you can let go of it. Its sort of like never removing the training wheels and getting angry with people who tell you you don't need them anymore.
Have you ever read the Autobiography of Malcolm X? That is a great parallel. He was "saved" by militant black Islam. There is absolutely no question that it took him out of a very bad situation, believing in certain stereotypes that he would perpetuate, and gave him power to break racial oppression. Despite all that it did for him, he then researched actual Islam and his own movement only to discover great flaws, devastating flaws and so broke with that very thing that "saved him", because there was something still better that he could move on to.
Malcolm X is one of my greatest heroes for that very reason. Always question, even the people and ideas that helped you up and beyond your current situation. There is perhaps something higher still.
Dude, not only was she a Playmate, she was Playmate Of the Year in 1993.
Ahhhh, my error. I had not realized she was a Playmate. I thought she had been just a celebrity shoot. I will admit that there are periods where I have not followed Playboy. That year (and a few around it) I was immersed in grad school and barely had time for a movie (and never watched TV).
What you call a "variety" of looks in Playboy pretty much look the same to me. I've flipped through it a few times and looked at the website coverpages.
They vary well beyond the stereotype you mentioned. One thing that can be annoying is the similar way they look in that they are almost always lit the same way and have make-up. As I said before, they do not run the gamut of all attractive looks, which is exactly why it had competition and still does today.
So, you can see that the average Playmate is at the very low end of normal, but only for some of the ranges. She is below normal on others. And, since we are using an average, that means that a fair portion of the playmates are actually below ideal or normal for their height.
Actually I had gone out looking for lists on my own, and discovered that there were a number of different ones and ways to break them down (beyond height and weight). I also saw an interesting discussion on where some of the first tables came from. I have to admit a general skepticism about them at this point.
That said I did discover, and so agree with you that the Playmate average certainly does hit the low-ideal to low-unhealthy range, depending on the table. I'm not quite sure what conclusion to draw from that beyond that the average is of low weight as I am now dubious about tables in general and even if I wasn't, I'm not sure which to go with. As long as they are within a healthy range, I don't see why there is a problem if the average is low.
Certainly it does suggest that some models are too thin for their own good. You can see that with the Barbi Twins, who actually make me queazy to look at. No matter how much Hef and others said they looked great, they look like skeletons to me. Though I should add that they do have an eating disorder and are aware of it and are trying to deal with it privately, so I don't mean to be making fun of them or their condition.
I might note that they had their disorder before they became models. It was a counter reaction to initial overeating problems. They did not try to do this to themselves to become models or what others wanted. (I just saw a doc on them and their eating disorder last week).

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 2 by nator, posted 07-08-2005 8:48 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by nator, posted 07-14-2005 10:20 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 7 by nator, posted 07-15-2005 9:37 AM Silent H has replied

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


Message 4 of 183 (223722)
07-14-2005 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Silent H
07-08-2005 11:19 AM


I may not have time to make a full reply, but I will make a few responses.
quote:
You continue to flit between men that are found attractive and men that are found attractive as an ideal. Mick Jagger... besides his fame... is not an ideal. Huge football players are also not an ideal.
But that's my point. Mick Jagger types and big football player types were considered very attractive by women for a long time even though they did not fit an idealized image. In fact, there wasn't much of an idea that men should or should want to strive to fit that ideal, except perhaps the ideal of being tall.
quote:
I have know clue what you are talking about regarding Marky
Mark.
This is the famous ad which was groundbreaking in that it was just as gratuitious and unattainable as the ads featuring women AND was supposed to appeal to everyone; women and both gay and straight men.
quote:
It is true that there is more imagery of men for the purposes of attracting women in commerce than there was in the past, and thus more showing of ideals.
Uh, but the Marky Mark ad is for men's underwear. It's supposed to sell to men by telling them that they will look that sexy in those undies. More to the point, it clearly is telling men what is sexy and attractive.
quote:
It is the increased concern with physical beauty in general (look at queer eye for the straight guy) which is now accepted by men. Images themselves did nothing. Indeed I would not want to look like Marky Mark.
If I were a man I would think that looking like Marky Mark would be pretty great. As a woman I certainly appreciate his body. Are you seriously telling me that that washboard abs and big pecs aren't totally "in" for men now?
quote:
I would like to ask you what else is supposed to drive what men find beautiful in women except male whims?
Let me ask you if you think that male whims are not affected by the culture they live in?
In some cultures women's breasts are not considered sexual body parts in the least. Are you sugesting that each individual male in that culture came up with that idea independently from every other male in the world and that they all just happen to live in the same area is just a coincidence?
quote:
If you view someone that you think is more beautiful than you, and dwell on that fact, then you are likely to feel down. If you don't think they are more beautiful then no matter how much everyone says so (and the pictures appear everywhere) you will likely not feel bad. In any case, dwelling on such things is the bad habit which must be addressed.
It's not that simple. The message being put out is that it is very important to be beautiful if you want to be happy, successful, and desireable. The magazines also clearly are meant to define beauty, and they clearly do a good job with that in our culture.
quote:
A girl found something that she thought was beautiful and interesting, and then a bunch of grownups told her it was "inappropriate" for her to find it beautiful and interesting.
It is inappropriate for an 8 year old to want to dress and act in a way our culture perceives as extremely sexually provocative when she is 5 years away from her first period.
quote:
She was taught (explicitly or otherwise) that looks have meaning and she would have to conform rather than simply enjoy what she liked.
In our culture, looks do have meaning. We are very social, visual creatures who like to categorize things.
If someone is walking down the street wearing a police officer's uniform, it means they are most likely a police officer.
If a young woman is walking down some random street in a see-through catsuit and thigh-high patent leather spike heeled boots, it is reasonable to assume she is probably sexually available, possibly for a price.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-14-2005 10:22 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Silent H, posted 07-08-2005 11:19 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by roxrkool, posted 07-14-2005 11:45 AM nator has replied
 Message 9 by Silent H, posted 07-15-2005 11:30 AM nator has not replied

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


Message 5 of 183 (223729)
07-14-2005 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by nator
07-14-2005 10:20 AM


While I think the media isn't terribly socially responsible, I personally don't blame them for doing their job - which is to show us what we want. Altough I do think they cater to men a little too much.
Humans are naturally attracted to beautiful things. How long has this been a part of our nature? Probably thousands of years.
I guess the way I see it, I might have been more incluenced as a kid and young adult, but the power of the media is lessened as I mature. I now realize how the media completely distorts reality, almost to the point of fantasy.
They can show me pictures of Marky Mark with his six-pack belly all day long, but it won't change the fact that I am not attracted to him. Sure he's good looking and has a nice body, but it does nothing for me. My own tastes have developed over time because of personal experiences and maturity.
Now that doesn't mean I don't appreciate Brad Pitt in a baby blue leisure suit, but a pretty face and hard body are secondary to a man's character. And having talked to my female friends about this, most of them agree. I've been attracted to men who weren't particularly handsome simply because he had a good heart and great senes of humor. All of a sudden, he became beautiful - literally. I didn't see his flaws as ugly, but as evidence of the life he's lived.
I personally don't think it's fair to blame the media. To me, that's akin to the wife-beater blaming his behavior on his dad. As adults, we are capable of making the right decisions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by nator, posted 07-14-2005 10:20 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by nator, posted 07-15-2005 1:44 AM roxrkool has replied

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


Message 6 of 183 (223843)
07-15-2005 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by roxrkool
07-14-2005 11:45 AM


Of course we are attracted to beauty. That's normal and natural.
But what is beauty, and why has it's definition changed so much, especially for women, over time?
I disagree that the media shows us only what we want. The media is also responsible for telling us what we should want, too. It does both.
For instance, holmes mentioned the bulimic Barbi twins and how unattractive he found them, despite the fact that Hefner and many others promoted them to the world as exceptionally beautiful.
They were wildly successful, had swimsuit calenders, posters, were Playboy Playmates, etc., so clearly lots and lots of men found them very attractive, yet the whole time they had a terrible eating disorder.
So, does this mean that lots and lots of men in America just happen to think underweight, plastic-looking women are the height of attractiveness?
Or, is it possible that the culture strongly influences people from a very early age to find "socially acceptable" bodies attractive and unacceptable ones unattractive?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by roxrkool, posted 07-14-2005 11:45 AM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by roxrkool, posted 07-15-2005 8:38 PM nator has replied
 Message 15 by arachnophilia, posted 07-16-2005 4:39 AM nator has replied

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


Message 7 of 183 (223899)
07-15-2005 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Silent H
07-08-2005 11:19 AM


quote:
I don't think kids are that much affected by cosmetic ads.
Based upon what data do you think this?
I found the following:
link
Weaned on Sesame Street and reading Seventeen from the ages of 10 or 11, adolescent girls "are tuned into the subliminal and superliminal messages of the media (which is) everywhere today," says Michael Levine, a psychologist and media activist with a 15-year-old daughter at Kenyon College in Ohio.
Here are the "in-your-face" messages they absorb: Beauty is a woman's principal project in life. Slenderness is crucial for success and goodness. Image is really substance. Women are naturally self-conscious and anxious about, and bound up with, their bodies. Fat is a transparent sign of personal responsibility for weakness, failure and helplessness.
A willing and winning woman can transform and renew herself through the technology of fashion, dieting and rigorous exercise.
"They tend to set up a conditioning that facilitates negative body imaging and a strange relationship with one's body," Levine states. "If you want a recipe for the loss of who you are as a person, focus on boys, mirrors, size and scales."
link
Studies of prime-time television indicate that programs are dominated by people with thin body types and thinness is consistently associated with favorable personality traits.
Similarly, those who say they've been diagnosed with an eating disorder report being highly influenced by fashion models. Forty-three percent compare themselves to models in magazines; 45 percent scrutinize the shapes of models. Forty-nine percent say very thin models make them feel insecure about themselves, and 48 percent say they "make me want to lose weight to be like them."
Clearly, body satisfaction, a rather rare commodity, confers relative immunity to media influence. But the existence of a large number of women who are drawn to media imagery but resent the unreality of those images is cause for concern. It suggests they are experiencing an uncomfortable level of entrapment. We wonder how long it will take for their resentment to be unleashed full force on the fashion industry and/or the media -- and in what form.
Psychiatrists and psychologists have also weighed in on the meaning of body image issues. At the 1996 meeting of the American Psychological Association, Yale psychiatrist Alan Feingold, M.D, received an award for detailing differences in body-image pressures on men and women. Dr. Feingold contends that pressure on women to look good is not only growing but reflects intensified competition for dwindling resources; after all, looks confer a kind of status to women.
While body hatred tends to stay at about the same level as women age, today's young women may be more vulnerable to self-disparagement as they get older. They are being initiated into feelings of body dissatisfaction at a tender age, and this early programming may be difficult to undo.
link
Survey, correlational, randomized control, and covariance structure modeling investigations indicate that the media are a significant factor in the development and maintenance of eating and shape-related disorders. One specific individual difference variable, internalization of societal pressures regarding prevailing standards of attractiveness, appears to moderate or even mediate the media's effects on women's body satisfaction and eating dysfunction. Problematic media messages inherent in existing media portrayals of eating disorders are apparent, leading researchers to pinpoint intervention strategies that might counteract such viewpoints. Social activism and social marketing approaches are suggested as methods for fighting negative media messages. The media itself is one potential vehicle for communicating productive, accurate, and deglamorized messages about eating and shape-related disorders.
This hypothesis blames the changing cultural trends in female body shape for why women strive to be thin. Thinness and fragility became feminine ideals in the nineteenth century amongst middle class women. In the 1960s and 1970s, models such as Twiggy were given a high profile and their svelte-like appearance became a part of popular culture (Hepworth 1999). Not only has this ideal continued to be very prominent in modern Western culture but it is now supported by a mass media (Ponto 1995) and a multimillion dollar diet industry. 'Calorie-counting', 'dieting' and 'weight-watching' have become idioms of the language of an industry that has encouraged a preoccupation with dieting and slimness amongst Western women (Hepworth 1999).
As a corollary to these cultural values, the expected cultural reasons to be given by an anorectic individual (for their deliberate food refusal) are based on a fear of fatness and a wish to be thin in order to live up to these social ideals. The thinness-as-beauty hypothesis is so popular that fat-phobia has been included in diagnostic criteria used to diagnose anorectics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Silent H, posted 07-08-2005 11:19 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Silent H, posted 07-15-2005 2:17 PM nator has not replied
 Message 11 by arachnophilia, posted 07-15-2005 5:58 PM nator has replied

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


Message 8 of 183 (223906)
07-15-2005 10:26 AM


This says a lot
link

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


Message 9 of 183 (223915)
07-15-2005 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by nator
07-14-2005 10:20 AM


But that's my point. Mick Jagger types and big football player types were considered very attractive by women for a long time even though they did not fit an idealized image.
You appear to continue missing MY point. Yes those other people were found attractive, but that does not indicate they were because of their body being close to the ideal body type.
Don Knotts and Mick Jagger look a like, but Don Knotts was not found attractive AT ALL. Jagger was attractive because of his singing and money. Same goes for football players.
If this is what you want to get into, then women have the same thing. Men do find rich, or successful (famous), or intelligent women attractive, despite their not having the ideal body type.
As soon as you can honestly tell me that Jagger or "the Fridge" Perry would have been considered "sexy" at all, besides from the money and fame they got outside of their looks, then we can talk. Or that no guys are attracted to rich and famous women.
Uh, but the Marky Mark ad is for men's underwear. It's supposed to sell to men by telling them that they will look that sexy in those undies. More to the point, it clearly is telling men what is sexy and attractive
I don't see how that pic was groundbreaking. Are you seriously saying there were no skimpy dressed men in ads before this? Or are you saying before this they were looking like Jason Alexander?
In any case what it was trying to do was sell underwear. It did so by portraying it next to, or rather on, and object that they figured people would be attracted to. If they thought most people found Bill Cosby attractive, then they'd have tried for him.
They certainly failed with me. He's okay looking, but not my type at all. And the underwear sucks (IMO). Not one second did I think to compare myself with him, or think I am less adequate because of that pic. Although I suppose I could say I'd rather look like him than me, I know for sure I'd rather look like someone else than him.
If I were a man I would think that looking like Marky Mark would be pretty great. As a woman I certainly appreciate his body. Are you seriously telling me that that washboard abs and big pecs aren't totally "in" for men now?
Could it be then that you are projecting how you view the world on others?
I can seriously tell you that most men I know don't have washboards and big pecs and aren't really concerned about getting them. I do realize they are a rage right now in imagery. I realize some women like them.
On the flip side, are you seriously telling me that you believe men without big pecs and washboards are unattractive, or that you have to have a man with them? If not, then why can't we be like you?
Let me ask you if you think that male whims are not affected by the culture they live in?
Affected, absolutely. Completely, not at all. Something that cannot change, no way. Something worth caring about, never.
Culture is the definition we give to a group based on the similarity of their interests, or activities. This is generally geographic and the people have influenced each other based on that. New and extraneous inputs happen all the time and can thus change culture.
This raises the question of if your problem is with culture and its ability to affect change in a person, and that's what you want to fight... or what that culture holds interesting right now? If the former, why and how? If the latter, why?
Wouldn't it be easier to help people learn to think for themselves, than force all cultures into what you think should be the ideal?
It's not that simple. The message being put out is that it is very important to be beautiful if you want to be happy, successful, and desireable. The magazines also clearly are meant to define beauty, and they clearly do a good job with that in our culture.
This did not refute my point at all. Let's try again. If you find someone unattractive, no matter how much you see that person broadcast as attractive, you are unlikely to think they are attractive. I'll admit if you had some bigoted feelings they may mellow, and so then you are open to an attraction unavailable before, but that is different.
I want this to be very clear. If your argument is true, then if we suddenly inundate media with only images of Roseanne Barr and always call her beautiful then people will simply come to believe that that body type is the most beautiful and try to attain it instead of other body types. You really feel that is true?
It is inappropriate for an 8 year old to want to dress and act in a way our culture perceives as extremely sexually provocative when she is 5 years away from her first period.
Congratulations on the brainwashing. You have taught her conformity to visual judgements of her appearance are important. Sexuality, and social provocativeness, can be measured by looks and SHOULD be measured by looks. And that culture is important to follow and not change.
All she was was a kid wanting to dress the way she liked. You added the value and told her that that was the value she was to take from it. Indeed look at what you wrote above, it wasn't even okay for her to "want" to dress in a way that society deems sexually provocative.
That is unless she really wanted to dress sexually provocatively... which opens up a whole other discussion.
If a young woman is walking down some random street in a see-through catsuit and thigh-high patent leather spike heeled boots, it is reasonable to assume she is probably sexually available, possibly for a price.
Believe it or not that was a comedy routine by Chappelle or Rock. While you are correct that that will happen, the question of that being appropriate to do and something that one can use to actually judge others is not.
If you make the above claim as if that is appropriate, then you have already supported racial profiling, judging people as "gay" based on dress and manners, and even judging people as beautiful based on dress and appearance.

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 4 by nator, posted 07-14-2005 10:20 AM nator has not replied

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


Message 10 of 183 (223937)
07-15-2005 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by nator
07-15-2005 9:37 AM


Based upon what data do you think this?
Actually it was an anecdotal thing. I myself never noticed cosmetic ads, and most people I knew weren't pointing out cosmetic ads... with the possible exception of acne medications.
Were you gripped by cosmetic ads when your were growing up?
I found the following:
First of all none of these actually support your position, if you are trying to address kids being affected by cosmetic ads.
Second, assuming they were meant as support for your generic position, when I went to the articles (all except the last one which required a paid subcription), they had statements which supported my position.
We have been down this road before, and it amazes me every time. Will you admit that there is conflicting statements within these articles. some of which support my own position? How about that some of them had methodological or data interpretational issues?
I think we both know that this is the case, which is why certain quotes from these articles and greater analyses do not appear in your post.
If you say you thoroughly stand by these articles as supporting your position, and so force my hand to actually take them apart, I will. But I am unlikely to respond to any of your citations again. It has to be nearly 100% of the time that you give me poor references (on social studies), and I am tired of going after them.
This is not to say I don't want you to post studies, but you need to improve your assessment and posting of them.
The last one may have been okay, but like I said, I didn't have anything to read except the synopsis. I'd point out in the short segment you posted, it included a point in favor of what my position is. I'd like to see more.
The other post you had with a link was even more useless. What am I supposed to say about a plastic surgeon's advertising? What I did find interesting is where he did his advertising. It wasn't in sexual magazines at all. Did you notice that on his site?
Let me know if you'll cop to the not complete support of these articles to your position, or if you really want me to dig into them.

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 7 by nator, posted 07-15-2005 9:37 AM nator has not replied

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


Message 11 of 183 (223988)
07-15-2005 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by nator
07-15-2005 9:37 AM


alright, let's look at some pictures.
based around this principle: the men-viewing-women phenominon.
Here are the "in-your-face" messages they absorb: Beauty is a woman's principal project in life.
so what are we to extrapolate from earlier in-your-face depictions of female beauty? i suggest we look at some. for instance, this gem is blatantly not true in the past:
Fat is a transparent sign of personal responsibility for weakness, failure and helplessness.
anyways. i'll start with one picture. we'll compare it to playboy, and the average woman, whatever that is. so here's the one i'll start with:
botticelli's "birth of venus"
now, i've selected this for two very specific reasons. the most obvious being that venus is the goddess of love and beauty. she represents the female ideal. the second might be less obvious. look at her proportions, especially her neck:
is that realistic? in fact, is any of her realistic? look at those proportions. i'm pretty sure her breast is actually a perfect circle. her shoulders are basically nonexistant, and her limbs huge and extended. her face is incredibly long, and has this blank serene look on it. all of her features are precisely placed, highly symetrical. she's got longer hair than anyone i've ever seen.
is botticelli portraying a realistic ideal? what do you think young girls looking at his art in the late 15th century thought?
as a contrast, here's this year's playmate of the year, tiffany fallon:
which one is promoting an unhealthy image? just for comparison, of course, here's what she looks like minus airbrushing, and photographic trickery and setup.
which image is less modified from life? which ideal is more realistic?
edited by AdminJar to downsize pictures.
This message has been edited by AdminJar, 07-15-2005 05:00 PM

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by nator, posted 07-15-2005 9:37 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by nator, posted 07-15-2005 7:13 PM arachnophilia has replied

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


Message 12 of 183 (224000)
07-15-2005 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by arachnophilia
07-15-2005 5:58 PM


Re: alright, let's look at some pictures.
Which one is a image of an actual real human being and which one is a painting of an imaginary goddess?
Gods are, by nature, perfect and their perfection is unattainable by humans. It's easy to understand that a painting is purely an idea, able to be manipulated.
Other human beings, and the woman in your photos, are actual, real people, despite the photographic manipulation. In addition, it is not at all obvious to young people (or many adults) that the photos are being manipulated. I mean,. it's mot like they have a warning label: "Model in picture doesn't actually look anything like this picture. Please do not attempt this at home."
The companies selling such imagery, including Playboy, want men and women to think that these are real perfect specimens.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by arachnophilia, posted 07-15-2005 5:58 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by arachnophilia, posted 07-16-2005 4:09 AM nator has replied

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


Message 13 of 183 (224014)
07-15-2005 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by nator
07-15-2005 1:44 AM


shraf writes:
Of course we are attracted to beauty. That's normal and natural.
But what is beauty, and why has it's definition changed so much, especially for women, over time?
I guess I don't think 'beauty,' as in facial beauty, has changed overmuch through time. What I think has changed over time, and which may be culturally controlled, is body shape. Some cultures value/favor larger women, others favor tall women, and others favor petite women.
Why the differences? Possibly due to very sensible reasons. Women with large hips and breasts appear to be better mothers and in a culture that values and respects motherhood, those women become the ideal. In a culture that values and respects strength, perhaps tall and muscular women are the ideal. In a culture that values hardiness, perhaps petite women become the ideal.
These days, our culture, and others, value fitness and we've determined that slimmer women are more healthy than larger women.
I disagree that the media shows us only what we want. The media is also responsible for telling us what we should want, too. It does both.
For instance, holmes mentioned the bulimic Barbi twins and how unattractive he found them, despite the fact that Hefner and many others promoted them to the world as exceptionally beautiful.
They were wildly successful, had swimsuit calenders, posters, were Playboy Playmates, etc., so clearly lots and lots of men found them very attractive, yet the whole time they had a terrible eating disorder.
So, does this mean that lots and lots of men in America just happen to think underweight, plastic-looking women are the height of attractiveness?
I'd have to say those women just had the right people working for them.
Men just love women. Since they are visually stimulated, they love looking at women. To them, they're just nice bodies, faces, boobs, butts. Who they go home to or choose to marry are often nothing like those calendar girls.
If men were truly influenced by Playboy, fat and/or ugly women would never date, marry, or have children. Since that if far from the case, it's obvious most men are not overly affected by what they see on the media.
In my opinion, women are their own worst enemies. We attack each other's beauty, fitness level, hair color, etc. far more than men do. We buy those stupid glam magazines that tell us not to wear undersized bathing suits and then on the next page find a women in an undersized bathing suit. We undermine our own self-worth by kowtowing to the media.
Or, is it possible that the culture strongly influences people from a very early age to find "socially acceptable" bodies attractive and unacceptable ones unattractive?
I think for some men (and women) this may be the case. Especially in men and women who are insecure. What better way to boost your lagging self-esteem than be on the arm of a beautiful person?
However, I feel that most people, especially adults, recognize that beauty comes in many packages.
This message has been edited by roxrkool, 07-15-2005 08:41 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by nator, posted 07-15-2005 1:44 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by nator, posted 07-16-2005 8:06 AM roxrkool has not replied

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


Message 14 of 183 (224034)
07-16-2005 4:09 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by nator
07-15-2005 7:13 PM


Re: alright, let's look at some pictures.
Which one is a image of an actual real human being and which one is a painting of an imaginary goddess?
so you admit then that the playboy ideal is more based in reality?
Gods are, by nature, perfect and their perfection is unattainable by humans. It's easy to understand that a painting is purely an idea, able to be manipulated.
ok, let's look at someone who's not a goddess. here's raphael's "la fornarina"
no, some say she's a common baker's daughter. we don't really know. but it's pretty clear that she was a real person, and probably not someone of higher class. so that's about as far away as we can get from venus, the goddess of love and beauty, right?
or is it? look at the similarity of the hands. the rounded shoulders. the spherical breasts. i picked this image because it seems especially reminiscent of the last one we looked at, yet contains the same renaissance ideals and stylization. she's more down to earth and a little more realistic, but the same ideals are present. and if you're not really paying attention, and haven't seen some more extreme examples like botticelli, you just accept this as real.
it's easy to understand that a painting is purely an idea, able to be manipulated.
Other human beings, and the woman in your photos, are actual, real people, despite the photographic manipulation. In addition, it is not at all obvious to young people (or many adults) that the photos are being manipulated. I mean,. it's mot like they have a warning label: "Model in picture doesn't actually look anything like this picture. Please do not attempt this at home."
it's also easy to understand that photography is easily manipulated. maybe not so 50 years ago, but today who hasn't heard of photoshop? the popularity and commercialization of other photographic tools undoes your argument.
yes. we are mroe willing and prone to accept photographic depictions as reality over paintings -- but when we go to the movies, we all know it's make-believe, editting, and special effects.
The companies selling such imagery, including Playboy, want men and women to think that these are real perfect specimens.
and renaissance and baroque artists weren't selling imagery? i'm pretty certain they lived off it. the majority of art history has been about the idea of beauty. sometimes this is replaced by reality; it kind of goes in cycles. but the female form has been portrayed in art in idealized way for, well, ever. it's not even a tautology, it's even more fundamental. men favor more attractive women -- it's just sexual selection. we all do it, even the women.
but do you seriously contend that the distortion of the female ideal away from average is a NEW concept?
ok, let's start at the beginning.
this is the venus of willendorf. you'll have to ignore the name, it's not ACTUALLY venus. this is well before greek mythology. there's nothing we have that says she was a god, a depiction of a real human, or anything else. our best guess is that she was used as a fertility charm. but it could be anything really. these are found all over ancient europe.
look at her though. perfectly round -- real fat doesn't hang that way. giant boobs, and way before implants. no hair... anywhere. in fact, no facial features either. just some weird cap on her spherical head.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by nator, posted 07-15-2005 7:13 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by nator, posted 07-16-2005 8:20 AM arachnophilia has replied

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


Message 15 of 183 (224035)
07-16-2005 4:39 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by nator
07-15-2005 1:44 AM


pop quiz.
Of course we are attracted to beauty. That's normal and natural.
But what is beauty, and why has it's definition changed so much, especially for women, over time?
has it? i posted a few pictures that are 500 years old of naked women. are they beautiful?
well get to this lady sooner or later, as example of more restrained and realistic hellenistic standards:
she's about 2200 years old. is she beautiful?
yeah, there's some mild changes here and there. smaller breasts were preferred in the 20's, where larger breasts were preferred in the 40's. our definition of ideal weight wobbles a bit between skinny, and slightly rounder. but much of the standard has remained the same. for instance, western culture has always preferred younger, fit women with long lines. we like our breasts at a certain height, and in a certain shape (in contrast to afircan tribes who prefer dropping knee-knockers). symmetry is preferred in EVERY culture, as is smooth skin free of blemishes.
it's very, very rare that people go against these standards. but it's not an exact science, and the excepts are glaringly obvious. for instance, the wife of francesco del giocondo of renaissance florence was a rather ugly (possibly toothless) woman, but has come to stand for female beauty:
but if you think about it, it really shows what this renaissance idealization is all about, and how much of a distortion of reality it really is.
another classic counterexample are ruben's nudes. (compare his "three graces" with michaelangelo's)
but these are of course only little bumps in the road. the female ideal of beauty has remained largely unchanged in well over 2000 years. and that's what i'm working on demonstrating with all of these pictures you've probably seen before.
So, does this mean that lots and lots of men in America just happen to think underweight, plastic-looking women are the height of attractiveness?
no. it doesn't. in fact, i think you'd be hard-pressed to find someone today who still considers the barbie twins attractive. but don't get me wrong, this isn't a huge turnaround. it's similar to the difference between classical greek sculpture and hellenistic scultpure. our ideal today is more restrained, a little stockier, and mroe attaintable. we prefer more athletic bodies do those that are ridiculously muscled (in men) or skinny and inflated (in women).
but i want you to take note of a very important point here -- we're talking about ideals. i want to suggest that the barbie twins were NEVER the cultural ideal. i remember the late 80's and early 90's, and i remember who *I* thought was the most beautiful woman in the world. just for giggles, here she is playboy:
pay attention in particular to the shape of her hips, the size of her waist, and the muscle tone. look like one of the images i posted above?
do we consider this beautiful today?
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Change very large photo to thumbnail.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by nator, posted 07-15-2005 1:44 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by nator, posted 07-16-2005 8:32 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024