Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-19-2019 9:14 PM
27 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,170 Year: 9,206/19,786 Month: 1,628/2,119 Week: 388/576 Day: 63/128 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
891011
12
13Next
Author Topic:   Playboy made me do it
nator
Member (Idle past 336 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 336 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 336 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 336 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 countrys 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

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3985 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


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


If we're going to be consistent and say that the images are unrealistic, fantastic depictions, then nobody grows up to actually be a Playmate. That would be impossible.

You are now quotemining. Check the sentence directly before the sentence you quoted from me to deliver your reply and you will find I already dealt with that point.

I will only add that the digital alteration does not have to be massive, and usually isn't. Brushing off cellulite and enhancing cleavage is not that huge.

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

I was not suggesting that ugly powerful people were called beautiful, I was saying that powerful people that are ugly or not get treated better than the rest of us. Are you seriously going to argue Reno was not a powerful person, treated better than most?

Even Playmates do not manage to avoid criticism including for their looks. Several people, including me, have already criticized some in this thread.

No, actually it matters in nearly all careers. You still have to be interviewed by somebody and probably interact with other people on the job.

You are now shifting away from what I am talking about. An employer does not look at a Playboy magazine to find his next research chemist. You said yourself that scientists do not have to impress others with looks.

I understand that looking good will help one interact with others. One does not have to be a Playmate to look good, and looking good does not allow one to skip qualifications for most jobs.

No, but all other things being equal, better looking people get treated better than less good looking people. It has to do with evolution. Sexual selection, to be specific. Things like hip to waist ratios and facial symmetry.

I agree better looking people get treated better. What is better looking is not easily definable between people, especially when one gets to the individual level.

Evo Psych is crap, and your references to it do not impress me. If you wish to defend it there are at least two threads outstanding on that topic. It appears no one is willing to explain and or defend any of the studies and their conclusions. It is the same as ID, but using "evolution" as the convenient smokescreen instead of god.

But they are pretty much all slender, tan, long-haired, young, long-legged.

Do you even know what Playboy's actual competitors are? I already told you that what Playboy lists is not necessarily its main competitors, and the growing indie market caters to more looks. Hustler was famous for including amputees, which throws long-legged right out the window.

Maybe it's a natural, normal response to a damaging environment.

Maybe its a natural response to tragic events that occur in life. Perhaps if there is any greater depression it is that Americans have lesser coping skills to deal with lifes imperfections due to an decreased ability to discern fantasy from reality.

My one solid guess is that it has nothing to do with Playboy nor the ideals of beauty that society might hold.

You all want to blame people for failing to recognize and reject societal pressure from an early age, and I want to give people, who have been raised since infancy in this environment (where thinness and beauty is highly valued and highly rewarded), the benefit of the doubt.

You have built a strawman of my position. I don't want to blame anyone for what occurs early on in life. I am merely recognizing what has lead people to have issues, and suggest what people need to do to deal with reality in a healthful way.

Again I ask you directly... will I ever get an answer... what is a person supposed to take away from your position? All I can see is a drive to censor, and demonize others, or to stew in impotent rage.

If you want to paint my recognizing what a person has to do to deal with reality, and the lack of people doing so (even with experience) as "blaming" individuals for harming themselves, then what is your position but blaming others for not censoring themselves as to what they like just to make you feel good?

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

The people wanting liposuction and certain medical procedures were not seeing those since they were 4 either... at least not the ones of voting age. The mistake being made is all the same.

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

I have said that both reinforce ideals from the very start. That some commercial enterprises would take advantage of this is not surprising.

Where is the wrong in this? Cultural ideals will change again and the same reinforcers will reflect that change.

You seem to be blaming the messenger and the message, rather than learning how to deal with the message.

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

Ha! That just goes to show that traditional feminists are part of the problem. I mean that was your answer to my suggestion that you get involved in the media to reinforce other images of beauty? To throw up your hands and reinforce the mainstream by default, just so you can continue having an enemy to spit at?

I have already shown you that there are outlets for other forms of beauty. Not all are mainstream but that does not make them any less depictions of forms of beauty. What is wrong with accepting where you are wanted and desired, or trying to get alternatives raised up within the mainstream in ways other than censorship?


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by nator, posted 08-04-2005 9:17 AM nator has not yet responded

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

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3985 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


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


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

It depends on the cultural acceptance of body and reality. That said all cultures contain ideals and will contain people dissatisfied with their appearance.

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

Yes and no. You have just done it again. I cannot believe how bad you are at quoting studies. Okay let's break this down...

No one said that the Fijians did not have their own ideals. In fact they said there were ideals but they were more rotund... which itself may not be naturally or healthy rotund.

With the introduction of images from the west the Fijians began to change their ideal toward that of the west, and there was increased disastisfaction with their own looks. Gosh, can't you figure out what this actually means? They believe these fantasy images represent real life in the US, and having an unrealistic view of the US in general (it would be exotic to them) decide to emulate the images they see.

That is no different than oriental women having their eye lids changed to look mor western, because they want to emulate the west (which they felt was more superior and/or exotic). Nor different from women in the west trying to tan or change their hair color to look more exotic.

If you could not read that article and see that it was saying that Fijians were mistaking fantasy for reality, and so making an error, not to mention doing the very human thing of emulating something new within the culture... what can I say?

You might note that when a pilot used a Pacific Island as a supply location, islanders created cargo cults believing the men to be gods and their equipment mystical. The emulated the men and the equipment in bizarre and almost comical ways. Are you seriously going to say they did not make an error?


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by nator, posted 08-04-2005 9:49 AM nator has not yet responded

    
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 144 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 172 of 183 (229869)
08-04-2005 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by nator
08-04-2005 8:15 AM


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.

you're missing the first part of the phrase: status. it's a status symbol. why is that the important part? because everyone wants to up their social status. that's the nature of status. reading playboy is the fantasy of being higher status than you are. most men who "read" playboy don't think for a second that they'd have a chance in hell with a playmate.

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.

yes, there is. shall we talk about beauty and fashion industries now? they're the ones falt-out telling people that they're not superficially good enough, and that the way to be loved is to be pretty, and only their products will make you pretty. playboy is not telling women they're not good enough. it's making men think THEY ARE.

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.

playboy is on one end of what's considered "beautiful" by our culture. but it does not represent the ideal, as i have shown. their models are consistently rounder than the ideal -- even if their standard adjusts slightly with the ideal.

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?

not by playboy they aren't.

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

listen. this is like blaming olympic wrestling for kids shooting each other. it's pretty far removed from an actual case. if you wanted to argue that pro-wrestling encourages teenagers to belt each other with folding chairs in their backyards, maybe we'd be with you.

playboy is not hollywood. hollywood is no the fashion/beauty industry. playboy is not marketted to little girls, let alone women. it just doesn't connect up that easily, especially when playboy is NOT supporting the ideal you think is damaging. this whole thing is one big strawman.

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.

some acting students genuinely wanna be good actors. some want money and fame. what's your point? those are both goals independent of the bullshit factor. god knows the bullshit i've done to get paid.

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.

got some stats on that one?

we're also seeing more and more overweight boys. my younger brother is at least one and a half times the weight i was when i was his age. but then again, i played outside when i was young.

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

ooo, ooo, teacher teache i know! playboy!


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by nator, posted 08-04-2005 8:15 AM nator has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 144 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 173 of 183 (229871)
08-04-2005 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by nator
08-04-2005 8:21 AM


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

yes. i can. because i've taken an intro psych class, and i paid attention. it's a leading question, and influences the sample group with observer bias. i'm sorry, but it does.

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.

most 5 year olds wouldn't be familiar with what plastic surgery IS.

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

well, duh. for one, they wouldn't be getting breast implants. shit, you know something? i'd have an answer for that question, and not a smartass one either. there's stuff about my body that i would hypothetically change.

would i actually go through with it if i could? no. i don't like surgery. i bet most of your sample group if asked to think about realistically wouldn't ACTUALLY get plastic surgery.

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

actually, you'd be suprised. the common answer is "a bigger dick."


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by nator, posted 08-04-2005 8:21 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by nator, posted 08-04-2005 10:18 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 144 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 174 of 183 (229875)
08-04-2005 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Silent H
08-04-2005 10:35 AM


Even Playmates do not manage to avoid criticism including for their looks. Several people, including me, have already criticized some in this thread.

i wanna point out the essential irony here.

schraf started it:

quote:
Schrafinator wrote in Message 25:

Compared to many models, the poty is a little more curvy, but she still has little in the way of hips. And that airbrushed pic of her with the hula skirt is creepy. She looks deformed.


I already told you that what Playboy lists is not necessarily its main competitors, and the growing indie market caters to more looks.

holmes, i've very very close to posting some hardcord amateur/teen porn in here, just to prove the pointa that a) the market is very wide and b) that there is much more damaging porno in terms of ideals presented.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Silent H, posted 08-04-2005 10:35 AM Silent H has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 336 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

    
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 144 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 176 of 183 (230112)
08-05-2005 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by nator
08-04-2005 10:18 PM


Re: Don'ty have time to reply other than this little bit, but:
Sure they would.

a. those are pectoral implants
b. it probably wouldn't cross the mind of your average college-age male, let alone the attractive ones.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by nator, posted 08-04-2005 10:18 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by nator, posted 08-08-2005 8:18 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 336 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 177 of 183 (230896)
08-08-2005 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by arachnophilia
08-05-2005 10:53 AM


Re: Don'ty have time to reply other than this little bit, but:
quote:
a. those are pectoral implants

Right.

Chest augmentation.

quote:
b. it probably wouldn't cross the mind of your average college-age male, let alone the attractive ones.

Right. That's exactly my point.

Breast augmentation (or reduction) starts "crossing the mind" of just about every young girl by about Junior High.

This message has been edited by schrafinator, 08-08-2005 08:20 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by arachnophilia, posted 08-05-2005 10:53 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 336 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 178 of 183 (230927)
08-08-2005 10:10 AM


I'm done
It's my feeling that this thread has gone on quite some time without any real progress, so I think it's time for a summary.

My main points in this thread have been:

1) That culture has a strong influence on people from an early age.

2) That our culture places a high value upon the attainment of unrealistic physical beauty, youthful appearence, and thinness for girls and women, and that women who meet these physical ideals are greatly rewarded (regardless of if they meet those ideals by unhealthy or extreme means) and those who do not are socially punished.

3) Playboy, along with other mass media and the fashion industry, all influence the culture (which includes everyone) regarding what people should find beautiful and sexy.

This is supported by the fact that the recent introduction of the very thin physical ideal presented in American television programs to other cultures resulted in a sharp increase in the prevalence of disordered eating in adolescent girls. We are also seeing more body dissatisfaction, body dismorphism, and steroid use among adolescent boys and young men in the US as they have had the extreme and unattainable male physical ideal presented to them by the media as something that they are expected to and should want to look like.

It is completely irrelevant if the members of the cultures affected by these media images and television are correct in their interpretation. What is important to the point is that the influence of the culture on the individuals is real and strong.

The reason this influence is real and strong is not because entire cultures are stupid, but because it is natural for humans to respond strongly to cultural influences.

Certainly, Playboy is not solely responsible, and it has never been my point that it was.

(Coincidentally, I was watching TV last night and there was some program about of Hefner's 7 salaried "Girlfriends". They were interviewed and shown doing what they typically do during the day, and what their responsibilities were to Hefner, etc.

One of the girls recounted that she saw her first Playboy when she was about 4 years old, and she remembered thinking at that time that the women in the pictures were all so beautiful, and that she wanted to look just like them when she grew up.

And then she giggled and said it was so amazing that she ended up in Playboy and even became one of Hefners "Girlfriends", and that "It was like a dream come true." and that she couldn't imagine a better life.)

Arachnophilia seems to be mostly stuck in knee-jerk contrarian reactionary mode, even when it actually supports my position, which suggests that he isn't paying very close attention to what I have written.

Holmes set the stage for his own argument by stacking the deck against me when he chose a strawman, inaccurate, cartoon version of my argument to be the title of the thread.

Holmes, IIRC, has also claimed that he is incapable of being influenced by his own persoanl bias when evaluating any research study, and also that the entire field of Evolutionary Psychology is "crap" on the basis of his evaluation of a few studies, so I'm not sure it's even possible to get a fair hearing from him.

His argument (and Arach's as well) seems to rest largely on the idea that people are dumb and wrong for being influenced by the culture, the social environment, they live in.

I don't see much hope for progress at this point.

I will end with this quote from cognitive scientist Stephen Pinker's book, How the Mind Works:

"Though the beauty industry is not a conspiracy against women, it is not innocuous either. We calibrate our eye for beauty against the people we see, including our illusory neighbors in the mass media. A daily diet of freakishly beautiful virtual people may recalibrate the scales and make the real ones, including ourselves, look ugly."


Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by arachnophilia, posted 08-08-2005 5:48 PM nator has not yet responded
 Message 180 by Silent H, posted 08-08-2005 6:38 PM nator has not yet responded
 Message 181 by Silent H, posted 08-09-2005 4:09 AM nator has not yet responded
 Message 182 by arachnophilia, posted 08-09-2005 5:19 AM nator has not yet responded

    
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 144 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 179 of 183 (231127)
08-08-2005 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by nator
08-08-2005 10:10 AM


Re: I'm done
(Coincidentally, I was watching TV last night and there was some program about of Hefner's 7 salaried "Girlfriends". They were interviewed and shown doing what they typically do during the day, and what their responsibilities were to Hefner, etc.

One of the girls recounted that she saw her first Playboy when she was about 4 years old, and she remembered thinking at that time that the women in the pictures were all so beautiful, and that she wanted to look just like them when she grew up.

And then she giggled and said it was so amazing that she ended up in Playboy and even became one of Hefners "Girlfriends", and that "It was like a dream come true." and that she couldn't imagine a better life.)

i happened to catch the tail-end of this program, and i was intent on posting about it. one of the girls was talking to hef, all nervous, and was saying how she was really committed to it, and would do anything hef asked of her because she was so dedicated. she said specifically "i won't eat for a week if that's what you want."

to which hef replied, "i think you're beautiful just the way you are."

i think this illustrates my point perfectly, and i'm sure if you were watching you saw it. this girl obviously had some screwed up self-image problems, i'm sure. being a freakin playmate and thinking you need to lose weight?

but her problems weren't coming hugh hefner.

is the culture a strong influence? yes.
is it the only influence? no.

does the culture tell women they're not good enough unless they meet some arbitrary physical ideal? maybe.
are women stupid if they buy into that sort of thing? yes.

do magazines make people think they're not skinny enough? yes.
is playboy one of them? no.

Arachnophilia seems to be mostly stuck in knee-jerk contrarian reactionary mode, even when it actually supports my position, which suggests that he isn't paying very close attention to what I have written.

schraf, you were the one who posted a picture of kate winslet, called her homely and unattractive according to the societal standards, and neglected to even realize that she's appeared naked in playboy TWICE. i'm sorry, but you're just wrong. and you seem to be the one not paying attention.

there is little weight to your argument regarding playboy, as they evidently do not demonstrate the standard you think they do. now, if we want to talk about fashion and beauty magazines, you might have a very good case.

His argument (and Arach's as well) seems to rest largely on the idea that people are dumb and wrong for being influenced by the culture, the social environment, they live in.

yes, and i think people who regularly watch soap operas are dumb too. and i think people who buy into professional wrestling and think it's legit are dumb too.

I will end with this quote from cognitive scientist Stephen Pinker's book, How the Mind Works:

"Though the beauty industry is not a conspiracy against women, it is not innocuous either. We calibrate our eye for beauty against the people we see, including our illusory neighbors in the mass media. A daily diet of freakishly beautiful virtual people may recalibrate the scales and make the real ones, including ourselves, look ugly."

and as i said, i would even agree. i just don't see playboy as a major contributing factor to that, especially with the proportionally low population of women readers, and ideals presented not being the same as the rest of society's ideals.

you've utterly failed to use any kind of logic in this whole debate. it's kind of whiny, actually. you don't read playboy. you just picked it because it's an easy target, the first and most popular magazine to feature female naughty bits. you haven't recognized that it seems to go against the ideals you think are harmful, and that it's far, far less damaging than other aspect of the media that are actually aimed at women and feature much more unhealthy ideals.

i'm going to keep repeating these points until you get it.

(skinnier models + women readers + beauty products + advice for REALITY) > (chubbier models + men readers + titties + fantasies)


אָרַח

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

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3985 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


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


Re: I'm done
1) That culture has a strong influence on people from an early age.

This has not been questioned. But what that means exactly for an individual's self perception as well as sexual interests has not been made explicit by you in any credible way.

Within your own citations are statements linking lack of coping skills and reliance on fantasy imagery to negative self-image. That fits in exactly with my position that it is not cultural ideals of beauty which is the problem, but cultural influences which have eroded coping mechanisms as well as the ability to discern between fantasy and reality.

You have chosen to never answer my refutations on this point, including direct references to your own literature.

2) That our culture places a high value upon the attainment of unrealistic physical beauty, youthful appearence, and thinness for girls and women, and that women who meet these physical ideals are greatly rewarded (regardless of if they meet those ideals by unhealthy or extreme means) and those who do not are socially punished.

This has been true for all cultures across time. The ideal has generally been youthful and some manner of unattainable "perfection". In some cultures... which have absolutely no connection to mass media and corporate commercialism... the ideals of beauty have been downright deadly and debilitating to both men and women in ways that breast implants cannot match.

You have greatly exaggerated the rewards and punishments involved with beauty. Faced with counterexamples, you fled.

3) Playboy, along with other mass media and the fashion industry, all influence the culture (which includes everyone) regarding what people should find beautiful and sexy.

But it is only a small piece and there are other pieces of the media with other standards of beauty. This has been ignored by you. You have also ignored the fact that Playboy bends to trends driven by society so it is not just a driver.

This is supported by the fact that the recent introduction of the very thin physical ideal presented in American television programs to other cultures resulted in a sharp increase in the prevalence of disordered eating in adolescent girls.

No it isn't. I have answered this assertion of yours at least twice within this thread and you have only resurfaced to reassert your position. This is plain evidence of your fanaticism to traditional feminist dogma as any creo or id theorist to their dogma.

CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION. It is the true sign of ignorance to cling to such simple paradigms, when counterexplanations and counterexamples have been placed before you.

And then she giggled and said it was so amazing that she ended up in Playboy and even became one of Hefners "Girlfriends", and that "It was like a dream come true." and that she couldn't imagine a better life.

So what?

Holmes set the stage for his own argument by stacking the deck against me when he chose a strawman, inaccurate, cartoon version of my argument to be the title of the thread.

It was a jokey title, so what? The argument within the thread is what counts. It was not a strawman. Your version of my position has often seemed both cartoonish and a strawman... that is when it is ever addressed.

Holmes, IIRC, has also claimed that he is incapable of being influenced by his own persoanl bias when evaluating any research study

That is true, that was my training, so what? More importantly, I addressed the few vague citations you made, and asked if you wanted me to take them apart more methodically. I even pointed to several contrary findings to your position within your own references. You have disappeared at each turn.

So even if you want to pretend that my saying I have no bias means something, my addressing them should have shown otherwise.

Nice ad hominem there.

and also that the entire field of Evolutionary Psychology is "crap" on the basis of his evaluation of a few studies, so I'm not sure it's even possible to get a fair hearing from him.

I do believe Evo Psych is crap. Its as solid as ID. But you say a "few" studies? How many would that be? How many do I need to read to have my opinion count? More than the "best" that field has to offer?

If you want to stick up for Evo Psych there are two threads waiting for answers from its proponents. To blast me as if I am wrong on that subject when you have offered no defense but assertions of the true believer, leaves me pretty cold.

I might add that if you looked at some of the debate we have had on that subject you will find my position was near identical to that of Gould as well as one of the evo psych pioneers who now cautions its overuse/overreference by evo psych "gurus" like Pinker.

Yeah, don't trust me and don't trust Gould. Guess we should disbelieve him about all that "evolution" stuff anyway, right? Can't get a fair hearing from him on ID and Creo, right?

Nice ad hominem again, to try and save your position. Don't bring up evidence, just attack me... nice.

His argument (and Arach's as well) seems to rest largely on the idea that people are dumb and wrong for being influenced by the culture, the social environment, they live in.

No, that is a strawman. While one is influence by culture, one also has the ability to overcome or cope with cultural influences and other "negatives" one might face in life.

There are many obstacles one has to face in life besides not being able to be a Playmate. There are many cultural expectations one will never be able to match besides not being able to be a playmate. There are many personal expectations one will never be able to match, besides not being a playmate.

In the end a human being has to learn to cope with life, by discerning between ideals/fantasy and reality so as to live with the reality of who one is. Whatever ideals one saw as a child can and should be viewed differently as an adult. Is there a question about this?

Modern culture is losing its ability to discern between fantasy and reality. Parents are not helping their kids with this, and the media is certainly not helping with this. The ideals portrayed are not the problem, the inability of people to recognize ideals as ideals and not reality is the problem.

The imagery in Playboy is masturbatory fantasy. That is the reality.

I will end with this quote from cognitive scientist Stephen Pinker's book, How the Mind Works:

Yeah, and? Throughout this thread you have been provided examples of other sources of imagery. If you have a steady daily diet of freakishly beautiful imagery, then you are the one that has the problem. TV stations can be turned, other magazines can be read, and if you have a front door you can walk out into the world and experience real people.

I will end by pointing out that I asked you no less than three times what anyone is supposed to make of your criticism, assuming it was true. You disappeared every time. Thus even if I fully conceded your argument, you were not prepared to make the next step and deal with its problematic conclusions.

The fight itself appears to be what is important to you, the demonization of some "other", just like creos and ID theorists. Too bad. You may quit posting here, but you are hardly done. It appears you still have a bit of learning and maturing to do.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by nator, posted 08-08-2005 10:10 AM nator has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
891011
12
13Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019