Against the LAW?

I was only addressing the display aspect of such events, particularly in the social lives of young adults. My suggestion was not reductionist; I don't say display is the only thing on the agenda. That's why I fogged the analogy a bit with the word 'rather.'The analogy between men's sports and women's pageants isn't linear because many other aspects exist to any public event. As athletics, women's golf is the true counterpart of men's golf and so on, as you say.But as display events an analogy can legitimately be made. It has already been mentioned here that pageants as well as sports exist for both men and women. Traditionally, though, what gets more TV time and revenue when the subject is men--sports or pageants? What gets more TV time and revenue when the subject is women--sports or pageants?It's as I said: men tend to be evaluated more by their accomplishments, women more by their physical beauty. Research suggests this situation reflects reproductive priorities of truly ancient origin. Or maybe you read into my comments to deeply with anti-Darwinian glasses.
When you watch that pro football game: what sex are the players? What sex are all the cheerleaders? 100% on each side, is it?That's beating the odds for a random population sampling, wouldn't you say? Can you be sure no sexual display is involved? Not even ritually? Not even as a vestige from the college game? None?In my part of the world school athletics are intramural. The most popular sport is basketball. At the best attended games, men play and women watch. The women also organize these events. The sexual display component is not hard to see. I don't suggest it is the only thing going on (everyone here loves the game on its own merits) or suggesting there is anything wrong with displays in the first place. It's just there. It would be silly to deny it.Athletic events are not unique in this regard. Sexual display occurs as part of any human activity. People do what they do.The question is more one about conformity--the thinking kind versus the unthinking kind. We have to deal, as Schraf notes, with the omnipresent commercial exploitation of sex. Advertisers know everyone takes an interest in the subject and they count on that. Saturation levels get reached. And we can certainly question the images they choose for the bombardment.__Edited by Archer Opterix, : Ongoing quest for literary perfection.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Don't know that one, Schraf. And I've heard Dar Williams live. Clever songwriter!I like 'The Christians and The Pagans'

quote:

---

So the Christians and the Pagans sit together at the table,
Finding faith and common ground the best that they are able.
And where does magic come from? I think magic's in the learning:
Now when Christians sit with Pagans only pumpkin pies are burning.
. . . .

​

So the Christians and the Pagans sit together at the table,
Finding faith and common ground the best that they are able.
Lighting trees in darkness, learning new ways from the old, and
Making sense of history, drawing warmth out of the cold.

---

__Edited by Archer Opterix, : Format.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Added lyrics.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo repair.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

I've seen Dar live several times. She's a long -time favorite singer-songwriter of mine.Love The Chritians and the Pagans. Did you know that she wrote that in a day?When I Was A Boy: I can relate so strongly to these lyrics. It makes me both happy to know that others have had the same experience and sad to know that society crushes everyone and that it's so very difficult to escape it's weight.Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The reason for the disorder is poor self-image along with an irrational belief in what constitutes socially acceptable standards of being good looking. That standard is - in part - enforced by every beauty pagent, with every article about them, with every ad that promotes them, as well as in other ads and promotions of artificial beauty standards: beauty pagents are just the icing on the cake.

---

I am in agreement with everything you say except for the bit where you say it's irrational for people to believe in what constitutes socially acceptable standards of being good looking.I think that many people with poor body image, sometimes including those with eating disorders, quite rationally understand what society deems accpetable.It's perfectly rational to come to some of the conclusions that we do, even if some of the measures taken to acheive that appearence are irrational.

It's irrational when it is becomes the source of behavior not beneficial to the person. It's the extent that it is taken to that is irrational.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Hmm, I see what you are saying, but I think we should define "beneficial" here.I mean, it is certainly beneficial for Terri Hatcher to eat mostly fruit and jog a lot as it makes her much more marketable as an actress. It is beneficial for Anna Nicole Smith to take Trim Spa (and probably a bunch of amphetamines) to lose a whole bunch of weight because she was considered beautiful again and got media attention and public approval for it.I am by no means obsese, nor unhealthy, but I do have a little extra weight. My doctor never said a single thing to me about it. When I lost some of it I got a whole bunch of positive feedback from people at work telling me how good I looked. I even had a relative stranger who was a regular customer take me aside and seriously tell me that I looked like a woman who was really coming in to her own, that I had a great energy about me and that she thought it was great. I was touched and gratified. That was beneficial to me certainly, wasn't it?Now I've gained some of the weight back and am working to get rid of it again. I think and worry about my weight far more than I'd like to, which might be thought of as not beneficial but that's where I find myself. Who wouldn't like to have all of that positive attention? Who wouldn't like to go into a store and be able to put on anything and look good in it? Who wouldn't like to be able to walk among the 18-21 year olds that are always part of a college campus (whom, since my husband is an academic, I will always live among) and not feel dowdy and fat?I know that this sounds hopelessly pathetic and vain, but it is simply true. I fight these pressures well most of the time, but sometimes I am weak. Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

If you were trying to elucidate that there are definite differneces between the sexes then I certainly agree. Some people are bent on consolidating males and females, turning them into androgenous creatures that nature/God would never concievably select for obvious reasons. Oh, I totally missed understood your rationale. My apologies. I thought you were suggesting that football's primary concern is to attract females. Though an exhibition of male strength is obviously a desirable attribute to the opposite sex I highly doubt that the inventers of football were thinking about how it would attract the chicks in the crowd. But then again, one has to wonder if cheerleading's primary draw isn't almost nearly for exhibition purposes. I mean, lets get real. Nobody gets "pepped up" by watching scantily-clad girls jumping aroung, rather, they'd be more inclined to be the flutter of sexual arousal-- which, no doubt, the cheerleader is hoping for. Its also been said that 'a man's strength is his charm, and a women's charm is her strength.' I think both adages are applicable and true for the most part.

quote:

---

Something tells me that most men don't watch Moday Night Football for the ritualistic sexual displays. I think you are reading into it too deeply with Darwinian glasses.

---

Duly noted on this occasion........ Sure, in some cases. But I doubt the players motivation as he's rushing in for the touchdown is whether or not his ass looks good in his uniform. On the other hand, as I stated early, for the cheerleader it almost certianly is for her the question of whether or not her ass looks good hers. Speaking of which, did you move to Taiwan or have you always lived there? I only ask because your English is is excellent considering Mandarin (correct me if I'm wrong) is the dominant language. I would have never have guessed that. Again, I would agree. I thought you were suggesting that the primary invention of sports was to attract mates. While it certainly might enhance ones appeal, I wouldn't place that much stock in it. Yeah, talk to Damouse about that. I think he lives in the middle of Greenland because he claims that nobody "really" cares about looks. Yeah, right...

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

quote:

---

Some people are bent on consolidating males and females, turning them into androgenous creatures...

---

Who wants to do this?

quote:

---

I mean, lets get real. Nobody gets "pepped up" by watching scantily-clad girls jumping aroung, rather, they'd be more inclined to be the flutter of sexual arousal-- which, no doubt, the cheerleader is hoping for.

---

...which, if she successfuly produces such flutterings in her audience, she is likely to continue to get paid.It's a myth that all those women who provide sexual-type entertainment for men do it because they really love to turn on men.Some of them do, of course, but not all.

quote:

---

Who wants to do this?

---

Unfortunately, that's the jist of Joan Roughgarten's criticisms of Sexual Selection theory that I personally think are competely wrong.We touched on this in the thread on Sexual Selection.
Her basic premise is that sex roles are societally determined independent of biological gender.Here is a link to an article on her(/him), and my thoughts on the subject here.

Attractive people make more money: Aright the first source is the only one that is almost unarguable, however it lists a differance of only 5% in paychecks between what is considered beautiful versus distasteful. The Article says it with an air of surprise such that it seems they are just as affronted. I would argue that a small differance of 5% is subject to calculable error from the study; they factored out schooling and other such factors, but it could not have been perfect. Along with that, the study did NOT take into account the amount or the quality of work each of the tested do, and i believe thats very relavant.Attractive people get better medical treatment: I dont mean to sound rude, but the study's displayed name is misleading. When it says "Attractiveness" its talking from an economic standpoint. True, physical charecteristics come into play at the end, but even then it is said that the facial aspect is directly linked to the economic value and stability. The end bit where it says:

quote:

---

He added: "A study of adolescents in the West of Scotland found that, even controlling for other demographic and socioeconomic factors, those with a stutter, stammer or other speech impediment were considered less attractive."

---

means something different then what you responded. Beauty is not determined by vocal quality, i can assume you agree? So another hit under the "Dont judge a book by its cover" point. I.e. they can be as beautiful as gods, but when they open their eyes to one that would care of their physical aspect, they are lowered.Attractive people and Trust: Your third source begins:

quote:

---

Research shows we trust attractive people more -- but we also expect more of them. Beware of strangers. Don't judge a book by its cover. We repeat these timeworn adages without even thinking, but new research suggests we live by neither of them. According to this study, attractive strangers are trusted more. But more is expected of them as well, and if they do not live up to the trust placed in them, they may be penalized more heavily than those who are less attractive.

---

What does this mean...? Ahh yes. Beauty inspires our first impression, and the "Timeworn adages" warn us against this. But the article also says that when they dont live up to our trust, which the article insinuates that the subjects tested never did-

quote:

---

"Attractive people were penalized more when expectations were dashed, setting up a 'beauty penalty,'" Wilson said. "While attractive people sent more money, they received less."

---

-then the system is realized to be a zero sum gain. After this exchange, where do the Beauties stand? They will not be trusted again, only for their trustee's hopes to be dashed. Instead, they make a decision based on their other charecteristics (of which they no nothing) and therefor start again at 0 with the persons beauty factored out. How long does a first impression last? Not very long at all.Attractive Professors: Again, the differance is marginal (being only a differance of a percent) I read this paragraph and laughed.

quote:

---

Anyone who thinks looks don't count in academe is foolish, says Judith Waters, a psychology professor at Fairleigh Dickinson University who studies the relationship of physical beauty to aging, income, and work. "It's sad that they make such a difference, and I'm sure there are many people who are going to read this and say, 'Well, they don't matter to me.' But they matter to large numbers of other people, including students," she says.

---

Funny, because thats what im saying.... From your responses i take it you do not agree with her, and are sick of the system. Listening to Nemesis, he seems to say the same thing. Is there anyone here who can say that they look at peoples looks to determine their value? Is there anyone you can catch saying that? Assuming no, is the results of the studies assuming the cause is selfconscious? The point im making is that if people do do this, it is all selfconscious and not many want to be biased. People in general say the same things we're saying about its worth.

quote:

---

Unfortunately, the study is inconclusive on that count. But if the answer is that students discriminate, "and if you think this beauty variable really shouldn't matter, and yet it does, then maybe we should discount teaching evaluations somewhat," Mr. Hamermesh says, "because clearly they are affected by something which most of us would argue should not be something that we should be accounting for."

---

As for the last one, can you please give the oringinal Kurtzberg experiment? i tried to goole it and found nothing.Oh, and im really sorry for the personal insult. Im not quite sure where that came from, im very sorry.Edited by Damouse, : No reason given.

---

-I believe in God, I just call it Nature
-One man with an imaginary friend is insane. a Million men with an imaginary friend is a religion.
-People must often be reminded that the bible did not arrive as a fax from heaven; it was written by men.
-Religion is the opiate of the masses

quote:

---

How have you deduced this by my post? I'm not agreeing with it from a moral standpoint, I'm simply acknowleging that it exists.

---

Yes i know. Same deal as before: completly unfounded, irrational, and illogical statement. Sorry.

quote:

---

What school do you go to? Every school I've ever been to was rooted in a shallow, hollow outlook.

---

I do believe you misunderstood me here. Let me make myself clear: In any school you are GRADED and PUNISHED by how you act, not how you look.

quote:

---

No, I would rfesolve myself to look past mere appearance. But why you are acting like its a mystery is beyond me. Who is more likely to get a job? An obese person or a proportionate person? I'm not asking what you would do, I'm asking how society in general would decide.

---

I understand that people have a tendency to shove their heads up north every once in a while, but i still find it hard to believe that in our country people are treated as such. For menial labor, where the mental capacity does not matter it may indeed have an effect. But for anything of rank where the employee is earning above minimum wage, i dont think that any sane unbiased person would chose someone with a lower capacity and greater beauty. over the better worker. [quote]Well, parental love supersedes looks. But it isn't uncommon that a parent would secretly view their healthy child with a higher praise than their deformed child. Again, I'm not saying that its right, I'm just saying that it happens.[quote] I have to disagree. I think that parental love superceeds all, not just to the point where you can live with the child.

quote:

---

Yes they do. Name me one disfigured president, eminent professor, CEO, or otherwise. If you can produce one I will consider reconsideration.

---

Noble thing to say in the face of the argument, lets see if you stick with it.
-FDR: diagnosed with polio before he became governor of NY and was even considered for the presidancy. FDR was arguably the most popular president ever, beign the only one to serve four consecutive terms (or 3 and a bit). He walked around on cruches for his whole life; sometimes used a wheelchair; and had to have cast iron podiums so that he could give his speeches.
-Stephen Hawking. Need i say more to qualify for your description of eminent desfigured professor? File:Stephen Hawking 050506.jpg - Wikipedia
Theres a pic for you. Definatly not much to look at physically, but a brilliant man and definatly "eminent"
Couldnt find any disfigured CEO's on the first page of a google, but ill look more.

---

-I believe in God, I just call it Nature
-One man with an imaginary friend is insane. a Million men with an imaginary friend is a religion.
-People must often be reminded that the bible did not arrive as a fax from heaven; it was written by men.
-Religion is the opiate of the masses

quote:

---

Yeah, talk to Damouse about that. I think he lives in the middle of Greenland because he claims that nobody "really" cares about looks. Yeah, right...

---

Oh thats cold....
Watch what you say about my greenlandity. I know people who know some people who KNEW some people, if you get what im saying. Greenland mafia gonna show at your door one night....So im an idealist. So sue me.

quote:

---

I am sorry, but you are living in a fantasy world if you think that this is what is considered socially acceptable in schools in America.

​

I I used to work in a town with a large university in it. Every year, a new crop of kids would come in and it was remarkable how similar they all looked. The boys, especially. The uniform was as follows:

​

Jeans or kakhis, baggy. Polo shirts or t-shirts, also pretty baggy. Baseball caps, turned backwards in the late 90's, but that was out by the 2000's. North Face jackets, always in muted colors. Short hair, but not too short, and mussed up, but not too mussed.

​

Now, why do you think they all dressed so incredibly similar to each other?

---

These two quotes go together. I have a little cousin, and he cannot wait to spew about the social structure of his school and social life if provoked. I myself still remember the days where my student body was seperated by fashion schisms. There are people who dress "Punk." There are people who dress "Jock." Theres "Prep" theres "Goth." Theres all sorts of other silly little ways of dressing that all mean something. Mind you, i went to a private school with a dress code. The quote from the top:

quote:

---

Case in point, YOU. There are multiple mainstream catagories for an adolescant or even an adult; but those labels are applied to the product, not fitted for them.

---

Means that the labels that are applied to these groups are not conformal: the groups do not tailor themselves to fit a name. Instead the groups tailor a name to fit their own style. I would definatly say that those who "create" their own style and outfit are regarded higher then those who conform to a fashion.
Lol check out this site.http://www.stuckatprom.com/contests/prom/ Google duct tape dress and go to images. In fact, just google all of the clique names from above, +fashion. Yeah, i have to say uniquenss is accented. Edited by Damouse, : No reason given.

No worries. I just find it odd that you don't think vanity plays a big factor in the way society views people. You were speaking about the faculty then and not the student body..? If so, yes, I misunderstood you. That's funny, I see it the exact opposite. If you are doing menial jobs, no employer is going to care what they look like so long as they shovel shtuff around. But on the flipside of that coin, no one is going to hire an obese, pockmarked, and frumpy people as CEO's unless they have some trul fabulous credentials. I mean, of course, some people aren't that shallow and look at the credentials. But I would say that on average, whether they conscious of it or not, there is a perception that unkempt and obese people are fat and lazy. Some employers might make that connection and some might not. Think of why people make sure they are looking their best for interviews... Its because it really does present a variable. I agreed that parental love supersedes all. But its happened that in families that have multiple children, it might be common that some parents play favorites, based on looks, or intelligence, or a number of reasons. FDR hardly qualifies as 'disfigured,' but I would certainly lend him credit for overcoming his adversity and I offer you credit for thinking of him. As far as Stephen Hawking is concerned, he was writting books before his disease was full blown. But, again, you have to give that man alot of credit for lecturing as much as he does because he has limited mobility.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt