For those concerned with Free Speech (or Porn), it is time to get active.

quote:

---

Have you tried turning off the TV?

​

I'm not trying to be smart here. While it is true that these types of images are everywhere, they do seem to be more concentrated in certain areas of our culture, and certain types of media are more effective at promoting changes of attitude and expectations than others.

---

I watch almost no mainstream TV. The TV I watch is usually really dorky or nerdy shows like NOVA, Antiques Roadshow, and sometimes What Not To Wear.I actually do not find TV that bad, but for a long time I had to just stay completely away from fashion magazines, even though I never really read them much anyway. They were a very negative symbol to me.

quote:

---

The only time I watch a lot of TV is when I visit my mother -- there isn't much to do in my old home town, and my mom has cable. When I am watching TV I can actually feel my attitudes and desires being manipulated -- in fact, they are changed, even though I recognize that they are changing. Fortunately, once I am back home they change back to normal.

---

That's good.

quote:

---

I also note that studies done with women in East Asia seem to indicate that once American style advertising becomes the norm, women there also experience a drop in their self-esteem and body image. I don't normally watch much TV, and the only magazines I subscribe to are current events/political so I don't get a lot of advertising in my life.

---

Interesting about East Asian women. Not surprised.

quote:

---

At any rate, I do sympathize with you. As a chronically underweight male (when I was in my 20s I was 6'2" and weighed only 135 lbs) I, too, grew up with a poor self-image. As a child it was always foremost in my thoughts and really affected how I thought about myself and how I related with other people. I hope you find a way to overcome this.

---

I hope you do as well.I am much, much better these days than I ever was from the ages of 11 through about 27, which is ironic, since I had a much "better" body back then in many ways compared to today.It's a daily choice to not be negative about my looks, and I am having a bit of a harder time with it over the last year or so for various reasons.Thanks very much for your support.

That's the good thing about getting old. One ceases to give a damn.That's about the only good thing, but one takes what one can get.

quote:

---

It is at this point that "trendsetting" needs to be laid out. A trendsetter will experiment with some new things and AS THEY ARE FOUND POPULAR, stick with and so reinforce that taste, or fad. A trendsetter cannot ever tell you what you must like, unless you are a really shallow person with no tastes of your own.

---

Well, most people ARE pretty shallow and don't have much taste of their own. There's a reason marketing and advertizing agencies are paid so much money. It's because advertizing works really well.Why else would millions of adults become obsessed with collecting Beanie Babies?

quote:

---

The drive for a trend has to come from the people, the market, and not from a singular men's magazine.

---

That's like saying that the trends in fashion have to come from people, not from the fashion designers.Well, if the fashion designers all decide that low-ride jeans are in fashion in a given year, then, hey, you'll find them everywhere in the department stores and in the fashion magazines, and all the celebrities will be wearing them in all the sit coms and TV shows and music videos.I have seen SO MANY college and high school girls wearing those low-rise jeans that looked terrible in them, but that's what's in style, and that's what for sale, so that's what they wear.Playboy IS an institution. Hugh Hefner IS an American icon who represents what "every man" is supposed to want (A buxom, ever-young blonde on each arm). Bart Simpson even dressed up as Hef in a Halloween episode of The Simpson's. The Playboy bunny head logo is everywhere. It's completely mainstram.I just think it goes without saying that Playboy has a significant cultural influence upon what the general populace of America considers beautiful and sexy in a woman.You say that "tastes change". Well, why do you think that is? And why do you think that tastes tend to change so rapidly in cultures where the public is bombarded with a great deal of product advertisement? And surely you must agree that tastes change far more rapidly now than they did, say 100 years ago.There have always been standards of beauty, and these have always been heavily dependent upon cultural influences.There are many, many big money businesses which benefit from women (and all people, really) feeling inadequate about their appearence. The more narrowly defined and relatively unattainable this standard of beauty is, the more money those corporations stand to make.Playboy is part of that culture which defines beauty in such a way that most women can never hope to attain it, yet many American men would gain a great deal of status and self-esteem if they had a Playmate on their arm, wouldn't they? I remember watching some talk show years ago and there was a couple on the stage. The man wanted his wife to get a makeover because he thought she was really sexy but she dressed too conservatively all the time. He said something like, "You can't tell with what she's wearing now, but I'm telling ya, she looks just like the Playboy Channel under there, seriously!"And everybody knew exactly what he meant, including me.

quote:

---

I thoroughly agree that Playboy will attempt new things every once and a while, and they may become trends, and Playboy will help reinforce those tastes that have emerged, but if it was not enjoyed by the people Playboy would drop it in an instant.

---

Right.They are trend-setters, along with most other successful companies that cater to the mass market.But if it's not "enjoyed by Hef" I doubt it gets on the pages of the magazine.Hef apparently has a VERY narrow standard of beauty that is unattainable by most women.

quote:

---

A guy DOES NOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM look at a Playboy and think to himself, gosh this must be what a hot girl looks like, and feel he must conform his tastes to that magazine. That is indeed why there are so many other men's magazines.

---

So, if a 13 year old boy started telling his friends at school how hot he thought obese women were, what kind of acceptance do you think he'd get? What would happen if he started asking out all of the super fat girls at his school? He's likely get ridiculed mercilessly for even suggesting that fat was sexy and would most likely never get to the point of ever asking any of them out because the social price for him would be too high.Now, by contrast, what would happen if he told his friends that he thought Carmen Electra was super hot? What would happen if he started dating the Carmen Electra look alike at his school? Lots of accolades from friends and an increase in status and popularity in school, most likely.

I think you are confusing the cart and horse.Advertising puts stuff out before the public. It is true that to the degree a society is inundacted with the same message, the more it will be caught on and be the subject of interest. That does not necessarily guarantee its popularity, but people will be distracted from other choices to focus on a discussion or interest in the "thing" being displayed.What makes something successful is something that people like. If they don't like it they will not support it for long. That is the difference between a fad and a real trend or cultural expectation. Fads are brought up and pushed into a market and it catches with some people very much, but does not stay the course.Your criticism of Playboy appears to be deeper than what happened with beanie babies. You are suggesting that it is capable of shaping trends and influencing cultural expectations.I don't believe this is true because Playboy is at the mercy of the Public. I agree it can help reinforce some trends and expectations, as well as break ground every once in a while if it takes a chance on something new and that is found to be popular. But what it simply cannot do and has never done is said "This is what we find hot and you should too" and just keep showing it, without some measure of public support.If tastes change so will the look of Playboy. It's not like saying that, that is exactly what I am saying. Fashion designers put out whole ranges of of clothes which slowly get whittled down based on public reaction to them.It is true that as a designer is popular, some new experiments may make it through a screening process and into stores, but they don't become popular just because of a name unless there is continued success (popularity) of the creations. I am certain there will be some who buy things just for the name, but then that is their taste.It is also true that if stores only stock one kind of material expecting it to be a hit, it can become somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy as one is limited to buying that material. But that is something else, and does not dictate actual desires of the public.That would be like saying Playboy is influencing what people like (or that everyone shares its tastes) because as can be seen that is all they buy, when in fact that is all that is being shelved in the stores. Beggars can't be choosers, and more often than not (in big commerce) neither can the buyers. No, this is complete BS and I feel I must rebut this claim completely. While some teens may purchase low rise jeans because they are what's in and teens tend to be overconcerned with popularity, low rise jeans are popular for many different age groups.What's more important however is that there are no girls that look bad in low rise jeans. If you think they do then that is your taste... or you must live near mutants. The hatred of low rise jeans certainly is catching on among prudes everywhere, and I keep hearing that nice little catchphrase that girls look bad in them.How can they look bad in them? If you say they look bad in them what you are essentially saying is that they are ugly, not the jeans. True some low rise jeans may be bad looking, gaudy colors or designs, but to say that some girls in general look bad in low rise jeans in general, is a put down of the girls. Low rise is designed to showcase their bodies, not the jeans.Indeed can I ask how a girl that looks bad in low rise jeans will look better in any other jeans? What would be the difference, and so what you would be objecting to in the low rise model?One might think that this hearty defense comes from some self-interested position. One might be right. However, I think I have put up an adequate defense that needs some answers.I can tell you that both me and my gf... who are not teens... like the feel of low rise pants better than older styles which also have a habit of looking highwaisted or (for guys) like one has a zipper a mile long in front. We are hoping these stay in style not just for looking at others, but so that we can feel comfortable. Yes, Playboy and Hef are icons. They are icons of what "every man" wants. James Bond is the same thing. So what?There is a key difference between being an icon of what every man wants, and what every man is SUPPOSED to want. Playboy is certainly not the latter.As an avid reader of Playboy throughout my youth I can tell you that I NEVER wanted blondes at all. I was always interested in the brunettes and black haired girls. I have known many other guys that are the same. Indeed many guys I know have more of an oriental fetish than a blonde fetish.I did not ever develop an interest in blondes, indeed I steered clear of them completely, until the one day on a whim I went out with a Scandinavian girl. She was short and plump with huge... well let's just say the only thing she had in common with the Playboy image you are discussing is the blonde hair. I then went back to brunettes and black hair, until meeting my current gf who is blonde. I still like jerking off to and having sex with dark haired girls.Playboy has not effected me nor has it effected any guy that I know. You open it up and if some girls look good then great, if they don't appeal to you then you keep turning the page. Hef's tastes are his own. Tastes change naturally over time as people become accustomed to one aesthetic and then want to explore other aesthetics. I do not believe that tastes change more rapidly now than in the past. I believe fads are more popular do to greater market access and globalization than existed in the past. But people's general tastes (preferences) will likely remain the same for most of an entire generation.If you have data to support a more rapid change in taste, I am open to it. My next question would be "is that bad thing?" If you want to criticize the new robber baron, or neofeudal market place which is emerging then I will agree. While I have nothing against corporations (even large ones) in general, the increasing power of them to squeeze out diversity and real choice is becoming burdensome. It also grants them the ability to create demand by fiat, that is only giving you a certain selection and saying that is all there is.I do agree that many businesses are in the "feel bad about yourself" biz. Being human at this point appears to be an intolerable condition we must rid ourselves of at all costs. However, how much one listens to this and buys into it (especially with regard to physical beauty) is up to the individual.There is no set standard of beauty and the internet was quickly forming a base of defying corporate concepts of beauty. And I don't just mean porn.If info-com technologies remain free and advance, corporations will be incapable of keeping up with the diverse concepts of style and beauty that are out there.This is of course part of the OP's point regarding this new legislation. If you want Playboy to not be the only voice in porn on what is beautiful (that's teh only se;ection to choose from), then the current legislation needs to be fought. This part I wholly agree with. Playboy is PART of a culture which is defining beauty AND SUCCESS beyond what most women AND MEN, can possibly attain. It is iconic, it is the thing to be strived for, yet likely never met.Again, could you explain what men are supposed to be like according to Playboy? Most guys fall well short.Could it be that women really find the women of Playboy attractive because that is their taste as well, and are unhappy when they fall short, just as a guy might when he realizes he doesn't have a friggin' grotto or more personally a youthful chiseled chin or body worthy of an expensive shirt if in fact he could afford one in the first place?Humans have always had ideals, and not met them. I honestly fail to see how your anecdote proves a point. It has already been granted that Playboy is iconic and so stating that a woman might look like she could be in Playboy is a compliment. He does, but he does not overtly effect what is in Playboy, especially now that his daughter is running the company. I think one can judge his personal taste based on his general selection of partners. They are not the entirety of what is seen in Playboy. 1) Most guys did go out with less than super models in high school, if in fact they could get dates. Many 13 yo boys could get no dates, even from fat girls because they themselves were neither conventionally attractive nor rich. That might be the real irony of this whole discussion. Most "homely" girls could at least get a guy if they were willing to settle for someone that was desperate. A homely guy couldn't get a date no matter how desperate girls were. Girls have that advantage over boys, which is likely why boys have Playboy.2) I agree that most teens (boy or girl) are not likely to choose anyone as a public partner that is not socially acceptable. As desperation sets in lower choices are made. That does not indict anyone. That is human nature.3) I seriously doubt super fat girls will be the choice of most boys, ever. Only a select few will find extreme obesity to be attractive. At that age it just isn't that healthy looking and most people (across time) have been attracted to healthy looking girls. If they have are attracted to larger girls they will generally be older. .Yeah, and this would not be the case in any other culture across time, for both boys and girls? Ideals have always been at least average if not more than average. People strive for the greater than average.There is certainly nothing wrong in fantasizing about attaining the greater than average. There is also nothing wrong in being dissatisfied in being unhappy with achieving less than the greater than average.You argument seems to be one of dissatisfaction with striving for success in beauty as with any other striving for success in life.I do agree it is hypocritical when one couch potato tells another couch potato they are disatisfied because the other is not more beautiful. I also agree that it is unrealistic to believe in will reach all expectations, especially beauty which is determined by fate more than much else (genes and health). It is ultimately ridiculous and unhealthy to measure your value by beauty alone or how one compares to others, beyond striving to make onesself better within one's own limits.Teens may make the mistake of believing that physical beauty is the end all of beauty. Most adults have generally moved out of that stage. Sexiness includes alot more, especially charisma. That's how women like Cleopatra became very powerful sexual players, despite being relatively homely in appearance.You can see other women like that, especially on the net. Corporate porn is generally focused on physical beauty which is okay, but more restrictive.

---

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

quote:

---

Your criticism of Playboy appears to be deeper than what happened with beanie babies. You are suggesting that it is capable of shaping trends and influencing cultural expectations.

​

I don't believe this is true because Playboy is at the mercy of the Public.

---

But aren't Beanie Babies purchased by "the Public", too?We are sort of talking about a chicken and egg situation. I agree that Playboy is at the mercy of the public to a sizeable extent, but it is also part and parcel of a culture that defines what is beautiful and sexy in women in a very narrow way and encourages women to believe they are inadequate if they don't reach it.

quote:

---

Again, could you explain what men are supposed to be like according to Playboy? Most guys fall well short.

​

Could it be that women really find the women of Playboy attractive because that is their taste as well, and are unhappy when they fall short,

---

Remember, women and girls are raised in our culture to be very concerned and focused upon their looks, and that it is pretty much a duty for them to work to be attractive to men.One message to women from Playboy is that if you want to attract sexual attention, if you want to be considered really beautiful, then you have to look like a Playmate. And, as you say, genetics and luck have much to do with if she measures up. Of course, there is an entire industry devoted to cutting, peeling, abrading, augmenting, reducing, and otherwise changing nature by brute force. And it's only been recently that men in the general population have even been marketed towards by these businesses. I believe a big reason is because women are finally getting into positions of influence in these fields and have begun to go after men's self-esteem WRT their physical appearence because it's an untapped market.

quote:

---

just as a guy might when he realizes he doesn't have a friggin' grotto or more personally a youthful chiseled chin or body worthy of an expensive shirt if in fact he could afford one in the first place?

---

I notice that two of those things have to do with money, which can be saved and earned and handled wisely. These don't count as they are not related to physical beauty that one is either born with or not.Are you seriously telling me that Playboy is sending the message that men need to have fantastic bodies and chiseled chins to get laid? Hugh Hefner never had a fantastic body, ever, and he's rather average looking, really. I get the impression that's he's selling an attitude to men more than anything else.

quote:

---

No, this is complete BS and I feel I must rebut this claim completely. While some teens may purchase low rise jeans because they are what's in and teens tend to be overconcerned with popularity, low rise jeans are popular for many different age groups.

---

Low rise jeans should be worn on certain body types and not others to be flattering, yet almost all the high school and college girls wear them regardless of their body type. I've seen really quite attractive, curvy young women wearing super low rise jeans that made them look like a sausage bursting out of their casings. They would have been much better off in higher rise jeans that made the most of their curves insead of fighting with them.

quote:

---

What's more important however is that there are no girls that look bad in low rise jeans. If you think they do then that is your taste... or you must live near mutants.

---

If one has rolls of flesh hanging over the waistband of one's low rise jeans, it is not that great looking. Believe me. A mid rise would be more flattering on a woman who carries some weight in her midsection.

quote:

---

The hatred of low rise jeans certainly is catching on among prudes everywhere, and I keep hearing that nice little catchphrase that girls look bad in them.

---

I didn't say all of them looked bad in them. Many of them look fantastic. Some of them do not. Yet they all wear them.

quote:

---

Low rise is designed to showcase their bodies, not the jeans.

​

Indeed can I ask how a girl that looks bad in low rise jeans will look better in any other jeans? What would be the difference, and so what you would be objecting to in the low rise model?

---

Mid rise would be better for many women's bodies, and they are better for mine. Basically anyone who doesn't have a pretty flat stomach and little body fat.There is also the problem of low rise jeans having to be hiked up every three seconds, and the fact that you can't sit down in them without showing your underwear of butt crack.

quote:

---

We are hoping these stay in style not just for looking at others, but so that we can feel comfortable.

---

Oh, I'm not talking about the nasty high-waisted jeans from the 80's.Nobody really looked good in those except people who were really long-waisted.

quote:

---

Yes, Playboy and Hef are icons. They are icons of what "every man" wants. James Bond is the same thing. So what?

---

Women spend billions on products and services, some of them life-threatening, to change what they look like in order to be what "every man wants", which is a very narrow range of what is "beautiful".Men can and do attract women with their personalities and accomplishments over their looks. Most of the couples I know are such that the woman is more attractive than the man. I only know one couple in which the man is more attractive than the woman (conventionally speaking). How many young women get breast implants and nose jobs? How many young men get penis enlargements and nose jobs?Sadly, we will see men getting more insecure with their appearence as time goes by and the corporations which stand to make the money get their hooks into them at a young age.Here's some stats:http://www.edap.org Magazines for women 18-24 contain 10.5 times more diet information then for males. All of these advertisements stated that weight loss would improve appearance. 74% reported that they lose weight to be more attractive. 1 out of 3.8 commercials sends messages of what is and what is not attractive. On average a child will see 5,260 of these commercials. 42% of 6-8 year old girls want to be thinner. 81% of kids 10 years old are afraid of being fat. 51% of girls 9-10 feel better when they are on diets. 25% of men and 45% of women are on a diet every day. We spend an average of $40 billion on dieting and diet products.

Yes, but it was a fad. It was a specific marketing sales "hit" with the public that naturally burned itself out as it was not a necessity nor something inherent to human cultural interests.Sex and beauty are general interests found throughout human culture. Manifestations of both vary across culture and within a culture throughout time. The change in those manifestations are trends.Thus fads are short lived specific interests, and trends are manifestations of general interests which define a culture.Productions within a market may represent fads or trends. We agree then that Playboy is both effected by (subservient to) the desires of the public, while also being part of that culture and helping reinforce its standards (intentionally or not).However part of this culture of making people feel bad, are those trying to make people feel bad about their own fantasies and interests, as well as reinforcing the "victim" nature of being a woman.I think you have avoided the fantasy arguments of my posts long enough. Playboy is for fantasization as is much of porn. It is idyllic and presents models of idyllic nature. The idea that people are traumatized by Playboy or the media, because its fantasy elements are of an idyllic nature and play to the average person's ideal, rather than the average reality, is really to shift blame away from the people who are most responsible.Even if you are in a society that teaches X as an ideal and you are a Y, you can either learn to cope with the fact that you may not be the ideal and move on (as most are not anyway), or become self destructive to try and reach the ideal.If there is a growing problem of people brutalizing themselves physically and mentally to reach an ideal, then the problem is not with the ideal it is with people losing their grip between fantasy and reality.What is wrong for cultures to have general identifiable ideals for looks? Then that is a failing of the parents and culture to teach them how to distinguish between fantasy and reality, especially regarding the reality of failing to meet expectations.Workaholics are on the rise as well, and the disorders associated with that problem manifesting themselves just the same. Shall we then blame scientific organizations who laud only the above average minds for their great works? How about decrying the Wall Street Journal or Forbes?You are seeing a symptom and identifying its market manifestations as the problem, but the problem is deeper and more individual. It is errant to believe that Playboy is saying hey if you want to look beautiful you have to look like a Playmate. Again, they do spreads of more than just Playmates so your accusation fails before it ever starts.What would be accurate to get as a "message" is that if you look like a Playmate then you will be found hot by a majority of average men.That is not to say all playmates will be attractive to all men or any individual man who generally likes playmates, nor that some girl that is not playmate material will be unattractive to most men, or any men.If it bums you because you do not look like a playmate so it cannot be said that a majority of average guys would tend to find you hot, then that is a problem with self expectations. Trying to rid human culture of beauty or concepts of beauty or marketed publications which appeal to people's interest in beauty is to thorougly miss the problem and not likely to succeed anyway.It sometimes sounds like the only way things will be fine is if the models are the ones crying because no one finds them attractive. I'm sorry, people are not born into wealth, and every male is capable of achieving wealth if he just wasn't lazy or something? Is that your argument? Believe it or not Hef did look pretty chiseled when he was younger, but as it is they do not put him all over the pages. Have you ever looked at Playboy, or read Playboy?I agree they are selling an attitude, but if girls are getting a message from the imagery, then men are too and it is not one of the average guy.Again, that is why Playboy had major competitors. Hustler repeatedly played on the theme that Playboy was for rich great looking snobs, instead of the average guy's life. Low rise does not equal tight fit. If a girl looks like a bursting sausage then she should be purchasing the correct pants size. I myself am not exactly thin anymore (I went from super thin to pudgy in a very short space of time) and have low rise cargo pants. Cargo pants by their nature cannot be tight.I do agree that not everyone should wear tight pants. That looks painful and only thin people can get away with it not looking painful, just as thin people should not wear too loose of clothing or they look like emaciated junkies.Belly dancers can be quite pudgy and often do have little rolls of fat, but their dresses are surely low rise and HOT. Low rise on an overweight person can certainly still look good.I will make only one caveat. If a person is grossly overweight and so has mounds of fat hanging down regardless of if they have clothes on, then low cut is likely not going to work for them. But most clothes will not. They are out of shape to an unhealthy degree. The elderly, whose shapes may be saggy all by themselves regardless of weight, may not be suitable for low rise.I have leered at enough chubby girls in low rise to know they don't have to look like they are bursting sausages. If this is true then they have a real reason for worrying about what they look like and pants are not their main problem. An average person in decent health should not have rolls of flesh hanging over low rise jeans.A gut or some love handles are one thing, rolls of flesh is something else entirely. Is it a problem if Playboy helps such people realize that maybe its time to get to a gym? You know I can no longer remember what your problem was with low cut jeans. That all choose to wear them does not seem to be a criticism of any depth, beyond the fact that some girls are not managing to keep in healthy shape... which is still at the girls who wear them and not at the jeans.Remember my position was that if you criticize low rise jeans you are not criticizing the jeans, just the shape of the girl. I stand by that assessment. Yes, to be appealing to the greatest number of people is to be in a category that is a smaller percentage of what is found beautiful in general. Those striving for the maximum appeal, are losing sight of the fact that they may still be attractive.Playboy reaches for the maximum audience and so will generally exhibit those who are found beautiful by the most amount of people, which is a smaller section of all the women who are found beautiful.I still see nothing wrong with this.Are we to abolish beauty, or a general consensus of beauty, or any collection which might purport to reveal what is beautiful to the most amount of people? Could this be because you generally find women more attractive than men?Could this be because the men you are discussing are generally successful compared to the woman? I mention this only in that when I see unattractive women that have a lot of money they usually have attractive men in tow.It is a universal that powerful people will generally have partners more beautiful than themselves, because they can afford it.I would say in most cases I find the women in couples I know more attractive than the man, but can recognize that conventionally some guys are more attractive than the girls they are with. Indeed in Chicago I often saw very hot young black guys with much less attractive women (and they weren't pimps). That one usually blew my mind (and caught my attention) due to the obvious disparity between their "beauty" value. I don't know any women that have had surgery, and no men with surgery either. I think men will always have less penis surgeries than breast implants as messing with MrJohnson will always be a scary proposition. Being flat chested for the rest of your life (or just unusual looking tits) is a lot different than a botched cock job.Nose jobs will probably come to parity at some point. Such stats really bore me as they are merely snapshots of a culture and not indicative of causation, nor cure.If an individual sets their ideal as what most people find to be the best, then there is nothing intrinsically wrong with that. If they define their entire worth according to one category of life then they are not properly defining reality. If they believe the ideal is a realistic expectation to be met, then they have lost the difference between fantasy and reality.If there are stats indicating that a growing percentage of the population has specified one category of life as overriding in importance and must be considered a failure if it does not reach the level of cultural ideals, then there is a cultural problem in dealing with reality.That is not an indication that there is a problem with what its ideals are.

---

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

quote:

---

If an individual sets their ideal as what most people find to be the best, then there is nothing intrinsically wrong with that. If they define their entire worth according to one category of life then they are not properly defining reality. If they believe the ideal is a realistic expectation to be met, then they have lost the difference between fantasy and reality.

​

If there are stats indicating that a growing percentage of the population has specified one category of life as overriding in importance and must be considered a failure if it does not reach the level of cultural ideals, then there is a cultural problem in dealing with reality.

​

That is not an indication that there is a problem with what its ideals are.

---

Actually, it means that they are human.If a culture values certain physical attributes in a woman like a tall stature, flat stomach, slim hips, long, thick hair, smooth skin, and large, high breasts, and bombards it's people from day one of their existence with near constant images of those attributes being associated with being loved, desired, and acheiving success and happiness, it's a perfectly normal human response for little girls, adolescents, and women to want to appear the way the culture says they should and to hate or be unhappy with the parts of themselves that do not fit that ideal.We are social creatures, after all, and are pretty much built to respond to social pressure.I am not saying that standards of beauty are wrong to have.What I am saying is that the pressure on all women in the US to meet those standards of beauty is very great, begins when we are born, and that the narrowness of that standard means that most of us will fail.I am telling you this as a woman who has struggled with this every day of her life. It's not a failing within me that I have body image problems when I live in this culture.AbE: And it's been happening to men over the last 20 years, too. The Soloflex guy and Markey Mar's underwear ads are two of the best known images of the new, unattainable male standard of beauty. More men are unhappy with their appearence, more men are undergoing cosmetic surgery, more boys and men are abusing steroids and developing eating disorders and unhealthy body images.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-05-2005 09:36 AM

I found this quote in the middle of an article on men getting more plastic surgery these days:

quote:

---

Since 1970, the "Beauty Ideal" has shrunk. In the past twenty years, Playboy centerfolds have lost 25 pounds and now weigh 18 percent less than the medical ideal for their age and height, while fashion models are 23 percent below!

---

Like I was saying, a woman who is 115 pounds and 5'6" is thin.The last time I weighed 115 pounds I wasn't even fully grown yet.The women I know who weigh less than 120 pounds are no taller than 5'2" and one of them has a thyroid problem.AbE: Ah, here we go, I found a referenced source: This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-05-2005 12:23 PM

I'll respond to your last three replies in this one for convience...First, regarding ideals.If your claim is that ideals themselves create a self-hatred such that people end up being depressed and willing to do drastic things to reach that ideal, then what on earth is the solution? The only possible option is to rid the earth of ideals, which of course can't be done (people will always have preferences and those preferences can be summed up as an average ideal) and is ridiculous to even try (unless one likes no free press).If your claim is that ideals themselves do not create such self hatred, then what is your criticism of Playboy or any other part of our media?It seems to me the only possible way your criticism would have any teeth is if ideals were in fact "bad" or unhealthy in and of themselves, or if the media is creating or reflecting something which is not just an ideal and so creating something unhealthy.If you are looking for someone to blame for the loss of connection between fantasy and reality, such that people are having more problems now with body image perfection, then look no further than the progressive movement of the late 1800s which is part and parcel of the traditional feminist movement.People got it in their heads that ideals could be made into reality, and falling short of ideal was itself failure, not to mention that people could figure out an objective form of ideal... creating the distopia you have experienced.Second, your quote about people bringing in Playboy pix to surgeons. If one was going to have breast surgery, wouldn't Playboy be a good place to find imagery of nice looking breasts?Third, the new stats regarding Playboy's imagery. You are pulling up various quotes that form a very disjointed picture of what is happening at Playboy. Can you filter them into one criticism I can deal with?In this case you have some article claiming that centerfolds (which I can only assume are differentiated from playmates, which are further differentiated from all women that appear nude in Playboy) are less than the medical ideal. Are specifically the centerfolds usually underweight? I have no idea. I look at all of Playboy of which the centerfold is only one bit.If your argument is going to boil down to people only get their body image from centerfolds, or those are the primary image getting out to people, then it is getting a bit ridiculous.I will look at the report by wiseman, but I have a serious feeling there is some selectivity going on regarding the term "model". I don't like really thin women, specifically model types. I suppose one every once in a while might look okay but most look sickly. I cannot handle the look of the Barbi twins who in fact were in Playboy and have eating disorders. I am telling you that I can jerk off to Playboy which means that they are not stacked with anorexics.It seems to me games are being played already, since mileage is being made on a discussion of playmates (which are a section), and then centerfolds (even smaller).Could you find a report on what exactly is proper height and weight ranges. The last time you mentioned them Playboy playmates did not seem to be beyond the healthy range. That is so much BS I just cannot believe it. Okay maybe the only women YOU know that way less than 120 are under 5'2" or have problems, but that certainly is not the norm especially for the age range of playmates (which if I remember right was the target of criticism).My family is filled with thin girls. Not anorexic, not starving themselves, and not with thyroid conditions. They are (or were during that age range) below 120 and taller than 5'2". I have had at least 2 girlfriends that were around 115 and 5'6", and they were NOT thin. And this is not because I was thinking they were fat, I like weight on girls. One of my hottest gfs was probably about 5'1" and 130-40. Heavy.My current gf is one of those in that range which you say is thin. She has varied in weight since I've known her, heavier and lighter, but right now she does not look close to unhealthy.And I should note that most Europeans, particularly the Dutch, are tall and "thin" without assistance of thyroid or eating problems. It seems to me an idea that 115 is too light comes from an American view skewed by generally overweight, out of shape people.Not that I'm saying being heavier than that is bad. Oh not at all. My gf and I both like girls with a little bit more to them. Its just that I've known enough healthy, and healthy looking people at that weight and height that I find such negative comments a little bizarre.

---

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

That is my favorite section at the video store. Only a little.
Then my dog talks me down.

Well, we've been going out for a few years now, and since then she's put some meat on her bones, but whatever, so have I.That's really not what I'm talking about I guess.I think if I met any of these porn stars in real life I wouldn't really be attracted to any of them. As porn stars they have this porn star look, that in real life is pretty much a turn off.It's like strip clubs. I'll go to one if "the guys" want to. I'll tag along, but the vast majority of strippers have that same layer of skank on them that a lot of porn star women have. It's just this persona that works on screen or maybe even on stage, but in person, it's a turn off (to me anyway, each to his own). And, of course, there are some girls that I find to be "more" attractive than my gf, but even so, who cares?What's the difference with non-porn celebrities, etc. Jessica Alba is way hotter, but it doesn't make me think less of my girl.

I think you really nailed it here.Yes, most porn women are ugly underneath the "work".I HATE most of it, like make-up and fancy hairdos etc in most circumstances.I guess that's why I like my gf so much, she's one of those "girl geeks" I guess, but is attractive without trying too hard.

quote:

---

If your claim is that ideals themselves create a self-hatred such that people end up being depressed and willing to do drastic things to reach that ideal, then what on earth is the solution?

---

The problem isn't that we have an ideal of women's beauty. The problem comes when 1) that ideal is very narrowly defined, 2) women are heavily pressured by the culture to meet that narrowly-defined ideal and are heavily rewarded when they do meet it, and 3) There is a multi-billion dollar industry devoted to helping women meet that goal, including helping them think that spending huge sums of money to take drastic, life-threatening measures to try to attain the unattainable is perfectly normal.We can see how this recent development in advertising of the narrow, unrealistic, unattainable ideal of men's beauty (the washboard abs, bulging pecs, extremely low body fat, etc.) is causing an increase in anxiety in young men and boys about their bodies, more eating disorders, more steroid use, more cosmetic surgery, etc.Are you seriously going to blame a 9 year old girl for thinking she needs to lose weight when the hottest, most successful teen stars are the Olsen twins? Are you going to criticise her for not knowing the difference between fantasy and reality?

quote:

---

If you are looking for someone to blame for the loss of connection between fantasy and reality, such that people are having more problems now with body image perfection, then look no further than the progressive movement of the late 1800s which is part and parcel of the traditional feminist movement.

---

Poppycock. We need look no further than capitalism for the reason. Didn't you read the post from someone else in this thread which said that we are starting to see more body dissatisfaction among women in Asian cultures since the advent of Western-style marketing and advertising in their media?Look, I really don't see much point in discussing this much more, because we are essentially debating perceptions, which are unique to each of us.I find that you have been particularly unsympathetic and unresponsive to the fact that girls and women are bombarded with many millions of messages over their entire lifetimes regarding the inadequacy of their bodies and that Playboy is a sizable part of perpetuating that culture.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-05-2005 06:42 PM

SuicideGirlsTOTALLY not safe for work. But the total antithesis of the traditional Playboy look. (Well, to be honest, not an overweight girl among them. So not the total antithesis, I guess. Sorry.)