Against the LAW?

I was thinking about social rituals, really, more than personal motives. I'm not sure I can explain what I mean but I'll give it a try.Cheerleaders building a pyramid four levels high are concentrating as much on their job as the athlete racing for a touchdown. None can spare much thought in that moment for the aesthetic qualities of their gluteus maximi.Which is not to say that in moments of more leisure both the athlete and the cheerleader won't reflect on other, er, aspects of their performance.Appearance matters in any public show. An audience numbering the thousands? TV? You'd be abnormal if you didn't consider how you look.Social rituals, though, are not about individuals. They are about archetypes. A story is acted out. The actors change and some particulars change but the story is the same, week after week.Athletic competition is a war game. The warriors of our village compete against the warriors of their village and someone establishes dominance. The warriors enter the arena wearing heraldic images--bears, lions, birds of prey--and, in some sports, armor.The prize to be won? Well, everyone who has ever read a fairy tale knows that a warrior who goes galumphing back with the Jabberwock's head establishes his worthiness for the hand of the princess. That's saying a lot, because a princess doesn't keep company with just any schmoe. Her companionship has to be earned. The princess is represented at the game in the image of the female cheerleader, the majorette, the homecoming beauty--all lovely daughters of the good queen Alma Mater.So the story is acted out. One's personal approval of the show hardly matters. The games will go on.

Das Ewig-Weibliche zieht uns hinan.

If you get tired of the rituals in your culture you can go to other places in the world where the rituals take different forms. But rituals there will be--wherever people are reproducing.I think it's good at least to be aware of how images work. It gives you a chance to step back from your culture a bit and critique things. You have a chance to decide how much of the age-old story you want to act out yourself, how much you want to repeat the basic plot or alter it, how much you want to play your role according to type or against it.You also get a chance, like Dar Williams, to shake your head and laugh at the whole show. Oh, the humanity!

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

quote:

---

I would definatly say that those who "create" their own style and outfit are regarded higher then those who conform to a fashion.

---

Again, I don't know what sort of world you live in, but it isn't the world the rest of us live in.In my world, people who do not conform to one group or another, especially in high school, are generally outcasts.Tell me, when going to a job interview at a bank, is the person who arrives dressed in the latest avant-garde runway fashions going to be "regarded higher" than someone wearing a conservative business suit?Also, you forgot to comment upon my mention of the study which shows that mothers unconsciously attend more to attrative infants than unattractive infants.The inportant word there is unconsciously. All of the mothers agreed that how pretty their babies were should make no difference in how they are cared for, yet it DID make a difference.

Your complaints regarding my examples seem to be that "there's not much of a difference".Well, I never claimed that there was an enormous difference in how attractive people were treated compared to unattractives.But differences do, indeed, exist and attractive people often have a social advantage simply because they are attractive, which you now seem to accept. Before, you seemed to completely reject such claims.

I'm answering your last three posts to me in this one... That was a very inaccurate analogy to my argument. I said the fact that people enjoy pageants, both in watching and participating, shows that people are not inherently hurt by the program. That is conclusion is accurate. It is true that you can have a beauty contest where no one gets hurt.Your analogy involves participants who are unwilling and inherently hurt. Unless you are claiming that they all must involve or somehow effect entire societies outside of the vieweres and particpants, you have delivered a very conveniently loaded analogy.I did not create the argument contests could not involve or effect societies, just that they do not inherently harm those directly involved, and I would go on to argue that they do not inherently involve or effect societies. So people that have a problem, find support for that problem in contests held by people without that problem, by taking them wayyyyy too seriously.I'm sorry but I do not believe in dumbing down society for the weakest of its members. Some kids jump off buildings because they watch superman. Some kids gouge out each others eyes because they watch 3 stooges. Some adults take steroids because they think they need to be super athletic because of sports. Some adults commit suicide because they cannot measure up to certain academic expectations/competitions.You seem to be taking an extremely arbitrary stance with regard to physical beauty.And once again I am forced to point out that the few most well known pageants are not the only ones. There are some with different standards, and indeed the popular ones have had their standards change over time. If you don't like the largest ones maybe you should promote the others.As for the people with problems, why not help those few understand the nature of their error, rather than restrain everyone else? That's a pretty low response. I'm actually taken back. No. Women are not a commodity. WRONG. I argued that nobody was inherently hurt by a beauty contest. That some may under some extraneous circumstances get harmed by particular instances does not argue that contests involving measurement of beauty must cause harm to somebody.And I will add that I do not believe you have demonstrated any "reality" that anyone is actually harmed by any contests. People with disorders involving self-perception do not need contests to drill this in to them, or form such a misconception. Your argument is similar to blaming the presence of food for obesity. That didn't exactly answer my question as posed to schraf. The question was positing a theory regarding why you (or anyone) might dislike it, as well as why others would, and why beauty is handled differently between men and women. I didn't ask for why you dislike it. That's just and opinion and I have no argument with emotional positions.As for your statement. I have already agreed they are artifical and subjective. So is every other measure of a specific human characteric (except maybe weight lifting). I'm not sure what dual standard there is regarding what is valuable about a person.And uh... there is nothing necessary about doing anything that is fun, nor does anything fun contribute anything of value beyond having fun. What the hell is wrong with that?From your criteria we might as well ban all awards/contests and maybe even all movies and literature.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I agree that attractive people enjoy social advantages. Hell, cute and cuddly animals enjoy social advantages over ugly ones.What on earth does that have to do with beauty contests?And this does not change the fact that men are judged as women are, largely by their looks. Only success, usually money or positions of power, make up for a lack in looks.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

quote:

---

So people that have a problem, find support for that problem in contests held by people without that problem, by taking them wayyyyy too seriously.

---

Who are you to judge if they are taking them wayyyyy too seriously or not?There are sreious benefits to be gained by taking those contests seriously, both by contestants and observers.

quote:

---

I did not create the argument contests could not involve or effect societies, just that they do not inherently harm those directly involved, and I would go on to argue that they do not inherently involve or effect societies.

---

That is a ridiculous claim.Where do human contests take place if it isn't within human societies?

quote:

---

And this does not change the fact that men are judged as women are, largely by their looks.

---

The standards of attractiveness for men are very much more broad compared to those for women.And, being physically attractive (and trying to fit in to a narrow societal ideal) is not emphasized (from a very early age as being of prime importance in the life of a male. Men are much more self-accepting of themselves than women are, and that is due to the culture we live in where women are constantly confronted with unrealistic expectations of what they should look like. This confrontation is much less intense for boys and men, although that is sadly less and less the case.We see an increase in eating disorders and obsessive exercise in boys and men these days, and we also see an increase in women in their 30's and 40's suffering from these illnesses (sometimes called the "Desperate Housewife's Syndrome) because of the expectation that they should appear slender and youthful beyond their twenties. Up until recently, this time in a woman's life was marked by a greater acceptance of her body, but not these days.

quote:

---

Only success, usually money or positions of power, make up for a lack in looks.

---

Males have traditionally been taught that success and power and wealth and smarts are more important in their lives than good looks.Media for men reflects this. Many men's lifestyle magazines have scantily clad/beautiful females on the cover (if there are people on the covers at all), whereas the same is true of women's lifestyle magazines.Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

What the analogy shows is those people YOU are ignoring that are unwilling participants of the pagents. The ones who are being socially bullied by beauty pagents. So we should focus more programs on how people {look} instead of on how {smart\intelligent\educated\rational} they are? You said that the reason the shows were on tv was because they made money, they do that by selling the bodies: this is the "lesson" of tv beauty pagents - that women are commodoties rather than individuals.I don't buy pagents as being relevant, so I don't "buy" their product either. No, just that an enlightened society should ignore the ones based on superficial arbitrary subjective standards that commoditize people into artifacts.Enjoy.

---

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.

If a person is using a beauty contest as an objective statement about who they are, or what they should look like, especially to the extent that they injure themselves... they are taking them wayyyyy too seriously.I might add that RAZD's own position appears to be that they are not serious, so I'm not sure why you are breathing down my neck for that claim.They are artificial and subjective, thus one should not view them as objective or of overriding importance in one's life. It really doesn't matter what person can gain. I could win lots of money eating a mix of goat testicles and eyeballs on fear factor, that does not mean such endeavours should be taken seriously to the detriment of one's health.To do so is a statement about onesself and not the competition. ??? Just because something exists within a society does not mean it inherently involves or effects the entire society. Perhaps I should have added "as a whole"? I thought that meaning was apparent.For example, I hold a beauty contest in my back yard with some friends. You explain how it involves or effects society as a whole.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

While this is simply and assertion on your part, I will play along for sake of argument. So what? That does not mean that men are not judged largely by their looks. That does not mean that men do not work or worry about the way the look. Most guys are more accepting of women than women are. Women tend to hold much more unrealistic attitudes about each other, and that certainly does not come from men... or beauty contests. I'm not sure where you got that idea. They have been taught that power and wealth are important in life, and can be used to attract the opposite sex. But not that looks do not matter in life, especially when it comes to scoring with women.Guys that do not look good really do get picked on by guys and girls. That's because guys like to look at girls and are more likely to buy a magazine with a nice looking girl on the cover... go figure. For your assertion to be true, on the inside of men's lifestyle magazines they would have to promote a broad standard of attractiveness for guys and discuss all those other issues mentioned over good looks. Have you ever seen a men's lifestyle magazine? They tend to have all sorts of fitness and grooming tips and the guys look good.By the way I have already mentioned women's literature and movies. They usually have plenty of hunky guys and no wide standard. Fabio and Fabio clones have jobs for a reason, and it has nothing to do with men.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Unwilling participants? You'll have to explain that one. I throw a beauty contest in my back yard with some friends. Who are the unwilling participants?I said that any specific case might be brought into question. That is to say certain contests might have more far reaching effects based on how they are conducted and handled in any specific society. That some may have unwilling participants, does not mean all would.That means my point stands as I said it. There is no inherent problems of that nature in having a beauty contest. Where did I say that? All I said is that they aren't inherently harmful and are a valid form of entertainment for many people. How does that argue what anyone should do, except for people that don't like them to lighten up on the rhetoric? ??? That means everything in a visual media is about selling bodies, as they are all about making money based on some body doing something that attracts attention. And how would rating women based on IQ or academic standing (in some sort of public contest) make them any less commodities rather than individuals?I think a more accurate statement is that, if they sell anything, it is a momentary glimpse of beauty. Not the bodies themselves. Name a contest that doesn't, and explain why.An enlightened society, to my mind, accepts the diverse range of human interests which may include visceral pleasures. Any specific contest or measurement of a human will always fall short of understanding the whole of a person. That's why they should not be taken seriously, and such a society would not. That doesn't mean they have to dislike or ignore any of them... just understand what they mean, which is an entertaining, diversion.By the way in looking up some info on a major beauty pageant (I think it was Ms America) I found that all contestants are required, or at least expected, to be college graduates. So I guess with regard to that contest any person interested in entering it or emulate such contestants will become educated. That is not to mention that the contestants are likely to be as successful as anyone else (ie contribute to society) as much as anyone else who gets higher education.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

i don't think they're talking about british law. i think they are referring to shari'a law.

quote:

---

While this is simply and assertion on your part, I will play along for sake of argument. So what? That does not mean that men are not judged largely by their looks. an asserion on your part

---

This is simply and asserion on your part.

quote:

---

That does not mean that men do not work or worry about the way the look.

---

I never said that they don't.I am saying that there is far less pressure on men and boys to meet attractiveness ideals compared to women.I am also saying that any ideals that men and boys are expected to neet are far more lenient than those women and girls are expected to meet.This has been changing in recent years, unfortunately, as advertizers have been learning that boys and men can be made to feel inadequate just as women can.

quote:

---

That's because guys like to look at girls and are more likely to buy a magazine with a nice looking girl on the cover... go figure.

---

You missed the point I was trying to make.BOTH men's AND women's lifestyle magazines have pictures of attractive women on the cover.Men's magazines have them, as you say, because men like to look at attractive women, but ALSO to send the message that buying the magazine and following the advice within will help get a woman that looks like the one on the cover (and on the pages inside).Women's lifestyle magazines have attractive and sexy women on the cover to send the message that this is what attractive women lool like and if you want to look like her, buy the magazine and do what it says.The men's covers are designed to make the men feel good about themselves as men, while the women's covers are designed to make women feel inadequate as women.

quote:

---

For your assertion to be true, on the inside of men's lifestyle magazines they would have to promote a broad standard of attractiveness for guys and discuss all those other issues mentioned over good looks. Have you ever seen a men's lifestyle magazine? They tend to have all sorts of fitness and grooming tips and the guys look good.

---

They also have photo shoots of hot women.

quote:

---

By the way I have already mentioned women's literature and movies. They usually have plenty of hunky guys and no wide standard.

---

No wide standard?Compared to the standard for women it is Montana-sized.Tom Cruise is quite short, but he's a mega-star.Johhny Depp, Adrian Brody, and Orlando Bloom are all really skinny and have rather feminine faces, but both are huge stars/sex symbols.Toby McGuire is short AND skinny AND has an average-looking face but he has an enormous fan base of women.Vin Diesel has an enormous body, but his face is not especially handsome, but he is also a huge star.All of these men have tons of women lusting after them, but they couldn't be more different looking from one another.Where are the female lead actresses of similar stature who have as much variation in their body types as even that tiny selection of male stars?I can recall the big deal made about Jennifer Lopez's "big" butt.She doesn't have a "big" butt. She just has a butt compared to nearly every other female actress in Hollywood.

quote:

---

Unwilling participants? You'll have to explain that one. I throw a beauty contest in my back yard with some friends. Who are the unwilling participants?

---

I think he means that since beauty pageants are a part of our culture, and standards of beauty are in part defined and enforced by them, everyone in that culture is a participant in the cultural and social effects of the pageants no matter if they want to be or not.