Jump to content

Young Women in the Media


raven_gaurd0

Recommended Posts

Yes, our own ignorance is also to blame. But the real factor here is the media. As we've said, the media sets the image, and society follows it. The fact that the media deceives us into accepting it is even more infuriating (see the Evolution video).
So universal beauty ideals common for every culture is a myth, it's all dependant on what the media tells us?

 

 

 

Yeah, and those in isolated countries without media access don't find anything beautiful :P

summerpngwy6.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yeah, and those in isolated countries without media access don't find anything beautiful :P
The human race has only managed to survive cause the dirt-poor potato farmers of centuries past had no media access, and left without a guide to beauty, had to marry something.

 

 

 

 

 

Clearly. ;)

-This message was deviously brought to you by: mischief1at.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, our own ignorance is also to blame. But the real factor here is the media. As we've said, the media sets the image, and society follows it. The fact that the media deceives us into accepting it is even more infuriating (see the Evolution video).
So universal beauty ideals common for every culture is a myth, it's all dependant on what the media tells us?

 

Universal beauty ideals? Care to give examples of a "universal" concept of beauty? :lol:

 

 

 

There are always minor details that are shared through multiple cultures/periods, regardless of the media. However, when I refer to the image of "ideal beauty" I am referring to more than just minor details.

 

 

 

Yeah, and those in isolated countries without media access don't find anything beautiful :P

 

Hilarious. :roll:

 

 

 

Renaissance "beauty" was much different from today. A man would see beauty in a plump woman because her weight suggests that she is well-fed (ie: wealthy).

 

Nowadays, men look at plump women with disgust, simply because the media has changed our views on beauty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, and those in isolated countries without media access don't find anything beautiful :P

 

Hilarious. :roll:

 

 

 

Renaissance "beauty" was much different from today. A man would see beauty in a plump woman because her weight suggests that she is well-fed (ie: wealthy).

 

Nowadays, men look at plump women with disgust, simply because the media has changed our views on beauty.

 

 

 

I don't understand what your problem is. If the media defines beauty, then people without media access should have no definition of beauty. The reason this sounds so stupid is because you and I both know that although the media has a large effect on what people find beautiful, it does not set the definition.

summerpngwy6.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Universal beauty ideals? Care to give examples of a "universal" concept of beauty? :lol:
Waist-to-hip ratio, the fact that young average female faces are in studies always deemed most attractive - both of which can be traced to evolutionary concepts, due to their respective coorelations to fertility. The average bit as to do with a concept called koinophilia, which also explains why computer generated melds of several faces produces results that, in studies, are labeled as more attractive then their component faces are.

 

 

 

These are not minor details, they're the underlying basics

 

Renaissance "beauty" was much different from today. A man would see beauty in a plump woman because her weight suggests that she is well-fed (ie: wealthy).

 

Nowadays, men look at plump women with disgust, simply because the media has changed our views on beauty.

So in one beauty ideal - from a time in which starvation was fairly common and the yield per acre of farmland had not yet learned of "mechanized agriculture" - being well-feed was a good thing. A healthy thing.

 

 

 

In todays modern society, particularly in the west, who are fat? The rich, the famous, the succfesful? Are the wealthy well-fed?

 

 

 

... or the poor? That one is, regarding american society anyway, scientifcally established AFAIK; Obesity is not a sign of a positive social status, and I mean that in economic sense.

 

 

 

That particular ideal changing is, ultimately, a sign of a radically changed lifestyle in which a healthy lifestyle is not one where there is enough food to stay away from starvation, but one in which you abstain from food and excercise regularly to avoid obesity. Either way, the women men want are the ones who look healthy. Fertile-looking.

 

 

 

I'm not saying the media doesn't need to perform a reality check on what they're publishing, but blaming our current ideals on the media is ridicolous.

 

 

 

(apologies for funny spelling mistakes, kinda tired and despite proof reading I think some really weird words slipped through in the wrong places)

-This message was deviously brought to you by: mischief1at.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, and those in isolated countries without media access don't find anything beautiful :P

 

Hilarious. :roll:

 

 

 

Renaissance "beauty" was much different from today. A man would see beauty in a plump woman because her weight suggests that she is well-fed (ie: wealthy).

 

Nowadays, men look at plump women with disgust, simply because the media has changed our views on beauty.

 

 

 

I don't understand what your problem is. If the media defines beauty, then people without media access should have no definition of beauty. The reason this sounds so stupid is because you and I both know that although the media has a large effect on what people find beautiful, it does not set the definition.

 

When I say the media "defines" beauty, I did not mean it so literally. Sorry if it came off that way. It may have been more clear had I said that it defines our current view of beauty. :)

 

Perhaps the word "redefine" is also a little more clear.

 

 

 

Beauty exists with or without the media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[hide]

The media defines based on us, the consumers. Technically, it is us that defines beauty because we accept their view of beauty.

 

Do you actually think that the West woke up one morning and spontaneously decided that plump is no longer pretty?

 

 

 

We accept their view of beauty because we are ignorant about the media's intentions and the detrimental effects of accepting that image. Like you said, it's the media's view of beauty, not ours.

 

 

 

The media will adapt the image of the "ideal woman" to the standards of the society, in a way that makes them maximum profit. However, ultimately, it is society that follows the image set by the media, not the other way around.

 

 

 

Wow, you shouldn't put all the blame on the media. I mean we do accept it.

 

Yes, our own ignorance is also to blame. But the real factor here is the media. As we've said, the media sets the image, and society follows it. The fact that the media deceives us into accepting it is even more infuriating (see the Evolution video).

 

 

 

And of course, many of us accept the media -- we have been brought up in a manner that we have no choice but to accept it. Most parents and teachers are just as ignorant about the media as the rest of society. Media class is still a very new concept in schools, and most students don't sign up for it.

 

 

 

Just because we accept something doesn't mean it's a good thing. Take a look at binge drinking, which is "accepted" in various cultures (British, Aussie), yet it has shown to be very detrimental and even fatal to many individuals.

 

 

 

Yeah, good luck trying to get the average Joe to "cultural jam".

 

I suspect they would want to if they were well educated about the media. Nevertheless, since I would be a dictator, I wouldn't give them much choice. ;)

 

 

 

I dont buy this whole awareness thing, sorry. I'm aware.

 

Sorry, but you are not aware. Your earlier posts in this thread show your ignorance in the matter.

 

Even if this thread has shed some light on one particular aspect of the media, it doesn't make you "aware". :|

[/hide]

 

 

 

So we have a vision of beauty, the media capitalizes on that, and that is their fault because they are perfecting OUR version of beauty? Sounds like it's not completely their fault either. We accept their continuous degradation of women. We RAISE our children to accept it. Therefore, we are at fault as well.

 

 

 

We are all ignorant of the media. No one taught us. How is that their fault? Ultimately, it is our own. It seems as if the media and our ignorance are equal factors. I dont understand why you put the media above our ignorance. After all, the media is not making us ignorant.

 

 

 

So we can educate them and make them aware...and then "cultural jam" which accomplishes...?

 

 

 

Definate "awareness". How do I achieve this awareness?

 

 

 

[hide]

Yeah, and those in isolated countries without media access don't find anything beautiful :P

 

Hilarious. :roll:

 

 

 

Renaissance "beauty" was much different from today. A man would see beauty in a plump woman because her weight suggests that she is well-fed (ie: wealthy).

 

Nowadays, men look at plump women with disgust, simply because the media has changed our views on beauty.

 

 

 

I don't understand what your problem is. If the media defines beauty, then people without media access should have no definition of beauty. The reason this sounds so stupid is because you and I both know that although the media has a large effect on what people find beautiful, it does not set the definition.

 

When I say the media "defines" beauty, I did not mean it so literally. Sorry if it came off that way. It may have been more clear had I said that it defines our current view of beauty. :)

 

Perhaps the word "redefine" is also a little more clear.

 

 

 

Beauty exists with or without the media.

[/hide]

 

 

 

But their redefinition of beauty is still subordinate to our original concept of beauty, right?

dmanxb7.jpg

Trix.--quit WoW as of 12/07

Thank you 4be2jue for the wonderful sig and avatar!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we have a vision of beauty, the media capitalizes on that, and that is their fault because they are perfecting OUR version of beauty?

 

You call this perfecting? :lol: If you've understood anything from this entire thread, it's that the current version of beauty is detrimental to our society!!!

 

 

 

Sounds like it's not completely their fault either. We accept their continuous degradation of women. We RAISE our children to accept it. Therefore, we are at fault as well.

 

I can assure you that people who are well aware of the media's damage will not raise their children to fully accept it.

 

 

 

We are all ignorant of the media. No one taught us. How is that their fault? Ultimately, it is our own.

 

When somebody lies to you without a shadow of doubt, is it your own fault for believing them? And if that lie went on to damage the entire society, would it still be your own fault for not picking up on the lie?

 

 

 

You can't blame people for being ignorant. For example...

 

If somebody died from striking a match in a house filled with gas, you may think him stupid for doing such a thing.

 

But if an external force released the gas into the house, without the person knowing, then is it still his fault he died? No. It is the fault of that external force.

 

 

 

So we can educate them and make them aware...and then "cultural jam" which accomplishes...?

 

Maybe you took that a little too literally. I wasn't completely serious. After all, the scenario was me as a world dictator. :twisted:

 

 

 

Culture jamming affects the media on a very small scale, since there are very few people who do it. I like the idea of culture jamming, but I don't do it.

 

 

 

Definate "awareness". How do I achieve this awareness?

 

To be aware is to realize the truth.

 

 

 

Much like the earlier example, if the man was aware that the house was full of gas, he may have been able to save his life.

 

Something similar is happening with the media. If we are aware of the issues, then we can effectively prevent/diminish them. If we are not aware of the issues, then we can't do anything to stop them!

 

 

 

The issue of young women in the meida is a small one among hundreds more. I wouldn't say anyone is truly aware of the media, as the media is always changing itself. Of course, some people (Chomsky, McLuhan) are much more aware than others.

 

 

 

But their redefinition of beauty is still subordinate to our original concept of beauty, right?

 

There may be minor details left, but the image as a whole has been completely redefined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we have a vision of beauty, the media capitalizes on that, and that is their fault because they are perfecting OUR version of beauty?

 

You call this perfecting? :lol: If you've understood anything from this entire thread, it's that the current version of beauty is detrimental to our society!!!

 

I meant perfecting as making it the most appealing to the general public, which it unarguably is.`

 

 

 

So because the media is appealing to our vision of beauty, it is their fault?

 

 

 

Sounds like it's not completely their fault either. We accept their continuous degradation of women. We RAISE our children to accept it. Therefore, we are at fault as well.

 

I can assure you that people who are well aware of the media's damage will not raise their children to fully accept it.

 

 

 

But you just said that no one is "truly aware" but you have to be "well aware" to not raise your children to accept the media's view of beauty. Where's the line? Can you clearly define these lines? I can understand the difference between aware and ignorance in your analogy. However, I cannot understand the difference between "truly aware" and "well aware".

 

 

 

So if someone is raised to be aware and not fully accept the media, they conceive beauty totally differently. And since you're preaching this, I assume you are aware, and therefore your vision of beauty is completely different from mine because you said:

the image as a whole has been completely redefined.
. Do you agree that your vision of beauty is COMPLETELY different than mine?

 

 

 

 

 

We are all ignorant of the media. No one taught us. How is that their fault? Ultimately, it is our own.

 

When somebody lies to you without a shadow of doubt, is it your own fault for believing them? And if that lie went on to damage the entire society, would it still be your own fault for not picking up on the lie?

 

 

 

You can't blame people for being ignorant. For example...

 

If somebody died from striking a match in a house filled with gas, you may think him stupid for doing such a thing.

 

But if an external force released the gas into the house, without the person knowing, then is it still his fault he died? No. It is the fault of that external force.

 

 

 

Yes, but if there is an opportunity to learn that there is gas in the house and you do not take it. Is that not ultimately your fault? While I'm not saying it is entirely our fault, but the media is taking advantage of us and we are letting them. I'll use my own analogy. If someone tells a lie to you and you choose to believe them that is their fault. However, if there was ample information out there disproving that person and you fail to look for it, it is your fault as well as their fault. The media isn't blinding us from information.

 

 

 

So we can educate them and make them aware...and then "cultural jam" which accomplishes...?

 

Maybe you took that a little too literally. I wasn't completely serious. After all, the scenario was me as a world dictator. :twisted:

 

 

 

Culture jamming affects the media on a very small scale, since there are very few people who do it. I like the idea of culture jamming, but I don't do it.

 

 

 

So culturally jamming doesn't do anything to help your cause (because not enough people do it). Right.,

 

 

 

Definate "awareness". How do I achieve this awareness?

 

To be aware is to realize the truth.

 

 

 

Much like the earlier example, if the man was aware that the house was full of gas, he may have been able to save his life.

 

Something similar is happening with the media. If we are aware of the issues, then we can effectively prevent/diminish them. If we are not aware of the issues, then we can't do anything to stop them!

 

 

 

The issue of young women in the meida is a small one among hundreds more. I wouldn't say anyone is truly aware of the media, as the media is always changing itself. Of course, some people (Chomsky, McLuhan) are much more aware than others.

 

Do you "realize the truth"? How can you partially realize it? If you realize any part of the truth, would you mind stating it?

 

 

 

But their redefinition of beauty is still subordinate to our original concept of beauty, right?

 

There may be minor details left, but the image as a whole has been completely redefined.

 

So if there was no media our perception of beauty would be totally different?

dmanxb7.jpg

Trix.--quit WoW as of 12/07

Thank you 4be2jue for the wonderful sig and avatar!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry BlueTear, I didn't see it.

 

 

 

Waist-to-hip ratio, the fact that young average female faces are in studies always deemed most attractive - both of which can be traced to evolutionary concepts, due to their respective coorelations to fertility. The average bit as to do with a concept called koinophilia, which also explains why computer generated melds of several faces produces results that, in studies, are labeled as more attractive then their component faces are.

 

 

 

These are not minor details, they're the underlying basics

 

Yes, you're right. Women with no visible deformities, all their limbs attached and a standard WHR are often considered more attractive.

 

 

 

However, referring to my original question, these aspects only comprise of a fraction of the entire concept of beauty. There is no universal concept of beauty, AFAIK, even if there may be individual shared ideals among varying cultures/periods.

 

 

 

So in one beauty ideal - from a time in which starvation was fairly common and the yield per acre of farmland had not yet learned of "mechanized agriculture" - being well-feed was a good thing. A healthy thing.

 

 

 

In todays modern society, particularly in the west, who are fat? The rich, the famous, the succfesful? Are the wealthy well-fed?

 

 

 

... or the poor? That one is, regarding american society anyway, scientifcally established AFAIK; Obesity is not a sign of a positive social status, and I mean that in economic sense.

 

Plump does not mean obese. :|

 

Obesity was often a sign of the poor, even in the 18th century.

 

 

 

That particular ideal changing is, ultimately, a sign of a radically changed lifestyle in which a healthy lifestyle is not one where there is enough food to stay away from starvation, but one in which you abstain from food and excercise regularly to avoid obesity.

 

Yes, the ideals are changing in regards to weight. The media puts out an image of being healthy and excercising regularly, and it helps a lot. I like that ideal.

 

 

 

But the concept of a healthy woman is different from the concept of a sexy woman. And the media that most teens are faced with is focused on "sexy", not "healthy".

 

 

 

To illustrate what I mean...

 

 

 

The healthy woman:

 

joggingvc5.jpg

 

 

 

The sexy woman:

 

12193ss5.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Venomai, the pictures only work because of the way the girls are dressed. If the healthy one was wearing a bikini, there would be no difference in how sexy they are.

 

Well, that's pretty much true. :) Of course, the girl jogging isn't wearing as much make up, and her hair hasn't been done, and her bust isn't quite so defined, etc.

 

 

 

But the point is -- teens are seeing the "sexy images" rather than the "healthy images". Hell, it could even be the same models, but the fact is that the media is showing teens the skinny/busty aspects of the models rather than their overall health and well-being.

 

 

 

Oh and look on page 3.

 

Will do.. but after dinner. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Venomai, the pictures only work because of the way the girls are dressed. If the healthy one was wearing a bikini, there would be no difference in how sexy they are.

 

Well, that's pretty much true. :) Of course, the girl jogging isn't wearing as much make up, and her hair hasn't been done, and her bust isn't quite so defined, etc.

 

 

 

But the point is -- teens are seeing the "sexy images" rather than the "healthy images". Hell, it could even be the same models, but the fact is that the media is showing teens the skinny/busty aspects of the models rather than their overall health and well-being.

 

 

 

Oh and look on page 3.

 

Will do.. but after dinner. :P

 

 

 

That is because the one without the clothes is more appealing to those teens and those teens accept it; another reason why it is our fault. If most people thought that the healthy person who isn't "trying" to look presentable was sexier she would be the one on the front of the magazine. And if you are telling me that I should think the healthy person is more beautiful then you're just as bad as the media.

 

 

 

 

 

Ooh, what are you havin'. Making me hungry!

dmanxb7.jpg

Trix.--quit WoW as of 12/07

Thank you 4be2jue for the wonderful sig and avatar!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is because the one without the clothes is more appealing to those teens and those teens accept it; another reason why it is our fault. If most people thought that the healthy person who isn't "trying" to look presentable was sexier she would be the one on the front of the magazine. And if you are telling me that I should think the healthy person is more beautiful then you're just as bad as the media.

 

No, I'm not saying the healthy person is more beautiful. I would place all the girls I showed at equal beauty, but in different presentations (ie: makeup, clothes).

 

 

 

We've already said it -- sex sells. I don't blame the media for portraying images of scantly clad women (as teens love it). Rather, I blame them for portraying "sexy" and "ideal beauty" as something that requires you to be very skinny/tanned/busty/etc which is very difficult for the average girl to achieve (and thus, ends up being detrimental when the girl tries to force herself into the "ideal body type").

 

 

 

Nevertheless, simply because something is accepted does not mean it should be continued. As I've already stated, excessive binge drinking is accepted in many cultures, yet it has shown to be an extremely detrimental activity among many individuals.

 

 

 

So because the media is appealing to our vision of beauty, it is their fault?

 

Let's step back a pace, lest we forget about what we are blaming them for.

 

 

 

I was suggesting that much of the current view of beauty (skinny, busty, tanned, young, etc) is based on the media's promotion of that particular image. Had the media continued to promote the image of fair skin and plumpness as "beautiful", then that would be our current view of beauty. I'm arguing that the only reason we find the current image to be particularly appealing is because the media has made it so.

 

 

 

I don't mind the media influencing our view on beauty. In certain cases, it can be benefitial. However, I am blaming the media in this particular case for promoting an image of "skinny girls" to teens even though the result is a general decrease in self-esteem and an increase in teen eating disorders.

 

 

 

But you just said that no one is "truly aware" but you have to be "well aware" to not raise your children to accept the media's view of beauty. Where's the line? Can you clearly define these lines? I can understand the difference between aware and ignorance in your analogy. However, I cannot understand the difference between "truly aware" and "well aware".

 

"Well aware" or "aware" is somebody who realizes the majority of the lies made by the media and is able to criticize and analyze the media in an unbiased manner (ie: judging with "both sides" of the argument).

 

I'm just talking in generalities here. There is no line or rank to how aware you are. If you want a simple answer, you are either aware or you are not aware.

 

When I say nobody is "truly aware" I mean nobody is fully conscious of all aspects of the media at all times -- for that you would need to be omniscient (ie: some sort of God).

 

 

 

So if someone is raised to be aware and not fully accept the media, they conceive beauty totally differently. And since you're preaching this, I assume you are aware, and therefore your vision of beauty is completely different from mine ... Do you agree that your vision of beauty is COMPLETELY different than mine?

 

Hell, I never said my vision of beauty is any different.

 

I'm not preaching that women who are plump or fair skinned are beautiful, I'm preaching that the media has changed that image in a manner that is now detrimental to our society.

 

My vision of beauty is most likely the same as yours. I love young, tanned, busty, sexy, skinny girls just as much as the next man.

 

 

 

Yes, but if there is an opportunity to learn that there is gas in the house and you do not take it. Is that not ultimately your fault?

 

What opportunity? Are you talking about Noam Chomsky? Media awareness classes?

 

Going back to that example -- the person does not realize he needs to learn anything new as the person isn't aware that anything is wrong.

 

 

 

If someone tells a lie to you and you choose to believe them that is their fault. However, if there was ample information out there disproving that person and you fail to look for it, it is your fault as well as their fault. The media isn't blinding us from information.

 

With a good lie, there is no suspicion that anything is wrong. Surely you've seen movies involving con artists. Is it the victim's fault because they didn't search far enough for information? No. They had no reason to search for information (such as background checks) because usually the situation is so believable.

 

 

 

Say your girlfriend tells you she is going grocery shopping. If this is normal for her behaviour (ie: she does it often, her fridge is empty, you're in a healthy relationship, etc) then why would you suspect anything is wrong? And, if by chance something is wrong (such as an affair), is it your own fault for not doing the proper research? Is it your own fault for not following her around the city every time she claims to go shopping?

 

 

 

If there is reason to doubt a lie then by all means you should look into it. But if there is no doubt, why look into it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I'm not saying the healthy person is more beautiful. I would place all the girls I showed at equal beauty, but in different presentations (ie: makeup, clothes).

 

So it is the way the media presents them (i.e dress and make-up) that separates them from the average "beautiful" woman, correct?

 

(If the above statement is incorrect (or you can prove so) then ignore the statements below)

 

 

 

[hide]Why then is it so hard for these teens you speak of to change their appearance and way of dress to resemble these media figures?

 

 

 

Now you said what causes harm is not them changing clothes but them trying to be skinny and these teens trying to change their body. According to the logic above, it would be no different if a woman saw another skinnier, more beautiful woman on the street and try to be like her. Do we blame the woman she saw or her because she's stupid enough to change herself. The media does not physically force a girl to change her appearance, nor does the woman physically force the other woman to change her appearance.[/hide]

 

 

 

We've already said it -- sex sells. I don't blame the media for portraying images of scantly clad women (as teens love it). Rather, I blame them for portraying "sexy" and "ideal beauty" as something that requires you to be very skinny/tanned/busty/etc which is very difficult for the average girl to achieve (and thus, ends up being detrimental when the girl tries to force herself into the "ideal body type").

 

 

 

Nevertheless, simply because something is accepted does not mean it should be continued. As I've already stated, excessive binge drinking is accepted in many cultures, yet it has shown to be an extremely detrimental activity among many individuals.

 

 

 

Once again you are blaming the media for us accepting their view of beauty. The media is not physically requiring women to look like their depiction of beauty. It is the public and the women who decide they want to look like that because it is deemed beautiful by SOCIETY and not strictly the media. Why should the media change their policies because other women are assuming they have to look like that?

 

 

 

I was suggesting that much of the current view of beauty (skinny, busty, tanned, young, etc) is based on the media's promotion of that particular image.

 

This is dead wrong because the media only promotes it because society accepts it. Therefore, society is at fault. I dont see how you can put the media at fault on this one.

 

 

 

Had the media continued to promote the image of fair skin and plumpness as "beautiful", then that would be our current view of beauty. I'm arguing that the only reason we find the current image to be particularly appealing is because the media has made it so.

 

Yes but it would ONLY promote "the image of fair skin and plumpness" if society accepted it first. The last statement is wrong because the media tends to us and not the other way around. The media's actions are directly influenced by what we, the people, want.

 

 

 

If you saw two posters:

 

uglylp4.jpg

 

 

 

adrianalimaaiq5.jpg

 

Ask yourself: Which would I prefer?

 

Then ask yourself: Which does the media portray as beautiful?

 

Then if you dont reach a conclusion ask yourself: If they protrayed image1 as beautiful, would I think image1 is more beautiful than image 2?

 

 

 

However, I am blaming the media in this particular case for promoting an image of "skinny girls" to teens even though the result is a general decrease in self-esteem and an increase in teen eating disorders.

 

 

 

Once again, how is this the media's fault? They are not physically requiring girls to be skinny and such.

 

 

 

"Well aware" or "aware" is somebody who realizes the majority of the lies made by the media and is able to criticize and analyze the media in an unbiased manner (ie: judging with "both sides" of the argument).

 

I'm just talking in generalities here. There is no line or rank to how aware you are. If you want a simple answer, you are either aware or you are not aware.

 

When I say nobody is "truly aware" I mean nobody is fully conscious of all aspects of the media at all times -- for that you would need to be omniscient (ie: some sort of God).

 

 

 

I realize the media is full of lies, and you said I was not aware. I'm not ignorant to the fact that most of the media is bs but I am not aware (according to you).

 

 

 

So because you're preaching this awareness thing, I assume you are "aware" and you can criticize the media in an unbiased way. However, you cannot understand why the media functions. It functions based on society's needs and views.

 

 

 

What opportunity? Are you talking about Noam Chomsky? Media awareness classes?

 

Going back to that example -- the person does not realize he needs to learn anything new as the person isn't aware that anything is wrong.

 

With a good lie, there is no suspicion that anything is wrong. Surely you've seen movies involving con artists. Is it the victim's fault because they didn't search far enough for information? No. They had no reason to search for information (such as background checks) because usually the situation is so believable.

 

 

 

Say your girlfriend tells you she is going grocery shopping. If this is normal for her behaviour (ie: she does it often, her fridge is empty, you're in a healthy relationship, etc) then why would you suspect anything is wrong? And, if by chance something is wrong (such as an affair), is it your own fault for not doing the proper research? Is it your own fault for not following her around the city every time she claims to go shopping?

 

 

 

If there is reason to doubt a lie then by all means you should look into it. But if there is no doubt, why look into it?

 

 

 

You dont have to go to that extent. You can just question everything you hear and see. Only fools are completely manipulated by the media.

dmanxb7.jpg

Trix.--quit WoW as of 12/07

Thank you 4be2jue for the wonderful sig and avatar!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, you're right. Women with no visible deformities, all their limbs attached and a standard WHR are often considered more attractive.

 

 

 

However, referring to my original question, these aspects only comprise of a fraction of the entire concept of beauty. There is no universal concept of beauty, AFAIK, even if there may be individual shared ideals among varying cultures/periods.

No, they don't. Healthy- and fertile looking women are what looks attractive to males. Social status is also a factor. These are the underlying concepts on which all definitions of beauty, always, are based because that's what we're genetically coded for. If it's a beauty ideal, it can be traced back to these factors.

 

Plump does not mean obese. :|

 

Obesity was often a sign of the poor, even in the 18th century.

And skinny doesn't mean unhealthily starved. Nevertheless, who is the more fit and healthy?

 

Yes, the ideals are changing in regards to weight. The media puts out an image of being healthy and excercising regularly, and it helps a lot. I like that ideal.
It's not the media's idea, it's genetically hardcoded. The media cannot randomly decide what is attractive and convince people of it. In western society today, when food habits and a sedetary lifestyle doesn't particularly run on the healthy side of things, healthy changes it's meaning.
But the concept of a healthy woman is different from the concept of a sexy woman. And the media that most teens are faced with is focused on "sexy", not "healthy".
But the view of the males is not altered by this. Look up physical attractiveness on wikipedia, they cite a study in which the males continue to go for "average, healthy looking". The media does not set the ideal; Populations do.

-This message was deviously brought to you by: mischief1at.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the view of the males is not altered by this. Look up physical attractiveness on wikipedia, they cite a study in which the males continue to go for "average, healthy looking". The media does not set the ideal; Populations do.

 

I see your point. :-# In most cases, society truly defines the basis of beauty when it comes to judging another being.

 

 

 

However, those studies only seem to support my claims that the media is attempting to redefine beauty and, as a result, is distorting our view on the ideal self-image. Whether or not the media actually succeeds in changing the underlying concepts of beauty, their distortions are detrimental to the population. It ends up introducing a secondary concept of beauty, which many teens wrongly assume to be the true concept of beauty.

 

 

 

From the article:

 

However, it should be noted that, in the United States, women overestimate men's preferences for thinness in a mate. In one study, American women were asked to choose what their ideal build was and what they thought the build most attractive to men was. Women chose slimmer than average figures for both choices, though when American men were independently asked to choose the female build most attractive to them, they (the men) chose figures of average build, indicating that women are misled as to how thin men prefer women to be.

 

 

 

Here's a quote from another study that Wikipedia cites:

 

The Western men estimated that women preferred a male body with 20 to 30 pounds more muscle than an average man. But when actual Western women were asked to choose the male body that they liked, they selected an ordinary male body without all of the added muscle. By contrast, the Taiwanese men did not show this distortion; they correctly recognized that women did not prefer a bulked-up male body.

 

 

 

"Our findings suggest that Western men may have a very distorted view of what they ideally should look like, whereas men in Taiwan don't seem to have this problem," says senior author Harrison Pope Jr., MD, director of McLean Hospital's Biological Psychiatry Laboratory. "These factors may explain why body dysmorphic disorder and anabolic steroid abuse are far more serious in the West than in Taiwan. In fact, we have seen almost no evidence of steroid abuse anywhere in the Pacific Rim."

 

 

 

And skinny doesn't mean unhealthily starved. Nevertheless, who is the more fit and healthy?

 

The rich are more healthy/fit, as they often are.

 

 

 

No, they don't. Healthy- and fertile looking women are what looks attractive to males. Social status is also a factor. These are the underlying concepts on which all definitions of beauty, always, are based because that's what we're genetically coded for. If it's a beauty ideal, it can be traced back to these factors.

 

Alright, I'll give you that one, too.

 

 

 

But go back to my earlier images, with the jogger and the victoria secret ad. The jogger is healthy and fertile looking, and radiates a high social status. There is no doubt she is attractive, but she pales in comparison with the skinnier, bustier, more tanned and more airbrushed/made up girls below.

 

I'll accept that, in our current society, being healthy and fertile can make you more attractive, but you will need a lot more than that to reach the "ideal beauty" as defined by the media (whether or not it is true beauty).

 

 

 

The issue here is that female teens are NOT being fed with "healthy means attractive" but rather "skinny/busty/makeup/etc means attractive".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, those studies only seem to support my claims that the media is attempting to redefine beauty and, as a result, is distorting our view on the ideal self-image. Whether or not the media actually succeeds in changing the underlying concepts of beauty, their distortions are detrimental to the population. It ends up introducing a secondary concept of beauty, which many teens wrongly assume to be the true concept of beauty.
Ah, but why? Why does the media continue to propagate what is ultimately a deviation of the ideal which are hardcorded for, the ideal which we will strive for when we seek a mate?

 

 

 

'cause it makes them money. The masses see images of women they'll never meet in real life - and I mean that in the sense that the women on that Victoria Secrets add do not exist without hours of makeup, carefully arrayed lighting under controlled conditions and some computerized assistance to add the finishing touches - and still we continue to buy into them. Blaming the media for this is best related to the proverb "Shame on you if you fool me once, shame on me if you fool me twice". You can't argue that "we don't know any better" when it comes to beauty ideals, that we are forced to accept the view the media spreads, because it's easy enough to prove that we do know better.

 

 

 

As I said, I'm not saying the media doesn't need to do a serious reality check on what they publish, but they're not the ones to be blamed for repeating a behaviour which actually rewards them; We buy it. We choose to buy it.

 

 

 

If blame is to placed, look at a society in which young women and men gain their views of they should look and act to attract the opposite sex not by actually communicating with the opposite sex to find out what they like, oh no, but by accepting images put forward by advertising agencies with an axe to grind. I don't want to veer too far of on a tanget, but if you're going to blame something, blame political correctness taken so far the reality behind sexual attraction is replaced by ads for cosmetics and underwear.

-This message was deviously brought to you by: mischief1at.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I leave for a week and see what happens....

 

 

 

I'm mildly surprised this topic stayed up on the charts, and I think all of you are right. Beautiful, not real, women make money, and in this day and age, that is what it all comes down to. Cold hard Benjamin's.

 

 

 

I don't think it's right or wrong how these people live. I think it's right or wrong how they treat others, and how they neglect how powerful they are. A beautiful model for Victoria's secret might have hospitalized many young women. Maybe they didn't feel 'up to par' when they saw this ravishingly sexy women, so they went bulimic, or anorexic, and ended up in the trauma ward.

 

 

 

It's their decision, and I won't condemn nor provoke their actions. It's really not my place, but I can only bring up awareness by saying again and again that:

 

 

 

You do NOT have to live up to these goddesses of beauty,

 

You are your own person, treat yourself like it,

 

You're more than a pretty face, you are a human being. Act like it.

Calvin.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My personal favorite is when women talk about how demeaning pornography is to women and how sexist it is when they fail to realize that the women are the ones consenting to be in it. Instead of whining to people like me who don't purchase it and take no part in production, why don't they complain to the women who participate?

 

 

 

QED, seriously.

sigon4.jpg

handed me TWO tissues to clear up. I was like "i'm going to need a few more paper towels than that luv"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The porn industry isn't to blame for anything except following the detrimental standards that are set by the media.

 

And the media isn't to blame for anything except following the detrimental standards that are set by society.

 

 

 

Think about it. The easiest way for women to compete with men in our society is by being as attractive as possible. Women haven't always had the same opportunities as men. And in certain situation women still don't have the same opportunities as men. So don't blame the media. Blame society.

untitledyt6.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.