Comics and realistic body image

Cat42 · Post by **Cat42** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 9:02 am

I am a firm believer in nuking this whole damn rock, and giving the world to the cockroches.

Pillywiggin · Post by **Pillywiggin** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 9:27 am

Castle_Builder wrote:
Noise Monkey wrote:I've long said they should make people get licensed to have the ability to reproduce.

If you fail, sterilization it is!
I can't help but agree. On the one hand it scares me to death that I feel that way, but SERIOUSLY there just ARE people out there that should NOT be reproducing.

The problem with this idea is just who would get to decide what sort of qualities were neccessary to be liscensed? The goverment?

In which case I might as well kill myself now.

cat42 wrote:I am a firm believer in nuking this whole damn rock, and giving the world to the cockroches.

Also a valid option. They're already starting to take over my dorm anyway.

Castle_Builder · Post by **Castle_Builder** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 9:38 am

Pillywiggin wrote:
Castle_Builder wrote:
Noise Monkey wrote:I've long said they should make people get licensed to have the ability to reproduce.

If you fail, sterilization it is!
I can't help but agree. On the one hand it scares me to death that I feel that way, but SERIOUSLY there just ARE people out there that should NOT be reproducing.
The problem with this idea is just who would get to decide what sort of qualities were neccessary to be liscensed? The goverment?

In which case I might as well kill myself now.

That's why it scares me to death.

Col · Post by **Col** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 9:38 am

Chill, people. Not everyone in the world is hopeless.

Anywherebuthere · Post by **Anywherebuthere** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 9:45 am

cat42 wrote:I am a firm believer in nuking this whole damn rock, and giving the world to the cockroches.

You ever talked to a cockroach? Racest buggars, the lot of them.

Wishmaster · Post by **Wishmaster** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 11:04 am

Rocknjosie, I really do have to ask, would it be so wrong for women to take responsibility for their own actions? No one forced Victorian women into corsets. No one forced Aztec girls to put labrets in their lips. No one forces modern women to get big fake boobs.

Women worship at the altar of fashion in a temple of their own making. Men would still lust after and objectify women even if they wore only burlap sacks for dresses and crockpots for hats. Don't blame them, blame the Cult of Fashion your sisters so willingly become intiates of.

(circa way back long ago B.C.)
Tula: "Thog, honey? Onga's husband gave her a bearskin cloak and a necklace of shiny white teeth. I want a bearskin cloak! I want a necklace of shiny white teeth!"

Thog was killed by a cave bear two days later. Tula got someone else to get her the bearskin cloak.

As an aside, the world is a pretty screwed up cesspit, but then I'm of the opinion that it always was.

Noise Monkey · Post by **Noise Monkey** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 11:10 am

wishmaster wrote:Rocknjosie, I really do have to ask, would it be so wrong for women to take responsibility for their own actions? No one forced Victorian women into corsets. No one forced Aztec girls to put labrets in their lips. No one forces modern women to get big fake boobs.

Women worship at the altar of fashion in a temple of their own making. Men would still lust after and objectify women even if they wore only burlap sacks for dresses and crockpots for hats. Don't blame them, blame the Cult of Fashion your sisters so willingly become intiates of.

(circa way back long ago B.C.)
Tula: "Thog, honey? Onga's husband gave her a bearskin cloak and a necklace of shiny white teeth. I want a bearskin cloak! I want a necklace of shiny white teeth!"

As an aside, the world is a pretty screwed up cesspit, but then I'm of the opinion that it always was.

While I generally agree on the point, in the past, say, when it was still ok to beat your wife with a stick, so long as it was no bigger around than your thumb, women's fashion wasn't so much an option. If a woman didn't like what her husband bought for her to wear (or hunted and killed or whatever), it was entirely up to him whether or not, and how severely, he wanted to beat her.

I'm not saying that we're necessarily completely past that. I'm just saying that women now are in a better position to take that responsibility.

Wishmaster · Post by **Wishmaster** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 11:13 am

Yeah, because as we all know all men everywhere since the dawn of time have beaten their women.

Noise Monkey · Post by **Noise Monkey** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 11:19 am

not as a whole, but as a few...

BrownEyedCat · Post by **BrownEyedCat** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 11:24 am

That statement bothers me, Wishmaster, but not because I think fashion was forced on women by men.

Women certainly didn't stand around and say 'Corsets! What a great idea! I like the look that they create either!' They were raised to it. They were raised in an environment where their only hope for the future was to marry well. Their best bet for doing so was to market their physical attractiveness and to perfect their wifely skill-set (cooking, knitting, whatever), so little children would be groomed into the way of life until it became second nature to them.

On social occasions, ones when you were likely to impress a man, attractiveness was the only thing you could put forward, so that's what you concentrated on. And if some fashion magazine said corsets are the way to go, then you damn well wore corsets, because you were also pitted against every other woman for looks. You had to prove that you were fashion forward. After all, would a man marry a woman who, ten years from now, people would be ridiculing for being so backward? For most practical things men had servents and mistresses, marriage then was about status.

And if you didn't win any of the men? Social stigma and occasionally, a genuinely difficult life.

This is all based on the assumption of high society of a sort. But the point is, it wasn't men deciding or women deciding. It was a system, and it was a damaging system. And it's a system that still lingers on today.

The trouble is that acceptance of this on the part of woman AND men perpetuates it. If we're shoving the blame on either side of the gender line, we're failing to address the problem.

Wishmaster · Post by **Wishmaster** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 11:31 am

In any case domestic violence is a sideline clouding the main issue. Rocknjosie seems to want to lay all these torturous fashion innovations and negative body images at the feet of men, because "that's the kind of woman they wanted."

Now, call me crazy but - being male - I think I might have a better idea of how men think than a woman shrilly proclaiming how we oppress her sex through fashion. The simple fact of the matter is, many to most men don't give a shit about fashion. Go to any wedding and look at how the people are dressed. The women are all dolled up in their finest dresses and accessories, which they own, while the men are all wearing more or less identical tuxedos and suits, most of which will be returned to the rental place the next day. So who is it exactly pressuring women to wear the "latest thing?" Maybe the other women wearing said latest thing possibly?

Young girls look up to older women (not men) as to how to dress, speak, behave. Police yourselves, ladies.

Rocknjosie · Post by **Rocknjosie** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 11:33 am

I'm all for the baby licence thing. Sure, what qualities qualify you would be problematic, especially if the government were involved, but say if the only factors were you couldn't be an adict of any kind. This would include alcohol, smoking, other drugs, eating disorders, etc. Sure this would reduce the amount of babies dramatically but I think this is a wonderful thing. In fact, I'm crazy enough to say no one should be allowed to have babies till all the kids in orphanages are adopted. There's just enough people already, Los Angeles is as long as the distance from Boston to New York, we have cities with multiple billions of people, more babies are the last thing america needs.
And think of how it would improve schools if teachers didn't have to teach overcrowded classes. And think of how that would improve society.
Would it ultimately be horrible and 1984-ish, sure. But it's either that or more natural disasters. The population has to be controlled somehow.

btw: I'm sorry that's so off topic, we can go back to discussing body image now.

Mo · Post by Mo » Wed Oct 12, 2005 11:34 am

Edit: While writing this, BEC posted and put it very well. I'll still post my two kroner.

While I generally agree that people have to take responsibility for their own actions, you can't be oblivious to the fact that we live in a world of competition. Yes, women compete for admiration and attention. Some may deny it, but it's what we do... alright, most of us. We want to be desirable.

Tell me one thing: If you see a woman in a burlap sack with a crockpot on her head, and right beside her, a woman in a tight and sexy red dress and a fashionable hat, which one are you more likely to lust after and objectify?

And don't tell me it depends on the color of her eyes.

My point being: The sexier other women dress and look, be it in medias, comics or in real life, the more pressure is put on the average everyday woman. Cause none of us wants to be the girl in a burlap sack from the illustration above.

Noise Monkey · Post by **Noise Monkey** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 11:47 am

Cookie Reinforcement wrote:Tell me one thing: If you see a woman in a burlap sack with a crockpot on her head, and right beside her, a woman in a tight and sexy red dress and a fashionable hat, which one are you more likely to lust after and objectify?

How long is that sack?

Wishmaster · Post by **Wishmaster** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 11:55 am

I'll just go ahead and prepare myself for the hail of flaming arrows now.

Yes, there are other factors to consider. We live in a consumer culture where people sell things to other people, so the goal is to present the product as indispensable. "You can't live without it!" Sometimes the product is corsets and, sure enough, ladies will line up around the block. But... the thing that truly stands out here in both (Cookie and BEC) replies?

Women in competition against other women. They just had to look good because they never got anywhere unless they traded on their bodies, which meant they had to look better than the other women.

Because, after all, no woman ever got anywhere in history by, say, using her Machiavellian ruthlessness and cunning to get ahead. Because, no man ever married a woman for her mind or because she was a good cook or because she could bargain for goods better than himself. Yup, that's all we've been after the whole time - - your precious bodies.

Here, allow me to play to stereotype...

Cookie Reinforcement wrote:Tell me one thing: If you see a woman in a burlap sack with a crockpot on her head, and right beside her, a woman in a tight and sexy red dress and a fashionable hat, which one are you more likely to lust after and objectify? And don't tell me it depends on the color of her eyes.

You're right, it doesn't depend on the color of her eyes. It depends on the roundness of her buttocks, the strength of her haunches, the plumpness of her lips, the roundness of her hips, the skillful motions of her hands...

A tight and sexy red dress sounds great, but what's in it? You can spray perfume on crap and it still stinks, worse in fact, because someone tried to cover it up with perfume. All clothes can do is get you attention, you still have to have somethign else to back it up, be it brains, body, or both.

All I know is you don't see me bitching about how women have oppressed me into having to buy a nice new car or get a high paying job to impress them. I just continue to drive the POS I've got, work where I can find work in this suck ass economy, and chalk it up the superficiality of most modern women. Do I complain that women put me into competition with other men for a mate? No, I just accept it as part of the game and then continue to play by my own rules.

Mo · Post by Mo » Wed Oct 12, 2005 11:59 am

wishmaster wrote:I'll just go ahead and prepare myself for the hail of flaming arrows now.

You know what? I just won't bother, because you're misinterpreting everything I say, and lack of sleep makes me irritable.

I'll just be over there --------> with a cynical smirk on my face.

Rocknjosie · Post by **Rocknjosie** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 12:09 pm

Wishmaster, I understand your point but...
How many grandparents have you heard say, You'd be pretty if you used a little blush, If you dressed better, If you lost some weight
How many grandparents have you heard say, You could get a husband if you knew how to cook a traditional Jewish, Indian, Italian, [insert culture here] meal
and How many grandparenst have you heard say, You could get married if you read more Virginia Woolf, If you got your PhD, If you could interpret Shakespear.

Wishmaster · Post by **Wishmaster** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 12:11 pm

Cookie Reinforcement wrote:I'll just be over there --------> with a cynical smirk on my face.

And I'll be over here with mine. I believe I understand a goodly bit of what you're saying. We're just looking at things from different ends of the spectrum.

Yeah, no girl wants to be the one in the burlap sack, and no guy wants to be the last one picked for the team. Men compete against men, women compete against women, and both sexes compete against the other. Thing is, if people are in competition they are already playing the game, so what's the use in griping about the rules?

In any case, I apologize if I have offended you. Even if I don't entirely agree, I found your response to be intelligent and well written. I can discuss an issue like this with someone like yourself far easier than those who throw around laundry lists of grievances and gender biased torture practices as if that were the be all and end all of said issue.

Noise Monkey · Post by **Noise Monkey** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 12:16 pm

Rocknjosie wrote:How many grandparenst have you heard say, You could get married if you read more Virginia Woolf, If you got your PhD, If you could interpret Shakespear.

...not one.

Of course, here in the south, I'm told they like their women a bit on the stupid side. That way they don't get "all uppity" and want "equal rights" and such.

I hate this place.

Rocknjosie · Post by **Rocknjosie** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 12:22 pm

wishmaster wrote:
Cookie Reinforcement wrote:I'll just be over there --------> with a cynical smirk on my face.
And I'll be over here with mine. I believe I understand a goodly bit of what you're saying. We're just looking at things from different ends of the spectrum.

Yeah, no girl wants to be the one in the burlap sack, and no guy wants to be the last one picked for the team. Men compete against men, women compete against women, and both sexes compete against the other. Thing is, if people are in competition they are already playing the game, so what's the use in griping about the rules?

In any case, I apologize if I have offended you. Even if I don't entirely agree, I found your response to be intelligent and well written. I can discuss an issue like this with someone like yourself far easier than those who throw around laundry lists of grievances and gender biased torture practices as if that were the be all and end all of said issue.

I know i've just been listing grievances, but when I say way too many girls have eating disorders, everyone says that's not societies fault, take personal responsibility. So I try and back up my claim with evidence that many great societies have placed impossible expectations on how women should look. This conversation has been at an impass for a week though, I thought I had given up on Saturday but I got sucked back in.