Comics and realistic body image

[Starline]

When your twenty, it's unwanted advice. When you're sixteen, it's slightly troubling unwanted advice.

When your FIVE, it's FORMATIVE. And it's damn hard to unravel an instinct that attractiveness=happiness that's been in your head since your five.

Maybe it's good advice. Old people have been around the block more than a few times. Perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to dismiss their advice. Your teenage years are just as formative if not moreso than when you're five. Trust me, I've had my share of unwanted advice, slightly troubling unwanted advice, and FORMATIVE advice, but you can only blame elders for your unhappiness for so long. It goes back to personal accountability.

'If you don't pretty yourself up, you'll never get married' is good advice? I thought you were arguing that men don't select a mate solely on physical appearance.

It's not bad advice either. And it applies to both men and women. I wouldn't give a second glance at a guy or girl who doesn't attempt to make themselves look attractive. It's basic grooming. Hell, taking a shower is part of "prettying up".

And he wasn't arguing that men don't select a mate only on physical apperance. I don't know where you got that from.

Both genders look for mates based on some physical apperance. Seriously, would you be attracted to someone who was a complete disgusting slob?

[Faub]

Okay, people. This is getting nasty. Calm down or I'm locking this.

[Wishmaster]

If you don't pretty yourself up, you'll never get married' is good advice?

Why does this keep coming back to appearance for you? The examples of grandmotherly advice Rocknjosie provided included (going from memory here, so forgive me if I go astray) prettying oneself up, learning to cook a cultural meal, and learning to interpret Shakespeare. You have the physical, the domestic, and the intellectual. Is that so bad?

Similar advice could be given to men: run off that spare tire (advice I need to take, in fact) and groom yourself, learn to fix things, and learn to interpret Shakespeare.

I thought you were arguing that men don't select a mate solely on physical appearance.

As male arousal triggers are more visually oriented than women's appearance will always be a factor in selecting a mate. That said, I was arguing that not all men, not men as one group whole and entire, make physical appearance the sole basis for selecting a mate.

I wasn't calling you a sexist. Or at least I wasn't trying to.

Fair enough.

You've been doing nothing but deny that men have ANY role in the creation of women's body issues.

If I haven't made it clear by now then, yes, men share a good portion of the blame but (forgive the pun) not the lioness' share.

What the hell? What legislation? Who's talking about governmental reform?

There would have to be some form of regulation of media (print, television, music) in order to bring about the world you envision. Otherwise the negative stereotypes will always find both promoters and an audience. Of course, there would still be both even if there were some form of media regulation - - it would just go underground. Anyway, my mistake.

A tired old truth is still a truth, why else refer to it as such?

Well, you've got me there. But it's only a matter of selecting a more appropriate word. Tired old beliefs, then.[/quote]

Orselecting a more appropriate counter. As we were discussing animal behavior and the animal behavior of man specifically I have to point out animals don't have beliefs, they have instincts, which is what I was getting at - - man's animal instincts.

Cross cultural studies show quite clearly that a lot of male/female interaction is learned. For humans what the display behaviors are is not constant. What constitutes an attractive mate changes. And if we can shift what is being focused on to something new and less destructive than the behaviors we've been discussing, then all the better.

Starline summed up a lot of what I have to say about this. Some things are nearly universal and others can be attributed, again, to the complexity of the human mind making the display behaviors and standards of attractive appearance and behavior correspondingly more complex.

And that shouldn't cause any problems, because men who are interested in women for who they are instead of what they're wearing will follow happily.

Interested in what they wear? Not me. The less they wear the more happily I follow.

Sorry, I just had to.

Two truths can directly contradict one another and still both be true.

. . . What? No . . . I don't think that's right.

"A lie told often enough becomes the truth." - Lenin

"A lie no matter how often told will never be the truth." - FDR

Which is true, please?

Having room for someone else's view in your world view isn't the same as agreeing with it.

I'm sorry for reading things into your posts. But the things you say make me very, very angry.

It comes through in your posts, which (in review) I see brings out an unintentionally nasty side to my own posts. It is not my intent to anger, only discuss. Friends?

*holds hand out for an uncomfortably long time*

A lot of what you say seems geared to the women who believe their troubles are caused by men. You respond by saying many of these things are caused/perpetuated by women. But you deny that men played any part in this, at all.

No one, man or woman, likes to think they are in a cage of their own making, but the possibility has to be presented otherwise some people might never realize they hold the key to escaping right in their own hand.

This hurts my own sensibilities, which say that we are humans first, and men/women second.

Which is off to one side of my own beliefs, which explains where some of the conflict is coming from.

I believe we are all human, having the same basic human needs and being entitled to the same basic human rights, but I also believe that men and women have considerably different emotional and physical motivations inherent in the differing... apparatus? The vehicle in which the mind moves? Pick what term you will.

Hmmm.

The human is an infinitely adaptable form of software trying to adapt to two different sets of hardware. Hardware can cause software to modify itself, but software cannot recontruct hardware (not without robot arms or something anyway) - - does that make any sense at all?

Originally an evolutionary concern, nature began dividing lifeforms into two separate sexes, in order to promote the survival of the species. Millions of years later it has become something of an entirely different order when applied to a creature with a mind as complex as ours. Being of two sexes has impacted our species on every level that distinguishes us as higher (or different from, if you prefer) the animals. It doesn't mean one is better or worse, simply different and therefor governed by different priorities beyond the basic food, shelter, and warmth.

The notion of 'society' has been batted around a couple of times. As in, blaming society for these problems. This is another dodge. I don't think that things are society's fault or society's responsibility. Who is society, anyway? 'Society' can't fix any problems. It can't act in concert.
I get the feeling this is why you reject the 'society' problem. It's why I reject it too.

In this we are in agreement at least.

I'm skipping ahead just a bit, not because you didn't make good points, you did, but because I have previously addressed much of this and repeated point by point replies get old for those reading this who aren't as interested as we are. Suffice it to say, from my point of view, you seek to obliterate the negative fallout by obliterating the differences, effectively losing the substance by pursuing the shadow - - whereas I try to just shrug off the fallout and celebrate the differences.

I'll repeat it ad nasuem, you continually claim that men have nothing to do with creating this problem. It's that that bothers me more than anything.

And I will refute that accusation ad nauseum. I merely pointed out that women are as much to blame as men for their negative body images and stereotypes they feel they have to conform to. Given the vehement responses this has inspired from some perhaps the idea strikes a little close to home for comfort. Getting back to Shakespeare, "The lady doth protest too much," as it were.

Would it assuage your anger if I said the same holds true for men, a fact I have never denied?

You say " look to yourself, provide a good example, police your own". That's good. I'm down with personal responsibility.

Again, nice to know we agree on a few things. Yes, this is part of the irritating point by point response syndrome, but since our agreements seems to be few and far between I felt it worth noting.

But we are not solely influenced by our own gender. We are influenced by everything around us, male or female. If there is going to be change (change by slow, thoughtful adjustment of values passed on to children, not by government involvement as you bizarrely seem to have inferred in one circumstance), then we've got to look at people as people instead of as male people and female people.

See above as to why I inferred government involvement. As to the rest, it is a laudable goal, no matter how impossible I personally feel it to be, and I wish you luck.

For my own part I no longer choose to battle the world, the world always wins. It's easier to float downstream and walk uphill than it is to paddle myself upriver and then tumble downhill. Not trying to be deliberately obscure here, just tired and so funky bits of dream logic are cropping up.

Anyway, no harm meant, Brown Eyed Cat. Most of this post was not an attempt to refute your statements (beyond one in particular) so much as attempting to clarify my point of view. Can we just chalk it up to a difference of opinion? I'm still fairly new to the boards myself and don't need the stigma of "Hey! It's that sexist guy posting again!" following me around. I've done enough damage all on my own.

[Wishmaster]

Oop. Faub, I was already in the midst of that reply above before I saw the gentle admonishment to calm down. Not trying to exacerbate the situation or anything. I even commented that the anger in her posts was bringing out my own and have the traditional olive branch down at the bottom.

[Cat42]

So, who else agrees that we need to bring back the Flapper look, and Swing music?

[BrownEyedCat]

f I haven't made it clear by now then, yes, men share a good portion of the blame . . .

Yes, you have made it clear by now (though not by the time I had posted that last post . . . we had the two different things going on, and you stated it explicitely in the second one . . . yeah.) And this is the major thing I was really looking for.

I got the contrary impression from earlier posts of yours when you focused on women-based sources to the exclusion of man-based sources, and I realize that this was unintentional on your part, and that I may even have missed some things (going back to look now would drive me crazy).

I also know that I was being angry and unfair with you earlier, and attacking you. I apologize. And I apologize for the part that played in spiraling this thread out of control.


And now I'm going to take a deep breath, and back away from this thread . . .

[Ryuko]

So, who else agrees that we need to bring back the Flapper look, and Swing music?

Not me. Swing music is good, but the flapper look doesn't look good on someone with curves as "generous" as mine.

Now, I think that the one thing that we CAN agree on is that the cultural obsession with thinness and attractiveness is not good for women's psyches in general.

And I'd also like to point out that attractiveness is a highly subjective feature. As long as someone is healthy, they're attractive to someone. Attractiveness is also a lot different over history. There was a time back then where being "generous" and pale was the height of attractiveness. I could have been born back then. (sigh)

[Princess]

So, who else agrees that we need to bring back the Flapper look, and Swing music?

Flappers liked jazz music

Blame The post WW2 enviroment for big bust fetishism

[Wp]

For my own part I no longer choose to battle the world, the world always wins. It's easier to float downstream and walk uphill than it is to paddle myself upriver and then tumble downhill.

Although the path of least resistance is the usual course, I'd like to urge you to at least subtly move society to a more accepting environment. Much of this would be the attitude you impart on the people you interact with, the stuff you teach your kids and family, the way you present yourself, etc... Even though you don't have to actively fight against extreme body image, you can probably lessen the importance of it by emphasizing it less (i.e. don't make such a fuss over models and movie stars-- not saying that you do in particular).

After all, societal attitudes have changed in history, so it's not futile to try.

[Cat42]

So... how about we bring back swing music and tube based cameras.

Flappers liked jazz music

Maybe, but did Jazz music go away?

[Phact0rri]

wishmaster....
essentially your argument is, that's the way it is, deal with it.
As someone working towards social change I just can't accept that argument. Maybe it's the fact that I'm going to Berkeley and 20, not yet jaded by "the way things are".

yeah Berkley (the city) isn't a very good assesment of the world. It battles Beverly hills for cosmetic surgury drones. Though, its a choice. people don't feel good about themselves so they do this.

[Faub]

"A lie told often enough becomes the truth." - Lenin

"A lie no matter how often told will never be the truth." - FDR

Which is true, please?

Both of them, actually.

If a lie is told often enough, people believe it's true even though, in actual fact, it's not true and may be shown to be false later when the politics of the lie are dead. Take the earth orbiting the sun for example.

The lie is still a lie no matter how often it's told. If you're never given the truth in any form then you wouldn't know the difference.

Education is ultimately important for this reason. Small children can be taught ANYTHING and believe it's true. You can teach a small child that the sky is actually red but through some wild explanation they can only see it as blue. They will believe you. If you tell it to them enough times, they will actually attack someone who tells them differently because that person had the gaul to bash their world view. Governments, religons and basically any organized group of people have been doing this since there were organized groups of people. They train their children with their point of view. The child refuses to believe anything different. If the child questions the point of view, the organization throws them out. They are unpatriotic, a heathen, a distruptive influence, a bad egg, whatever you want to call them. They think differently. They rock the boat.

If you want kids to be good citizens you have to teach them how to interact with the other people in the society. If you want to eliminate racism you include people of every nationality in your society. If you want to eliminate sexism you include males and females in all aspects of society. No fraternities. No sororities. No gentlemens' clubs. Etc. There are still people who believe that women are property. That women should not be allowed to go to school because it makes them difficult to control. It gives them ideas. That women should not be seen because they tempt men, making rape the woman's fault.

People are people. You could have been born white, black, red, yellow, male, female, rich or poor. You didn't make that choice. It was simply pot luck that you are who you are. It doesn't matter who you are, there is always someone who is worse off than you. You could have been that person. If you had drawn a slightly different lot would you want to be treated worse than you are now? Would you want to put up with abuse, whether it's psychological or physical, because you're not good enough?

Who decides what is good enough? Supermodels? Sports stars? Politicians and executives? Religious leaders? Your grandmother? Your teachers?

Certainly, each of these people has had different life experiences and may know something you don't. How much weight do you put on what they say? How much of a decision do you actually have in the matter?

[Blackaby]

OMIGOSH... Just saw a girl in the shopping mall who had a figure JUST like an overdone comic character. And (from my judgement) all was completely NATUREL.

That was like the totally most surreal experience I've had since seeing a Claude-look-alike in the pizza shop yesterday.

Oh yeah, and I thought I saw some guy on top of a lampost but it turned out to be a traffic light.

(Edit) ... Crud, I just crashed a stimulating intellectual discussion, didn't I. Oops. Sorry.

[Wishmaster]

"A lie told often enough becomes the truth." - Lenin

"A lie no matter how often told will never be the truth." - FDR

Which is true, please?

Both of them, actually.

My point exactly, faub! Hidden amidst my overly wordy posts I said at one point that two truths can contradict one another and still be true. BEC expressed - - puzzlement? disbelief? Anyway, that's my stock example of how such a thing can possibly be.

[Wishmaster]

Oh yeah, and I thought I saw some guy on top of a lampost but it turned out to be a traffic light.

It's when you see people hanging from lamposts that you need to worry.

(Edit) ... Crud, I just crashed a stimulating intellectual discussion, didn't I. Oops. Sorry.

Haha! I wouldn't worry about it. I'm sure we're all glad to enjoy a break in the tension at this point. Faub's post was pretty good though.

[Okie]

I wouldn't blame the artists first. I would blame the advertisers.

How often do you see a commercial or advertisement that says "you are fine just the way you are?" There is no profit in telling people not to buy products, so no one pays to run that ad. Most commercials tell you that you need a product (and they imply that you are not good enough without it). Too stinky? Buy this soap. Hair not silky and luxurious? Buy this conditioner. Can't get a date with a super model? Buy this sports car.

I'd argue that our culture's standard of beauty is affected much more by the barrage of advertising that we see everyday. The shame and guilt created is done for profit.

Any shame or guilt generated by an artist's free webcomic is more a reflection of how inculcated they are into the mainstream standard of beauty, rather than how much they contribute to it.


Did you know that in Japan, it became fashionable to drink three cups of cocoa per day? Because three cups will drastically reduce fecal odor, so you'll never offend anyone in the company restroom. http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/waiwai/ar ... 8000c.html

[Pillywiggin]

Did you know that in Japan, it became fashionable to drink three cups of cocoa per day? Because three cups will drastically reduce fecal odor, so you'll never offend anyone in the company restroom. http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/waiwai/ar ... 8000c.html

That's also the country that replaced Ronald McDonald with a girl in a bikini and heels.

[Black Kitty]

How often do you see a commercial or advertisement that says "you are fine just the way you are?" There is no profit in telling people not to buy products, so no one pays to run that ad. Most commercials tell you that you need a product (and they imply that you are not good enough without it). Too stinky? Buy this soap. Hair not silky and luxurious? Buy this conditioner. Can't get a date with a super model? Buy this sports car.

I'd argue that our culture's standard of beauty is affected much more by the barrage of advertising that we see everyday. The shame and guilt created is done for profit.

Reminds me of Dove's Campaign for Real Beauty.

There really is too much advertisments these days. Everywhere I go, I'm bombarded with ads. There's ads while I'm waiting for the subway, while I'm driving, while I'm in the bathroom, while I'm in the cafeteria and of course, while I'm walking down the street. The home is the only real refuge from advertisements and that's only if you turn off the television.

I can't say that I haven't bought into the advertising world's version of beauty...but I think that it's always healthy to be aware of what advertisers do. They aim to create a need for their product no matter how unnecessary the product really is. I think to expect all of them to act otherwise or to be outraged when they don't is unrealistic.

I honestly can't feel that much outrage at advertisers. Certainly I'm disappointed that they're trying to sell constructed fantasies as reality but at the same time, I know that that's what they do. Advertisers are either trying to sell you lies or half truths because in reality, you don't need most of the products they sell.

These people deal with fantasies. The sooner people realize this, the better.

[Cope]

Did you know that in Japan, it became fashionable to drink three cups of cocoa per day? Because three cups will drastically reduce fecal odor, so you'll never offend anyone in the company restroom. http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/waiwai/ar ... 8000c.html

That's also the country that replaced Ronald McDonald with a girl in a bikini and heels.

I think the fact that they replaced Ronald McDonald at all is to their credit. Clowns are EVIL.

[Rocknjosie]

wishmaster....
essentially your argument is, that's the way it is, deal with it.
As someone working towards social change I just can't accept that argument. Maybe it's the fact that I'm going to Berkeley and 20, not yet jaded by "the way things are".

yeah Berkley (the city) isn't a very good assesment of the world. It battles Beverly hills for cosmetic surgury drones. Though, its a choice. people don't feel good about themselves so they do this.

Berkeley definately isn't a good assesment of the world, but plastic surgery drones? Are we talking about the same berkeley full of feminists and queers and everybody but plastic surgery drones?