Something to ponder: The Ideal Woman's Body

Drowned Out wrote:

While I do buy clothes and hygiene (cosmetic?) products, I watch VERY little tv, buy no magazines, nor do I ‘diet’, and I do my best to control or discuss my kids exposure to these things. Yet to me it sounds like you’d think I perpetuate the problem if I were to think any one body type were more attractive than another. so are we not supposed to have a preference? I understand that you loathe objectification. But until our third eyes open and we all see each other’s auras, physical appearance will be the first thing we notice in others and a big part of our impressions of others, whether right or wrong.

I understand that people have preferences. I just think that preferences have become institutionalized, and idealizing only a few certain preferences has negative consequences. (I don't get it. Are you suggesting that socialization doesn't exist?) I understand that physical appearance is one of the first things we notice in other people. But I also believe that as supposedly evolved beings we should be able to not have that be as big an influence on our impression of others as it seems to be in this society.

Here's an example about preferences: My preference, all other things being equal, is to be with men who have minimal body hair. But I don't judge men or discriminate against them based on their body hair. I don't make fun of men with body hair. I would never expect a man to alter his body for me or to fit social norms, etc. I don't view having body hair as not meeting the ideal or express that it doesn't. And I don't support any message men might receive from the media or the rest of society that they should have minimal body hair.

I see your point when it comes to sheltering children from these influences, but that is the job of the parent, and media censorship for all is not the best way to protect orphans and the kids of deadbeats…

I don't belive I've said anything about media censorship, so please don't put words in my mouth. I think the media should step up and be responsible themselves. And I think they're more inclined to do that if the public didn't encourage them not to. (I do think we especially need to consider negative advertising that is specifically targeted for kids though.)

Amongst adults, yes, people need to take ownership of their treatment of others and the power they have to change things…however, they also need to take ownership of their own self image - that’s far more crucial than anything the media can do.

Yes, of course people need to take ownership of their self-image as much as possible. But, again, are you denying the effects of socialization? It's very powerful - espicially when you have been specifically targeted practically since birth - and it's virtually impossible to TOTALLY overcome that - ESPECIALLY when any deviance from social norms is ridiculed by the people with whom you interact every day.

In regards to trends...the media changes when we do.
What message does it send (to both sexes, on both sides of this discussion) to say that we need to improve self esteem amongst women….by getting men to stop being mean? Does that not take power from the woman with the esteem issue, and hand it right to the man you’re blaming for being so integral to it?

Did you mean to say men are mean? Or men are men? I don't see how it could ever be bad to get anyone to stop being mean. And, while I appreciate your concern for the empowerment of women, I think you're really just deflecting men's responsibility. No, I don't believe empowering one group to make positive change in society is necessarily disempowering to another group. Everyone can step up and do their part.

we’re once again teetering on the verge of PCness run amok. Like...we can’t compliment the exception lest we offend the norm.

PS - I've read Ishmael too. Looks like pretty much everyone in the thread has

I don't think this is about PCness and no one ever said you can't compliment people.

JonnyPistachio wrote:

scb wrote:

And I believe she deleted her comments out of disgust for this conversation, not out of jealousy, competition, or being "not right".

is that why she only deleted the controversial comments and left the generic ones?

Dude - I don't even know what comments she deleted and which ones she left. She deleted the original post. Was that too contoversial for you? As far as I noticed, she deleted all her comments but then came back and commented again later. I don't even know why we're having this conversation. I'm starting to think you have a thing for her.

JonnyPistachio wrote:

I think you may be assuming that I was calling her jealous for the wrong reasons. I was reacting to a specific comment she made – the one where she was bashing the model. Sure you can call it an assumption, but in the end, it is what it is, and if you portray yourself a certain way you are open to everyone elses prerogatives. I call it a prerogative, you call it an assumption. :roll:

If you wanna keep pulling out the assumption card, then there’s nothing more that can be said here, because essentially this whole message board is built on assumptions. How else is anyone supposed to react to someone who says things like Gita saying, “if you ignore suicide, it will find you.” And “shut the fuck up if you don’t have a vagina??” I am actually really just surprised anyone could defend her on some of these things. :roll:

Lastly, you are “assuming” (yes, assuming, again with the assumptions) that I have failed to acknowledge that these girls who are killing themselves do so because of distorted reality being shoved down their throats. You are wrong, I have acknowledged that and reasoned that it is a problem – I’m just not lingering on it. However, that is a nasty circle that is hard to debate…is it the fault of the pictures/images/ideals, or is it the fault of the person and their inability to reason hta these girl are suffereing? (THAT is rhetorical, PLEASE, no more stats! )

I reacted differently to what she said, so I don't think you can say that there's not other way to take what she said than the way you took it. My opinion is that she has been misunderstood. And I think it's stupid that this conversation has been turned so much into one about a few offhand comments of one person instead of the real issue at hand.

When I said what you failed to acknowledge, I was referring to your post - where you failed to acknowledge it. That is not an assumption. If you acknowledged it previously, I give you credit for that (which is not to say that you need my credit). I guess I've just forgotten because I'm thinking about what you're saying now. (Plus, frankly, a few of you are starting to run together.)

Regarding whose "fault" it is that girls are "suffering," I think A. You can't blame children for their "inability to reason". B. You must think ALL women lack the ability to reason, because you'd be hard-pressed to find any American woman who has not been influenced in some way by these ideals. I know you don't want any actual information, but data really does show that the media has a HUGE influence over women's self-image.

JonnyPistachio wrote:

scb wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

is that why she only deleted the controversial comments and left the generic ones?

Dude - I don't even know what comments she deleted and which ones she left. She deleted the original post. Was that too contoversial for you? As far as I noticed, she deleted all her comments but then came back and commented again later. I don't even know why we're having this conversation. I'm starting to think you have a thing for her.

my point exactly.. I did have a problem with what she said. Her comments to blackredyellow were very distasteful and she made several rude comments. I've been reading this board for years and have a very thick skin, but she says some things that are just very far from OK, things that most people wouldnt say to someone elses face.
too controversial for me? No. But i'm going to speak up when I disagree with someone.

Most interesting to me is that, yes, she specifically deleted the posts that could be considered controversial and left the generic ones. Call it an ASSUMPTION, but I'm under the impression that this would be one of those times in 'real life' where someone might be told to 'think before they speak'.

Can we please stop with this talking-shit-about-someone-else conversation? I don't think it's appropriate.

scb wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

I think you may be assuming that I was calling her jealous for the wrong reasons. I was reacting to a specific comment she made – the one where she was bashing the model. Sure you can call it an assumption, but in the end, it is what it is, and if you portray yourself a certain way you are open to everyone elses prerogatives. I call it a prerogative, you call it an assumption. :roll:

If you wanna keep pulling out the assumption card, then there’s nothing more that can be said here, because essentially this whole message board is built on assumptions. How else is anyone supposed to react to someone who says things like Gita saying, “if you ignore suicide, it will find you.” And “shut the fuck up if you don’t have a vagina??” I am actually really just surprised anyone could defend her on some of these things. :roll:

Lastly, you are “assuming” (yes, assuming, again with the assumptions) that I have failed to acknowledge that these girls who are killing themselves do so because of distorted reality being shoved down their throats. You are wrong, I have acknowledged that and reasoned that it is a problem – I’m just not lingering on it. However, that is a nasty circle that is hard to debate…is it the fault of the pictures/images/ideals, or is it the fault of the person and their inability to reason hta these girl are suffereing? (THAT is rhetorical, PLEASE, no more stats! )

I reacted differently to what she said, so I don't think you can say that there's not other way to take what she said than the way you took it. My opinion is that she has been misunderstood. And I think it's stupid that this conversation has been turned so much into one about a few offhand comments of one person instead of the real issue at hand.

When I said what you failed to acknowledge, I was referring to your post - where you failed to acknowledge it. That is not an assumption. If you acknowledged it previously, I give you credit for that (which is not to say that you need my credit). I guess I've just forgotten because I'm thinking about what you're saying now. (Plus, frankly, a few of you are starting to run together.)

Regarding whose "fault" it is that girls are "suffering," I think A. You can't blame children for their "inability to reason". B. You must think ALL women lack the ability to reason, because you'd be hard-pressed to find any American woman who has not been influenced in some way by these ideals. I know you don't want any actual information, but data really does show that the media has a HUGE influence over women's self-image.

The funny thing about all this is, We probably agree on many of the issues at hand, it's just how things are presented. And I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and have wondered how differently this thread might have turned out if someone hadnt posted that pic of the model.

On a side note, there is a long thread about Jennifer Aniston and some comments are all about sex, and others are just amazement that someone could look that good at 41 yrs old. I've always found her beautiful and thought that she must have good genes. Then theres a HUGE thread about pictures about where ED looks HOT! we are a society based on sex, and most of us cant deny these urges. at least the women around here have good taste!

JonnyPistachio wrote:

The funny thing about all this is, We probably agree on many of the issues at hand, it's just how things are presented. And I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and have wondered how differently this thread might have turned out if someone hadnt posted that pic of the model.

On a side note, there is a long thread about Jennifer Aniston and some comments are all about sex, and others are just amazement that someone could look that good at 41 yrs old. I've always found her beautiful and thought that she must have good genes. Then theres a HUGE thread about pictures about where ED looks HOT! we are a society based on sex, and most of us cant deny these urges. at least the women around here have good taste!

I think we probably do agree on much of this. And I think this conversation would have been completely different had that picture not been posted. I would love to have one of those converations some day, like the one I assume the OP intended.

I think Jennifer Aniston is pretty. And I think Ed is hot, which is something I've given considerable thought to - whether or not it is inappropriate for me think Ed is hot, that is. I've decided it's not and here's why: I have loved this band since the beginning but never noticed how hot Ed is until I learned about his convictions, his intelligence, his work to make this world a better place, etc. I remember the first time I told someone I thought Ed was the hottest guy alive... the person asked me what he looked like and I couldn't even remember. So I like to think it's more about who he is than just how he looks. (And I've seen this sentiment echoed repeatedly by the women on this message board.) HeidiJam could be Ed's look like Ed's identical twin and I wouldn't think he's hot.

JonnyPistachio wrote:

scb wrote:

Can we please stop with this talking-shit-about-someone-else conversation? I don't think it's appropriate.

you've got a great way with spinning things around scb. You ask me questions about the OP, and tell me how not to react to her off-the wall comments, then call it shit-talking. I was a part of that conversation, i'll comment on it as much as I feel like I have something to say. But if you don't think it's approprite, I'll leave. I've been trying to discuss interesting things pertaining to the topic, but this thread is giving me a headache.

I just don't think arguing about whether or not the OP is jealous is appropriate and I feel like we're talking about her behind her back. I have a pretty bad headache myself.

cincybearcat wrote:

scb wrote:

You could take that comedy routine on the road. I really think you've got something special there.

Jeez...tough crowd. Have a nice weekend scb.

for the record, I thought your post was comedy gold...

gold, I say...

blackredyellow wrote:

scb wrote:

I think Jennifer Aniston is pretty. And I think Ed is hot, which is something I've given considerable thought to - whether or not it is inappropriate for me think Ed is hot, that is. I've decided it's not and here's why...

Christ... you have to give "considerable thought" to whether it's appropriate to think someone is hot!?!?!

What the hell world do you live in that you have to basically justify it to yourself if you are attracted to someone. Do you realize how bizarre that sounds? We like who we like and we all think different people are "hot" or whatever. What is wrong just having that thought/feeling about someone?

Yeah, I normally find it to be a reflex action, myself...