Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

Don't get me wrong, some point-by-point is useful, but only where people are debating the minute specifics of something, or a single logical proof. However, point-by-point arguments quickly get derailed onto a single piece of evidence, rather than the main body of work used to support an argument. And then there's that whole incoherence thing--basically, I'd be happy if people just started looking at the main thrusts of the argument and debated those, rather than individual pieces of evidence.

This is assuming however that the main body of arguement is even important. In many situations the body represents fluff. Even then often you want to focus on specific points, as otherwise you would have to say "I don't want to argue with these points", or you feel as if the opponents arguement will fall appart without a vital piece.

You don't need to address all of someone's arguement nor do you need to take appart its premise. There are times I agree with someone but I find an arguement they used to be rather false.

[Jude]

it's true. Especially in this case, I only actually disagreed with him on about 1/3 of what he was saying, although he was taking a lot of things for granted that I don't think he had any empirical evidence for, even if I suspect those things may be true or partly true

Basically I'm attacking his apparent proposition that it's somehow morally wrong to create depictions of aesthetically pleasing things, which aren't direct reproductions of something that exists in reality. That is, after all, the logical backbone of his argument.

[Neonivek]

Yeah, I don't hate the beauty industry for getting beautiful models with beauty that is unobtainable for the vast majority of people. If I disliked that then Id also would hate sports because the players are too good.

What I do dislike, though it isn't all that abundant, is the degredation of the vast majority of people. Though since I generally ignore the fashion scene the only example I remember of this Is when a model gained some weight and ended up being a healthy bodyweight. She was heralded as fat by the industry. In otherwords “You need to be this thin not to be ugly”. So if this IS the attitude taken by the fashion industry in general or in isolation then that is what aggravates me.

[Leafsnail]

I'd like to say that this thread was actually pretty useful practise for a Critical Thinking exam.  Although the exam I did today was less about Critical Thinking and more about semantics.

[Jude]

In otherwords “You need to be this thin not to be ugly”. So if this IS the attitude taken by the fashion industry in general or in isolation then that is what aggravates me.

I have my doubts, though, about how many real-life people actually share that attitude, given that they spend their lives interacting with normal people and not supermodels. They have a good basis for setting norms to, which is why if someone decides that a supermodel's body is normal as opposed to all the actual normal bodies they see all the time, I'm inclined to think something is maladjusted about the person.

[G-Flex]

Basically I'm attacking his apparent proposition that it's somehow morally wrong to create depictions of aesthetically pleasing things, which aren't direct reproductions of something that exists in reality. That is, after all, the logical backbone of his argument.

No it wasn't. I explained that.

I said plenty of times that it's perfectly fine to create such things, just not when you rely on them being seen as a reproduction of something from reality. Photoshopping a person is one thing if it's obvious, but it almost always isn't. I used to look at a lot of stuff on the Photoshop Disasters blog, where they fuck up and it is obvious, and even then it sometimes takes a bit of analysis because usually you're just going to glance over it and sometimes the eyes don't even pick up on physically impossible things (for instance, in drawn art, it's not always obvious to a non-artist that perspective or proportions are incredibly wrong even if they are).


I admit that it would be difficult to do a study of the actual effects of this directly on people, because it's hard to tell how much the fashion/modeling/magazine/whatever industry is just reflecting social trends and how much they're affecting them. Personally, I think they clearly do both, but it would be hard to specifically test this. Here's an analysis of the topic, at least, but you need a damn subscription to view the whole thing. This study is also relevant, as does this one. These last two specifically examined the direct effects of media portrayals on women, and this is presumably when you don't lie by using photomanipulation.


Of course, I'm not saying this just applies to women, although in our society, it seems to do so more than men. I feel like it's kind of getting more egalitarian in that regard, though; I can recall seeing Axe commercials or whatever recently where the focus isn't even the women anymore, but the giant shirtless guy instead.

[Jude]

No it wasn't. I explained that.

I said plenty of times that it's perfectly fine to create such things, just not when you rely on them being seen as a reproduction of something from reality. Photoshopping a person is one thing if it's obvious, but it almost always isn't. I used to look at a lot of stuff on the Photoshop Disasters blog, where they fuck up and it is obvious, and even then it sometimes takes a bit of analysis because usually you're just going to glance over it and sometimes the eyes don't even pick up on physically impossible things (for instance, in drawn art, it's not always obvious to a non-artist that perspective or proportions are incredibly wrong even if they are).

OK, so what ARE you arguing? You seemed to be saying it was somehow morally reprehensible to create these depictions because of what effect they could have on women. So I'm trying to refine what you're saying down to a logical essence. What kinds of visual images does this apply to? Anything that looks real? Anything that is real but with embellishments by photoshop? Anything that almost looks real? What's the criteria?

And I have a feeling no matter how you nuance it, I'll be able to apply a reductio ad absurdum by showing that the same logic of what you're saying also applies to another medium which you probably do not have the same morally condescending views on.

And if that's NOT what you're arguing...well then I'm not sure what. And if it is, then so what? Should publishers of such magazines just be looked down on? Stigmatized? Fined? Have that sort of publication banned? What?

I admit that it would be difficult to do a study of the actual effects of this directly on people, because it's hard to tell how much the fashion/modeling/magazine/whatever industry is just reflecting social trends and how much they're affecting them. Personally, I think they clearly do both, but it would be hard to specifically test this. Here's an analysis of the topic, at least, but you need a damn subscription to view the whole thing. This study is also relevant, as does this one. These last two specifically examined the direct effects of media portrayals on women, and this is presumably when you don't lie by using photomanipulation.

That's the kind of thing I'm looking for. Although of course you'd also have to look at whether the effects are ongoing, whether they fade with habituation, and of course in generalizing this kind of things there are about 800 fucktillion confounds, which means I would have to remain suspicious.

Of course, I'm not saying this just applies to women, although in our society, it seems to do so more than men. I feel like it's kind of getting more egalitarian in that regard, though; I can recall seeing Axe commercials or whatever recently where the focus isn't even the women anymore, but the giant shirtless guy instead.

Gratuitous use of "in our society" aside, I'm gonna say it goes on in every society, since physical attractiveness is women's main currency in the mating game, whereas for men it's a secondary or possibly tertiary factor most of the time, with other things like social status, skills and prowess, and various aspects of behavior taking first place. But yeah, commercials designed to attract men employ attractive women, and vice versa; the attractiveness takes different forms obviously. What I question is, if someone is negatively affected by these portrayals and feels inferior, is that something that's better called a maladjusted reaction? After all, everyone (except two somewhere) is not the most attractive person in our sex, and for most of us, there are MANY real life examples of people whose attractiveness dwarfs our own. I don't think that photoshop extends that to any meaningful degree beyond what's already present in normal life.

[bjlong]

See, IMO, a point-by-point post can certainly be used to break the argument into managable peices, but my main gripe comes from its overuse--by breaking up the argument too much, you lose coherency and end up squabbling over facts. I prefer an argument where someone rephrases their opponent's words rather than a direct quote, as this shows some understanding, or else can clear up misunderstandings sooner. I also prefer it when people explicitly say, "Hey, I'm focusing on this point," because that allows the opponent to more easily bring in more evidence than that single point. It just seems more intuitive of an argument, for both sides.

But, that said, point-by-point posts where the points don't lose the coherency of the argument are perfectly fine, and might work better for some people.

[G-Flex]

No it wasn't. I explained that.

I said plenty of times that it's perfectly fine to create such things, just not when you rely on them being seen as a reproduction of something from reality. Photoshopping a person is one thing if it's obvious, but it almost always isn't. I used to look at a lot of stuff on the Photoshop Disasters blog, where they fuck up and it is obvious, and even then it sometimes takes a bit of analysis because usually you're just going to glance over it and sometimes the eyes don't even pick up on physically impossible things (for instance, in drawn art, it's not always obvious to a non-artist that perspective or proportions are incredibly wrong even if they are).

OK, so what ARE you arguing? You seemed to be saying it was somehow morally reprehensible to create these depictions because of what effect they could have on women. So I'm trying to refine what you're saying down to a logical essence. What kinds of visual images does this apply to? Anything that looks real? Anything that is real but with embellishments by photoshop? Anything that almost looks real? What's the criteria?

Of course the context matters and that sort of thing. In this case, it falls under the heading of deceptive role-model engineering. These are photos of people who are meant to be looked up to, admired, and emulated; that's why they're there, and that's how it works. This doesn't apply to all images, obviously, but doesn't just apply to images either. Other types of role models were mentioned elsewhere in the thread.

Basically, it's harmful to showcase role models that have impossible traits that people can't possibly live up to, while claiming that they actually can. I mean, there have been role models before that were even more impossible, like folk heroes, but the difference there is that they're legendary, they're not something staring you in the face as you're being told that they're real and that you should be like them.

So yeah, that's the crux of it, I guess: People being inundated with depictions of role-models (of any sort) that are misleading or untrue, on top of the idea that there are only certain types of role models (in this case, in terms of body shape/size) that are good to live up to in the first place.

And if that's NOT what you're arguing...well then I'm not sure what. And if it is, then so what? Should publishers of such magazines just be looked down on? Stigmatized? Fined? Have that sort of publication banned? What?

I'm not saying legal recourse should necessarily be taken, because that's an extremely sticky subject. I think people need to be made more aware of these things, that's for sure, and it wouldn't help if people thought about it a little more, it affected how they brought up their children a little bit, etc.

I admit that it would be difficult to do a study of the actual effects of this directly on people, because it's hard to tell how much the fashion/modeling/magazine/whatever industry is just reflecting social trends and how much they're affecting them. Personally, I think they clearly do both, but it would be hard to specifically test this. Here's an analysis of the topic, at least, but you need a damn subscription to view the whole thing. This study is also relevant, as does this one. These last two specifically examined the direct effects of media portrayals on women, and this is presumably when you don't lie by using photomanipulation.

That's the kind of thing I'm looking for. Although of course you'd also have to look at whether the effects are ongoing, whether they fade with habituation, and of course in generalizing this kind of things there are about 800 fucktillion confounds, which means I would have to remain suspicious.

Which is fairly reasonable, but how suspicious? I think the direct evidence alone is enough to at least make it likely, not to mention the studies that have been done on body image in general. It's obvious that there is a problem with people (of both genders, although it seems worse with girls) having self-image problems from a very young age, and that this correlates rather well with how body image is handled in popular culture, and there have been studies (like some that I just linked you to) showing a direct short-term (at the least) link between poor self-image and exposure to certain methods of idolizing body types/models. There's a bit more info here, and really, it doesn't even seem that hard to find more information/evidence, and I'm not seeing much contradicting the main point here. Yeah, there's no incontrovertible proof of a direct long-lasting effect, but there are all sorts of fingers pointing directly at it, and evidence doesn't seem scarce.

Of course, I'm not saying this just applies to women, although in our society, it seems to do so more than men. I feel like it's kind of getting more egalitarian in that regard, though; I can recall seeing Axe commercials or whatever recently where the focus isn't even the women anymore, but the giant shirtless guy instead.

Gratuitous use of "in our society" aside, I'm gonna say it goes on in every society, since physical attractiveness is women's main currency in the mating game, whereas for men it's a secondary or possibly tertiary factor most of the time, with other things like social status, skills and prowess, and various aspects of behavior taking first place.

Some of this changes over time, though. These days, things like social status and skill are starting to matter more for women, and probably will continue to do so, considering that the socioeconomic differences between genders have started to become less pronounced. I said "in our society" just because I'd rather not make a general statement that assumes things about all potential human societies; I'd rather speak for the one I live in.

But yeah, commercials designed to attract men employ attractive women, and vice versa; the attractiveness takes different forms obviously. What I question is, if someone is negatively affected by these portrayals and feels inferior, is that something that's better called a maladjusted reaction?

Yeah, but it's exactly the kind of reaction they're going for. It's certainly not healthy to respond to super-thin photoshopped women in a magazine that way, but they rely on you idolizing those people and holding them in unduly high esteem, or else none of it would work. The kind of people who buy celebrity magazines are the type to buy into that sort of thinking in the first place. If someone has a healthy body image and isn't negatively affected by advertisements and celebrity gossip magazines, then they probably aren't the type to care about celebrity gossip magazines anyway and would be less likely to run out to try a new brand of concealer.

So yeah, it's a maladjusted reaction, but that reaction is symptomatic of a whole slew of maladjusted tendencies that the media and corporate culture feed off of anyway. It helps them sell product.

After all, everyone (except two somewhere) is not the most attractive person in our sex, and for most of us, there are MANY real life examples of people whose attractiveness dwarfs our own. I don't think that photoshop extends that to any meaningful degree beyond what's already present in normal life.

In real life, however, you're also presented with the exact opposite: Plenty of people you find less attractive to you. And the attractive itself isn't idolized as much, not to mention that there are more varied types of attractiveness involved. You get a much broader view of the human form and of what can be considered beautiful in real life, and the way it's presented is different, since you're observing... well, real life. In the media, it's all very engineered: You're not just being exposed to only people who are considered more attractive than you. You're also being exposed to people who are a very specific kind of attractive, not to mention when the ideal is subtly (yet meaningfully) changed in a very artificial sense by manipulating photos.

[Cyx]

Since G-Flex didn't do it, I'm going to try and continue the discussion he had with bjlong, because I find it pretty interesting. I'm kind of going off on a tangent though.

Bjlong, you shifted the debate from "right and wrong" to "possible and impossible". Firstly, companies are created, exclusively, to make money ; in this particular case, it is more or less admitted that they do it by hurting people in some way. Given what you said about the way companies work, we can infer that if they make more money by hurting more people while being able to get away with it, they continue as long as money can be made.
Maybe this is a necessary evil, maybe this is a convenient evil, but I don't know how you could argue that this is, in general, a good. If this is merely a product of the way economy, or society, works then these things are screwed up and wrong. But the guy thinking that making human beings miserable in order to make money isn't that fine is the last thing to be disagreeing with in my opinion. (Given my premises are true anyway)
The way I see it, companies and magazines are made of people, because if you remove all the people from a company then nothing is left. It's kind of mathematical. And, if you value anything, then almost by definition no one has no responsibilities.

As to whether this or that is doable, I have no idea. But I do think that you made ethics appear harder to agree on than they actually are. "No messing with people's heads just to buy shit" is a pretty good starting point for individuals and groups alike. It might be totally impractical in the world we're living in, but I only have interest in agreeing about theory. Which might have made everything I said irrevelant.

[Jude]

Of course the context matters and that sort of thing. In this case, it falls under the heading of deceptive role-model engineering. These are photos of people who are meant to be looked up to, admired, and emulated; that's why they're there, and that's how it works. This doesn't apply to all images, obviously, but doesn't just apply to images either. Other types of role models were mentioned elsewhere in the thread.

I definitely don't buy your idea that cover girls are role models in a way that actresses, singers, TV personalities, politicians or athletes are. And your complaint of photoshop use doesn't apply to those since they appear in more than just photographs.

So yeah, that's the crux of it, I guess: People being inundated with depictions of role-models (of any sort) that are misleading or untrue, on top of the idea that there are only certain types of role models (in this case, in terms of body shape/size) that are good to live up to in the first place.

But are you saying it's somehow morally wrong? Irresponsible? Given how subtle and disparate the effects, if any, are, I have a real hard time considering the publication of magazines with photoshopped hotchicks on the cover to be in the category of what I would call morally wrong. Socially irresponsible maybe, but for me that designation would come more from the promotion of useless trash that's manufactured at some harm to the environment.

I'm not saying legal recourse should necessarily be taken, because that's an extremely sticky subject. I think people need to be made more aware of these things, that's for sure, and it wouldn't help if people thought about it a little more, it affected how they brought up their children a little bit, etc.

Speaking of bringing up children, before I'd have anything to say about magazine publishers, I'd put the primary responsibility on parents and communities to raise children who are able to maintain their self-worth despite seeing photoshopped pictures of models at the checkout line.

Some of this changes over time, though. These days, things like social status and skill are starting to matter more for women, and probably will continue to do so, considering that the socioeconomic differences between genders have started to become less pronounced.

True, although that reminds me of some research I heard about...I forget where, but probably referenced in a Steven Pinker book. Basically, it found that as women's wealth and social status rises, the status and wealth of their imagined desired mate also rose. This indicated that rather than women just wanting to marry wealthy or high-ranking men as a back-door way to get wealth and status themselves, instead there is something integral about status and power that women look for in mates. Anyway that's off topic

I said "in our society" just because I'd rather not make a general statement that assumes things about all potential human societies; I'd rather speak for the one I live in.

I don't use the phrase "in our society" for things that appear in all human societies (as compiled, conveniently for social scientists of all stripes, in the book "Human Universals" by Donald Brown, 1990). The phrase gets on my nerves a little bit when people throw it around regarding things that are true in every society, such as looks being a bigger asset to women than to men, since it tends to carry with it the assumption that it's NOT the same in every society, which in turn usually goes hand in hand with a lot of ideological assumptions which have spawned bad psychology in attempts to justify themselves...but that's another story too

Yeah, but it's exactly the kind of reaction they're going for. It's certainly not healthy to respond to super-thin photoshopped women in a magazine that way, but they rely on you idolizing those people and holding them in unduly high esteem, or else none of it would work. The kind of people who buy celebrity magazines are the type to buy into that sort of thinking in the first place. If someone has a healthy body image and isn't negatively affected by advertisements and celebrity gossip magazines, then they probably aren't the type to care about celebrity gossip magazines anyway and would be less likely to run out to try a new brand of concealer.

Well, the notion that selling somebody something that isn't necessarily good for them is wrong, is a hell of a thing to argue. You'd probably say it holds for cigarettes (and the case for the sale of cigarettes being morally wrong holds a lot more weight than the sale of fashion magazines) but what about SUVs? What about pornography? Movie tickets? Computer games?

Actually, that reminds me. This whole thing about whether fashion magazines are bad or not has an exact analogue in the whole "do video games cause violence in children" thing. If video games DO cause violence (which is just as hard to prove as that fashion ads cause anorexia) then we don't blame the game maker, we assume something is wrong with the person, and their parents if applicable. I don't really see a substantial difference between the situations.

In real life, however, you're also presented with the exact opposite: Plenty of people you find less attractive to you. And the attractive itself isn't idolized as much, not to mention that there are more varied types of attractiveness involved. You get a much broader view of the human form and of what can be considered beautiful in real life, and the way it's presented is different, since you're observing... well, real life. In the media, it's all very engineered: You're not just being exposed to only people who are considered more attractive than you. You're also being exposed to people who are a very specific kind of attractive, not to mention when the ideal is subtly (yet meaningfully) changed in a very artificial sense by manipulating photos.

Still, could anyone but the most deluded space cadet see reality as less real than the cover of Cosmo?

"No messing with people's heads just to buy shit" is a pretty good starting point for individuals and groups alike.

But that applies to all advertising and sale of all products besides extremely basic food and other necessities. How far do you want to take that?

[Maric]

Shes hot.

Bravo! Bravo! Excellent post! Really arguing your point there, aren't you! Great job.

Sure I can play.

She's hot, people who are stupid enough to take whatever is in a magazine to a crazy level are stupid and the magazine should not be held in anyway accountable, she's hot (like starving themselves, she's hot).

I'm OK with photoshopped girls, sure in a strange fake way they still look nice, and yeah I do prefer the real stuff over PS but hey she's hot that's the whole point here. Why people care about the people doing stupid things over a small thing is beyond my ability to comprehend

Seriously if I was a chick I wouldn't be comparing myself to the person on a magazine, I would be along the lines of "I wonder what would happen if I managed to hook up with her? Man her and me would be so hot." and then if I was a guy looking at my female self and knowing she/I was thinking that I would be "God this is so hot, she's hot."

Did I do a good job? I think you can clearly see I do not take this very seriously. She's hot.

[bjlong]

Oh, goodie!

Cyx, that's an excellent line of questioning. I'll throw out the practical side of things for now, but I expect you to get back around to it! Theory is all well and good, but the point of moral squabbles is to change something.

I see my line of reasoning was somewhat unclear on this particular point--I don't think it morally good to have a company hurting people. However, it is desireable from an economic and societal standpoint for a company to use every tool at its disposal to sell their product, since that is their place in society. I touch on this again to make sure we're on the same page.

My qualms come when we try to limit the way that companies sell their product in such a way that significantly reduces the impact of a message, with little reduction in the harm caused. (This criterion changes with venue, of course.) I claim this for a few reasons:

First, there is a lot of art that goes into advertisements, and, therefore, advertisements are the breeding grounds for a lot of the artists that later try to make it in more significant venues. Restrictions are necessary, certainly, but arbitrary restrictions breed contempt, and people often go out of their way to subvert them, possibly causing more harm in the process. Second, often these restrictions are better served by the company gaining more knowledge of the market than by a total ban. Sure, naked ladies will get people to look, but would more people necesarily buy? Wouldn't most people be more willing to buy magazines with more decent pictures on the cover, if they aren't buying porno? Third, by hurting people, the corporations are alienating a segment of the population. The adage here would be: Healthy people avoid things that hurt them.

I'm not saying that companies will be blameless. What I am saying is that companies should be forced to abide by certain standards that cause undue suffering, encouraged to reduce it further, but no more. Beyond that, it's a societal problem, and attempting to blame or restrict the companies will not make it better. (And, if I haven't been clear before, my solution to societal problems is taking responsibility for what is happening around you, and attempting to subvert it. You are responsible for doing your best for the people around you, no less.)

Your maxim, "Don't mess with people's heads" leaves a lot in the gray area. First, is saying a completely true statement run through a statistics treatment wrong? What about animating something so that it looks more impressive? Making the product stand out with an interesting color scheme? Writing a blurb that highlights only the good things? These are all ways that companies mess with your head to get you to buy the product. Another maxim that you might throw out is "Don't cause pain," but this is very difficult in the global era--everyone will see the product, and chances are, someone's going to be offended unless you cut the written word down to a technical description, and don't allow portrayals of any physical object.

You're also attacking the idea that companies are seperate from groups of people, but I'm not sure why, exactly. A good reason why companies aren't people is that no group of people pursues a goal as relentlessly as a company. A group of people is held together by their interests and common ground, a company is held together by its revenue generation. A group of people will, for the most part, keep their productive assets to themselves, while a company will require most of a person's creative and productive assets. If this is a simple group of people, then it's a kind of group that has little connection with any other kind of group.

I suppose a way of looking at it is that a company is a kind of social technology, rather than a group of people. It's not good or bad in itself, like a gun is not good or bad in itself, but restrictions placed on the company should keep it from bad things, like a gun should be only fired at game or at a firing range.

[Idiom]

Hey look! Long rebuttal posts nitpicking that people probably spent a fair amount of time on! I'm just going to jump in here with a brief point and leave!

Pornography is not realistic, and it does contribute to a false image. However, it is possible to enjoy exquisite pornography and still have a realistic perception of women. It's just that most people are pre-disposed to being asshats that have a hard time sorting fantasy from reality which in turn screws with their expectations.

Also, even if they did have a "real" woman on that cover posing nude, it would still be a fake woman. Unless she's fully clothed and shooting the ice-beam gaze at you for implying that she should pose nude simply for your personal enjoyment, it's an unrealistic portrayal of women.

[G-Flex]

Did I do a good job? I think you can clearly see I do not take this very seriously. She's hot.

If you're just here to troll the people actually trying to talk, then why bother?

I definitely don't buy your idea that cover girls are role models in a way that actresses, singers, TV personalities, politicians or athletes are. And your complaint of photoshop use doesn't apply to those since they appear in more than just photographs.

Oh, they're not; they're role models within their specific roles. Being a role model doesn't seem that you're someone to look up to in general; that's why the word "role" is in there to begin with. When I say "role model" I mean they're there to provide examples within the realm of fashion and attractiveness; when it comes to those things, those models are what is presented to strive for. They're role models when it comes to being attractive and looking good. Obviously they don't mean as much outside of that.

But are you saying it's somehow morally wrong? Irresponsible? Given how subtle and disparate the effects, if any, are, I have a real hard time considering the publication of magazines with photoshopped hotchicks on the cover to be in the category of what I would call morally wrong. Socially irresponsible maybe, but for me that designation would come more from the promotion of useless trash that's manufactured at some harm to the environment.

The effects (which I think I've established already, but feel free to do your own research, if you care) are a part of a larger system at work. It's not just magazine covers, it's the entire industry and how our society views attractiveness in general.

I think it's been established well-enough that the way media portrays women does in fact harm women especially by promoting unhealthy body image and unreasonable self-expectation, and when an industry/company produces something that they know has significantly harmful effects for the sake of their own profit, that's both socially irresponsible and morally wrong.

Speaking of bringing up children, before I'd have anything to say about magazine publishers, I'd put the primary responsibility on parents and communities to raise children who are able to maintain their self-worth despite seeing photoshopped pictures of models at the checkout line.

Of course, but there are a couple issues with that:

• Those parents were also raised in a society that taught them to be like that, so there's a good enough chance they won't be liable to teach their own children differently; it's self-perpetuating in this way, like most of culture is. Of course, there are still other influences on children, so you'd have to look at and encourage those to do the right thing as well here.
• If society were made of people with a good sense of self-worth, with a lesser tendency to idolize these things, those magazines wouldn't sell to begin with. This is sort of beside the point, though.
• Encouraging parents to raise their children correctly in this way necessitates admitting that these things can have a negative effect in the first place.

True, although that reminds me of some research I heard about...I forget where, but probably referenced in a Steven Pinker book. Basically, it found that as women's wealth and social status rises, the status and wealth of their imagined desired mate also rose. This indicated that rather than women just wanting to marry wealthy or high-ranking men as a back-door way to get wealth and status themselves, instead there is something integral about status and power that women look for in mates.

That's interesting, but you'd have to look at the converse of that too: Would men do exactly the same? It's possible that men simply haven't looked for economic status in women as much because that hasn't really been in an issue in a lot of societies due to how traditional gender roles have tended to work. As we get used to women having more of that, who's to say men won't look for it as well in their relationships?

The basic effect you described seems relatively obvious to me, though: If someone is looking for economic status, and their own is higher, then they'll have higher standards to start.

I don't use the phrase "in our society" for things that appear in all human societies (as compiled, conveniently for social scientists of all stripes, in the book "Human Universals" by Donald Brown, 1990). The phrase gets on my nerves a little bit when people throw it around regarding things that are true in every society, such as looks being a bigger asset to women than to men, since it tends to carry with it the assumption that it's NOT the same in every society

I'm considering current trends and their possible outcomes as well. Traditional gender roles have obviously been around for a long time and have been similar in most places (to a fairly high degree), so a lot of things would seem like universals, but in modern times, these things are changing in ways that they typically haven't changed before, so I don't want to make many assumptions, since a lot of the differences between what men and women look for in mates can still easily be ascribed to culture, especially gender roles.

Well, the notion that selling somebody something that isn't necessarily good for them is wrong, is a hell of a thing to argue. You'd probably say it holds for cigarettes (and the case for the sale of cigarettes being morally wrong holds a lot more weight than the sale of fashion magazines) but what about SUVs? What about pornography? Movie tickets? Computer games?

It depends. There are a lot of factors involved, and it's not a trivial problem to think about. You have to consider what uses the product has, how it influences social problems, and how serious those problems are.

Cigarettes, for example, contribute to some pretty hefty, seriousy, and common problems without providing a hell of a lot in return; I'd call advertising cigarettes morally wrong, yes.

The thing about the current subject is that bad self-image is a common and serious problem itself, even amongst those who don't necessarily have an eating disorder or other incredibly serious effects from it. Like someone else in this channel said, it's also largely unconscious: Even girls who know that it's all bullshit can still be affected by it; such is the power of social pressure.

Now, obviously I'm not going to say that there's no actual usage for commercial fashion or cosmetic advertisements or anything like that, but they could do it in a more responsible fashion. You can advertise make-up or fashion in ways that have less deleterious effects (one of the studies I linked to explicitly studied the differences depending on, say, what sort of slogan is used). You don't have to photoshop models or airbrush the living hell out of them, either, and you can show girls with more than one (two, tops) types of body structure, or hell, maybe even ones of normal weight.


So yeah, when thinking about the kind of stuff you're mentioning, you have to consider what uses the product has, what negative effects it has (and how serious they are and what problems they feed into), and whether or not the industry is doing what it can to contribute the product and its uses to society while at least attempting to do so in a way that doesn't contribute to serious problems. Remember Joe Camel, or other alcohol and cigarette advertisement campaigns that came under fire a while back? The issue wasn't that people were selling alcohol and cigarettes, it's that they were glorifying it in the wrong way, presenting it unrealistically, and trying to subtly target demographics irresponsibly (especially children).

It's not a question of telling people they're wrong for wanting to make money or sell a useful product; it's whether or not they're doing it in a way that's unduly harmful when it needn't be.

Actually, that reminds me. This whole thing about whether fashion magazines are bad or not has an exact analogue in the whole "do video games cause violence in children" thing. If video games DO cause violence (which is just as hard to prove as that fashion ads cause anorexia) then we don't blame the game maker, we assume something is wrong with the person, and their parents if applicable. I don't really see a substantial difference between the situations.

Except there's a lot of actual evidence of fashion modeling and advertisements (and the way they're made and presented) causing self-image problems, and it's obvious that, regardless of that, self-image problems are common to begin with. There is much less evidence that violent videogames beget violence; the best evidence is that they might desensitize people to it. How bad that is depends on who you ask, I guess.

Now, if there were a huge issue with violent activity amongst children in this country and there were significant studies showing that videogames incite this in them, and that the videogame companies were trying to sell it to these people with that goal as an implicit part of the process, it would be more similar.

Still, could anyone but the most deluded space cadet see reality as less real than the cover of Cosmo?

Eh, I don't think it's about "less real", more "less ideal". When people see other people in real life, they're just other people. Magazines and the like present an image of what people ought to be like, from the consumer's prospective. It's this strange mythical ideal which, while fairly unreal, is presented as something that is and that should be idolized.

And don't discount people's ability to consider media-driven examples more profound than real life. It happens more than you'd think, unfortunately; how many people listen to talk radio, after all?

"No messing with people's heads just to buy shit" is a pretty good starting point for individuals and groups alike.

But that applies to all advertising and sale of all products besides extremely basic food and other necessities. How far do you want to take that?

That's why there are regulations in place; even the people who sell Cheerio's came under fire recently for the claims regarding how the cereal can positively affect health.

Of course, regulations can't do everything considering how much grey area there is, and this is very much one of those. I think it's more an issue where social awareness of it needs to be increased to the point where magazines will no longer be inclined to do this. Make people aware of how they're being messed with, and it doesn't work quite as well anymore, and if you make them care about something else (like, say, having self-esteem or what-have-you) then industries will cater specifically to that instead, as they follow the changing social trend.

Pornography is not realistic, and it does contribute to a false image. However, it is possible to enjoy exquisite pornography and still have a realistic perception of women. It's just that most people are pre-disposed to being asshats that have a hard time sorting fantasy from reality which in turn screws with their expectations.

People aren't really taught very well to sort fantasy from reality sometimes, that much is definitely true.

The thing about porn, though, is that it's just that: It's fantasy. It's fiction. Media portrayals of fashion idols and the like are presented as not only real, but ideal. It's like comparing a fantasy novel about a really kickass guy to a biography of a really kickass guy except some of the details were fudged to make him look a lot better and have him technically fighting a war in two completely different places if you read into it enough.



I do apologize for the wall-of-text posts, though. It's just hard for me to stop saying things sometimes.