Media and beauty

[Me Myself]

So there is this terrible misconception that the media "dictates" to us what we must find beautiful.

The media certainly has an influence and even a big one, but people seem to think it is almost omnipotent, yet the ignore the basis for what the media does:

The media gives us what we want.

If an advertizement is not giving you what you want, you dont care.

If tomorrow, you saw an advertizement telling you how you can use this pill to stop being so skinny (you can look this up, there were advertisements like this in the newspapers) you are not likely to magically take it.

Now, " "the" media" is not a one single thing.

If tomorrow all the people in advertisement and media (ALL OF THEM) started to put fat people as an example of sexy, YES, people will. Increasingly see fat as sexy.

Nw I want you to think on this for a moment, is question is very important:

Why with all the big companies of fattening products (McDonalds, Baskin Robbings, Coke-Cola, take your pick) have not tried to advertize a fat body as being sexy?

Remember people on a diet will buy way less of their products. I want you to think, and dont just drop the first answer from your head.

You are the owner of Coca Cola/McDonalds, and you dont care about people.'s health, and want to advertize fat is sexy so all this people that are limiting their consumption to your product stop doing such.

Can you do it? How?

 

[nilsz]

I will not comment on the advertisement campaigns of McDonald's or Coca Cola, but it's not like fat is unanimously regarded as unattractive - it varies in part because of culture, and media is a large subset of culture.

Criticism of "the media" is typically meant as criticism of tendencies seen across several media actors with perfect understanding that it is not a single entity.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Not this again.

:run:

 

[Me Myself]

I will not comment on the advertisement campaigns of McDonald's or Coca Cola, but it's not like fat is unanimously regarded as unattractive - it varies in part because of culture, and media is a large subset of culture.

Criticism of "the media" is typically meant as criticism of tendencies seen across several media actors with perfect understanding that it is not a single entity.

I truly doubt most of the people that use the term "the media" in this kind of contexts truly understand that it is not a single unified thing. They certainly dont seem to talk as if they got it.

Nothing is unanonimously regarded as attractive or unattractive.

Ad you very well say, media is a subset of culture. Media is generated by culture and fed by it.

What we see ithe media is survival of the fittest, where we are the natural selectors.

This is what IMHO is not understood in its proper perspective by a lot of people.

 

[nilsz]

And our "natural selection" is in turn influenced by culture, and hence media.

 

[Me Myself]

And our "natural selection" is in turn influenced by culture, and hence media.

Yes. It all influences all.

Its like any culture really. Where it not TV or the internet, it would be "what everybody knows/talks about" , but still, its about we being influenced by culutre around us and influencing it back.

 

[nilsz]

Which again means that no one is beyond criticism for a negative influence on culture.

 

[Me Myself]

Which again means that no one is beyond criticism for a negative influence on culture.

Absolutely.

The point is not that we ought not critisize media, the point is that we must understand what it is and how it is part of us and how we are responsible for it, instead of how we are the powerless pawns of the united evil nations of mediastan, plotting out subjugation out of the darkness of its heart.

 

[Quintessence]

I think you need to be more specific in what you mean by "the media."

Do you mean local and national newspapers? Public radio? Commercial radio? Do you mean the blogosphere, podcasters, and youtubers? Do you mean niche-market magazines? Big name magazines? Do you mean major cable news networks? The more obscure ones? Specialized reporting outlets? Are you counting highway billboards? Banner ads in web pages? Local circulars and newsletters by nonprofit groups? What forms of mass communication are you talking about with "the media" here, sir?

 

[Me Myself]

I think you need to be more specific in what you mean by "the media."

Do you mean local and national newspapers? Public radio? Commercial radio? Do you mean the blogosphere, podcasters, and youtubers? Do you mean niche-market magazines? Big name magazines? Do you mean major cable news networks? The more obscure ones? Specialized reporting outlets? Are you counting highway billboards? Banner ads in web pages? What forms of mass communication are you talking about with "the media" here, sir?

I think most people need to be more specific with what they mean by "the media "

My point is, precisely, that we cannot treat "the media" as if it were a single thing.

All of thise that you mentioned are medias indeed. My point is that we must keep in mind that each specific media follows each specific individual agenda (and we all do too) . This is the way it is, and since cave times there have been some form of media or another, including cave paints.

 

[Penumbra]

So there is this terrible misconception that the media "dictates" to us what we must find beautiful.

The media certainly has an influence and even a big one, but people seem to think it is almost omnipotent, yet the ignore the basis for what the media does:

The media gives us what we want.

If an advertizement is not giving you what you want, you dont care.

If tomorrow, you saw an advertizement telling you how you can use this pill to stop being so skinny (you can look this up, there were advertisements like this in the newspapers) you are not likely to magically take it.

Now, " "the" media" is not a one single thing.

If tomorrow all the people in advertisement and media (ALL OF THEM) started to put fat people as an example of sexy, YES, people will. Increasingly see fat as sexy.

Nw I want you to think on this for a moment, is question is very important:

Why with all the big companies of fattening products (McDonalds, Baskin Robbings, Coke-Cola, take your pick) have not tried to advertize a fat body as being sexy?

Remember people on a diet will buy way less of their products. I want you to think, and dont just drop the first answer from your head.

You are the owner of Coca Cola/McDonalds, and you dont care about people.'s health, and want to advertize fat is sexy so all this people that are limiting their consumption to your product stop doing such.

Can you do it? How?

You're criticizing the specific idea that what is beautiful, and what the media says is beautiful, are either essentially unrelated or that nothing is inherently beautiful, and that the media is powerful enough to dictate to people what is beautiful.

A scenario closer to the truth is that the media's conception of beauty and real beauty are inherently related, but not in a healthy way.

Something approaching the idea of objective beauty exists in nature on a species by species basis. It's not entirely arbitrary what humans are generally attracted to from the perspective of evolutionary biology. For example:

-Things like clear skin, adequate height and fitness, reasonable symmetry, long shiny hair, and lack of any visible health problems, are often associated with beauty, and the reason that evolutionary biology gives us for their being nearly universally considered beautiful, is that they are signs of health, and therefore signs of reproductive success. There are a range of healthy body sizes and shapes, with some indicating a greater degree of speed or strength, and others indicating that a person is well-fed and has nutritional reserves. Body shapes outside of this range, like severe obesity or severe malnutrition, start becoming health problems and the majority of people view them as not ideally attractive.

-Specific secondary sex characteristics like a male beard or female breasts indicate reproductive maturity, the time at which a person becomes able to reproduce. The male beard offers no major functional benefits, and to counter any negligibly small benefit that might exist (chin warmth?), it's also a physical liability in any fight due to its nature as an effective handle. Female breasts have the specific purpose of feeding infants, but research has shown that their size is not correlated to their milk producing capabilities in any meaningful way above a baseline level of size and functional development. Additional size is made up of fat, which has a visible purpose but not a functional one, and like a male beard can also have some physical drawbacks. So a beard (including a shaven one) offers an immediate visual cue that a man is above reproductive age, and breasts offer an immediate visual cue that a woman is above reproductive age.

-Similarly, some physical characteristics indicate age. Large eyes and small features can indicate youth, which in a very young sense can result in a desire to nurture that being. In adult sense, several clear things change with age, like hair loss for men, the lengthening of the upper lip for both sexes, and wrinkles, and fertility also decreases with age after a certain point. So a degree of youth is also assigned to beauty in many cases, especially in the more limited sense of sexual attraction.

-More broadly, secondary sex characteristics indicate fertility. In males, the presence of testosterone is correlated with fertility, and testosterone level can make itself known with bone growth, muscle growth, and hair growth. In females, some studies have shown that certain waist to hip ratios are statistically more fertile, that large breasts indicate statistically higher estrogen levels, plus all signs of youth are relevant.

-Behavior is also an aspect of physical beauty. Research shows that people judge smiling faces to be more physically attractive. Smiling and other positive indicators of well-being can show health and fitness, which are useful for the brain to quickly understand in the reproductive sense. Healthy teeth are a particularly good indicator, especially in older times.

So there are a broad number of beautiful combinations with a degree of subjectivity, but it's related in an objective way.

There may be tiny statistical outliers that don't follow the norms at all, like being attracted to only those over 500 pounds, or only those with major physical injuries, or only those below reproductive age, but they are in the tiny minority and one can imagine this would impact their reproductive success. There are also homosexual people, a much larger minority than this other tiny minority, which are attracted to the same sex, but do generally have essentially the same overall preference for features that indicate health and fitness and happiness.

____

The media starts to get involved in an unhealthy way, if magazine covers located at every check-out line in every store show literally unreal people- selected from ideal candidates and painted and Photoshopped.

It also gets involved if almost every movie, television show, news show, and commercial star attractive people in the main roles, once again with make up and from a distance, and then go a step further and statistically show people with certain characteristics in negative roles, like people that are balding, or people with large noses, or people with certain other features, and keep feeding this idea that those characteristics are related to moral or intellectual inferiority.

Basically, when the media takes only what is most attractive in nature, and then amplifies it to an artificial level that literally nobody exists at, and then reflects this back on everyone by portraying these artificial ideals as normal, then it's certainly not having a positive impact on human self-esteem for most people.

 

[psychoslice]

I don't live through the eye's of the media, I have a thing called a brain which i try to use as much as possible.

 

[Me Myself]

You're criticizing the specific idea that what is beautiful, and what the media says is beautiful, are either essentially unrelated or that nothing is inherently beautiful, and that the media is powerful enough to dictate to people what is beautiful.

A scenario closer to the truth is that the media's conception of beauty and real beauty are inherently related, but not in a healthy way.

Something approaching the idea of objective beauty exists in nature on a species by species basis. It's not entirely arbitrary what humans are generally attracted to from the perspective of evolutionary biology. For example:

-Things like clear skin, adequate height and fitness, reasonable symmetry, long shiny hair, and lack of any visible health problems, are often associated with beauty, and the reason that evolutionary biology gives us for their being nearly universally considered beautiful, is that they are signs of health, and therefore signs of reproductive success. There are a range of healthy body sizes and shapes, with some indicating a greater degree of speed or strength, and others indicating that a person is well-fed and has nutritional reserves. Body shapes outside of this range, like severe obesity or severe malnutrition, start becoming health problems and the majority of people view them as not ideally attractive.

-Specific secondary sex characteristics like a male beard or female breasts indicate reproductive maturity, the time at which a person becomes able to reproduce. The male beard offers no major functional benefits, and to counter any negligibly small benefit that might exist (chin warmth?), it's also a physical liability in any fight due to its nature as an effective handle. Female breasts have the specific purpose of feeding infants, but research has shown that their size is not correlated to their milk producing capabilities in any meaningful way above a baseline level of size and functional development. Additional size is made up of fat, which has a visible purpose but not a functional one, and like a male beard can also have some physical drawbacks. So a beard (including a shaven one) offers an immediate visual cue that a man is above reproductive age, and breasts offer an immediate visual cue that a woman is above reproductive age.

-Similarly, some physical characteristics indicate age. Large eyes and small features can indicate youth, which in a very young sense can result in a desire to nurture that being. In adult sense, several clear things change with age, like hair loss for men, the lengthening of the upper lip for both sexes, and wrinkles, and fertility also decreases with age after a certain point. So a degree of youth is also assigned to beauty in many cases, especially in the more limited sense of sexual attraction.

-More broadly, secondary sex characteristics indicate fertility. In males, the presence of testosterone is correlated with fertility, and testosterone level can make itself known with bone growth, muscle growth, and hair growth. In females, some studies have shown that certain waist to hip ratios are statistically more fertile, that large breasts indicate statistically higher estrogen levels, plus all signs of youth are relevant.

-Behavior is also an aspect of physical beauty. Research shows that people judge smiling faces to be more physically attractive. Smiling and other positive indicators of well-being can show health and fitness, which are useful for the brain to quickly understand in the reproductive sense. Healthy teeth are a particularly good indicator, especially in older times.

So there are a broad number of beautiful combinations with a degree of subjectivity, but it's related in an objective way.

There may be tiny statistical outliers that don't follow the norms at all, like being attracted to only those over 500 pounds, or only those with major physical injuries, or only those below reproductive age, but they are in the tiny minority and one can imagine this would impact their reproductive success. There are also homosexual people, a much larger minority than this other tiny minority, which are attracted to the same sex, but do generally have essentially the same overall preference for features that indicate health and fitness and happiness.

____

The media starts to get involved in an unhealthy way, if magazine covers located at every check-out line in every store show literally unreal people- selected from ideal candidates and painted and Photoshopped.

It also gets involved if almost every movie, television show, news show, and commercial star attractive people in the main roles, once again with make up and from a distance, and then go a step further and statistically show people with certain characteristics in negative roles, like people that are balding, or people with large noses, or people with certain other features, and keep feeding this idea that those characteristics are related to moral or intellectual inferiority.

Basically, when the media takes only what is most attractive in nature, and then amplifies it to an artificial level that literally nobody exists at, and then reflects this back on everyone by portraying these artificial ideals as normal, then it's certainly not having a positive impact on human self-esteem for most people.

It only does this because people prefer this.

If people didnt prefer movies like this, they wouldnt do this.

Its not that I am saying the media has noo bearing on the standard of beauty, it very well has influence.

The thing is that it influences only towards the ways people actually buy. In this way, it is a RELATIONSHIP, its an interaction.

Its not "control", its "influence" . There is an incredibly big difference.

If you notice, the media merely show us what stories already said.

The heroines of the stories were always incredibly beautiful, the man very handsome and rich and brave, the evil almost always "look" "evil"

This didnt happen because the "evil stories" controling people any more than it happens today because of e "evil media" controlling people.

Do you see what I am saying now?

The media is not a race of aliens dictating by mind control what we will accept. The media is humans using human stories to reflect what humans want to see, and each just including a very little aspect of influence (a soap advertizement will include their brand and pretty much use the same standard of beauty that people already wanted to see.)

Each media has very little influence. The major image of the media is a direct reflection of what people actually want to see because each individual media has too little effect.

 

[Quintessence]

Basically, when the media takes only what is most attractive in nature, and then amplifies it to an artificial level that literally nobody exists at, and then reflects this back on everyone by portraying these artificial ideals as normal, then it's certainly not having a positive impact on human self-esteem for most people.

In fairness, some of this exists for production reasons, not necessarily because the goal is to plasticize the human form. The function there is about preserving the readability and recognizability of human faces in pictographic media. Makeup is used in stage productions and film productions in large part because lighting will wash out the actor's facial features if it isn't accentuated - or facial features won't be visible at all at a distance or back in the good old days when picture quality wasn't what it is now. We don't technically have to use any of these production methods, but they're the norm for any sort of professional cinema or photography. Then the consumer interprets these production norms as a statement on what everyday people are "supposed to" look like, even though it's unlikely that was its intent outside of the fashion industry.

 

[Quintessence]

I think most people need to be more specific with what they mean by "the media "

My point is, precisely, that we cannot treat "the media" as if it were a single thing.

I think most people mean the mainstream media empires when they refer to "the media," and possibly they're referring to the fact that over the past couple decades, ownership of the media production and distribution has been consolidated into a handful of companies. I'd be extremely careful about dismissing the amount of control these major media corporations have over what we see and hear. That their interests tend to be commercial and profit-driven itself will slant their content in a particular direction, which is a major problem for good journalism in particular. But all of this is perhaps taking this discussion into areas you didn't intend...

 

[Me Myself]

I think most people mean the mainstream media empires when they refer to "the media," and possibly they're referring to the fact that over the past couple decades, ownership of the media production and distribution has been consolidated into a handful of companies. I'd be extremely careful about dismissing the amount of control these major media corporations have over what we see and hear. That their interests tend to be commercial and profit-driven itself will slant their content in a particular direction, which is a major problem for good journalism in particular. But all of this is perhaps taking this discussion into areas you didn't intend...

It is indeed not about the truthfullness of, say, news.

Its about their display of beauty.

My argument is that they can influence stuff, but each individual media cannot single handedly go against all the others, and all the others dont go against all the others, and in the end, they are perpetuating what the PEOPLE like in the first place.

The only way one single media could say something different than all others say is if PEOPLE agree with it. It only takes a reasonable target group.

So that is my point.

If it only took money, McDonalds could have sold fat as being sexy a long time ago. It doesnt happen because they cant go against what people actually want or else they risk lesser views and less money.

 

[Quintessence]

Of course it doesn't just take money, it also takes poorly regulated capitalism that doesn't bother to protect its citizens from corporate exploitation. Unfortunately, my country has been deregulating corporate restrictions for a while, which is the only reason the mainstream media has become so consolidated into the hands of a few in the first place. That opens the door for all sorts of abuses, though I can't substantiate abuses when it comes to standards of beauty, specifically. I don't doubt scholars have looked into this however, and I'd be curious what those wiser than myself on social trends would have to say about it. There's a huge body of literature out there on this topic, but I don't currently have the time to investigate.

 

[dawny0826]

So there is this terrible misconception that the media "dictates" to us what we must find beautiful.

Like you, I'm more comfortable using the word "influence" over "dictate".

I wasn't aware that people were insisting that the media "dictates" our perceptions. I think a common understanding and acceptance in America, at least, is that media can have a powerful influence.

The media certainly has an influence and even a big one, but people seem to think it is almost omnipotent, yet the ignore the basis for what the media does:

Who? Who are these people?

The media gives us what we want.

Contingent upon the form of media and its audience. To an extent, particularly with advertising...yes. Advertisements are designed to appeal to the audience, but, what's projected doesn't always have to reflect the desires of the consumer, particularly, when the consumer is being introduced to a product or service.

There's a plethora of products and services that are imbedded in American culture. Advertising is nice, but, unless there's something new or exciting, advertisements tend to go in one ear and out the other.

You use McDonald's as an example. McDonald's is a part of American culture. Unless something new and exciting is being promoted, I don't need a McDonald's commercial anymore than I need a commercial for paper towels of Lysol wipes.

If an advertizement is not giving you what you want, you dont care.

Not necessarily true. The majority of advertisements that I pay attention to are those that are unique, comical, unusual or bothers me in some way. Rarely, am I interested in the services or products advertised, but, I care, as the advertisement projected something that evokes.

As I've already mentioned, I don't need an advertisement for a product or service that I'm already using. I'm not making emotional connections to such media. The way someone looks in a commercial or talks in a voice over is of no concern to me. I don't need to be introduced to a product that's already a part of my life.

If tomorrow, you saw an advertizement telling you how you can use this pill to stop being so skinny (you can look this up, there were advertisements like this in the newspapers) you are not likely to magically take it.

It's a stupid product. Who in their right mind would want to take a pill to gain weight, when there are more enjoyable ways to go about this, if necessary.

If tomorrow all the people in advertisement and media (ALL OF THEM) started to put fat people as an example of sexy, YES, people will. Increasingly see fat as sexy.

Nw I want you to think on this for a moment, is question is very important:

Why with all the big companies of fattening products (McDonalds, Baskin Robbings, Coke-Cola, take your pick) have not tried to advertize a fat body as being sexy?

Remember people on a diet will buy way less of their products. I want you to think, and dont just drop the first answer from your head.

You are the owner of Coca Cola/McDonalds, and you dont care about people.'s health, and want to advertize fat is sexy so all this people that are limiting their consumption to your product stop doing such.

Can you do it? How?

We have to look at the product and audience. Food and drink is consumed by all and Coca Cola and McDonald's appeal to many. It's fact that partaking in high fat foods and high fructose corn syrup can yield unhealthy results if not moderated.

Most Americans understand these food and drink items to be unhealthful if consumed in excess. So, it's not going to matter to me if McDonald's uses svelte people for their commercials, unless they project in some way that only the svelte are healthful.

I can understand a company like McDonald's that's been under pressure for years, with accusations of being unhealthful, using imagery in their advertisements that depicts more healthful lifestyles. But, usually, they don't.

I'm going to feel differently if I'm watching a health and beauty commercial or reading a magazine or looking at something online that depicts health and beauty.

Cosmetics, fragrances and hair products are geared for beauty and luxury. So, when cosmetics company advertises their beauty product and uses models with the same body type over and over again, I'm sure as hell going to take notice and I do.

I use these products too. They're geared to accentuating my beauty and I'm not tall and skinny. It's this type of "portrayal" that ****** me off.

You're wrong if you think that the average consumer wants to see this portrayal time and time again. The consumer is also the overweight makeup artist who wouldn't mind seeing someone with a comparable body type represent the products that she spends a lot of money of.

In the beauty industry, much of what you see on the pages of a magazine, was first on a runway or backstage at a makeup artist's table. And these trends are rarely geared to those who are overweight, obese or do not fit a particular "type" in some way.

 

[Me Myself]

Like you, I'm more comfortable using the word "influence" over "dictate".

I wasn't aware that people were insisting that the media "dictates" our perceptions. I think a common understanding and acceptance in America, at least, is that media can have a powerful influence.



Who? Who are these people?



Contingent upon the form of media and its audience. To an extent, particularly with advertising...yes. Advertisements are designed to appeal to the audience, but, what's projected doesn't always have to reflect the desires of the consumer, particularly, when the consumer is being introduced to a product or service.

There's a plethora of products and services that are imbedded in American culture. Advertising is nice, but, unless there's something new or exciting, advertisements tend to go in one ear and out the other.

You use McDonald's as an example. McDonald's is a part of American culture. Unless something new and exciting is being promoted, I don't need a McDonald's commercial anymore than I need a commercial for paper towels of Lysol wipes.



Not necessarily true. The majority of advertisements that I pay attention to are those that are unique, comical, unusual or bothers me in some way. Rarely, am I interested in the services or products advertised, but, I care, as the advertisement projected something that evokes.

As I've already mentioned, I don't need an advertisement for a product or service that I'm already using. I'm not making emotional connections to such media. The way someone looks in a commercial or talks in a voice over is of no concern to me. I don't need to be introduced to a product that's already a part of my life.



It's a stupid product. Who in their right mind would want to take a pill to gain weight, when there are more enjoyable ways to go about this, if necessary.



We have to look at the product and audience. Food and drink is consumed by all and Coca Cola and McDonald's appeal to many. It's fact that partaking in high fat foods and high fructose corn syrup can yield unhealthy results if not moderated.

Most Americans understand these food and drink items to be unhealthful if consumed in excess. So, it's not going to matter to me if McDonald's uses svelte people for their commercials, unless they project in some way that only the svelte are healthful.

I can understand a company like McDonald's that's been under pressure for years, with accusations of being unhealthful, using imagery in their advertisements that depicts more healthful lifestyles. But, usually, they don't.

I'm going to feel differently if I'm watching a health and beauty commercial or reading a magazine or looking at something online that depicts health and beauty.

Cosmetics, fragrances and hair products are geared for beauty and luxury. So, when cosmetics company advertises their beauty product and uses models with the same body type over and over again, I'm sure as hell going to take notice and I do.

I use these products too. They're geared to accentuating my beauty and I'm not tall and skinny. It's this type of "portrayal" that ****** me off.

You're wrong if you think that the average consumer wants to see this portrayal time and time again. The consumer is also the overweight makeup artist who wouldn't mind seeing someone with a comparable body type represent the products that she spends a lot of money of.

In the beauty industry, much of what you see on the pages of a magazine, was first on a runway or backstage at a makeup artist's table. And these trends are rarely geared to those who are overweight, obese or do not fit a particular "type" in some way.

So , in your opinion, if someone launched advertising with their products that had more diverse bodytypes, they could gain a lot of audience, and others would follow on the success?

 

[dawny0826]

So , in your opinion, if someone launched advertising with their products that had more diverse bodytypes, they could gain a lot of audience, and others would follow on the success?

I have no idea.

I would be less ****** off if some of my favorite beauty products were better marketed.