Are the ads the cause or the effect, though? And she's also not terribly specific about what social ills this trend is bringing about. Anorexia is on the rise but not catastrophically so. General vanity and self-consciousness aren't really anything new - and here, again, they never tell us what an idealized image of female beauty is costing us. I'm not unsympathetic but if we're supposed to be doing anything about it we have to really decide what exactly the problem is.

What? Huh?

>> ^legacy0100:

don't you mean anorexia?

don't you mean anorexia?

>> ^Arkaium:

Much like obese people, this guy must have had numerous opportunities in front of a mirror to see that he not only did not look very good anymore, but that he was getting close to bursting.
Must be some form of body dysmorphia to let it go that far. His arms look jokingly disproportionate to the rest of him.


Much like anorexia I'm sure this person stood in front of the mirror and either thought something disgusting looked good or deluded himself into thinking he was too small. I'm starting to believe that improving oneself in ways like this comes from certain neurological disorders...perhaps from living in a society that constantly tells you it's never enough.

Sorry berticus, and dag, but based on the abstracts of those two studies, neither of them refute the points I was making. The second study does not discuss body hair. The first study discusses women's views of male body hair; but this thread was focused on men's views of female body hair, so that is what I addressed.

In my earlier post, I specifically said that evolution would drive people to favor the characteristics generally displayed by the opposite sex. Men generally have more body hair than women, women should therefore generally find attractiveness in levels of body hair higher than what women have. This idea is not in disagreement with the idea that human evolution in general disfavors body hair. "Disfavors" is relative, and feelings about body hair are not binary propositions.

If you have a species with a full coat of hair, like a gorilla, and a full coat has evolutionary advantage, then you would expect evolution to predispose the individuals to preferring the full coat. If circumstances then changed such that, for example a coat only 50% as thick provided the same benefits, and there was some disadvantage to the hair in general, then the net result is that evolution would favor the 50% coat over the full thickness coat. Given enough time, it would be natural for evolution to then predispose the individuals to prefer the 50% coat also. How this preference would manifest itself psychologically is another issue; It could be that individuals would find a 100% coat attractive but a 50% coat more attractive, or they could find the 100% coat unattractive. Repeat this process for a change to 25% coat, 10%, 5%, etc. Evolution would clearly be disfavoring body hair, even though at any point in time the individuals may prefer some amount of it.

Regardless of the specifics of how it happened, it is a fact that humans have significantly less hair than their ancestors. You must agree this is a result of evolution; the alternative is to claim it's magic. This change occurred early in human evolution, long before magazines or fashion or cosmetics industries. For our comparative hairlessness to be so universal, it had to have been a widespread issue in sexual and/or natural selection. For it to have been widespread, there would almost certainly had to have been a strong benefit.

With regards to the second study, just because one feature(body size) is influenced by culture does not mean others must be also. And even if a particular trait is influenced by culture, it does not mean that evolution's influence is smaller. You can't even use that study to say that those who prefer the thinner body type are shallow or vain or whatever. What would such a claim even mean? The only way to meaningfully argue against the preference for the thinner body type would be to show that that body type is unhealthy. You can argue that only in the most extreme cases, i.e. anorexia, but the study was not addressing extreme thinness. Nor can you make much of an argument that those who prefer thinness are being abnormally picky; a preference for larger bodies is every bit as much a preference as one for thin bodies. Due to the wording of the abstract, the best you could say is that those who prefer thin bodies are slightly more picky than those who prefer larger ones. Also, the fact that these two different cultures have different preferences could easily have a reasonable explanation behind it. Such as, it's an unfortunate fact that African Americans in general have had a lower socio-economic status than Anglo Americans throughout American history, with this problem having been much worse even in the relatively recent past. Peoples with poor access to resources tend to more favorably view displays of wealth, and a large body size is a sign of ready access to food. This dynamic can be seen in other cultures throughout history.

You accused me of confirmation bias, berticus. I could easily say the same of you. You were already in disagreement with my position, you found these two studies, at a quick glance they seemed to be ammunition against me, so you referenced them without bothering to spend time thinking about what the claims in the abstracts might mean. Indeed, you point out that it only took "2 seconds" to find them; taking two seconds to find them would be moot if it took 10 minutes figuring out what they meant. I could argue that your statement of a two second search time therefore indicates you did not take the time to carefully read or think about what you found. I don't know if this is the case or not, I'm merely pointing out that your claim of confirmation bias is unfounded and works both ways.

And in general, even if something is predominantly determined by culture, that does not mean there is something wrong with the preference. Nor does something being "natural" or set by evolution mean it must be right. Evolution could favor something that is 99% bad if what it is replacing is bad 99.9% of the time. This is the issue that started this conversation. Dag's comment stated that people who prefer hairlessness are in the wrong since having hair is "natural". But this is meaningless, because not only is it "natural" that our species is losing its hair, but "natural" has no bearing on whether something is good or bad. Our constantly increasing ability to do the unnatural is what, in part, sets us apart from the rest of the animals. Vaccines, antibiotics, computers, fortified foods, and space exploration are all examples of things that are both unnatural and good for society.

If a person wants to modify their body in an "unnatural" way, more power to them. As long as they are not harming others, you have no place to claim any moral objection. And if they are not even harming themselves, you have no means to mount any kind of meaningful objection whatsoever. In the case of piercings, you could, for example, argue that there is a possibility of infection or inadvertently being snagged and ripped out; but with modern clothing and shelter for temperature control and protection from the sun, no such argument can be made against body hair removal.

>> ^dag:

Yes, this. @sineral- it's an interesting idea- but I call BS that no hair is an indicator for biological fitness.>> ^berticus:
sineral, say hello to our friend confirmatory bias.
took 2 seconds to find this and this. don't ignore evidence that isn't what you want to hear.

Unfortunately, we are not going to resolve the "what is porn?" issue. This article at findlaw ought to be enough to convince even the most perseverant among us that to come to a conclusion about what is or isn't porn is an exercise in extreme futility. While it might be wonderful to think that everyone in the world ought to adopt a laissez les bon temps rouler attitude, that is simply not going to happen.

The argument of advertisers aside, there are other governing factors in this discussion. First, as Dag mentioned, exploitation. It doesn't take very much googling to find out that the drug abuse and suicide rates among porn workers are staggering. There are people literally selling their souls to be involved in this industry. By buying the product and/or propagating it through our various media, we turn a blind eye to the destruction of real people. If the objectification of women in our society is a problem (and many here on the Sift appear to think it is), then porn amplifies that problem to manifold degrees. And Dag has it right, we don't know who is being exploited and who isn't. Why even give the illusion that we support that kind of degradation?

Second,is the impact of porn upon some of the members of this site. Statistically speaking the probability is certain that there are some of our members who struggle with addiction to pornography to one degree or another. Like alcoholism, there are certain people who cannot have just one. It ought to be patently obvious that this is an area in which we have an opportunity to take care of one another rather than to invite each other into further ruin. You don't have to go much farther than the end of your block to find a family that has been negatively impacted or even torn apart by porn.

Allow me to put it this way: If a friend comes to my house and I know he's an alcoholic, I don't serve him booze and I don't break it out in front of him. Why would I hurt someone like that? While I realize that it is ultimately his responsibility whether he drinks or not, I also realize that there are those who have lost the choice to drink and to set a drink in front of them might very well be their demise. So, I give up my rights to alcohol to help the person who needs it. Same with porn. While I might have a right to post it, I also have a right to not post it. What helps more people out?

For those two reasons, among others, I have enjoyed being a part of Videosift and, with a clear conscious, recommending this site to others.

Cheers & Thanks!
I was concidering promoteing this just the other day this works good for me!
(but I'm out of points )

In reply to this comment by oxdottir:
*quality

* ban candidate mucho, yes no?

In reply to this comment by CANNAMED:
Want MedicalMarijuana? Step1: Get Your MarijuanaCard Here Step2: Go to any Dispensary in CA




MEDICAL MARIJUANA EVALUATIONS/CARDS IN VAN NUYS AND THOUSAND OAKS FOR $99.00



Medical Marijuana Doctor Recommendations Available in Van Nuys and Thousand Oaks! Apply today and receive your prop 215 medical marijuana photo id card the same day if approved. Medical Marijuana consultations are $99.00 with coupon from www.cannamed.com Renewals from another M.D. are $80.00.

Don't Qualify, you don't pay!

If you suffer from Cancer, Chronic Pain, Chron's Disease, Depression, Epilepsy, Fibromyalgia, Glaucoma, HIV, Insomnia, Migraines, MS, Nausea, Seizures, Anorexia, Anxiety, Stress, or any other serious ailments, We can help you!

Louis J. Rosner MD President of CannaMed Inc. author of the best seller Multiple sclerosis : new hope and practical advice for people with MS and their families / Louis J. Rosner. Dr. Rosner is a former professor of clinical neurology at UCLA. He was also formerly head of the UCLA's Multiple Sclerosis Clinic. Dr. Rosner is now writing medical marijuana recommendation for the seriously ill at CannaMed Inc.


Cannamed Of Van Nuys
6309 VAN NUYS BLVD. 105G
VAN NUYS, CA 91405
(866) 624-1191


Cannamed of Thousand Oaks
1879 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd.
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362


Hours
Sun: CLOSED
Mon: 11:00am - 7:00pm
Tues: 11:00am - 7:00pm
Wed: 11:00am - 7:00pm
Thurs: 11:00am - 7:00pm
Fri: 11:00am - 7:00pm
Sat: 11:00am - 7:00pm

Payments Accepted
Cash Only!

Contact: Dr. Louis J. Rosner

Distorted perception of one's body or appearance, as in anorexia, is a mental illness. A rational person would look at the result of such a thing and know it was bad. Obviously, this became a compulsion with this poor woman. How is it vain to make yourself hideous? Show some compassion for the mentally ill.

Instant upvote for opening with "Glosoli" =D

It amazes me how since I first discovered Sigur Ros, they seem to be everywhere now--kind of like getting a green car and suddenly everyone seems to have a green car.

They've managed to have a measurable influence in media and yet stay relatively anonymous. So often I hear their music in a video and people will ask,"I love that music, who are they???"

So far I've heard "Saeglopur" in both a PSA for anorexia and the new Prince of Persia trailer.

"Hoppipolla" in the Penelope trailer

"Von" and another song in CSI.

And an unkown song in the Dead Space trailer.

Oh, and lets not forget “Staralfur” in The life aquatic.

Looking them up in Wikipedia, it looks like their music has been used dozens more times in movies, commercials, etc. And most people still don't know who they are. Kinda funny.

People consume far less dairy in Japan, so bone density issues are more common than they are in America.

Really, though, they should have had girls in the commercial. Anorexia and bulimia are even more of a problem in Japan than bone density. Girls drinking a few glasses of milk more would be very healthy.

You're a sucker for gimmicks!? No way!

Glad you didn't go there with the anorexia jokes either. I find it's better to stick with fat jokes. They're MUCH more tasteful.

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
You're right. I'm a sucker for gimmicks. Also, here's an anorexia joke in there somewhere that I'm choosing to ignore.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
Check out how choggie's been funnin' with video aspect ratios:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Karen-Carpenter-Drum-Montage

I think you'll appreciate his sense of humor on this one.

You're right. I'm a sucker for gimmicks. Also, here's an anorexia joke in there somewhere that I'm choosing to ignore.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
Check out how choggie's been funnin' with video aspect ratios:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Karen-Carpenter-Drum-Montage

I think you'll appreciate his sense of humor on this one.

Some observations after watching the video.

-He doesn't say anything resembling the comment you've quoted above.

-His use of 'we' is inclusive of society as a whole, not limited to himself or any race.

-He speaks of the growing economic disparity, but does not limit it to African Americans, and does not personalize it.

-Anorexia is an eating disorder, and probably isn't the best comparison to race or social class.

-I imagine even Mike Huckabee said some kind words about MLK today.

Correct me if I'm wrong on any of these.

Let's see her in 10 years when she's in high school and see how her anorexia is working for her, and then again in 20 years when she's in a plastic surgeon's office fixing those droopy eyes.