I had some similar questions. I agree that the campaign name may be problematic. I'm not excusing that aspect of it, but I'm wondering if Sport England's goal isn't partly to encourage younger girls to have a better body image, and also maybe to suggest that sexiness doesn't need to exclusively be about makeup and famous supermodels, etc., but can also be about perseverance, confidence, and being active...?

Maybe our UK folk can tell us about whether the connotations of the word "girl" are different.

I appreciate that there is a strong point to be made about protecting young girls from body image issues and being pressured into looking or being a certain way, i think it's unfair to put that on her decision here.

She IS influenced by society in that she sees clothes in her day-to-day life and decides what she thinks looks best of those. My point being - what is the alternative? Who has the right to decide what to show her and what not to show her of the world, and why, and how will they starve her of music, art, film and friends without hurting her growth?

She will be raised in a relatively affluent civilisation and be able to make her own decisions for the rest of her life, she presumably won't be forced into marriage or slavery, and she'll buy clothes that she feels comfortable wearing, that fit to the style of the times.

I know you have a point, i hope you might acknowledge i have one also. We are all influenced in our choices and preferences by our culture - that is life - why feel sorry for her for thinking that the bikini is the nicest looking clothing item that she's seen? Would you feel sorry for her that she hasn't seen enough hairstyles to choose something less like Britney, for example? At that age, i say she is thinking without regard for attraction of the opposite sex and entirely on what she prefers (if i know 5 year olds), out of what she's seen in her short time.

If only that were true.

This girl is 5 years old. Over the past 5 years, in every commercial she's seen on TV, on every magazine cover she's seen by the checkout counter when she's grocery shopping with her parents, in the majority of the cartoons she's watched and the dolls she's probably played with, in every reaction she's seen in adults' faces to how women dress and behave, she's been culturally programmed with and internalized what modern Western society deems as "beautiful."

It's unavoidable, really, as @Truckchase pointed out above. It's part of the socialization process. But if you've read about how Carrie Fisher struggled with body image issues and eating disorders throughout the filming of the original trilogy, then you probably (like me) find this video more tragic than cute.

One of the many core and wrong ideas in Feminism is that the sex of a person doesn't seem to play much of a role in anything. And in this case, Feminism is responsible for holding back medical science. Feminism is a blight on intellectual discourse. I'm not going to spend the time it takes to unravel a snake like Feminism here, but in brief, it's an untenable ideology.

One of its core philosophies is the idea of the Patriarchy, which is not only theoretical, but creates hypocritical scenarios in Feminist debate.

For instance, Feminists state that the Patriarchy supports and allows men to lead privileged lives. Yet when it is pointed out that men are sentenced twice as long for exact same crimes; men have zero protection of their genitals as babies; that there is FAR more funding for women's schooling, businesses, and health; or that in any emergency situation it is expected that men's lives are forfeit - the argument you'll get back is "See, Patriarchy hurts men too!". This rebuttal is in obvious contradiction to the idea that Patriarchy allows men to live privileged lives.

Another core idea is wage gap which has been disproven over and over for decades, even by some Feminsts:

http://www.topmanagementdegrees.com/women-dont-make-less/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html

Feminism also focuses a great deal on "objectification", which presupposes that men are (always) sexually attracted to something *other* than the curves of a womans body. This is not only obviously off kilter for anyone with a basic understanding of evolutionary psychology, but has been scientifically proven false. Men are biologically wired to base mate finding on looks.

So the word 'objectification' actually becomes Feminist propaganda for the demonizing of male sexuality.

Furthermore regarding female objectification in society - we all often see the viral videos "How Women's Bodies Are Changed Beyond Recognition in Photoshop!" But consider that 80% of consumer dollars are spent by women. So in essence we have women complaining about women being objectified while women buy into objectification. What exactly do we expect advertising agencies to do?

I've even seen scenarios for men in which, if he found a woman attractive, then he's objectifying her; and if he found her unattractive, then he's shallow for only caring about looks.

Then there is argument from Feminists that Feminism helps to empower men as well. No, it doesn't. In fact much has been shown in the opposite: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/g2eme/feminists_tell_you_that_the_solution_to_mens/

98% of workforce deaths are male. You never see Feminists rallying to take on these jobs on the front lines in combat, or in jobs that involve heavy machinery, working outdoors in inclement weather, inhaling toxic fumes, or apprehending dangerous criminals. Why not? After all, fair is fair! Let's remove the stigma around men being "losers" if they are stay-at-home Dads, while Moms can be the breadwinners for once.

It's clear that Feminism isn't about gender equality. You never see Feminists rallying about how He-Man set an unrealistic body image for boys, but the focus and attention on Barbie has been unreal.

Take into consideration, among everything else I've stated, that words like "mansplaining" are part of Feminist vocabulary, and I think you start to get a picture why no self respecting man has anything to do with Feminism.

There's much much more research, evidence, and articles I can cite, but the final point is that Feminism is a toxic and counterproductive movement.

Perhaps there will be "equality between the sexes" when the likelihood of men becoming estranged from their children and families after a divorce is the same as it is for women... Or when the expectation of "supporting" one's family is actually spending time with them and not simply being their "wallet"...

I'll see equality when the life expectancy between men and women is the same... Or when the risk of becoming homeless is the same... Or to become a victim of violence (or simply being suspected of violence or threatened with violence due to ones gender) is the same.. Or when the probability of dying by suicide is the same. . . Perhaps we'll all be equal then.

Honesty and open mindedness are the key. If you're honest and open minded and are surrounded by honesty and open mindedness, then your body image should be solid and you can then focus on things that matter.

Just freaking stay in shape, that's where the hotness lies. We're physical creatures not meant to dwell as if in solitary confinement at our desktop.

My claim is that there is insufficient data to show a causal link between being significantly overweight (within reason, say BMI < 40) and negative health consequences when controlling for other known detrimental behaviors and health risk factors. That said, there is certainly an interaction effect whereas a higher BMI can tend to exacerbate underlying health issues/comorbidities. That is, it is erroneous to look at a fat person and tell them that they are necessarily unhealthy without having a more nuanced understanding of their overall health, other risk factors and activity levels.

Further, I believe it is erroneous to claim that long term weight loss is an achievable goal in all individuals, and that instead encouragement should be directed towards improvement in the overall health of the individual rather than emphasizing the primary goal of weight loss. Even if it were clear beyond all doubt that obesity directly caused the negative health effects it is psychologically pragmatic to avoid conflating body-image issues and health concerns. Finally, from an etiquette standpoint, it is inappropriate and counterproductive to comment on the health consequences of the behavior of an individual unless you are employed by that individual as a health professional or are otherwise a close, concerned acquaintance of that individual.

In other words saying, "you fatties shouldn't be on TV, think of the children," isn't exactly productive nor appropriate.

Clear enough?

Cheers. At least you are attempting some objectivity.

>> ^scannex:

Direct question then.
Is it your stance that claiming there are negative health consequences from being obese is erroneous?
Is it your stance that there is insufficent data to show a causal link between being significantly overweight (obese) and health problems?
>> ^bmacs27:
@scannex The claim is that many of the negative health consequences associated with obesity, e.g. cardiac arrest, are in fact dependent on other factors with which obesity is commonly comorbid. I showed you a case in which less hypertensive adult women showed no effect of BMI on mortality across the board. Your studies failed to address that so far. Even in the latest, it shows that many of the complications involve comorbidity, not obesity in its own right. Even when it talks about diabetes it talks about the protective effect of vitamin E. Now, if you want to start talking about joint replacements or whatever, fine, but then we should probably tell people to be careful about their morning run too.

I'm typically not one for anecdotal evidence myself, but I don't need to rely on it. There is very little data on successful techniques for long term weight loss. Here's an example. Now, not everyone will interpret these results in the same way that I do. On my reading, people that maintained weight loss needed to check their weight, reduce their fat intake, and expend more energy than people that are naturally weight stable at that weight. In fact, people that lost weight, and regained it had effectively the same habits as people that are weight stable at the lower weight. In other words, weight stable fat people and weight stable thin people exercise and eat the same amounts. Granted, there were some that were able to maintain this increased activity level and highly restrictive diet, however I would suspect if you were to investigate that group you would likely find a higher incidence of psychological issues surrounding body-image, and likely an increased incidence of OCD. Now if your claim is true, the people that lost weight down to an average of 167 pounds or so (the average weight of the weight stable controls), should have been able to have equivalent habits to those controls and maintain that weight as their BMR should be equivalent. Clearly the data shows your claim to be false. They need to maintain an increased activity level and lower fat intake in order to maintain the same weight.

>> ^Duncan:

@bmacs27 You're using every cliche in the book. Basal Metabolic Rates vary in negligible amounts between people of the same gender, age, height, and weight. If your body doesn't get the energy it needs from an outside source, it will break down itself for fuel. And your anecdotal evidence means very little. Argue all you want about how body fat has little to do with health, but don't go saying some people can't lose it (genetic conditions notwithstanding).

Yeah she is obese. How does pointing out the obvious help anybody? You think he wrote this email to her because perhaps it had never occured to her to lose weight? I'm not saying obesity is ok but honestly girls have a bad enough negative body image without people pointing out the flaws. Her weight doesn't effect anybody outside of her family so don't be a creep and write emails pretending that she's a bad role model or some shit.

"Of all the things we could be exporting to help people
around the world, really negative body image and low
self-esteem are not what we hope is going out with public
health messaging." ALEXANDRA BREWIS, executive director
of Arizona State University's School of Human Evolution
and Social Change. http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/spreading-fat-stigma-around-the-globe/?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha3


Not the best article, scientifically. And I think they give too much credence to their fights against obesity and ignore.... movies and tv and advertising that is being exported.

You're missing the point. Yes, perhaps fully formed, rational, emotionally mature personalities are not susceptible to suggestive advertising. However, there's a process to becoming mature, it's called growing up, and along the way people are not so capable of differentiating the real from the not-so-real. Along the way, people's ideas of body-image get polluted by all manner of external influences. Some people have enough positive input from others close to them that they are able to defend themselves from this brain-washing. Some don't.

Clearly you have your own issues with women to deal with. My guess is that you should learn a lot if you talked to one.
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Seriously, didn't we leave this kind of sexism behind in the 80s?
The point is that it ISN'T sexism. It is the refutation of a patently insulting and illogical argument that demeans human beings far more than the so-called 'evil' it decries. This woman's argument goes much further down the road of dehumanizing people than any of the ads she whines about. The only differences is that she is hiding her argument, and advertising isn't. I respect a good ad 100X more than this fool and her fear driven lies.
white males
And you're doubling down on it by being a racist. How do you even know if anyone here is white? Between her insulting mysoginy, her evil misandry, and your stereotypical racism we've got a real intolerance trifecta going on here.
Advertising is sleazy. It preys upon our fears and insecurities.
So is this woman, and her stupid arguments. Regardless, advertising does one thing and one thing only... It creates product awareness. When you march into a retail store to purchase deodorant, you don't buy Axe Body Spray because you actually believe women are going to chase you down. You buy it because you saw the ad, thought it was funny, and decided to give it a shot. And in doing so you decided that you LIKED it. I bought a can of Axe (Sharp Focus) because I saw the black can in the aisle and liked the scent - not because I thought some woman in a schoolgirl skirt was going to maul me. The argument that people are puppets of "sleazy" ads is complete bunk. Ads create awareness. Awareness leads to trial. Trial leads to consumption. It's that simple.
Those who don't get it should keep watching it in a continuous loop until your consciousness evolves to a higher level
That happened a long time ago - and without any assistance from this woman and her abbevillian stupidity. And my higher, evolved consciousness tells me that this woman - and her clearly prejudice hate of men and women - can go cram it sideways with walnuts.
68 yr-old woman it's surprising that she has not a single gray hair.
Because quite clearly this hypocrite buys into the "evil" advertising image that grey hair is bad. Oh - but I'm SURE when this dingus walks into the salon to get her hair done she doesn't feel for one second that she's a stinking, slimy, self-righteous hypocrite for dying her hair with one of those hair care products all those "evil" advertisement pimp in their demeaning, insulting, culturally poisonous advertisement. :eyeroll: What a piece of work that pathetic specimen is.

>> ^rottenseed:

Who the fuck is this broad speaking on behalf of? Every fucking woman I know has a reasonable expectation for her own body. Sure they might be unhappy about this or that, but nothing that makes me think that there's this fucking epidemic of depressed anorexic, bulimic women walking around and wishing they looked like the models in the ads.
Yea we get it, ads are ridiculous.


Also, @crotchflame (because I think my comment here relates to your question)

So just because you don't personally know anyone who has this problem, the problem doesn't exist? Well, I DO personally know women who are anorexic and depressed because of their perceived negative body image. I happen to be a university teacher and I meet far too many of them. I also know women who refuse to leave the house without make-up on. I also know women who think they are too fat when in reality they are at a (medically-speaking) ideal weight. All of them are comparing themselves to these images--and unfortunately to each other. There is a real problem going on here. Just because you personally aren't affected by it doesn't mean it isn't real.

@yellowc @dannym3141(and anyone else who questioned what she said about violence) At 2:20 she quite clearly says these advertisements don't directly cause violence. However, these advertisements often portray women in a dehumanizing way, and dehumanization happens to be a pre-requisite for violence, unless you are a psychopath. Read this article in Forbes for some more info.

In other words, she's saying the media helps create and maintain a social climate where it is okay to objectify women. And such a social climate tacitly endorses violence against women--both physical and psychological.

No offense - but boo freaking hoo.

Through all history, art (and by extension, advertising) has idealized the human physical form to represent the societally desired standard of beauty. Some folks (vid chick especially) needs to spend a bit less time whingeing about things that are absolutely, unequivocally, 100% unchangeable. What are you going to do, toots? Pass a law that forces people to only portray human figures in a way that you personally approve? Get over it.

By the way, males get the same treatment too. Avertising, movies, TV, and pretty much all forms of media portray the male figure in an exaggerated fashion. Males are shown in two ways... 1. They are shaped like tent-pegs, tall, muscle-bound, and have physically impossible abs. 2. They are the icky "metro-sexual" waif-like douche with a shirt half open, popped collar, and an expression like he is about to commit suicide. So don't give me this bullcrap that men are not also objectified, idealized, cut up, and treated like meat in ads & the media. Of course they are.

But you don't hear stupid moronic men giving speeches about how it this trend 'damages' boys because it doesn't. Why? Because boys have the ability to not care squat about how the male body is portrayed in media. The only area men tend to be insecure about body image is (A) going bald and (B) the size of thier junk.

I'm not sure I wholly agree with what she claims at the 4th segment of the video about consequences of objectifying men and about femininity vs masculinity.

She claims that valuing masculinity over femininity leads to violence.

Far East Asian media is dominated by feminine mentality simply because the female audience and fan participation vastly outnumber the male audience. Both men and women in public media are depicted as people with feelings and pretty hair and such. But this doesn't mean there's less domestic violence in Asian cultures.

In fact, there are more unreported domestic abuse in Asian countries than there are in United States. People also fight, people get hit by cars, people get killed in Asian countries with the same rate as any other countries. How do you explain that according to your ad images?

She also complains that in her society masculine values are prioritized over feminine values, and that leads to violence.

Your culture of glorifying masculinity has brought universal suffrage mind you, while most other countries where they prioritize cooperation of community and other 'feminine' values end up oppressing women because they want to keep things the way they are.

Historically most Northern European countries valued masculine values over feminine. And yet these countries were the ones who brought women into battlefields in Roman times and also adopted the first Universal suffrage.

Stick to your original comments about media effecting women's body image lady. Don't get off track.

Fuck 60 minutes. This is such a BS fluff piece where the "two sides" presented in the debate are a TSA official and a kooky college professor looking guy. A whole goddamn section was dedicated to the reporter asking TSA agents if people get mad at them and what kind of wacky things they've seen. There was only 1 minute of actual news here when she was asking the TSA official about the large percentage of IED devices that are missed by screeners.

AND she takes the TSA dudes word about the full body images not being pornographic and being deleted after a few minutes. What a crock.

Anyone that isn't shaking with fear understands that the TSA is theater that that is a direct affront to personal liberty.

60 minutes is news for old people that don't want to know the truth.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Yeah, I like that too. How about it PB?

In reply to this comment by lucky760:
How about *anatomy? Succinct and all-encompassing.

In reply to this comment by dag:
What do you think?

In reply to this comment by dag:
Maybe a *humanbody or *body would be better?

In reply to this comment by peggedbea:
http://www.videosift.com/search?q=boobs
http://www.videosift.com/search?q=vagina
http://www.videosift.com/search?q=penis
http://www.videosift.com/search?q=breast
http://www.videosift.com/search?q=body

just searching those 5 words alone turns up over a well over 1,000 videos, granted not all of the will belong in the channel, but the vast majority will.
i know "boob, vagina, penis" are low brow cheap shots and that certainly isn't what the channel is about, but it's something quick to prove there are certainly enough videos to fill the channel
i also have sifted tons of videos about the function, physiology, and beauty of the body. i know i can find at least 50 just going through mauz's sifts alone.

*bodyparts videos include exercises, fact vs myth, extraordinary physical accomplishments, physical deformities and disorders, physiological research and education, videos of astonishing surgical advancements, WTFisms, body art taboos, informative (by god, i've spent a decade in 2 fields where all i do is study the body and you'd be surprised what people don't know about their own bodies, this is important!), positive body image, CONTORTIONISTS! and of course... a staple boobs, bewbs, and tits.





In reply to this comment by dag:
Hey Peggedbea- sorry for the late reply. I'm not sure about the channel. Is there really enough content to warrant a channel? I'm thinking more playlist- what are some examples?

In reply to this comment by peggedbea:
good evening sir,
yesterday i created my *bodyparts channel, it says its pending admin approval.
is this a lucky issue? i hear he's on vacation.... it's cool, all those orphan boob videos can wait.
or perhaps siftbot doesn't like the idea of a *bodyparts channel, perhaps he's jealous because he doesn't have any *bodyparts of his own. tell him not to worry, i'm an organ donor and i'll be dead soon enough.
or perhaps we're worried this is a gateway to an influx in ambiguously pornographic content, i promise to be a good channel mother and disown all my sexiest children.
xoxo
-bea is for body parts