Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
The Effect of New Media Distribution on Body Image and Self Esteem

By jonny dov in Culture
Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 10:02:33 PM EST
Tags: Culture (all tags)
Culture

Right now, the costs of distribution and production of film and shows are plummeting. This opens up the door for a great number of amateur content providers to step in and scoop up their share of the Long Tail market. With the number of independent films and shows soon to come, what will happen to American ideas about attractiveness?


The medium of film is soon about to get wiki'd--that is, consumers will also be content providers. Very soon we consumers will be producing our own television shows, whose quality will be on par with Hollywood's capabilities 5 years ago.

Podcasting already exists, and it is already being applied to video, which means that in addition to the dramatic slashes in costs for production, costs of distribution will be sliced--especially with the opportunities afforded by torrents (Gary Lerhaupt, a grad student at Stanford, only had to use 5 gigs of bandwidth to provide 750 gigs of content to an adoring public; it cost him $4 to provide a 500 meg file to 1,500 people). Furthermore, we already know that investors are accepting this new tech.

These new production and distribution paradigms will have a dramatic effect on many aspects of American culture (especially water cooler office chat, which is another story), but will have a particularly obvious impact on body image, which has in the past found itself influenced mainly by supermodels, hunk actors, and Charlie's Angels; viewing this "hit" content has falsely inflated perceptions of what is considered an appropriate standard for beauty.

Thanks to the Long Tail Distribution model, though, any content provider, even an average-looking one, is essentially guaranteed an audience. Long Tail is a part of the graph of what content people consume, where the x axis represents the various films, music, and shows, and the y axis is the volume of consumption for that particular content: there's a big hump where the hits are, but there are more total sales out by the tail where lesser-known films are; that is, more money can be made on supplying the total number of misses than by supplying only hits, and more people watch the misses than the hits.

In the past, we have had to amuse ourselves with huge blockbusters, since only they have the potential for returning the initial investment. With the price cuts coming up, even "misses" will be enough to make up for costs (remember, $4 to distribute about half a movie to 1,500 people--that beats a theatre's overhead for sure).

There are a boatload of misses (and there soon will be many more with the cheapening of production), and so interesting things can and will happen to the face of American entertainment content: since there are a finite number of gorgeous people on Earth, more average-looking people will break into the business, and people will watch them. The attractiveness of actors will fall in its importance--and many of us will be watching and supporting the films and shows that hasten its descent.

In accordance with social comparison theory, we whose tastes run off the beaten path in some way--that is, all of us, according to Long Tail--will be looking at an entirely new kind of content which will differ from anything we've ever seen before, and because of the capabilities of video on demand, programs made by Average Joes and Janes will become more accessible to all of us.

Once it's accessible, it will be accepted. As the American public shifts its collective attention away from Britney Spears, we'll shift toward something more decentralized, and it will start to wear down the impossible standards of beauty to which we hold ourselves today. The more we're exposed to realistic beauty, the more our own ideals of beauty will change.

As a result, we will not only see other people as more attractive, but we will see ourselves in a more positive light, which will increase our own attractiveness to others. People will become more open-minded about ideals of beauty.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
How much can the new paradigms of production and distribution change standards of beauty?
o Not at all--even given choice, we're still going to watch the hot people. 25%
o A smidgen--we may see average Joes more often, but it won't change our perceptions of other people much. 51%
o A lot--we'll be watching geeks like ourselves on TV! 10%
o Completely--the days of unrealistic beauty are drawing to a close. 3%
o N/A--this tech won't happen, video on demand won't be a successful business model. 9%

Votes: 66
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Scoop
o distributi on
o production
o Long Tail
o wiki'd
o Hollywood' s capabilities 5 years ago.
o Podcasting
o video
o torrents
o investors
o tech
o distributi on
o Charlie's Angels
o social comparison theory
o Also by jonny dov


Display: Sort:
The Effect of New Media Distribution on Body Image and Self Esteem | 154 comments (126 topical, 28 editorial, 0 hidden)
it may (2.50 / 2) (#1)
by etherdeath on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 11:50:26 AM EST

take "attention away from Britney Spears", but how is it going to compete with the all those people we see in real life each day?

This is true (none / 0) (#2)
by GenerationY on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 12:20:21 PM EST

Whilst it is argued that the medias portrayal of the body leads to unrealistic standards and thus plastic surgery, eating disorders, gym worship etc. the fact is that through the means of plastic surgery, eating disorders, gym worship etc. plenty of people have reached the standard. Its not fun and its not healthy to get one's self into such a condition but in any major city (if not hicksville town) you will see 'beautiful people' all the time. Britney is, if anything, thin but rather horsey looking to be honest. Brit-a-likes can be seen and even talked to in any club that doesn't actually have spit and sawdust on the floor.

[ Parent ]
It'll remove some of the impotus (none / 0) (#3)
by jonny dov on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 12:54:13 PM EST

I'm agreed that it won't completely eradicate the beauty standard overnight. But I think it will have some effect; like you said, it isn't fun or healthy to try to be prettier than you are. If even a little bit of the pressure is eased up, a few people will start living differently. Once those people let it all hang out, so to speak, that'll remove some of the real world pressure, and so on until some sort of equilibrium has been struck.

[ Parent ]
Yeah, I wasn't being editorial (none / 0) (#12)
by GenerationY on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 04:27:06 PM EST

I was just commenting really. My own feeling is that its less about Hollywood and more about a sort of arms race between you and your peers (competitors). I just about remember when it was fine for men to look like men and not pampered and preened metrosexuals.

[ Parent ]
I remember (none / 0) (#123)
by black orchidness on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 08:41:42 PM EST

When it was fine for women to be accepted for their 'natural' shape (by natural I mean bone structure and weight that results from a healthy diet and moderate exercise), and no one wore corsets or makeup or bras.

Oh wait..wait, yeah..that was a dream. BTW, I'm not trying to argue with you, just trying to play the gender card.

[ Parent ]

i thought ... (none / 0) (#144)
by goosedaemon on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 09:45:26 PM EST

not being a woman, i obviously wouldn't truly know, but i thought that bras were actually helpful. like, back support or something. am i the victim of one of those pranks amusing for everyone but me, until someone finally tells me the truth twenty years later, and then i retell the story a few years after that, and then it's amusing for me?

and then, at the same time, i've always wondered why the less "well-endowed" wore them. i know one person who doesn't, but other than that...



[ Parent ]
Actually (none / 0) (#151)
by black orchidness on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 04:51:09 PM EST

bras do serve several purposes.

1. smaller breasted girls can 'enhance' their figure.

2. women with very large breasts have support so their tits don't hang to their knees and their backs don't ache as much.

3. this is purely conjecture, but I've heard rumors that wearing a bra v. not wearing one will make the difference between how saggy a woman gets and how soon it occurs. (the implication is that wearing one will defy gravity for a few more years).

And that is probably way more about bras than you ever cared to read.

[ Parent ]

Well, I'm pretty sure that unless you live in L.A. (none / 0) (#91)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 02:07:23 PM EST

most of the people you meet don't look like Leo DiCaprio or Britney Spears. That's actually a point brought out in one of the articles the original poster links to.

I never said that.
[ Parent ]
There might be some slight change but... (none / 0) (#125)
by zirzile on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 06:14:45 AM EST

There has already been attempts to change the stereotypical beauty standards of today by other media. TV shows have more "real" paople in them, some Women's magazines try to convince "you are beautiful the way you are" and so on, however it has not changed society's perception of beauty so drastically. Therefore I do not believe that a medium, that as it has been mentioned here previously, is not so easily accessible to a simple internet user, would have this great magical effect either...

[ Parent ]
I disagree. (3.00 / 2) (#4)
by Kasreyn on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 01:28:20 PM EST

For the simple reason that amateur radio is a lot better than amateur TV, and so you can't compare amateur radio (a la podcasting) to what amateur TV would be like. To be blunt, there are a lot more people with nice-sounding voices than there are people with the standard of visual beauty to which Hollywood has accustomed the television audience. For all you know, the female DJ at your favorite radio station - you know, the one with the contralto wet-dream voice - is actually the most disgusting fat sow in existence. Unfortunately, if she were doing amateur TV, you'd be forced to look at her. :P


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
Fat Sow? (3.00 / 4) (#9)
by DLWormwood on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 04:11:46 PM EST

For all you know, the female DJ at your favorite radio station - you know, the one with the contralto wet-dream voice - is actually the most disgusting fat sow in existence. Unfortunately, if she were doing amateur TV, you'd be forced to look at her. :P

I think you are indirectly reinforcing the article writer's point. Your concept of a "fat sow" is heavily influenced by the social mores of the day. In ages past, when food was harder to come by, People Of Massive GirthTM were considered attractive, while in this age of plentiful food (at least in the US), skinny people are considered more appealing. I don't have a link handy, but a recent study showed that people tend to regard "rarer" body types in a culture to be more desireable than common ones.
--
Those who complain about affect & effect on k5 should be disemvoweled
[ Parent ]

rare body types (3.00 / 8) (#15)
by janra on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 06:04:10 PM EST

And when the majority of people had to work outdoors, having pasty white "I'm rich enough to stay indoors all the time" skin was attractive; now that factory, office, or other indoor work is more common for the majority, having even brown "I'm rich enough to lounge around in the sun or at a tanning salon" skin is attractive. (Uneven tans aren't, however, because you get those while working outdoors.)

Then it was "I'm rich enough to eat lots of good food and pay somebody to do my physical activity for me," now it's "I'm rich enough to pay a nutrition consultant and join gyms and take time away from work and family to actually go to them."
--
Discuss the art and craft of writing
That's the problem with world domination... Nobody is willing to wait for it anymore, work slowly towards it, drink more and enjoy the ride more.
[ Parent ]

That's it... (3.00 / 2) (#70)
by ill decide later on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 01:59:04 PM EST

I'm getting my skin dyed permanently blue.

[ Parent ]
Also... (none / 1) (#88)
by skyknight on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 08:35:57 AM EST

Radio requires significantly less logistical support. No amateur movie outfit is going to be able to requisition helicopters to film something like Black Hawk Down, or adequate computer talent to render Toy Story.

It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
[ Parent ]
That is short-sighted. (none / 1) (#92)
by Seph Michaels on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 02:51:03 PM EST

No amateur movie outfit is going to be able to requisition helicopters to film something like Black Hawk Down, or adequate computer talent to render Toy Story.

Are you sure you want to be known as the guy who said this crap?

You don't need to requisition helicopters to get them in movies. That's what effects are for.

All that leaves is you saying that amateur animation will never be able to render (or produce, or whatever) as well as these movies.

This puts you squarely in the category of people who said, "That'll never happen."

If you don't want to retract your statement now, don't complain when people laugh at you in the future.

[ Parent ]

Hilarious. (none / 1) (#93)
by skyknight on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 04:11:43 PM EST

You quote me directly, and then in analyzing the quote you use completely different language. Did I use the word "never" in my comment? No, I did not.

You Fail It.



It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
[ Parent ]
double hilarity (2.50 / 2) (#94)
by Seph Michaels on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 04:38:35 PM EST

The only person who is using "completely different language" is YOU! And by completely different language, I mean something other than english. And by that, I mean that you make no sense to an english speaker.

Given:
"No x is going to be able to do y (past statement)"

Assume:
"x did y (future statement)"

Then:
Because "x did y (future statement)", "x was able to do y (future statement)".
As "x was able to do y (future statement)", "x is going to be able to do y (past statement)".

This contradicts the past statement that "No x is going to be able to do y".

As a result, "no x is going to be able to do y" implies that:
"x will never do y".

Now quit being an idiot, and admit that you were an idiot.

[ Parent ]

You are an embarrassment to yourself. (1.33 / 6) (#95)
by skyknight on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 04:56:38 PM EST

This conversation is over. I eschew arguing with people who harbor the intellectual maturity and linguistic sophistication of elementary school children. I refrain thusly as administering the flogging you so richly deserve would be about as satisfying as using a baseball bat to beat up a cripple in a wheelchair.

It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
[ Parent ]
Yes (none / 0) (#143)
by The Voice of Reason on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 05:05:19 PM EST

It's not just that though, on radio you need one person with talent: the person who talks on the radio, and maybe the writer if there's a script. On TV or in films, you need:

Good directing
Good actors (several)
Good screenplay
Good editing
Good score
Good plot
Good dialogue
Good costume
Good makeup
Good sets

The resources, both in people and in equipment/sets are enormous.

[ Parent ]

I don't think so (2.85 / 7) (#5)
by mikepence on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 01:37:17 PM EST

Attraction to physically ideal specimens is deeply routed in our physiology thanks to evolution. This will not be changed thanks to readily available second-rate video on the net.

No this isn't so true (3.00 / 7) (#10)
by GenerationY on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 04:19:22 PM EST

Notions of attractiveness don't survive cross-culturally or historically. There is something peverse about the way media has changed this to some extent. I take your point but I think you aren't giving sufficient credit to the notion that attractiveness is socially constructed (which would of course be the optimal evolutionary approach anyway - whats attractive in culture X in its climate/state of technological development/etc would probably be very unhealthy in culture Y).

[ Parent ]
Variation is the norm (none / 1) (#22)
by mikepence on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 12:24:40 AM EST

Of course there are variations in the perception of what is attractive from culture to culture. This applies to food and clothing just as it applies to persepctive sexual partners.

Nonetheless, the drive toward that which is attractive -- in all of its varieties -- is a constant across time and region.

Have you read Pinker?

[ Parent ]

Attractiveness (3.00 / 2) (#29)
by GenerationY on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 07:25:05 AM EST

and indeed liking for things seems to be a statistical process. The most attractive faces are the most 'average' of all features summed together. The effect of the media is, to borrow a notion from machine learning, to pollute the training data. Its bad enough if you are an American, but consider the situation if you aren't. There is something slightly pernicious about it if it ends up that the dominant paradigm for beauty in your society belongs to another race altogether.

Yeah, I've read Pinker. I've spoken to him a few times as well, mainly before he was pseudo-famous and did stuff on mental rotation of paperclips.

[ Parent ]

Incorrect again (3.00 / 2) (#32)
by MotorMachineMercenary on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 08:43:58 AM EST

The most attractive faces are the ones that are beyond the attractive "average" face. IOW, if you average a hundred people's faces you have an attractive face. But there are lots more faces that are more attractive, these are the christy turlingtons and denise richards who have facial features that are close to the average face with some distinguishing feature (big mouth for Christy, thick lips for Denise) which sets them apart from and above the mere attractive ones.

You have a good point about the dominant paradigm of beauty in non-western cultures. The Chinese have a beauty concept which is much closer to the western face than Chinese face. This is so much so that Chinese think us western men like "ugly" Chinese women. These "ugly" Chinese women look very Chinese to my western eyes and the "beautiful" Chinese women look less Chinese. I have talked about this extensively with my Chinese friends and next time I'll raise the issue whether this is a recent phenomenon or not.

OT: mental rotation of paperclips? Care to elaborate, sounds so ridiculously quaint that it does sound interesting?

--
"What's next, sigging a k5er quote about sigging someone on k5?"


[ Parent ]
Well its empirically correct (none / 1) (#35)
by GenerationY on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 09:56:24 AM EST

There is of course no accounting for marketing and individual taste. But if you want a simple predictive heuristic, its that. If you wanted to you could test the hypothesis with photoshop I guess. There are a few caveats I guess because symmetry is a big ideal and that would an inevitable outcome of averaging in the first place.

Mental imagery was a hot topic a little while back as a way of probing the mental representation of the spatial world. In its simplest you either show people two complicated shapes (some stimuli looked like bent paperclips) and say if they are the same (albeit one has been rotated) or different.

There are other things you can do with regard to getting people to count intersections or otherwise describe the shapes as well. The most interesting classic finding was that the latency of response to the question correlated with degree of rotation up to 180 degrees (as obviously above that you can rotate it in the other direction). This was taken to mean there was some commonality between the mental representation and the real world.

Example of some stiumuli

[ Parent ]

Tautology medal (none / 0) (#127)
by bob6 on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 07:15:33 AM EST

Nonetheless, the drive toward that which is attractive -- in all of its varieties -- is a constant across time and region.
Heh. It's a constant of the meaning of the word attractive.

Cheers.
[ Parent ]
Incorrect (3.00 / 6) (#31)
by MotorMachineMercenary on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 08:33:17 AM EST

Beauty is a universal concept. Symmetry of face and body, high cheekbones, smooth healthy skin, big eyes, might've missed one or two. This is universal across cultures, races and age groups. Look it up.

Also, there is nothing "perverse" how media has "changed" this concept. It has, in some cases, taken our notion of beauty to its (un)natural extremes as in the case of Pamela Anderson or Brad Pitt et al. This is nothing new: Michelangelo's David (which is often considered to be the "perfect" male body) is as unattainable and unnatural standard for male physique as Lara Croft is for females.

I guess you are mixing the finer intricacies of attractiveness with the universal concept of beauty. Indeed, six-packs on women would've been considered to be unattractive in the 50s just like huge white wigs would be considered now. But this doesn't change the fac that beauty is a universal concept which has survived the test of time. BTW, this universal concept has largely biological background but that's too much for this comment.

--
"What's next, sigging a k5er quote about sigging someone on k5?"


[ Parent ]
Well maybe you have a point (none / 1) (#38)
by GenerationY on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 10:35:36 AM EST

David is an interesting case. The thing is Joe Public wasn't staring at at for hours on end day in day out. Even an art historian probably spends more time with his or her eyes glued to Brad Pitt or David Beckham (or whoever) than fine art on TV, on adverts, the covers of magazines, the internet etc.

I said the media because I mean the ubiquity of the medium is important here.

[ Parent ]

this doesn't seem to make sense (none / 0) (#42)
by etherdeath on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 01:53:41 PM EST

if the perception beauty is mutable on physical characteristics by race, as you seem to acknowledge in another post, why not on others?

[ Parent ]
I knew this was coming (none / 1) (#50)
by MotorMachineMercenary on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 07:10:08 PM EST

It's merely a matter of details. The list I gave in the post in this thread is the "master" list. Pretty much everything outside that list can be seen as beautiful in different cultures.

As to the reason behind that, I'm not sure. Maybe it is because physical characteristics which advertise health, good reproductive capabilities and good genes are such an integral part of our genes that they are universal. Therefore beauty becomes universal.

--
"What's next, sigging a k5er quote about sigging someone on k5?"


[ Parent ]
What about weight (none / 0) (#48)
by trane on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 04:37:18 PM EST

In some cultures, heavy women are considered beautiful, but not in others. Rembrandt's nudes are not sexy to me at all.

[ Parent ]
You're contradicting yourself. (none / 1) (#73)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 04:04:19 PM EST

In one sentence you say that beauty is universal, in the next you agree that fashions in attractiveness change.

Yes - those basic points on what constitutes female beauty are invariant. You might want to mention that to circletimessquare below, he's got a rather serious breast fixation - but within those broad boundaries the details, like body fat ratios, hair color, preferred breast size and so on, can vary tremendously from one generation to the next and from one culture to the next. You need only compare Marilyn Monroe with J-Lo to realize how true this is.

As for what impact the media has on our ideas about beauty and on self esteem, you really should read the psych-today article the original author linked to. It talks about the "contrast effect" and the implications it has for fashion, appearance and self-worth. Basically, as it applies here, being bombarded by images of the few (per capita) women who are "perfect 10s" causes all women (even the 10s) to doubt their own attractiveness and causes men to judge the women they know in real life by the standard of those unattainable images.

It's no different from tobacco advertising, really. Once cigarette companies used the movies and TV to convince people that smoking was glamourous. If TV started telling us that fat and dumpy was the ideal of beauty I guarantee that within a generation a significant percentage of people would believe it.

I never said that.
[ Parent ]

On smoking. (none / 0) (#86)
by mold on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 07:18:18 AM EST

It's been a while since I've learned anything on it, but as I recall, most smoking ads didn't work very well. It wasn't until one of the world wars (the second, I think) that it became popular, and that was mostly due to the cigarette companies shipping free cigs to soldiers. Once they came back, of course, they were hooked.

---
Beware of peanuts! There's a 0.00001% peanut fatality rate in the USA alone! You could be next!
[ Parent ]
I'll have to research that a little. (none / 0) (#90)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 02:04:59 PM EST

Interesting point. I'm not familiar with the idea, I'll have to do some research.

Thanks for the suggestion.

I never said that.
[ Parent ]

actually that's entirely incorrect (none / 0) (#130)
by massivefubar on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 07:54:56 PM EST

Quote: You need only compare Marilyn Monroe with J-Lo to realize how true this is....If TV started telling us that fat and dumpy was the ideal of beauty I guarantee that within a generation a significant percentage of people would believe it. Absolutely they wouldn't. Didn't you just see the study comparing the great beauties that showed that the waist/hips ratio of such very different looking beauties as Marilyn Monroe and Kate Moss (Kate "heroin chic" Moss!) was almost exactly the same? It seems to be pretty much hard-wired that no woman can be a great beauty unless her waistline is substantially smaller than her butt. J. Lo. and Marilyn Monroe are superficially different but if you get out the measuring tape, they are pretty much classic curvy women with very small, tight, tucked-in waists.

"Fat and dumpy" is by definition the person without a defined waist. While people may accept "fat and dumpy" in their own lives because that's all they can get, because they've learned to love the person's inner beauty, or for any of a number of other reasons...they are never going to accept "fat and dumpy" as beautiful in and of itself. A fat waist signals to the horny male's mind that some other dude may have gotten there first -- and that's attractive to relatively few.

[ Parent ]

No, I agree with that. (none / 0) (#131)
by porkchop_d_clown on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 12:18:55 PM EST

hip-waist ratio does seem to be one of the invariants. But your missing the point; the point isn't that "fat and dumpy" used to be beautiful - the point is that media have changed our impressions of what "fat and dumpy" is - that's the contrast effect. When you are surrounded by images of "real" people your ideas of what constitutes attractiveness will be lower than if you are surrounded by images of perfection.

Here's an extreme example: you're always hearing of women getting their noses done because they are "too big". Do you think that lots of women from 150 years ago thought their noses were too big? Or did genetic and cultural homogeneity ensure that they thought their noses were fine because their noses looked just like everyone else's?

I never said that.
[ Parent ]

I agree (none / 0) (#142)
by The Voice of Reason on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 05:01:01 PM EST

Without the evil media manipulation, men would want women who weighed 20 stone, with stretch-marks, skin folds, terrible acne, awful odour, brown teeth, messy greasy hair, missing teeth and assymetrical disfigured faces. Damn this media conspiracy!

[ Parent ]
True (none / 0) (#141)
by The Voice of Reason on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 04:58:44 PM EST

True. When you've got easily-available hot women on TV, and ugly women on a grainy video via some obscure program on your PC, which are you going to watch?

This 'new media distribution' is going to have to provide the same standards, or it will not be a success.

[ Parent ]

body image aside (none / 1) (#6)
by fourseven on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 01:40:41 PM EST

this may also help people spread most diverse points of view, taking away the big brother monopoly. light at the end of the tunnel? maybe... too bad it's only for those who can afford the technology, the upper castes so to say. the majority may still be stuck with the mass media. but a good start nevertheless..

You're fat (1.00 / 14) (#11)
by Nosf3ratu on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 04:25:30 PM EST

and ugly, aren't you?


Woo!
podcast (none / 1) (#13)
by mpalczew on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 05:22:15 PM EST

well, can anyone point me to a "good" podcast.  Everything I've heard sucks real bad.  

I heard two so far.

The first I listenend for a few minutes before becoming extremelly bored.
One was some dude who was traveling and was in florida, then he told me it was much warmer in Florida then further north. That's about what I remember, it was quite boring.  One dude's musing about everyday things, and it wasn't Seinfeld.

The other was a dude and a chick.  The dude was obviously interested in the chick and she was real bitchy.  She knew she had found herself a niche where there are few females so she was basking in all the male attention she gets.  She thought she was clearly superior to the guy and put him down lightly everychance she got.  Perhaps I read too much into this one, but it was quite boring.

I think the ones I heard were the following:
 The Daily Source Code
 The Dawn and Drew Show!

Though I'm not sure.
-- Death to all Fanatics!

good podcasts (none / 1) (#97)
by mackus daddius on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 05:22:16 PM EST

if you're of the technological persuasion, you can't beat IT Conversations.

[ Parent ]
What I listen to (none / 0) (#101)
by freestylefiend on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 08:12:38 AM EST

I enjoy listening to downloads of Binary Revolution and LugRadio. They are available as podcasts. I also enjoy listening to Counterspin, The Shortwave Report and radio shows from 2600. You could download them for your MP3 player, but I don't know if they are podcast. Some of these are broadcast on Pacifica Radio or RantRadio, which make many programmes available for download.

Somebody handed me a flyer for The UK Independent Podcast Network. If you don't want technology or current affairs, then maybe you can find something you like there (though I can't find anything at all to listen to there).

The BBC has been trying podcasting history-of-ideas programme In Our Time (which is currently off-air and unavailable for download) and inexplicable sport show Fighting Talk (which I have only listened to once and don't recommend) and offers downloads of recent documentaries from 1xtra, the BBC's radio station for young listeners of black music. (I opened some "black" music in my audio editor and was shocked to find that one channel was red and the other green).

If I want copies of other BBC programmes, then I have to record them myself. I suppose that I should share them. Some people already do (see websites dedicated to comedy quiz show the 99p Challenge, humourous DJ Chris Moyles and the songs of comedy duo Reeves and Mortimer).

[ Parent ]

One thing I have learned from (3.00 / 9) (#16)
by GenerationY on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 06:49:55 PM EST

the internet and the digital revolution in general is that there is suprisingly little talent around when it comes to content creation, be it 3d artwork in 3DS Max, tunes recorded using Cubase, blog entries etc (and yes, I include myself in this array of the "over-enabled" but fundamentally talentless in many areas --> thats a nice idea for a piece isn't it, the problem of being digitally overenabled...but I digress). Its a great boon for people with the skill but not the contacts or the money, but these people are rarer than we would like to think.

It seems the "democratisation" of the media has all to rapidly become about one person's mediocrity being no better or worse than that of another.

good point (none / 1) (#43)
by etherdeath on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 02:05:38 PM EST

One area where this is immediately apparent is webcomics.  There aren't many barriers to entry here, yet there are very few comic strips that are consistently entertaining.  It's not the artwork, there are plenty of skilled artists you can find on elfwoods type sites (sure, you'll find 100 bad ones for one good one, but they are there).

[ Parent ]
Ummm.... Porn? (2.60 / 5) (#19)
by Trevasel on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 08:32:52 PM EST

The success of the internet porn industry shows that viewers are far more interested in a pretty face, big tits, and a nice ass than any semblance of skill or talent. I don't think that's going to change.
-- That which does not kill you only makes you stranger - Trevor Goodchild
that's porn (3.00 / 3) (#20)
by jonny dov on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 08:42:28 PM EST

This is drama, acting, talent, writing...porn by its very nature is monopolized by looks; movies and shows don't necessarily have to be. Furthermore, look at what the long tail has done to the face of porn--anything you want, you can find, because somebody's going to want it.

[ Parent ]
deus ex machina for SOMETHING, but not that (2.00 / 4) (#23)
by cryon on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 12:41:27 AM EST

I also believe that p2p + cheap broadband + cheap computing devices == massive sociopolitical change. It will be nothing short of a deus ex machina. Content will indeed come up the bottom up, as opposed to the top down content, and the top down memes that come with it. Just look for example at American Idol. Once we get p2p + cheap broadband + cheap computing devices, there will be no stopping that kind of programming from coming up from the bottom up. But as for altering body image....hmmm? As others have pointed out, we are biologically selected to have an ideal archetypal ideal body/face as a standard. As for cultural standards, fashion, politics, etc. Yes, I think there will be MASSIVE change. MASSIVE. The whole mass media, corporate commercial hegemony is cruisin' for a brusin' once p2p + cheap broadband + cheap computing devices goes down in America. And I really, REALLY want to be around to see it. Give it 15 years....and a real sociopolitical sh*tstorm gonna happen.... As dor
HTGS75OBEY21IRTYG54564ACCEPT64AUTHORITY41V KKJWQKHD23CONSUME78GJHGYTMNQYRTY74SLEEP38H TYTR32CONFORM12GNIYIPWG64VOTER4APATHY42JLQ TYFGB64MONEY3IS4YOUR7GOD62MGTSB21CONFORM34 SDF53MARRY6AND2REPRODUCE534TYWHJZKJ34OBEY6

Who's the puppet master (none / 0) (#26)
by dimaq on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 03:15:41 AM EST

if it is in fact deus ex machina, then who's the puppet ma... I mean crane operator? as in, who wields the power behind the stage....

[ Parent ]
those who control the content (none / 0) (#30)
by cryon on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 07:50:32 AM EST

as it is now, there is institutional control of content: the rich investors, the powerful, the well connected, the managers of media outlets and other content creation corporations, all control and choose and select the content.

But after the p2p-cheap BB-cheap electronics revolution, content will be controlled by a much much larger pool of people. Institutions will no longer have nearly as great a say in content. Anyone with a cheap camera and a broadband connection could collaborate with any number of people to create some form of content. Look at the many reality shows that are quite popular.

As content creation equipment and distribution infrastructure gets cheaper and cheaper, far more people will be involved in creating and distributing content.

As with a much wider range of content creators and distributors, a much wider range of ideas and memes will be transmitted to the public.

For example, just look at the types of ideas expressed on forums like K5 and slashdots. Look at the kinds of ideas that people like ME are expressing on these forums: every chance I get I talk about leftist ideas. For example, on slashdot yesterday, I asked "why another user tax on recycling computers?" Why not tax the wealthy for that purpose? Now, how often do you hear that sort of opinion expressed on broadcast TV? NEVER! Never ever!

But when the deus ex machina comes around, these sorts of ideas will be expressed to people on a daily basis. And that will cause big chance in America.
HTGS75OBEY21IRTYG54564ACCEPT64AUTHORITY41V KKJWQKHD23CONSUME78GJHGYTMNQYRTY74SLEEP38H TYTR32CONFORM12GNIYIPWG64VOTER4APATHY42JLQ TYFGB64MONEY3IS4YOUR7GOD62MGTSB21CONFORM34 SDF53MARRY6AND2REPRODUCE534TYWHJZKJ34OBEY6

[ Parent ]

that's a very optimistic outlook (none / 0) (#98)
by dimaq on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 03:39:52 AM EST

my bet is new puppet masters will hire tons of content creators in developing countries and pull the planket on them.

[ Parent ]
All the time. (none / 0) (#140)
by The Voice of Reason on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 04:54:34 PM EST

For example, on slashdot yesterday, I asked "why another user tax on recycling computers?" Why not tax the wealthy for that purpose? Now, how often do you hear that sort of opinion expressed on broadcast TV? NEVER! Never ever!

Actually, all the damn time. The TV is full of whinging lefties moaning about the evils of capitalism and success.

[ Parent ]

show me (none / 0) (#155)
by cryon on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 09:27:38 AM EST

tell me where on a daily basis you see this
HTGS75OBEY21IRTYG54564ACCEPT64AUTHORITY41V KKJWQKHD23CONSUME78GJHGYTMNQYRTY74SLEEP38H TYTR32CONFORM12GNIYIPWG64VOTER4APATHY42JLQ TYFGB64MONEY3IS4YOUR7GOD62MGTSB21CONFORM34 SDF53MARRY6AND2REPRODUCE534TYWHJZKJ34OBEY6

[ Parent ]
So what you're saying... (2.87 / 8) (#28)
by isaac r on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 06:26:18 AM EST

is that the internet will make it easier for people to cultivate fetishes. No way, you gotta be kidding.

THIS ACCOUNT HAS BEEN DISABLED

Well I for one, (1.00 / 2) (#36)
by Sesquipundalian on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 10:02:50 AM EST

welcome our new long tailed Dogme95 guerilla media overlords.


Did you know that gullible is not actually an english word?
this is really weird (2.62 / 8) (#41)
by circletimessquare on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 11:28:42 AM EST

people have ideals of beauty that have nothing to do with film

you seem to think that impossible to reach standards of physical beauty is enforced by some sort of cadre in hollywood

so, it's enforced in human psychology on an individual level

this idea of yours is similar to the concept that videogames turn people into murders

as if no one killed anyone before videogames

as if humans didn't have idealizations of female and male beauty before film

these conceptualizations of ideal physical form are found in each and every one of our own minds, having nothing whatsoever to do with outside factors, it is not enforced from above

it's fantasy wish-fulfillment in action, a psychological game that everyone partakes in starting at age 3

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

They do? (none / 1) (#45)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 02:27:47 PM EST

people have ideals of beauty that have nothing to do with film

Really? Certainly people's ideas of beauty vary over time and between cultures. For most of history men have preferred plump women yet now Americans seem to prefer thing girls with huge knockers.

Whether or not that change was induced by the media or merely reflected by the media is sort of irrelevant - the salient fact is that mass media ram this ideal down the throats of our women and girls every day.

Here's a question for you: Tobacco advertising is banned because it seduces the young into a harmful addition. Do you support this law?


I never said that.
[ Parent ]

yes, i support that law (1.50 / 2) (#47)
by circletimessquare on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 03:09:46 PM EST

because there is nothing in our fucking genetic code that predisposes us to taking tobacco, you stupid moron

meanwhile, there is millions of years of evolution, from before were even human beings, driving us to be attracted to mates of the opposite sex who are physically fit to have the healthiest children/ support the children

but i suppose you are right...

you better get to the animal kingdom pronto and tell them how the evils of hollywood make female giraffes like male giraffes with long slender necks, male babboon like female babboons with large inflamed red buttocks, and female peacocks to like male peacocks with huge ass feathers

;-P


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Focus, c2s. (none / 1) (#53)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 07:31:23 PM EST

While there is a biological component to sexual attraction, you can hardly argue that human sexuality is as hard wired as a peacock's tail feathers.

The proof of this is all around you and in history of art. Through most of western history and most of human civilization, the most attractive women were plump - which makes perfect sense from an evolutionary view point.

Now, in the 20th century, the focus shifted to thin girls with huge knockers - certainly this could be a culture shift, but it is being continuously reinforced by the media driving women to strive for an un-healthy and un-fit appearance.

You can't have it both ways - as you obviously realized when you read my post. Either the media has a powerful reinforcing effect on human culture and beliefs or it does not. It hardly serves your point to argue that tobacco ads manipulate people while the constant reinforcement of a particular body shape does not.

I never said that.
[ Parent ]

wrong (1.66 / 3) (#54)
by circletimessquare on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 07:36:39 PM EST

huge knockers were popular when we couldn't even write yet

huge knockers were popular when they were building the pyramids

huge knockers were popular when jesus was walking around

huge knockers were popular when kate moss's heroin chic was briefly cool among a few FEMALE fashion editors

huge knockers are wired into the lizard part of your brain to be attractive if you are male

today, tomorrow, yesterday, all time


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Didn't even click the link, did you? (3.00 / 3) (#62)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 10:42:56 PM EST

I assume you also believe that evolution favors white women, since almost all the "beautiful" women in the media are white, or mimic white styles.

Here's another.

By the way - if huge knockers have always been so attractive, how do you explain Farrah Fawcett, or Twiggy? Nor did you respond to my comment about art through history.

Actual evolutionary biologists hold that the true hard-wired preferences (that men look for in women) are as follows: a symmetrical face, a small jaw for women, signs of good health such as cleanliness and skin condition and body fat. Wide hips.

Interestingly, men presented with silhouettes of women of  various heights and weights and asked to choose the most sexually attractive, consistently  selected those with an hour-glass shape.

Note that the "stick with two balloons" model did not win. You might want to keep in mind that your personal preferences are just that, not absolute truth.

I never said that.
[ Parent ]

how does changing the argument... (none / 1) (#63)
by circletimessquare on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 11:47:57 PM EST

make you think you win?

that i think white women are more attractive? when my ex-fiance i dated for 5 years is jamaican and i'm currently dating a filipina?

yeah, white women are more attractive, uh huh... your talking to a guy whose entire sexual history has been to the continued
exclusion of boring white chicks on my sexual menu

wrong guy to try to spring that bullshit on asshole

dude, if you are going to try to honestly tell me that male attraction to breasts is determined by the fashion editor at vogue, i'm going to laugh my ass off at you

men's ideal of feminine physical beauty is hardwired in the brain to desire larger breasts

female human breasts are ALREADY, NATURALLY larger than they need to be to feed their offspring... your average small boobed chick has more than enough lactation machinery to raise healthy offspring, so the evolutionary pressure on female breast size is driven by another force: male desire to see fecund large breasts

breasts announce to the male mind the state of life cycle a female is in... flat: prebuscent, not ripe, avoid, inflated: ripe, fuck it, deflated: aging, overripe, avoid it

the males who fucked the wrong chicks in the wrong state of sexual cycle didn't pass on their genes

therefore, the ancient male mind developed a focus on female breasts as an indicator of sexual recepitivity, and then once that little nugget of brain cells began firing their pleasure receptors when they saw plump breasts, the rest is a runaway train of feedback: larger and larger breasts

the average female breast size IS ALREADY FREAKISHLY HUGE IN TERMS OF ITS BIOLOGICAL NEEDS

it is simple evolution at work that honing in on a particular indicator of sexual fecundity should evolutionarily favor women with larger and larger breasts, even to unnatural size: the average female breast size is ALREADY unnatural, larger than it has to be to feed children, because female breasts now serve another function: sexual receptivity indicator

just like the male peacock's tale: what was once a mild indicator of male health to the female peacock has led to a runaway evolutionary feedback cycle, whereby the male peacock's tailfeathers have gotten larger and larger to its current ridiculuous size, all because that's what gets the feamle peacock wet

the same thing is happening with the male eyeball and female human breast size... it's a feedback cycle... women have a high rate of breast cancer because of the genetic amping up of the growth going on in those breast cells

so please, sell your bullshit elsewhere

large breasts are in style, have always been in style, and will always be in style as long as men's brains are hardwired as they are


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Still didn't click the links, did you? (3.00 / 3) (#66)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 08:36:29 AM EST

And, no, I haven't changed the argument - you did. My argument is that popular media have reinforced one particular ideal of beauty (the scrawny white waif) at the exclusion of others. You're the one with the breast obsession - and, I might add, the false belief that mean have always lusted after huge knockers. Which is pretty goddam hysterical to anyone who has actually compared playboy playmates from the 50's and 60's with the playmates of today.

Your eloquent defense of this obsession overlooks one basic fact: women with small breasts still exist and still breed, implying that small breasts do not put them at a disadvantage in the mating game. Nor do ballerinas - infamous for their tiiny boyish figures - suffer from a lack of suitors. Nor were most women's breasts always "freakishly large" as, again, anyone with a knowledge of art history can attest.

Here's a hint: you go on and on about the cycle of a woman's breasts, and yet you overlook the most fundamental cycle - large breasts indicate the woman is breast feeding - which means she's not available for mating. The idea that her tits swell when she's receptive is pretty damn funny, actually.

I never said that.
[ Parent ]

dude (none / 1) (#67)
by circletimessquare on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 11:35:36 AM EST

i honestly don't know what planet you are from

you are of the school that somehow says that things like murder and rape are enforced by media- things like pornography and videogames

moron: it all comes from within

you are trying to tell me that males don't have a predilection for women with large breasts naturally

this statement of yours, to me, is as if someone is trying to tell me with a straightface that the sky isn't blue

if you took a male child, and raised him isolation: no human contact, no language, no nothing, and then, at puberty, exposed him to a flat chested woman and a large breasted woman, the teenager would gravitate towards the large chested woman

i would wager my life on that

i honestly can't even conceive of how i live on the same planet as you

i can't even begin to describe how insane it sounds to me that you are trying to tell me that men liking large breasts is nurture, not nature

really, you are from another planet to me, and i can't imagine someone as out of touch as you from reality

are you male or female?

if you are male, are you heterosexual?

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Very sad, c2s (3.00 / 2) (#68)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 01:14:32 PM EST

Particularly since you seem to be trying very hard to piss of someone who usually supports your comments.

I give evidence, you resort to name calling. I present documentation of studies done by evolutionary biologists and anthropologists, you make assertions of blind faith.

Pretty good. Oh - and for the record, unlike you, I've never hidden my identity - the only reason you don't know my marital status or my breeding record is because you're too damn lazy to click your mouse.

I never said that.
[ Parent ]

dude (1.66 / 3) (#71)
by circletimessquare on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 02:03:10 PM EST

i don't want to follow your links, i don't care about you

fact: the average female breast size is ALREADY way larger than it needs to be to perform it's biological role

because the breast's secondary role, indicating the stage of life a female human is in, has eclipsed it's primary function in terms of determining its size

the human male eye has evolved to identify the breast as such an indicator for mating purposes, and an evolutionary feedback cycle has ensued, amplifying the size of the female human breast over millions of years, just like the peacock's tale, the babboon's ass, the deer's antlers, the beetle's manibles: some animals are sexually selected to amplify the size of a piece of anatomy due to the proclivities of the opposite sex in making a determination for mate selection

we are such animals

female humans have breasts that are already freakishly huge, there is nothing to argue with you, it's biological fact

compare the female human's breasts size to your average simian's breast size... heck, compare it to your average mammal's breast size... only human beings have such freakishly large breasts

that's the fucking truth, whether you understand it or not


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I like how your argument has steadily drifted (2.00 / 3) (#75)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 04:12:33 PM EST

I'm really enjoying your shift from "guys like girls with huge hooters" to "female humans have always had large breasts" as if these arguments are somehow the same.

Yes, humans, both male and female have disproportionately large sexual characteristics when compared to other primates. But the fact that a 34A breast is large compared to those of gorillas or chimps has no bearing on media emphasis on women with 38DD breasts and no hips.

I'm also enjoying how every person reading this thread can easily see which of us is actually referring to objective research before drawing conclusions and which of us apparently did all of his research in the subjects of name calling and harassment.


I never said that.
[ Parent ]

if i call you a moron (1.20 / 5) (#76)
by circletimessquare on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 04:46:14 PM EST

does that make what i am saying wrong?

if you link to a bunch of crap, does that make you well-reasoned?

creationists have a plethora of moronic sties they can link to, so fucking what?

if i get upset at a creationist for being a moronic fuck, does he get to say "well, now you're verbally harassing so everybody can see your wrong"

dude: what i say is COLD HARD FACT

MY ARGUMENT HAS NOT DRIFTED

MEN PREFER WOMEN WITH LARGE BREASTS

WOMEN HAVE LARGE BREASTS

THE TWO FACTS REINFORCE EACH OTHER THROUGH EVOLUTION

JUST

LIKE

THE

MALE

PEACOCK'S

TAIL

AND

THE

FEMALE

PEACOCK'S

EYES

that's the FUCKING TRUTH

REALLY

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Wow. (none / 1) (#78)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 07:55:45 PM EST

You seem to have some deep seated need to get the last word in. Why do you think that is?

I never said that.
[ Parent ]
Because he's fccking right you twit. (none / 1) (#79)
by Sesquipundalian on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 08:26:04 PM EST


Did you know that gullible is not actually an english word?
[ Parent ]
thank you! nt (none / 0) (#80)
by circletimessquare on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 09:27:04 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
lol. (none / 1) (#83)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 10:19:24 PM EST

So, have you tried your theory out on MotorMachineMercenary? Unlike you he seems to actually know what he's talking about.


I never said that.
[ Parent ]
i finally followed a link of yours (2.00 / 2) (#84)
by circletimessquare on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 11:04:35 PM EST

are you happy?

and it links to this story...

wtf?

you want me look for a comment by this guy under the story?

and, assuming i had the motivation to do so, what am i supposed to realize if i did such a thing?

small hit with the cluebat fucktwit: instead of your magical links that are supposed to do your work for you, why don't actually try to fucking make a fucking argument

sorry if that's too much of a rhetorical conceptual leap for you

its like i'm arguing with you and i go

lol! as if schopenhauer would agree wtih you!

case closed!

jesus fucking christ you're a fucking twit

the male predilection for large breasts

IS WRITTEN IN OUR FUCKING GENETIC CODE

hello????????????????? anyone home????????????


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Magical Links (none / 0) (#132)
by mettaur on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 02:38:33 PM EST

One of the things lacking in your posts (along with grammar and structure) is evidence. Making statements like "There are a lot of Jedi Knights in Australia" doesn't mean anything unless you are prepared to provide evidence.

PS. Capital letters have several purposes, they aren't supposed to be used for SHOUTING.


--
[Applying business theory to trolling]
[ Parent ]
HEY ASSHOLE (1.33 / 3) (#145)
by circletimessquare on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 12:31:22 AM EST

WHEN MEN SEE TITS THEIR DICKS GETS HARD

EVIDENCE

HAVE A NICE DAY


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

As you have so much trouble with this concept (none / 1) (#148)
by mettaur on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 04:20:45 PM EST

...here's a little help from the good people at the OWL.
--
[Applying business theory to trolling]
[ Parent ]
i'm not here (none / 1) (#149)
by circletimessquare on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 09:01:05 PM EST

for you to correct my grammar

please, by all means, don't like my lazy ass style, and please, by all means, complain about it

but what possible purpose do you hope to achieve?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

This from someone who can't spell 'fuck'? (none / 0) (#82)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 10:16:16 PM EST

Son, I'll put my money on the researchers at the University of Missouri, Cold Spring Harbor, Amsterdam, and elsewhere long before I'll believe someone whose reasoning consists of "it's fucking obvious you moron!"

I never said that.
[ Parent ]
there are institutes for research (none / 0) (#106)
by circletimessquare on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 11:23:54 AM EST

in psychic abilities, in creationism...

dude, why do you think referring to people in authority makes you right? why can't you make your own argument? why do you think we should be impressed with "because someone who seems important said so" is supposed to impress us in any way whatsoever?

those reserachers you mentioned?

braindead morons each and every one

if you can't see and understand men's proclivities for female breasts and the already larger-than-need-be average size of female breasts then you, and your panel of highly esteemed fruitcakes, ARE FUCKING STUPID


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Glad to hear it. (none / 0) (#110)
by porkchop_d_clown on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 11:57:18 AM EST

I see where you stand now. Research which disagrees with your personal beliefs is "brain dead stupid"  I also see that you lump the Universities of Amsterdam and Missouri in with creationists and psychic research.

Interesting. Since you want me to make my own argument rather than appealing to authority, I assume you want me to replicate their experiments and surveys as well. You gonna help me gather up the several thousand men from several countries that we're going to need?

Or are you just going to break down and admit that appealing to evolution has nothing to do with the subject at hand?

I never said that.
[ Parent ]

i want you to use your fucking brain (none / 0) (#112)
by circletimessquare on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 12:00:55 PM EST

do men generally like large breasts?

durrrr..... ummmm....

do women have breasts larger than they need to be?

duhhhh.... ahhhhhh...

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Does the media (none / 0) (#113)
by porkchop_d_clown on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 12:09:27 PM EST

change our perceptions of what "large" breasts look like?

Duh.

I never said that.
[ Parent ]

yes, it does! (none / 0) (#116)
by circletimessquare on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 12:24:54 PM EST

i mean just the other day, i was buying a grapefruit and a could have SWORN it was an orange due to the tv commercial i saw last night!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

dude, keep it up, you're fucking hilarious


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Actually, it will. (none / 0) (#119)
by porkchop_d_clown on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 02:27:23 PM EST

If you see a lot of commercials showing a new kind of orange that's the size of grapefruit, I guarantee that after a while you will start thinking of old fashioned oranges as small.

That's what the contrast effect is all about.

I never said that.
[ Parent ]

oh. my. fucking. god. (none / 0) (#121)
by circletimessquare on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 02:41:31 PM EST

let's put it this way:

my dick gets hard when i see tits

a chinese man's dick gets hard when he sees tits

an african man's dick gets hard when he sees tits

a fucking lost brazilian tribesman's dick gets hard when he sees tits

IT'S

NOT

BECAUSE

OF

MTV

YOU FUCKING BRAINDEAD TWIT!


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

do they really? (none / 0) (#124)
by Polverone on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 04:10:05 AM EST

Those Naked Savage people you see in National Geographic -- do their men walk around with permanent erections because of all the bare tits? I doubt it. In the west, bare, shapely legs are still nice to look at but hardly as arousing for most men as they were 100 years ago when standards of modesty were stricter. If the trend continues, women will wear pasties and g-strings to the office on Casual Fridays in 100 years, but men won't really care because they'll already be too saturated with carnal inputs for anything to really matter. They'll have sex when the urge comes upon them but it will become harder and harder to trigger the urge with external stimuli, leading to a feedback cycle of greater desensitization as trendsetters and advertisers try to push the envelope. If you want to remain aroused by women's appearance, work to keep their bodies obscured in non-sexual contexts.

I wonder if there'll be much of a change when the New Media Revolution starts showing the most beautiful 0.5% of people instead of just the most beautiful 0.02%. I mean, I suppose people way below the 0.5% mark will also appear in the New Media, but I also suppose that people won't enjoy looking at them as much.
--
It's not a just, good idea; it's the law.
[ Parent ]

let me ask you this (none / 0) (#126)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 06:40:38 AM EST

what WOULD get the tribesman aroused?

you say the the tits would be less exciting

less maybe, but still the main visual stimuli nonetheless

it's not like there's anything else would replace that stimuli

BEING THAT IT'S WRITTEN IN OUR GENETIC CODE

;-P


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Easily explained (none / 1) (#138)
by The Voice of Reason on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 04:51:56 PM EST

Those Naked Savage people you see in National Geographic -- do their men walk around with permanent erections because of all the bare tits? I doubt it.

Probably something to do with the fact that all their women have saggy tits.

[ Parent ]

it's not about the last word (none / 0) (#81)
by circletimessquare on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 09:29:03 PM EST

it's about confronting genuine stupidity

you're telling me men like large breasts because it's taught to them

jesus fuck me with a cattleprod how fucking stupid that is


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Reading a news story on a subject you know (none / 1) (#118)
by Maurkov on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 01:07:25 PM EST

helps you realize that reporters are mostly full of shit.

"you seem to be trying very hard to piss of someone who usually supports your comments."

Do threads like this make you re-evaluate your usual support?

[ Parent ]

True. (none / 0) (#120)
by porkchop_d_clown on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 02:32:24 PM EST

But I was referring to the research papers not the "Science Thursday" version.

As to your question - through the years I've found it doesn't pay to get upset by the childish way people behave on k5. I won't go out of my way to hassle him, I probably just won't bother to read his posts.

I never said that.
[ Parent ]

Misapprehension (none / 0) (#122)
by Maurkov on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 02:42:18 PM EST

I did not wish to denigrate your sources; I was referring to news in general.

Meanwhile, I praise your enlightened demeanor which as the grandfather post indicates I have yet to attain.


[ Parent ]

please don't (none / 0) (#146)
by circletimessquare on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 12:32:04 AM EST

you're a fucking moron

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
A bet (2.00 / 3) (#139)
by The Voice of Reason on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 04:52:32 PM EST

What's the betting that 'porkchop's wife is morbidly obese?

[ Parent ]
Breastfeeding... (none / 1) (#99)
by datamodel on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 07:53:18 AM EST

large breasts indicate the woman is breast feeding - which means she's not available for mating. Not in my household... :) M.

[ Parent ]
Once more with formatting... (none / 1) (#100)
by datamodel on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 07:57:39 AM EST

large breasts indicate the woman is breast feeding - which means she's not available for mating.

Not in my household...

:)

M.

[ Parent ]

Fair enough. (none / 0) (#103)
by porkchop_d_clown on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 09:58:20 AM EST

My only point is that c2s seems to think that evolutionary pressure causes all men to be "breast men" when that is trivially false - variety is the spice of life.

Oh, and personally, I'd tell you I was jealous but my wife would kill me.

;-)

I never said that.
[ Parent ]

moron (none / 0) (#107)
by circletimessquare on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 11:30:46 AM EST

ever hear of variation? do you think i'm saying that if you don't like large breasts you're a freak?

jesus what a moron

the GENERAL TREND is to men who like larger breasts and the GENERAL TREND evolutionarily, feedback style, is to women who have larger breasts... there are women with small breasts, and men who like small breasts

duh!

that is all i am saying fucktwit: a GENERAL TREND, understand?

there is variation in EVERYTHING in life, and most definitely in human physical characteristics!

but evolutionary pressure: from cold weather (short stubby fingers for heat retention in northern climes) to arid weather (large noises for moisturization in desert climes) to female sexual selection (tall men) to male sexual selection (larger breasts) changes the AVERAGE SPREAD of physical characteristics in humans

why the FUCK is this so hard for you to grasp?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Dunno. Why do you find it so hard to understand (none / 0) (#109)
by porkchop_d_clown on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 11:51:49 AM EST

that none of that has anything to do with my original point?

Or do you even remember what it is you are attacking?

I never said that.
[ Parent ]

you accuse me of losing track (none / 0) (#111)
by circletimessquare on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 11:59:12 AM EST

when you are losing track

"My only point is that c2s seems to think that evolutionary pressure causes all men to be "breast men" when that is trivially false"


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

And I stand by that statement. (none / 0) (#114)
by porkchop_d_clown on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 12:10:18 PM EST

Go re-read your own writing if you think I mis-stated your position.

I never said that.
[ Parent ]
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (none / 0) (#115)
by circletimessquare on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 12:23:30 PM EST

oh man, you really are a fucking moron

so it is MY FAULT that YOU mis-stated my position?

that's interesting!

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Summary of Argument to Date (none / 0) (#147)
by gte910h on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 11:45:22 AM EST

CirXSq: BOOOOOOBIES!!!!!

PorkchDClown: I like big butts and I cannot lie

<chorus> Stop reframing the issue about the female body.

Circle, you're a Breast man.
Porkchop, you're an Ass man.

You two should go out together, you'd have no problem divvying up the ladies I think.

   --Michael (An Ass Man)


[ Parent ]

Simple... (none / 1) (#128)
by Morphine007 on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 11:44:56 AM EST

... an hour glass shape makes me think of a woman... even though I prefer to fsck thin women. A non hour glass shape only looks like .... *drumroll* .... a human shape... it's the same reason why caricatures have to over emphasize certain aspects of a person to make them *look* like that person. How about a truer test: bluescreen (or greenscreen... whatever...) an "attractive" naked woman. Find yourself a photoshop genius who can make that woman into a few different women of varying sizes, all still proportional, and all still "attractive" ... then do your study to determine which "woman" gets the best reaction. Personally I still stick with thin women (brunettes usually) ... this actually has something to do with the fact that I had more fun having sex with those types of woman than any other. . . . . . Mind you, I still need to do more field testing ;-)

[ Parent ]
Idiot. (none / 1) (#137)
by The Voice of Reason on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 04:42:01 PM EST

By the way - if huge knockers have always been so attractive, how do you explain Farrah Fawcett, or Twiggy?

I can assure you that they have never been considered attractive. Being in a magazine doesn't make someone attractive. A better indicator are women on page 3 of tabloids or in men's magazines, i.e. women picked to be attractive to men. They are far from skinny, and neither are they fat.

Nor did you respond to my comment about art through history.

Throughout history, people didn't look at art other than a few rich people, it was irrelevent to most people. Nice try.

Interestingly, men presented with silhouettes of women of  various heights and weights and asked to choose the most sexually attractive, consistently  selected those with an hour-glass shape.

I.e, not fat women, and nothing to do with the media. So your argument is shot to shit. Thanks for playing.

[ Parent ]

What colour's the sky on your planet? (none / 1) (#136)
by The Voice of Reason on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 04:37:14 PM EST

Through most of western history and most of human civilization, the most attractive women were plump What evidence have you got for that? None. Other than those ancient pictures, but even then, you could argue that it was the contemporary 'media' of the time, artists, ramming images of fat women down people's throats. but it is being continuously reinforced by the media driving women to strive for an un-healthy and un-fit appearance. Tell me, what is unhealthy about being of a moderate weight, eating healthy and getting exercise? You're trying to tell me that obesity is more healthy than a regular body-fat level (say 20-25%)? Are you saying it's healthier and 'fitter' to sit down eating cake all day than it is to eat vegetables and non-processed food whilst getting lots of exercise? Your values are completely fucked up, you sound like one of those fat acceptors who argue that morbid obesity is healthy and that the only alternative is anorexia. You can't have it both ways - as you obviously realized when you read my post. Either the media has a powerful reinforcing effect on human culture and beliefs or it does not. It hardly serves your point to argue that tobacco ads manipulate people while the constant reinforcement of a particular body shape does not. The media give people what they want. If the Sun started putting 30 stone whales on page 3, no-one would buy it. Tobacco adverts don't try to get people smoking fags, they try to get them smoking a particular brand of fags.

[ Parent ]
Bullshit (3.00 / 2) (#135)
by The Voice of Reason on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 04:30:36 PM EST

For most of history men HAVEN'T liked fat women. Obesity has always been a sign of poor healthy. Men don't like thin girls, not as thin as you're thinking anyway. Look in the average magazine aimed at men containing pictures of naked and semi-naked women, how many of them would you class as skinny? Most are of a normal weight. Of course they're thin compared to the ever-increasing hoards of elephants stuffing their faces in the local takeaways. Here's a question for you: Tobacco advertising is banned because it seduces the young into a harmful addition. Do you support this law? What are you trying to imply? That eating healthily and exercising regularly is a harmful addiction?

[ Parent ]
Well... (none / 0) (#87)
by skyknight on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 08:32:22 AM EST

It is true that we have hard wired conceptions of beauty for various evolutionary reasons. Men like big breasts because they tend to be better at nursing children, and wide hips because they lower the probability of dying during child birth. Symmetry is sexy because symmetrical people tend to be more physically coordinated and capable. Women are presumably hot for men with big muscles because historically that meant they were better at bringing home the woolly mammoth bacon. This list goes on... I don't dispute that there exist myriad hard wired sexual impulses.

That being said, the human brain is a mathematical engine, constantly pulling in new data and updating its model of the world to fit said data. What you deem available to you is a function of the data streamed to you. As such, I think it a reasonable conclusion that being blasted with images of beautiful women is going to have an effect on your perception of statistics.

Why do you find this so disagreeable? Or perhaps you just find it so obvious as to be uninteresting?



It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
[ Parent ]
exactly (none / 1) (#108)
by circletimessquare on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 11:31:34 AM EST

more like "duh"

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Ideals of beauty (3.00 / 2) (#102)
by thejeff on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 09:41:52 AM EST

People's ideals of beauty may not be set by film, but the scale of attractiveness is certainly shaped by it. For most of human history, when you looked at someone, all you had to compare was the people you knew personally, a few hundred or thousand at most. Now you can also compare with the "beautiful people" on the screen, most of whom have been chosen out of millions for their looks.

[ Parent ]
What it is... (none / 1) (#104)
by HollyHopDrive on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 10:25:39 AM EST

...is whatever's difficult. In Africa, where everyone's black, they love fair skin. Here in the UK, where it's cold and rainy, we love tans and olive complexions. (Worryingly, the black people we think are attractive tend to be relatively pale, for example Halle Berry has a white mother.) When food is plentiful, as here, we like to be slim, and where there is significant starvation (Africa), they like being plump. In Elizabethan and Victorian times, everyone wanted white skin because that meant you didn't need to work outdoors, ergo you were upper-class.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

True, but not my point (none / 0) (#105)
by thejeff on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 11:10:23 AM EST

That's a different aspect. That tends to set what direction the cultural parts of attractiveness go in.

For example, if the current standard is thin and tan because that means you have the time/resources to diet/exercise and lay out in the sun (or booth), television and movies expose us to people who are much thinner and tanner than anyone we know personally, thus raising the standards.

[ Parent ]

Good (none / 1) (#134)
by The Voice of Reason on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 04:26:18 PM EST

Hopefully this will raise standards if people are compared to the cream of the cream, rather than the average mingers on the street. Maybe this will reduce the trend of fat ugly women who don't look after themselves. We need more people in the gym and fewer in the burger king.

[ Parent ]
0;vertical spam (none / 0) (#154)
by sllort on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 08:22:56 PM EST


--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]
I think you missed the ultimate conclusion. (2.80 / 5) (#69)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 01:42:46 PM EST

I think you're on to something, but I'm not sure that decentralized media will result in the abandonment of impossible ideals of physical perfection.

What I would expect is for culture to fragment into something much more tribal - and that each tribe will have it's own ideals of the physical and some of those will be as nearly-unattainable as today's media playmates.

For example, while I would expect the rainbows to have very different ideas about self worth than your typical iron maiden it is still true that each sets an extremely high bar for themselves - the difference is that one emphasizes a willful rejection of the comforts of the material world and the other an iron determination to mold your body to your will.

I never said that.

I can't wait (2.33 / 3) (#72)
by ill decide later on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 02:04:45 PM EST

until free amateur productions gain popularity. Imagine if the MPAA and RIAA lobbies had to shut down due to a simple lack of funds!

Of course... (none / 1) (#85)
by Znork on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 04:05:55 AM EST

... the RIAA and MPAA have already shown us that they will interpret any form of declining sales as piracy and use it to push laws steering money their way.

[ Parent ]
There is a trend toward cross-media franchises... (none / 0) (#153)
by mister slim on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 10:14:30 PM EST

where a TV show or a game drive interest toward a book, a movie or soundtrack. This will probably keep costs of producing a property high enough to keep studios and whatnot in business.
__

"Fucking sheep, the lot of you. Yeah, and your little dogs too." -Rogerborg
[ Parent ]

Online Amature Films are as Old as the Internet. (2.88 / 9) (#89)
by the ghost of rmg on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 10:26:04 AM EST

Online film has been alive and well for over a decade. Since the introduction of broadband, men and women have learned that they never have to go out to get their fix of amature action.

But what effect has this underground industry had on our perceptions of beauty? How has it changed our standards?

I believe they have lowered them, much as the author believes they will in the future. There has been a shift toward plainer looking girls being found more and more attractive. Notions of "fuckability" have replaced more refined measures of attractiveness that existed before the mid nineties. Men are looking at their wives and thinking, "Well, she's better looking than that girl from the internet." Younger men are recognizing that with an increasingly bovine population, cowish girls may be the best they can do -- and the internet film industry tells them it's just more cushion for the pushin'.

Even the less exciting offerings of TV and Hollywood are embracing the trend toward plainer women being considered suitable for play. One sees leading ladies with mousy brown hair and rather more chubby contenences than were deemed acceptable for TV viewers ten years ago. Traditional ideas of attractiveness have been relegated to the WB and UPN with series like Charmed and Battlestar Galactica.

But what about our values? How are they being affected by this radical form of non-consensus film? The answer is this: The field of immorality has widened substantially. Where once fathers of homely daughters could rest easy in the knowledge that their daughters would more likely be cutting themselves in their room on a Friday night than being savagely pounded by the captain of the football team, now even the fatties are getting in on the action.

How will our ideals of chastity and faithfulness survive this revolution of aesthetics? When the primary deterent to sexual activity -- unattractiveness -- has been deconstructed as it has been, what can we do? When our sons have become veritable Benny Hills, how can we even feel safe leaving our daughters alone with them? Is there no up or down anymore?

In the end, we have to recognize that while the promise of such content at zero cost may be tempting, we pay a price for it. The price is our daughters' honor. Those of us who felt secure in the virginity of our ugly daughters can no longer rest easy. While the MPAA carefully taylors its offerings to avoid disturbing our social conventions, we cannot expect the same sort of standards to apply to internet film.

You simply cannot trust people on the internet.


rmg: comments better than yours.

trollicious and insightful! (none / 0) (#117)
by circletimessquare on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 12:26:49 PM EST

i salute you, you are an inspiration


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Re: Grow the fuck up (3.00 / 2) (#96)
by mackus daddius on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 05:17:06 PM EST

95 percent of people in the USA and UK are far too untalented to make anything of worth to more than 3 or 4 people.
probably true, but 5 percent of 400 million is 20 million people.

The point still stands (none / 0) (#133)
by The Voice of Reason on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 04:24:26 PM EST

The point still stands: Most people won't be able to download any of this, or display it satisfactorily on their TV. And hardly anyone will be able to come up with anything decent.

[ Parent ]
is this satire or something? i don't get it (3.00 / 3) (#129)
by massivefubar on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 07:39:16 PM EST

Ugly freaks have had happenings and made (mostly bad and unwatchable) film and then video for a long time. No one needed permission from the internet. There were ugly people in porn flicks even in the Super 8 era. Doesn't mean that average Americans have become more open-minded about standards of beauty in the last 40 years; they have become less so. People are less and less tolerant of physical imperfection, not more so. The current boom in plastic surgery, even among men, is not occurring because everyone is all fine and happy about how they look. In 1980 someone who had their teeth capped to a color of white not found in nature was a televangelist. Now everyone has to do it if they just want to be at an "acceptable" standard of appearance.

I think... (none / 0) (#152)
by mister slim on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 10:11:10 PM EST

suicidegirls.com demonstrates there is at least a subset of the population with more flexible standards of beauty.
__

"Fucking sheep, the lot of you. Yeah, and your little dogs too." -Rogerborg
[ Parent ]

Surely. (none / 0) (#150)
by bakuretsu on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 02:46:12 PM EST

Even if massivefubar thinks you're an asshole, I think you're right.

I can't wait to see what media decentralization is going to do for so many aspects of our culture. A culture that is, by many standards, media-driven.

-- Airborne
    aka Bakuretsu
    The Bailiwick -- DESIGNHUB 2004

very huge impact I think (none / 1) (#156)
by twinsens on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 01:34:47 AM EST

6行业报告 1 2 3456摄影 婚纱摄影 商业摄影产品摄影时尚摄影6摄影 1 2 345国际速递国际快递 珠宝首饰 2 345水晶珠宝

The Effect of New Media Distribution on Body Image and Self Esteem | 154 comments (126 topical, 28 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!