From: jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston)
Newsgroups: alt.supermodels
Subject: Re: women as objects (long)
Date: 22 Jan 93 23:21:05 GMT
Reply-To: jsp@pls.amdahl.com
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

kim@phaedrus.jts.com (T. Kim Nguyen ) writes:

}What I was trying to say is that there are a lot of reasons, none of
}them simple, why men and women are being bombarded with imagery and
}ideas which fulfill the goals of industries such as cosmetics, movies,
}television, and pornography 

This is wrong.  The reason for the images *is* simple; these industries
want us to buy their products.

}and which harm the consumers even as they
}buy the products and buy into the cults.  

This is also wrong.  Any harm that is done is done by those you call
consumers.  And what, pray tell, are these "cults" you refer to?

}It's clear that you aren't capable of seeing the forest for the trees.

No, what's clear is that you have bought totally into Naomi Wolfe's
paranoid drivel, you've made up your mind about all this "harm" being
done to consumers in general and women in particular, and you're not
interested in discourse on the subject, but rather in simply putting
forward your conclusions.

}I am not attempting to be confrontational; I ask you simply to try to
}see these problems from the point of view of a human being and not of
}a consumer.  

I already do.  I certainly don't need you nor Ms. Wolfe to help me
"see the light"; I'm perfectly capable of thinking for myself.

}Ask yourself why it is that you believe that "saggy
}breasts and leathery skin" are such disgusting things in a mature
}woman.  

Here's a little thought exercise for you:  Think about your favorite
fruit, the fruit that tastes best to you.  Now think about your least
favorite fruit, the fruit the taste of which makes you gag.  Now ask
yourself why you like one and not the other.  Do your reasons have
anything to do with some evil marketing firm brainwashing you?  Has
there been a media blitz pushing strawberries?  Or is it just that 
the taste of some fruit appeals to your taste buds and the taste of 
other fruit turns you off?

Or ask yourself why sugar is so widely regarded as tasting good, while
vinegar is so widely regarded as tasting bad.  Is *that* a result of
the evil marketers pushing sugar on us?  Do you believe that, before
there was advertising, human beings didn't particularly like the taste
of sugar?

Is it possible, just *possible* in your world view that slim bodies, 
smooth skin, upright breasts, and youth in general have an appeal to 
human beings that is simply inherent to the species?  That perhaps,
just perhaps, there are perfectly sound biological, evolutionarily
advantageous reasons for men to be sexually attracted to young, fit
women?  And that men were so attracted long before advertising came
into existence?

}Ask yourself if these trends you mention aren't the product of
}companies wanting you to BUY something.  Then apply the same reasoning
}to cosmetics, fashion, and Playboy.

Of course companies want us to buy things, that's their reason for
being.  But they do so by exploiting desires that are *already in us*,
not by creating brand new desires out of thin air.  If women use
cosmetics and go on diets it is because they already have the desire
to be attractive.  The advertisements simply tell them that the
cosmetics and diets are ways in which they can achieve that desire.
The ads most certainly do *not* induce the desire to be attractive.

--James Preston

Newsgroups: alt.supermodels