From: krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith)
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:42:17 GMT

In article <MUFFY.92Nov6105227@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <lflbvlINNh6j@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums) writes:
>>In article  891666t@dragon.acadiau.ca (Trish Turliuk) writes:
>>>The fact is we see *one-type* of women portrayed everywhere as the idealized
>>>women and even this isn't a real type for she is subjected to hours of makeup
>>>and airbrushing before she goes in front of the camera. The majority of women
>>>don't see themselves reflected in society at all. How many models have you  
>>>seen with crooked teeth?
>
>>I had to take issue with this.  When was the last time you saw
>>a car in a car add anywhere that was dented and/or scratched, paint
>>bleached out, seats torn, tires flat or worn, windshield cracked, rag
>>top torn, etc etc etc...  The fact is when advertisers are selling somethink,
>>they want to use 'perfect' models.
>
>You're absolutely right that they want to show perfect models.  However,
>how is "perfect" defined?  In the case of a car, the "perfect" model of
>the car is the brand-new, untouched version, which is actually real and
>attainable to anyone who has the money for the car.  Keeping it that way
>is another story, of course...*grin*.
>
>In the case of a person, however, what is "perfect" is not so clear.
>Why should a person who has one body type be more "perfect" than a
>person with another body type?  In this case, the advertisers are, in
>part, defining what is "perfect," by which models they use, how they
>make them up, etc.  They might polish the car to make it look better; it
>would be easy for you to do the same thing.  They give the human model a
>makeup person, who presumably spends a long time making the makeup
>perfect.  They give her new clothes, possibly carefully pinned and
>adjusted to look "perfect" in that one pose/picture (this is assuming
>print ads, of course).  This is not realistic.  

While all of this is true, the advertisers do use real human beings and
real garments in their photographs.  Whether a given consumer wants to
invest the time/money in clothing and makeup (and I have met more than
a few women who do an excellent on their own makeup and hair) is
anybody's guess.

>It is the rare person
>who can wear new clothes every day, who can not move much, so that they
>will always hang in just the right way, and who can pay a makeup person
>to make their faces look exactly right all day, even *if* that person
>already has the "right" body type.  While some of the body type stuff is
>attainable (although often at rather too much physical cost), the person
>who is born short cannot buy height, so there is some of the image that
>is not attainable.

I am in _partial_ agreement with you here.  I strongly object to the
of a "right" body type, as every body type has its own set of advantages
and faults.  I also believe that a person's body type is fixed by his/her
choice of parents, and that there is nothing that anybody can do to
change it.  What one _can_ have some control over is his/her degree
of physical fitness.  The key is to have a "body image" that is in tune
with the body that you have to work with.  Some people simply look and
feel better "lean and mean" while others look and feel their best 
being thick and stocky.  It all depends upon your choice of parents,
and a body image that might be just fine for persons of one body type
may well be the "kiss of death" for persons of a differrent type.
I wish that I had a dollar for every woman out there who had a medium-
or-larger frame (ie. somebody who would look really good fairly big)
who was so intent upon emulating the look that is normal and healthy
for a woman built on a small/slim frame, and sacrificing her own pleasing
curves in the process.  I would also like a dollar for every fairly
light-framed man who, in trying to emulate the look of a man built on
a much larger frame, sacrificed his stamina, his waistline, and his muscle
definition.  I think that folx need to be less concerned about what size
they are, but what shape they are in.  If you are in "fightin shape", then
your weight will take care of itself.  Also, folx need to assess and
appreciate the gifts that are built-in to the body type that they were
born with, and work to develop these gifts, while minimizing/correcting
/camouflaging their weaknesses (and we _all_ have our share of both).
If a person is going to try to emulate the look of a body-type that is
not his/her own, then that person is setting himself up for a fall.
A person who expends effort on enhancing the gifts that he/she already
has, can only succeed.
>
>This is not to say that advertisers "should" do anything different...I
>personally think that they're always slimy and manipulative, and their
>manipulations of women are no different, to them, from their
>manipulations of anyone else.  However, this does not make that
>manipulation any less destructive of people's self-images.  This happens
>to men, too, but not as much, as far as I can tell.
>
>>[...]  I don't find my car represented or reflected
>>in the media any more than the average woman finds her body represented
>>there.  Should I regard this is as some horrible plot directed at me,
>>or does it make more sense to realize that this is 'madison avenue' and
>>should be taken as ignorable.  
>
>In a way, it *is* a "horrible plot directed at you" - you are supposed
>to look at your car, see that it is "inadequate" and therefore want to
>buy a new one.  However, since the car is not *you*, you are more
>fortunate than the person who is supposed to look at their body, see
>that it is inadequate, and attempt to purchase a more perfect one.  I
>think that it is much rarer for a person's self-image to be connected to
>their car than it is to be connected to their body, since their body is
>part of their self.
>
>Muffy
>--
>
Keith R
Newsgroups: soc.women