From: sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell)
Subject: Elle Machpherson causes rape?
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:43:39 GMT

Newsgroups: alt.supermodels,soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 01:16:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.171526.5511@wam.umd.edu> sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell) writes:
>In article <lfnqeuINNrso@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums) writes:
>>In article <BxBCp7.BC8@encore.com> aaldrich@encore.com (Al Aldrich) writes:
>>>What does this mean? Are they selling women on TV now?
>>
>>	Duh.  Women are used as 'model's on which to hang products that
>>are sold.  Also, models are looked at for their own sake -- just as
>>you can buy calendars of cars for their own sake.  Nothing is being sold
>>except the vision of the car (or women) itself.
>
>One problem: Cars are inanimate objects that cant feel hurt.



>Women may be partially
>responsible for their mental health in this matter as suggested by the
>person who claimed it was all a self-esteem problem.  Okay.  By the
>same line of reasoning I cant blaim someone who hurts me by punching me
>in my mouth.

	It's not the same thing at all, Steve. All societies have
standards of physical beauty. They're not all the same standard, but
they all have one thing in common: they make some people winners and
others losers, in terms of measuring up to the standard. You might as
well complain about the weather, as this. The way to deal with bad
weather is to dress for it.

	I agree.  However, people have the potential to alter
	the standards to healthier ideals.  The way to deal
	with bad weather is to dress for it.  In this case
	"dressing" means educating people/talking about
	what is going on so some poor fool can avoid 
	buying into advertisers images when they find
	themselves surronded by it.  That is what Im trying
	to do here.




	When did having standards of beauty become a bad thing? We
praise the ancient Greeks for theirs, which look pretty exclusive,
judging by the art they left behind. Why is it OK to admire a good mind,
but not a good body? Both characteristics are similar in being partially
innate, and then improved or neglected by the possessor. What's the
difference? Both are aspects of the whole person.



	I agree.  I also think we should display/admire the many
	other bodytypes.  Lets not limit what we consider or
	want people to consider beautiful.  Personally, I dont
	think bodies achieved by unhealthy means, like dieting
	should be chosen ideals, rather ones achieved by
	healthfull lifestyles, but that is beyond the scope of 
	the post.


	It's unfortunate if anyone, male or female, feels bad because
they don't look like a model, but frankly, that's _their_ problem, not
the culture's.
		
	True.  They are also part of the culture .  If they want
	to speak up to alter the problem I think that is great.



>People are hurt by having
>society being programmed to expect others to live up to an ideal image.

	Advertising is the visible manifestation of free people doing
business in a free market, and if you don't like what you see, the blame
falls on the people, the consumers. Not men, not women, all consumers.



	I really have to disagree with you here, sorry.  I dont think
	advertising is a manifestation of freedom.  From the time
	we can sit-up we are bombarded by advertiser's images, thougts,
	ideals etc.  We arent zombies, but are opinions are leveraged
	into certain directions.  Given that I think the problem doesnt
	rest with the consumer who has been TAUGHT what to want, but
	the advertiser.  I do think the soloution is with deprogramming'
	the consumers and encouraging them to speak up.



Steve R