"Celebrities Today Are Bad Role Models" or "Slow News Day"

[Osterbaum]

Are we seriously having this argument again?

Originally Posted by Azisien

She is still dumb. She is dumb because she should not do the action that she did.

Like really, why are you insisting about how dumb she is? At most you could maybe say that she made a dumb choice which it's quite likely she made because maybe she is a victim of abuse stuck in a cycle. Pointing out how dumb Rihanna is for the decisions she's made is not only counter productive but also a bit sexist, demonstrating a lack of understanding of the larger issue.

Originally Posted by POS

Given that you are criticizing a woman for putting herself in a potential situation where she can be victimized in a way that is experienced far more often by women than men, the gender-neutrality clause of your statement carries little weight.

Kim and Marc could certainly stand to dial it back a little, as could you, but their point is no less valid. The vast majority of domestic abuse is committed by men against women, so while I'm sure you probably would say the same thing if it were a man in the situation, the fact is that you will rarely have such an opportunity, so your statement is sexist because the problem involved is sexist.

Also, victim blaming is awfully shitty in general. Really, it should be "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, FUCKING SHAME ON YOU."

[Azisien]

Well actually I just went to bed, woke up, read the thread's replies, and made one reply of my own. The larger issue was not ignored, it was covered. Supporting Chris Brown would be 'sexist as fuck.' No one here did that. No one. As for why I have to repeat myself so much in general, I'm not sure. I thought my point was pretty simple.

e- Whether someone is caught in a cycle or not does not void the dumbness or not-dumbness of their actions. Rihanna in particular has access to a ludicrous amount of support. And shitstain as Chris Brown is, and shitstain as much of society is for defending HIS actions, there was a large pool of supporters for Rihanna and decriers for Chris Brown. This was not a one-sided event.

But you're right, that point has been covered well enough. I am finished with it.

[Aerozord]

Originally Posted by shiney

While I agree with you, that doesn't make it any more ethical that we are supposed to admire these people because they are talented and attractive. Why can't we admire people who are simply talented? We as a society place looks on a higher and more important pedestal than we do ability and that's something that really should change as it disenfranchises the entire portion of the populace who aren't hot by today's standards.

because its fairly ingrained on a primal level. What we view as beauty is because its a sign of good genes, health, and prosperity.

Though in all honesty while I view it as better to value factors other than looks, I wouldn't call it more fair. If we valued intelligence the most is that fair to those not born with a high IQ or in a region with poorer education?

[Sifright]

Originally Posted by Aerozord

because its fairly ingrained on a primal level. What we view as beauty is because its a sign of good genes, health, and prosperity.

Ahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahh ahahaha

Nope.

[Kim]

what we view as beauty are gross, gender-essentialist, racist-as-fuck, ever-changing standards rooted in culture

saying its about good genes is the sort of bullshit biotruth bullshit people use to excuse their totally awful bullshit

it's all lies

[Kyanbu The Legend]

Originally Posted by Aerozord

because its fairly ingrained on a primal level. What we view as beauty is because its a sign of good genes, health, and prosperity.

Though in all honesty while I view it as better to value factors other than looks, I wouldn't call it more fair. If we valued intelligence the most is that fair to those not born with a high IQ or in a region with poorer education?

Well it's more based on appearance and money, as far as society is concerned. Which is all kinds of messed up.

Honestly the whole concept of relationships is questionable when you think about it.

[Osterbaum]

Our concepts of beauty are much more rooted in social norms than any signs clearly indicating better genes. There might be some (relatively minor) physical traits that are considered to be universally attractive in humans. But it's pretty clear just from interacting with people that we've got tons of different tastes and preferences in men and women. We're social animals and if society tells us what we're supposed to find attractive then we might tend to conform, at least to a point, because of an inherent desire to belong.

[shiney]

Genetically speaking, beauty is based on what superficial looks and personality traits are most likely to ensure someone has sex with your offspring, ensuring continued survival of your bloodline. Society however is what dictates which of those looks are the most important hence our current trends of what is beauty in the west.

There are some scientific studies regarding symmetry, waist-to-hip ratio and other such, but those are based largely on western values as well. In older times completely different standards of beauty existed. In eastern cultures different standards exist. It's mainly in the mass-marketed hyper-aware western world that women are really forced to conform to what the media-driven ideal of beauty is. And the negative impact that has on our culture and the lives of countless women is something that can never truly be measured and will only be felt through deepening crises of depression and self-hatred that these girls and women experience.

It's particularly difficult because the only real ways to fight it are advocacy and refusal to consume. Advocacy is suppressed because the channels available for large audiences are controlled by the interests that promote the sexualized image, and refusal to consume is difficult because everydamnthing uses sex to market their product. I'm going to go on a damn rampage the first time I hear my daughter complain she's too far, and I bet she will be like six.

Of particular note: here's one of the more despicable points of evidence to show the hyper-sexualization of young teen girls, purposefully and marketed toward them. What a society we live in, when profits and sex are more important than allowing children to grow up without feeling persecuted and ugly!

Edit: the article seems to portray VS in almost a beneficial light by printing their excuse at the bottom, but their CEO has come out on record and said this product is being mareketed toward 15 or 16 year old girls so they can feel cool like the college girls. You know, cool as in "I should be having more sex."

[Aerozord]

Thats why I added prosperity in my description. Humans associate certain appearance traits, fashion or a nice car for example, with success. This both indicates an ability to support offspring as well as an assumption said offspring can benefit from it.

There is also association which is a deep part of sexual psychology. The psychological definition of a fetish (or maybe that was a kink, I often got the text book definition confused) is something your mind has linked to the concept of sex and thus invokes sexual arousal. This is important to our discussion because celebrities are a huge factor. Celebrities are attractive, successful, and rich. Which makes them desirable. Thus things you associate with them, fashion, personality traits, ect. Create a subconscious preference for these things.

Of course everything is highly complex so its not like this is some universal truth. But it does contribute to over arching trends. Even if its not sexually treated, human desire 'to belong' spreads it further. I doubt little girls realize why the older girls are dressing sexy. They just view it as how they should dress since everyone else is and they dont want to be the outcaste

[Magus]

Jesus is the only role model for our children. Robes and sandals, people.