Plus Size Models/Beauty Isn't Skin Deep: Inconsistent?

[NotDarkYet]

Allow me to vent for a moment.

 

We've all heard about the push for plus size models:

 

https://www.yahoo.com/beauty/six-empowering-beauty-campaigns-that-prove-beauty-110642145568.html

 

This is hypocritical.  

 

If beauty isn't skin deep, why do all of these people still have GREAT skin.

 

Why don't we hear a push for models with bad skin, bad teeth, wrinkles?

 

Wouldn't that be the consistent position for beauty not being skin deep?  

 

I'm not pushing to see regular people presented as beauty icons.  I'm just asking for consistency and honesty here.  We all know that physical beauty is skin deep...by definition.  Why are we lying to ourselves?

 

Calling everybody hot doesn't help anything.

 

 

----

On a personal note:  As a person who has battled acne for years, it was painfully obvious that all manner of diversity is allowed on magazines, posters, advertising......all except skin quality diversity.

[J. D. Stembal]

I disagree with this definition of beauty. It goes far deeper than the epidermis. Obviously, the skin is an important part of it as the body's largest organ. We would all look pretty scary without it, and die very quickly.

 

I urge you to watch this video from Elliot Hulse, where he describes how mind and body are intimately interconnected.

 

 

* I also had terrible acne as a teenager, which still lingers in my adulthood as very slight facial scarring. I blame this condition on the large quantities of dairy cow hormones I consumed. I get the odd zit still, but it no longer covers me like a blanket rash. I had a very serious case of back acne up until three years ago when I finally gave up drinking milk. It used to hurt to lay on my back!

[Pepin]

I really dislike the use of narrative in the article. There is no thought or complexity as well, it is just a narration about a previous state and how the change to a new state is happening, all with the assumption that it is good. I suppose I can't complain too much, because the article presumes their audience.

 

As far as skin quality goes, well if people were more rational, then I think they would want to see the difference makes on the people with the worst skin. Like with an acne product, you want to make sure it works, so you want to see pictures of people with awful acne who have been cured by the product. You don't want to see people who barely have acne use the product, because there won't be any real difference.

 

The issue with that is that most people don't really want to see people with lots of acne. Worse, putting people with lots of acne on a box may send out the wrong message. It is like if you were selling supports for a bridge which would prevent it from falling down, would you really want to put a pictures of a broken bridge on it?

 

I am for lessening consumer standards in regard to beauty, and to some degree weight, but I don't like the narrative nature and this idea of labels. I do think an honest conversation needs to happen about why worst case examples are not chosen for advertising. Why do consumers choose products that more beautiful women promote?

 

Certain people will start going into how the media brainwashes people into buying stuff they don't want, and making them feel insecure about their skin, but you can only go so far in throwing out consumer choice.

 

To end this rant, I do have a theory that this whole "don't label me" concept resonates with women because they are more sensitive to social disapproval. I am quite certain that men receive amount if not more of this, but they really don't care as much. Another way to put it is that women are better at socializing, and because of this they have a harder time coping with social expectations because going against the grain is kind of the opposite of being sociable. It is kind of like a catch 22. Whereas a man under the same social pressures might decide to rebel against them because he doesn't care as much. My wording isn't the best here, but I do believe this sort of idea is found in evolutionary psychology.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

Ask yourself, "who do these gimmicks appeal to?" Wouldn't it be funny in a pathetic kind of way if these gimmicks were primarily for appeasing upper-class socialistic snobs ("progressives"), who tend to be slimmer and more attractive than obese, uglier women?

 

I think it's interesting what kind of cognitive double-think has taken the void of "God". In the past you had this idea of a "perfect" deity, which we can know by "faith"; in other words, which we can make true simply by *thinking* it to be true. We can create reality with our minds. Of course, religious people don't hold this rule consistently. When they are hungry, they don't simply think of a hamburger to feel satiated; if they do, it will not be long before they will see their "solution" is inviable. But they think they can with God, without any addendum. They simply make an exception, not one where is justified in accordance with a sound and scientific formation of concepts, but simply where it is convenient to appease oneself emotionally, in the moment.

 

As man developed empathy and a sense of ethics, gods became "God," and religion went from "explanation of creation" to explanation of creation and moral perfection. God was the physical representation of moral perfection, but since Humans were fundamentally and permanently inferior to God, this moral perfection could never be seen on Earth. We are all born sinners, and we will die sinners. True virtue is for God. We can only muck in his example; but some will do better than others. Some will go to Heaven; others will suffer Hell.

 

But then God was dealt a serious blow, and his credibility was questioned. But religion remained. Atheism began to emerge cunningly in the cultural intelligentsia, led by Marx and others. The new religion was "egalitarianism": humans perfected. And ethics was no longer dictated by "god." Now, ethics was for humans to dictate. And I use the phrase "to dictate" purposefully, rather than, say, "to discover." I would say we discover laws of physics or mathematics. We do not dictate them. If we tried to dictate them, nature and the physical world would paint us an unaltering reflection of our error, which we could not practically chose to ignore. But now as humans, given the power to "dictate" ethics, the idea of "perfection" here on earth became a boundless oasis for many to paint their utopias, which, when experimented with in reality, revealed their true contents to be filled with hellish scorn, jealousy, and tribalism. Fundamentally, they were revealed to be born from the same trauma and innate tribalism of primitive humans, which has yet to leave our species to be replaced by philosophy and rational ethics, despite years of corollary scientific advancement.

 

So basically, it's an ancient habit in collision with the greatly improved reasoning skills of the 21st century's men and women. That's my opinion at least; hopefully it's somewhat sound.

[Belluavir]

They're also only 'plus sized' when compared to ridiculous and vain womens clothing sizes, not compared to women who are obese. They dont have guts that hang over their knickers, they dont have cellulite, they are mobile, etc. I doubt you would ever see these 'plus sized' women sitting in McDonald's scarfing down three big mac combos.

 

If you have eaten so much that you cannot walk anymore, can hardly breathe and are so addicted to food its pretty much all you think about, you are not beautiful, you are revolting and pitiable.

[nathanm]

I will start believing that these pretentious people want to empower fat, average or ugly people when fat, average or ugly people get put in front of cameras to sell stuff.  As of yet I have not seen this happen.  Biology 1, Touchy Feely Marketing 0.