'Body shaming'

[Borachio]

After a court order, I've been forbidden to wear any shorts or t-shirts while at any beach, because my body is, and I quote "an affront to nature".

So, that's you in nude on the public beach, then.

But don't worry. Nobody will notice your skinny legs or pigeon chestedness, let me tell you.

 

[trader/warrior]

I wouldn't call this particular ad "body shaming". For me the difference is in presentation.

Not shaming: Showing somebody fit and "beautiful" and selling the ability to be like them.

Shaming: Showing somebody fat and unattractive and selling the ability to not be like that anymore.

The former case is giving people an ideal to aspire to, a theoretical "perfect you" that you can obtain if only you buy our product. We can argue about whether that ideal is realistic or even desirable, but the underlying message is "you can be better if you try".

The latter case is telling people "how you are now is not good enough and you're a bad person if you don't change" (so buy our stuff and become a good person). The underlying message is "you are not good enough on your own".

It's a subtle distinction maybe, but an important one IMO. Of course people with existing self-esteem problems are unlikely to take either ad well, but that's a deeper problem.

It's not so much about whether they show an ideal body or an unappealing body in the ad itself, what the ad actually says has much more relevance. This is clearly intended to trigger insecurities by making people self-reflect "how will people judge me if I go to the beach", it's not saying "you can look this good at the beach this summer!", it's intended to make people think "how you are now is not good enough and people will judge you if you don't change. Buy our stuff."

Though ultimately it's pretty subjective of course.

There actually are a lot of beauty-related ads that have a pretty positive message, but this is not one of them IMO.

BTW my pasty, pale, blubbery and hairy body is completely beach ready already.

 

[Borachio]

Yeah. I agree. Just how much of a perfect physique does one actually need in order to lay one's body on a beach? It's not what I call a demanding activity. Though I don't expect sand is particularly wheelchair friendly.

 

[gay_Aleks]

So, that's you in nude on the public beach, then.

But don't worry. Nobody will notice your skinny legs or pigeon chestedness, let me tell you.

They did. That's why I got the court orders.

 

[Borachio]

Oh? But your genitals didn't raise a single eyebrow?

That's very strange. Have you had them permanently airbrushed?

(I'm going with the idea that you'd been banned from wearing shorts and T-shirts on the beach, rather than being banned in person. But it's possible I've got hold of the wrong end of the stick here.)

 

[gay_Aleks]

Well, the court order was also followed by a hefty fine in 200 levas.

Apparently.

 

[Borachio]

200 levas, eh?

That's about 7s 6d in old money, if I remember correctly. No wonder you're miffed!

 

[Leoreth]

I agree, but there are soooo many examples of this sort of thing in the media, and nobody really seems to care all that much.. making me think that this particular example is just "the cause of the week" or something.

There are many problematic things that nobody really cares about. There were many things in the past people didn't care about until they did, because they started to look at the issue in a different way.

Not saying that this is a Very Pressing Issue that needs to be immediately addressed somehow. It's obvious that there's currently a media hype going on. But it's something to think about.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

BTW my pasty, pale, blubbery and hairy body is completely beach ready already.

Mine too! Aside from the fact that I have no intention of going to the beach ever.

I'll be listening to the Gorillaz album Plastic Beach later though, so that's PRETTY MUCH the same thing, I mean let's be real here.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I think I've seen headlines about "beach bodies" on the front of women's magazines or Sunday supplements in newspapers as long as I can remember. So why is this poster/advert particularly controversial in and of itself?

I can see how this could cause no end of distress for those whose body image fails to live up to the ideal. How could it not?

How could it not cause no end of distress? Wouldn't one have to not only fall short of the standard, but also be infinitely sensitive for that to be the case?

 

[warpus]

There are many problematic things that nobody really cares about. There were many things in the past people didn't care about until they did, because they started to look at the issue in a different way.

Not saying that this is a Very Pressing Issue that needs to be immediately addressed somehow. It's obvious that there's currently a media hype going on. But it's something to think about.

I do think that the media's portrayal of beauty and society's views on the subject in general are very worrying. I just don't necessarily think that the people who are protesting this really see the issue for what it is; if this is the battle they have chosen to fight.

 

[Hygro]

We should be striving towards beauty.

We shouldn't let (or even demand) commerce define it for us. The beach body add sells bathing suits, the bathing suit ads sell the protein powder, the car ads sell the peacoats and the movies sell the cars.

 

[Borachio]

How could it not cause no end of distress? Wouldn't one have to not only fall short of the standard, but also be infinitely sensitive for that to be the case?

Spoken, I suspect, by someone who doesn't fall short of the standard by very much.

 

[nc-1701]

There a couple points here:

1) The model looks good, I do feel she should lift but it's hard to say for sure without the back shot.

2) Advertising that does anything other list specs in a scientific way is utter trash and rots your mind. Using Adblock isn't a convenience it's a moral imperative.

3) I still support the implications of the ad, there is a lot of ignorance but people can shape their bodies how they want them to a great degree. The ad lets us come to that conclusion on our own. I liken it to education, sure some people are just to dumb to learn, but we don't pretend they are are smart and try to redefine intelligence to include them. Some people have thyroid problems and are thus fat and can't help it, that doesn't we we redefine beauty to include themand it certainly doesn't mean we need to have some some sort of affirmative action program so they can have attractive mates too.

You lost God's die roll, probably for being a giant douche in a past life, better luck next time fatty... Or more likely there's nothing wrong with you and you could be attractive/fit/healthy, but your'e just too lazy. In that case I'm definitely not switching my standard of beauty to include you...Ugly on the inside and out.

Physically attractive people get quite a few advantages in life. No use crying over it.

Ditto.

Really? It's certainly naive to think that beauty standards can be abolished entirely, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to broaden them and make them more inclusive.

But why would we? Fat people are gross... "Skinny fat" are pretty gross too.

 

[Borachio]

Fat people are gross in a lot of cultures. But in another lot of cultures they aren't.

To paraphrase some geezer: "maybe we shouldn't judge people by their physical appearance at all, but on the content of their character".

(I think Abraham Lincoln said that.)

Still, that's easy for me to say; what with me being a fine upstanding pillar-of-the-community Adonis-lookalike. And everything.

 

[thecrazyscot]

I don't think we should celebrate bodies that are the result of a terribly unhealthy lifestyle, either. I know you weren't arguing for that, and I'm certainly not saying our standard of beauty is acceptable, but I hope it doesn't become "all-inclusive" as that would would be going too far in the other direction.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

3) I still support the implications of the ad, there is a lot of ignorance but people can shape their bodies how they want them to a great degree. The ad lets us come to that conclusion on our own. I liken it to education, sure some people are just to dumb to learn, but we don't pretend they are are smart and try to redefine intelligence to include them. Some people have thyroid problems and are thus fat and can't help it, that doesn't we we redefine beauty to include themand it certainly doesn't mean we need to have some some sort of affirmative action program so they can have attractive mates too.

It's not that you CAN'T help it entirely, it's just a poorly handled topic with limited/centered research and you need to be inordinately stubborn or inordinately capable to sift through the garbage and help yourself, because even the standard physician approach to it (just take synthetic t4 until TSH looks okay-ish) won't necessarily help. In my case I gained 50+ pounds in less than a year only AFTER going on the medication (supposedly impossible, but this is nowhere near a unique story...hmm..), with an identical caloric intake (I monitored it before and after) in both cases. For most sensibly-handled branches of medicine, this would be a serious red flag, and it's pretty fishy to eat at measured BMR (breathing into a mask for 15 minutes) or less and barely lose weight...but that's not enough for most of the medical community apparently.

But I was fortunate to have access to publications on the matter, enough to learn the divergent results of the standard approach for treatment (levothyroxine works for a lot of people), the older and sometimes heavily pushed "use organic IE armour thyroid", and even dug up forum posts from crazy bodybuilders using t2 (diiodothyronine, of which there are 4 kinds IIRC) on themselves effectively functioning as self-created human guinea pigs. You'll see medical literature claim t2 doesn't do anything and you can't get blood work for it...but some of those are 75% as TSH-suppressive as the primary treatment method, and t2 alters cellular function differently!

I do a little better on the non-synthetic stuff and have lost well over half that weight back off, though I'm still eating ~800 calories/day less than previously I'm also not working out like I did when I was younger. The difference isn't completely explained by the workout intensity (I never burned 800 calories/day in workouts since maybe the most terrifying practices I had in high school), but I suspect I won't be too far back from pre-thyroid issues if I can rebuild some muscle mass. Nevertheless, my ability to do this took quite a few hours of scumming articles for information that would be potentially relevant then cross referencing key words to see if other articles came up with anything similar/disagreeing. It's a total pain in the butt because even published medical literature can't be completely trusted (a lot of studies are started looking to prove something and select samples that show what they want to see).

The implication of this ad and similar ones that I don't like has nothing to do with my personal issue, but rather the implication that using any product will lead to a "beach ready" body unto itself. Nothing short of a solid lifestyle change/exercise/consistent execution of nutrition at proper levels will move someone from "overweight" --> "healthy weight and fit". It's not unlike those junk food cereals claiming "part of a balanced breakfast" and putting some orange juice and other crap there lol. It's still junk food cereal. Granted, protein stuff is generally not junk food, but you get my point I hope. If you want a "beach ready body", the focus shouldn't be on the protein! Protein in that case is just something you need enough of and take a little extra after a workout.

On a completely different track, do ads really create the social perception of beauty, or do they only minimally contribute to that while more so they reflect it? What makes different cultures attracted to different body types/compositions?

 

[Kyriakos]

I'm sure some of you have seen the recent controversy over this:

What's your reaction?

I'm pretty 'pro-feminist' and I'm certainly not a fan of the consumerist culture that produces this stuff, but I must say I have a hard time seeing individual ads like this as a problem.

I think it's pretty normal for society to have (subjective) standards for physical beauty. This isn't by any means a new phenomenon, AFAIK. I don't see them as harmful in and of themselves. And if a picture can trigger a bout of low self-esteem, then the suffering individual probably has problems other than seeing the picture.

But I can understand that the constant bombardment of such images and constant insinuations that you are not good enough can be harmful to a lot of people. Personally, I'm fairly immune to advertising, at least when it comes to feeling unhealthy pressure to change myself because of them. So while I can understand why it can be harmful, I still find it pretty hard to empathise with those who are affected in a significant way.

What do you think? Is there some kind of middle ground to be had on this subject?

I largely agree with the OP.

This is an ad, and it tries to seel a cosmetic product. It seems somewhat expectable that the easier way to catch one's eye is if it ties the product with a great looking woman who supposedly "uses" it (obviously this is not the case, but the ad is trying to use this suspension of disbelief). It would not work with a less great looking woman, cause
a) it would seem less worthy of attention, it is just an ad on the subway etc,
b) why exactly would you market a cosmetic product using an image already common to your buying public to tie with it?, and
c) an average looking person, or a fat person, would really make the ad absurd or rather trivial.

It is not meant to be reality. I am sure no one looks at the ad and thinks "wow, if only i could buy this product and look like that girl!". Those offended argue that the ad tells them they are not worthy to go to the beach if they don't look super-hot. Well, yeah, so if the ad tells you that you can still go to the beach without looking that great, but only if you successfully fly out of your window, would you argue it tries to trick you into committing suicide?

Woman can be used for having a hot body (if they have it), but cosmetic products ads are rather harmless in this issue. Why not try to argue against porn, where people actually get ruined in underground movies and violent stuff, etc. Or suffer stigma for any porn, and so on.

Finally, it is not a good idea to want to have any product be showing some 'average' state, so that it won't offend those who are 'average' etc etc. Imagine what would happen if painters and authors were urged to be as unskilled as is possible, so as to not make readers feel bad. Or scientists. Maybe your doctor should not know much more on medicine than you do, so that you won't see him as a god.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Spoken, I suspect, by someone who doesn't fall short of the standard by very much.

Yes, obviously I'm a male model in my spare time...

I'll stick to my belief that "no end" of distress is a vast exaggeration for the vast majority of people.

 

[warpus]

Like I said before, we use sex to sell everything from butter to laptops. Of course you'll see it being used to sell nutritional supplements, or whatever the hell this company sells.