Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

Is bodybuilding bad for society, from a body positivity perspective?

harneska
harneska Posts: 25 Member
edited November 27 in Debate Club
I was having a debate with someone about body positivity and body acceptance, and the topic of bodybuilding came up. My personal view of body positivity (evolving over time as I learn more):
  • This is a movement rooted in empathy for others and compassion for one's self
  • Because of idealized body images promoted by the media, this has resulted in mistreatment/shaming of people who don't fit that ideal, as well as negative self-feelings and low self-esteem.
  • There's work to be done societally, and individually, to undo this form of "othering" and discrimination that hurts so many people (fat, trans, skinny, etc).
  • There's nothing wrong with wanting to change your body, lose weight, build muscle, etc. But ideally you start from a place of self love, and aren't creating a condition under which you can only love yourself if you achieve X outcome, or worse, you don't think other people should love you until you achieve X outcome.
  • People have very mixed views on the "healthy at any weight" movement -- there are aspects of this that are problematic, though the idea comes from a good place.

Feel free to comment on my baseline understanding as I an open to learning and evolving my perspective on this, but here's my real question:
  • Is bodybuilding inherently bad for society?
  • To be specific, let's set aside the extremes -- the competitive bodybuilders and ones who use steroids and may experience muscle dysmorphia.
  • Instead, when I say "bodybuilding" I'm referring to the other 99% who are simply following a diet plan and exercise plan with the intent of building muscle, mostly for aesthetic reasons, not functional.
  • The key difference is form over function.

My debate partner's argument was that because in bodybuilding, one strives for form over function, it is inherently unhealthy -- if not for the individual (who casual bodybuilding might still be a net gain for health-wise, especially if done in a body-positive way), then for society, because emphasis on the aesthetic appearance of one's body causes psychological harm to others who cannot achieve, let's say, chiseled abs or larger chest muscles. That because you are causing harm to other people in this way, by contributing to their self-non-acceptance, we'd all be better off if nobody did bodybuilding.

I'm not sure what to think about this and couldn't find anything online written about this exact angle. I'm curious what this community thinks. If I, as an individual, want to go to the gym to specifically build muscle for aesthetic reasons, is that a bad thing for society? I especially want to hear from those who are well-versed in the body-positivity world or have struggled with body positivity themselves.
«134567

Replies

  • ccrdragon
    ccrdragon Posts: 3,374 Member
    ccrdragon wrote: »
    I understand the argument that you are making, but the problem is not that there are bodybuilders who are willing to sacrifice and spend unending hours in a gym to achieve what they believe are the 'perfect' body (and more than likely damage their health with various illegal substances to achieve their goals). The actual problem is a societal issue with how the bodybuilders are perceived. Banning the 'sport' of bodybuilding will not solve the problem, society would simply move on to the next thing that gets idolized/glorified/etc.

    I mean, if you were to ban bodybuilding because it makes some people feel bad about themselves, what gets banned next? Blue eyes, blonde hair, beauty....? You should do a Google search on 'The Twilight Zone' - they actually covered this very topic more than 40 years ago by depicting a society that forced all people who had reached puberty to undergo plastic surgery so that all people would be the same (thus eliminating envy). There have also been a number of SciFi writers who have covered this topic extensively.

    A classic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron

    Thanks Jane - I love that story and had a complete brain-fart trying to come up with the title!
  • harneska
    harneska Posts: 25 Member
    edited August 2018
    sardelsa wrote: »
    harneska wrote: »
    sardelsa wrote: »
    Is it still causing harm if someone is naturally beautiful or fit? Or what if they actually go out and get their hair done, nails, makeup, tan, wear nice clothes and jewelry, etc. Should those people not do that either because they will make others feel bad? I am just trying to figure out where we would draw the line here in terms of working/changing aesthetics.

    Hmm. Perhaps a difference is that anyone can fancy themselves up. That's accessible. Not anyone can achieve idealized physical beauty. So, perhaps it's more similar to a billionnaire flaunting their wealth. You don't become a billionnaire with hard work; you become a billionnaire with hard work + serious luck.

    So then what about super models or actors? That is definitely not accessible to everyone. That is mostly genetics, hard work, and luck.

    Or what about those that get plastic surgery?

    Supermodels certainly contribute to society's idea of ideal body image and many might argue that we'd be better off without that profession. I don't see how actors fit the analogy -- they are doing/creating something, like a writer or baker, not perpetuating an ideal.

    Plastic surgery -- idk, that's a topic I know nothing about. I'd imagine some plastic surgery is healthy and some isn't.
This discussion has been closed.