Does the media put pressure on your body image and should there be laws to stop this?

Gallowmere1984 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

jrulo16 wrote: »

We will soon see the health consequences of ignoring health for the sake of feelings.

I see no evidence that anyone is actually ignoring health for the sake of feelings. Doctors still (properly) identify obesity/overweight as a health concern, and the government has had an ongoing effort to educate the public in eating less and moving more. I think people are more aware than being overweight is a health issue than when I was a kid (and far fewer people were overweight).

On the other hand, both then and now (at least in the circles I'm in) health is only a small part of why people don't want to be fat -- it's considered far preferable and more attractive to be thin (and I'm not objecting to this, I agree, which is why my preferred weight isn't simply within the healthy zone, but more like BMI 20-21, where I think I look better). That many people are overweight isn't because they no longer think being thin is preferable, at least not in the society I live in, it's because the environment makes it harder and they haven't adjusted/figured out how to stay a healthy weight despite this yet or simply because humans don't always choose long-term health or even other positive things when making a tradeoff.

I'm honestly not sure which is worse: preferences that induce horrible consequences, or ignorance in a time when the free flow of information has never been more available to the masses.

Whatever one is worse, I think it's got to be preferences. Well, for the truly obese I think it's often more complicated -- not obesity being preferred or not knowing obesity is unhealthy, but not understanding that losing weight isn't all that hard and doesn't require a complete sacrifice.

Gallowmere1984 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

jrulo16 wrote: »

We will soon see the health consequences of ignoring health for the sake of feelings.

I see no evidence that anyone is actually ignoring health for the sake of feelings. Doctors still (properly) identify obesity/overweight as a health concern, and the government has had an ongoing effort to educate the public in eating less and moving more. I think people are more aware than being overweight is a health issue than when I was a kid (and far fewer people were overweight).

On the other hand, both then and now (at least in the circles I'm in) health is only a small part of why people don't want to be fat -- it's considered far preferable and more attractive to be thin (and I'm not objecting to this, I agree, which is why my preferred weight isn't simply within the healthy zone, but more like BMI 20-21, where I think I look better). That many people are overweight isn't because they no longer think being thin is preferable, at least not in the society I live in, it's because the environment makes it harder and they haven't adjusted/figured out how to stay a healthy weight despite this yet or simply because humans don't always choose long-term health or even other positive things when making a tradeoff.

I'm honestly not sure which is worse: preferences that induce horrible consequences, or ignorance in a time when the free flow of information has never been more available to the masses.

There is MORE information available for sure. Now the accuracy of that information... well, just look at these forums or the popularity of folks like Food Bad and David "Avocado" Wolfe.

No and no.

Gallowmere1984 wrote: »

The_Enginerd wrote: »

Gallowmere1984 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

jrulo16 wrote: »

We will soon see the health consequences of ignoring health for the sake of feelings.

I see no evidence that anyone is actually ignoring health for the sake of feelings. Doctors still (properly) identify obesity/overweight as a health concern, and the government has had an ongoing effort to educate the public in eating less and moving more. I think people are more aware than being overweight is a health issue than when I was a kid (and far fewer people were overweight).

On the other hand, both then and now (at least in the circles I'm in) health is only a small part of why people don't want to be fat -- it's considered far preferable and more attractive to be thin (and I'm not objecting to this, I agree, which is why my preferred weight isn't simply within the healthy zone, but more like BMI 20-21, where I think I look better). That many people are overweight isn't because they no longer think being thin is preferable, at least not in the society I live in, it's because the environment makes it harder and they haven't adjusted/figured out how to stay a healthy weight despite this yet or simply because humans don't always choose long-term health or even other positive things when making a tradeoff.

I'm honestly not sure which is worse: preferences that induce horrible consequences, or ignorance in a time when the free flow of information has never been more available to the masses.

There is MORE information available for sure. Now the accuracy of that information... well, just look at these forums or the popularity of folks like Food Bad and David "Avocado" Wolfe.

That's true, but as I have said many times, I am not the smartest person in the world, and even I have managed to sort out most of the crap from the useful.

I tend to catch a lot of *kitten* on these forums because I push optimal and not "good enough for sedentary housewives". Believe me, if I can read studies, read work from reputable experts, and shuffle in the "broscience" that actually works in between, anyone who isn't completely mentally deficient should be capable of doing the same. I know, I know...effort.

In my opinion, nothing wrong with pushing optimal, fact of the matter most people will not get there, but much better than pursuing good enough for sedentary housewives and not getting there. Need to keep the bar high.

Quote from, I believe Vince Lombardi, "perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we catch excellence".

tomteboda wrote: »

Gallowmere1984 wrote: »

The_Enginerd wrote: »

Gallowmere1984 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

jrulo16 wrote: »

We will soon see the health consequences of ignoring health for the sake of feelings.

I see no evidence that anyone is actually ignoring health for the sake of feelings. Doctors still (properly) identify obesity/overweight as a health concern, and the government has had an ongoing effort to educate the public in eating less and moving more. I think people are more aware than being overweight is a health issue than when I was a kid (and far fewer people were overweight).

On the other hand, both then and now (at least in the circles I'm in) health is only a small part of why people don't want to be fat -- it's considered far preferable and more attractive to be thin (and I'm not objecting to this, I agree, which is why my preferred weight isn't simply within the healthy zone, but more like BMI 20-21, where I think I look better). That many people are overweight isn't because they no longer think being thin is preferable, at least not in the society I live in, it's because the environment makes it harder and they haven't adjusted/figured out how to stay a healthy weight despite this yet or simply because humans don't always choose long-term health or even other positive things when making a tradeoff.

I'm honestly not sure which is worse: preferences that induce horrible consequences, or ignorance in a time when the free flow of information has never been more available to the masses.

There is MORE information available for sure. Now the accuracy of that information... well, just look at these forums or the popularity of folks like Food Bad and David "Avocado" Wolfe.

That's true, but as I have said many times, I am not the smartest person in the world, and even I have managed to sort out most of the crap from the useful.

I tend to catch a lot of *kitten* on these forums because I push optimal and not "good enough for sedentary housewives". Believe me, if I can read studies, read work from reputable experts, and shuffle in the "broscience" that actually works in between, anyone who isn't completely mentally deficient should be capable of doing the same. I know, I know...effort.

You get a lot of *kitten* because you are really condescending and rude. Not because you're encouraging high-performance. Everyone does NOT need "optimal" performance. Most people don't need "optimal". Most people actually just need to be generally healthy and have a good life, not be a slave to the gym. Oh, wait, is calling you a "slave to the gym" condescending? Not any more condescending than saying "sedentary housewives" is.

What can I say? I have precisely zero issues if that's the perception of me.

I'll stop being rude and condescending, when people stop arguing with me that inefficient and minimal effort should be acceptable ways of doing things. Last time I checked, I'm not the one struggling with things I set out to accomplish.

Also, if you hadn't noticed I am rarely (if ever) the aggressor in most of the interactions that turn kinda bleh. But yes, I should just kick back and absorb the whiney excuses that get made on behalf of the person I may be addressing: especially when said excuses aren't even made by that person, but by some random that I wasn't even talking to, hmm?

I can count on fingers and toes, the number of people on this board who have shown enough experience and knowledge for both training and nutrition (not either/or) that their opinion should be taken seriously. You'll also probably have noticed that when one of them says something, I actually pay close attention, and don't get the slightest bit annoyed or rude. It's almost like I respect people who actually know what they are talking about or something, and not just jumping in my *kitten* over any verbiage that I may use that happens to rustle their jimmies.

tomteboda wrote: »

I don't generally care how people phrase things, including you @Gallowmere1984 . What is said is generally far more important than how it's put, in my opinion. I just took issue with the self-analysis, particularly where it regards opinions rather than facts :P

You may not, and to be fair, I don't think I've ever seen you randomly chirp in on my phrasing without actually having something to add to conversation. However, if you're ever bored, go shuffle through a few pages past most of my posts. You'll see all kinds of random driveby posts that consist of nothing more than quoting something I said, and posting "landwhales? Really?"

It's like trying to have a discussion with adults, and every few minutes someone's obnoxious kid will pipe in with "d'awwww, he sez teh derty werds". The first time it's funny. The second time, it's cute. Everything after that is just irritating.

I say all of this as a person who has been both obese and underweight and in both cases had different physical or mental health problems related to my weight and lifestyle. Also I'm speaking specifically about the media I am exposed to which comes predominantly from Australia and the US. I know media and beauty standards aren't the same everywhere.

I think that society glorifies thinness on an unhealthy level, and the media contributes to this. I'm not implying that there's anything unhealthy about having a thin figure, just that the way it is viewed and the way people who aren't thin are treated often goes beyond promoting health/wellness.

At the same time, it is true that obesity rates are increasing. And I think while one one hand there is this misrepresentation of being very thin in and of itself as something everyone should strive for, there's also this kind of normalisation of the fact that obesity is more and more common, and a normalisation of really high sugar foods being more prominent in people's diets. There's also evidence suggesting that these foods have addictive properties and that many people who are overweight or obese (and many who aren't) are actually addicted to food, particularly triggered by high GI foods. Media also promotes these foods.

So there are kind of different unhealthy messages going on at once.

I don't think laws on the media will fix this. Even if it were enforceable, which it isn't. Even if a federal law placed restrictions on broadcasting and other traditional media, it doesn't change the content people produce or view on the internet. And no I don't think a Government should block access to images of fashion models, ect, on the internet. Just as I don't think we should ban alcohol ads or films depicting drug use.

At risk of sounding super idealistic, only education can really address this.

People get angry about the Fat Positive Movement but really I think it's a reaction to mainstream media, in absence of any consistent or quality public education about the artificial nature of media and the distinction between aiming to have a good diet and aiming to be as thin as possible. I don't think it's a healthy movement, but has anyone noticed the number of people who react with shock/disgust at Fat Positive blogs yet have never once said anything about the saturation of thin bodies in other media? (Again, not implying that those people are unhealthy, but when almost every image features particularity thin women, it does send a message).

I'd rather see an incentive (I don't know what) to feature a range of healthy body types more often, than a law that tries to restrict what body types can be shown.

Weak mindedness should be addressed by a counselor, not by changing a generally acceptable environment.

Gallowmere1984 wrote: »

tomteboda wrote: »

I don't generally care how people phrase things, including you @Gallowmere1984 . What is said is generally far more important than how it's put, in my opinion. I just took issue with the self-analysis, particularly where it regards opinions rather than facts :P

You may not, and to be fair, I don't think I've ever seen you randomly chirp in on my phrasing without actually having something to add to conversation. However, if you're ever bored, go shuffle through a few pages past most of my posts. You'll see all kinds of random driveby posts that consist of nothing more than quoting something I said, and posting "landwhales? Really?"

It's like trying to have a discussion with adults, and every few minutes someone's obnoxious kid will pipe in with "d'awwww, he sez teh derty werds". The first time it's funny. The second time, it's cute. Everything after that is just irritating.

I'll admit I get thrown off by people who get emotion or offended by the posts of strangers on the internet. I really don't understand those who get offended on the behalf of others who themselves did not express that they were offended. But clearly that does happen and if nothing else sometimes it's worth self-censoring just to avoid having to deal with it provided your intent or message isn't somehow lost by changing your wording.

Aaron_K123 wrote: »

Gallowmere1984 wrote: »

tomteboda wrote: »

I don't generally care how people phrase things, including you @Gallowmere1984 . What is said is generally far more important than how it's put, in my opinion. I just took issue with the self-analysis, particularly where it regards opinions rather than facts :P

You may not, and to be fair, I don't think I've ever seen you randomly chirp in on my phrasing without actually having something to add to conversation. However, if you're ever bored, go shuffle through a few pages past most of my posts. You'll see all kinds of random driveby posts that consist of nothing more than quoting something I said, and posting "landwhales? Really?"

It's like trying to have a discussion with adults, and every few minutes someone's obnoxious kid will pipe in with "d'awwww, he sez teh derty werds". The first time it's funny. The second time, it's cute. Everything after that is just irritating.

I'll admit I get thrown off by people who get emotion or offended by the posts of strangers on the internet. I really don't understand those who get offended on the behalf of others who themselves did not express that they were offended. But clearly that does happen and if nothing else sometimes it's worth self-censoring just to avoid having to deal with it provided your intent or message isn't somehow lost by changing your wording.

Gallowmere1984 wrote: »

Aaron_K123 wrote: »

Gallowmere1984 wrote: »

tomteboda wrote: »

I don't generally care how people phrase things, including you @Gallowmere1984 . What is said is generally far more important than how it's put, in my opinion. I just took issue with the self-analysis, particularly where it regards opinions rather than facts :P

You may not, and to be fair, I don't think I've ever seen you randomly chirp in on my phrasing without actually having something to add to conversation. However, if you're ever bored, go shuffle through a few pages past most of my posts. You'll see all kinds of random driveby posts that consist of nothing more than quoting something I said, and posting "landwhales? Really?"

It's like trying to have a discussion with adults, and every few minutes someone's obnoxious kid will pipe in with "d'awwww, he sez teh derty werds". The first time it's funny. The second time, it's cute. Everything after that is just irritating.

I'll admit I get thrown off by people who get emotion or offended by the posts of strangers on the internet. I really don't understand those who get offended on the behalf of others who themselves did not express that they were offended. But clearly that does happen and if nothing else sometimes it's worth self-censoring just to avoid having to deal with it provided your intent or message isn't somehow lost by changing your wording.

That is a fair point, and something that I've been working on. In many of my more recent and more lengthy posts, it wasn't uncommon for me to find myself spending more time altering word choices than the original write up took.

These are the reasons why I rarely respond to any posts.

I find it too time consuming trying to word my responses in a manner that not only is considerate of others but also expresses my true thoughts. By the time I am through "wording" a response that is not offensive to "some"...I have usually lost my meaning.

I just haven't been able to find a way to tell someone that they are an "being an idiot" without being in some way offensive. So...I just read and move on.

As far as why people are offended for others(strangers on the internet)...well I have theories on that but I suppose that expressing those would be off topic.

Annie_01 wrote: »

Aaron_K123 wrote: »

Gallowmere1984 wrote: »

tomteboda wrote: »

I don't generally care how people phrase things, including you @Gallowmere1984 . What is said is generally far more important than how it's put, in my opinion. I just took issue with the self-analysis, particularly where it regards opinions rather than facts :P

You may not, and to be fair, I don't think I've ever seen you randomly chirp in on my phrasing without actually having something to add to conversation. However, if you're ever bored, go shuffle through a few pages past most of my posts. You'll see all kinds of random driveby posts that consist of nothing more than quoting something I said, and posting "landwhales? Really?"

It's like trying to have a discussion with adults, and every few minutes someone's obnoxious kid will pipe in with "d'awwww, he sez teh derty werds". The first time it's funny. The second time, it's cute. Everything after that is just irritating.

I'll admit I get thrown off by people who get emotion or offended by the posts of strangers on the internet. I really don't understand those who get offended on the behalf of others who themselves did not express that they were offended. But clearly that does happen and if nothing else sometimes it's worth self-censoring just to avoid having to deal with it provided your intent or message isn't somehow lost by changing your wording.

Gallowmere1984 wrote: »

Aaron_K123 wrote: »

Gallowmere1984 wrote: »

tomteboda wrote: »

I don't generally care how people phrase things, including you @Gallowmere1984 . What is said is generally far more important than how it's put, in my opinion. I just took issue with the self-analysis, particularly where it regards opinions rather than facts :P

You may not, and to be fair, I don't think I've ever seen you randomly chirp in on my phrasing without actually having something to add to conversation. However, if you're ever bored, go shuffle through a few pages past most of my posts. You'll see all kinds of random driveby posts that consist of nothing more than quoting something I said, and posting "landwhales? Really?"

It's like trying to have a discussion with adults, and every few minutes someone's obnoxious kid will pipe in with "d'awwww, he sez teh derty werds". The first time it's funny. The second time, it's cute. Everything after that is just irritating.

I'll admit I get thrown off by people who get emotion or offended by the posts of strangers on the internet. I really don't understand those who get offended on the behalf of others who themselves did not express that they were offended. But clearly that does happen and if nothing else sometimes it's worth self-censoring just to avoid having to deal with it provided your intent or message isn't somehow lost by changing your wording.

That is a fair point, and something that I've been working on. In many of my more recent and more lengthy posts, it wasn't uncommon for me to find myself spending more time altering word choices than the original write up took.

These are the reasons why I rarely respond to any posts.

I find it too time consuming trying to word my responses in a manner that not only is considerate of others but also expresses my true thoughts. By the time I am through "wording" a response that is not offensive to "some"...I have usually lost my meaning.

I just haven't been able to find a way to tell someone that they are an "being an idiot" without being in some way offensive. So...I just read and move on.

As far as why people are offended for others(strangers on the internet)...well I have theories on that but I suppose that expressing those would be off topic.

I have theories too, but they'd probably be offensive ;-)

Aaron_K123 wrote: »

Gallowmere1984 wrote: »

Aaron_K123 wrote: »

Gallowmere1984 wrote: »

tomteboda wrote: »

I don't generally care how people phrase things, including you @Gallowmere1984 . What is said is generally far more important than how it's put, in my opinion. I just took issue with the self-analysis, particularly where it regards opinions rather than facts :P

You may not, and to be fair, I don't think I've ever seen you randomly chirp in on my phrasing without actually having something to add to conversation. However, if you're ever bored, go shuffle through a few pages past most of my posts. You'll see all kinds of random driveby posts that consist of nothing more than quoting something I said, and posting "landwhales? Really?"

It's like trying to have a discussion with adults, and every few minutes someone's obnoxious kid will pipe in with "d'awwww, he sez teh derty werds". The first time it's funny. The second time, it's cute. Everything after that is just irritating.

I'll admit I get thrown off by people who get emotion or offended by the posts of strangers on the internet. I really don't understand those who get offended on the behalf of others who themselves did not express that they were offended. But clearly that does happen and if nothing else sometimes it's worth self-censoring just to avoid having to deal with it provided your intent or message isn't somehow lost by changing your wording.

That is a fair point, and something that I've been working on. In many of my more recent and more lengthy posts, it wasn't uncommon for me to find myself spending more time altering word choices than the original write up took.

Yeah it certainly does take more work. To me its a matter of whether I just want my opinion heard and am using someone elses comment as a reason to voice my opinion on the matter (in which case if they are offended whoopty-*kitten*-doo, its not reasonable to expect me to tailor my own opinion to not offend a particular person) OR if I am trying to really reach someone and engage them in conversation in which case offending them is a quick way to make the defensive and no longer really listening.

For me, as stated previously, it's usually not the person I am addressing who gets all butthurt about how I put things. It's usually just some random driveby with an itchy finger for the report button, and a desire to quickly voice how offended they are, before disappearing back into the land of "no one cares".

Unfortunately, it often ends up with posts getting deleted, which completely wrecks the flow of the conversation that was being had.

We have enough laws, we don't need more.
That is all government seems it is good for...to make criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens.

leanjogreen18 wrote: »

I think there is a difference in calling someone out and calling someone a name. There doesn't need to be name calling to get a point across. You don't need to censor yourself too much to not call people names.

I've learned the most from snarky and what some would call "mean" posts. But I can't get past the name calling, that sounds childish to me and takes away from the intent of the post.

ETA - Some would call me a "land whale" when I'm out and about at the store or whatever BUT you wouldn't know how hard I've been working to lose weight or how many times I've tried succeeded and only failed on maintaining.

Call people out for being ignorant, call people out for being slow at the grocery store or for whining about why they aren't losing weight cleaning their house but theres no need to call people names. It takes away from the very valuable information you are giving.

I've never reported anyone for what its worth.

I guess that is the part I don't understand and its hard to truly empathize with someone without having at least some understanding of why they feel the way they do.

I am a bit overweight, that is why I am here. If Gallow here called me a land whale in a comment on here I can easily state it would have no emotional impact on me whatsoever. Why? Because he isn't a close friend or family member to me that I have some deep running respect for. He is a total stranger. If he calls me a land-whale my thought isn't "how rude" my thought is "well that was a stupid thing for him to say" and I either move on or point out that was a stupid thing to say. The last thing I do is get hurt by a total stranger making a random flippant comment on the internet and if you are truly THAT sensitive that total strangers making flippant comments can ruin your day then most likely you shouldn't be actively participating in public forums on the internet.

Because that is how I feel I sort of assume that other people feel that way as well and am suprised when an adult gets offended by a stranger on the internet. For example I freely state that I don't have a deep running respect for Gallow fully expecting he isn't going to take any offense to that statement simply because I'm not a personal friend or family member to him. I just don't understand how people get so amazingly sensitive that they need total strangers praising them or remaining neutral to them all the time and are thrown off by a single stranger saying something negative. Why not just ignore it if you don't agree with it? Is it a requirement that everyone on earth like and respect us?

That brings up that second point that was mentioned earlier, its hard not to think that people who are offended are offended because they see truth in a statement and they don't like hearing it. If they really think its utterly wrong then why does it have ANY impact on them at all coming from a complete stranger?