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?
Replies
-
As a 90% sapiosexual, 10% quirky-aesthetics-preference kind of person myself, the whole idea of appearance being the core of sexiness seems kind of alien to me, when it comes to evaluating others. I literally have no idea whether I'm attracted to someone unless I actually know them personally.
Appearance is certainly a part of attraction/sexiness for me, but I've also met some "10s" who quickly became "2s" after I spent even 5 minutes talking to them. And vice-versa.
Just so we're clear, I wasn't referring to you - I was referring to OP as in the OP of the thread.(And I do know about the competition appearance vs. everyday appearance side of it. I was trying to talk about common perceptions of bodybuilding aesthetics.)
2 -
Bodybuilding is a competition, and from what I've seen, outside of fitness related ads/materials, isn't a big "media" issue. Competition, IMO, is good. Therefore, I have no issues with bodybuilding. Personally have zero interest in it (or looking like a body builder), but should everyone get a virtual participation trophy just because they "can't" achieve that look? Silly!!
As for protecting competitors health, this whole idea of the bubble wrap society and "saving" people from themselves rubs me so wrong. As a motorcyclist and motorcycle racer, there are plenty of Americans who think the sport is "too dangerous." Who cares? I'm not endangering you or your family in any way shape or form. If someone wants to build their body up and cut their fat for the sake of competition and achieve a certain look, all the more power to them. It's a pretty niche group and I don't think it has that much of an impact on society.
As for the idea of false/unacheivable ideals, Photoshop is the worst enemy there. Even the models don't look like themselves. I do, on some level, have issues with that, but that's not real people anymore. If the models were left as they actually are (with some makeup of course), fine - they're still humans and can look good doing what they do even if my body isn't that shape.2 -
HoneyBadger155 wrote: »As for the idea of false/unacheivable ideals, Photoshop is the worst enemy there. Even the models don't look like themselves. I do, on some level, have issues with that, but that's not real people anymore. If the models were left as they actually are (with some makeup of course), fine - they're still humans and can look good doing what they do even if my body isn't that shape.
It's probably not entirely outside the scope of discussion to mention that many actors/actresses/models use more steroids/PEDs/pharmaceutical cutting agents to look like they do than any natural/recreational bodybuilder has ever even thought of. Anybody who believes otherwise is incredibly naïve.
When Joe Actor gets that Hercules role and transforms from "dad bod" into "god bod" in 3 months for that role, he didn't do that just by diet and lifting weights. It was a great test, so he ate clen, tren'ed hard, anavar slacked off.6 -
HoneyBadger155 wrote: »As for the idea of false/unacheivable ideals, Photoshop is the worst enemy there. Even the models don't look like themselves. I do, on some level, have issues with that, but that's not real people anymore. If the models were left as they actually are (with some makeup of course), fine - they're still humans and can look good doing what they do even if my body isn't that shape.
It's probably not entirely outside the scope of discussion to mention that many actors/actresses/models use more steroids/PEDs/pharmaceutical cutting agents to look like they do than any natural/recreational bodybuilder has ever even thought of. Anybody who believes otherwise is incredibly naïve.
When Joe Actor gets that Hercules role and transforms from "dad bod" into "god bod" in 3 months for that role, he didn't do that just by diet and lifting weights. It was a great test, so he ate clen, tren'ed hard, anavar slacked off.
And then they still do the spray-on muscle definition makeup to enhance the look, even before the Photoshop phase. It's fakey mcFaker fakerama fakerdom, on all fronts.2 -
I can't help but think this is more a personal issue for you than a philosophical debate you were having with someone?
You said in your OP that you weren't sure what to think and were curious what we thought, but you seem pretty darn sure to me and very quick to just tell everyone we're wrong.
Whether you want to believe it or not, there are many in this thread who struggled/struggle with body image, who have been obese, unhealthy, weak. Some have transformed themselves, some are still working on it. All for slightly different reasons and motives, I'd guess. We are all speaking from experience.
The truth is I didn't agree with the person I was debating this with, but want more perspectives on it, and am trying to hold my opinion loosely enough to change my mind in the face of new info. If I came in here and said, hey guys, doesn't this seem wrong to you??? That would introduce a lot of bias. Instead, I'm trying to embody and defend their point of view for the sake of discussion and explore all the corners. My own experience with body positivity is incredibly limited -- I've always been athletic-looking, tall, and fit. For all of my adult life, I've loved my body. I love it incrementally more as I get fitter and see it as a kindness I'm doing to myself. I work at it but not nearly as hard as many people. I'm not a bodybuilder by definition, but aesthetics are definitely 50% of my motivation. But I'm willing to entertain the idea that I should re-examine the aesthetics part.2 -
I can't help but think this is more a personal issue for you than a philosophical debate you were having with someone?
You said in your OP that you weren't sure what to think and were curious what we thought, but you seem pretty darn sure to me and very quick to just tell everyone we're wrong.
Whether you want to believe it or not, there are many in this thread who struggled/struggle with body image, who have been obese, unhealthy, weak. Some have transformed themselves, some are still working on it. All for slightly different reasons and motives, I'd guess. We are all speaking from experience.
The truth is I didn't agree with the person I was debating this with, but want more perspectives on it, and am trying to hold my opinion loosely enough to change my mind in the face of new info. If I came in here and said, hey guys, doesn't this seem wrong to you??? That would introduce a lot of bias. Instead, I'm trying to embody and defend their point of view for the sake of discussion and explore all the corners. My own experience with body positivity is incredibly limited -- I've always been athletic-looking, tall, and fit. For all of my adult life, I've loved my body. I love it incrementally more as I get fitter and see it as a kindness I'm doing to myself. I work at it but not nearly as hard as many people. I'm not a bodybuilder by definition, but aesthetics are definitely 50% of my motivation. But I'm willing to entertain the idea that I should re-examine the aesthetics part.
Asking this on a fitness site also has an inherent bias.
And there is nothing wrong with being motivated by aesthetics, so long as whatever you're doing to achieve those goals is done in a healthy (both mentally and physically) manner.5 -
HoneyBadger155 wrote: »As for the idea of false/unacheivable ideals, Photoshop is the worst enemy there. Even the models don't look like themselves. I do, on some level, have issues with that, but that's not real people anymore. If the models were left as they actually are (with some makeup of course), fine - they're still humans and can look good doing what they do even if my body isn't that shape.
It's probably not entirely outside the scope of discussion to mention that many actors/actresses/models use more steroids/PEDs/pharmaceutical cutting agents to look like they do than any natural/recreational bodybuilder has ever even thought of. Anybody who believes otherwise is incredibly naïve.
When Joe Actor gets that Hercules role and transforms from "dad bod" into "god bod" in 3 months for that role, he didn't do that just by diet and lifting weights. It was a great test, so he ate clen, tren'ed hard, anavar slacked off.
Nah, brah, he just used technology.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
I don't think a marathon runner is getting more functional value than a bodybuilder is. The average person has a better chance of needing to pick up something heavy than needing to run for two hours straight :huh:
It's all useless until the zombies come . . . we'll have the last laugh then.
My plan is to hide at Sam's Club. Lots of food and the zombies can't get in because they don't have membership cards.11 -
cmriverside wrote: »Here's an idea.
Stop watching so much TV.
Stop buying Cosmo.
Stop believing that you have to live in fear and -
Comparison is the thief of joy.
If only it were that easy... ha
I do none of those things. But chocking every problem in life up to individual virtue is such a cop out. Not everything is as easy for them as it is for you. Circumstances are different.
And who says it's easy for those who call for individual virtue?
It's not like we are not bombarded with the messages, not to mention the criticisms that "it's easy for us."
It's not easy. We just choose to do it. Excuses do not yield results. I didn't make excuses when I was diagnosed with cancer. I simply took on the course of treatment and decided to live.
When I was suspected of T2D, I didn't just say give me the drugs, and I'll struggle through my fate. I said what do I need to do to address the situation.
The ads for Pizza and Burgers and Ice Cream didn't go away. I just made the choice to do the work.
It's never easy. Simple maybe, but not easy.4 -
singingflutelady wrote: »You are the only one in control of if you feel inferior or not.Yeah, but it makes people feel better than having to accept responsibility for their own actions.
That's kind of BS. In the end we're all in control of ourselves, but for person A's circumstances, maintaining that control may be 100x harder than for person B's circumstances. For example, let's say you were sexually abused as a child. The trauma you've experience from that may distort your body image in ways that you or I will never understand. Personal responsibility is only part of the equation, no matter how much you'd like to stick your head in the ground and pretend every success you've achieved came to you purely on merit. It seems worthwhile to value the fact that we all come from different places, and our environment and circumstances matter.
I don't think anyone is pretending that their success is solely from merit.
Success comes from overcoming obstacles. It just doesn't happen.
One sure path to failure is to excuse not trying.
Yes, one can be abused or raped. The successful person is the one who testifies against their abuser or rapist and doesn't let the perpetrator have power over them. I personally know a rape victim. She was the only one of a dozen or so victims willing to testify against her attacker. She chose to not let him win. The others remained victims.
Bad things happen. They happen to all of us. What we do determines if we succeed or fail.6 -
HoneyBadger155 wrote: »As for the idea of false/unacheivable ideals, Photoshop is the worst enemy there. Even the models don't look like themselves. I do, on some level, have issues with that, but that's not real people anymore. If the models were left as they actually are (with some makeup of course), fine - they're still humans and can look good doing what they do even if my body isn't that shape.
It's probably not entirely outside the scope of discussion to mention that many actors/actresses/models use more steroids/PEDs/pharmaceutical cutting agents to look like they do than any natural/recreational bodybuilder has ever even thought of. Anybody who believes otherwise is incredibly naïve.
When Joe Actor gets that Hercules role and transforms from "dad bod" into "god bod" in 3 months for that role, he didn't do that just by diet and lifting weights. It was a great test, so he ate clen, tren'ed hard, anavar slacked off.
And then they still do the spray-on muscle definition makeup to enhance the look, even before the Photoshop phase. It's fakey mcFaker fakerama fakerdom, on all fronts.
They are trying to look their best for the situation. Do you put on makeup and style your hair before a big event or a family portrait? Isn't that just as "fakey, mcFaker"? Or do you just show up lke you roll out of bed?
3 -
Packerjohn wrote: »HoneyBadger155 wrote: »As for the idea of false/unacheivable ideals, Photoshop is the worst enemy there. Even the models don't look like themselves. I do, on some level, have issues with that, but that's not real people anymore. If the models were left as they actually are (with some makeup of course), fine - they're still humans and can look good doing what they do even if my body isn't that shape.
It's probably not entirely outside the scope of discussion to mention that many actors/actresses/models use more steroids/PEDs/pharmaceutical cutting agents to look like they do than any natural/recreational bodybuilder has ever even thought of. Anybody who believes otherwise is incredibly naïve.
When Joe Actor gets that Hercules role and transforms from "dad bod" into "god bod" in 3 months for that role, he didn't do that just by diet and lifting weights. It was a great test, so he ate clen, tren'ed hard, anavar slacked off.
And then they still do the spray-on muscle definition makeup to enhance the look, even before the Photoshop phase. It's fakey mcFaker fakerama fakerdom, on all fronts.
They are trying to look their best for the situation. Do you put on makeup and style your hair before a big event or a family portrait? Isn't that just as "fakey, mcFaker"? Or do you just show up lke you roll out of bed?
I do not style my hair. It's unstylable. I have it cut short, and hope for the best. I never wear makeup. Not worth the time. But there's nothing wrong with people styling their hair or wearing makeup, IMO.
That's irrelevant, though. The point is that some people are comparing themseves unfavorably to a complete illusion that goes far beyond the enhancements that normal people routinely make.
For the actors, that's their job, and I don't fault them for doing it. A convincing fakeness is the whole point of acting. I don't think it's morally wrong or anything close. But it's fake. Way fake. And intelligent audience members realize this.
3 -
tbright1965 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »You are the only one in control of if you feel inferior or not.Yeah, but it makes people feel better than having to accept responsibility for their own actions.
That's kind of BS. In the end we're all in control of ourselves, but for person A's circumstances, maintaining that control may be 100x harder than for person B's circumstances. For example, let's say you were sexually abused as a child. The trauma you've experience from that may distort your body image in ways that you or I will never understand. Personal responsibility is only part of the equation, no matter how much you'd like to stick your head in the ground and pretend every success you've achieved came to you purely on merit. It seems worthwhile to value the fact that we all come from different places, and our environment and circumstances matter.
I don't think anyone is pretending that their success is solely from merit.
Success comes from overcoming obstacles. It just doesn't happen.
One sure path to failure is to excuse not trying.
Yes, one can be abused or raped. The successful person is the one who testifies against their abuser or rapist and doesn't let the perpetrator have power over them. I personally know a rape victim. She was the only one of a dozen or so victims willing to testify against her attacker. She chose to not let him win. The others remained victims.
Bad things happen. They happen to all of us. What we do determines if we succeed or fail.
Off topic. Not every victim wants to testify because many of them see it as a second trauma. You can't fault people for choosing what they feel is best for them.
13 -
tbright1965 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »You are the only one in control of if you feel inferior or not.Yeah, but it makes people feel better than having to accept responsibility for their own actions.
That's kind of BS. In the end we're all in control of ourselves, but for person A's circumstances, maintaining that control may be 100x harder than for person B's circumstances. For example, let's say you were sexually abused as a child. The trauma you've experience from that may distort your body image in ways that you or I will never understand. Personal responsibility is only part of the equation, no matter how much you'd like to stick your head in the ground and pretend every success you've achieved came to you purely on merit. It seems worthwhile to value the fact that we all come from different places, and our environment and circumstances matter.
I don't think anyone is pretending that their success is solely from merit.
Success comes from overcoming obstacles. It just doesn't happen.
One sure path to failure is to excuse not trying.
Yes, one can be abused or raped. The successful person is the one who testifies against their abuser or rapist and doesn't let the perpetrator have power over them. I personally know a rape victim. She was the only one of a dozen or so victims willing to testify against her attacker. She chose to not let him win. The others remained victims.
Bad things happen. They happen to all of us. What we do determines if we succeed or fail.
Side note to the thread. Pursuing prosecution in abuse and rape cases is often a harrowing ordeal, and isn't the only way victims have of not letting their abusers/attackers have of letting them no longer have control over their lives.
Saying that, I will strongly push back on the idea that we don't have responsibility for maintaining control no matter how hard it is. The journey towards being able to exert that control might take someone who has face abuse and assault (I speak from experience on both of these issues) longer, but the responsibility towards loving yourself enough to care for yourself is there.
Two people can hold the same position in the same place of work. One guy lives 3 blocks away and can get there by riding a bike. The guy who works next to him has to take 2 buses and a subway and it takes him 90 minutes of carefully timed connections to get there. They both still have the same responsibility to show up on time.12 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
You're drawing false conclusions. Feeling inferior about how much you can squat is no different than feeling inferior about how well you can write, or how well you can speak, or how well you can play basketball. Feeling inferior because who you are and what you look like does not conform to societal ideals is not the same.
Here's where I'm having trouble following your logic - you are assigning virtue to motives rather than actual accomplishments. How does a power-lifter who lifts purely because they like the way they look when they're at the top of their game fit into the virtue/selfish paradigm you've created?
I haven't created any such paradigm. You all are taking this so personally. Forget about the individual. You can do whatever the F you want. This is a philosophical question about whether society is better or worse off from bodybuilding existing at all. Not banning, not taking away your rights or your Fing guns. The question is just whether bodybuilding is a good thing, considering the aesthetic ideals it collectively promotes and how that impacts people in the world on the whole (e.g. boys and adolescents who feel like to be a "man" they need to look like Arnold).
You're actually debating whether or not society is better or worse if there is any achievement that can't be replicated by all.
Not at all. Again, I'm debating whether we should consider something an "achievement" as a society that promotes unrealistic body image. Yes, idealized body images are not attainable by all, just like elite athletic performance or elite academic performance. But neither of those two things have anything to do with body image, which seems to be a serious psychological problem in our society. Don't conflate that with "everyone gets a trophy" arguments. You could, however, compare it to beauty pageants.
People who bodybuild don't need me to consider it an "achievement." They aren't looking for any validation or approval from me. Maybe the rest of us should take a page from their book and keep our eyes on our own work.
People who aren't interested in bodybuilding should feel free to skip it. But why does that cross the line into insisting that others must quit too?5 -
This whole thing is kind of silly. As has been mentioned several times, the physique of a bodybuilder is not promoting an unrealistic body image because it's not even remotely what is considered the societal ideal.
I've been in and out of gyms since I was 15/16 years old and know very few people who actually do bodybuilding whether for recreation or for competition. I know very few people who want the physique of a bodybuilder.0 -
I was prompted by a responder to take a look back at the OP. The OP claims to be talking about bodybuilding, but isn't actually talking about bodybuilding:
- 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.
So, it seems to me that OP is talking about regular people eating and working out mostly for aesthetic reasons.
Somehow, the people who do this - who are seemingly just regular people (not actual "bodybuilders" in the strict sense), who are doing something that very nearly anyone could do, just like regular people can invest time/money to dress nicely, style their hair, wear makeup, get beautiful tattoos, etc. - these people are doing something that is bad for society, unlike those who do the dress-hair-makeup-tattoo-etc. stuff.
Or maybe some of those things are bad, too. Like if the person that the OP is fronting for styles their hair, but doesn't wear makeup, I'm gonna guess that hair styling isn't bad for society, but makeup is. It's just a guess, I admit. I'm not a betting woman, but that's the way I'd bet if I had to.
And somehow, in the case of "bodybuilding" that isn't actually bodybuilding (because not extreme), it's not how the muscular person looks that's the problem, because powerlifting or lifting for strength or health is apparently OK to do. It's their motives that make it bad for society, and trigger people who believe they can't look like the muscular people (but don't really know enough about getting muscular to realize that they pretty much could, if they wanted to put in the time, which they don't).
Yes, the whole thing is silly.
7 -
"The key difference is form over function."
... but they often go hand in hand with bodybuilding, unless we are talking the very extreme levels of the professional circuit where AAS use is mandatory to compete and guys are so huge they need assistance to wipe themselves.
I'll be honest - I don't lift for health reason. I lift and torture myself in the gym for purely aesthetic reasons. However, that doesn't mean that my results are purely aesthetic. I'm in the best shape of my life as a byproduct of those efforts. I never considered that I was destroying society as we know it. I always thought that would be the Zombie Apocalypse. Maybe the books and movies got it all wrong and patient zero was some bodybuilder bro who forgot to wipe down the bench. 6 -
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.
Let's try an analogy.
Is JS Bach bad for society because some people can't write such beautiful music? Or is society richer for having his music? Could society be richer for having different types of people?
And is it really coming from a place of compassion to say "you're wrong to do something you enjoy because I can't do the same thing?"6 -
I was prompted by a responder to take a look back at the OP. The OP claims to be talking about bodybuilding, but isn't actually talking about bodybuilding:
- 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.
So, it seems to me that OP is talking about regular people eating and working out mostly for aesthetic reasons.
Somehow, the people who do this - who are seemingly just regular people (not actual "bodybuilders" in the strict sense), who are doing something that very nearly anyone could do, just like regular people can invest time/money to dress nicely, style their hair, wear makeup, get beautiful tattoos, etc. - these people are doing something that is bad for society, unlike those who do the dress-hair-makeup-tattoo-etc. stuff.
Or maybe some of those things are bad, too. Like if the person that the OP is fronting for styles their hair, but doesn't wear makeup, I'm gonna guess that hair styling isn't bad for society, but makeup is. It's just a guess, I admit. I'm not a betting woman, but that's the way I'd bet if I had to.
And somehow, in the case of "bodybuilding" that isn't actually bodybuilding (because not extreme), it's not how the muscular person looks that's the problem, because powerlifting or lifting for strength or health is apparently OK to do. It's their motives that make it bad for society, and trigger people who believe they can't look like the muscular people (but don't really know enough about getting muscular to realize that they pretty much could, if they wanted to put in the time, which they don't).
Yes, the whole thing is silly.
Yeah, I tried to make this point earlier and got sworn at (by the OP). I agree it's silly, especially the part about limiting the debate to bodybuilding in isolation.
2 -
I was prompted by a responder to take a look back at the OP. The OP claims to be talking about bodybuilding, but isn't actually talking about bodybuilding:
- 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.
So, it seems to me that OP is talking about regular people eating and working out mostly for aesthetic reasons.
Somehow, the people who do this - who are seemingly just regular people (not actual "bodybuilders" in the strict sense), who are doing something that very nearly anyone could do, just like regular people can invest time/money to dress nicely, style their hair, wear makeup, get beautiful tattoos, etc. - these people are doing something that is bad for society, unlike those who do the dress-hair-makeup-tattoo-etc. stuff.
Or maybe some of those things are bad, too. Like if the person that the OP is fronting for styles their hair, but doesn't wear makeup, I'm gonna guess that hair styling isn't bad for society, but makeup is. It's just a guess, I admit. I'm not a betting woman, but that's the way I'd bet if I had to.
And somehow, in the case of "bodybuilding" that isn't actually bodybuilding (because not extreme), it's not how the muscular person looks that's the problem, because powerlifting or lifting for strength or health is apparently OK to do. It's their motives that make it bad for society, and trigger people who believe they can't look like the muscular people (but don't really know enough about getting muscular to realize that they pretty much could, if they wanted to put in the time, which they don't).
Yes, the whole thing is silly.
It's not only silly, but can you tell just by looking at someone whether they are motivated by form or function? Do you go up and ask "Excuse me, I want to ask why you have a nice body so I know whether or not to feel shamed by you?"
And even saying that, people are complicated creatures. It's quite possible, and hear me out here, to be motivated by both. Crazy talk, I know.10 -
Somehow, the people who do this - who are seemingly just regular people (not actual "bodybuilders" in the strict sense), who are doing something that very nearly anyone could do, just like regular people can invest time/money to dress nicely, style their hair, wear makeup, get beautiful tattoos, etc. - these people are doing something that is bad for society, unlike those who do the dress-hair-makeup-tattoo-etc. stuff.
Or maybe some of those things are bad, too. Like if the person that the OP is fronting for styles their hair, but doesn't wear makeup, I'm gonna guess that hair styling isn't bad for society, but makeup is. It's just a guess, I admit. I'm not a betting woman, but that's the way I'd bet if I had to.
Tattoos are a great analogy, since they're done for aesthetic reasons ("aesthetic" as perceived in the eye of the person getting them) and have no real function.
Using the same logic as the bodybuilding thing, people should not get tattoos because it could be 'triggering' to people who can't afford them or are afraid of the pain involved. Therefore, tattoos are damaging society, nobody should ever get them, and people who have them should have them removed.7 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I was prompted by a responder to take a look back at the OP. The OP claims to be talking about bodybuilding, but isn't actually talking about bodybuilding:
- 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.
So, it seems to me that OP is talking about regular people eating and working out mostly for aesthetic reasons.
Somehow, the people who do this - who are seemingly just regular people (not actual "bodybuilders" in the strict sense), who are doing something that very nearly anyone could do, just like regular people can invest time/money to dress nicely, style their hair, wear makeup, get beautiful tattoos, etc. - these people are doing something that is bad for society, unlike those who do the dress-hair-makeup-tattoo-etc. stuff.
Or maybe some of those things are bad, too. Like if the person that the OP is fronting for styles their hair, but doesn't wear makeup, I'm gonna guess that hair styling isn't bad for society, but makeup is. It's just a guess, I admit. I'm not a betting woman, but that's the way I'd bet if I had to.
And somehow, in the case of "bodybuilding" that isn't actually bodybuilding (because not extreme), it's not how the muscular person looks that's the problem, because powerlifting or lifting for strength or health is apparently OK to do. It's their motives that make it bad for society, and trigger people who believe they can't look like the muscular people (but don't really know enough about getting muscular to realize that they pretty much could, if they wanted to put in the time, which they don't).
Yes, the whole thing is silly.
It's not only silly, but can you tell just by looking at someone whether they are motivated by form or function? Do you go up and ask "Excuse me, I want to ask why you have a nice body so I know whether or not to feel shamed by you?"
And even saying that, people are complicated creatures. It's quite possible, and hear me out here, to be motivated by both. Crazy talk, I know.
Ansel Adams was so motivated by form, he tried to shape the world of function for the sake of form. He went before Congress and said we have to preserve Yosemite Valley because it's so beautiful. He famously brought his photos with him to show how special the place was.
There is a place for beauty in the world.8 -
NorthCascades wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I was prompted by a responder to take a look back at the OP. The OP claims to be talking about bodybuilding, but isn't actually talking about bodybuilding:
- 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.
So, it seems to me that OP is talking about regular people eating and working out mostly for aesthetic reasons.
Somehow, the people who do this - who are seemingly just regular people (not actual "bodybuilders" in the strict sense), who are doing something that very nearly anyone could do, just like regular people can invest time/money to dress nicely, style their hair, wear makeup, get beautiful tattoos, etc. - these people are doing something that is bad for society, unlike those who do the dress-hair-makeup-tattoo-etc. stuff.
Or maybe some of those things are bad, too. Like if the person that the OP is fronting for styles their hair, but doesn't wear makeup, I'm gonna guess that hair styling isn't bad for society, but makeup is. It's just a guess, I admit. I'm not a betting woman, but that's the way I'd bet if I had to.
And somehow, in the case of "bodybuilding" that isn't actually bodybuilding (because not extreme), it's not how the muscular person looks that's the problem, because powerlifting or lifting for strength or health is apparently OK to do. It's their motives that make it bad for society, and trigger people who believe they can't look like the muscular people (but don't really know enough about getting muscular to realize that they pretty much could, if they wanted to put in the time, which they don't).
Yes, the whole thing is silly.
It's not only silly, but can you tell just by looking at someone whether they are motivated by form or function? Do you go up and ask "Excuse me, I want to ask why you have a nice body so I know whether or not to feel shamed by you?"
And even saying that, people are complicated creatures. It's quite possible, and hear me out here, to be motivated by both. Crazy talk, I know.
Ansel Adams was so motivated by form, he tried to shape the world of function for the sake of form. He went before Congress and said we have to preserve Yosemite Valley because it's so beautiful. He famously brought his photos with him to show how special the place was.
There is a place for beauty in the world.
This is a fantastic perspective, and a really perfect analogy!2 -
My friend told me about a trip to France. He talks about places where in World War 2, they lost the building, but they saved the art.2
-
Tattoos are a great analogy, since they're done for aesthetic reasons ("aesthetic" as perceived in the eye of the person getting them) and have no real function.
Using the same logic as the bodybuilding thing, people should not get tattoos because it could be 'triggering' to people who can't afford them or are afraid of the pain involved. Therefore, tattoos are damaging society, nobody should ever get them, and people who have them should have them removed.
Interesting post. I really dig tattoo art and a lot of really well done tattoo work on both men and women. I don't have any tattoos and don't feel left out because of it, I still like them. To me being body positive isn't about comparing oneself to some unattainable ideal no matter what your body type is. If you want to be in shape then do so, if you want to be come a competitive body builder then do so, first and foremost for yourself. Everyone is unique in their own way and many people have to work with what they have mentally and physically. Not everyone can be a competitive body builder and many don't aspire to be that. Being body positive is about all bodies of all types, shapes, sizes, and ages. Everyone's body will change as they age, it is just a fact of life, embrace it. If something inspires you to do better in life then use it as inspiration to make change.
What is funny about Ansel Adams, is that all of his photography was heavily manipulated in the dark room to produce the best looking image possible. He improved upon what was already a beautiful place in nature making it better in print. I love his work, knowing it was manipulated adds to the artistry of the work it doesn't detract from it or make society a worse place because of it.
In my opinion rigid conformity, narrow mindedness, and apathy are more damaging to society rather than something like body building.
5 -
What is funny about Ansel Adams, is that all of his photography was heavily manipulated in the dark room to produce the best looking image possible. He improved upon what was already a beautiful place in nature making it better in print. I love his work, knowing it was manipulated adds to the artistry of the work it doesn't detract from it or make society a worse place because of it.
That's hardly unique to Ansel Adams (I love his work as well). It would be extremely, extremely rare to find a photographer whose final product hasn't been enhanced in post-processing - whether digitally nowadays, or in the darkroom in the film days. Virtually no photographer shoots, develops/downloads and calls it good. In fact, the biggest reason that RAW is the chosen file format for most digital photographers is that it captures more data and allows much wider latitude in post-processing.
Which ties back into this thread in the sense that bodybuilders are doing the exact same thing photographers do (and musicians in the studio, etc.) - they're "post processing" their raw product to improve/enhance/refine it. And there's absolutely nothing morally or ethically wrong with that.6 -
No. It’s great for society.0
-
While you guys were arguing this I just did a bike ride for about 1500 calories. I'm sure society will survive.9
-
ttippie2000 wrote: »While you guys were arguing this I just did a bike ride for about 1500 calories. I'm sure society will survive.
How dare you? Now you've made me feel bad about myself. 5
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions