SOWPub Small Business Forums - "For Fear Of . . . "

SOWPub Small Business Forums (http://www.sowpub.com/forum/index.php)

- SOWPub Business Forum (http://www.sowpub.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=2)

- - "For Fear Of . . . " (http://www.sowpub.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1645)

Re: "For Fear Of . . . "

Great reply Michael. Very similar to the one I was going to make. Now I don't have to.

The whole "real people" argument was a loser from the get go...

I would like to hear an answer to that question as well. Who is "real"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelRoss (Post 5271)

Sandy,

Thanks for asking me questions...

Hmmm... I didn't know they were showing their designs on skeletons. I thought they were showing their designs on real living and breathing people. Did I miss a memo?

Sandy, I know what you are getting at despite your choice of words... that is... if the designers themselves, of their own free will and volition without coercion, decided to use models who were not as lean as they normally use, would I object?

I do not object to what any business does of its own free will and volition without coercion. As far as I am concerned, if they want to show their clothes on albino muslim dwarfs - is that minority enough for you? - then let them go right ahead.

My objection is two fold... one is the government, yes. But the other is YOUR line of thought with regards to cheering it on... Anyone who has ever lost a loved one or friend to INSERT THING YOU WANT TO BAN HERE, will undoubtedly cheer this forward-thinking move. Because That thinking leads to more and more freedoms taken away because YOU/WHOMEVER use such logic.

Look at your question to me... about using real people instead. How do you define Real, what is Real? Is Real what YOU think is a-ok?

How come no-one gets on Oprah's case about being Fat. Doesn't That send a wrong message that Fat is OK? I guess it's not so PC to attack fat (black women) people is it? I've seen how fatties are treated... they say, "I'm fat" and people quickly jump up to tell them they are not.

Onward...

Oh... nice political ploy. Don't like the question, change it. The old, "It's not about X, it's about XX" ploy.

Mighten the Mental Health - how you got This into it blows my mind - be Better improved by not molly-coddling fatso people and telling them they are fine when they obviously aren't. Might it be better served by not trying to stop people from expressing themselves without bloody fear of upsetting some imagined minority group?

WHERE are these places? If you like them so much, why don't you go live in them?

Oh, you mean how YOU seem to have an idea of how some should be, when they are a REAL person, just like all those do-gooders you are talking about?

How about, letting people BE how they want to BE, period. Without any pressure to be REAL... YOUR version of what Real is, of course.

See, THIS line of thinking is dangerous. Because it can justify Anything YOU want to have forced onto people as long as it fits YOUR view of how things should be. How quick you are to use the Force of the govt to coerce others into things YOU would like. Cheering the govt on in such freedom infringements is Always dangerous. Why can't you - and all those who want to change people to how they want them to be - just leave people alone.

Whatever it takes? Within reason? And WHO decides what is reasonable? Didn't a whole bunch of Jews die at a time when it seemed reasonable? How about the Spanish Inquisition? Seemed reasonable to them, at the time? I'm sure the 9/11 hijackers thought they were doing things within reason as well.

And who decides what is sanity and insane?

How about this...

Property Rights: What I own, earn, make, create, buy, trade for, inherit or are given is My Property and NO-ONE shall lay a claim on it, period.

An infringement on My Property without my permission is wrong.

These are my Individual Rights.

You cannot have Minority Group Rights without first having Individual Rights, as a Minority Group is made up of Individuals.

Now, having laid this Very Simple groundwork, is there Any minority group you can think of that Infringes upon the property rights of someone else?

Maybe I should ask, can you name a single minority group which does NOT infringe upon the property rights of others? Because I cannot name one single minority group, cause, collective, organisation, whatever they want to call themselves, that does Not infring upon my Individual Property Rights. And You would be cheering right along side some of them, going by what you've expressed here.

Michael Ross

Re: "For Fear Of . . . "

Michael, thanks for your reply. You obviously have much more time on your hands than I do...especially now..so I will not be replying otherwise.

I shared my views and my opinions. They stand. 'Nuf sed.

Sandi Bowman

Re: "For Fear Of . . . "

Let's stop lying to the women (+ men) of the world!

In our culture, slimmer *IS* better.

Men *DO* find slimmer women more attractive.

Store maniguins *ARE* all size 6 or lower, because (even) women find the sight of a "real" or "average" female form *LESS* attractive.

The arguement that this is all 'culturally iduced' is silly.

Of sourse it's 'culturally induced!' -- But so is using toilet paper (they don't in India), and eating with a knife and fork (they don't do that either, in India).

Eating cows and not dogs is also 'culturally induced."

So what?

That's just the way it is (in America, among white males).

Look at any list of 'most desirable women.' You'll immediately see that the ONLY THING they all have in common, is that they are ALL (without exception) THIN.

THIN. THIN. THIN.

Thinner just plain *IS* more attractive.

No way around it (in our culture).

Culture is like the tide. When it wants to change (naturally), it will. It cannot be FORCED to change by outside, artificial means (like what they are trying to do in Spain). Won't work.

Cheers!

-- TW

PS: Forcing the health issue won't work either. To bring this back to marketing -- it's all based on EMOTIONS. Men find slimmer women more attractive (in general), so women will do whatever it takes to make themselves more attractive to men -- health concerns b'damned. Similarly, women will NEVER stop wearing high heels. Just plain makes them look better -- EVEN THOUGH they are bad for you, health-wise.

Re: "For Fear Of . . . "

Thanks Michael for your thoughts.

Its not about Jason Bourne vs James Bond. Its not a one-off thing. Its more than that. Maybe a trend?

It can be seen in many areas. For eg: reality TV is replacing soap operas. Listen to the lyrics in top songs - they are so very different than lyrics from songs ten or 15 years ago.

Even business. Maybe its just a catch-phrase - but you can hear words like "corporate citizenship" more and more these days. (Note: I'm not saying that thats a good thing or a bad thing. Just an observation.)

By "real" I didn't mean the opposite of fake. May be authentic is a better word? Its close to meaning "not phony."

I didn't mean that the thin models are fake. But the context that they've created seems phony.

Its just like the difference between seeing reality TV and soap operas. Both are made up. But one appears to be more authentic than the other. More non-perfect. More raw maybe?

I don't have the right word in mind but I hope you understand what I'm trying to mean.

--

There was some research done that was about analyzing centerfold pictures in magazines like playboy to predict the economy. They'd found that the more muscular the models got - the worse the economy became.

This system wasn't a 100% thing. As in - there could be an odd month where the models could be very muscular and the economy would be doing extremely good too. But it was right more times than it was wrong.

(Sorry, couldn't find the research online. Just found smutty websites when I tried to search.)

And maybe thats the same thing happening with "Jason Bourne vs James Bond" or "reality TV vs soap operas" ? Could these things help us to predict how society-concious people will become?

Re: "For Fear Of . . . "

Sandi,

They stand inasmuch as being what you wrote. But obviously there were questions, which I asked, so what you wrote doesn't stand as being fully explanitory.

Pitty you should opt out of answering the questions, with Time as your excuse, while still having time to post other items. (Would have been better for you to not bother answering at all, instead of this weak response/excuse.)

But I do gather that you are quite happy to use the force of the govt to Take from other people for Your good works - no matter how it might effect those who are being taken from. So That point does stand as being self evident.

Michael Ross

Re: "For Fear Of . . . "

Ankesh,

Thanks for trying to clarify.

Let me first state... Models do NOT create any context. They are Hired by designers to be living Coat Hangers for garments. That is all.

Quote:

Could these things help us to predict how society-concious people will become?

Society-Concious? I don't understand this term would you explain it please?

I Do understand what you are getting at...

Bourne appears to be like the average guiy just trying to get by, while Bond is so much Not the average guy. So WE are viewers, have less empathy for Bond than Bourne... we can Relate more to Bourne on a personal level than Bond.

Regarding Reality TV - an oxymoron? - I think there is an element of Voyuerism at play there as well, which cannot be discounted. The same element that sees people in Apartment buildings look into an apartment if the front door is open, when they are walking down the hall. Also, when people see other people do silly things, they - the viewer - doesn't feel as bad about their own silly-thing-ness.

Michael Ross

Re: "For Fear Of . . . " from fearless...

Michael, don't go putting words in my mouth. I'll answer as much, or as little, as I see fit. I don't feel I have to explain myself ad nauseum just because somebody decides they want to ask. That's my choice to make, not yours or anyone else's.

If you read the other posts I made, you'd realize they're briefer than usual...just enough to be polite and professional to a legit business inquiry. I had MANY good excuses I could've posted and didn't (nobody else's business). You really have no idea.

I may be under a lot of **** right now but I don't need your crap so here it is back atcha...oh, and you, too, guest. Get lost for now! I'm in survival mode.

Sandi Bowman

Re: "For Fear Of . . . "

Michael and whomever else...

When I wrote my initial response on here, I was NOT at my best due to 102 degree temperature, waaaay too many problems that cropped up simultaneously, a huge horrid (damned near wrote me off) reaction to a medication, my son's car burning up about a hundred miles from his new school and upsetting everything totally, and, and, and....

The last thing in the world I needed was your nit-picking B.S. Sorry, buddy, but them's the facts...and you ain't heard even half the story, not even half. Trust me on that.

I wasn't kidding when I said I couldn't think or concentrate (try it with 2/3rds of your body covered with very itchy and bleeding hives and your brain in a drug response fog). Then, to add insult to injury, you totally ignored my request to be 'let off the hook' and my brief summary explanation as to circumstances. Thank heavens Jim was more understanding when I had to refuse his reasonable request. Thanks, Jim.

Time? Hell, yes, I didn't have the time when all hell broke loose at once!

I'm not going back through the thread and try to straighten out the obvious misunderstanding, missed-communications and so on. Let's just drop it. In view of things, it just isn't worth pursuing.

I seriously considered writing the forum off due to the lack of compassion and understanding expressed but, hell, we all have our moments. Guess that was just one of them for all of us.

Take care,

Sandi Bowman