This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 13 Jun 16 10.30pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by nickgusset
A study by A. Chris Downs and Sheila Harrison from Sex Roles: A Journal of Research found that one out of every 3.8 television commercials has a message about attractiveness in it. They determined that viewers receive roughly 5,260 advertisements related to attractiveness per year (or at least 14 per day). Of these messages, 1,850 of them are specifically about beauty.[5] In a study published in the Journal of Advertising, Marketing professors Mary Martin and James Gentry noted that images of blonde, thin women are predominant in mass media, and that these characteristics are often portrayed as being ideal.[1] Martin and Gentry also found that advertising can "impose a sense of inadequacy on young women's self-concepts." This is because some girls and young women compare their own physical attractiveness to the physical attractiveness of models in ads. They then experience lowered self-esteem if they do not feel that they look like the models in advertisements.[1] Today's models weigh 23 percent less than the average woman, while the average model two decades ago weighed eight percent less than the average woman. This current media ideal of thinness is met by only about five percent of the population.[15] Additionally, a study of Seventeen magazine concluded that the models featured in this popular teen magazine were far less curvy than those portrayed in women's magazines. It was also noted that the hip-to-waist ratio had decreased in these models from 1970 to 1990.[1] In a study published in Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, psychologists Heidi Posavac, Steven Posavac, and Emil Posavac found that many young women will express dissatisfaction with their bodies, particularly with their body weight, when they are exposed to images of thin models who are slimmer than the average woman.[2] Expressing similar sentiments, an aspiring young model was quoted as saying, "Deep down I still want to be a supermodel... As long as they're there, screaming at me from the television, glaring at me from the magazines, I'm stuck in the model trap. Hate them first. Then grow to like them. Love them. Emulate them. Die to be them. All the while praying the cycle will come to an end."[1] Academic researchers Philip Myers Jr. and Frank Biocca concluded, in their study published in the Journal of Communication, that a woman's self-perceived body image can change after watching a half-an-hour of television programming and advertising.[7] Researchers Yoku Yamamiya and Thomas F. Cash concluded through their study that "Even a 5 minute exposure to thin-and-beautiful media images results in a more negative body image state than does exposure to images of neutral object."[16] Likewise, a study by Stice et al. in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology concluded that there is a direct relationship between the amount of media exposure that a young woman has and the likelihood that she will develop eating disorder symptoms.[17] Martin and Gentry also found that the mass media "creates and reinforces a preoccupation with physical attractiveness in young women," which can lead to bulimia, anorexia, and opting for cosmetic surgery. She also concluded that, "exposure to ultra-thin models in advertisements and magazine pictures produced depression, stress, guilt, shame, insecurity, and body dissatisfaction in female college students."[1] In a study published in the Journal of Youth and Adolescence, Paxton et al. found body dissatisfaction to be more prevalent in young women than in young men.[18] Low self-esteem that stems from teenage advertising can have detrimental effects on teenagers. Seventy-five percent of young women with low self-esteem report engaging in negative activities such as "cutting, bullying, smoking, or drinking when feeling badly about themselves." Teen promiscuity is another possible effect of low self-esteem.[19]
Got it in one.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
johnfirewall 13 Jun 16 10.33pm | |
---|---|
People are posting buff pics of themselves all over Facebook which make me want to go down the gym and eat less. Conversely it's alleged Facebook has intentionally removed pictures of fat people which were deemed offensive.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
nickgusset Shizzlehurst 13 Jun 16 10.45pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
You haven't answered a key question Nick. 1. Where do you draw the line. 2. Most advertising plays on aspirations and uses exaggeration and falsehoods to sell products. The fact that he has singled out women and their body shape smacks of politics and is not a sensible policy in the interests of health or consumer protection. I'm off to bed to get my beauty sleep. 1. Have a range of people to advertise things. If blokes want to perv, there are plenty of other places 2. Discovered this when the hot wheels I got for christmas (last year - joking) was s***e compared to what it looked like in the adverts. 3. Is it also politics in other places where such images and use of ultra thin models have been banned? [Link] (sorry it's the mail) Quote elgrande Today 6.15pm
I guess we will never know if its the content of the advert or the woman in the bikini that gets it banned,I have can nasty feeling its the latter....Londonstan here we come. Paristan? Tel-Avivstan? Mumbaistan? Edited by nickgusset (13 Jun 2016 10.47pm)
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Stuk Top half 13 Jun 16 10.46pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by nickgusset
I agree to a point, but the size of the models does give unrealistic expectations to most. What with photoshop as well... Was it dove who had one of the most successful ad campaigns of recent years because they used 'normal' sized people. Edited by nickgusset (13 Jun 2016 9.58pm) It's not photoshopped. Why is she not 'normal'? Pound for pound, excuse the pun, but I assure you that this campaign was far more successful than Dove's.
Optimistic as ever |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Stoke sub normal 13 Jun 16 11.00pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by nickgusset
Ah the victim mentality rejoinder, I was waiting for that. Young people are bombarded with what should be perfect and attainable (through adverts and social media, tv etc with unattainable images). It is bound to have an effect. Edited by nickgusset (13 Jun 2016 10.24pm) As you mentioned, you and I were bombarded with the advertising spiel, and worked out for ourselves that it was tosh. That was probably down to having an education that taught us that there are winners and losers. Something that the Liberal attitude of today forbids. "Everyone is equal" they teach. Only we're not. Some are better at some things than others. Some are thinner than others, or cleverer, prettier, stronger, more driven, etc. Teach it to the young, and they will accept difference. Like we did. A little disappointment does no harm.
Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
nickgusset Shizzlehurst 13 Jun 16 11.03pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64
As you mentioned, you and I were bombarded with the advertising spiel, and worked out for ourselves that it was tosh. That was probably down to having an education that taught us that there are winners and losers. Something that the Liberal attitude of today forbids. "Everyone is equal" they teach. Only we're not. Some are better at some things than others. Some are thinner than others, or cleverer, prettier, stronger, more driven, etc. Teach it to the young, and they will accept difference. Like we did. A little disappointment does no harm. Alas, teachers are forced to teach maths and english above everything else. The curriculum is far less richer than it used to be thanks to years of teaching to the test and league tables.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
nickgusset Shizzlehurst 13 Jun 16 11.07pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Stuk
It's not photoshopped. Why is she not 'normal'? Pound for pound, excuse the pun, but I assure you that this campaign was far more successful than Dove's. Google Dove advert, do you still agree?
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Stuk Top half 13 Jun 16 11.20pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by nickgusset
Google Dove advert, do you still agree? Google it why? It will tell me all kinds of things about it. Like your post & link style I mentioned earlier this is laziness on your part. Make your point rather than telling me to guess.
Optimistic as ever |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
nickgusset Shizzlehurst 13 Jun 16 11.27pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Stuk
Google it why? It will tell me all kinds of things about it. Like your post & link style I mentioned earlier this is laziness on your part. Make your point rather than telling me to guess. Well basically it's lots of links to ad agencies, trade mags etc saying how succesful the campaign was.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Stuk Top half 14 Jun 16 12.00am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by nickgusset
Well basically it's lots of links to ad agencies, trade mags etc saying how succesful the campaign was. So nothing to refute my claim then? Just that it got 'good' press. How successful was that campaign in terms of value, pound for pound?More or less than the one in discussion?
Optimistic as ever |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Jimenez SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 14 Jun 16 12.14am | |
---|---|
He should be Bull Whipped then castrated the lying toerag!!
Pro USA & Israel |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
nickgusset Shizzlehurst 14 Jun 16 7.11am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Stuk
So nothing to refute my claim then? Just that it got 'good' press. How successful was that campaign in terms of value, pound for pound?More or less than the one in discussion? You said the other one was more successful. The onus is on you to prove it
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.