shape
carat
color
clarity

Finally, Barbies with more-realistic bodies!

missy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
54,417
december-fire|1454112345|3983792 said:
Models are a different issue!
There is/was terrible pressure for models to starve themselves.
I didn't take the time just now to search for it, but a few years ago, I read that a new policy was put in place to prevent models being under a certain weight? Size? Sorry. I really should google it instead of relying on my unreliable memory.
Anyway, it seemed like a small step in the right direction. But more needs to be done in the fashion model industry.

I see dolls and toys in a different light than actual people (models, ads).

I'm very happy to see companies featuring models of various sizes.

Kudos to Dove for everything they've done in that regard. And, to me, they seem sincere; not as if they were jumping on the politically-correct bandwagon.

Does more need to be done in regards to body shapes promoted via models and advertising? Absolutely!

And could we please take a look at the messages sent via music videos and entertainers?

Is it possible for a female singer to be successful without being controversial in terms of clothes or actions?
OK, yes, it is; Susan Boyle, Adele, etc.
But you get my point, I hope.

Anyway, to me a doll is just a doll.

To anyone who felt pressure due to a doll's appearance:
I'm sorry you didn't have a sufficient number of healthy influences in your life. Perhaps there were too many unhealthy influences, and the doll was just one more. Or the unhealthy influence was from a key player. Or, perhaps more likely, I'm under-estimating the power of a doll to influence a person's thinking, based solely on my person experience. A study of one is a dangerous thing. My apologies.

Hmmmm, seems like I'm wandering into a different topic; childhood stuff.
Word has it that there may be a prize for creating more threads.
So I'll stop here. :D

December fire, you bring up excellent points and I wholeheartedly agree. Yes, it really does begin at home and having positive influences and real life role models despite whatever negative outside influences exist.

We played with the too skinny barbies when we were younger and the not anatomically correct Ken dolls too. And my sister and I grew up just fine. You and others who wrote this are right-we didn't think real people should look like our barbie dolls. They were inanimate objects. Just dolls.

But it is a move at least in the right direction so kudos to the company for that. Will we as a society ever embrace all body types/skin types/hair types as beautiful? No I sincerely doubt it. However, if we are surrounded by people who love us just as we are and if a strong confident sense of self is developed and nourished by the ones who love and take care of us when younger and it is internalized, then hopefully young men and women can withstand the negative outside influences that exist all around us.
 

CJ2008

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 31, 2006
Messages
4,750
I think this is definitely a step in the right direction.

The Barbie with the acid wash jeans has a pretty thick build and THIGHS - I love her - my eyes were immediately drawn to her (maybe because that's a body shape I find attractive and what I looked like, at least when I was younger).

I think the representation of more body types is great even though none of them are even near overweight and all have thin legs (except for the acid wash jeans girl even though again nowhere near "heavy".

I would love to see more leg types being represented - not only really skinny legs - thicker calves, thicker thighs, more muscular legs, etc.

I think we really have no way of telling how viewing certain images time and time and time again affects us. So I am all for having dolls be more representative of different body types. Thicker waists, shorter legs, bigger feet, all those things that genetically we can't help, I'd like to see being represented. If nothing else, it may inspire discussion among little girls or an opportunity for parents to teach that all body types are OK - "this doll is so pretty but she has big feet! ewww." or "this doll's face is so pretty but her legs are fat. I hate her legs." And there's the opportunity...

I really think even ONE time in someone's childhood that sparks dialogue or a question to a parent can teach a lesson that lasts for life.
 

Jambalaya

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Oct 2, 2014
Messages
4,786
I haven't read all the responses - got SO much housework to get on with and am putting it off - but I just wanted to say that I played with Barbie growing up and her size never occurred to me. She was just a doll. As a child, you never think about thinness or fatness. At least that's how I remember it. So I concur with others who have expressed this view. However, as Kenny, said, it also crossed my mind that perhaps some children are more susceptible than others.

I don't think that Barbie could stay only blond and rake-thin forever, though. The world is changing and moving on, and I agree that it's a good thing for Barbies to come in a range of skin colors and sizes. As Niel said, perhaps kids want to pick one that looks like their mom or sister or, if the blue-haired Barbie is anything to go by, like a favorite pop star.

However, in another way I think it's sad that toys have to be PC. There's a movement against pink toys for girls and against the Disney princesses, etc. Little girls tend to love princesses but that doesn't mean they grow up thinking that they will be and should be princesses. I firmly believe that a five-year-old girl who loves the Belle princess from Disney is every bit as likely to grow up to be a doctor or a lawyer as the little girl who doesn't like Belle. They are just toys and children live in a magical world of fairytales and make-believe while knowing it isn't real. It's a pity grown-ups try to spoil the fairydust sometimes. I remember reading my old Cinderella picture-book and marveling at the drawings of her huge dress and the enormous Palace with the endless plush red staircase, and the mice clasping their paws and looking at her adoringly. At no point did I think any of this was real, but it sure was enjoyable. And Barbie was a fantasy too - no way would I or anyone I knew ever look like her, but it was simple fun to have such a pretty doll, and I've never dieted in my life. I really think these things like Barbie and princesses are innocent fun. You can blame the toys, but girls who suffer from anorexia as teens might have been that way without the toys - much is dependent on someone's home life. JMO.
 

CJ2008

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 31, 2006
Messages
4,750
Re: Finally, Barbies with realistic bodies!

kenny|1454087094|3983589 said:
Wow. :o

I'm pissed that 'Agence France-Presse' described the body of the traditional Barbie as, "unrealistically perfect".

It's not perfect.
It's harmfully impossible.

A big media outlet making this ironic mistake is the perfect illustration of how Mattel has brainwashed us.

And it's not perfect because the body of the traditional Barbie is not "perfect" or the ideal in everyone's eyes.

So assuming there's only one definition of "perfect" is inaccurate (and annoying) in itself.
 

partgypsy

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Nov 7, 2004
Messages
6,631
Here's an analysis of Barbie if she was a real person, her proportions.
I reaally wanted Barbies when I was a kid but my Mom refused to buy them for me and my sister until I was 10? And by then I was over them. So i've been enjoying playing Barbies with my youngest (my oldest wasn't into them).
I think it's better to let kids enjoy these kind of toys when young and into fantasy, then deny them and then when adults get obsessed with it.
going in the opposite direction, we have gotten a couple knock off made in china type Barbies, and they are incredibly thin with their legs shaped like toothpicks. So there is even more body dysmorphia there.
http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/barbie-real-womaan-anatomically-impossible-article-1.1316533
 

CJ2008

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 31, 2006
Messages
4,750
Actually, I don't know that I wouldn't NOT buy Barbies for my kids if they wanted them. I don't know that it's about prohibiting (and then making it into a big deal). But I'd find ways to talk to them about the doll's body shape, at whatever level would be appropriate for their age. I may just even ask questions to see IF they have any thoughts about it.

That may be all it takes to make sure she doesn't ever think that maybe that type of body shape is what she should wish she had.

(oh and Gypsy I never thought about the Disney Princess being rescued by a man thing before - but yeah - if I had girls and they wanted the toy I'd get it for them and I'd let them enjoy the "fun" of being rescued in their play, but I'd find ways to talk to them about that too.)
 

swingirl

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Apr 6, 2006
Messages
5,667
I got my Barbie when I was about 9. So no way did I relate my body to an adult doll's body. At age 10 I don't know what my body was going to look like as an adult. There was never any comparison to her being tall and slim with a tiny waist and me being having a child's body. She was just one of the first dolls that represented an adult. And that was the intrigue. She was a NOT a baby or little girl. Matel created her with a physique that was undisputably a full grown woman and had evening gowns, business suits, a career and a boy friend. She allowed me to pretend I was an independent career gal who wore high heals to work. I never warmed up to baby dolls or little girl dolls that made me play "mommy".

When Barbies first came out you could get blond or brunette--also a first in the doll world. I might add that the long legs made her real easy to hold because you could hold the legs and not have to wrap your dirty paws around the clothes!
 

Niel

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
20,062
To the responses that are saying "I never thought about her body shape" and " oh I just saw her as an adult"

This is what I'm talking about. Obviously no one thought she was real. But what also no one thought about was her body being ridiculous! They always tell you how her waist would be itty bitty and her feet very small, etc etc.... You don't think of this as a child you think, "hers an adult" " look how pretty she looks in a hoop skirt, look she's a dentist I want that one." But subconsciously it is telling young girls "this is an adult". This is what a dentist looks like, this is what a suba diver looks like.

It's no different than models or Disney princesses or any other representation of the female form that girls are shown, however small, however subconscious, the perception of what a woman is suppose to be is somewhat formed from these images.

It's the same reason they make black, Asian, and other types of barbies. You want your kids to play with something they can connect with, and for some, its having a doll that reminds them of themselves.
 

CJ2008

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 31, 2006
Messages
4,750
Niel|1454178959|3984188 said:
But subconsciously it is telling young girls "this is an adult".

It's no different than models or Disney princesses or any other representation of the female form that girls are shown, however small, however subconscious, the perception of what a woman is suppose to be is somewhat formed from these images.

Yes.
 

Jambalaya

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Oct 2, 2014
Messages
4,786
But, Niel, whatever I thought of my Barbie, I never thought that adults should look like that or wondered why they didn't. She was just a doll and I did not relate her to the real world at all.

I think that diseases like anorexia are much more rooted in the way your caregivers treat you and the quality of your home life/upbringing, whether you felt safe and secure and worthy and loved, or whether you experienced detached, neglectful or abusive parenting. I honestly think that the influence of a toy doll pales in comparison to the home environment when it comes to developing issues.
 

CJ2008

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 31, 2006
Messages
4,750
Jambalaya|1454179399|3984191 said:
I honestly think that the influence of a toy doll pales in comparison to the home environment when it comes to developing issues.

I 100% agree with this.

But that is not a reason to not try to make dolls that are more realistic, even if we can say that dolls probably play / contribute only a small part in body images issues, etc.

(OK I realize my grammar is probably terrible in the sentence above but you get what I'm saying! I hope :D )
 

CJ2008

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 31, 2006
Messages
4,750
Niel|1454178959|3984188 said:
It's the same reason they make black, Asian, and other types of barbies. You want your kids to play with something they can connect with, and for some, its having a doll that reminds them of themselves.

I don't know if it's the REASON they make them. They probably make them so they can SELL more. But I don't care WHY they make them, the effect is the same: I think when you see yourself represented out there in some way, it sends a message that you matter too. That you're noticed. That in a sea of maybe prettier / more closer to the ideal of beauty, or a lot white people, etc. that YOU are OK too.

However minuscule that message may be, it's still good to send it.
 

Jambalaya

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Oct 2, 2014
Messages
4,786
In a wider sense, why do we love things that are cute and sparkly and conform to traditional standards of attractiveness? That's not PC. If Barbie is not to be unattainably tall, thin, and blonde in case kids are influenced, then we should also have a range of teddy bears. Instead of big brown eyes and soft cuddly bodies, there should be some which are hard bears with small eyes and a mean growl when you press their stomachs, in case children think that real bears are like teddy bears. Why are sparkly princesses unacceptable to some schools of thought, but sparkly Christmas trees and decorations are just fine? Our love of the latter says that sparkly is good....unless it's a princess doll wearing a sparkly ballgown, and then it's bad.

Beauty and wealth are just fantasies for most people, and most of us do not see the single-minded pursuit of these things as anything to be proud of. Does that mean that books involving characters who are rich and beautiful should not be written, because they teach us that these things are desirable? What about TV shows like Dynasty (going back a bit) which present wealth and beauty as being very desirable? There must be shows like that today, but I don't watch that much TV. Perhaps the show Revenge would be a modern-day Dynasty - all about rich beautiful people wearing designer clothes. People watch these things for the escapism and to gawp at the amazing houses and beautiful actors and stunning clothes. The logic applied to the original Barbie says that we should not enjoy these things, because they are unattainably beautiful and are fantasies which are very far from reality.

And what about animals? People want golden retrievers and spaniels and red setters and other such "handsome" breeds for their looks. Why do people want those handsome dogs? "Ugly" dogs need love and affection too. "Cute" animals are desirable and people make no secret of that. Everyone was cooing over that cuddly-panda video in the snow, but nobody would melt over a gray pigeon kicking about in the snow. Yet the pigeon is just as valuable an animal as the panda. People just loved the panda because he had the "cute" factor. That pigeon is never going to be a YouTube darling, and that difference is purely based on the two animals' looks. That could be one mean panda for all you know.

Why is it not OK for kids to play with a thin, blond, beautiful Barbie, but it's fine for adults to divide up animals into levels of cuteness and desirability based on their looks?

Put another way, people want beauty and attractiveness in all manner of ways - on TV, in books, in pets. So why is Barbie the only scapegoat?

I feel sorry for all the non-traditionally-handsome dogs out there, and although I don't have a dog, I have considered getting one and felt guilty about potentially getting a "cute" one instead of an "ugly" one, who probably has much more need of a home as everybody wants the other types.
 

Niel

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
20,062
Jambalaya|1454179399|3984191 said:
But, Niel, whatever I thought of my Barbie, I never thought that adults should look like that or wondered why they didn't. She was just a doll and I did not relate her to the real world at all.

I think that diseases like anorexia are much more rooted in the way your caregivers treat you and the quality of your home life/upbringing, whether you felt safe and secure and worthy and loved, or whether you experienced detached, neglectful or abusive parenting. I honestly think that the influence of a toy doll pales in comparison to the home environment when it comes to developing issues.

I will not say that eating disorders are rooted in bad parenting or an unloving environment.

And anorexia is the extreme end of body issuea, there is more to the problem than a small percentage of women who get eating disorders. It's the girls who won't have birthday cake at their party becuase they are being made fun of. The girl who flips though magazines and wonders why I don't look like that. It's the girl who won't go swimming because she doesn't like the way she looks in a bathing suit.
 

Niel

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
20,062
CJ2008|1454179936|3984195 said:
Niel|1454178959|3984188 said:
It's the same reason they make black, Asian, and other types of barbies. You want your kids to play with something they can connect with, and for some, its having a doll that reminds them of themselves.

I don't know if it's the REASON they make them. They probably make them so they can SELL more. But I don't care WHY they make them, the effect is the same: I think when you see yourself represented out there in some way, it sends a message that you matter too. That you're noticed. That in a sea of maybe prettier / more closer to the ideal of beauty, or a lot white people, etc. that YOU are OK too.

However minuscule that message may be, it's still good to send it.

Yea well put.
 

CJ2008

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 31, 2006
Messages
4,750
Niel|1454181038|3984203 said:
And anorexia is the extreme end of body issuea, there is more to the problem than a small percentage of women who get eating disorders. It's the girls who won't have birthday cake at their party becuase they are being made fun of. The girl who flips though magazines and wonders why I don't look like that. It's the girl who won't go swimming because she doesn't like the way she looks in a bathing suit.

Yes

(and I'll stop quoting and agreeing now obviously I am agreeing with a lot of what you're saying on this issue! :)) )
 

Niel

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
20,062
Jambalaya|1454181029|3984201 said:
In a wider sense, why do we love things that are cute and sparkly and conform to traditional standards of attractiveness? That's not PC. If Barbie is not to be unattainably tall, thin, and blonde in case kids are influenced, then we should also have a range of teddy bears. Instead of big brown eyes and soft cuddly bodies, there should be some which are hard bears with small eyes and a mean growl when you press their stomachs, in case children think that real bears are like teddy bears. Why are sparkly princesses unacceptable to some schools of thought, but sparkly Christmas trees and decorations are just fine? Our love of the latter says that sparkly is good....unless it's a princess doll wearing a sparkly ballgown, and then it's bad.

Beauty and wealth are just fantasies for most people, and most of us do not see the single-minded pursuit of these things as anything to be proud of. Does that mean that books involving characters who are rich and beautiful should not be written, because they teach us that these things are desirable? What about TV shows like Dynasty (going back a bit) which present wealth and beauty as being very desirable? There must be shows like that today, but I don't watch that much TV. Perhaps the show Revenge would be a modern-day Dynasty - all about rich beautiful people wearing designer clothes. People watch these things for the escapism and to gawp at the amazing houses and beautiful actors and stunning clothes. The logic applied to the original Barbie says that we should not enjoy these things, because they are unattainably beautiful and are fantasies which are very far from reality.

And what about animals? People want golden retrievers and spaniels and red setters and other such "handsome" breeds for their looks. Why do people want those handsome dogs? "Ugly" dogs need love and affection too. "Cute" animals are desirable and people make no secret of that. Everyone was cooing over that cuddly-panda video in the snow, but nobody would melt over a gray pigeon kicking about in the snow. Yet the pigeon is just as valuable an animal as the panda. People just loved the panda because he had the "cute" factor. That pigeon is never going to be a YouTube darling, and that difference is purely based on the two animals' looks. That could be one mean panda for all you know.

Why is it not OK to want a thin, blond, beautiful Barbie, but it's fine to divide up animals into levels of cuteness and desirability based on their looks?

Put another way, people want beauty and attractiveness in all manner of ways - on TV, in books, in pets. So why is Barbie the scapegoat?

I don't understand your thought prosses here, I guess.

Are you saying the new body shapes are not beautiful? Do you feel they are trying to make her less attractive by making her look more like people and less like a stick with boobs?
 

kenny

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
33,490
:lol:

screen_shot_2016-01-30_at_11.png
 

Jambalaya

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Oct 2, 2014
Messages
4,786
Niel - Eating disorders are very complex and have a range of roots, but children brought up in safe, stable, loving homes do tend to have fewer mental-health challenges than those brought up in an unsafe or abusive environment. The home environment and what kind of parents you have are key, IMHO. I don't think it's really the toys.

However, I guess a person can only speak from their own viewpoint: I've been 105 pounds and 205 pounds and everything in between, had a very traditional nonfeminist 1950s upbringing, yet I've never been body-conscious or denied myself cake or stayed away from a swimming pool, despite a ton of cellulite. I am very, very clear in my own mind that being kind and empathetic and a nice person is SO much more important than being thin and beautiful. I have lost weight in the past and need to do so again, but purely for health reasons. Oh, I'm not going to deny that it's nice to look good and wear cool clothes, but really, those benefits of being slim are my last priority.

So my viewpoint that the toys don't matter so much is probably formed by my own immovable feelings on this issue: that size doesn't matter. I'm fully open to the possibility that "Impossible Barbie" might have much more of an influence on some children than she did on me, who is left scratching my head wondering how the looks of a small doll can matter so much to anyone.
 

CJ2008

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 31, 2006
Messages
4,750
I'm sure that cuter animals get adopted quicker.
Like I'm sure that women who are beautiful have a better chance of getting jobs, more money, more of everything.
I'm sure that even in the wild there are certain characteristics that make some females more attractive to the male species than others.

That is life.

But we as humans have control over the toys we make for children and the messages we send through those toys.

The female form and hair and features we present as the ideal of beauty can have some influence - even if minuscule - over what a girl may think her form should look like. Where a teddy bear's form or shape or eyes, will not.
 

Niel

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
20,062
Jambalaya|1454182131|3984213 said:
Niel - Eating disorders are very complex and have a range of roots, but children brought up in safe, stable, loving homes do tend to have fewer mental-health challenges than those brought up in an unsafe or abusive environment. The home environment and what kind of parents you have are key, IMHO. I don't think it's really the toys.

However, I guess a person can only speak from their own viewpoint: I've been 105 pounds and 205 pounds and everything in between, had a very traditional nonfeminist 1950s upbringing, yet I've never been body-conscious or denied myself cake or stayed away from a swimming pool, despite a ton of cellulite. I am very, very clear in my own mind that being kind and empathetic and a nice person is SO much more important than being thin and beautiful. I have lost weight in the past and need to do so again, but purely for health reasons. Oh, I'm not going to deny that it's nice to look good and wear cool clothes, but really, those benefits of being slim are my last priority.

So my viewpoint that the toys don't matter so much is probably formed by my own immovable feelings on this issue: that size doesn't matter. I'm fully open to the possibility that "Impossible Barbie" might have much more of an influence on some children than she did on me, who is left scratching my head wondering how the looks of a small doll can matter so much to anyone.

Remind me, do you live in the US or uk? Did you grow up there? I'm just curious
 

CJ2008

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 31, 2006
Messages
4,750
kenny|1454182056|3984212 said:

Kenny that's hysterical. I love it.
 

Jambalaya

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Oct 2, 2014
Messages
4,786
Niel, I'm not quoting our exchanges because they're long and the thread will get messy. You wrote: Are you saying the new body shapes are not beautiful?

I'm saying that as far as I'm aware, the concern with original Barbie is that girls will think adults look like that. That's what you and some others have said upthread, right? That girls think, "this is an adult." But they no more think that, than they think real bears are like teddy bears.

The other thing I'm saying is that why is it bad to desire original Barbie (if you do - bad for "one" to desire original Barbie, I mean) but it's OK to choose a pet based on looks?

ETA: Niel - US.
 

Niel

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
20,062
Jambalaya|1454182385|3984219 said:
Niel, I'm not quoting our exchanges because they're long and the thread will get messy. You wrote: Are you saying the new body shapes are not beautiful?

I'm saying that as far as I'm aware, the concern with original Barbie is that girls will think adults look like that. That's what you and some others have said upthread, right? That girls think, "this is an adult." But they no more think that, than they think real bears are like teddy bears.

The other thing I'm saying is that why is it bad to desire original Barbie (if you do - bad for "one" to desire original Barbie, I mean) but it's OK to choose a pet based on looks?

ETA: Niel - US.

Because a cute dog is obtainable and a body like barbie isn't.

Maybe it's a generational thing, because we are both in the US, but I can say with a good amount of certainty many women I know have body image issues. I dont blame babie, but I think for a few decades at least there has been little to no representation of realistic body types in the US, and its magazines, tv, movies, toys....it adds up.

I will not complain that a company is selling products that don't sell (me) my daughter that an unrealistic body shape is the perfect shape for women. And when Barbies could look like anything, but they look like they do, that's what it's doing.

As for bears, again, I'll go back to my point about robots; children dont grow up to become, or choose to emulate bears.
 

Jambalaya

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Oct 2, 2014
Messages
4,786
And anyway - the new body shapes aren't that much better than original barbie - the new dolls are much thinner than the average adult woman, who is five feet four and weighs 166 pounds. The new barbies do not represent that reality - and their faces are also more "traditionally beautiful" than the vast majority of women. So the new barbies are still unrealistic representations of the average woman.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/12/look-at-how-much-weight-weve-gained-since-the-1960s/
 

Niel

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
20,062
Jambalaya|1454183684|3984238 said:
And anyway - the new body shapes aren't that much better than original barbie - the new dolls are much thinner than the average adult woman, who is five feet four and weighs 166 pounds. The new barbies do not represent that reality - and their faces are also more "traditionally beautiful" than the vast majority of women. So the new barbies are still unrealistic representations of the average woman.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/12/look-at-how-much-weight-weve-gained-since-the-1960s/

Do what you can until you can do better
 

Jambalaya

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Oct 2, 2014
Messages
4,786
Niel wrote: "Because a cute dog is obtainable and a body like barbie isn't." A cute dog may be obtainable but if all the cute dogs are favored, we are still, in an overall and general sense, upholding unfair standards of beauty - which for dogs is measured in their "cute" factor. It's still intrinsically unfair behavior on the part of adult humans. The non-cute dogs can't help their looks. We want children to accept that beauty comes in all forms, looks, shapes and sizes, but we sure have a set template for dog-attractiveness.

Man, if dogs could talk. They'd all be saying how unfair it is that everyone loves the golden retrievers and why do humans have such a narrow view of canine beauty, and why do the dog-product ads all feature not only pedigree breeds, but only two pedigree breeds: small, white, and cute, or large and yellow.

Maybe is is a generational thing. If there are as many young women around with body image issues as you say, Niel, then that is very sad and very concerning. It must be awful to feel so bad about your body, especially when our bodies are such wonderful machines regardless of their looks. When I was growing up, I feel that what was considered attractive was much more attainable. Women in the media today do look so ridiculously young and blemish-free. I guess part of this is the use of technology to airbrush, and partly much more widespread use of cosmetic surgery.
 

CJ2008

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 31, 2006
Messages
4,750
Niel|1454183871|3984240 said:
Jambalaya|1454183684|3984238 said:
And anyway - the new body shapes aren't that much better than original barbie - the new dolls are much thinner than the average adult woman, who is five feet four and weighs 166 pounds. The new barbies do not represent that reality - and their faces are also more "traditionally beautiful" than the vast majority of women. So the new barbies are still unrealistic representations of the average woman.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/12/look-at-how-much-weight-weve-gained-since-the-1960s/

Do what you can until you can do better

A step in the right direction...we gotta start somewhere.

ETA - and yes to your comment that "it adds up." It's not a single thing that is the culprit or an influencer - it's the combination of messages over time.
 

Jambalaya

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Oct 2, 2014
Messages
4,786
CJ2008|1454184542|3984247 said:
Niel|1454183871|3984240 said:
Jambalaya|1454183684|3984238 said:
And anyway - the new body shapes aren't that much better than original barbie - the new dolls are much thinner than the average adult woman, who is five feet four and weighs 166 pounds. The new barbies do not represent that reality - and their faces are also more "traditionally beautiful" than the vast majority of women. So the new barbies are still unrealistic representations of the average woman.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/12/look-at-how-much-weight-weve-gained-since-the-1960s/

Do what you can until you can do better

A step in the right direction...we gotta start somewhere.

ETA - and yes to your comment that "it adds up." It's not a single thing that is the culprit or an influencer - it's the combination of messages over time.


I guess so. It's a pity they couldn't have taken a wider stride with this first step, though.
 

Jambalaya

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Oct 2, 2014
Messages
4,786
CJ2008|1454184542|3984247 said:
Niel|1454183871|3984240 said:
Jambalaya|1454183684|3984238 said:
And anyway - the new body shapes aren't that much better than original barbie - the new dolls are much thinner than the average adult woman, who is five feet four and weighs 166 pounds. The new barbies do not represent that reality - and their faces are also more "traditionally beautiful" than the vast majority of women. So the new barbies are still unrealistic representations of the average woman.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/12/look-at-how-much-weight-weve-gained-since-the-1960s/

Do what you can until you can do better

A step in the right direction...we gotta start somewhere.

ETA - and yes to your comment that "it adds up." It's not a single thing that is the culprit or an influencer - it's the combination of messages over time.

Agree.
 
Be a part of the community Get 3 HCA Results
Top