Next They'll Be Telling Us Men Don't Marry And Live Happily Ever After With Street Hookers
A Cridster comment reminded me again to blog this, the Brits' dipshitted ban against a L'Oreal ad campaign featuring Julia Roberts and Christy Turlington on account of how they were biting the heads off puppies in the photographs.
Oh, wait -- it was just that the images were overly airbrushed, per a complaint by Liberal Democrat MP Jo Swinson.
Airbrushed? Wow. Really? Who woulda thunk it?
Mark Sweney writes for The Guardian:
Swinson, who has waged a long-running campaign against "overly perfected and unrealistic images" of women in adverts, lodged complaints with the Advertising Standards Authority about the magazine campaigns for L'Oréal-owned brands Lancôme and Maybelline. The ASA ruled that both ads breached the advertising standards code for exaggeration and being misleading and banned them from future publication.
"Overly perfected and unrealistic images" of women?
Doesn't that describe most people who make it as movie stars? What's next, forcing Hollywood's hotties out of work and forcing studios to hire The Women of Walmart or at least ordinary housewives to play "ordinary housewives" in the movies?
Thanks, but when I open a magazine or turn on the TV, I like to see beauty. And I think in the age of the Internet, we're all sophisticated enough to understand that Julia Roberts is over 40 and sometimes has a pimple.
"This ban sends a powerful message to advertisers - let's get back to reality."
I would say the message it's sending is that women are stupid cows who can't figure out that people in ads really don't look like that. Which is a legitimate complaint if the women are Hadza tribespeople.
Never heard of the Hazdas, but their middle-aged women probably don't have weird ideas about movies stars who look too young.
Paglia used to talk about this all the time. Advertisers aren't about reality, especially in glamor magazines. Fantasy is what the women are paying for.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 31, 2011 12:16 AM
"L'Oréal's two-page ad featuring Roberts, who is the face of Lancôme, promoted a foundation called *Teint Miracle*, which it claims creates a "natural light" that emanates from beautiful skin. "
Wow. Women put makeup on *that* now!?
Anyone have any pics of Julia Roberts' teint?
jerry at July 31, 2011 12:36 AM
Maybe the British are incredibly stupid, and need their government to protect them from this advertisement.
On the positive side, I can rest easy. Those pictures of Pippa's bum must be real and untouched. See, ladies, perfection is still attainable.
MarkD at July 31, 2011 5:40 AM
What's next, forcing Hollywood's hotties out of work and forcing studios to hire The Women of Walmart or at least ordinary housewives to play "ordinary housewives" in the movies?
Actually yes. This issue is a staple of women's site like Jezebel and TheFrisky. They'll highlight some example of bad photoshopping and go off about how unjust it is to women everywhere.
What you'll notice though is that while they're claiming that they're trying to save young women from having a poor body image, the women they pick on are almost always older. It's really not about protecting teenagers, it's about making middle aged women feel better about their appearance. I also think that they think that they can somehow make men find older women more attractive if they force the media to use less attractive models and actresses. That's why they're always harping on the fact that these pictures aren't realistic. Realistic in this case means frumpy.
They'll claim that they're just trying to protect young women from having a poor self image. What you'll notice though is that the pictures that they complain about are usually of women over thirty or so. If you follow the comments it's obvious that the real motivation is jealousy. Teenaged girls aren't going to be affected by how a forty year old woman is depicted in an advertisement.
MebaJ at July 31, 2011 7:00 AM
Who defines what is "overly perfected" exactly? Is any modification too much? What if it was a relatively unknown actress in her twenties that was slightly airbrushed? It almost seems like a major part of their complaint is that it is middle aged women being shown as attractive.
It's only a matter of time before they establish the Office of the Handicapper General like in Kurt Vonnegut's short story Harrison Bergeron. All the attractive stars will be forced to wear masks, the strong athletes will have to wear weights to slow them down, etc... After all, people excelling in any way is just unrealistic. Let's get back to the reality of mediocrity.
PJ at July 31, 2011 7:12 AM
No, it's just standard jealousy. I'd bet a bag of donuts that MP Swinson is not attractive, and doesn't want to see pictures of attractive women being used to sell things.
But deep down she knows that if they used pictures of ugly women, sales would plummet. She doesn't care, she doesn't want the daily reminder that she's ugly.
brian at July 31, 2011 7:56 AM
But is that logical, Brian? I would have thought the likes of MP Swinson would be glad to hear about all this airbrushing & photoshopping, because then they could comfort themselves with the idea that Julia Roberts & company wouldn't really be attractive at all if they weren't airbrushed & photoshopped to death.
Martin at July 31, 2011 8:20 AM
Ahh, for the way things used to be:
http://store.valueweb.com/vintagepaperads/catalog/AZ0599.jpg
Steve Daniels at July 31, 2011 9:19 AM
I'm going to assume that they don't like the airbrushing because its sort of a false advertising for the product. At least, I'd hope it started out like that. Back when "Moonlighting" was big, I remember people complaining about the vaseline or gauze covering the lense or the lights constantly shining in her eyes. I would like to believe that most women are smart enough to know that while many of these actresses are beautiful, it also doesn't hurt to have hair and make up people making sure they look flawless and camera people who always know just the right angle. I wonder that will be banned next.
kristen at July 31, 2011 9:39 AM
Sorry, I deleted part of my last comment and hit send. I was referencing the camera shots for Cybil Shepard who was very beautiful but wanted certain angles and camera tricks to hide the fact that she was aging.
Kristen at July 31, 2011 9:40 AM
Maybe the British are incredibly stupid, and need their government to protect them from this advertisement.
Well, this is the country that threatend a food company forcing them to put labels o their sausages warning poele that sausages contained meat, and that these partciular sausages did not contain DRAGON meat, regardless of the name of the product
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/6159630.stm
lujlp at July 31, 2011 10:08 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/31/next_theyll_be.html#comment-2389244">comment from KristenI was referencing the camera shots for Cybil Shepard who was very beautiful but wanted certain angles and camera tricks to hide the fact that she was aging.
Um...don't we all? I am very, very sweet to Gregg at all times -- except for two: If he so much as looks at a cracker (carbs are not his health's best friend), and if he is photographing me. Then, I sound like the thing from The Exorcist that swiveled its head around: "Three-quarter angle! Shoot me from below."
Poor dear.
Once he puts the camera away, I'm my coo-ey, lovey-dovey, Gregg-petting self again.
Lucy, unfortunately, walks all over him at all times.
Amy Alkon at July 31, 2011 10:15 AM
Has anyone here seen "Something's Gotta Give" with Diane Keaton, Jack Nicholson and Keanu Reeves? While the story line is somewhat fanciful (older woman craves relationship with older man who prefers younger woman while younger, handsome doctor man craves relationship with older woman), Diane looked every much the part of the older (albeit not frumpy) woman, who the younger man finds very attractive anyway. I think these bitches need to watch that movie and if they can't relate to Diane, then they are just middle-aged, frumpy and jealous! It takes work to keep oneself looking good, and if you're too lazy/not inclined to put in the effort, well too bad for you. But don't take it out on the rest of us!
Flynne at July 31, 2011 10:51 AM
Affirmative action for ugly people now!
Farmer Joe at July 31, 2011 10:56 AM
Whatever happened to free speech? Geez. People who disagree with an advertisement are free to criticize it.
Besides, I used to work in advertising, and it was always understood that the images should be "aspirational." No one aspires to be average looking.
Travis at July 31, 2011 11:00 AM
Listening to middle aged feminists is rather like listening to children. Spoiled children.
Its not fair, men are mean, I deserve free stuff at your expense, I should have it all, the list goes on.
Robert at July 31, 2011 11:43 AM
> it was always understood that the
> images should be "aspirational."
'Zactly!
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 31, 2011 11:59 AM
I don't think there is a problem because they airbrush the pimples or shadows in the pictures. The problem is they are airbrushing 20 pounds off an already skinny woman.
nonegiven at July 31, 2011 12:42 PM
Forgot the link
http://whatilearnedforsure.blogspot.com/2010/10/airbrush-alert.html
nonegiven at July 31, 2011 12:46 PM
The problem is they are airbrushing 20 pounds off an already skinny woman.
Why is that a problem?
There are thin people in nature. I'm thin.
And even if they made the women have green skin and a single purple eye, why would that be a problem?
They also had "impossibly tiny waists" 100 years ago or so because they wore corsets.
There's very little in many magazines that's real. If you are moderately intelligent, you know this. If you are not intelligent enough to know this, I would like to ask that you never vote again.
Amy Alkon at July 31, 2011 1:34 PM
Oh, and it's probably not 20 pounds, but they're giving women an idealized figure. Do you -- per the title of this blog item -- also rail that movies do not properly portray real life?
Furthermore, I'd have to look at Gad Saad's earlier book (before the current one), but I believe that the link that people claim to eating disorders has not been proved. Furthermore, not every person is going to have every possible effect. Some guys will see a Jodie Foster movie and try to kill President Reagan. Most will not. If you have daughters and you want them to grow up emotionally healthy, tell them the truth: Beauty matters a great deal, and will throughout their lives, so they should do the best with what they have, and develop themselves inside and out.
Feminists lie and say beauty "shouldn't" matter, which is ridiculous. There's no such thing as what "should" be; only what is and what isn't.
Amy Alkon at July 31, 2011 1:39 PM
> The problem is they are airbrushing 20
> pounds off an already skinny woman.
Why is that a problem? Advertisers are selling fantasy... And women LOVE the fantasy. Women buy those magazines. They're into it. When they're depressed, they pull on a big fluffy sweatshirt and sit cross-legged on the couch and open a tub of ice cream with a spoon and start flipping through the biggest, most heavily-perfumed magazines they can find... To scan the advertising.
Years ago, on Seipp's blog, I came up with comparison that's never let me down: If a teenage boy complained that the datable girls in his life weren't as appealing as the ones in his magazines, would anyone be sympathetic?
Of course not; those magazines are pandering to his base nature... But no more so than Cosmo panders to feminine fascinations. People choose to bring this imagery into their hearts. The "readers" alone should be held accountable for what they choose to take seriously, and for what they choose to ignore of the world by their selection.
Women will always say "But there's so much pressure for girls to conform to impossible standards of blahblah"... But I don't believe it. There are plenty of realms of interest for young women, and plenty of sources of beauty for young women, that have nothing to do with those pressures. As with boys, magazine imagery is easy, not realistically challenging (or rewarding).
And in any case, we're not even talking about teenage women: We're talking about aging adults who ought to have have some sophistication about what girly beauty does and does not mean, especially in the years when its draining from their own bodies.
Government shouldn't be expected to finely calibrate these fantasies to fit your personal psychological profile. No one in the world should be expected to care for your exposure to that indulgent foolishness more than you do.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 31, 2011 4:46 PM
A likely outcome from this ban is that advertisers will avoid using older models and actresses for ads in the UK.
The UK commission probably cost L'Oreal several million dollars by banning this campaign after it was produced. They wanted to compel L'Oreal to turn over all sorts of pictures and evidence as well. The funny thing is that it was forbidden Julia Roberts contract! She didn't want untouched photos released.
Why would any advertiser volunteer for the risk by using women this age? I'm sure that they're all reevaluating UK campaigns that use women over thirty right now. Better to use a younger model and present her as older. Otherwise some crazy bunch of harridans is going to go off about how she's too attractive to look like a 'real woman'.
Nora at July 31, 2011 4:51 PM
Credit where credit is due, Crid, well said.
Then again: I know two woman personally - though not as well as I would like - for whom I can vouch for their perfect, and I mean perfect, skin.
One of them is right here. Angela has her own R6 Yamaha, and was a realtor in the Duluth, Ga area when I last saw her.
So the ad people don't actually have to touch up everybody - it's just that the name they want associated with their product may have a flaw.
Radwaste at July 31, 2011 5:13 PM
A fun outcome would be if a bunch of sane Brit women —and they must have a few somewhere– started a protest about a failure of government performance in this matter... Only in the other direction.
Imagine an a bunch of harsh newspaper columns, some hearings in Parliament, and maybe a street protest with the occasional broken window.
And it doesn't have to be just the menopausals... ALL the Queen's subjects could demand the Crown's intervention in advertising...
...Because, fer Chrissakes, in the new ad campaign, Sharon Stone looks too Goddam old... Too sallow and crow-footed... Unfuckably withered from her Total Recall pinnacle of fertility.
Seriously, peeps... If government is supposed to respond to this kind of thing, which direction do YOU think it should press? Man, woman or beast, there was an hour where you wouldn't have resisted Cybil Shepard. That hour passed long, long ago.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 31, 2011 7:36 PM
I am a feminist and the issue for me is not the message that "beauty matters"...it's about what defines beauty. Does the definition of beauty have to be so limited that it can't include a few wrinkles? Do we have to fake a picture of Julia Roberts so that she fits into that model? Have you seen that picture? It barely looks like her anymore. Why does that have to be? Is she not pretty without that airbrushing? (Note: the answer is yes). Can the definition of beauty be expanded to allow Julia Roberts to be considered beautiful even if she has wrinkles?
As much as what crid said sounds plausible, it's not true. Advertising shapes our lives. You are not immune to it. Children are not immune to it. It affects you in thousands of ways that you don't even know about. That is a fact and you are naive to think differently. You are a product of your environment and your environment has been marketed to you since birth.
K at August 1, 2011 4:51 AM
No. This is infantilism.
> Advertising shapes our lives. You are not
> immune to it. Children are not immune to
> it. It affects you in thousands of ways
> that you don't even know about.
Oh, you poor, terrorized little darling. The world is going to chew you up! There are people out there who want things from you.... Clever people. Their scheming never ends. They cluster in conference rooms up and down Madison Avenue (and other settings) using heartless science to manipulate you and the perceptions of people around you for their own gain. And there's not a damn thing you can do about it. The world will chew you up and then spit you out.
So stay home. Shut your doors, turn off your TV, lock your mailbox, and sit in dark rooms. (I was going to say "And do your nails", but I didn't want you to think I was "bodysnarking" or anything.)
> That is a fact and you are naive to
> think differently.
Right, sure... You're doomed, but at least you're savvy enough to recognize the power of the forces arrayed against you....
And you deserve to be doomed if you can't get past this without involving the government. How did grown women turn into such wimps?
> (Note: the answer is yes).
I love that "Note:" part. It suggests that yes, doggone it, this IS a conversation which western cultures need to have on a national basis... And K has an opinion to share! She demands to be heard! She will not be silent!
Enough. If your soul is really that delicate, if you're alcoholically defenseless against the inebriations of petty media, if you don't have the courage to build actual personal relationships to overwhelm the messages —and if you never had any adult in your life to teach you how to do so— then your spirit is a lost cause. It will soon break, no matter what the rest of us do for you. Please, please, please leave my government out of it.
> You are a product of your environment
It's too big a topic to tackle before dawn, but this is an extremely feminine way of looking at the world. And it's wrong... Especially in contexts like this.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 1, 2011 5:53 AM
Seriously, sisters, BACKBONE TIME. Sit straight, clear head, and tits out, OK?:
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 1, 2011 6:05 AM
And Dear God / By All Means... If you ever find a uterus inside me, rip it out!
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 1, 2011 6:36 AM
@K there are plenty of ads that show women with wrinkles. That one is specifically for some creme that's supposed to illuminate your face, so that's what they did. Also Julia Roberts doesn't want to be depicted without retouching, and that's her choice.
Honestly anyone you see in an ad, no matter their age or sex, has been retouched.
Is she not pretty without that airbrushing? (Note: the answer is yes).
How do you know this? Many people look totally different in real life. Unfortunately not everyone is naturally beautiful, no matter how you try to stretch the meaning of that word.
You are a product of your environment and your environment has been marketed to you since birth.
OK. I think that this is the crux of the matter. Yes your environment plays a role, but I also think that it's fair to say that some people are much more susceptible to the influence of media than others. This is where this issue falls short for me. I've never been so swayed by ad imagery that I've thought to set my standards by it. But it's apparent that there are a lot of women who are very upset that they don't look like the models used in advertising. Rather than attempt to control what people find attractive, and who can be in an advertisement, they should seek out some help for themselves. This is really their issue, not society's.
Nora at August 1, 2011 7:21 AM
I have to agree with Crid 100% on this one K.
Does the environment have an impact on us? Sure.
But lets be realistic here, your biology is not a social construct, no government or ad agency or musical rhyme designed your genetic predispositions or dictated hormone releases.
Advertising responds to desire, it can't "create" desire.
Men like fast cars, well of course, because the advertising implies that fast cars mean status, and men like status.
Advertising was responding to an innate need, it didn't create that need. Implying that it meant status would mean nothing, if men didn't desire status in the first place.
Beauty mags don't create the desire for clear skin, they respond to it. Show me a piece of art that idealized greasy hair, sagging boobs, and wrinkles? Pick your era and your locale, you won't find it.
A firm pair of tits has always drawn the male eye, you can't "redefine" beauty to make fried eggs hanging on a nail give men a hardon.
The cold hard truth here, is that no matter how you talk about "redefining" beauty, you're going to fail, because what you're talking about is changing a very straightforward and indifferent part of the human organism. A part that doesn't give a damn about feminist theory.
No matter how you "reeducate" me, or try to, I will never find Betty White or Rosanne Barr attractive.
So to answer your question, "Can we redefine beauty to make a few wrinkles beautiful"
The answer is no. Wrinkles do not add to beauty, she may still be beautiful "in spite of" wrinkles, but not "Because of" them. They'll never be the next beauty mark.
And let me ask you this K.
Why is it every time we hear feminists talk about redefining beauty, its always so that young beautiful women will be considered less hot, and the speaker will be considered more so?
Isn't it an essentially self interested aim, trying to make the less attractive more attractive? I've never heard a hooters girl talk about redefining beauty this way, and I doubt I ever will.
If a woman wants to be attractive, she needs to keep herself slender, dress to show off her assets, and put a smile on her face and have a positive attitude, and not get all outrageously demanding. Because men hate overweight, angry, depressing bitches, and that won't change no matter how much feminist theory you've swallowed.
Robert at August 1, 2011 7:34 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/31/next_theyll_be.html#comment-2390320">comment from RobertWhat many feminists like to deny is the differences between men and women, and how essential it is that a woman take care of her appearance and do the best with what she has.
Amy Alkon at August 1, 2011 8:01 AM
> how essential it is that a woman take
> care of her appearance and do the
> best with what she has.
If she, y'know, wants to. "The best with what she has" may include components of her life unrelated to her appearance.
Beauty is not zero-sum combat. We can always make more.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 1, 2011 8:24 AM
"Anyone have any pics of Julia Roberts' teint?"
I should live so long.......
alittlesense at August 1, 2011 9:25 AM
A firm pair of tits has always drawn the male eye, you can't "redefine" beauty to make fried eggs hanging on a nail give men a hardon.
Robert, are you my brother??? This CRACKED me up!!
(yeah yeah I know. "little things amuse little minds", etc. But that line is brilliant! Brilliant, I say!)
o.O
(Crid, there is not a snowball's chance in hades you'd ever have a uterus! Have you put the earring back in yet?)
You know, there was a time in my life when I deliberately refused to buy something because of the advertising and/or because everyone else was buying it. Come to think of it, I still do that. I just refuse to be told what to buy, for any reason. If I like something in and of itself, I'll buy it, but not because of any cheesy advertising about it.
Flynne at August 1, 2011 9:31 AM
But seriously folks,..."If a woman wants to be attractive, she needs to keep herself slender, dress to show off her assets, and put a smile on her face and have a positive attitude..."
If both sexes would heed this advice, there would be a lot less unhappiness.
alittlesense at August 1, 2011 9:35 AM
"I am a feminist and the issue for me is not the message that "beauty matters"...it's about what defines beauty."
No it's about WHO defines beauty (Note: the answer is: the beholder.) At best, a L'Oreal ad is going to be a proxy for a female definition of beauty. If you want to examine male preference, go look at some pr0n hub and note the relative popularity of tags like mature and amateur. Beautiful women can still find work in The Valley, but it might illuminate your vision of the male definition of beauty.
As far as wrinkles go, I don't know about the rest of you guys but my hotness scale is age-weighted.
One final note K, did you miss that whole cougar movement?
smurfy at August 1, 2011 10:34 AM
Attention, bitches! Look who was just voted "Body of the Year": http://specials.msn.com/A-List/Entertainment/Helen-Mirren-wins-Body-of-the-Year-award.aspx?cp-documentid=29746864
Cry me a river, K. Or take a page from Helen Mirren's book. We should ALL look so good when we're her age!
Flynne at August 1, 2011 10:47 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/31/next_theyll_be.html#comment-2390535">comment from smurfyNo it's about WHO defines beauty (Note: the answer is: the beholder.) At best, a L'Oreal ad is going to be a proxy for a female definition of beauty.
Wrong. Beauty is defined by what men find attractive -- which is the product, for the most part, of millions of years of evolution. As Don Symons puts it: "Beauty is in the adaptations of the beholder."
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201010/the-truth-about-beauty
Amy Alkon at August 1, 2011 11:13 AM
Wrong?
I'm not seing where we disagree. Beauty isn't defined by policy. It's defined by the people who might or might not want to fuck you. A L'Oreal ad will never tell you much about these male adaptations. It would be better to look at an issue of maxim and see how they pair women with exotic cars and Mt. Everest expeditions. Those millions of years have evolved a pretty complicated algorithm. Hot chicks are as much about demonstrating status as they are about attractiveness. And in the end, other factors often win out. If you wanna be happy for the rest of your life....
But, like you say, nothing's going to change in this realm in our lifetimes.
smurfy at August 1, 2011 12:02 PM
"You are a product of your environment and your environment has been marketed to you since birth." -K
OK, I'll bite. And what do you do with environment? If it is challenging, will you overcome it? Will you endure, will you force yourself to change?
An environment that swaddles you in comfort and never challenges you does only one thing. It kills you. Every person that demands that such things be easy eventually comes to regret that.
The context is important here, because the central idea of your post: "Can the definition of beauty be expanded to allow Julia Roberts to be considered beautiful even if she has wrinkles?"
OK, sure. No Skin off my nose AT ALL. WHO is buying these magazines? WHO are the art directors?
It ain't guys, nor are guys demanding these things from the magazine or the ads. We don't buy them. WE are not defining beauty. So who is to blame? Look in your handy mirror. Women buy these things, women make these ads, and women are pictured. Why is it that women themselves don't stand up and change this?
COULD IT BE that they agree with it? Or don't find it offensive, or perhaps just don't care what tricks are pulled to make stuff appear better-than-possible? Do they perhaps know what they are using these products for?
In any case, buyers could vote with their feet, and stop buying the mags, or the product. The market is AMAZING in the signals it sends if the consumer is unhappy. Why would the government need involvement?
Because as a society, we are doing the wrong thing? And somehow the govt. knows better? Or some watchdog who claims to be a "feminist" knows better?
Which is better: to ask a girl to be strong, or to tell her she is weak? Which one allows for individual growth, and which one forecloses on it?
SwissArmyD at August 1, 2011 12:40 PM
> Which is better: to ask a girl to be
> strong, or to tell her she is weak?
> Which one allows for individual growth,
Both...
> and which one forecloses on it?
Neither.
Sometimes when you're being a fuckhead, other people can help you snap out of it by saying: "Hey, you're being a fuckhead!" Being patient sometimes helps too... But like, whatever.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 1, 2011 1:50 PM
"They found that when men sniffed tear-filled vials or tear-soaked cotton pads, their testosterone levels fell, they were less likely to rate pictures of women's faces as attractive, and the part of their brains that normally light up in MRI scans during sexual arousal were less active."
But the Dolman of Elaas will enslave you with her tears.
Unless you're the Captain of All Nerds.
Radwaste at August 1, 2011 2:22 PM
Why is it every time we hear feminists talk about redefining beauty, its always so that young beautiful women will be considered less hot, and the speaker will be considered more so?
Because their fucking hypocrites who care for their own political power and nothing for the people they claim to speak for
lujlp at August 1, 2011 6:56 PM
Hmm. How about a little non-Photoshop work of fantasy? Or a few?
Take a look at Ryoko-demon!
Radwaste at August 6, 2011 12:57 PM
Leave a comment