|
Mocker
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mount Fuji
|
|

Nov 30th, 2003, 09:36 AM
A football player's physique serves a clear and distinct set of purposes (although the purposes of those purposes seem kind of pointless), whereas an anchorwoman's physique does not. A crusty cunt most probably has an equally operational mouth, equally operational memory and equally operational whatever else one needs to talk for an hour or so.
The distinction which is of importance between the two sides of the original analogy blot test made is that the reason we put beautiful people in the daily media is aesthetic and not functional. We like to see nice tits and sparkly smiles and that's that. This practise misleads people in numerous ways, the most important of which in that they raise the scale of what the physical norm is supposed to be. If one watches tv for a while, he'd come to believe most people are the beautiful. This is essentially same as with the supermodel-type kind of woman which has recieved oversaturation in the media consistently for the last 40 years or so, it distorts public perception as to what actually exists. Also it manufactures aspirations to reach this higher model in the mass uneducated populance, with various social neuroses as the outcome.
The original double standard discussed in this thread, indeed can be taken as some sort of aesthetic racism or whatnot, although I do not care to debate this aspect of a much larger matter to itself at all, because the same quasi-racism is inherently instinctual, and not so much of a social issue. The social issues are the biproducts of this inherent behaviour. But that's a different discussion.
|
__________________
|
|
|