NationStates Jolt Archive

Having just read one of my 13 yr old sisters girls magazines I have come to the conclusion that something is going very ,very wrong with the world.
It is hardly surprising that due to the nature of the adverts in this magazine, and some of the articles, marketers are promoting sex to young teenagers which Im sure is helping the figures for teenage pregnancies.
What gets me more angry is that these magazines and adverts in them make young girls (and guys im sure) feel like they are worthless unless they are stick thin, covered in make up and designer clothing.I am sure that there are many young girls who are literaly dying from an eating disorder,which the magazines and adverts are contributing to.
It makes me feel sick that fragile teenagers are being exploited for greed and made ill through this exploitation.I have no idea what can be done about it,I know that free speech is important, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE FREEDOM FOR CHILDREN AND TEENAGERS NOT TO BE EXPLOITED BY AGRESSIVE ASPIRATIONAL ADVERISING!
What can we do?:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Having just read one of my 13 yr old sisters girls magazines I have come to the conclusion that something is going very ,very wrong with the world.
It is hardly surprising that due to the nature of the adverts in this magazine, and some of the articles, marketers are promoting sex to young teenagers which Im sure is helping the figures for teenage pregnancies.
What gets me more angry is that these magazines and adverts in them make young girls (and guys im sure) feel like they are worthless unless they are stick thin, covered in make up and designer clothing.I am sure that there are many young girls who are literaly dying from an eating disorder,which the magazines and adverts are contributing to.
It makes me feel sick that fragile teenagers are being exploited for greed and made ill through this exploitation.I have no idea what can be done about it,I know that free speech is important, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE FREEDOM FOR CHILDREN AND TEENAGERS NOT TO BE EXPLOITED BY AGRESSIVE ASPIRATIONAL ADVERISING!
What can we do?:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

The answer to that question is to teach the children the right mindset to have, though it seems lately people can hardly agree on what that is.

Free speech should not be outlawed by any means. If I listened to whatever I heard people say, I believe I'd be dead by now.


To quote Proverbs: "Train up a child in the way he should go"

You can teach your children to be rational people who won't draw unreasonable conclusions from advertising.

Having just read one of my 13 yr old sisters girls magazines I have come to the conclusion that something is going very ,very wrong with the world.
It is hardly surprising that due to the nature of the adverts in this magazine, and some of the articles, marketers are promoting sex to young teenagers which Im sure is helping the figures for teenage pregnancies.
What gets me more angry is that these magazines and adverts in them make young girls (and guys im sure) feel like they are worthless unless they are stick thin, covered in make up and designer clothing.I am sure that there are many young girls who are literaly dying from an eating disorder,which the magazines and adverts are contributing to.
It makes me feel sick that fragile teenagers are being exploited for greed and made ill through this exploitation.I have no idea what can be done about it,I know that free speech is important, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE FREEDOM FOR CHILDREN AND TEENAGERS NOT TO BE EXPLOITED BY AGRESSIVE ASPIRATIONAL ADVERISING!
What can we do?:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
I don't know, maybe teach kids to think critically and make their own decisions based on a cynical appreciation of the aims of marketing and pop culture (which are often the same thing)?

You can teach your children to be rational people who won't draw unreasonable conclusions from advertising.

Fully second that.

What can we do? Not believe in rubbish, for starters.

You can teach your children to be rational people who won't draw unreasonable conclusions from advertising.

Thank you. Great answer.

You can teach your children to be rational people who won't draw unreasonable conclusions from advertising.
yeahhttp://elouai.com/images/yahoo/a36.gif

It makes me feel sick that fragile teenagers are being exploited for greed and made ill through this exploitation.I have no idea what can be done about it,I know that free speech is important, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE FREEDOM FOR CHILDREN AND TEENAGERS NOT TO BE EXPLOITED BY AGRESSIVE ASPIRATIONAL ADVERISING!
What can we do?:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Checklandia, I agree completely with you on most of your points.

Corporations must be stopped from marketing generally because its feeding into capitalistic consumerism. However, I disagree that sex aspect should be supressed, perhaps an exception could be made for the promotion of safer sex practices.

Sex is a right for everyone, and comprehensive sex education needs to be taught in public schools as early as possible. You cannot oppose comprehensive sex education because of the First Amendment requirement of separation of church and state.

I don't know. Freedom of speach going so-far is like freedom of images, and should be regulated as such.

Having just read one of my 13 yr old sisters girls magazines I have come to the conclusion that something is going very ,very wrong with the world.
It is hardly surprising that due to the nature of the adverts in this magazine, and some of the articles, marketers are promoting sex to young teenagers which Im sure is helping the figures for teenage pregnancies.
What gets me more angry is that these magazines and adverts in them make young girls (and guys im sure) feel like they are worthless unless they are stick thin, covered in make up and designer clothing.I am sure that there are many young girls who are literaly dying from an eating disorder,which the magazines and adverts are contributing to.
It makes me feel sick that fragile teenagers are being exploited for greed and made ill through this exploitation.I have no idea what can be done about it,I know that free speech is important, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE FREEDOM FOR CHILDREN AND TEENAGERS NOT TO BE EXPLOITED BY AGRESSIVE ASPIRATIONAL ADVERISING!
What can we do?:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Stop whining and start a revolution.

Marketing is, for the most part, free speech. I don't like it any more than you do, and I see the direct result of kids in school frowning upon those who don't subscribe to the Abercrombie/Ralph Lauren/schlock-designer-of-the-day consumerist propaganda.

The only solution is education. HG Wells had it right when he said that "we are in a race between education and catastrophe" -- it always seems like catastrophe is winning when 12-year-olds I sub-teach for are dressed like Paris Hilton...which means a parent allowed, either through action or inaction, that to happen.

One last point in this meander. Parents nowadays seem like they're on a long date with their kids, trying to impress them and not trying to harsh their buzz with rules and restrictions. Problem is, kids NEED boundaries in order to understand and make sense of the world they're growing up in. That means parents should be authorities, not best pals (or at least not until the authority is firmly established). That doesn't mean authoritarian, but authoritative (there's a difference), and it means not indulging ever whim they have and educating them about what's really important.

Trouble is, many parents haven't figured that one out yet themselves. It took Bush 'til 40 (FORTY!) to figure out that alcoholism was a bad thing. Hey, as long as you DO figure it out.

Okaaaay...

So someone wants to sell a piece of clothing. They take a photo of a model (it ain't the corporation who's deciding what exactly constitutes a model, they'll take anyone who they think people can or want to identify with) wearing that piece of clothing.

Then they show that photo to people.

Then people look at the photo and suddenly say "I must look like this! I must hurt myself to look like this!"

And then the person wanting to sell clothing is exploiting the retards who can't distinguish an ad for clothing from their own free will?

It's amazing the sort of arguments people will come up with to declare money and the making of it evil.

I must say I agree.
When I was younger I was getting bloody insecure because I was a bit of a pudgy boy, however it wasn't because of school or society, it was all because of the media portraying men and women to the exact peak of physical perfection.

It's impossible to stop television advertisements and sex in movies.
However I'm sure some of the children's television shows, magazines and fashion could use a serious rehaul.

Okaaaay...

So someone wants to sell a piece of clothing. They take a photo of a model (it ain't the corporation who's deciding what exactly constitutes a model, they'll take anyone who they think people can or want to identify with) wearing that piece of clothing.

Then they show that photo to people.

Then people look at the photo and suddenly say "I must look like this! I must hurt myself to look like this!"

And then the person wanting to sell clothing is exploiting the retards who can't distinguish an ad for clothing from their own free will?

It's amazing the sort of arguments people will come up with to declare money and the making of it evil.
Hence the emphasis on education as a defense.

I'm not sure the public can necessarily identify with clothing models. I haven't seen that many ribs since my last barbecue.

Silly reasonable people. This calls for a full out war, involving artillery, tanks, submarines to sink all ships belonging to these companies, and possibly tactical nuclear missiles.

You can teach your children to be rational people who won't draw unreasonable conclusions from advertising.

:D


Do you have children?

The only group that should be able to advertise is the government, because we control it, and it should advertise to help promote tolerance and true facts to get out to the public. I'm scared when a private person tells me something because I don't know if it is true or not, but the government can hire objective people to carefully weigh everything and report something as true or false.

The only group that should be able to advertise is the government, because we control it, and it should advertise to help promote tolerance and true facts to get out to the public. I'm scared when a private person tells me something because I don't know if it is true or not, but the government can hire objective people to carefully weigh everything and report something as true or false.

Okay Ministry of Truth.

What can we do?
Stop breeding like fucking rabbits, for starters.

Stop breeding like fucking rabbits, for starters.

Bad day at work hun? :p

:D


Do you have children?

Not presently.

It shouldn't be difficult. Teaching logic is much like teaching math or written language.

Okaaaay...

So someone wants to sell a piece of clothing. They take a photo of a model (it ain't the corporation who's deciding what exactly constitutes a model, they'll take anyone who they think people can or want to identify with) wearing that piece of clothing.

Then they show that photo to people.

Then people look at the photo and suddenly say "I must look like this! I must hurt myself to look like this!"

And then the person wanting to sell clothing is exploiting the retards who can't distinguish an ad for clothing from their own free will?

It's amazing the sort of arguments people will come up with to declare money and the making of it evil.

Yeah, this variant of anti-capitalist sentiment generally stems from a belief that people are essentially stupid and helpless... a belief which tends to fuel other types of anti-capitalism as well.

The only group that should be able to advertise is the government, because we control it, and it should advertise to help promote tolerance and true facts to get out to the public. I'm scared when a private person tells me something because I don't know if it is true or not, but the government can hire objective people to carefully weigh everything and report something as true or false.

Why do you trust the people who work for the government more than the people who work for private industry? At least with private industry we know what their motives are.

Not presently.

It shouldn't be difficult. Teaching logic is much like teaching math or written language.

:D

Logic and a five year old?

I didn't think those two could go together!

:D

Logic and a five year old?

I didn't think those two could go together!

If he's 5, you've waited too long. By then he's already in school, and ideally he'll know how to read, plus do basic math and logic before he gets there.

I was given logic puzzles as a child. They were my favourite toys when I was about 3.

Marketing is, for the most part, free speech. I don't like it any more than you do, and I see the direct result of kids in school frowning upon those who don't subscribe to the Abercrombie/Ralph Lauren/schlock-designer-of-the-day consumerist propaganda.
The only solution is education. HG Wells had it right when he said that "we are in a race between education and catastrophe" -- it always seems like catastrophe is winning when 12-year-olds I sub-teach for are dressed like Paris Hilton...which means a parent allowed, either through action or inaction, that to happen.
One last point in this meander. Parents nowadays seem like they're on a long date with their kids, trying to impress them and not trying to harsh their buzz with rules and restrictions. Problem is, kids NEED boundaries in order to understand and make sense of the world they're growing up in. That means parents should be authorities, not best pals (or at least not until the authority is firmly established). That doesn't mean authoritarian, but authoritative (there's a difference), and it means not indulging ever whim they have and educating them about what's really important.


YES, YES, YES, AND YES. So right, and saying it so well.

I bolded the "most bestest" bit.

Nice to hear from another lost soul stuck in AlmostConsideredARealTeacherLand, too.:)

YES, YES, YES, AND YES. So right, and saying it so well.

I bolded the "most bestest" bit.

Nice to hear from another lost soul stuck in AlmostConsideredARealTeacherLand, too.:)
Thanks. I spent two years as a sub. Best and worst two years of my career. I'm a university prof now, and subbing lessons I learned are proving useful.

Why do you trust the people who work for the government more than the people who work for private industry? At least with private industry we know what their motives are.

Ah, the old, "at least they're honest/up front/obvious about being bastards" excuse.

No sale.

When private industry is as vulnerable to our outrage or discontent as government is, then I'll see it your way. Only occasionally, and in very isolate cases, has this proven to be true.

Private industry's stranglehold on avenues of communications to and for its demographics (the people who give it cash, in other words), and to those outside the mess who might become interested, makes those peoples' dissent against their policies or practices woefully slow-moving (and easily quashed, then deliberately "forgotten"), compared to dissent against the policies and practices of the gov't.

And given how arduous it is to get the gov't. to change it's course, that's saying something.

It's (hopefully) not a question of "trusting" one set over the other; it's going to the one side that can help you the most in a given instance or circumstance, while being least likely to want to use you harmfully later.

I admit, these days, that sure seems like a hard choice to make.:(

If he's 5, you've waited too long. By then he's already in school, and ideally he'll know how to read, plus do basic math and logic before he gets there.

I was given logic puzzles as a child. They were my favourite toys when I was about 3.

:D

Ok. When you have children and raised them do write a book and end the businsess of advertising to kids.

You can teach them that sugar bombs are bad but they see the pink bunny or the superhero and they want them.

You can't train them not to respond. You have to be the ogre.....

I'm not sure the public can necessarily identify with clothing models. I haven't seen that many ribs since my last barbecue.
The airbrush artists clearly aren't doing their job, then.

I'm not sure the public can necessarily identify with clothing models. I haven't seen that many ribs since my last barbecue.
Well, all the company can do is look at sales figures before and after an ad campaign and try to establish what works best.

It seems that skinny models (although the really skinny ones don't usually feature in your normal sort of campaign) work, otherwise fewer companies would be using them.

There are some countries in Scandinavia and northern Europe that have banned all advertisements aimed at an audience under a certian age limit. I think this is a stupendiously good idea, and that Britain should follow suit

On another note, I agree with the poster who said that corperations have too much power and not enough accountability.

Having just read one of my 13 yr old sisters girls magazines I have come to the conclusion that something is going very ,very wrong with the world.
It is hardly surprising that due to the nature of the adverts in this magazine, and some of the articles, marketers are promoting sex to young teenagers which Im sure is helping the figures for teenage pregnancies.
What gets me more angry is that these magazines and adverts in them make young girls (and guys im sure) feel like they are worthless unless they are stick thin, covered in make up and designer clothing.I am sure that there are many young girls who are literaly dying from an eating disorder,which the magazines and adverts are contributing to.
It makes me feel sick that fragile teenagers are being exploited for greed and made ill through this exploitation.I have no idea what can be done about it,I know that free speech is important, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE FREEDOM FOR CHILDREN AND TEENAGERS NOT TO BE EXPLOITED BY AGRESSIVE ASPIRATIONAL ADVERISING!
What can we do?:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:


Stop blaming some random 3rd party for some childrens' problems. Its not a magazine's fault that some girl grows up fucked up and throws up after every meal.

Okaaaay...
And then the person wanting to sell clothing is exploiting the retards who can't distinguish an ad for clothing from their own free will?
It's amazing the sort of arguments people will come up with to declare money and the making of it evil.

You are presenting a flawed argument, and using insulting "editorializing" to make it sound firm.

By painting the person in question as a "retard", you are essentially saying that it's o.k. to fuck them over.

Because they are (in the ludicrous example) unable to NOT be fucked over, on account of not being able to "distinguish an ad for clothing from their own free will" :rolleyes: , then the marketers and companies are perfectly in the clear?

When did "buyer beware" become "fuck 'em if they can't see it coming"?

Even in the straw-man example you give, it's essentailly blaming the victim to a degree I can't condone.

Remember, we're talking about kids here. They don't think like us. that doesn't make them legitimate targets of opportunity.

I'm not asking for industry to grow a conscience. It can't, it exists to make money.

But (ideally, and correctly) us people, the informed voters, control the government.

And (ideally, and correctly), the government ought to have the power to regulate industry.

Because too many asshole money-ghouls in "industry" (or any other term for business) go from being regular normal capitalists (good) willing to work within a pretty lenient framework, to being people who think that their customers are like the examples you presented.

Easily-led, contemptible victims-in-waiting who are asking for it.

Again, no sale.

Stop blaming some random 3rd party for some childrens' problems. Its not a magazine's fault that some girl grows up fucked up and throws up after every meal.

Wow you have never looked into the causes of eating disorders now have you?

On another note, I agree with the poster who said that corperations have too much power and not enough accountability.
Any particular reason?

Corporations are accountable to their owners, that is everyone who owns a share in the company. Who else should they be held accountable to?

And their power is to buy and sell things people want to buy and sell. Anything beyond that is actually the power of politicians. Don't give politicians the power to fiddle about in the economy, and the economy won't start fiddling about with the politicians.

Any particular reason?

Corporations are accountable to their owners, that is everyone who owns a share in the company. Who else should they be held accountable to?

And their power is to buy and sell things people want to buy and sell. Anything beyond that is actually the power of politicians. Don't give politicians the power to fiddle about in the economy, and the economy won't start fiddling about with the politicians.

Has there EVER been a recorded incident where economy an politics were not married?

Any particular reason?

Corporations are accountable to their owners, that is everyone who owns a share in the company. Who else should they be held accountable to?

The public. They sell their items to the public. They advertise to the public, they sell to the public. These adveritsments and products shape society and the media in many many ways. The fact is the public have very little in the way of control back. The normal counter argument to this is "If they stop buying it, it will go away". Of course the problem with that is that it is useally the products and advertising that causes the most social problems are also those reaching for the lowest common denominator. What you are arguing for is an oversimplified view of society.

By painting the person in question as a "retard", you are essentially saying that it's o.k. to fuck them over.
In other words, I am to pay for other people's issues?

Is it the job of a company to raise kids to be confident and independent adults? I don't think so. I'd much sooner look for what the parents were doing, before starting to blame companies for showing pictures of models wearing their clothes.

You said yourself that these people work to make money. I hold it to be self-evident that there is nothing wrong with this. If people are found to buy more clothes when these marketing methods are used, then it is the right of a company to use the method. No one is forcing anyone to do anything.

What you are saying is pretty much the same as saying that a screwdriver company must be prosecuted if someone uses the screwdriver to stab someone. It's the same sort of indirect guilt you place on the company for the silly actions of an individual.

Stop blaming some random 3rd party for some childrens' problems. Its not a magazine's fault that some girl grows up fucked up and throws up after every meal.

I think you should delete this post before someone with a more detailed understanding of this issue than the man on the street comes and basicly pulls your feeble mind apart. As a slightly above avarage man on the street with regard to the issue of anorexia, I can tell you that media pressure is useually one of the main factors that leads to it. Would you care to offer what you think causeses it?

Has there EVER been a recorded incident where economy an politics were not married?
Well, if the government didn't regulate business, business wouldn't need to control politicians. I don't agree with allowing corporations to run willy-nilly, but it does make sense.
Wow you have never looked into the causes of eating disorders now have you?
Personal accountability doesn’t come into play at all? It’s always society’s fault?
It is ultimately a decision to go down the path that leads to an eating disorder.

The only group that should be able to advertise is the government, because we control it, and it should advertise to help promote tolerance and true facts to get out to the public. I'm scared when a private person tells me something because I don't know if it is true or not, but the government can hire objective people to carefully weigh everything and report something as true or false.

Hey, I don't think that marketing should be entirely the purview of the government either.

I may hate the money-ghouls, but they are not the entire population of the private sector. You can't cut off private expression, even if it has an agenda, and you can't cut it off just because that"agenda" might be to make some money.

To give unilateral power of advertising only to government is not the same as giving it "back to the people". Sure wish it was, but it ain't.

There has to be a tug-of-war, with government regulating and constraining business' most rapacious extremes, and business attempting to challenge and subvert government's most stultifying crackdowns on the profit incentive.

Unfortunately, business, i.e., the private sector, is virtually uncontested in the realm of information and imagery. And in a world where multinationals are beginning to (effectively) write international regulation laws themselves, government is losing the battle to punish the private sector for it's worst depredations.

Welcome back to the 1890's.

Personal accountability doesn’t come into play at all? It’s always society’s fault?
It is ultimately a decision to go down the path that leads to an eating disorder.

Obviously personal acounability comes in at some level, but that works on a case by case level. The fact is that media and social pressure work on every level and are a universal problem. Accountability is not a universal problem as it differs so much in every case.

Personal accountability doesn’t come into play at all? It’s always society’s fault?
It is ultimately a decision to go down the path that leads to an eating disorder.

Look into the the two main disorders and we can talk again.

Has there EVER been a recorded incident where economy an politics were not married?
Probably a few. Pre-Industrial Iceland, for example.
But it's true, politics has a tendency to encroach upon the economy.

The public.
Oh, I'd love to meet him. Or is it a her?

Let's face it, "the public" can't make decisions, it's not some sort of organism, nor a yardstick. It's a bunch of people working together or against each other, influencing each other from time to time and otherwise trying to do what they think is best for them.

A company therefore can't be held accountable to the public, only to representatives of it. Some might argue that politicians represent the public, but that's only partly the case. Politicians are people too, they do what is best for themselves - and even if they act on behalf of "the public", I think we can name enough examples of the ideas of a politician being quite different to that of most people, especially the people directly involved with the issue at hand.

These adveritsments and products shape society and the media in many many ways.
Wouldn't it be the other way around?

I think it's established that firms do marketing to sell stuff and make money. You don't think that they'd use heavy models if that would sell more stuff and make more money?

What you are arguing for is an oversimplified view of society.
Not really. I'm arguing for the most complex model of society there is, namely one where people are individuals and have differing views and opinions.
Everyone directly affected by the company's actions has the power to decide: the shareholders vote on their management, the customers purchase the goods and services.
And even those indirectly affected can get involved, be it through the government (which is usually inefficient and likely to be captured by all sorts of rent-seeking behaviour), through private negotiations (which can be costly and difficult to organise), or through law suits.

Probably a few. Pre-Industrial Iceland, for example.
But it's true, politics has a tendency to encroach upon the economy.


Hmm. Didn't know that. Thanks!

And (ideally, and correctly), the government ought to have the power to regulate industry.


Wrong. Say, of I don't know, Dick Cheney had the power to regulate industry? What would happen? He would probably "regulate" all the other businesses in Haliburton's industry (whatever that is, I never knew) away. Also, the populace controls the industry. If we don't like a product that is being sold by one company, we will go to another product and the the company that is selling the first product will either change it's product, merge with the second comapany, or go bankrupt.

Look into the the two main disorders and we can talk again.
Anorexia is hypocritical. Someone who eats themselves into a heart attack isn’t considered to be suffering from a mental disorder, but stop eating and you’re crazy. The only "disorder" an anorexic has is a weak will and an inability to distinguish reality and fantasy.


I am aware that bulimia isn't even usually entirely about weight; it's about controlling your life or some such trash that teenaged girls are able to get away with in a society that coddles them far too much.

its just not good enough to say that if people cant tell the difference between adverts and reality then they are retards.
I know plenty of highly inteligent people who have been suckered by the ad campaigns.I know a young chinese girl who wants to be blond because all the prity models in teh magazine she reads are blond.
What kind of message are we sending to young people,you only have worth is you dont have spots/if your blonde/if you wigh less than 6 stone ect.
Its just as bad for adults, you only have worth is you dont have cellulite/dont have wrinkles/if your stomach isnt flabby.For men, girls will love you(not because of your personality)if you wear this aftershave.
Its teaching people to be shallow, to put more worth in appearance than in depth and intelligence, that LOVE COMES FROM THE PRODUCTS YOU WEAR NOT FROM YOUR PERSONALITY.
speaking from personal experience, (which may make me biased-you can decide that)I suffered from both anorexia, and then bullimia for over 5 years(only just recovering)everywhere I looked there were pictures of people who were thinner than me, better looking than me-what I though were perfect people.Im not a retard-I have a v high IQ,and some people onsider me to be intelligent,but I just didnt know that I was being duped into believing that these people were perfect , and that I should be like them.People just dont realise the extent of airbrushing and meddling with the pictures that goes on.
I am all for freedom of speech, but I also believe that with freedom comes responsibility.Many people hate the idea of brainwashing or indoctrinating children, especially into religions, but this is worse,children are young people are being brainwashed and indoctrinated into thinking they need to constanty buy and change their appearance to be loved.What is worse is that they can get away from religions, and get away from their parents when they grow up, but they can never get away from aspirational advertising-is this realy freedom?
It is wrong to think that this kind of advertising doesnt contribute to bullimia/anorexia,the facts and figures show this.Something is going to break and it is more likeley to be our children than the companies and advertisers.

I know a young chinese girl who wants to be blond because all the prity models in teh magazine she reads are blond.
And of course, that would be horrible? It's still her decision, regardless of where her reasoning might have come from.

Ultimately it's similar with eating disorders. Let's face it, the reason one gets such a disorder is not because we look at a magazine. If that was the case, everyone who looked at a magazine would get eating disorders.

The reason sits somewhere else. I'm not a psychiatrist, I can't tell you why you started it in the first place. It's none of my business, to be honest.

But do you really think that without advertising there wouldn't be any more eating disorders?
I'd be willing to bet that people in Ancient Greece or Rome had eating disorders. Or in Victorian Britain.

The reasons come from within, the ads just serve as a means of the brain to fuck itself up. If that means was gone, another would do the trick just as well.

So I just don't see how you want to put the blame on companies. It's just too shallow a solution.

its just not good enough to say that
*snips for brevity*

Well, just get back at 'em by enjoying the Hell out of everything. Spots? Bring 'em on. A bit of flab? No problem. I have a hard time digesting that there's supposed to be some group or other who sets the standards for my self-image.

That's why I drink my coffee with cream and sugar. That's why "lite" beer - or "lite" anything, really - has yet to pass my lips. Life is meant for living, and my life is about enjoying the Hell out of everything. If it's someone's job to make sure I feel badly about myself, they've either long since given up - or they're just not trying hard enough.

I'm sorry, but I'm entirely of the opinion that if you're so easily swayed by advertising, you're not intelligent enough to deserve your so-called rights anyway. I've never dieted just to get to some ridiculous 'ideal' presented by society, I diet if my doctor tells me I should lose weight... and I eat more if my doctor tells me I'm getting to be a little underweight. I don't buy clothes based on labels, I buy clothes based on my own sense of fashion, and what is a reasonable price for high quality.

Do I have consumer loyalty? Yes... I'm an -extremely- loyal consumer: Of brands I trust. I don't sway due to advertising for one simple reason: Why should I buy the soda advertised on TV when the store brand tastes just as good, and costs a third as much? People who -are- swayed by advertising, who buy things for the brand name, who do all of that, deserve the BS situations they get themselves into.

Watch commercials and decide you're too fat because the girls on TV are starving themselves? Fine, go starve yourself, and don't complain about it to me! Went out and had sex with every guy in the school because of advertising? Okay, so you're a slut, and a ditz, why should I care as long as you're not trying to sleep with my own S.O.?

In other words, I am to pay for other people's issues?

No! Where the hell did you get that from?

Is it the job of a company to raise kids to be confident and independent adults? I don't think so. I'd much sooner look for what the parents were doing, before starting to blame companies for showing pictures of models wearing their clothes.

"Is it the job of..." :confused: Again, this was never an assertion of mine.
You are taking something I posted and sticking a rather bizarre spin to it.

By "bizarre", I mean completely wrong, and having nothing to do with my post. Are you actually responding to what I said?


You said yourself that these people work to make money. I hold it to be self-evident that there is nothing wrong with this.

AS MY ACTUAL POSTS EXPLAIN, I don't ideally see anything wrong with this either.

If people are found to buy more clothes when these marketing methods are used, then it is the right of a company to use the method. No one is forcing anyone to do anything.

Again, we are talking about children. Different set of rules as to consent. I am not getting this going again, and your assumption that everyone is just supposed to forget the actual people being talked about as the subject of the OP makes me doubt your seriousness.

And please refrain from terms like "force" when they essentially mean nothing. Of course nobody is "forcing" anything physically. Stop being disingenuous. I dislike being treated like a "retard" in your replies.

What you are saying is pretty much the same as saying that a screwdriver company must be prosecuted if someone uses the screwdriver to stab someone. It's the same sort of indirect guilt you place on the company for the silly actions of an individual.

No, I am saying no such thing. The marketing wings of the company in question, the sales departments of the company in question, and the other organizations that make up a company ARE PART OF THE COMPANY. Hence, the company gets regulated for the (supposedly independent???) actions of its appendages.

The example above bears no relation to anything we are talking about. None.

Tell ya what. Stop being insultingly disingenuous, putting words into my mouth, and coming up with preposterous "conclusions" to my arguments. In return, I'll (for once) curb my natural and regrettable use of terms like "vampire" and "ghoul" in reference to the worst violators of business ethics. that way, I don't get to resort to name-calling. This time.

I'm sorry, but I'm entirely of the opinion that if you're so easily swayed by advertising, you're not intelligent enough to deserve your so-called rights anyway. I've never dieted just to get to some ridiculous 'ideal' presented by society, I diet if my doctor tells me I should lose weight... and I eat more if my doctor tells me I'm getting to be a little underweight. I don't buy clothes based on labels, I buy clothes based on my own sense of fashion, and what is a reasonable price for high quality.



What about cases like Channel one in San Jose? There was a big fight over allowing for TV in the classrooms. The argument was that they get quality educational programs with a little advertising to offset costs.

This is an advertisers wet dream as you can program for a set age range and even a social economic level depending on the school.

Anorexia is hypocritical. Someone who eats themselves into a heart attack isn’t considered to be suffering from a mental disorder, but stop eating and you’re crazy. The only "disorder" an anorexic has is a weak will and an inability to distinguish reality and fantasy.

:eek: :mad:
I am aware that bulimia isn't even usually entirely about weight; it's about controlling your life or some such trash that teenaged girls are able to get away with in a society that coddles them far too much.

Okay, you just X'd yourself out of the "deserved a decent response" column, you flamebaiting bastard.

I work around kids. Kids the exact ages as those we speak of. You don't know what you're talking about.

And just because we don't treat them as abysmally as they are treated in other nations doesn't make them "coddled".

You assjack. Walk away. If I knew who you were, and you came within ten feet of the kids I work with, I'd call the cops. You wretched menace.

No! Where the hell did you get that from?
Well, as you can see in another post of mine, I consider the ads not to be the reason for eating disorders, but just a sort of means the brain uses to live out the issues it already has.
In other words, I don't hold the advertising responsible. It's not the company's issue, it's the teenager's (and no, thirteen-year olds are not children these days).

So you want to limit the rights of the company to say whatever it wants in its ads, because some people may have issues into which the ads enter at some point in time.

"Is it the job of..." :confused: Again, this was never an assertion of mine.
Well, you are putting blame on marketing professionals, aren't you? Wouldn't the parents be more likely to be at fault? Or perhaps other kids at school?
Wouldn't it be the parents' job to make sure the kids can understand what an ad should and shouldn't represent?

By "bizarre", I mean completely wrong, and having nothing to do with my post. Are you actually responding to what I said?
I am, but I have developed this annoying tendency of missing a couple of steps and just concluding without making a case first. Just stop me if I'm going too fast.

AS MY ACTUAL POSTS EXPLAIN, I don't ideally see anything wrong with this either.
Yeah, I read that. Just wanted to make sure everyone's on the same page on this one.

Again, we are talking about children. Different set of rules as to consent.
If they are legally able to buy the stuff that is being advertised, then what's the issue regarding consent?
And besides, children don't get eating disorders. Confused teenagers and insecure adults do. Age doesn't matter so much as the mental state.

Of course nobody is "forcing" anything physically.
So how can it be any third party's business?

If everyone involved consents to the transaction, then that is all that matters, as far as I'm concerned. Everyone has a choice, virtually every step of the way.

The example above bears no relation to anything we are talking about. None.
Again, I appologise for being too brief.

It is not the ads that make people have eating disorders.

It's the people themselves, and the experiences they have with others. Ultimately it's the individual that "does something wrong", for whatever reason. The negative effect is "caused" by an individual, which just so happens to use the screwdriver in the process.

Just because people with eating disorders use the ads to justify their problem to themselves doesn't mean that the people who make the ads are to blame for the problem. We don't need to make the same mistake the people with the disorders make.

What about cases like Channel one in San Jose? There was a big fight over allowing for TV in the classrooms. The argument was that they get quality educational programs with a little advertising to offset costs.

This is an advertisers wet dream as you can program for a set age range and even a social economic level depending on the school.

Actually, I oppose showing television in the classroom that is paid for by advertising. If it is paid for by advertising, then the advertisers will eventally have control over the content of the channel. No advertiser will buy an unknown timeslot from a channel, even for the chance of getting their advertising into a classroom. And they -can- then all decide that they don't want to advertise at some time and force the people running the channel to stop airing a show that isn't receiving advertising support.

And just because we don't treat them as abysmally as they are treated in other nations doesn't make them "coddled".
Other nations? Nothing to do with anything. The problem is that parents, educators and other caretakers have failed in teaching children what real problems are.

Sorry kids, but not fitting into a size 0 or whatever isn’t worth killing yourself over, missing some concert won’t kill you, and you don't need a cell phone.

Well, as you can see in another post of mine, I consider the ads not to be the reason for eating disorders, but just a sort of means the brain uses to live out the issues it already has.
In other words, I don't hold the advertising responsible. It's not the company's issue, it's the teenager's (and no, thirteen-year olds are not children these days).

So you want to limit the rights of the company to say whatever it wants in its ads, because some people may have issues into which the ads enter at some point in time.


Well, you are putting blame on marketing professionals, aren't you? Wouldn't the parents be more likely to be at fault? Or perhaps other kids at school?
Wouldn't it be the parents' job to make sure the kids can understand what an ad should and shouldn't represent?


I am, but I have developed this annoying tendency of missing a couple of steps and just concluding without making a case first. Just stop me if I'm going too fast.


Yeah, I read that. Just wanted to make sure everyone's on the same page on this one.


If they are legally able to buy the stuff that is being advertised, then what's the issue regarding consent?
And besides, children don't get eating disorders. Confused teenagers and insecure adults do. Age doesn't matter so much as the mental state.


So how can it be any third party's business?

If everyone involved consents to the transaction, then that is all that matters, as far as I'm concerned. Everyone has a choice, virtually every step of the way.


Again, I appologise for being too brief.

It is not the ads that make people have eating disorders.

It's the people themselves, and the experiences they have with others. Ultimately it's the individual that "does something wrong", for whatever reason. The negative effect is "caused" by an individual, which just so happens to use the screwdriver in the process.

Just because people with eating disorders use the ads to justify their problem to themselves doesn't mean that the people who make the ads are to blame for the problem. We don't need to make the same mistake the people with the disorders make.

It is not totally the fault of adverising, but eating disorders can be made worse and can often be triggered by this kind of advertising.children arent taught the meaning of adverts because many adults are suckered also.
and children do get eating disorders, there are many cases, and the exapmles are getting younger and younger.
Is thirteen not a child, well 13 is not an adult-or do you think that people should be allowed to have sex with 13 year olds?
If you see from the time you start watching TV , people looking a certain way, then are told they are beautiful, and then you realise you dont look like that you feel bad, you feel ugly.It is not a persons fault if they have low self esteem-did they ask to feel like shit about themselves,did they work towards feeling like crap?Obviously you have never felt this way,or you would be more understanding.Perhaps you would gain a better understanding of mental illness if you suffered from one yourself, but I wouldnt wish it upon anyone.
I dont want adverts to be banned, I just want advertisers to be responsible.I want schools to teach children about the techniques that advertisers use. but I guess if this happened advertising wouldnt work, people would stop buying, and we wouldnt want that.
The fact is, everyone compares themselves to others, and if all we see in adverts are 'beautiful' but airbrushed and surgically enhanced people,then this will affect us,and probably in a negative way.

Having just read one of my 13 yr old sisters girls magazines I have come to the conclusion that something is going very ,very wrong with the world.
It is hardly surprising that due to the nature of the adverts in this magazine, and some of the articles, marketers are promoting sex to young teenagers which Im sure is helping the figures for teenage pregnancies.
What gets me more angry is that these magazines and adverts in them make young girls (and guys im sure) feel like they are worthless unless they are stick thin, covered in make up and designer clothing.I am sure that there are many young girls who are literaly dying from an eating disorder,which the magazines and adverts are contributing to.
It makes me feel sick that fragile teenagers are being exploited for greed and made ill through this exploitation.I have no idea what can be done about it,I know that free speech is important, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE FREEDOM FOR CHILDREN AND TEENAGERS NOT TO BE EXPLOITED BY AGRESSIVE ASPIRATIONAL ADVERISING!
What can we do?:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

You know what we do? Start a revolution. Make noise, rasie Hell... Show what teenagers REALLY want. I'm sick of people dressing like Paris hilton and listening to "what''s popular", just to impress people. Teenagers just want to be accepted, and the magazines are twisting that into all sorts of gruesome things. We start a revolution. We start blogging obsessively, and MAKE SURE SOMEBODY SEES IT. Send the link to everyone you knwo ur something. I am sick of the evil media telling us what to do, and it's time we say "F@$# THAT! WE'LL JUST THINK FOR OURSELVES!"

I'm not taking this lying down. This is the final straw for me. I'm making a blog, or doing something, and I'm making sure it gets out there.

[QUOTE=Neu Leonstein]And of course, that would be horrible? It's still her decision, regardless of where her reasoning might have come from.

the point was that it is not wrong for her to want blond hair, but the fact is that she doesnt recoignise the beauty in herself and wants to look like these models.This is echoed in many people,they are beautiful in their own way but they want to conform to these steriotypes of beauty-because they think that it is the only kind of beauty worth having.

the point was that it is not wrong for her to want blond hair, but the fact is that she doesnt recoignise the beauty in herself and wants to look like these models.This is echoed in many people,they are beautiful in their own way but they want to conform to these steriotypes of beauty-because they think that it is the only kind of beauty worth having.
Uh, most people are physically ugly. That’s why models have a job in the first place. As long as there has been society there have been ideals of beauty. It's human nature to desire what is rare.

Uh, most people are physically ugly. That’s why models have a job in the first place. As long as there has been society there have been ideals of beauty. It's human nature to desire what is rare.

Problem is, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Many people that I am told are beautiful, do not look so at all to me, whereas what I consider beautiful, others often disagree with in return. The problem is when advertisers band together to define beauty and then market that image as the only real 'beautiful'. Ignorant, unintelligent people then get suckered into believing that to be the case, simply because they're told that, and so try to meet that standard. It's ridiculous, stupid, and like I alluded to before, I don't give those sorts of people the time of day. (Nevermind that I don't wear a watch... I could always pull my cell out of my purse and check..)

Problem is, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Many people that I am told are beautiful, do not look so at all to me, whereas what I consider beautiful, others often disagree with in return. The problem is when advertisers band together to define beauty and then market that image as the only real 'beautiful'. Ignorant, unintelligent people then get suckered into believing that to be the case, simply because they're told that, and so try to meet that standard. It's ridiculous, stupid, and like I alluded to before, I don't give those sorts of people the time of day. (Nevermind that I don't wear a watch... I could always pull my cell out of my purse and check..)
As Leonstien has already pointed out, the media only responds to what people think is beautiful. It would actually be easier if the average person was considered good looking. Then, they could just grab anyone off the street to model something. Those ignorant people collectively create the image of beauty, the part of it that isn’t instinctual anyway.

Wrong. Say, of I don't know, Dick Cheney had the power to regulate industry? What would happen? He would probably "regulate" all the other businesses in Haliburton's industry (whatever that is, I never knew) away. Also, the populace controls the industry. If we don't like a product that is being sold by one company, we will go to another product and the the company that is selling the first product will either change it's product, merge with the second comapany, or go bankrupt.

I said, "the government", not "one autocratic string-puller in government". As I said before, the current example of "government" at the top doesn't offer much in the way of respite from the worst that the misusers of the private sector can do.

That doesn't mean "government" as a whole is always like Cheney.

Also, as I've argued before, our ability as adults, to discern what is good from bad, to make informed consent towards one product or another, is not the issue. That of children and teens, who manifestly think differently and have less experience than adults, is what's actually at issue.

Unfortunately, business, i.e., the private sector, is virtually uncontested in the realm of information and imagery. And in a world where multinationals are beginning to (effectively) write international regulation laws themselves, government is losing the battle to punish the private sector for it's worst depredations.


Well what do we do to stop the free market from killing us? I can't think of any other solution other than having the government step in and monitor all speech. As long as it doesn't try to block sex or other obscenities, which are guaranteed by the First Amendment, I don't see any problem with them blocking greed-induced marketing.

Actually... good point there... proof that teenagers don't understand how o buy quality products: that they would spend three times as much money on pants that already have holes in them instead of buying the good, sturdy jeans that will last them for years... and are cheap. Yes, I was a teenager just a few years ago (23 now) but even then I thought -that- particular fad was too stupid to catch on... yet it did. How stupid exactly -are- these kids?

Well what do we do to stop the free market from killing us? I can't think of any other solution other than having the government step in and monitor all speech. As long as it doesn't try to block sex or other obscenities, which are guaranteed by the First Amendment, I don't see any problem with them blocking greed-induced marketing.
Isn't marketing just another form of free speech though? I mean, does the fact that this is by a corporation really make it a different form of speech? Should we ban political comics because they try to persuade us to their line of thinking? Corporations have a right to advertise and you have a right to ignore, I think that is completely fair. The free-market isn't killing us in the first place, if anything people are making choices and those choices happen to have negative consequences, unless you want some totalitarian police state that regulates all choice I really don't see what the problem is.

EDIT: I type for shit. I am slow as hell. Neu Leonstein, I am sorry my response was so slow in coming.
I also apologize for this post's brevity and for not including your quotes.
the last response I typed was much more detailed...the fucking server ate it or something. It took me a long time to write. this response is a poor facsimile.

Okay, this response is actually specifically to Neu Leonstein.

First, thank you for elaborating on your prior post, the one I was so upset about. Your arguments make a lot more sense to me now, and I no longer feel as though you were being crazy or putting words into my mouth. I sincerely appreciate that.

That said, I don't agree with your assertion, that "these days" thirteen-year-olds are adult. Don't get their posturing and posing confused with who they are mentally.

Another thread we've already worn through, though. If you didn't get convinced before, I'm not a psychologist either, I likely won't convince you this time.:)

I agree with you that absentee parenting is a factor. I agree with you that cruel, overbearing, or (also) absentee parenting contributes to eating disorders. I just don't think that this is the only deciding factor.

However, I only want to have increased powers of regulation over the private sector if and when their advertising and marketing is obviously preying on an existing "mental state" or prediliction for a mental state, in a targetted demographic. And yes, we see this happen today. And yes, it often gets a free pass because the private sector is too legally powerful, and can make a mess of regulators (or criminal lawyers, even) in court.

Let me say, I believe that the marketing ability of the private sector should be monitored, regulated and constrained. Not destroyed (as Truth and Conscience seems to want), but not allowed the ability to get away with effectively predatory advertising.

Let me also state that I don't believe that marketing is in any way responsible for the "creation" of eating disorders. The problems and factors are much more pervasive than that.

If I gave that impression, it was totally the wrong impression.

I want predatory marketing regulated and prosecuted. However, just so you know, I send more "blame" to adult role models, especially parents.

Negligent parenting is child abuse. It is violence against children. I want to kill those people. I've met a couple.

It's very hard to restrain one's worst instincts when confronted with such perfidy.

Negligent parenting is child abuse. It is violence against children.

I may not be the person who you intended the post for but I can agree with the idea of that. Negligent parenting if anything is the crime that society is suffering from. I don't think that society should have to pick up the slack for their sloppy job.

Well what do we do to stop the free market from killing us? I can't think of any other solution other than having the government step in and monitor all speech. As long as it doesn't try to block sex or other obscenities, which are guaranteed by the First Amendment, I don't see any problem with them blocking greed-induced marketing.

Um, your other post didn't say you wanted government "monitoring" of anything.

You said that you wanted the government to be the only entity that advertises.

That is what I objected to. Strongly.

Your above argument is...laudable in its intent. I think.:confused:

But I am unclear of what you really mean. All marketing, in some respect, is both greed-induced and plays upon the greed of the viewer.

And the government already "monitors all speech". Even if nothing comes of that monitoring.

Oh, I'd love to meet him. Or is it a her?

Let's face it, "the public" can't make decisions, it's not some sort of organism, nor a yardstick. It's a bunch of people working together or against each other, influencing each other from time to time and otherwise trying to do what they think is best for them.

A company therefore can't be held accountable to the public, only to representatives of it. Some might argue that politicians represent the public, but that's only partly the case. Politicians are people too, they do what is best for themselves - and even if they act on behalf of "the public", I think we can name enough examples of the ideas of a politician being quite different to that of most people, especially the people directly involved with the issue at hand.

Of course a company can be held accountable to the public. Its simple. You have a series of legal proceedings that make it far easier for a member of the public to make direct action against a company where it sees that they have done something wrong, and that wrong is objective. That is what we have with governments.


Wouldn't it be the other way around?

Only to an extent.


I think it's established that firms do marketing to sell stuff and make money. You don't think that they'd use heavy models if that would sell more stuff and make more money?

Firms are there to provide a service/product. If they loose sight of that, that is when the marketing/money grabbing evil comes out and the marketing goes bad.


Not really. I'm arguing for the most complex model of society there is, namely one where people are individuals and have differing views and opinions.
Everyone directly affected by the company's actions has the power to decide: the shareholders vote on their management, the customers purchase the goods and services.
And even those indirectly affected can get involved, be it through the government (which is usually inefficient and likely to be captured by all sorts of rent-seeking behaviour), through private negotiations (which can be costly and difficult to organise), or through law suits.

No, your aruing for a very old proposition that is very simplitic. Your comming from Magret Thatchers "There is no such thing as society" postion, arguing that market forces (the share holders, customers etc) will sort everything out. And you yourself have pointed out that the current public accountability of companies is inadiquate (through the government and other institutions). The fact is that a more complex solution is needed to combat this complex problem

Corporations have a right to advertise and you have a right to ignore, I think that is completely fair.

Certian groups are more vunrable to adveritisng than others. Certain groups do not have the full ability to ignore. Therefore they need protecting.

Watch commercials and decide you're too fat because the girls on TV are starving themselves? Fine, go starve yourself, and don't complain about it to me! Went out and had sex with every guy in the school because of advertising? Okay, so you're a slut, and a ditz, why should I care as long as you're not trying to sleep with my own S.O.?

Its this kind of callous attitude that means that society gets in a bad state

Obviously you Americans have never heard of a little thing called a social conceience

Its this kind of callous attitude that means that society gets in a bad state

Obviously you Americans have never heard of a little thing called a social conceience
Sure we have. We're just so eyeball-deep in consumerism that we don't really care much about it and paint those who do as lacking in "personal responsibility" -- unless they're a corporate CEO or some other well-connected (i.e. wealthy) individual.

"Personal responsibility" is a convenient shield for irresponsible corporate bloodsuckers to hide behind. Now, before you go and drag out the "commie" epithets, realize that I fully approve of the free market in most cases. But, like George Carlin theorized, the person who coined the phrase caveat emptor was likely bleeding from the asshole at the time.

I propose the act of anti-marketing
A counter attack against damn shitty popular-economic model thats being imposed on world by the power of the capital. Without succombing into ethni-religious shit, by only upholding rationality the world needs organisations to fight against this new voluntarily serfing system.
People will go on produce and market their goods as always, we all need to bring food to the table. It is not a fight against economy or market but the dictatorial hysterical marketing system that brainswashes people and takes their right to choose for themselves by creating fake gods and goddesses to be prayed and copied. This kinda marketing only works for the greatest and strongest of companies to crush competition with others because small business cant compete to it.
It starts with personal trainind and discipline but ahs to become an organized action.

It’s about more social awareness of what marketing actually is and if what is being market is achievable.

There's a scheme that’s been introduced recently in the UK that I for one would hope will take off and become wide spread.

Basically it's an awareness workshop for schools that dispels the myths behind how an image is made. For example, they show a picture of a model before a shoot, and then the finished product and the step by step process taken to achieve the image. The airbrushing, the altering of the body shape, the eye colour, the hair, etc etc.

Personally I think it's a really good idea, the kids were very receptive to it and took quite a bit of comfort from knowing that what is marketed as 'perfect' doesn’t even exist - and they felt better about themselves.

Granted it's not to stamp it out in its entirety - but it's a start

You have a series of legal proceedings that make it far easier for a member of the public to make direct action against a company where it sees that they have done something wrong, and that wrong is objective. That is what we have with governments.
How would that work in practice? We already have provisions for people to sue companies. Isn't that enough, or do you want prosecution with extreme prejudice?

Only to an extent.
So what is the master plan/conspiracy? If you're saying that companies don't respond to society, but that they form it somehow, then they obviously must have some sort of plan. What happens if a "normal" person then joins a company? Is there some sort of entry seminar into the big scheme?

Firms are there to provide a service/product. If they loose sight of that, that is when the marketing/money grabbing evil comes out and the marketing goes bad.
Nobody starts a company simply to provide a good or service. They start it because they want to make money by providing a good or service. That's why companies make profits.
When you say that they aren't supposed to be after going money, then you obviously think they owe you something. Like they only exist to serve you. Why would they?

No, your aruing for a very old proposition that is very simplitic. Your comming from Magret Thatchers "There is no such thing as society" postion, arguing that market forces (the share holders, customers etc) will sort everything out.
I think I made my view of society (including people influencing each other) very clear. Thatcher or no Thatcher, my point stands - I'm a seperate person from you. We don't have common throughts, we don't have a common conscience, we obviously haven't even got a common morality.
The reason that market forces don't have everything always sorted out is because the market is not always in equilibrium. No one disputes that.
The problem is when you start believing that you somehow know where and what equilibrium is, and play around with people's lives to get there. But the fact of the matter is that you can't look inside people's heads. You can't know what people want, how much of it and when, only people themselves know.
And that's why a government can't impose things on the economy and expect positive results. It can only ever screw things up if you don't give people choices.

And you yourself have pointed out that the current public accountability of companies is inadiquate (through the government and other institutions). The fact is that a more complex solution is needed to combat this complex problem
And the market is the most complex solution possible, isn't it? It can take all shapes, it can react to any situation. It's perfect, so to speak.

It’s about more social awareness of what marketing actually is and if what is being market is achievable.

There's a scheme that’s been introduced recently in the UK that I for one would hope will take off and become wide spread.

Basically it's an awareness workshop for schools that dispels the myths behind how an image is made. For example, they show a picture of a model before a shoot, and then the finished product and the step by step process taken to achieve the image. The airbrushing, the altering of the body shape, the eye colour, the hair, etc etc.

Personally I think it's a really good idea, the kids were very receptive to it and took quite a bit of comfort from knowing that what is marketed as 'perfect' doesn’t even exist - and they felt better about themselves.

Granted it's not to stamp it out in its entirety - but it's a start

That is utterly reasonable and actually addresses the problem where it lies. Go UK!

Having just read one of my 13 yr old sisters girls magazines I have come to the conclusion that something is going very ,very wrong with the world.
It is hardly surprising that due to the nature of the adverts in this magazine, and some of the articles, marketers are promoting sex to young teenagers which Im sure is helping the figures for teenage pregnancies.
What gets me more angry is that these magazines and adverts in them make young girls (and guys im sure) feel like they are worthless unless they are stick thin, covered in make up and designer clothing.I am sure that there are many young girls who are literaly dying from an eating disorder,which the magazines and adverts are contributing to.
It makes me feel sick that fragile teenagers are being exploited for greed and made ill through this exploitation.I have no idea what can be done about it,I know that free speech is important, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE FREEDOM FOR CHILDREN AND TEENAGERS NOT TO BE EXPLOITED BY AGRESSIVE ASPIRATIONAL ADVERISING!
What can we do?:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

If a parent rears a child to be so stupid that the child will give in to such tripe, then that parent is an utter failure. If a parent produces a child who is as "fragile" as you describe, that parent has so completely failed at their duty that I'd say they qualify to be charged with neglect. Shame on them.

Yes, we all feel pressures from pop culture. But being stupid enough to harm one's self to conform to bullshit like you describe? That's just weak.

When private industry is as vulnerable to our outrage or discontent as government is, then I'll see it your way. Only occasionally, and in very isolate cases, has this proven to be true.

Government isn't vulnerable to our outrage. They can bribe us with our own money in order to make us happy. And it works.

Private industry's stranglehold on avenues of communications to and for its demographics (the people who give it cash, in other words), and to those outside the mess who might become interested, makes those peoples' dissent against their policies or practices woefully slow-moving (and easily quashed, then deliberately "forgotten"), compared to dissent against the policies and practices of the gov't.

And I don't care about dissent about their practices. The fact is, if you don't have cause to believe what someone tells you, don't believe it. How hard is that?

Ok. When you have children and raised them do write a book and end the businsess of advertising to kids.

You can teach them that sugar bombs are bad but they see the pink bunny or the superhero and they want them.

And then we can discuss why they want them. They can learn. That's basically what children are for - they're little learning machines.

You can't train them not to respond.

Watch me.

You have to be the ogre.....

And that's possible, too. Children don't have buying power, so marketing to them is really marketing to their parents by proxy. That anyone objects that the kids can't see through the ads seems somehow irrelevant.

If a parent rears a child to be so stupid that the child will give in to such tripe, then that parent is an utter failure. If a parent produces a child who is as "fragile" as you describe, that parent has so completely failed at their duty that I'd say they qualify to be charged with neglect. Shame on them.

Yes, we all feel pressures from pop culture. But being stupid enough to harm one's self to conform to bullshit like you describe? That's just weak.

Its not the childs fault that a parent brings them up badly.The vunerable need to be protevted,and children and teenagers are the most vunerablt.
If you have been exposed to advertising all your life, and have never had it explained(and indeed your parents may not have had it explained) then you will not understand and you will be 'weak' as you call it.
It makes me very angry when people describe a mental illness as someone being weak.
If someone has cancer, or a broken leg is it their fault because they are weak?
Its not someones fault that they have a mental illness like anorexia or depression, it people who treat people will this kind of illness that make the situation worse.

I have just completed my first year at uni studying Marketing (results pending) and I have learnt that it's all about exploitation. Exploiting peoples desires, creating demand within consumers, demand that might not necessarily be prevailent without marketing. This saddens me but then I think "How can a lefty live in a capitalist state?". Answer: I can't. Suicide is against my ethics and I cannot afford to live it up in Cuba lol (just yet ;) ) so "if you can't beat 'em join 'em" is my stance.

God, I'm hypocritical! Meh... It could be worse. I could work as a used car salesman... (no offence to anyone who is!:p )

"How can a lefty live in a capitalist state?". Answer: I can't.

But you can. That's a great thing about a free society. If you want to live according to socialist ideals, you can do that. You just can't force anyone else to do it along with you.

Just because marketing is designed to exploit people, the people are not without responsibility in having been exploited. No one forced them to buy anything. They voluntarily got up and bought SuperDiscoBarbie because they wanted it. That it didn't make them happy isn't Mattel's fault.

But you can. That's a great thing about a free society. If you want to live according to socialist ideals, you can do that. You just can't force anyone else to do it along with you.

Just because marketing is designed to exploit people, the people are not without responsibility in having been exploited. No one forced them to buy anything. They voluntarily got up and bought SuperDiscoBarbie because they wanted it. That it didn't make them happy isn't Mattel's fault.

...Did it take you a moment to remember who makes Barbie?

...Did it take you a moment to remember who makes Barbie?
probablt not because there are about 3 adverts for barbies in every ad break between kids tv shows(tee hee)

...Did it take you a moment to remember who makes Barbie?

I paused briefly. I had to picture the packaging and read the logo in my head.

Government isn't vulnerable to our outrage. They can bribe us with our own money in order to make us happy. And it works.
And I don't care about dissent about their practices. The fact is, if you don't have cause to believe what someone tells you, don't believe it. How hard is that?

Hmmm. Historically, governmnet has been more vulnerable to our outrage or dissent. Just perhaps not in the time-frame we'd prefer, i.e. with any real speed at all.
But yeah, these days, it sure seems like government doesn't have to listen...but "government" doesn't mean "the past thirty years of government administrations". At least that's not how I meant it.

As to your second comment, "cause" to believe something isn't as simple as you want it to be, when we're talking about largely irrational wants.

EDIT: However, as Checklandia was alluding to(?), I do support the notion that kids should be taught in school to be more cognizant when it comes to advertising. I do this with the kids I work with whenever possible. Actually, I often end up doing an impromptu lesson whenever we're working on the computers. These students have precious little understanding of the Internet (many don't get near PCs until school time), and their parents have even less. There is a prevailing notion that if it's shown, it's "true". Regardless if the "truth" is words, or a combination of words and pictures. The children make associations that are facile, that a learned adult would never make, but that marketers are betting a teen or tween will make.
Make no mistake, these kids aren't stupid. Just unschooled.

Anorexia is hypocritical. Someone who eats themselves into a heart attack isn’t considered to be suffering from a mental disorder, but stop eating and you’re crazy. The only "disorder" an anorexic has is a weak will and an inability to distinguish reality and fantasy.

Actually, force-feeding yourself in order to gain weight is considered just as much an eating disorder as starving yourself in order to lose weight. It's significantly less common, so you don't hear about it as much, but there's no hypocrisy. Obviously, eating because you're hungry or happen to like eating is not a mental disorder, any more than not eating because you're not hungry or you don't like the food you're being offered is. You're comparing apples and oranges here.

And I'd suggest you try deliberately not eating for a week or two and see how easy it is before you claim that people with anorexia have "weak wills," of all things. :rolleyes:

we're talking about largely irrational wants.

But who's fault is that?

The agent. The irrational agent is responsible for his own wants (I tend to use want and need interchangeably, as I think the distinction between them is illusory).

But you can. That's a great thing about a free society. If you want to live according to socialist ideals, you can do that. You just can't force anyone else to do it along with you.

I have realised this in the last year or two but I feel it is too much of an uphill struggle to even try and live like a socialist. I'd rather just spend as ethically as I can (y'know avoid fast food restaurants, recycled goods, charity shops etc.) and in that I feel some happiness... The only thing I don't like about capitalism is it disregards (in my opinion) all that should be important to humanity. Next time you go to McDonalds just remember you're ordering a 'McSlice out of the Amazon' which in other terms could be 'McCancer cure down the pan' lol :cool:
Irony is that you could end up with gastric cancer with all the shit they put in their 'food'...

The only thing I don't like about capitalism is it disregards (in my opinion) all that should be important to humanity.
And by adding "in my opinion", you basically captured everything that needs to be said here.

You don't get to decide what is important to humanity, everyone gets to decide what is important to them. Capitalism is essentially an expression of that...because for most people, the most important thing is themselves and their close family and friends, and the wellbeing of those people.

But who's fault is that?

The agent. The irrational agent is responsible for his own wants (I tend to use want and need interchangeably, as I think the distinction between them is illusory).

Fault? Christ, are we still going into finding one thing at fault? that isn't what's going on here. Stop oversimplifying. I just had this argument, for heaven's sake.

As for your seeing the difference between a want and a need as illusory...what am I supposed to say to that? It's preposterous as a one-sentence statement. I have no idea if you are trying to dismiss my semantics, or explain that you're a Vajrayana Buddhist....

But who's fault is that?

The agent. The irrational agent is responsible for his own wants (I tend to use want and need interchangeably, as I think the distinction between them is illusory).

In marketing lingo a need is considered something that the consumer needs to live ie. basic necessities in Maslow's hierachy of needs and wants such as food, water, clothing and sex.

A want however is something that the consumer consciously desires because of the material value eg. a brand new Audi or the latest mp3/toaster combo.

There's the difference. food is food if you're hungry enough. It's easier and more lucrative to exploit wants rather than sell needs.

Ah. Is that what you meant,Llewdor?

I hope so. I was beginning to think you were going on a spiritual rant.:)

EDIT: I may have to give up this thread. Not for lack of interest, but because I'm beginning to doubt that I'm following along very well, and don't want to merely muddle things.

If any of my earlier posts make sense, then okey-dokey and I stand on 'em. If you don'tsee them as sound, argue them down, and I'll hope they'll stand up to the scrutiny (they may not). I'll check back and respond when I'm...balanced out with proper sleep and food and crap.

Actually, force-feeding yourself in order to gain weight is considered just as much an eating disorder as starving yourself in order to lose weight. It's significantly less common, so you don't hear about it as much, but there's no hypocrisy. Obviously, eating because you're hungry or happen to like eating is not a mental disorder, any more than not eating because you're not hungry or you don't like the food you're being offered is. You're comparing apples and oranges here.
Perhaps some people just want to be that skinny, so they don't eat.

And by adding "in my opinion", you basically captured everything that needs to be said here.

And that is the reason I put it in there... I have the right to express my own opinion as do you.

You don't get to decide what is important to humanity, everyone gets to decide what is important to them. Capitalism is essentially an expression of that...because for most people, the most important thing is themselves and their close family and friends, and the wellbeing of those people.

When you say most, is that based on your knowledge of friends/colleagues/acquaintances or is there an opinion poll which covers the majority of a 6 billion population. I would be willing to guess that you know a minute proportion of the world's population. And don't get me wrong... I do feel family and friends are of the utmost importance to me but I also care about the whole world. Humans, nature, the whole damn shabang is important to me. I can only hope (because of selfish want) that others would and do fell the same.

It's easier and more lucrative to exploit wants rather than sell needs.
Note how you are making implicit value judgements over other people here. You "sell" things to fulfill needs, but you "exploit" wants. As if the wants were somehow unworthy, but the needs aren't.

My marketing lecturer made a point of holding a 30 minute monologue in the first lecture a couple of years ago to explain to us what marketing is and what it isn't.

Marketers cannot make people buy stuff. People decide to buy stuff. All marketers can do is try to influence people, by providing perceived value. Advertising is obviously just a tiny part in that process (most firms don't even do large-scale advertising).

When you say most, is that based on your knowledge of friends/colleagues/acquaintances or is there an opinion poll which covers the majority of a 6 billion population.
It's based on me and my environment, obviously.

But you think that a poor farmer in the Congo feels as strongly for a single mother in Canada as for his own family, or his neighbour?

Some people might feel for all humanity (although chances are that those are the people who already have plenty enough to eat themselves), but you can't tell me that they feel just as strongly for some unknown person half-way across the globe as they do for the people they are around every day.

If I gave you the choice, all the people in your neighbourhood, or the same number of people in Chechnya - who'd you rather see die?

Note how you are making implicit value judgements over other people here. You "sell" things to fulfill needs, but you "exploit" wants. As if the wants were somehow unworthy, but the needs aren't.

My marketing lecturer made a point of holding a 30 minute monologue in the first lecture a couple of years ago to explain to us what marketing is and what it isn't.

Marketers cannot make people buy stuff. People decide to buy stuff. All marketers can do is try to influence people, by providing perceived value. Advertising is obviously just a tiny part in that process (most firms don't even do large-scale advertising).

I am sorry for the semantic variation in my statement. Creating percieved values ican be seen as exploitation if you look at it one way but another way to look at it is 'buyer beware'. To be honest I sit somewhere in the middle of it. To some extent appealling to peoples wants is a fair practice as long as the consumer is capable of making decision. This is what the dabate is about. Can children really exercise restraint. I have little knowledge on developemental psychology and child cognition so I cannot comment.

I did not mention (at least I think I did not) advertising in my statement. I refer to marketing which I do recognise as a broader study.

Perhaps some people just want to be that skinny, so they don't eat.

You don't have a very good grasp of what anorexia nervosa is, do you?

Anorexia nervosa is a serious, often chronic, and life-threatening eating disorder defined by a refusal to maintain minimal body weight within 15 percent of an individual's normal weight. Other essential features of this disorder include an intense fear of gaining weight, a distorted body image, and amenorrhea (absence of at least three consecutive menstrual cycles when they are otherwise expected to occur). In addition to the classic pattern of restrictive eating, some people will also engage in recurrent binge eating and purging episodes. Starvation, weight loss, and related medical complications are quite serious and can result in death. People who have an ongoing preoccupation with food and weight even when they are thin would benefit from exploring their thoughts and relationships with a therapist. The term anorexia literally means loss of appetite, but this is a misnomer. In fact, people with anorexia nervosa ignore hunger and thus control their desire to eat. This desire is frequently sublimated through cooking for others or hiding food that they will not eat in their personal space. Obsessive exercise may accompany the starving behavior and cause others to assume the person must be healthy.


An anorexic is not someone who one day thought, "Gee, you know, I'd like to look like a skeleton. That'd be cool," any more than a depressive person is someone who one day thought, "Hey, I think I'd like to be sad all the time!" Treating mental disorders as choices, weaknesses, or faults is stupid, offensive, and completely medically unsound.

This is what the dabate is about. Can children really exercise restraint. I have little knowledge on developemental psychology and child cognition so I cannot comment.
Well, first of all - the ads aren't anorexia ads. They're clothing, or whatever else, ads.

It's the kids (and I maintain that 13-year olds aren't children, nor adults, but somewhere in between) who start reinterpreting the ads to say something entirely different. And since anorexic kids aren't increasing the present value of the firm's future cash flows, the firm has no reason to want this side effect to occur.

As for ads just generally targeting children...it's first and foremost the parent that has to decide whether or not they feel the kid can exercise restraint if needed and use money fairly responsibly. But if parents decide that they are responsible enough (ie they give them pocket money and autonomy over what they spend it on), then I think they are fair game for marketers to try and target.

If I gave you the choice, all the people in your neighbourhood, or the same number of people in Chechnya - who'd you rather see die?

That's a fair (if not unfair) question. To be honest I would probably chose my street although it would be a tough decision and the lives of 100 people would be on my consciounce but I would rather that than the 1,000,000 or Chechens... but still it would be a very tough choice... Note: all of my close friends do not live on my street! So that question doesn't make your point to be honest although I can understand your point. However I don't think that situation will trouble me... at least I hope :) What I am trying to say is that within realistic bounds I would try and do best for humanity as a whole. But when push comes to shove, you are right, myself,family and friends become more important...

To be honest I would probably chose my street although it would be a tough decision and the lives of 100 people would be on my consciounce but I would rather that than the 1,000,000 or Chechens...
I meant the same number of people. So 100 of your acquaintances vs 100 Chechens.

And if you still say the Chechens count as much...shouldn't you be engaging much more heavily in trying to get some sort of peace deal brokered there?

I'm just saying that it's nice to think of humanity as a whole sometimes, but when push comes to shove, people tend to think of themselves and their loved ones first.

As for ads just generally targeting children...it's first and foremost the parent that has to decide whether or not they feel the kid can exercise restraint if needed and use money fairly responsibly. But if parents decide that they are responsible enough (ie they give them pocket money and autonomy over what they spend it on), then I think they are fair game for marketers to try and target.

With that I agree on. I just question the mental ability of ones so young to think for themselves. In Britain the legal age of a child recognising potential consequences is 10 (I think!) so the onus is on the parent to choose whether to give the child the money before the age of 10. However it must be taken into account that this age is specified by law for assesing criminal liability and may be incongruous with psychological theory.

I'm just saying that it's nice to think of humanity as a whole sometimes, but when push comes to shove, people tend to think of themselves and their loved ones first.

Yep it is nice. And I couldn't agree more with the whole of the above statement.

You don't have a very good grasp of what anorexia nervosa is, do you?



An anorexic is not someone who one day thought, "Gee, you know, I'd like to look like a skeleton. That'd be cool," any more than a depressive person is someone who one day thought, "Hey, I think I'd like to be sad all the time!" Treating mental disorders as choices, weaknesses, or faults is stupid, offensive, and completely medically unsound.

that is the most sensible thing Ive read all day.(thank you!)

By your measures, the magazines must also want young women to feel they aren't tall enough and increase their height by...how?

By your measures, the magazines must also want young women to feel they aren't tall enough and increase their height by...how?
the magazines dont want to 'make' people anything except to make them feel bad about themselves to buy their products

the magazines dont want to 'make' people anything except to make them feel bad about themselves to buy their products
Making people feel bad is not going to make people buy stuff. What, do you acutally think that marketing managers sit in their dark little rooms, scheming and plotting how they can make people feel bad?

Fact is, marketers are trying to tell people: "Look, our product is of value to you. If you buy it, you'll be better off."

It's people with emotional and psychological issues who then start reinterpreting it differently. It's like my screwdriver example from before - these people are misusing what the marketers are doing, and you want to blame the marketers for it.

Making people feel bad is not going to make people buy stuff. What, do you acutally think that marketing managers sit in their dark little rooms, scheming and plotting how they can make people feel bad?

Fact is, marketers are trying to tell people: "Look, our product is of value to you. If you buy it, you'll be better off."

It's people with emotional and psychological issues who then start reinterpreting it differently. It's like my screwdriver example from before - these people are misusing what the marketers are doing, and you want to blame the marketers for it.

Corporate marketing should be illegal, only the government, because its democratically elected, can be trusted to put out information to people. But the government has to be elected. Because in the case of George W. Bush, he has subverted the objective government information that was given out during the nineties. It is instead a propaganda machine run by Dick Cheney that says "you are either with us or against us," just the Anakin Skywalker said when he became a Sith Lord.

Because in the case of George W. Bush, he has subverted the objective government information that was given out during the nineties.
You had objective government information during the nineties?

Well, whatever you want to believe, my friend. Just don't start forcing it on other people.

Corporate marketing should be illegal, only the government, because its democratically elected, can be trusted to put out information to people.

I ask again. Why do you trust the government?

In marketing lingo a need is considered something that the consumer needs to live ie. basic necessities in Maslow's hierachy of needs and wants such as food, water, clothing and sex.

Right, but those needs are just things he needs to satisfy certain wants, like survival.

That's why I think the distinction is illusory. You have to presuppose wants in order to fabricate needs.

I ask again. Why do you trust the government?

I don't.

Why do you trust businessmen?

I don't.

Why do you trust businessmen?

I don't need to trust businessmen. If I distrust everyone, I don't get suckered by marketing.

But I do trust businessmen more, because their behaviour is predictable.

Really, that's what trust is.

I don't need to trust businessmen. If I distrust everyone, I don't get suckered by marketing.

But I do trust businessmen more, because their behaviour is predictable.

Really, that's what trust is.

:D A politicians behavior is not predictable? :D

I might ask how old are you? You have a rather cynical view of people.

I don't need to trust businessmen. If I distrust everyone, I don't get suckered by marketing.

But I do trust businessmen more, because their behaviour is predictable.

Really, that's what trust is.
Government figures' behaviour is more predictable than the weather.

:D A politicians behavior is not predictable? :D

No. Because his goal is to attract votes, and I honestly have no idea by what mechanism most people award votes. As such, I can't tell what sort of means he might use to achieve his goal.

I might ask how old are you? You have a rather cynical view of people.

31

Corporate marketing should be illegal, only the government, because its democratically elected, can be trusted to put out information to people. But the government has to be elected. Because in the case of George W. Bush, he has subverted the objective government information that was given out during the nineties. It is instead a propaganda machine run by Dick Cheney that says "you are either with us or against us," just the Anakin Skywalker said when he became a Sith Lord.
That's a ridiculous idea; it prevents people from making decisions for themselves and also would assist in effectively destroying many companies. The former would rob people of their personal liberty and the latter would crumble the economy.

The point you make about propaganda also shows exactly why a small group of individuals, particularly political officials, should not be able to control what information is put out to people. Think about it: 1930s Germany. That didn't work out so well, right?

Tbh those girls who starve themselves and then end up looking more ugly than they started should be left to die or start eating again, they know they need to eat to survive they don't need telling.
This would be better at stopping more of them doing it than all the attention they get in magazines for being completely stupid.

Tbh those girls who starve themselves and then end up looking more ugly than they started should be left to die or start eating again, they know they need to eat to survive they don't need telling.
This would be better at stopping more of them doing it than all the attention they get in magazines for being completely stupid.


Okay, after nine pages of point and counterpoint, frayed tempers, explanation and re-explanation, considered opinion followed by yet more explanation to clarify the opinion...basically a whole lot of effort by many parties to make their points understood...

We get this bo-tard outpouring.

PopCatoo, say some thing useful, and attempt to type in such a way that you read like you're NOT on Quaaludes.

Otherwise, shut up and go away.

Right, but those needs are just things he needs to satisfy certain wants, like survival.

That's why I think the distinction is illusory. You have to presuppose wants in order to fabricate needs.

There is a destinction, in marketing, between what is basic instinct and what is developed through materialism. Of course what you say is true to an extent, however in marketing the terms 'want' and 'need' are different. What I am saying is that it needs to be taken into account when people use the different terms. A basic english language understanding is not always the most suitable as context often needs to be taken into account.

Having just read one of my 13 yr old sisters girls magazines I have come to the conclusion that something is going very ,very wrong with the world.
It took you this long to come to that conclusion? Are you retarded?
It is hardly surprising that due to the nature of the adverts in this magazine, and some of the articles, marketers are promoting sex to young teenagers which Im sure is helping the figures for teenage pregnancies. Are you one of those people who advocate sex education for children under 7th grade?
What gets me more angry is that these magazines and adverts in them make young girls (and guys im sure) feel like they are worthless unless they are stick thin, covered in make up and designer clothing.I am sure that there are many young girls who are literaly dying from an eating disorder,which the magazines and adverts are contributing to. Girls who are stick thin are stupid, and need to eat. Or die, that would also work.
It makes me feel sick that fragile teenagers are being exploited for greed and made ill through this exploitation.I have no idea what can be done about it,I know that free speech is important, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE FREEDOM FOR CHILDREN AND TEENAGERS NOT TO BE EXPLOITED BY AGRESSIVE ASPIRATIONAL ADVERISING!Children have no freedom. I would know. I'm 12.
What can we do?:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang If you have more than ten posts, don't ever use those again. They are for noobs; just like :sniper: and :mp5: .

Girls who are stick thin are stupid, and need to eat. Or die, that would also work.

Oh goody, another brilliant amateur psychologist...

I would know. I'm 12.


...and now I understand why you know everything. Well, enjoy puberty, young 'un, and I hope you escape it without the body issues a lot of folks your age struggle with! :)

Oh goody, another brilliant amateur psychologist... What? That wasn't psychology.



...and now I understand why you know everything. Well, enjoy puberty, young 'un, and I hope you escape it without the body issues a lot of folks your age struggle with! :) And where did I say I knew everything? And don't worry, I won't.

What? That wasn't psychology.

Oh, I'm in agreement there! ;) You did seem to be equating anorexia (a mental illness) with "stupidity," though, which is a colossally silly and ill-informed thing to do.

And I'm quite glad you plan to be the rare teenager who's perfectly happy with his/her body. I hope you succeed in that.

Oh, I'm in agreement there! ;) You did seem to be equating anorexia (a mental illness) with "stupidity," though, which is a colossally silly and ill-informed thing to do.
And I'm quite glad you plan to be the rare teenager who's perfectly happy with his/her body. I hope you succeed in that.

Yeah, Grunts, we're going to give you something of a "free pass" here, you see. You're young, and believe it or not, only living long enough to experience certain things will give you really useful perspective on them.

Hence, you are "ill-informed", rather than some of the other names I would use if you were a 30-year-old saying the same thing.

I mean what I say. I'm not being condescending, merely pointing out that if you live through enough years, you may find your views shift somewhat. You won't be as certain about things.

For instance, I was under the certainty that all drug addicts were weaklings and idiots. And certainly deserving of the early deaths they generally get.

Now, looking back, I wish I had known then who amongst my circle of friends was going to wind up dead before 21 because of addiction.

I know the diffrence between anorexia (read a story about a girl who had it, how could you live like that? Ugh) and "OH MY GOD! Those girls in the magazines are all really thin, so I need to not eat so I can look like them." That my friend, is a pretty big diffrence.

Kherb, I'm going to give you a free pass because you don't know me. I shouldn't be "ill-informed" because I have been listening to NS generalites for more than two years.I have also studied psychological disorders (IE: I read a few books on them, don't claim to be an expert)

Also, while I may have the body of a 12 year old, I have the mind of a 20-something year old. My parents and my teachers wil vouce for that. My views won't change, getting addicted to drugs is a collosoly stupid thing to do, though given the timeframe your talking about (the stone ages) your friends may have been ill-informed about drugs and made a mistake.

Also, while I may have the body of a 12 year old, I have the mind of a 20-something year old. My parents and my teachers wil vouce for that. My views won't change, getting addicted to drugs is a collosoly stupid thing to do, though given the timeframe your talking about (the stone ages) your friends may have been ill-informed about drugs and made a mistake.

Oh, dear. Grunts, please try to trust me when I tell you that if, 15 years from now, someone tells you that you're exactly as wise and mature as you were when you were 12, you will take it as an insult. I know I felt terribly grown-up when I was around your age, and looking back on that, I just have to laugh at myself. Odds are you will, too. It happens to the best of us. :)

The "stone ages" comment was quite funny, by the way, though I'm not entirely sure you meant it that way. It reminds me of a girl close to your age who told me a while back that women sometimes wearing trousers was a new and shocking development in the 1980s. When I explained that she was a wee bit off in her timing, she said, "Well, it's close enough!" It was pretty funny.

Kherb, I'm going to give you a free pass because you don't know me. I shouldn't be "ill-informed" because I have been listening to NS generalites for more than two years.I have also studied psychological disorders (IE: I read a few books on them, don't claim to be an expert)
Also, while I may have the body of a 12 year old, I have the mind of a 20-something year old. My parents and my teachers wil vouce for that. My views won't change, getting addicted to drugs is a collosoly stupid thing to do, though given the timeframe your talking about (the stone ages) your friends may have been ill-informed about drugs and made a mistake.

Okay, see, this is what I'm talking about.

Nobody's questioning your level of intelligence or your knowledge base gleaned from texts.

You haven't lived long enough to experience some things in all their facets, is what I mean (please forgive me for using a stupid hippie word like "facets", I'm tired).

My friends were quite well-informed, more's the pity. They knew, at least to some degree, what the risks were (death), and the level of risk, (increasingly certain).

Yet they died. These were very smart people. And they wanted to live. So why?

Because they were literally chemically taken over by something that subverted their willpower and drive, the same willpower and drive that, rationally, was telling them, "Quit this shit" (heroin).

My point is taht, as a young man, the idea that anyone would willingly do something to themselves that would compromise their strength like that, and not be a pathetic worthless piece 'a shit was unthinkable. It simply did not compute.

And over the years, I saw these two, and a couple others I knew to be smart, forward-thinking, strong-willed people, succumb to addiction.

This is what I mean about not assuming that you've got all the answers about people. I don't mean some laffy-daffy "forgive everyone" policy.

Just don't assume that what you know about anorexia (one story and clinical diagnoses) tells you everything about the real-world "OH MAH GAWWWD!"-girl stereotypes you are referring to.

There may (and I say "may") be some things you'll find out later, about where they're at, socially, mentally, whatever, that may cause you to regret your hasty assumption.

*snip*

Well said, Kherb.

The "stone ages" comment was quite funny, by the way, though I'm not entirely sure you meant it that way.

Yeah, and you were right.

The fucking 1980's (and 90's for that matter) were the "stone ages". Oh, yeah, and they sucked, too.

My students looked at me like I was an asshole when I mentioned the "Humpty Dance" once. One was like, "Shit, my dad loves that song".

I didn't bother to tell him that so did my dad. Ah well.

OK, enough reminiscing.

Yeah, and you were right.

The fucking 1980's (and 90's for that matter) were the "stone ages". Oh, yeah, and they sucked, too.

My students looked at me like I was an asshole when I mentioned the "Humpty Dance" once. One was like, "Shit, my dad loves that song".

I didn't bother to tell him that so did my dad. Ah well.

OK, enough reminiscing.

Hee hee. You know that the ultimate measure of anything's complete and utter uncoolness is if your parents like it. *shudder* :p

It took you this long to come to that conclusion? Are you retarded?
Are you one of those people who advocate sex education for children under 7th grade?
Girls who are stick thin are stupid, and need to eat. Or die, that would also work.
Children have no freedom. I would know. I'm 12.
If you have more than ten posts, don't ever use those again. They are for noobs; just like :sniper: and :mp5: .
There is no need in calling me a retard, what I read backed up veiws I alerady had on the nature of the world.
what has the next point got to do with anything, I think that people should have extensive sex education(not just you put this in there and you get a baby)but it shoukld be inteligent, and should teach people to value themselves and others.Sex is great-when you know what you are doing and what risks you take,and what risks you shouldnt take.

Since you happen to be 12, I assume you know everything anyone would ever need to know about life.Im not ageist,but you seriously should think before you type,and perhaps one day learn that when you are 12 you dont know everything-even tho you think you do.I can see that you are going to grow up as a kind, compassionate and intelligent adult(I know what to do-let them die!)

lastly whether im a noob or not I, can use whatever damm symbols I like, if it pisses you off, dont read my posts, or answer to my threads.:upyours:

I am 15. I am a girl. I have a wonderful mother who works in marketing. So I've no problem with advertisment, I know it by heart and know what is right or wrong... I've read many books about manipulation and eye-catching pitures, because I study art and need it to exploit images.
I considerate that every body is clever enough to make the difference between deceiption and a inoffensive (if there's some...) ad. It's up to the people to make the difference, and, for children, up to parents and school to educate them and teach them how to live in this world. Of course, firms (for an example fast food firms) will try to attract children to make money but they do their job, it's, after all, up to us all to know what is good for us. We can't really blam firms. It's the society that is like that, if the suddenly stop to advertise, they won't have any constumers, isn't it? And if those firms go well, economy go well, isn't it? It's the new order of things I suppose, we can't change that, we just can be cautious....

if the suddenly stop to advertise, they won't have any constumers, isn't it? And if those firms go well, economy go well, isn't it? It's the new order of things I suppose, we can't change that, we just can be cautious....

It's not that people want the firms to stop advertising, it's more that some people want the firm's advertising to be more socially responsible. As a whole marketing will always find a way to exploit/utilise peoples desires whether it is through tactical promotion, pricing, placement etc. There is a reason why big firms are big. They are very shrewd when it comes to marketing...

Its not the childs fault that a parent brings them up badly.

Did I say it was?


The vunerable need to be protevted,and children and teenagers are the most vunerablt.

Pfft. The LAST thing we need to do is further infantalize teenagers and young people. They're smarter, tougher, and far more capable than anybody seems to want to give them credit for, and trying to treat them like babies is not going to help anything.


If you have been exposed to advertising all your life, and have never had it explained(and indeed your parents may not have had it explained) then you will not understand and you will be 'weak' as you call it.

Because parents are the only people who ever talk to children. No child ever speaks with friends, teachers, relatives, or any other human being.


It makes me very angry when people describe a mental illness as someone being weak.

What you described is not a mental illness.


If someone has cancer, or a broken leg is it their fault because they are weak?
Its not someones fault that they have a mental illness like anorexia or depression, it people who treat people will this kind of illness that make the situation worse.
Dude, anorexia is not caused by magazine ads. There was anorexia LOOOOOOOOOONNG before this kind of advertising came into common use. And, more importantly, the underlying problems that lead to anorexia and eating disorders will still be there even if we take away advertising completely, they simply may manefest themselves slightly differently.

Did I say it was?


Pfft. The LAST thing we need to do is further infantalize teenagers and young people. They're smarter, tougher, and far more capable than anybody seems to want to give them credit for, and trying to treat them like babies is not going to help anything.


Because parents are the only people who ever talk to children. No child ever speaks with friends, teachers, relatives, or any other human being.


What you described is not a mental illness.


Dude, anorexia is not caused by magazine ads. There was anorexia LOOOOOOOOOONNG before this kind of advertising came into common use. And, more importantly, the underlying problems that lead to anorexia and eating disorders will still be there even if we take away advertising completely, they simply may manefest themselves slightly differently.
Anorexia is a mental illness.Anorexia was not caused by advertising, but advertising contributes to many peoples issues with self esteeem.
As was pointed out earlier, I do not ask for the abolition of advertising, just that advertising be responsible, and that schools/parents/gaurdians have better information to help teach children about advertising.

I don't know. Freedom of speach going so-far is like freedom of images, and should be regulated as such.

That, my friend, is infringement on those rights.