*I'm inclined to think this whole body image thing is just symptomatic of rampant consumerism.*

Grim, I think its more like basic evolution theory in action.

Males in general are still instinctively attracted to young,
healthy looking females, as it implies fertility and health.
Females in the end, are competing with one another for better
males, any survey will show that looks makes a big difference.

Females OTOH commonly are attracted to power and resources,
so they line up for a guy like Tiger Woods. The fact that
a guy can provide the resources to feed the offspring, still
matters in female selection criteria.

No matter how much we wish, some of these deep down, instinctive
human drives, are not just going to go away, they are part of
our genetic make up.

Sylvie and Floatinglili,

Human beings are still driven by primeval instincts, where physical image has been linked to status since Helen of Troy. People, especially women are keenly sensitive to status, and the focus on celebrities and beautiful people in women’s magazines is a reflection of this. My 13yr old daughter spends far more time dressing up for a girl’s only party than any other time. Myself and other males look on with incredulity.

The magazines show what people want to see, not the other way around. Unless showing models in mags is banned, this is unlikely to change. So my point is why should we look at imposing such limitations on expression which are unlikely to have any impact.

PS, my 12 year old son on hearing that Grand theft Auto Vice city was banned took 30 mins to download a cracked (license deprived) version via bit torrent that bypassed even my strong filter installed on his machine. After various threats he removed it, but it simply goes to show how futile censorship is with modern technology. The net filter will only work with old farts like us. While I can punish him, short of banning technology all together censorship is futile.

The suspension of liberty or freedom of speech should only be done if the following criteria are met:
1. There is a significant and defined threat
2. The restriction of liberty will have a clear and measurable impact on the threat,
3. The restriction of liberty has as little impact on those not vulnerable to the threat as possible.
As the measures proposed by MTF clearly fail on 2 &3, and as less than 2% of the population will ever be affected by eating disorders with about 0.001% ever requiring hospitalisation, I would suggest that it is marginally more serious to Australian health than hangnail, and fails under criteria 1 as well.

Finally, considering that the single greatest eating related disorder in Aus, causing 1000s of premature deaths a month, is obesity, the question of why we want to tell our kids that being chunky is OK

SM and Col,
I know that we are apes, and that looks count for a lot for both men and women... but that for women, looks are significantly more important in being selected as a mate.
My private joke is that men prioritise compliance above all other 'virtues' when selecting a mate. Looks second, probably... and then character. The most important thing being that a woman not complain. In that way, men are realistic, and uncomplicated.
As a broad generalisation, men do not select for economic power, and in fact may find the lifestyle realities of a hardworking woman somewhat of a turn-off.
These realities, as well as the constancy of objectification of women in images, shows a power imbalance between men and women, and a sexual anciety for women resulting from the awareness of that imbalance. The rampant consumerism that women indulge in is probably a symptom of all this.
Because we are not just mindless apes, staggering from branch to branch. We are more evolved than that, and aware of our circumstances.

I do not need to hear that women also prefer good looking men, as a kind of apology for the human race, as I know this to be true.

However, women are generally better mannered about airing their sexual preferences, because they do not have the social power to enforce their choice as the community priority.

Floatinglili

"women are generally better mannered about airing their sexual preferences". In my experience, women are much more open about having a huge wish list. Ask any teenaged girl about what type of boy they likes and you will be stuck there for an hour. Men who have a huge list of criteria are ridiculed for their arrogance. Women who have this huge list are applauded for having self confidence. Unfortunately, socialising women to have unrealistic expectations is going to lead to failures that won't help their self-esteem too much at all.

Grim

"I'm inclined to think this whole body image thing is just symptomatic of rampant consumerism" It is more than just symptomatic, it is propping it up. Open any women's magazine and you will find articles telling women that they absolutely have to think of themselves as beautiful or they have a huge problem. Interspersed with these, you find adverts for beauty products that seem to offer the chance to feel beautiful. Add to that the tendency for most of the media to tell people what they want to hear and the free publicity that Pericles mentioned and you see why these magazines have an interest in this body image crap. It is nice when people can make their self interest look like their principles.

pelican,

What technical line are you asking for in the manipulation of an image? Just the airbrush tool in photoshop? There's lots of tools.

It seems to me, the technology gets unfairly blamed. As per ninaf's comments, how is make-up and lighting any different to airbrushing blemishes and wrinkles? How about the old-fashioned stocking over the lens? Blue contact lenses? How many models will shag a photographer that makes them look old anyway? It is a matter of degree, but where do YOU want the line drawn?

To what degree should ugly women be shown in beauty magazines? Draw the line for me. How real is real? How far do you expand the definition of a beautiful woman so that it doesn't include any ugly people? I agree it's too narrow for my taste in women, but I'm not the consumer they're after, it's more likely women are the target. What they're doing now sells, and the odd attempt at expanding the definition have met rejection by women consumers.

pynchmne,

'many men feel entitled, even obliged, to pass judgement on a female's looks.'

pft. They were invited. How dare men express appreciation of beautiful women who are paid to be photographed for display! How dare they reject the ideal of feminine beauty being promoted in this display in favour of something different. Having their own preferences! How dare they!

The celebrity cellulite exposés show that women are way harsher on each other than any guy would be. Nope, the ultimate judge of women and their bodies is other women. Womens magazines demand thinner models than 'lads mags' too.

BTW: An article with barely 2 paragraphs of any real substance that merely states the bleeding obvious (ie the whole exercise is 'air cover') , and the rest referencing from The Telegraph forum is not a good article.

floatinglili,

There's no 'imbalance'. Men just become wage slaves to show off their money and risk their lives to display their toughness to show off to women.

Floatinglili “I do not need to hear that women also prefer good looking men, as a kind of apology for the human race, as I know this to be true.”

If you “don’t need to hear”, then don’t listen

but if you don’t want to listen, don’t bother to post

One of the obligations attached to exercising the entitlement of being allowed to make public comment is to expect and possibly suffer a public response

Unfortunately too many folk anticipate exercising their entitlement without considering the obligation.

mmmmm… now who else said something like that…

ahhhh dearest Margaret..

(and she also said she owed nothing to womens lib either)

Ah Houlle… nice to see you posting again….

I also agree with your comments re the coat hangers of the cat walk versus the voluptuous, big bosomed babes of Playboy….