HOME |
RSS | 
Conventional wisdom holds that seeing someone naked makes you think of them as more of a sex object than seeing them clothed. According to a recent study, that is an oversimplification of what really happens. The human mind thinks of other people in two different dimensions: agency, or what the person observed can or will do, and experience, or what that person perceives and feels. And the amount of clothing worn changes what dimension the observer focuses on, as seen from an experiment in which people looked at pictures of faces or pictures of faces with some body skin also showing (as shown by the hunky “Aaron” shown here, or the female “Erin”).
It turns out that a glimpse of flesh strongly influences our perception of Erin/Aaron. When the pictures only showed a face, they had lots of agency. But when we saw their torso, we suddenly imagined them as obsessed with experience. Instead of being good at self-control, they were suddenly extremely sensitive to hunger and desire. Same person, same facial expression, same brief description – but a hint of body changed everything.
In another experiment, the researchers varied the volunteers’ mindsets, sometimes asking them to look at photos as if they were on an online-dating website, focusing on attractiveness, and sometimes asking them to look at the photos as if they were hiring for a professional job, focusing on the mind. Once again, thinking about how “sexy and cute” someone is – those are bodily attributes – led students to endow them with more experience and less agency. The opposite held when people were asked to evaluate intelligence and efficiency.
Read more about it at Frontal Cortex, but be warned there is no full nudity in the article. Link -via Not Exactly Rocket Science
Heather McDougal talked to 5th and 6th graders about how the ideal body image of women has changed over time, from the corsets of 100 years ago to the Photoshopped images of today. And the modern altered bodies and altered images are the hardest ideal to even consider living up to. As an example, contrast the image of Usula Andress in the 1962 movie Dr. No with one of Halle Berry in the 2002 movie Die Another Day.
The thing that disturbs me most about these two images is how our daughters must feel about themselves when they see them. The girls in 1962, seeing Ursula rising from the waves in Dr. No, knew that what they were seeing was a real woman, something they could aspire to (if that was what they wanted). Seeing Halle Barry, above, holds no such comforts, particularly when digital film has so much option for smoothing out those flaws. Such perfection is absolutely outside the realm of anyone who is honest with themselves. They might as well throw themselves against a brick wall, because you can’t live, and breathe, and be that perfect. It’s impossible, and our daughters know it.
When she presented the changing ideal image of men, she found fewer changes over time, but a difference between what men and what women consider ideal. Read the rest at Cabinet of Wonders. Link
What's
the secret to a more satisfying marriage? Thinner wives, actually. Lay
down the pitchforks, people - I'm just reporting the result of a new study:
Marriages are more satisfying for both partners when wives are thinner than their husbands, according to a new study.
The four-year study of 169 newlywed couples found that husbands were more satisfied initially and wives were more satisfied over time when the fairer sex had a lower body mass index -- a common measure of body fat. The study was published in the July issue of Social Psychological and Personality Science.
"There's a lot of pressure on women in our society to achieve an often unreachably small weight," said Andrea Meltzer, a doctoral candidate at the University of Tennessee and lead author of the study. "The great take-home message from our study is that women of any size can be happy in their relationships with the right partner. It's relative weight that matters, not absolute weight. It's not that they have to be small."
The perfect solution seems to present itself: husbands, chubbify yourselves!
What?
You still think that Barbie is sending bad messages to young girls? Compared
to Mattel's new Monster High doll, Barbie looks like a dowdy librarian:
Clawdeen Wolf comes complete with a thigh-skimming skirt, sky high boots and heavy makeup, and spends her days “waxing, plucking and shaving.”
“My hair is worthy of a shampoo commercial, and that’s just what grows on my legs. Plucking and shaving is definitely a full-time job but that’s a small price to pay for being scarily fabulous,” reads the character description of the teen werewolf doll, who also lists her favorite hobby as “flirting with boys.”
But the most frightful thing about Clawdeen, experts say, is the shocking impact she could have on girls aged 6 and up -- the very demographic Mattel is targeting.
Hollie McKay of Fox writes: Link
Sacrebleu! French politicians are campaigning for a new law that will result in government health warnings on pictures that have been enhanced by photoshop:
Campaigning MP Valerie Boyer, of President Nicolas Sarkozy’s UMP party, said the wording should read:"Retouched photograph aimed at changing a person’s physical appearance".
Mrs Boyer, who has also written a government report on anorexia and obesity, added: "We want to combat the stereotypical image that all women are young and slim.
"These photos can lead people to believe in a reality that does not actually exist, and have a detrimental effect on adolescents. "Many young people, particularly girls, do not know the difference between the virtual and reality, and can develop complexes from a very young age.
"In some cases this leads to anorexia or bulimia and very serious health problems.
"It’s not just a question of public health, but also a way of protecting the consumer."
– Thanks Tiffany!
