Dove ad campaign - self-esteem issues
 

I was going to post this in the LL but thought that everyone should weigh in (no pun intended) on this.

Dove has this "Real Beauty" ad campaign that they're running, and I wholeheartedly approve. I'm sick of being shown images of women with unhealthily thin bodies and told I'm supposed to look like that! Add to that the fact that I'm turning 35 this year, drifting further and further away from the "youthful ideal," and I'm getting pissed as hell about our culture's standards for "acceptable" appearance.

Anyhow, at the movie theater a couple of weeks ago they played this ad before the previews:

http://www.doveproage.com/

And the audience all went "Eeeeyew!" and groaned and shit when they saw these bodies. Now, they're a little wrinkly, but we should be so lucky to look that good at that age!

WTF is up with people? How did we get sold this bullshit and opt into it so completely that it seems natural and normal? Celebrities are vilified for being too skinny, but they're also ridiculed for being fat (e.g., Reese Witherspoon's "bloat," the constant watch for "baby bumps" that are really just normal fucking stomachs!), or for wearing body shapers (Katie Holmes). I read once that for centuries women's bodies were contorted into the desirable shapes of the day by corsets; now, the body is its own corset! We're expected to WILL ourselves into a certain shape - don't eat too much, pound your metabolism into submission for an hour a day on the treadmill - and if that doesn't work, go under the knife, or buy whatever product promises to help make you acceptable and desirable.

OK, now I'm just ranting.

Here are my questions:

To what extent do you find your standards of beauty influenced by the media? Like, really, when you think about it honestly?

For women, do you compare yourself to other women, in the media and in real life?

Men, do women judge themselves/each other more harshly than men do?

What can be done to change the (IMHO dangerous) trend toward unattainable and unrealistic standards of beauty? I realize that some things are evolutionarily hard-wired, but most of our standards are socially constructed. How do we deconstruct them and rebuild them in a positive way?

I saw the same ad at the theater, with the same responses. Initially I was angry at the "children" making the Ewww noises, but I did recognize that they're young, stupid, and probably embarrassed to be looking at 15-ft-tall naked mature women (albeit tastefully covered), much less those who don't fulfill the 16-yr-old size 00 concept...

Of course my perception of beauty if is influenced by my upbringing, of which media was a huge part. I'd like to think I'm becoming more independant in my views as I (gasp!) age.

At this point I have to strive to be, and embody the change I'd like to see, to dredge up an old chestnut. But also we have to recognize that we live in a capitalistic society, sex sells, and the uncreative majority will always make a fantastic living pandering to the lowest common denominator.

This had been brought up many months back and linked to a Dove forum, which I then went into. What a bunch of condescending crap in there!! 20-somethings cheering us older ones on as if we were handicapped marathoners...
I have always had appearance issues-never remember not having any, so I can't say it's all media-based, but it seems as if it's more 'in-your-face' the last 10 years. Lip plumpers(which I figured I'd give a whirl-it's glorified moisturizer), jeans designed to push up the butt and push in the stomach(uh, just buy tight ones for half the price)....
Little 'inside' story: Those women you see in ads touting some moisturizer as making them 'look years younger' are years younger. Family members own a large modelling agency and some of their women have appeared in those ads-they're in their 20's, but used as being 'older'. Kohl's currently has a beauty campaign that borders on the ridiculous. It starts with the announcement, "Want to know Ashley Judd's secret to looking young?" Uh, she's not even 40, that's her secret. That and good filters. Even her cleavage in the posters is added in.
Frankly, getting older and seeing the tightness get not so tight is disconcerting, but it beats not being around to see it at all. There are now nonsurgical FDA-approved procedures that will fix all that and I'm considering it. I'm lucky that I appear to others as 10 years younger than I am , but that doesn't mean I can't change a few things I don't like. Does it mean I'm being taken in by all this? Maybe...it does answer the 'other women' question to an extent, though. I want to continue being the best I can be-mentally, I can do that myself; physically, I am not adversed to seeking options.
How many of us see someone who turns out to be the same age and our first reaction is 'Damn! Does she look that bad or do I look that good??' Anyone who claims to really not give a shit about how they look is lying. We choose clothes, hairstyles, even lack of either, based on aesthetics. Were that not the case, we'd still be in animal skins and combs would never have been invented.

A) Standards of beauty are such a chicken and egg thing. Of course the media influences standards of beauty, but then, the media is controlled by consumer response. So, I guess you could say that the media amplifies cultural trends - or it consistently normalizes extremes, painting our society into a corner of valuing unattainable standards.

B) As a man, I think that women judge themselves and each other FAR more harshly than men do. Yeah, I know that men supposedly have such unrealistic ideals and we objectify and so on... But somehow that lame dismissiveness that men learn seems to cut less deeply than the comments I hear women say about themselves and each other. They really mean that stuff, whereas men are mostly declaring themselves unwilling to think about it deeply.

C) I question the thing about evolutionary wiring. The Rubenesque beauty valued by the Polynesian cultures is cited too often, but I think it demolishes the idea that our current standards of beauty and health are really biologically informed. If anything, I guess you could say that scientific knowledge has helped to mold our ideals towards fit people - which are not the "Twiggy" type.

EDIT: Lurkette, thanks for putting this where the boys can comment too!

i try very hard to reject the media, just on principle. I'm sick of how we can have horrible things going on in the world and we are more concerned with what Britney shaved today.

unfortunately yes, but i don't think this is just women judging women more, i think society judged women harsher. it is socially acceptable for a guy to have a gut, it is not for a woman.

with pitch forks and torches!!! or maybe break the societal standards, we should stop focusing purely on appearance and rather on the person inside. we've got to realize that the people we are shown in the media are not the average and we should not expect women to look like that. there is nothing wrong with a wrinkle or a fold.

here is an old thread of mine that is related....
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=35824

I can say that I'm becoming more influence than I used to be. I'm almost 32 and I still get carded for buying cigarettes, so I know I look young. Still, I find myself spending 3X the amount of time in the bathroom every day than I did five years ago. I have hundreds of dollars of beauty products that are supposed to tighten, smooth, de-blotch, plump, lengthen, brighten, shine or whatever. When I walk out of the bathroom I'm not sure I look that much better, but I buy this stuff anyway.

At the same time I'm more comfortable now with my body than I ever have been. I'm really trying to enjoy the body I have right now because I know I'm not going to have it forever. I hope that when I don't I'll enjoy that too or it won't matter so much to me. Sure I'm not as tall as other women, I'm practically flat-chested, and my hair isn't the most beautiful color, and my skin isn't perfect, but I think I'm pretty enough. I don't think most of the women in the media look like that in real life either. If someone followed me around with photoshop and an airbrush (and could alter reality with those tools) I'd look great all the time too!

I have no idea what can be done. We could start buy not buying all these products, shutting down all the plastic surgeons, ignoring the hollywood culture, and shunning the fashion industry. BUT, this is America, we like this stuff and it isn't going to happen. Perhaps healthy ideas about ourselves should start in the home. Parents should teach kids about proper diet and exercise, tolerance of others and their differences, and acceptance of ourselves and our own uniqueness.

As a whole our society is getting more unhealthy. We in America are suffering from an epidemic of obesity and heart disease. It's no surprise that the beauty industry is taking off the way it is. We eat more and move less. We want to be able to eat our Big Macs and have a product that will take those pounds off for us. Now I know this isn't true of everyone, but it is a problem.

To me the beauty industry is a reflection of a bigger problem and a really sad one. We are selfish, shallow and gluttonous and I can't even be excluded from this. I buy into it all. I love my $1200 LaMer Creme. Why I need it I'm not sure. None of it really matters. It isn't that important. I'm just as sick as everyone else. I just don't know where it is taking us. I'll stop ranting now.

I have no idea if it's been posted here before, but from the same Dove campaign here's a video that I remember every time I don't feel as pretty as a model. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYhCn0jf46U

To be frank, I find your characterization of people who are slim/athletic to be highly objectionable and find this reverse discrimination as childish as anything you describe in the movie theatre.

I do not find it amusing, enlightening, or anything but frustrating to hear that women who happen to have a genetic inclination towards being slim or who actually don't sit around eating crates of Doritos of an evening and take care of themselves are "genetic freaks".

Excellent comments so far from the men and women of this forum. I do agree that our societal acceptance of beauty standards are somewhat guided by media presentation. I would also say that, thankfully, these standards are not truly persistant in how we ultimately select our mates. I think that when we are young, mostly mentally young (immature), we tend to be more heavily influenced by the idea of ideal beauty. As we grow up (readily admitting that there are many who never do) I think that our ideas about beauty shift and changed to a broader definition of what we find attractive. Hopefully along with this is a realization that inner beauty, emotional and intellectual compatibility, has a larger role than physical beauty in choosing a life-long mate.

The whole issue of putting physical beauty above all else came up in a recent episode of "Bones". The female protagonist is an anthropologist. A victim they were trying to identify had extensive plastic surgery. She commented that many cultures in their declining years put more and more emphasis on physical beauty as defining the value of an individual. Perhaps this holds true today. Maybe the whole of our culture is declining overall and the exaltation of physical beauty is a part of that.

well i know a few ladies who do try to get slim but they can't , i lived with one for over a year, she ate healthy, exorcised but could never get down to a slim figure, she is, always has been and always will be kinda fat. granted there are people who say 'I'm genetically fat' between spoonfuls of ice cream. i used to be 100 lb heavier, until i cut out the ice cream and started getting regular exorcise, I'm still fat, but not nearly as fat as i was. i'm 200 lb right now, bit of a gut, but its not the rolls it was.

i don't think lurkette was talking specifically to the people who are several hundred pounds, i think she was talking about the woman who can't get rid of that last little belly fat, that strive and strive for it, but genetically they are predisposed to collect fat there. (i think a little belly is cute, but that's just me) and to the woman who gets upset when they start to show a few crows feet.

Fair enough...my bad. I'm not talking about people who are naturally slim or who athletic. I'm talking about women who are so thin they have probably stopped menstruating. And by "genetic freaks" (an admittedly bad choice of words) I mean that many of the people who are held up as paragons are waaaay on the far end of the bell curve in terms of normal distribution, and whose bone structure, fat retention patterns, etc., are extremely unrealistic, if not impossible, as goals for the rest of the population.

However, I take the point.

Also, I'm aware thatthe standards of "perfection" cut both ways. For every stick-thin runway model there's a curvy Salma Hayek to live up to.

Perhaps it's a diversion. Yes, there's death and destruction and it's depressing, so let's knock down a celebrity a peg or two and we'll all feel better..
Yet, ironically, our 'guts' most times come from giving birth, a natural process for women. A man's gut excuse? Not quite as legit.
A man I was involved with remarked as a warning, "I look better with clothes on"...I didn't fall for him because of his body...and while he says the same about me, body parts and his appreciation of them work their way into conversations-how could I not be concerned about their deterioration?

As long as there are mirrors, there will be concern or preoccupation with body image. We 'know' what's reality or not within the media(at least most of us do), but that is not going to stop the bombardment.
$1200????????? Why on earth would anyone spend that kind of money for face cream??? You don't need it-you bought into the idea that it was worth that exorbitant amount. Good gracious....what I could do with $1200.....

I am shocked that people would catcall that ad in a theater, I am 18 and there is nothing disgusting or shocking about those women, i hope i look as good as that at their age!
as to the questions posed,
"To what extent do you find your standards of beauty influenced by the media? Like, really, when you think about it honestly?"
It is hard for me to answer this question because i fit well into today's standards of beauty. i am slim(size 0-2), 5'6" and about 110 lbs with 32c cups. I do find myself beautiful, but i don;t think that is because i fit with the standards. I can imagine myself being happy with my body with an entirely different body shape. I think it is more of an inner thing. I look in the mirror and see someone I love. the most important thing is being comfortable in your skin.

For women, do you compare yourself to other women, in the media and in real life?

I don't really compare myself. there's no point! i can admire a beautiful women, and yes, i do see women whose bodies and faces i find beautiful in ads, but i don;t go around thinking, ok, i want X's thighs, Y's abs, and Z's breasts...

Men, do women judge themselves/each other more harshly than men do?
I'm a women, but i realized only recently that men really care a lot less about the way you look compared to a beauty ideal than you and other women do...
What can be done to change the (IMHO dangerous) trend toward unattainable and unrealistic standards of beauty? I realize that some things are evolutionarily hard-wired, but most of our standards are socially constructed. How do we deconstruct them and rebuild them in a positive way?
ban photoshopped bodies in magazines. photoshop should be used in ads only to create special effects such as flying, but not to alter the appearance of the model.
also, madrid fashion week did a good thing in banning models they thought were TOO skinny. that generated so much publicity about the recent trends!

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

"Cultural" ideals tend to influence only the young. Advertizing does what it has to to "make money".

When I look at my wife and the mother of my children these days, I don't think, "What a hottie!" I wonder how I got so lucky.

I do not find obesity attractive. Nor do I think most men.

Because of this fact, you will never see women on television who are obese modeling products designed to make you more attractive. If people can get past that, then it's a big step. Right now I hear people shouting that they never show "fat" women selling products, but that will not change.

Healthy women, however, are an entirely difficult boat. I do believe that models in the media are far below what should be considered healthy, but shooting to the other end of the spectrum for fun isn't going to any better.

I don't think we should actively encourage obesity, or make it so that being obese is an 'okay' look. It's like encouraging someone to commit suicide; you're telling them that it is okay to eat two boxes of cereal for breakfast, three hamburgers for lunch, etc, etc. because they're still pretty. They're not.

We should not be promoting ultra-skinny "genetic freaks," nor should we be promoting obese "genetic freaks." We should be promoting healthy men and women. It really comes down to that.

Healthy women are an entirely difficult boat. They can kick your ass, you know?
I'm not understanding you, JinnKai, -please help me understand why.

As soon as sex stops selling, then I guess more fat people will be on TV. Until then, I think we're stuck with these hot, young models. Honestly, I'm not particularly interested in seeing fat people on TV. I'm not particularly interested in seeing these disgustingly skinny women on TV either.

I don't know. I find certain women attractive. I find other women to be unattractive. Sometimes the media displays what I find attractive, sometimes it doesn't.

Yes. This is pretty obvious based on personal experience.

Take a look at a show called 'The Agency' on VH1 sometime. Telling stick-thin girls they're 'too fat'....When I was 18, my height (5'8") and weight (113lbs') was 'correct' for modelling; now women(girls, actually) aren't looked at by agents if they're not at least 5'9" and 110lbs, so 'genetic freaks' is not off the mark, really. And if you saw how they looked in real life, you might be surprised-most facial features are oversized, noses prominent, teeth seemingly too big for their faces and sometimes crooked...objectively take apart any of the more well-known models feature by feature and it's very clearly seen how they're 'freaks'-it's how they photograph, how they stand, how they're made up, etc., that makes them the societal opinion of 'beautiful'.
As for 'living up to' anyone's image, bah! Salma's a genetic freak as well, curves or not. It's these 'freaks' that draw us 'plain folk' in, after all.

i agree with Jinnkai.
also, obesity should not be encouraged as beauty regardless of what random african tribe considers it to be beautiful(often used as justification for fat=beautiful), because it is unhealthy. our culture is increasingly a "fast-food, sit on the couch and watch tv, and use modern conveniences(like cars) to avoid any exertion" place, and making that seem OK is just BAD. yes, some people have genetic issues with remaining skinny, but that is not the prevailing reason while america is an increasingly obese country!
as jinnkai pointed out, neither extreme should be embraced.

I particularly enjoyed the "Dove evolution of beauty" spot.

Photo-retouching was one of the first jobs I ever had. I literally spent days turning human beings into mannequins.

She's a freak just because she happens to be attractive and takes care of her body? :confused:

I have to agree with Carno here. And I think a lot of the recent posts in this thread are exactly what lurkette was talking about. We're getting a lot of people judging themselves harshly, but oddly enough, they're taking it out on others by calling them freaks. There are some that, yes, I can say are freakish because it's to a point where you just know they're beyond not being healthy, but to lump all attractive women in there. :rolleyes:

There's a distinct difference between "obesity" (a BMI of 30+) and being heavier/larger/more muscular/less muscular/less curvy than the ideal. My problem is that some people don't make a distinction, and a lot of times "healthy" is...not.

Well, the "curvy" Salma Hayek is about a size 2, just so you know. Curvy doesn't equal carrying any fat, it just means she has an actual waist, and a good pair of...implants? It is genetically highly unusual to not deposit fat anywhere at all in the body except for the breasts. Yes, some women do have that body type natually, but it's highly unusual.

The camera adds 15+ lbs on to a person...so imagine those tiny women even skinnier than they appear on film! That's why the "lollipop head" label became so popular.

i love curves... :thumbsup:

there is a line between curves and folds though.

hmmm. What percentage of fat do our brains contain?
The face seems most important regarding attractiveness. I think it might be the eyes... (and the lips and the nose...)

Her attractiveness is, for lack of a better term, freaky-it's uniquely beautiful-you don't have to be told it's Salma, you know it is and I daresay, are not turned off by seeing her appear. One of the 'appeals' of celebrities such as her, Nicole Kidman, etc., is their uniqueness in beauty, hence, freakness-standing out from the crowd due to their unusual good looks. And they have to take care of their bodies, their looks or they will lose that uniqueness and be fodder for the media rags.

First off, you're misunderstanding my statement. Uniqueness=freaky. Attractiveness/beauty is not the same as a circus freak. No one lumped 'all attractive women'; I know I can be attractive when I take the time, but I'm not going to be viewed as exceptional, unusual, etc., because my 'attractiveness' simply is not nearly on the same plane, nor do I have legions of people dressing me, making me up, etc.
People pay attention to the likes of beautiful celebrities because of their ability to stand out. Conversely, people seem to take pleasure in watching these same celebrities fall, ala Kirstie Alley, Britney Spears.
(By the way, the last woman in the ad is, to me, extremely beautiful. Dove is still pushing the 'beauty' aspect of aging)

Long ago, a friend referred to someone having "their own face". I didn't know what he meant then, but I think I might now.
Dove is just merchandising, aren't they?

High fashion is still into the tall thin look but from what little I have seen on music stations young people or at least hip hop is into women with big butts, whether it be singers or lyrics.

My wife says the latest style is skinny jeans which only look good on skinny people. She is 5'-7" and weighs 125 and thinks she needs to loose a few pounds before she'll look good in them. I think in her mind it is either Twiggy in a mini skirt or Mama Cass in a mu mu with nothing in between.

while she is right about the skinny jean thing, if she weighs 125 pounds it would probably be unhealthy (and pointless) to lose those "vanity pounds" !

..

Yep, that's what it comes down to, really. They're not touting healthy choices, offering up suggestions to maintain a healthy lifestyle, they're skin cream.
Ugh.. I hate 'hearing' that. She's quite thin by those measurements. At 5'8" and 135, I know I could stand to gain about 5 lbs. My friends all think I'm too thin and I see it.
Skinny jeans. Just another stupid fashion standard women think they have to adhere to.:rolleyes:

I am unequivicably opposed to any garment with the word "skinny" in the title--for me, it just won't work! :lol:

Thanks for the thread, lurkette.

To respond to a couple of the questions you ask in your original post...

The media influences our internal "standards of beauty" 100%.

I have no delusions that I am powerful enough to resist the media environment I inhabit. Nor do I think I am in any way free - especially as regards thinking my own thoughts or having feelings that are unmediated by the inestimable power of mass media.

It follows that I do not think there is anything we can do about it.

These discussions are probably the most significant social dialog we can be having.

Not because we have the ability to change anything but because it's important to have these issues in the forefront of our consciousness.

It's possible, if not easy, to ignore the media. I'm still believing that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and that individual packaging is all we have.

It's not (Funnyhaha) what we'll do to "make money", is it?

Do not confuse your inability to separate yourself from your media influences with a universal inability to do so. I do not have difficulty if you say that media influences YOUR idea of beauty 100%, but you cannot claim that this is 'our' position.

Furthermore, it is not a delusion to acknowledge that you can seperate yourself from your external influences. I believe the most defining characteristic of a strong individual is their ability to filter external stimuli and determine it's relevance to their internal consciousness.

The power of mass media is certainly strong, but making the argument that we are hapless pawns to the power of the media gives no credit to individuals who are able to exercise their understanding of themselves and a determined sense of self control.

And oops.. I meant "different," not difficult. :-D

Thanks for your response.

I'm not arguing anything - just stating observations from my point of view.

I don't have any "beliefs."

But aren't our choices of what we think is beautiful limited by the choices of media? In other words, if we were shown only women who looked like Cass Elliot and men who resembled Ned Beatty and told that this is the standard of beauty to follow, wouldn't at least some of our ideas be skewed in that direction? Granted, there are many who do think that such are beautiful externally and it's not our duty to inform them otherwise...but...I think you'd see a lot of women trying to gain poundage; Reubenesque was the ideal 100 years ago-not because of some evolutionary thought process, but because that is what was shown to be sensual through art and the media of the day.

The "standards of beauty" go way beyond just obesity. At least people can control that if they want to. It's much much worse for people of color who cannot reasonably change their appearance to adhere to some arbitrary western notion of beauty. The role the media has to play is the repetitive drilling and brainwashing of an audience and institutionalizing these "standards" of beauty which are then reinforced in daily societal interactions. Once these harmful notions are institutionalized, they become very difficult to eradicate and operate at a subconcious level.


There is however, a distinctionm between institutionalized beauty standards through media investment and blind consumerism. People make their own choices and willingly allow themselves to buy into the media setting the standards. In theory, no one should be unhappy with the way they look. If beauty is relative, then we have choices and can decide for ourselves how we present ourselves. No one is forced to buy make up or ridiculous fashion items.

But in some cases, this may prove to be impossibe. It is a known fact that tall white males make more money, simply based on their appearance.

The media most certainly plays a role as do ourselves.

The media,as it is and as it was, has always controlled the standards of beauty to varying extents.

Actually, today I don't think the "media" is the progenitor of beauty standards as much as they once were, but once certain trends and/or fads are shown to be in favor by the public they are certainly the peddlers and propagators of them....by hook or by crook.

To me, more troubling than simply the peddling of beauty standards to the public, is how it is inextricably linked to consumerism and the preponderance of manipulated(ie, unreal, deceitful, unattainable) images that are used to keep women buying. And with the emergence of technology that makes it easier and easier to "perfect" still and moving images, I think it is getting way out of hand.

I admire the aesthetics of the Dove campaign, but yes, it is still just a marketing effort to get women to buy Dove products. Not necessarily an altruistic endeavor.

You can't make a statement like that without admitting that you've got a chip on your shoulder towards the media.

The 'media' is loosely a group of media conglomerates with very little agenda beyond making money. The photographers, film makers, reporters, writers, editors and producers are ultimately doing what they do because it is favorable to do so and thus earns money. If they were truly "drilling and brainwashing an audience" and "institutionalizing standards" I doubt that the (albeit mostly ignorant) populace would be so easily deluded. They're able to do what they do because there are people who enjoy knowing what britney shaved yesterday, what's "hot" and what's "not," and what the 30 NEW tips on "how to please your man" are.

If you blame the media (those who produce it) then you've got to equally blame the consumers (those who use it), because they're the ones LETTING themselves be 'drilled,' 'brainwashed,' and 'institutionalized.'

The idea that we're helpless servants of the powerful media is counterproductive to the process of breaking these social norms, because it is only by defiance (and lack of consumption) that the media changes.

But to make money it is in their interest to persuade consumers that they need what they have to sell. I don't think it's necessarily extreme to suggest that they try to "brainwash" the public into thinking those things. It's certainly a closer description than say, "encourage" or "influence" or "inspire." They need for us to buy their products, therefore, in the interest of making a lot of money, they're going to stop at very little in order to get us to do so. We already know that manufacturers used to use subliminal messages in their advertising in order to literally "brainwash" consumers into buying their products. What makes them all of a sudden so much more ethical now - other than a law preventing them from continuing it?

Everyone in our lives -- including peers, mentors, idols, students, bosses and subordinates, doctors, dentists, the media and even our parents -- have an interest in convincing us to believe them. This will never change.

You cannot blame the media (or anyone else) for attempting to sell their products, person, or knowledge, as it is necessary for their survival.

The detriment occurs when we have been convinced that we're helpless against this wave of pressure, or that 'the media' is this strong armed goliath who forces us to believe certain things. It's quite simple to have beliefs in direct opposition with the popular opinion, but most seem to believe that very few are capable of it.

The media is only at fault if you we let them be at fault, rather than taking personal responsibility for what we individually believe.

Maybe part of this is the tendency to talk about "the media" as though it were some monolothic entity, rather than the myriad independent concerns that it really is.

Yes, they are a myriad of independent concerns competing with each other to get a better grip on the consumer wallet. Which may even be worse, lol.


I'm not really "blaming" them for anything. I'm just stating facts as I see them.

I'm not convinced that we're helpless against it. I buy used and I buy generic more often than not because, well, I've always been kind of poor. I have very few "brand preferences." But, I don't think I am in the mainstream of American consumerism, even for people of my income level (which is lower middle class). I say this only from my ordinary experience as an observer of people's buying habits.

True. But I do think they are to be commended for not following the standard, tried-and-true pandering to the lowest common denominator...using 20-yr-olds to sell anti-wrinkle potions, lingerie models to sell girdles, etc.

I am curious about how successful this advertising campaign has been for them, and how they would define success.

Oh, and to return to the "genetic freak" arguement, I think it's fairly widely recognized that the term "freak" is considered derogatory. Perhaps the term "genetic rarity" would be a better choice of phrase. :)

Yes, Sultana. I really want you to be right. But the cynic in me sees it as a marketing ploy to make Dove stand out amongst other soaps. I'm a terrible pisser sometimes, I know. :( But I can't help it.

I'd be interested in knowing how they define the success of this campaign, as well.

Couldn't be more right, uber. I always hear "the media" as the cause of society's ills, but rarely do I hear specific entities addressed. The newspaper I work for is entirely different than NBC nightly news, which is certainly different from contemporary cinema, which is completely different from video games, which have no relation to tabloid magazines, which likely have nothing to do with the NY Times.

And yet "The Media" is always portrayed as a massive Goliath of ideas and products being shoved down our throats, and the source of all our wretched ideas.

"The Media" has been blamed for violence against women, violence against children, mass-murder, racism, sexism, ageism, discrimination, sexual objectification of men and women, political dissonance, antisocial tendencies, popularization of poor body image, and even drug use.

And yet, all of these things have (and do) exist in the absence of 'mass media.' Perhaps it is the individuals, rather than the force of the mass media, which causes this sort of deviance? After all, The Media is comprised of people, too.

I've recently been reading "The Trouble with Diversity: How We Learned to Love Identity and Ignore Inequality" by Walter Benn Michaels, and it makes a similar claim. If we face economic inequality head on, we have to develop solutions and rationalize why there are poor people. If we hide economic inequality under the guise of racism, then we can point to a unstoppable social problem.

If we blame "the media" for our poor body images, then we don't have to deal with why we've got a poor body image and why we haven't taken the time internally to change it (or change those around us).

you can also look at "the media" or mass visual culture more generally as the colonization of your dreams and desires: you must desire and you must desire commodities otherwise the socio-economic system would not function; you are interpellated as desiring particular things in particular ways; you are staged as desiring images associated with particular things in particular ways; you are shown via repetition that there are not only normative images of that which is desired, but also normative images of yourself as desiring, and by extension of yourself as desirable. your relations to the commodity spectacle are staged in this manner over and over and over and over again, and across a field defined by repetition questions intent(s) (of those who produce and/or disseminate advertising material) become increasingly irrelevant.

this much in the way that one's relation to a beatles song in 2007 is conditioned more by its repetition than by that which is repeated.

repetition acquires autonomous functions. repetition generates autonomous functions, which generate autonomous effects.

intent as it plays out in systems of production and distribution rely upon psychological sorting mechanisms deployed by the audience in ways that they do not and cannot control entirely. this because the conscious level of interaction with this material is only one level: as memory, as material of dreams, it acquires other meanings: advertising images come to refer to other images derived from other sectors of experience; they get tangled up with norms of beauty, norms that shape one's sense of adjustment to the context through which one moves. in the space of unconscious repetition and cross-referencing, genre distinctions no longer matter.

i sometimes wonder if one's body image operates at some lizard brain level in between cognitive and kinesthetic functions, and whether this image is perpetually that of a child, animated by some strange residual desire for approval from some spectre of one's parents and the mechanisms for self-punishment that accompny real or imagined failures to gain this approval like some strange extension of the superego. i know from my own experience of having lost alot of weight that one's body image can be very strange indeed and quite of out phase with one's physical being. and i also know that making adjustments to this image/these images can be a very tricky matter, more an ongoing process than anything on the order of a tv set on which one can simply change the channel.

whether its meant to do so or not, these images operate as elements within a system that is amenable to a type of domination, a particularly american type of domination characterized by the wholesale internalization of the fact of one's domination, so that one does it to oneself. which is a pretty cost-effective way of managing a population. you can even convince people that this system of domination is the best of all possible worlds.

I think people are cognizant of the interactivity between consumerism, information and entertainment. Thus we have declarations of what "the media" are doing. And these three branches of societal influence are moving closer and closer together.

I think it's funny that people want to blame the media. While they definitely contribute, I think I know the real culprit. Here's something I haven't seen brought up yet:

How much more than the media, do you think women subject each other to harsh judgment that causes these terrible body image issues?

The bottom line is, no matter how hot you may be, there's some jealous bitch who will look at you and say, "your eyes are too close together" or "I guess you don't mind that flab on your side" or "I wish I could eat what I want and not care what I look like".

Yeah. You all know it's the truth- so how much do you really think the media effects "everyone"... and how much of it is the media mostly getting right to the most shallow, self-absorbed women out there who then form themselves into what the media portrays, and then guilt all the other women into conforming and trying to keep up with them?

The number of times I've seen a woman make a comment about another woman on an advertisement pales in comparison to the number of times I've heard women make nasty little comments to each other about how much better looking they are because they do x, y, and z... meanwhile, they weigh 62 pounds soaking wet and are a walking skeletal structure anatomy lesson.

So think about it... how much is the media micromanaging body image... and how much of it is really just hitting those shallow women who respond to all external ideals of beauty because they have no concept of self-respect, and who then pass on all their baggage about looking "a certain way" onto others?

I think they feed off of each other.

...and for that matter, I've seen just as many men make snide comments about the appearance of women as I have other women.

i should be a bit clearer: i dont think that problems generated for body image by the usual run of things in viscult is the result of a conspiracy of producers of advertising material--i think it is mostly an unintended consequence--that you can think about in system terms and integrate into other patterns of domination.

what i wonder about is the extent to which these images function as reference points across the board, with explicit problems resulting for a subset of people.
if anything like that is true, then questions of relatively "shallowness" of members of that subset--those folk for whom these images generate problems--is moot.
i can say that i do not consider myself to be particularly shallow, but that i have some trouble synching up my image of myself physically with how i appear to be these days--all kinds of strange things result from this--like a tendency to suppress--to the point of sometimes not experiencing--desire; this strange assumption that seems to come from nowhere i can get to that i should not experience it or need not experience it--all this comes from my reaction to being 300 lbs or so heavier than i am now and my reaction to that experience. since i dont enjoy a spectator's relation to my own psyche, i cant say the extent to which these reactions derived from any particular source: but i can say that if there are problems of synch between who or what you imagine yourself to be, or what you are physically as over against what you feel that you should be, that they are real and complicated problems.
it seems to me ridiculous to attempt to limit them to Others who you have decided are Shallower than You.

Self-esteem comes from within. We should value our individual packaging more than we do.

No, no, no. No chip here, I think you misunderstand. I am not blaming the media entirely, I am pointing out the role it plays and the effects it has. I am fairly media neutral actually but harbor an interest and curiousity to it. I once considered pursuing a career in advertising but felt it paid too little.

I most certainly agree the dynamic between all the parties listed are entirely more complex than covered here. The media is only one player in a complex web involving people, and other entities as well. While they are not by any measure the sole contributor they are certainly a player. And yes, of course people are responsible for themselves as well. The best way to counter act the effects of the media is to not indulge in it at all. I use the media for my own personal use and not the other way around (or at least I try to). In other words, I make the media "on demand" for my needs.

However, what I was trying to point out was the fact that regardless of how informed or educated etc a person is, they are still vulnerable to the power of suggestion on a subconcious level that is highly influential. EX: repeated images of standards of beauty that are presented will eventually seep into the subconcious and further play a role in how people construct their world. This has an effect of institutionalizing and drilling into people's heads whatever message, deliberate or not, the media producer has sent. Typical issues tend to be sexism, misogyny, race, etc.

Your last line sums up the basic premise of what i was trying to say, but I wanted to add that the media is not off the hook by any means.

I've never heard that said from one to another-as a gossipy aside, yes-everyone does it. It's a natural act to compare oneself and one's possessions to another. Some are catty about it. That's not media. That's just being a bitch.
Media-advertising mostly, does cater to the shallow, the insecure. Strip away the poetry and you're basically hearing and seeing, 'Look, Lady. You're gonna get old and if you don't buy our product and wear our clothes, you will end up looking like your grandmother.'
As I mentioned earlier, the concept of a beautiful woman 100 years ago was one commonly called 'Rubenesque'-full hips and thighs, small waist, large bust.
Where was that image made? Art, media of its day. Then look at the 'beauties' of each of the past few decades on media and locate old pictures of your mom or grandmother. I think it fair to say our parents did not influence advertising;advertising influenced them.
It's not a matter of lacking self-respect that gets people to fall for the hype, it's fear. Fear that if they don't acquiesce to some degree, the implied negative results will arise. I know many who have plenty of self-respect; they also have plenty of money invested in beauty products. I see nothing wrong in wanting to improve on one's appearance, but doing it because XYZ says it will make one's life better or doing it to appease the catty ones is where the lack of self-respect comes to play. It should be done because one has enough self-respect to put their 'best face' forward and no other reason.

I know exactly what "media" is.
And I know that I always have lived in a world totally controlled by mass media .
As a result, I have no freedom of thought or action.

As for specific instances, not being discussed, there's some discussion here: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...a+mind+control

But, hey, it's great if you think you are stronger that all that.

To bring this back to being somewhat on topic - I'd never even consider saying that parents have control over anything at all.

Just speaking for myself from my own experience, it desn't appear that way.

I do find it fascinating that so many folks think they are or even can be free in any way.

I don't see it.

Wow, Art, that was...depressing.

Personally, I think that the media only reflects cultural ourselves back at us. And that we're unfortunately flawed. Perhaps the media enhances those flaws somehow, but ultimately we're to blame, not the media, who, by the way, is us anyway.

Convoluted? Yes.

Hmm, after rereading that, maybe I'm agreeing with you Art.... I need to ponder that some more.

I agree with Art in that, to varying extents, maybe relyng on our willingness to be consumed, we are all products of media influence.

i dont know if this is still directly relevant, but for some reason i am interested in playing around with this idea and so will put it here.

with regard to art's post above:

a. freedom is not a matter of the absence of constraints---without constraints there is no form and without the possibility of form, there is no coherence.
freedom lay in the relations you adopt to constraints.
so freedom is a relation rather than a state.
so one *is* not either free or not free: one can be simultaneously both depending on the kind of relation to constraints that shapes your interaction with them.

b. say that "body image" is a construct assembled inductively that stands in for the bodily schemata that link dimensions of intentional action in the context of recursive statements--in other words, body image would be formalized when you tried to generate an account of it, either explicitly (via statements that involve the operation directly--"i am thinking of the relation of activity pattern x to a regulative image..." which seems unlikely as a sentence, doesnt it?) or implicitly (any recursive act, any act that involves working out a fit between stuff that you do with or to your body and an image that might explain or condition it)---so in a way there is no "body image" but rather a series of dispositions that shape your relation to your body (which is a type of interaction) that you can treat as if it were a discrete image in particular contexts.

where do these dispositions come from? it seems reasonable that if you were to abstract them and treat them as a discrete assemblage (which they aren't) they'd probably look like a tunnel that would lead you into your past and which would eventually lead you to early childhood and not so much what you parents did or did not do, but more to your reactions to what your parents did or did not do--the confusing thing about this idea is that it would not be reducable to any set of discrete actions by the parental units, but more to them as framing conditions for the process of socialization. so when i wondered above about whether body image was some "lizard brain" function, what i meant was that it leans on dispositions that are probably shaped quite early on in the process and so operate at a level that is mostly unconscious.

what i wonder about is the extent to which media contexts shape not only the content but the form of mental imagery. so if you grew up around television, you adapt features of the medium in the staging of mental operations: so memory can be modelled on television, so dreaming involves images which are brought into resolution across television as a model, that kind of thing. if there is such a relation, then these images that define the beautiful in tvland would have a strange set of relations to images that you might use to think about or orient your own actions.

in other words, i agree with the idea that we are inside a particular type of cultural landscape and that it is not escapable because it IS our frame of reference. but i wonder about how this is true more than about the fact of it. and i wonder about what options that opens up (and forecloses) for thinking about political questions--and freedom is a political matter, not a dispositional one if you understand these dispositions as subjective.

or something.
i wonder if this makes sense.
posting it anyway.

Well, when I was thinking it through and arriving at these observations, it did, of course, seem as if it might be depressing to see myself and the world in those terms. But it's just depressing from the romantic point of view that we can be the masters of our destiny and that there is such a thing as an "individual." We also like to think of ourselves as empowered. So what I decided was that just because we have a need to think and feel a certain way is no reason to deny things we may observe.

I also see that denial is one of the defining traits of the humans I have observed - including myself, of course.

But anyway I decided not to indulge my need to feel a certain way.


...and that has made all the difference.

Now, I can just look at things and say what I see - especially in myself.


_____________________________________________________

So to be direct as regards questions in the OP:

"What can be done to change the (IMHO dangerous) trend toward unattainable and unrealistic standards of beauty? I realize that some things are evolutionarily hard-wired, but most of our standards are socially constructed. How do we deconstruct them and rebuild them in a positive way?"

- nothing can be done about culturally enforced standards of anything, including deconstructing them.

Therefore, as I see it, it becomes crucial that we keep these things in the forefront of our consciousness. And that's what to do about things. Nothing changes.

I try to keep that in mind at all times...

'Real Women'
 

I suppose the fact that the Dove ads are slightly different in the US from in the UK ones shows that the marketing people are aware of differences in the two audiences' attitudes - that's to say, we're at different stages in accepting that you don't have to be size zero to look great. More or less, though, they're marching to the beat of the same drum, in-line with the current trend for promoting 'real beauty' and 'real women' in the mainstream western media.

Having already given myself up to the pursuit of unattainable physical perfection, with results I'm ashamed of, my initial reaction to the campaign was to congratulate the brains behind it - for having been brave enough to speak out. On the other hand, having read an article in the New Statesman last week, I feel slightly cast down.

http://www.newstatesman.com/200703260022

Now, she's up-ed the stakes for me: I don't want to feel pressure to be a model, but nor should being a 'real woman' stand as an aim we need to strive for. It's a cliché that we should all 'reach our potential' and 'learn to love ourselves', and a sorry day when advertising is applauded as one of a few remaining reminder of those eternal sentiments.

Either, what we're seeing is another manipulative marketing stratagem of the highest feel-good calibre, or - though I'm fearful to admit it - it's advertising, no doubt, but with genuine overtones of righteous rebellion. If not, why did we all sit up and take notice?

When Peugeot cars were advertised to the M People track Search for the Hero (I don't know if you got that in the US), we indulged in the belief that human virtue still exists within each of us - but we didn't go to press about it. It wasn't news that all of us would like to think we were greater than a statistic. Equally, Coke ads pulled at the heart strings with images of generosity and a vibrant community spirit, creating another unrealistically idyllic scene, unattainable in our society. Nevertheless, we don't feel required to E-mail the company in gratitude that they have helped raise our self-esteem.

In brief, my initial joy that Dove ads promote what I was too scared to hope for - the portrayal of 'real women' as beautiful - has been dampened. Now, it feels like a distant dream that anyone but the size zero models will really be considered beauties - as distant as the notion that we're anything but statistics (at least as far as the marketing dept. is concerned), or that someone really would like to 'buy the world a Coke'.
Significantly, I can handle that the lady with the clipboard doesn't really care what my favourite colour is, and that the free Coke distribution going on at the supermarket was a blatant ploy to get me hooked. That I struggle with judgements I face - be it as an emaciated anorexic (as was) or a 'real woman' - bothers me more.

It might've been said before, as this 'ad campaign' seems to be popular among many, but I think there is something quite interesting when comparing the US version to the Japanese one.

http://www.conbinibento.com/images/2006/dovejapan.jpg

http://www.conbinibento.com/images/2006/doveamerica.jpg

I'm not sure what it means, other than our standards of beauty are different, but it's interesting nonetheless.

And on the aside, labeling this "real beauty" might make those who are obese feel that they are closer to "real beauty," but it in doing so it makes people who are genetically (or by choice) skinny feel that they are farther from "real beauty."

No matter which way you go, you're going to be 'discriminating' against the group who isn't portrayed. The question then becomes who you are more interested in not discriminating against.

Interesting....are those cutey girls considered plain in Japan?
Another interesting note: Not one of those American women is anywhere close to what one would consider 'homely', nor is anyone of them out of shape-no blobby stomachs, double chins; their faces are very attractive, hair stylish, no eyeglasses on a single one.
I call bullshit on Dove.

Now that you mention it, I call bullshit on their faces being attractive. :)

Not that we need another thing for self-conscious women to obsess about :sad:

I personally like that Dove ad. Still not going to buy their products, and don't mind if someone is trying to change the opinion of the masses on what real beauty is. I personally think real beauty is being happy with yourself, inside and out. I only know a few people who truly fit that definition.

I'm wondering when Sultana is going to replace those super skinny girl models in ads with her natural beauty? :)

No wonder I find Asian women so attractive.

I think it's an interesting angle that Dove is taking, however, it's still being used to market their products, which to me dilutes any of the impact it really could make.

Also, I think it would be interesting to see how long this campaign sticks around.

____

OT note: hi all, it's been a minute. Silly work getting in the way...

I think you guys are over complicating this entire issue. Dove's angle isn't some philosophical essay on American life, love, and attraction.

Dove's angle is to sell you something. Product manufactures know that their products are more or less the same. The MAJOR contributing difference in wether or not people buy a product over another one is branding.

If you've ever worked in marketing, or with marketing folks, or near marketing folks you know how disgusting the entire industry is. I used to work with marketing folks, and I quit a very nice paying job because I hated how they used pyschology into basically emotionally manipulating people into buying shit they didn't need.

Don't read into this marketing campaign, and don't give it any attention. That's exactly the point of the campaign. The ENTIRE cosmetic industry is based on insecurity and improving image.

That being said I'd like to comment on what society thinks is attractive. Some posters have mentioned younger audiences negative reactions to the older women presented.

Well I'm 25 and I can say I'm not attracted to women that have signs of advanced age. I've seen 40 and 50 year olds that are attractive, and even 60s that show signs of beauty, but I'll be the first to admit that they looked very young for their age, and you could tell that they were very striking when they were younger. I'm sorry, that's just the way younger men feel. We are going to be most attracted to women in our generation. And we can't help it. Men can't really help what we are attracted to. Part of our selection process is indeed subconcious and we are attracted to women based on certain qualities they possess. It's just like the animal kingdom. The most colorful male bird attracts the mate. Why? Because it is likely the most healthiest and strongest mate.

There is a perfectly acceptable biological explanation as for why younger men are not attracted to older women that display signs of age. It is a scientific fact as a women approaches menopause, the chances of birthing a healthy child decreases. Therefore it is only natural in young males to find women who display signs of age not "sexy". Sexy here being defined as a mate you would select.

Now older men tend to not have this problem for a number of reasons. One of these reasons, again back to biology, is decreased testosterone which means the brain isn't quite telling the body we need to be having sex on a regular basis with a woman who can birth a child. This means sex can be with any partner you find attractive, and attractive is not just physical. But when you are young, you can't help but be horny and want to mate with attractive healthy females. There is no apologizing for that at all for males, it's biological and part of the human condition.

Either way, I think everyone is reading far too much into this ad campaign. I think ad campaigns in general should be ignored. They are not reachign into our pysche, they are trying to make a buck.

Beauty isn't as important as young people think it is....of course, you don't realize this till you are older, so..... :p :lol:
When you are older, you can easily look nice, but people don't come calling just for beauty's sake anymore. They do come calling for advice, $$, the voice of experience, help understanding things, a shoulder to cry on......

Isn't Dove just trying to sell to older people too.....by not having so many annoying dewy faced babe bods in all their ads? ;)
Their soap clogs my pores and gives me pimples.....:|

Doesn't that contribute to a more youthful appearance? :lol:

I know I looked very much younger when I had my braces on in my mid-20's.

I used to work for a children's tv network and sat in on a meeting with some marketing folks from a toothpaste company that was teaming with our network and they had a real hoot telling us how in their commercials they would be loading up the toothbrush with about five times more toothpaste than the kids would actually need to brush their little teeth so that the kids would emulate it and, of course, go through their tubes of toothpaste faster. They thought it was funny. As a parent of two small children (at the time) I was appalled.

I realize that a lot of good people make their living that way, but I could never do it.

Like others before me have said, Dove doesn't really give a shit about chubby women. They just want to make money. This whole ad campaign is just a new marketing angle.

Heh! :lol: "Zits! Better than Botox!"

I personally think the media is a bunch of bull shit. Every day we are told what is beautiful and what is not. I personally don't buy into this crap. I am smart enough to know that what they are doing is wrong. Anyone who can't see that is just plain naive.

I happen to be an overweight person, not morbidly obese or anything, just thicker. I love my body. I know it sounds weird to say that because most people with weight problems don't feel this way. The media tells us that we shouldn't like our bodies if we are fat. When I look in the mirror, I like what I see. I know that being overweight is bad health-wise and I am trying to lose weight because of that, not because the media tells me to be skinny.

The thing that really gets me, is how many people have judged me based on my weight. For example, I was standing in line at a coffee shop and these girls about high school aged were commenting on my weight. I don't think they realized I could hear them. I was slightly insulted that people can't see that I am a person with feelings just like every body else. Personally, I think anyone who speaks in that manner is uneducated and trashy. Couldn't they find something more productive to talk about?

Anyhow, that's my little rant about weight and the media.

I dated a gal with braces recently. I thought that she was younger, but she was actually my age. :)

With regards to women, I prefer the 50's pin-up look to today's twiggy gals. I remember chatty with this young gal, and I teased her by saying that she looked twiggy. Much to my surprise, she took it as a compliment :orly:

With regard to how I present myself, I rarely am influenced by the media. I just want Andy Garcia's hair, and I'll keep wearing my hawaiian shirts all year round, with my college proffesor glasses with the large frames. But for special occasions, I have my coat and ties that I've gone out of my way to find.

"...we see the violence inherent in the system. Help, I'm being oppressed! You saw it, didn't you?"

We're not forced to watch TV or read anything. "The media" has no more control over any individual than that individual gives it.

I'd laugh if I didn't see zits just now in the mirror....freakin menopause and pimples...had'em since I was nine....at least the oily skin that comes with them prevents wrinkles, although I have a couple of those too.
I can just see it now: Mortician tries squeezing my last zits in an effort to make me look decent while laid out. *sigh*

Women judge themselves more harshly than men judge themselves, that's why there are no commercials like this targeted towards men.

Obviously exclusively advertising attractive women is unrealistic, but the issue can go both ways as advertising someone's definition of "normal" doesn't mean that there aren't attractive women out there also. Additionally, a model is supposed to be quintessential, that is the reason that the model is a model.

It is not cruel to advertise the quintessential, as most women would like to be comparable to a model.

So I am for the opinion that this is all, at least to a certain extent, a marketing ploy by Dove.

Most importantly, if all models including such as the Victoria's Secret models would be replaced by average women, the world would suffer a great loss.

Our society is tough, but there is no reason to be lax with all the fast food at our disposal.

:lol:

Oh! I know your pain. :wave: It used to seem my face had more oil than the persian gulf. :grumpy: Finally after 2 rounds of accutane and passing 50 I've dried out a little, but now I have rosacea! :angry: I don't think all those facial sauna machine steam treatments and millions of washings with scrubby pads and hot water helped! :rolleyes:
Still, that dove soap breaks me out......it is for small pores and dry skin only.

Yeah....less wrinkles, but oily skin or no, you can't stop the sags!:D Menopause will probably make the rosacea worse....oh well...who cares, not me! :lol:

Amazing. Thank you. :)

I've had rosacea all my life and menopause has actually made it better,but I still don't go out in public without cover-up on it. Interestingly enough, although I have extremely oily skin, if I don't use a decent moisturizer after washing, I feel like my skin is being pulled off, it's so dry and taut. My (former) dermatologist explained that all that scrubbing and such that we do to eradicate the acne also removes the natural protections our bodies make, which starts a vicious cycle of skin irritation, acne, overproduction of oil, scrubbing to get it off....and said the best moisturizer is our own oil, so now, when it starts pouring out, I rub it back in :D
Actually, watch sports shows and their commercials-plain looking guys slap on some aftershave or body spray and beautiful women are running toward them in heated passion. Five blades in your razor will guarantee they can't stop stroking your face. Wear Dockers and they're giving you their phone numbers....

This will seem irreverant at first:

Did you hear about the agnostic, dyslexic insomniac?

What you say is true, but these men in perfume commercials being chased by women are not undressed thereby showing off their lack of 6-pack abs, because their role in the commercial is not to model anything but to simply advertise a tangible product not related to clothing or appearance (they are more actors than models). Also, the fact that the guys are average could be more to improve the comical aspect of these commercials rather than to make average men feel better about themselves.

Pertaining to shaving products, I have never seen an ugly face model for a Gillette commercial, and even if a particular model would seem unnattractive, that would be quite different from a commercial with purposefully less attractive men purposefully done to improve mens' self-image.

Although I'm sure my point could be further argued, I don't believe that I have ever seen a commercial targeted towards men that stressed self-esteem issues as greatly as the Dove ad campaign (no commercials with overweight men lined up in nothing more than their undies), and that is the reason that we are discussing this in the first place.

I'd like to second this somewhat.

To me, Dove is simply trying to sell. In this case their marketing campaign is puts accross an idea of them being different.

There's a whole rash of companies with similar approaches (eg bodyshop). It's worth having a high level of suspicion about this I reckon.

Also... it does seem rather patronizing. As a lady said earlier. I mean, I'm a guy. If I was a woman I'd be offended. If I say a similar campaign with older guys in underwear, I'd probably be offended. Do they think we're stupid. Do they think we'll cheer them on if they tell us that we're ok?

Man. There is not a single obese woman there... They are all fine.

Actually - I think the Aust version has some slightly heavier ladies. Not that this is what you notice... I see a woman with a decent sized chest, wearing only underwear. That's my take on it as a guy.