Author Topic: Why is media against breast implants?  (Read 8156 times)

blas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 292
  • -Receive: 78
  • Posts: 534
Why is media against breast implants?
« on: January 20, 2018, 10:18:03 am »
I've noticed, that every time they talk about breast implants in the media, it's always about 'the dangers of having breast implants' or 'why I removed my breast implants' or 'why you shouldn't have them done' etc etc and I'm fed up with this shit. Why does the media want women not to have breast implants? Why do they want to make it almost like a taboo? I mean, in Europe they're still very rare and it's almost like it's not an option or something that only posh people do (or can afford) so it's almost looked down upon. And if I type breast implants in Google, almost all the results are articles that try to discourage women from even wanting their breasts done.

Do you guys have any ideas why is it like this, in the majority of the countries? Surely the plastic surgery 'industry' doesn't benefit from this yet you don't hear them crying about the media scaring away their potential customers.
my avatar - obvious Tatiahna morph :D

b22

  • Newbie
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 1
  • -Receive: 0
  • Posts: 2
Re: Why is media against breast implants?
« Reply #1 on: January 24, 2018, 08:07:04 pm »
because they are leftists, and the left always wants to tell you how to live your life

Arie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 1813
  • -Receive: 1722
  • Posts: 1986
Re: Why is media against breast implants?
« Reply #2 on: January 24, 2018, 08:23:03 pm »
I guess that’s true because I’m pretty on the left and I want you to rethink your stupid statement
General laws of fake boobage:
1) Fake boobs should not bring unnecessary health risks
2) Fake boobs should look as beautiful as possible, unless this breaks rule 1
3) Fake boobs should be as big as possible, unless this breaks rules 1 and 2

blas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 292
  • -Receive: 78
  • Posts: 534
Re: Why is media against breast implants?
« Reply #3 on: January 25, 2018, 12:12:18 am »
I'm beyond politics :D

I'm not seeing any definite agenda behind it. See what the left has got to say about it. Feminism is all for independent women while they're collectivists like Marxists (who love branding people and putting them in little boxes). These guys wouldn't support individual improvement of those who have the money for it so they're obviously rich and bourgeois which collides with the idea of equality and also that women should be ugly not so attractive like most feminists. Hence expensive playthings for hubbies are not supported. So it could be the left.
What about the right? They're all for natural, as it is, all for family, like in the olden days. And of course women should be housewives. Right. No individualism detected here either. So it also could be the right.
If both agree on something, then there's got to be something more behind it. People buy expensive phones every year or every other year and buy other non-essential shit even if they don't own the flat they're living in .. just for the looks...except they dread the thought of fixing a saggy pair of tits cause what would the neighbors think about them. Makes one think.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2018, 12:15:12 am by blas »
my avatar - obvious Tatiahna morph :D

spectrefen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 34
  • -Receive: 115
  • Posts: 103
Re: Why is media against breast implants?
« Reply #4 on: January 25, 2018, 03:52:53 pm »
I'm beyond politics :D


Nobody is. Every choice, thought or decision we take are indeed political. Not taking part in an argument is also a decision.

I guess that’s true because I’m pretty on the left and I want you to rethink your stupid statement

Same here.

aokpo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 133
  • -Receive: 897
  • Posts: 604
Re: Why is media against breast implants?
« Reply #5 on: January 25, 2018, 04:34:39 pm »
Good news does not sell. Only bad news sells. The dangers or failures of breast implants will make news. The success won't.

b2

  • notnewbie
  • *
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 0
  • -Receive: 2
  • Posts: 4
Re: Why is media against breast implants?
« Reply #6 on: January 25, 2018, 10:54:03 pm »
Arie, the whole leftism is all about telling people what they can or cannot do.
if you don't think it is true, please let me know what leftism means for you, and I'll explain my point.

blas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 292
  • -Receive: 78
  • Posts: 534
Re: Why is media against breast implants?
« Reply #7 on: January 26, 2018, 02:17:25 am »
Good news does not sell. Only bad news sells. The dangers or failures of breast implants will make news. The success won't.


Finally, a proper answer. :D
I agree with you. Regarding the news, bad news is more likely to make people read. But then many things in the world are advertised, put in your face so you go and buy it. Even expensive things. This isn't seem to be the case with breast implants or any aesthetic modifications. We rarely see enhanced breasts in movies either, let alone TV or billboard adverts. There is no money in not making people to buy stuff. There would be so much to exploit in this area yet they're curiously avoiding it.
my avatar - obvious Tatiahna morph :D

Daddy Vlad

  • your grace
  • Donor
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 315
  • -Receive: 1419
  • Posts: 1131
    • Fetlife
Re: Why is media against breast implants?
« Reply #8 on: January 26, 2018, 03:49:20 am »
But then many things in the world are advertised, put in your face so you go and buy it. Even expensive things. This isn't seem to be the case with breast implants or any aesthetic modifications. We rarely see enhanced breasts in movies either, let alone TV or billboard adverts. There is no money in not making people to buy stuff. There would be so much to exploit in this area yet they're curiously avoiding it.

A) Surgical talent is still pretty individualized. There is no one conglomerate like Coca Cola or Disney that makes massive profit off all the breast augmentations.

B) Beauty has always been sly about it's source. You have 300 pound whales bragging about their "all natural 38DD busts" as if their lives depended on having something going for them that they didn't "cheat" for. Makeup, clothing, and of course plastic surgery are typically about looking like you are a ten when you clearly aren't and pretending "you woke up like this".

C) Western society is still incredibly "anti-*WOMAN*" by tradition. The sexual revolutions are still recent memories and don't forget our thousands of years of harsh religious indoctrination.

Arie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 1813
  • -Receive: 1722
  • Posts: 1986
Re: Why is media against breast implants?
« Reply #9 on: January 26, 2018, 03:59:37 pm »
Arie, the whole leftism is all about telling people what they can or cannot do.
if you don't think it is true, please let me know what leftism means for you, and I'll explain my point.

So “leftism” is about telling what people can and can’t do? And the right is about...? When I think about right wing politics in the US I think about how women CAN’T have an abortion if they feel it’s necessary, about how you CAN carry around an assault rifle for self defense, about how you CAN’T afford healthcare if you were born in a poor social climate, about how CAN become president when more citizens voted for your opponent, about how you CAN’T drink a beer until you’re 21 and you CAN get the death penalty when you’re 12 years old. That’s a ton of can and can’ts.   
General laws of fake boobage:
1) Fake boobs should not bring unnecessary health risks
2) Fake boobs should look as beautiful as possible, unless this breaks rule 1
3) Fake boobs should be as big as possible, unless this breaks rules 1 and 2

b2

  • notnewbie
  • *
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 0
  • -Receive: 2
  • Posts: 4
Re: Why is media against breast implants?
« Reply #10 on: January 28, 2018, 01:46:07 am »

So “leftism” is about telling what people can and can’t do? And the right is about...? When I think about right wing politics in the US I think about how women CAN’T have an abortion if they feel it’s necessary, about how you CAN carry around an assault rifle for self defense, about how you CAN’T afford healthcare if you were born in a poor social climate, about how CAN become president when more citizens voted for your opponent, about how you CAN’T drink a beer until you’re 21 and you CAN get the death penalty when you’re 12 years old. That’s a ton of can and can’ts.

haha ok, on the first one, I am on your side. It is an interesting topic, because the left took the position what I would expect from the left.
Weapons: you can have weapons in the US has 2 benefits: A girl has a change against a Shaquil O'neil size men, unlike in Europe, where, if you look fragile, you are fragile. And the bad guys don't ask permission for weapen. And the other reason is, you can defend yourself from the state. It is not easy to see it necessary if you live in the US, but if people had gun, probably holocaust wouldn't have happened.

The presidential election is not about left or right, it is about the constitution, which is very well considered. Why? Imagine the Europian Union elects a president. The EU has 28 states. Without the United Kingdom after Brexit, 27 remains. If there are 2 candidates, and Germany, Italy and France votes for one, it doesn't matter what the rest of the  24 decides to do. In that case, 3 countries could overvote 24. Now the same happens in the US. Big cities could overrule rural areas. One more thing, Trump didn't even campaign in cities where he know he was going to lose. If popular vote matters, he campaings in New York instead of Ohio, and gains 5% more votes in New York, and loses 5% votes in Ohio. But 5% in New York maybe ten times more people than 5% in Ohio. So he camaingned according to the rules.

21 in the US, 18 in Europe. Probably too high, but I don't think it is left-right thing, was it any better with Obama?

Death penalty: In the UK, gangs send children to steal mobile phones from people and use acid as a weapen, because they can't be punished. They ruin people face, and they are not punished. I don't think that is fair.

Now the last one is health care. This is general "If I Take Your Money I have More Money" question. You probably think the richer people should pay the
poor's healthcare. Imagine the situation that in a school you take breakfast with you, and a stronger person takes it from you. Next day the same happens. You won't be very motivated to have food with you next day, will you? The same happens with economy. Most cases people are poor because they are lazy and not talented, and rich if they are hardworking or talented. Or corrupt, but I am not here to defend them. Now, if you take money from someone, you don't encourage him to work, and if you give money someone else for free, you won't encourage him either to work more. And wellbeing requires work. I could explain it a lot deeper. If you take money from the wealthy, they can't hire more people, so more people won't be able to afford healthcare, and as less products are created, they became more expensive. Also an example, the US has one of the best doctors in the word. Compare it to Canada, the UK, for example. Canada and the UK are western cultures, private companies, comparable to the US, but the healthcare is driven by the state. And it is shit. If I have temperature in the UK, I need to wait even a week for an appointment. As I heard it is not very good in Canada either. In general, leftists forget mostly 2 things about the economy: Long term consequences matter, not only short term. Wealth is not a fix number. If you let the economy work, total wealth is growing, but if you take money from those people who actually run the economy, the wealth gap will decrease, but only because the wealthy will be 100 times poorer, and the poor will be only 2 times poorer.


aokpo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 133
  • -Receive: 897
  • Posts: 604
Re: Why is media against breast implants?
« Reply #11 on: January 28, 2018, 02:17:38 am »
Good news does not sell. Only bad news sells. The dangers or failures of breast implants will make news. The success won't.


Finally, a proper answer. :D
I agree with you. Regarding the news, bad news is more likely to make people read. But then many things in the world are advertised, put in your face so you go and buy it. Even expensive things. This isn't seem to be the case with breast implants or any aesthetic modifications. We rarely see enhanced breasts in movies either, let alone TV or billboard adverts. There is no money in not making people to buy stuff. There would be so much to exploit in this area yet they're curiously avoiding it.

Unlike chocolate bars or uplift bras, medical advertising, while allowed has its limits. An implant manufacturer will not advertise on TV as the customer will still go with the doctors advice and not make her own choice. The few surgeons who specialize in breast implants probably have their schedules full, by word of mouth and dont need  more business. As for the popularity of breast implants, one cannot tell by walking down a street. Most implants are not huge and the wearer may be be adequately clothed. The manufacturers will still advertise in medical magazines, but we dont see them.

Arie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 1813
  • -Receive: 1722
  • Posts: 1986
Re: Why is media against breast implants?
« Reply #12 on: January 28, 2018, 04:47:58 pm »

So “leftism” is about telling what people can and can’t do? And the right is about...? When I think about right wing politics in the US I think about how women CAN’T have an abortion if they feel it’s necessary, about how you CAN carry around an assault rifle for self defense, about how you CAN’T afford healthcare if you were born in a poor social climate, about how CAN become president when more citizens voted for your opponent, about how you CAN’T drink a beer until you’re 21 and you CAN get the death penalty when you’re 12 years old. That’s a ton of can and can’ts.

haha ok, on the first one, I am on your side. It is an interesting topic, because the left took the position what I would expect from the left.
Weapons: you can have weapons in the US has 2 benefits: A girl has a change against a Shaquil O'neil size men, unlike in Europe, where, if you look fragile, you are fragile. And the bad guys don't ask permission for weapen. And the other reason is, you can defend yourself from the state. It is not easy to see it necessary if you live in the US, but if people had gun, probably holocaust wouldn't have happened.

The presidential election is not about left or right, it is about the constitution, which is very well considered. Why? Imagine the Europian Union elects a president. The EU has 28 states. Without the United Kingdom after Brexit, 27 remains. If there are 2 candidates, and Germany, Italy and France votes for one, it doesn't matter what the rest of the  24 decides to do. In that case, 3 countries could overvote 24. Now the same happens in the US. Big cities could overrule rural areas. One more thing, Trump didn't even campaign in cities where he know he was going to lose. If popular vote matters, he campaings in New York instead of Ohio, and gains 5% more votes in New York, and loses 5% votes in Ohio. But 5% in New York maybe ten times more people than 5% in Ohio. So he camaingned according to the rules.

21 in the US, 18 in Europe. Probably too high, but I don't think it is left-right thing, was it any better with Obama?

Death penalty: In the UK, gangs send children to steal mobile phones from people and use acid as a weapen, because they can't be punished. They ruin people face, and they are not punished. I don't think that is fair.

Now the last one is health care. This is general "If I Take Your Money I have More Money" question. You probably think the richer people should pay the
poor's healthcare. Imagine the situation that in a school you take breakfast with you, and a stronger person takes it from you. Next day the same happens. You won't be very motivated to have food with you next day, will you? The same happens with economy. Most cases people are poor because they are lazy and not talented, and rich if they are hardworking or talented. Or corrupt, but I am not here to defend them. Now, if you take money from someone, you don't encourage him to work, and if you give money someone else for free, you won't encourage him either to work more. And wellbeing requires work. I could explain it a lot deeper. If you take money from the wealthy, they can't hire more people, so more people won't be able to afford healthcare, and as less products are created, they became more expensive. Also an example, the US has one of the best doctors in the word. Compare it to Canada, the UK, for example. Canada and the UK are western cultures, private companies, comparable to the US, but the healthcare is driven by the state. And it is shit. If I have temperature in the UK, I need to wait even a week for an appointment. As I heard it is not very good in Canada either. In general, leftists forget mostly 2 things about the economy: Long term consequences matter, not only short term. Wealth is not a fix number. If you let the economy work, total wealth is growing, but if you take money from those people who actually run the economy, the wealth gap will decrease, but only because the wealthy will be 100 times poorer, and the poor will be only 2 times poorer.



Good effort, but you are very unconvincing. Quick retort:

- People with guns are a lot more likely to die from gun inflicted wounds than non gun owners
- If you stand up to your government it won’t end well for you, the government has nearly unlimited resources to end you. Pointing a gun at the government is like bringing a knife to a gun fight. If you DO use a gun to show your displeasure you are branded a terrorist and you will probably die. Almost all changes to government in Western civilization happen through relatively peaceful means such as protest and general change of public opinion.
- The US presidential election system is designed to favor Republican candidates through gerrymandering and designed to prevent African-Amaricans and immigrants easy access to voting. Without an exception the republican electoral vote always outperforms the popular vote by design resulting in the last 2 republican presidents not being elected by the people. It is a horrible interpretation of democracy and would be unacceptable in most nations around the world. A vote of a city person holds the same value as the vote of a rural person, that is what democracy entails!
- Drinking age: Exactly, was it any different? So how come leftism is about tellen what you can and can’t do and right equals FREEDOM!? It’s the same rules under both governments, right?
- Ah yes, in the UK everyone has a months supply of phones because kids keep stealing them... Also those acid attacks happen so often it’s not even global news when it happens anymore. Oh wait, it IS global news when it happens and people ARE serving long prison sentences. You’re being a but silly now.
- Healthcare: No I don’t you silly person. Universal healthcare you pay for yourself in case you need it. It’s called insurance, look up the definition. It has nothing to do with how rich you are, it’s there to make sure that if you are rich and you need to have emergency heart surgery you have the same money left to enjoy your second chance at life instead of being bankrupt. And if you are poor but somehow managing to hang in there you even get that second chance at life. Universal healthcare isn’t about rich and poor people, the current private system is! Also the quality of healthcare in the US isn’t anything special, certainly when compared to the exorbitant costs. Here, have a look at the findings of  the OECD here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_quality_of_healthcare or maybe check out this list compiled by the WHO: http://thepatientfactor.com/canadian-health-care-information/world-health-organizations-ranking-of-the-worlds-health-systems/ (yes, that is the US coming in at number 37 after pretty much every EU country and right behind Costa Rica at 36 (who happens to have universal healthcare BTW)).

Damnit, I still spend so much more time than intended on that >_<
General laws of fake boobage:
1) Fake boobs should not bring unnecessary health risks
2) Fake boobs should look as beautiful as possible, unless this breaks rule 1
3) Fake boobs should be as big as possible, unless this breaks rules 1 and 2

Eddie_Valiant

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 2635
  • -Receive: 972
  • Posts: 403
Re: Why is media against breast implants?
« Reply #13 on: January 29, 2018, 12:09:39 am »
Quote from: vertiggo
Western society is still incredibly "anti-*WOMAN*" by tradition. The sexual revolutions are still recent memories and don't forget our thousands of years of harsh religious indoctrination.

I think Vertiggo hits the nail on the head with this, and I think the bias comes from both sides, the right and the left. I think this https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7054162 quote from an article about *WOMAN*-shaming sums up the issue well:

Being “hot” or sexy is part of the recipe of heterosexual femininity. But with one false step, it’s easy to cross the invisible and ever-shifting boundary between “sexy” and “*WOMAN*ty.” If she is perceived as “too” sexy; if she calls too much attention to her sexiness... to pull off the sexy-but-not-*WOMAN*ty performance; she faces a real risk of becoming labeled.

Obviously there is a long religious history, across most religions and cultures, where women are seen as "temptresses" ready to use their "charms" to tempt men away from a humble, pious life. Unfortunately, this perfection is still fairly well engrained in society, and breast implants are certainly seen by many as an attempt a woman makes to make herself more "tempting". In fact, that mentality fits very well with the victem-blaming and sexism that movements like the *WOMAN*Walk are admirably working to bring to light and get rid of.

That being said, a LOT of this comes from the left too, hence the tendency for breast augmentations to be most popular in places that politically skew right (but not too far right). And by left, I'm referring to the far-left feminists that HATE the idea of breast implants, seeing them as a disfiguring surgery that reinforces the ideals of our patriarchial society - they even go out of theur way to claim that "today's feminists" are not feminists at all, instead using the titles "post-feminist" or "neofeminist", and that they have missed out on the entitlre point of feminism, having been coopted by commercialism and capitalism http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/08/26/sports-and-corsetry/ Indeed, if the feminists are to be believed, no woman is ever able to decide to get breast implants on her own, it always boils down to men's wnts, desires, and position of control. A woman that gets implants "for herself" is just a puppet in the society that's been constructed to make her feel this way https://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/columns/the-sexist/blog/13118824/breast-implants-for-jesus-vs-breast-implants-for-feminism

I think a related topic are feminist concerns with banning sex robots http://www.feministcurrent.com/2017/04/27/sex-robots-epitomize-patriarchy-offer-men-solution-threat-female-independence/
What thus all boils down to is the genda of the "true feminists" not to create a society of equality, but a society of conformity with a very narrow view of what and how men and women should be.

Quote from: aokpo
Good news does not sell. Only bad news sells. The dangers or failures of breast implants will make news. The success won't.

I agree that this figures in to it too - our media and governments have definitely figured out that fear sells / gets results. News organizations have long run with the mantra "if it bleeds it leads" and gossip about a trampy celebrity getting a boob job is never far behind. Obviously plenty of Hollywood A-listers have boob jobs, but they're mostly small / subtle / hard-to-tell, and for the past 10 years, anyone that gets one that's considered large (i.e. Heidi Montag) is immediately branded with a big scarlett A. I think a lot of the tabloid media really has a bully mentality, whereas if they see any reaction as a sign of weakness, they really pounce upon it.

Dolly Parton was always very upfront about her great boob jobs nd plastic surgery "I spend a lot of money to look this cheap" so no story there. Though the idea in general that looking like a bimbo equates looking cheap is an issue that goes back to Vertiggo's quote at the beginning of this post. When you look at the "rules" of society as a construct by those in power as a means to retain power, both *WOMAN*-shaming anti-femine feminism make total sense.

In a class-based society, which most societies seem to have been at one point or another, traditions and biases manage to live on gor a clverry long time. A distrust of attractive women makes a lot of sense when thought of in the context of the haughty, blue-blood aristocracy - an ugly or average woman who "should" be married off to an elegible batchelor could have that birthright opportunity robbed from her by some low-class trollop showing off the goods. Better to have society stigmatize said trollop (and give her a label) than to risk mixing of the classes. Truth is, thous stuck-up old-money bitches probably had a good point, though I'm inclined to agree with this blog post pointing out that bimbos have made the world a better place for all of us http://takimag.com/article/how_bimbos_saved_the_american_republic_robert_weissberg/print#axzz55WUp7iQa
« Last Edit: January 29, 2018, 12:15:55 am by Eddie_Valiant »

crusius

  • Explicit-Users
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 44
  • -Receive: 53
  • Posts: 42
Re: Why is media against breast implants?
« Reply #14 on: January 29, 2018, 08:14:08 pm »
Oh man... what a thread

Not everyone - woman or man - likes big boobs. And a good chunk of people who do like them just isn‘t into fake boobs. They have to be fetishized up to a certain point, that has very little to do with advertising or general media consumption. If you don‘t like big breasts, the thought of someone else going through surgery for them must seem all kinds of weird.

And for people who do like fake boobs, it still is a health related issue that comes with a bunch of risks, no going back and a considerable financial barrier attached to it.

All that other stuff - political views, women getting them for the wrong reasons, media-coverage, clickbait, industries forming around them the way they do, public views on what is „sexy“ and „*WOMAN*ty“ etc. - pretty much falls right into place from there on out.

Make Fake Boobs into a 1$ per cc thing, that has no long term reprocussions, and all the controversy would fade very quickly. Or imagine if breast implants were considered as healthy.


On a different note: you can absolutely be a left feminist, who likes and advocates for breast implants.

Tags: