One dirty trick for huge muscles fast
November 5, 2021 12:46 PM Subscribe
“There’s a doctor and it’s like a two-year fucking waiting list to get with him,” Timothy said. “And this guy gives out HGH like candy — you just have to get on that list." The problem, said Wood and Pope, is that because side effects don’t happen immediately, they’re not perceived as scary enough to outweigh the benefits of PEDs. Shorter-term side effects appear to be less common with new PEDs, and long-term effects — including cardiovascular, liver, and kidney issues — don’t show up until later in life. It’s hard for users to conceptualize drawbacks. The thought of getting stiff arteries in 40 years or having a heart attack at 60 might not faze someone who wants to look muscular in two months.
Muscles, jobs, life in general: There's no substitution for doing the work necessary to achieve a goal. Shortcuts *always* come back to haunt you.
posted by Snowflake at 1:05 PM on November 5, 2021
posted by Snowflake at 1:05 PM on November 5, 2021
The way I look at PEDs like these are such: they improve ability by borrowing from longevity. And there's absolutely no way I want to invoke a second puberty - one was more than enough!
I'll admit to being an athlete, but I'm interested in doing what I do for a long time - my parents didn't make it out of their 50's and that's not going to be me.
No shortcuts to the top!
posted by alex_skazat at 1:14 PM on November 5, 2021 [7 favorites]
I'll admit to being an athlete, but I'm interested in doing what I do for a long time - my parents didn't make it out of their 50's and that's not going to be me.
No shortcuts to the top!
posted by alex_skazat at 1:14 PM on November 5, 2021 [7 favorites]
Are PEDs really a "shortcut"? My understanding was they allow you to shorten recovery times and bulk up more/leaner than is naturally possible for most people. (I've never done them myself, the aesthetic and/or athletic benefits they give don't interest me.) You won't get cut taking PEDs and sitting on the couch, my impression is that what they let you do is put in the gym time that you otherwise wouldn't be able to due to injuries or fatigue and let people achieve levels of muscularity that wouldn't be possible with their natural hormone profile.
posted by threementholsandafuneral at 1:24 PM on November 5, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by threementholsandafuneral at 1:24 PM on November 5, 2021 [2 favorites]
Long ago, Tina Fey nailed it. This, but just applied to men.
Especially in the gay community, too much of that "no fats, no femmes" shit.
posted by deadaluspark at 1:41 PM on November 5, 2021 [6 favorites]
Especially in the gay community, too much of that "no fats, no femmes" shit.
posted by deadaluspark at 1:41 PM on November 5, 2021 [6 favorites]
Steroids (at least some of them, they come in many different flavours) will totally increase muscle mass without any other work. Not to ridiculous levels, but they'll help. Being "cut" (i.e., having low body fat along with muscles) is another story. Gotta do the work for that one.
posted by Jobst at 1:41 PM on November 5, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by Jobst at 1:41 PM on November 5, 2021 [1 favorite]
Being "cut" (i.e., having low body fat along with muscles) is another story. Gotta do the work for that one.
Amphetamines and certain other weight-loss drugs can even do that without any work, at least to an extent.
As I've gotten older I'll admit I've toyed around with the idea of modest PED use, though I haven't actually done it. I don't compete, and I don't have any interest in competitions, so there's no ethical concern. As I near 40 I feel the pull of age and gravity. And I very sharply feel the loss of momentum and progress due to the pandemic. Part of me wonders "maybe just a little, just to get back to where I was in January 2020"...
posted by Bobby Rijndael at 1:51 PM on November 5, 2021 [8 favorites]
Amphetamines and certain other weight-loss drugs can even do that without any work, at least to an extent.
As I've gotten older I'll admit I've toyed around with the idea of modest PED use, though I haven't actually done it. I don't compete, and I don't have any interest in competitions, so there's no ethical concern. As I near 40 I feel the pull of age and gravity. And I very sharply feel the loss of momentum and progress due to the pandemic. Part of me wonders "maybe just a little, just to get back to where I was in January 2020"...
posted by Bobby Rijndael at 1:51 PM on November 5, 2021 [8 favorites]
I decided to get in better shape during COVID and followed at a few older YouTube personalities for tips and inspiration. A few months in, it seemed like lockdown was putting more eyes on these guys and it was eventually pointed out that some of them were using fake weights and another, who specifically claimed to be completely natural, had to clarify that he was on “testosterone replacement therapy”. It seems safest to assume all of them are on PED and either not addressing it or outright lying about it.
I remember getting discouraged in my early 20s because my workout partner outstripped me dramatically over the school year but it was the early 80s and I didn’t know what man-boobs and stretch marks added up to. I considered him a friend and he never once mentioned it.
Realistic expectations would have gone a long way to keeping me at my fitness goals more steadily. Now that I'm nearing 60, I've learned (due to tendon injury) that I need to go about 5x slower than any previous time I'd tried to get stronger but I've kept at it twice as long as any time in the past. I've gained a bit of muscle but I'm doing it in the face of accelerating bodily decline. Weird times.
posted by brachiopod at 2:00 PM on November 5, 2021 [5 favorites]
I remember getting discouraged in my early 20s because my workout partner outstripped me dramatically over the school year but it was the early 80s and I didn’t know what man-boobs and stretch marks added up to. I considered him a friend and he never once mentioned it.
Realistic expectations would have gone a long way to keeping me at my fitness goals more steadily. Now that I'm nearing 60, I've learned (due to tendon injury) that I need to go about 5x slower than any previous time I'd tried to get stronger but I've kept at it twice as long as any time in the past. I've gained a bit of muscle but I'm doing it in the face of accelerating bodily decline. Weird times.
posted by brachiopod at 2:00 PM on November 5, 2021 [5 favorites]
The thing that's really impressed me about this focus on getting superhero-league-jacked is how it's all done for That One Obvious Fanservice Scene. You know: Steve Rogers steps out of the dieselpunk coffin after getting juiced; Thor puts on a shirt; Peter Quill takes a shower in space jail. The rest of the time, they're pretty well covered up. (Well, not Hulk, but we know that he's on the PED known as CGI.) They could just not do that one scene.
posted by Halloween Jack at 2:03 PM on November 5, 2021 [22 favorites]
posted by Halloween Jack at 2:03 PM on November 5, 2021 [22 favorites]
Muscles, jobs, life in general: There's no substitution for doing the work necessary to achieve a goal. Shortcuts *always* come back to haunt you.
Eh. If we had a better understanding of the processes and the right manufacturing capabilities, we could make shortcuts that would work just fine. Getting jacked involves a bunch of physical processes in the physical universe, things that proceed using various hormones and other chemicals. And anything that exists physically can be replicated physically.
The problem isn't that PEDs are shortcuts and therefore immoral. The problem is that they're clumsy, primitive, bad shortcuts. Really effective shortcuts, so that everyone could just decide much more about their body than they do now, would be utterly marvelous.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 2:09 PM on November 5, 2021 [23 favorites]
Eh. If we had a better understanding of the processes and the right manufacturing capabilities, we could make shortcuts that would work just fine. Getting jacked involves a bunch of physical processes in the physical universe, things that proceed using various hormones and other chemicals. And anything that exists physically can be replicated physically.
The problem isn't that PEDs are shortcuts and therefore immoral. The problem is that they're clumsy, primitive, bad shortcuts. Really effective shortcuts, so that everyone could just decide much more about their body than they do now, would be utterly marvelous.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 2:09 PM on November 5, 2021 [23 favorites]
The author made clear throughout that a major risk of drawing attention to PEDs, even when presented in a negative context, was that more men might be tempted to take the trade-off of immediate gains versus a poorly defined long-term risk. But... the article itself is drawing attention to PEDs? And making it clear that they do actually produce spectacular results in the short term? And gesturing at a little-understood set of risks that fall in the future?
posted by chappell, ambrose at 2:40 PM on November 5, 2021 [3 favorites]
Pope said one of the big risks he fears is that as PEDs’ efficiency becomes more well-known, it may actually increase usage. [...] What troubles Pope isn’t just the risk but the possibility that education would encourage even more usage. The more a layperson learns about PEDs, the more they’ll learn that the drugs are effective. That’s dangerous, experts say.In that case, how is this article not contributing directly to the problem?
posted by chappell, ambrose at 2:40 PM on November 5, 2021 [3 favorites]
I’m not 100% clear why I should be against all this if I’m for decriminalization, de stigmatization and possibly legalization of other mind and body altering substances.
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 2:45 PM on November 5, 2021 [10 favorites]
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 2:45 PM on November 5, 2021 [10 favorites]
possibly legalization of other mind and body altering substances.
As a drug user, it's not like the drugs I take are any less dangerous or misunderstood. De-criminalization/legalization only functions with education tied to it as well.
posted by deadaluspark at 2:48 PM on November 5, 2021 [2 favorites]
As a drug user, it's not like the drugs I take are any less dangerous or misunderstood. De-criminalization/legalization only functions with education tied to it as well.
posted by deadaluspark at 2:48 PM on November 5, 2021 [2 favorites]
It's advantageous to be taller, so people will try to be taller. Actually, rich people will try to be taller. The rich/ powerful always have ways to be richer/ more powerful / have nice things. Why are we not burning more things, I forget?
posted by theora55 at 2:49 PM on November 5, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by theora55 at 2:49 PM on November 5, 2021 [4 favorites]
It isn't just a shortcut, as noted. How easily people build strength or size or low fat varies a lot. I think the problem is people getting hypnotized by looking "right".
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 3:18 PM on November 5, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 3:18 PM on November 5, 2021 [1 favorite]
I get hit with a pretty much constant stream of advertising for testosterone level checking. I don't doubt for a moment that no matter what the detected blood level is, they would advise replacement therapy to top it up.
Anyway, normal diagnostic ranges are wide and were originally set to be informative as part of overall clinical decision making i.e. if it's below the "normal" level AND there are certain symptoms then it has a diagnostic meaning.
There's a few things driving uptake.
First, yes there's an increasing cultural focus on not just looking "normal" but looking absolutely ripped as a baseline.
Second, certain subcultures already completely normalise the use of a wide array of exercise and nutrition supplements. If you're already taking a pre-workout, post-workout, whatever, endlessly optimising intake of nutrients then this seems like not such a huge leap.
If it's not so weird to use an ECA stack (ephedrine, Caffeine, Aspirin) as part of weight loss but a culture that normalises polypharmaceutical use as part of appearance optimisation is setting itself up for something like this.
Even things like low-oxygen training, used to be something that the elite of the elite even knew about, now my friend is renting a low O2 sleeping tent to prepare for a walk up Kilimanjaro - a mountain that retired orthodontists trudge up, not exactly Everest.
For people who are even a little serious about training for endurance events, the norm has gone from book-based training plans to TrainingPeaks account and monitoring Training Stress Balance, Chronic Training Load, lactate thresholds.
When your culture / sub-culture heavily promotes micro-measurement and micro-management of these things (even if PEDs are considered cheating, it makes them seem like not such a huge step).
The only thing that is holding back an absolute tsunami of this stuff is that hormones need to be injected. If anyone comes up with a way for trenbolone or HGH or any other potent PED to be taken orally, things are going to get fucking crazy out there real fast.
posted by atrazine at 4:16 PM on November 5, 2021 [15 favorites]
Anyway, normal diagnostic ranges are wide and were originally set to be informative as part of overall clinical decision making i.e. if it's below the "normal" level AND there are certain symptoms then it has a diagnostic meaning.
There's a few things driving uptake.
First, yes there's an increasing cultural focus on not just looking "normal" but looking absolutely ripped as a baseline.
Second, certain subcultures already completely normalise the use of a wide array of exercise and nutrition supplements. If you're already taking a pre-workout, post-workout, whatever, endlessly optimising intake of nutrients then this seems like not such a huge leap.
If it's not so weird to use an ECA stack (ephedrine, Caffeine, Aspirin) as part of weight loss but a culture that normalises polypharmaceutical use as part of appearance optimisation is setting itself up for something like this.
Even things like low-oxygen training, used to be something that the elite of the elite even knew about, now my friend is renting a low O2 sleeping tent to prepare for a walk up Kilimanjaro - a mountain that retired orthodontists trudge up, not exactly Everest.
For people who are even a little serious about training for endurance events, the norm has gone from book-based training plans to TrainingPeaks account and monitoring Training Stress Balance, Chronic Training Load, lactate thresholds.
When your culture / sub-culture heavily promotes micro-measurement and micro-management of these things (even if PEDs are considered cheating, it makes them seem like not such a huge step).
The only thing that is holding back an absolute tsunami of this stuff is that hormones need to be injected. If anyone comes up with a way for trenbolone or HGH or any other potent PED to be taken orally, things are going to get fucking crazy out there real fast.
posted by atrazine at 4:16 PM on November 5, 2021 [15 favorites]
"I’m not 100% clear why I should be against all this if I’m for decriminalization, de stigmatization and possibly legalization of other mind and body altering substances."
Because boys and young men are looking at movie stars, athletes, and influencers who are using PEDs, and thinking that those bodies are normal, aesthetically attractive, and morally superior (because you have to "work out 2-3 hours a day and really earn it" or whatever is in ever single Men's Health superhero workout interview). And they look at their own bodies, and understand that society considers them abnormal, inferior, even "lazy." And they do incredible harm to themselves in chasing those bodies, or in loathing their own bodies, or both.
There's nothing morally wrong with breast implants. Have the boobs you want to have! Boobs (as an aesthetic appurtenance) have no particular moral valence, and altering them is not really a moral act one way or the other! But the cumulative impact of girls and young women never seeing unenhanced breasts on women declared "beautiful" by The Culture is a raft of eating disorders, mental illness, self-loathing, self-harm. We KNOW the harm that limited, tightly-controlled, impossible-to-achieve bodies shown as the only acceptable female bodies does. We've known for a long time now! We've been hearing in Congress this past month about how social media can increase mental illness and body dysmorphia in young women, and the companies know and don't care.
And sure, it was eye-roll inducing to watch all those 90s sitcoms like "According to Jim" where schlubby Jim Belushi is inexplicably married to model-hot Courtney Thorne-Smith. The solution to that is to put a greater diversity of women's bodies on TV, not to tell men on TV they all have to look like a superhero on steroids!
I don't think it is immoral for any one individual to take steroids for aesthetic reasons (leaving aside questions of sports competition etc.). Just like it's not immoral for any one individual to seek plastic surgery. But individuals don't make those decisions in a vacuum, and it's absolutely clear that thousands and thousands of people making that decision, and media (social and traditional) amplifying it, does incalculable harm. The individual decision is not immoral -- I think it's pretty amoral, frankly. But the cumulative decisions do vast harm, and this isn't plate tectonics -- these are human decisions made by human actors making choices. Somewhere along this spectrum from "one guy" to "it's everywhere," we become responsible for the harm it's doing.
I think societal issues like this demand societal solutions -- government, media companies, etc. But I don't think we can excuse ourselves from the vast harm that normalization of PED-enhanced bodies is doing to boys and young men by saying, "It's not wrong for any one guy to do it." I think that's actually a really capitalist way to think about it, that encourages these "tragedies of the commons" by individualizing and commodifying decisions, and denying that there's a social dimension to morality.
/That was longer than I thought it was going to be, and, uh, thank you for coming to my TED Talk.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:01 PM on November 5, 2021 [52 favorites]
Because boys and young men are looking at movie stars, athletes, and influencers who are using PEDs, and thinking that those bodies are normal, aesthetically attractive, and morally superior (because you have to "work out 2-3 hours a day and really earn it" or whatever is in ever single Men's Health superhero workout interview). And they look at their own bodies, and understand that society considers them abnormal, inferior, even "lazy." And they do incredible harm to themselves in chasing those bodies, or in loathing their own bodies, or both.
There's nothing morally wrong with breast implants. Have the boobs you want to have! Boobs (as an aesthetic appurtenance) have no particular moral valence, and altering them is not really a moral act one way or the other! But the cumulative impact of girls and young women never seeing unenhanced breasts on women declared "beautiful" by The Culture is a raft of eating disorders, mental illness, self-loathing, self-harm. We KNOW the harm that limited, tightly-controlled, impossible-to-achieve bodies shown as the only acceptable female bodies does. We've known for a long time now! We've been hearing in Congress this past month about how social media can increase mental illness and body dysmorphia in young women, and the companies know and don't care.
And sure, it was eye-roll inducing to watch all those 90s sitcoms like "According to Jim" where schlubby Jim Belushi is inexplicably married to model-hot Courtney Thorne-Smith. The solution to that is to put a greater diversity of women's bodies on TV, not to tell men on TV they all have to look like a superhero on steroids!
I don't think it is immoral for any one individual to take steroids for aesthetic reasons (leaving aside questions of sports competition etc.). Just like it's not immoral for any one individual to seek plastic surgery. But individuals don't make those decisions in a vacuum, and it's absolutely clear that thousands and thousands of people making that decision, and media (social and traditional) amplifying it, does incalculable harm. The individual decision is not immoral -- I think it's pretty amoral, frankly. But the cumulative decisions do vast harm, and this isn't plate tectonics -- these are human decisions made by human actors making choices. Somewhere along this spectrum from "one guy" to "it's everywhere," we become responsible for the harm it's doing.
I think societal issues like this demand societal solutions -- government, media companies, etc. But I don't think we can excuse ourselves from the vast harm that normalization of PED-enhanced bodies is doing to boys and young men by saying, "It's not wrong for any one guy to do it." I think that's actually a really capitalist way to think about it, that encourages these "tragedies of the commons" by individualizing and commodifying decisions, and denying that there's a social dimension to morality.
/That was longer than I thought it was going to be, and, uh, thank you for coming to my TED Talk.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:01 PM on November 5, 2021 [52 favorites]
Also, I want chubby Kumail Nanjiani back. Dear god not EVERYONE needs to be ripped all the time.
posted by deadaluspark at 5:40 PM on November 5, 2021 [14 favorites]
posted by deadaluspark at 5:40 PM on November 5, 2021 [14 favorites]
why I should be against all this if I’m for decriminalization, de stigmatization and possibly legalization of other mind and body altering substances."
Does destigmatization leave no room between thinking something is a terrrible idea and it's antisocial to encourage it, and actually criminalizing the thing? Maybe some things should be legal but disapproved of. (I may be missing a technical use of stigmatization?)
posted by clew at 5:41 PM on November 5, 2021 [3 favorites]
Because boys and young men are looking at movie stars, athletes, and influencers who are using PEDs
Does destigmatization leave no room between thinking something is a terrrible idea and it's antisocial to encourage it, and actually criminalizing the thing? Maybe some things should be legal but disapproved of. (I may be missing a technical use of stigmatization?)
posted by clew at 5:41 PM on November 5, 2021 [3 favorites]
Really effective shortcuts, so that everyone could just decide much more about their body than they do now, would be utterly marvelous.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace
To be fair, you would say that.
posted by rhamphorhynchus at 6:17 PM on November 5, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace
To be fair, you would say that.
posted by rhamphorhynchus at 6:17 PM on November 5, 2021 [5 favorites]
Even taking the claims in the article at face value, and accepting that PEDs borrow from the end of your life to give you something today, I'm not sure that there's a strong argument for making them illegal.
We let people do an awful lot of stuff that potentially shortens your life, in exchange for pleasure or benefit in the here-and-now. Being allowed to make that tradeoff yourself is a key part of being human; at least, an adult human.
There's not a lot of arguments you can make for prohibiting PED use that you can't also make about eating Krispy Kreme too often, or enjoying a cigar, or playing extreme sports. They all take from your future, either literally or probabilistically, in order to give you enjoyment in the here-and-now. Exactly how a person chooses to discount that future time seems like an incredibly personal decision.
The only acceptable path, in my view, is to try and educate and convince people of what the majority consensus believes the best tradeoffs are (don't do PEDs, don't smoke, don't eat 10g of trans fats/day), but letting people make their own decisions.
There's a whole tone to the article that is uncomfortably parental.
These drugs are dangerous and their long-term effects are understudied
If this is the case, we should be spending money on understanding the long-term effects, so that people can make better informed decisions. I'm not sure stigmatizing them helps with that.
Also, we're just taking the "World Anti-Doping Agency" (WADA) and the US "National Institute for Drug Abuse" (NIDA) at face value, now? They are both literally in the business of drug prohibition. WADA also seems to have a sideline in gender policing. NIDA has been the mouthpiece for the War on Drugs for so long that I'm surprised they have any credibility left. I'm receptive to arguments that we shouldn't be letting kids juice themselves in highschool bathrooms in order to look like Captain America, but it has a real "think of the children!" vibe to it as an argument for general prohibition.
posted by Kadin2048 at 7:23 PM on November 5, 2021 [5 favorites]
We let people do an awful lot of stuff that potentially shortens your life, in exchange for pleasure or benefit in the here-and-now. Being allowed to make that tradeoff yourself is a key part of being human; at least, an adult human.
There's not a lot of arguments you can make for prohibiting PED use that you can't also make about eating Krispy Kreme too often, or enjoying a cigar, or playing extreme sports. They all take from your future, either literally or probabilistically, in order to give you enjoyment in the here-and-now. Exactly how a person chooses to discount that future time seems like an incredibly personal decision.
The only acceptable path, in my view, is to try and educate and convince people of what the majority consensus believes the best tradeoffs are (don't do PEDs, don't smoke, don't eat 10g of trans fats/day), but letting people make their own decisions.
There's a whole tone to the article that is uncomfortably parental.
These drugs are dangerous and their long-term effects are understudied
If this is the case, we should be spending money on understanding the long-term effects, so that people can make better informed decisions. I'm not sure stigmatizing them helps with that.
Also, we're just taking the "World Anti-Doping Agency" (WADA) and the US "National Institute for Drug Abuse" (NIDA) at face value, now? They are both literally in the business of drug prohibition. WADA also seems to have a sideline in gender policing. NIDA has been the mouthpiece for the War on Drugs for so long that I'm surprised they have any credibility left. I'm receptive to arguments that we shouldn't be letting kids juice themselves in highschool bathrooms in order to look like Captain America, but it has a real "think of the children!" vibe to it as an argument for general prohibition.
posted by Kadin2048 at 7:23 PM on November 5, 2021 [5 favorites]
https://bloodknife.com/everyone-beautiful-no-one-horny/
Tangentially related... And I agree, the stars were sexier when they were actually having sex in relatable bodies.
posted by subdee at 7:31 PM on November 5, 2021 [5 favorites]
Tangentially related... And I agree, the stars were sexier when they were actually having sex in relatable bodies.
posted by subdee at 7:31 PM on November 5, 2021 [5 favorites]
"There's not a lot of arguments you can make for prohibiting PED use that you can't also make about eating Krispy Kreme too often, or enjoying a cigar, or playing extreme sports"
I mean, artificial transfats have been banned in the US since 2015, you can't advertise smoking to children, and children are forbidden by law from consenting to many forms of extreme sports (and have been for 150 years, since boxing got popular).
"The only acceptable path, in my view, is to try and educate and convince people of what the majority consensus believes the best tradeoffs are (don't do PEDs, don't smoke, don't eat 10g of trans fats/day), but letting people make their own decisions."
And what is your view w/r/t Marvel Movies, which promote the PED body to children? I am the ONLY parent I know who doesn't let 6-year-olds watch Marvel movies. Like, I know there are other parents like me out there in the world, but I am the ONLY one in my kid's school who still hasn't let my fifth-grader see a Marvel movie because I think they're corrosive as fuck to children, and they glorify types of violence and toxic masculinity I don't want my sons to consume. I let my kids see "The Martian" pretty young because they were obsessed with Mars and I don't care about butts or the word "fuck," but I care a LOT about toxic masculinity and PED bodies and narratives that glorify violence. There is a MASSIVE disconnect between what I find appropriate for my children (with parental involvement and guidance -- I have just watched 9 fucking hours of The Hunger Games because my kids loved the books, and I think they were pretty good movies that went in hard on the PTSD war causes! But also, ugh, I just watched 9 fucking hours of The Hunger Games so I could talk about the movies with my kids as we watched them) and what most other parents in my community find appropriate for their children. Marvel movies are basically the epitome of that disconnect.
"Let's convince men in their mid-20s not use PEDs" is definitely one part of the equation, but "Explain to 6-year-olds how the body that all their favorite superheroes have is incredibly toxic and likely to cause mental illness" is a whooooooooooooole different part. And this is not just, like, "other parents I am dismissing as bad parents" but "my nephew who is in first grade ABSOLUTELY ADORES Iron Man and I will 100% buy him Iron Man Legos for Christmas because he LOVES Iron Man, and I think my brother and sister-in-law are literally amazing parents who I have named as guardians of my kids if I die," but I will absolutely not let my children who are 5 and 7 years older than my nephew watch any movies involving Iron Man because it's sooooooooooo toxic.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:56 PM on November 5, 2021 [17 favorites]
I mean, artificial transfats have been banned in the US since 2015, you can't advertise smoking to children, and children are forbidden by law from consenting to many forms of extreme sports (and have been for 150 years, since boxing got popular).
"The only acceptable path, in my view, is to try and educate and convince people of what the majority consensus believes the best tradeoffs are (don't do PEDs, don't smoke, don't eat 10g of trans fats/day), but letting people make their own decisions."
And what is your view w/r/t Marvel Movies, which promote the PED body to children? I am the ONLY parent I know who doesn't let 6-year-olds watch Marvel movies. Like, I know there are other parents like me out there in the world, but I am the ONLY one in my kid's school who still hasn't let my fifth-grader see a Marvel movie because I think they're corrosive as fuck to children, and they glorify types of violence and toxic masculinity I don't want my sons to consume. I let my kids see "The Martian" pretty young because they were obsessed with Mars and I don't care about butts or the word "fuck," but I care a LOT about toxic masculinity and PED bodies and narratives that glorify violence. There is a MASSIVE disconnect between what I find appropriate for my children (with parental involvement and guidance -- I have just watched 9 fucking hours of The Hunger Games because my kids loved the books, and I think they were pretty good movies that went in hard on the PTSD war causes! But also, ugh, I just watched 9 fucking hours of The Hunger Games so I could talk about the movies with my kids as we watched them) and what most other parents in my community find appropriate for their children. Marvel movies are basically the epitome of that disconnect.
"Let's convince men in their mid-20s not use PEDs" is definitely one part of the equation, but "Explain to 6-year-olds how the body that all their favorite superheroes have is incredibly toxic and likely to cause mental illness" is a whooooooooooooole different part. And this is not just, like, "other parents I am dismissing as bad parents" but "my nephew who is in first grade ABSOLUTELY ADORES Iron Man and I will 100% buy him Iron Man Legos for Christmas because he LOVES Iron Man, and I think my brother and sister-in-law are literally amazing parents who I have named as guardians of my kids if I die," but I will absolutely not let my children who are 5 and 7 years older than my nephew watch any movies involving Iron Man because it's sooooooooooo toxic.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:56 PM on November 5, 2021 [17 favorites]
Really effective shortcuts, so that everyone could just decide much more about their body than they do now, would be utterly marvelous.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace
To be fair, you would say that.
Yeah, he's just preparing the ground for drug glands and unihemispheric sleep
posted by thatwhichfalls at 7:56 PM on November 5, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace
To be fair, you would say that.
Yeah, he's just preparing the ground for drug glands and unihemispheric sleep
posted by thatwhichfalls at 7:56 PM on November 5, 2021 [1 favorite]
The only thing that is holding back an absolute tsunami of this stuff is that hormones need to be injected. If anyone comes up with a way for trenbolone or HGH or any other potent PED to be taken orally, things are going to get fucking crazy out there real fast.
Within the last month I am seeing ads for an oral HGH for the first time: Ora[something or other], featuring a little/tween girl with big, big eyes and a very short face with an elfin-pointed chin poised to pop a tiny white pill into her mouth.
Looking at videos of police misconduct on YouTube has confirmed to me beyond all reasonable doubt that cops are taking PEDs at fantastically high rates. All the local sports stations carry ads from 'low T' clinics that target cops directly. They used to say 'police', but have now euphemised that to "first responders".
posted by jamjam at 8:39 PM on November 5, 2021 [10 favorites]
Within the last month I am seeing ads for an oral HGH for the first time: Ora[something or other], featuring a little/tween girl with big, big eyes and a very short face with an elfin-pointed chin poised to pop a tiny white pill into her mouth.
Looking at videos of police misconduct on YouTube has confirmed to me beyond all reasonable doubt that cops are taking PEDs at fantastically high rates. All the local sports stations carry ads from 'low T' clinics that target cops directly. They used to say 'police', but have now euphemised that to "first responders".
posted by jamjam at 8:39 PM on November 5, 2021 [10 favorites]
The thing that's really impressed me about this focus on getting superhero-league-jacked is how it's all done for That One Obvious Fanservice Scene.
One reason why movies have a limited number of jacked shirtless scenes is that they have to be shot at the beginning of production.
Actors have to get seriously dehydrated to shoot those scenes and even PED use can't keep you in that perfect defined shape while you're working 16 hours a day on a movie.
posted by zymil at 8:39 PM on November 5, 2021 [12 favorites]
One reason why movies have a limited number of jacked shirtless scenes is that they have to be shot at the beginning of production.
Actors have to get seriously dehydrated to shoot those scenes and even PED use can't keep you in that perfect defined shape while you're working 16 hours a day on a movie.
posted by zymil at 8:39 PM on November 5, 2021 [12 favorites]
what is your view w/r/t Marvel Movies
It's a view that got multiple comments on Marvel movies removed from Mefi Marvel movie threads before I learned to accept that people who like Marvel movies don't care about any of this stuff and just act super fragile whenever it's raised in their presence so raising it wasn't helping.
Marvel is basically Vought as far as I can see, and I'm agin it.
posted by flabdablet at 9:58 PM on November 5, 2021 [4 favorites]
It's a view that got multiple comments on Marvel movies removed from Mefi Marvel movie threads before I learned to accept that people who like Marvel movies don't care about any of this stuff and just act super fragile whenever it's raised in their presence so raising it wasn't helping.
Marvel is basically Vought as far as I can see, and I'm agin it.
posted by flabdablet at 9:58 PM on November 5, 2021 [4 favorites]
Hey now, to be fair to Marvel you have to keep in mind their movies also glorify suicidal ideation, so it isn't like there's the need to worry about long term effects of PEDs if you kill yourself first, I mean greater good and all.
posted by gusottertrout at 11:26 PM on November 5, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by gusottertrout at 11:26 PM on November 5, 2021 [1 favorite]
Over the last few years I've noticed a resurgence (at least on the internet) of the reactionary embrace of "traditional" masculinity as virtuous. Hence the recent popularity of the "Yes Chad" meme template and the GigaChad image macros.** The former posits that to be a bearded, blond haired and blue eyed man with a stern, Apollonian countenance and a rigidly stoic outlook -- absolutely no display of emotion -- is the greatest virtue. Emotion is weak. The latter posits even more bluntly that to be absurdly, frighteningly muscular is a sign of... well, of basically anything and everything that is good in the human spirit. There is a callback here to the fascist idea that physical beauty (for a very particular definition of beauty) is inherently virtuous, while any physical imperfection or departure from the norm points to an underlying moral degeneracy. The outside must match the inside, and the outside must look a certain way.
[Note that both these meme titles make use of the name Chad, which was first adopted by incels as a term of derision and seething jealousy for their fantasy of the action figure jock/stud who is having all the sex, all the time. And now the impossibly jacked, sexed-up jock/stud fantasy (but remember, not just insanely jacked! also stoic and rigid and emotionless! that's important too!) has very casually become a shorthand for virtuousness.]
As a cishet man, I cannot conceive of any such thing as non-toxic masculinity. Maybe it exists for other people, but as far as I can see, the well is thoroughly poisoned. Really, the more fundamental issue is that the gender binary in general seems to be (again, if only to me) very strongly tied to toxic notions. In other words, I cannot think of a single "virtuous masculine trait" or "virtuous feminine trait" that could not much more accurately and succinctly be defined as a virtuous human trait.
**(See also: the bizarrely icky phrase Big Dick Energy. Gross, hate it, fuck off)
posted by cubeb at 8:58 AM on November 6, 2021 [6 favorites]
[Note that both these meme titles make use of the name Chad, which was first adopted by incels as a term of derision and seething jealousy for their fantasy of the action figure jock/stud who is having all the sex, all the time. And now the impossibly jacked, sexed-up jock/stud fantasy (but remember, not just insanely jacked! also stoic and rigid and emotionless! that's important too!) has very casually become a shorthand for virtuousness.]
As a cishet man, I cannot conceive of any such thing as non-toxic masculinity. Maybe it exists for other people, but as far as I can see, the well is thoroughly poisoned. Really, the more fundamental issue is that the gender binary in general seems to be (again, if only to me) very strongly tied to toxic notions. In other words, I cannot think of a single "virtuous masculine trait" or "virtuous feminine trait" that could not much more accurately and succinctly be defined as a virtuous human trait.
**(See also: the bizarrely icky phrase Big Dick Energy. Gross, hate it, fuck off)
posted by cubeb at 8:58 AM on November 6, 2021 [6 favorites]
Seriously, the pressures around men to all have big dicks is fucking insane.
posted by deadaluspark at 9:03 AM on November 6, 2021
posted by deadaluspark at 9:03 AM on November 6, 2021
cubeb, I suggest that there are other visions of masculinity, possibly older. One is being very good at something technical-- maybe not great with emotions, but very truth-driven, and frequently in pursuit of taking care of people.
I recommend looking up Rick Rescorla, who took the first attack on the World Trade Center seriously, couldn't get people to listen in general, set up evacuation systems for a financial company, and died making sure people got out. Possibly singing Men of Harlech.
Jim MacDonald doesn't make a big thing of being male, but his work on how to prepare for emergencies is excellent.
https://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/009528.html
https://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/005763.html
It's not only a male thing-- there are women doing that sort of thing, too, but maybe more men than women.
As the saying goes, define or be defined. Don't hand the world, or even the inside of your head, to the most toxic people. I try to remember that definitions for people are frequently in the hands of the most aggressive people who want to control definitions-- they're not necessarily the most correct, just the most aggressive.
As was said to Lucy van Pelt (character in the cartoon Peanuts), "You're not right, you just sound right!".
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 9:47 AM on November 6, 2021 [1 favorite]
I recommend looking up Rick Rescorla, who took the first attack on the World Trade Center seriously, couldn't get people to listen in general, set up evacuation systems for a financial company, and died making sure people got out. Possibly singing Men of Harlech.
Jim MacDonald doesn't make a big thing of being male, but his work on how to prepare for emergencies is excellent.
https://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/009528.html
https://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/005763.html
It's not only a male thing-- there are women doing that sort of thing, too, but maybe more men than women.
As the saying goes, define or be defined. Don't hand the world, or even the inside of your head, to the most toxic people. I try to remember that definitions for people are frequently in the hands of the most aggressive people who want to control definitions-- they're not necessarily the most correct, just the most aggressive.
As was said to Lucy van Pelt (character in the cartoon Peanuts), "You're not right, you just sound right!".
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 9:47 AM on November 6, 2021 [1 favorite]
Over the last few years I've noticed a resurgence (at least on the internet) of the reactionary embrace of "traditional" masculinity as virtuous. Hence the recent popularity of the "Yes Chad" meme template and the GigaChad image macros. The former posits that to be a bearded, blond haired and blue eyed man with a stern, Apollonian countenance and a rigidly stoic outlook -- absolutely no display of emotion -- is the greatest virtue.
Yeah... that isn't an accident. That entire sphere of macro-propagation has been directed by yr. modern internet-savvy racists where they know that setting up those assumptions/expectations & getting them picked up without the original context still carries all of that along with it. See also: "Wojak/Soyjak" memes (which gives things away a bit with that last name there), boomer/zoomer/doomer stuff, "Boys vs. Girls with a time machine", "Just because Stonetoss actively calls for genocide doesn't mean we can't scrub his signature off and repurpose his comics for memes, right?", etc.
Thinking about it, that ties back into the original topic here, where there's both the normalization of "Low-T" cures as desireable, and the rampant belief of soy-as-feminization-agent as thing to recoil from.
Many image-macro disputes amount to "Look at this person who is foolish, weak, consumes soy, etc. They're saying what I think you believe. Now look at this aryan god of a man, he believes what I believe. Don't you feel shamed?"
So it's important to have a vision in mind of who the antithesis of your desired vision of masculinity is.
posted by CrystalDave at 10:46 AM on November 6, 2021 [2 favorites]
Yeah... that isn't an accident. That entire sphere of macro-propagation has been directed by yr. modern internet-savvy racists where they know that setting up those assumptions/expectations & getting them picked up without the original context still carries all of that along with it. See also: "Wojak/Soyjak" memes (which gives things away a bit with that last name there), boomer/zoomer/doomer stuff, "Boys vs. Girls with a time machine", "Just because Stonetoss actively calls for genocide doesn't mean we can't scrub his signature off and repurpose his comics for memes, right?", etc.
Thinking about it, that ties back into the original topic here, where there's both the normalization of "Low-T" cures as desireable, and the rampant belief of soy-as-feminization-agent as thing to recoil from.
Many image-macro disputes amount to "Look at this person who is foolish, weak, consumes soy, etc. They're saying what I think you believe. Now look at this aryan god of a man, he believes what I believe. Don't you feel shamed?"
So it's important to have a vision in mind of who the antithesis of your desired vision of masculinity is.
posted by CrystalDave at 10:46 AM on November 6, 2021 [2 favorites]
And I agree, the stars were sexier when they were actually having sex in relatable bodies.
I would argue that they were sexier when they wore beautiful bodies, which are in large part gifts of fate and as such are far less relatable than the repulsive yet more democratic "ripped" look which anybody can purchase with enough money, gym time, and self-contempt. but I think that is the same look you have in mind.
but this kind of dispassionate assessment-from-above of how much we like to watch strangers of various appearances pretend to fuck each other for our pleasure is not compatible with fighting the cultural pressure for stars and would-be stars to treat themselves as moldable meat. it's not in opposition to it, it's part of it.
posted by queenofbithynia at 12:00 PM on November 6, 2021 [2 favorites]
I would argue that they were sexier when they wore beautiful bodies, which are in large part gifts of fate and as such are far less relatable than the repulsive yet more democratic "ripped" look which anybody can purchase with enough money, gym time, and self-contempt. but I think that is the same look you have in mind.
but this kind of dispassionate assessment-from-above of how much we like to watch strangers of various appearances pretend to fuck each other for our pleasure is not compatible with fighting the cultural pressure for stars and would-be stars to treat themselves as moldable meat. it's not in opposition to it, it's part of it.
posted by queenofbithynia at 12:00 PM on November 6, 2021 [2 favorites]
Tentative: maybe attractive bodies are responsive to touch and willing to touch, and the ideal of hard bodies is antithetical to that.
Also, something I haven't heard for a while: "If he looked at me like he looked at her, I'd follow him anywhere". Not exactly ideal, but maybe we aren't thinking about the eyes/way of looking enough.
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 12:39 PM on November 6, 2021
Also, something I haven't heard for a while: "If he looked at me like he looked at her, I'd follow him anywhere". Not exactly ideal, but maybe we aren't thinking about the eyes/way of looking enough.
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 12:39 PM on November 6, 2021
Tentative: maybe attractive bodies are responsive to touch and willing to touch, and the ideal of hard bodies is antithetical to that.
I don't really know what this means. What does the hardness of a body have to do with responsiveness and willingness to touch? Even if touch were universally good/desirable, which of course it's not.
Also, something I haven't heard for a while: "If he looked at me like he looked at her, I'd follow him anywhere". Not exactly ideal, but maybe we aren't thinking about the eyes/way of looking enough.
I kind of hate this - it feels like a variation on the male gaze, and like a woman owes something to a man who admires her. Or in a best case scenario, a gender egalitarian version of that, where someone else's feelings about us create obligations and duties towards them. There is nothing mutual about that statement, and the idea of following itself feels antiquated.
posted by Salamandrous at 12:51 PM on November 6, 2021 [3 favorites]
I don't really know what this means. What does the hardness of a body have to do with responsiveness and willingness to touch? Even if touch were universally good/desirable, which of course it's not.
Also, something I haven't heard for a while: "If he looked at me like he looked at her, I'd follow him anywhere". Not exactly ideal, but maybe we aren't thinking about the eyes/way of looking enough.
I kind of hate this - it feels like a variation on the male gaze, and like a woman owes something to a man who admires her. Or in a best case scenario, a gender egalitarian version of that, where someone else's feelings about us create obligations and duties towards them. There is nothing mutual about that statement, and the idea of following itself feels antiquated.
posted by Salamandrous at 12:51 PM on November 6, 2021 [3 favorites]
I'm glad this wasn't really a thing yet when I was an 80s teenager, and that I am too middle aged and sensible now.
In my country illicit steroids aren't so easy to get, and it's quite noticeable visiting North America that there are just more really jacked dudes wandering around than there should be.
Apropos the observation in the article about actors with more muscle mass than athletes... maybe the Academy Awards should introduce drug testing.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 12:53 PM on November 6, 2021 [3 favorites]
In my country illicit steroids aren't so easy to get, and it's quite noticeable visiting North America that there are just more really jacked dudes wandering around than there should be.
Apropos the observation in the article about actors with more muscle mass than athletes... maybe the Academy Awards should introduce drug testing.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 12:53 PM on November 6, 2021 [3 favorites]
... maybe the Academy Awards should introduce drug testing.
Here are the results of your pre-Oscar drug test:
You tested positive for HGH, cocaine, steroids, cocaine, bath salts, hyper-cocaine, four anti-depressants, three anti-psychotics and Super Nice Cocaine for Genuinely Good People™.
Looks normal to us. You're in.
posted by thatwhichfalls at 1:40 PM on November 6, 2021 [7 favorites]
Here are the results of your pre-Oscar drug test:
You tested positive for HGH, cocaine, steroids, cocaine, bath salts, hyper-cocaine, four anti-depressants, three anti-psychotics and Super Nice Cocaine for Genuinely Good People™.
Looks normal to us. You're in.
posted by thatwhichfalls at 1:40 PM on November 6, 2021 [7 favorites]
This reads a little different for me. I had testicular cancer in 2009 and was on artificial testosterone daily until late 2019 when I started taking HCG in order to be able to conceive. I’m terrified of what this daily use has done to me and my body - will my heart blow out at 60? Will the small and shockingly expensive sperm I’ve been able to produce be any good?
These guys also really fuck up my ability to get the meds I need for my actual life regularly, and I’m carefully monitored by a urologist and endocrinologist.
I’m switching to some stuff called Natesto that is administered nasally and is supposed to wear off fast enough that it doesn’t cause sperm problems. But who knows?
And: I’m 45 and NOBODY has ever confused me for Chris Hemsworth.
posted by chinese_fashion at 4:50 PM on November 6, 2021 [5 favorites]
These guys also really fuck up my ability to get the meds I need for my actual life regularly, and I’m carefully monitored by a urologist and endocrinologist.
I’m switching to some stuff called Natesto that is administered nasally and is supposed to wear off fast enough that it doesn’t cause sperm problems. But who knows?
And: I’m 45 and NOBODY has ever confused me for Chris Hemsworth.
posted by chinese_fashion at 4:50 PM on November 6, 2021 [5 favorites]
Nobody here is really jumping up and down in favor of casual PED use, or the impulses to use them. One should refrain from "think about the children" arguments, as they're equally applied to support a whole slew of regrettable ideas, because reasons, that always make perfect sense to those making the argument, to the detriment of all. Regardless how dressed up they are in erudite language, or heartfelt they may be.
posted by 2N2222 at 2:15 AM on November 7, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by 2N2222 at 2:15 AM on November 7, 2021 [1 favorite]
There are a lot of really terrible discriminatory statements about bodies here that people really need to collapse and shove up their bumholes.
I am 100% for people making whatever choices they want to make about their own bodies and whether or not I find the result attractive or unfuckable is irrelevant. Nancy Lebovitz was fucking FLYING before the comma (even given the accurate response later that touch isn't necessarily everyone's ideal). Maybe let's keep the type of moment shown before that comment and avoid all the crashing I've seen in-thread.
I think there is a very real conversation to be had about role models, media, art, health and responsibility, while not trashing individual bodies.
Also, maybe "relate" to people in ways other than whether or not their body or skin looks just like yours.
I feel like I have a dog in this fight, as someone who takes T, occasionally has to take steroids in some form for medical conditions, and is going to die early no matter what drugs I do or don't take (I've never taken PEDs).
I've also been in trans support groups where I've felt like an asshole and an outsider because everyone is agreeing that people serious about the gym are all disordered and assholeish. As a result, I've never spoken to another trans person in person about how fucking fantastic the gym makes me feel, and how much more able (which in a disabled body is really something).
I might, might, might someday consider PEDs. I doubt I'd ever have the money to consider it, even if I were able to accept the risk. I consider it a major health risk, but not immoral. I also love, both visually and sexually, bodies of all types. The guys I lust after at the gym are all short dudes with love handles and or willowy guys with hips. And you know what? My gaze, my desire, my approval does not matter one goddamn bit in a vacuum that elides there desire.
Can we stick to talking about real issues like health, risk, lack of data, and how the media shapes our desires? Please?
(Typed on my phone at the gym during a rest break--forgive the typos)
posted by liminal_shadows at 11:16 AM on November 7, 2021 [4 favorites]
I am 100% for people making whatever choices they want to make about their own bodies and whether or not I find the result attractive or unfuckable is irrelevant. Nancy Lebovitz was fucking FLYING before the comma (even given the accurate response later that touch isn't necessarily everyone's ideal). Maybe let's keep the type of moment shown before that comment and avoid all the crashing I've seen in-thread.
I think there is a very real conversation to be had about role models, media, art, health and responsibility, while not trashing individual bodies.
Also, maybe "relate" to people in ways other than whether or not their body or skin looks just like yours.
I feel like I have a dog in this fight, as someone who takes T, occasionally has to take steroids in some form for medical conditions, and is going to die early no matter what drugs I do or don't take (I've never taken PEDs).
I've also been in trans support groups where I've felt like an asshole and an outsider because everyone is agreeing that people serious about the gym are all disordered and assholeish. As a result, I've never spoken to another trans person in person about how fucking fantastic the gym makes me feel, and how much more able (which in a disabled body is really something).
I might, might, might someday consider PEDs. I doubt I'd ever have the money to consider it, even if I were able to accept the risk. I consider it a major health risk, but not immoral. I also love, both visually and sexually, bodies of all types. The guys I lust after at the gym are all short dudes with love handles and or willowy guys with hips. And you know what? My gaze, my desire, my approval does not matter one goddamn bit in a vacuum that elides there desire.
Can we stick to talking about real issues like health, risk, lack of data, and how the media shapes our desires? Please?
(Typed on my phone at the gym during a rest break--forgive the typos)
posted by liminal_shadows at 11:16 AM on November 7, 2021 [4 favorites]
Their. Sigh. My point stands though. I see a bunch of people here talking about what they find attractive when that is laughably rude and unimportant.
I don't know if y'all have any idea how risky constructing a penis is, for example. And what happens when those fail is spectacularly awful.
I've talked to a number of people who wish they hadn't done it, because if risks were lower, I'd be interested. Or breast implants (close family member has failed multiples). But there is NO WAY I am going to tell anyone at all they shouldn't have those things because of the risk.
We risk things every day: car accidents, heart disease, heartbreak, cancer, STIs, career suicide. God. Wouldn't it be an incredible world if we could fix the problems of risk and regret?
Let's all about the powers who decide what movies get made, comics get published, what supermodels are featured. Let's not bag on people who make choices about their (their, autocorrect!) bodies, or doctors who are willing to respect that (and no, I don't find that morally reprehensible, as long as doctors are crystal clear about the risks that we know).
I read the article. It wasn't terribly interesting, and for the most part was pearl-clutching and scare-mongering. What I did find interesting (if not at all new), was how people think they have to fit in to get roles, rather than stand out.
Bodies are shockingly malleable. I imagine that given a certain base look (which can't be changed), any production with budget is going to pick the best actor OR the biggest name, someone established and likely to make money. Witness the number of actors who gained weight for roles.
I fidn it interesting that someone above sneered at democratic bodies (I like the choice of words, though I might quibble), and posited beautiful as a slightly less sneer-worthy alternative, while acknowledging it's a trick of fate.
There's a whole lot of bias here that while conscious, appears to be wholly unexamined. There's food for thought in that.
posted by liminal_shadows at 11:39 AM on November 7, 2021 [1 favorite]
I don't know if y'all have any idea how risky constructing a penis is, for example. And what happens when those fail is spectacularly awful.
I've talked to a number of people who wish they hadn't done it, because if risks were lower, I'd be interested. Or breast implants (close family member has failed multiples). But there is NO WAY I am going to tell anyone at all they shouldn't have those things because of the risk.
We risk things every day: car accidents, heart disease, heartbreak, cancer, STIs, career suicide. God. Wouldn't it be an incredible world if we could fix the problems of risk and regret?
Let's all about the powers who decide what movies get made, comics get published, what supermodels are featured. Let's not bag on people who make choices about their (their, autocorrect!) bodies, or doctors who are willing to respect that (and no, I don't find that morally reprehensible, as long as doctors are crystal clear about the risks that we know).
I read the article. It wasn't terribly interesting, and for the most part was pearl-clutching and scare-mongering. What I did find interesting (if not at all new), was how people think they have to fit in to get roles, rather than stand out.
Bodies are shockingly malleable. I imagine that given a certain base look (which can't be changed), any production with budget is going to pick the best actor OR the biggest name, someone established and likely to make money. Witness the number of actors who gained weight for roles.
I fidn it interesting that someone above sneered at democratic bodies (I like the choice of words, though I might quibble), and posited beautiful as a slightly less sneer-worthy alternative, while acknowledging it's a trick of fate.
There's a whole lot of bias here that while conscious, appears to be wholly unexamined. There's food for thought in that.
posted by liminal_shadows at 11:39 AM on November 7, 2021 [1 favorite]
Watching Paul McCartney, Mick Jagger, and other superannuated stars still able to offer energetic three hour performances, I am convinced they are taking HGH. And if the health risks are a few decades down the road, I could imagine doing the same myself once I hit my 60s or 70s.
posted by PhineasGage at 8:05 PM on November 7, 2021
posted by PhineasGage at 8:05 PM on November 7, 2021
I absolutely talk to my kid about body modification - the extreme dehydration and exercise version, the gendered ones, the tongue split, the medication. They know it a mix of genetic disposition - they can see very clearly how my genes and their dad's are manifested differently in them - and various kinds of work. That medication - be it variants on testosterone, birth control, psych meds - have trade offs and risks and effects beyond the ones we want.
Yes normalising highly restrictive and destructive bodies is harmful, and difficult to manage in real life, but it's best managed by *being* in real life. Being around people.
posted by geek anachronism at 1:18 AM on November 8, 2021
Yes normalising highly restrictive and destructive bodies is harmful, and difficult to manage in real life, but it's best managed by *being* in real life. Being around people.
posted by geek anachronism at 1:18 AM on November 8, 2021
« Older Kim Stanley Robinson & Omar El Akkad discuss... | Supply Chain woes and solutions Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
I can imagine a world where actors just up and quit doing this to themselves. And it isn't hugely different, nor much less glamorous. There are women who are willing to be with men of any appearance, and when the men are celebrities, the numbers add up. I can't help noticing that this article comes on a day when I have seen a lot of articles about the latest troubles caused by noted Hollywood heartbreaker Pete Davidson. And then there's any number of women embarrassing themselves over BBC stars every day. (I am unqualified to speak on whether this attitude is less the case among gay men.)
All in all, I would prefer a more survivable world where superheroes could look like George Reeves and villains like Alfred Molina.
posted by Countess Elena at 1:05 PM on November 5, 2021 [4 favorites]