MRDA Contra The Sun (# 2,8677): The Ugly Face of Journalism!

Pardon him, Theodotus; he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature.

– Caesar, Caesar and Cleopatra

It is cruel. that so many people never blossom into real beauty because they are inhibited by people who disapprove of them for not measuring up to the standard of physical perfection of the age in which they live.

Pat Parker


So on Tuesday, whilst on my work lunch break, and for want of anything better to read, I snatched a peek at my work colleague’s Sun

…and got a stark reminder of why I don’t pay money to read that rag!

Taking up a whole page, a featurette entitled ‘Is She Really Going Out With Grim?’ showcased so-called mismatched couples; in this case women of delectable features paired-up with blokes who don’t fit into the conventional ideals of male beauty, otherwise known as—in Sun journo-diction—”the Ugly Blokes”. As expected, the whole tone throughout the verbiage (surrounded by pictures of pretty birds coupled with these “Grims”) amounted to: “Why, why WHY!?!? WHAT THE FUCK IS SHE THINKING?!? IZ SHE BLIND!?111111 OMFG?!?!111111”.

Faced with this display of rancid ugliness (and by that I mean the words, not the pictures), I thought to myself: Why, why, why? Are you even thinking? Are you massminded fucks even capable of such?

I’d laugh at this situation if I didn’t find it so tragic: slow-day news journos, beauty and cosmetics “experts”, male and female chauvinists, Objectivists and Satanist reactionaries all trying to codify the Rules of Attraction for one and all. Each of them desperately trying to categorize a segment of the elephant as the entirety of the beast; whether it be the beauty mag editor who photoshops un-templated curves and bulges off their cover models or the knee-jerk “anti-size-zero” crowd who seem to have achieved volume as of late.

True believers and mass deceivers, all.

Thus our tabloid troll, in their bilious bemusement, assumes an unwarranted universality in matters of taste. Proof of their presumptuousness? Why, the very pictures ironically used to support said presumptions! Obviously Avril Lavigne rather likes Deryck Whibley’s visage, seeing as they’ve been married for the last two years (a Golden Wedding Anniversary by celebrity standards!); ditto for the females of the other couplings.

Someone might counteract me with theories about money, status, and fame being great attractors in the absence of aesthetics, or, in the manner of our underworked, overpaid columnist,  they might sneer, “He must have a great personality.” They may well be right about this in certain cases – I can’t read minds on this one. Nevertheless, I’m gonna be audacious enough to say that maybe, just maybe, a physical attraction plays at least some part in powering the union. After all, why share bed and body with some one who doesn’t turn you on, never mind someone who positively repulses you (unless your own masochism turns you on)?

Don’t misunderstand: I certainly have an aesthetic appreciation for certain women who fit the media-definition of fitness. Others who fall into the same bracket, leave me feeling cold and “Meh!”; and I’m sure The Sun swine would have a good old teenage whinge ‘n’ cringe fest about a few of my other fancies.

Then again, going by personal observation, the target audience of The Sun probably shouldn’t hold their breath for Cosmo, Maxim, or GQ to come a-knocking, begging for a cover shoot (the fact I find the workmate I mentioned good-looking notwithstanding). Seeing how the paper supposedly reflects the views of “the people”, it wouldn’t surprise me if the faces behind the fonts blended similarly into the social fabric.

In response the laws of nature—that is, the working process of attraction as is—the blinkered, binary-worshipping, bile-filled barbarians bleat, “Why why, why?”

In response to their response, I ask, “Why the fuck not?”


This entry was posted in Entertainment, News, Perspectivism, Psychology, Society and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

22 Responses to MRDA Contra The Sun (# 2,8677): The Ugly Face of Journalism!

  1. whilst watching my favorite news comedy show “The O’Reilly Factor,” yesterday, this guest author came on who was saying that women should be dating less attractive men. through a lot of bs about how women are manipulative imps who consider themselves “entitled to love” his reasons for it came down to the idea that an attractive woman dating an unattractive man essentially “puts her in her place” or something like that.
    it was….weird. i’m not even sure i entirely got his logic, but i was rather surprised he wanted to share it with the world because didn’t explain his own theory well.
    anyway, it not like i don’t agree that many, but not all (particularly, attractive) women are stupid whores who feel entitled to shit, i just don’t quite get where he was going with that. and the hosts on the show were just like the folks in the Sun;

    • MRDA says:

      Women should be dating the unattractive? What’s that? The way I see it, no one dates the unattractive, by their own estimation of such, unless they’re playing it super-safe, are masochistic, or for mercenary reasons.
      Also, “puts them in their place”? Ha! Like the better you look by societal standards, the more worthy a human being you are? That seems the implication.

  2. psuedoid says:

    I think the funniest thing about the media is that they constantly elevate women who aren’t that attractive when compared to genuine bombshells. Britney spears was never especially attractive compared to the hottest women, she just got a bunch of press time. Same for most other women who get the most press time. Amazingly, lots of em don’t even have especially nice faces. I’m guessing that “girl next doors”(meaning…merely high average girls) are the most popular because if they started plastering Vida Guerra over the same magazines most women would feel inadequate and despise that. And women are the main consumers of the the most attractive women are relegated mostly to media consumed mostly by men.

    • rawr_becca says:

      well, even in chick magazines everyone looks super perfect and makes you feel like crap. And it’s actually good to make women feel inadequate because then they’ll buy more stuff to be pretty. Women are the main consumers in general (for everything, not just beauty stuff), IN a country where 2/3 of our economy is based on people buying shit. So women with low self esteem are a TOTAL plus.
      But, yeah there are hot women for women, and hot women for men.

      • psuedoid says:

        True, there is something to gain by making women feel inadequate..I was thinking that if women in the most popular magazines were too extremely attractive then women wouldn’t buy the magazines as much, but I could be entirely wrong about that. The whole “sexy women for women” thing really puzzles me.
        Also, something I’m trying to get at is that most girls in chick magazines don’t really look perfect, not to me at least. I see girls every day that are as attractive…if not moreso than many of the girls in those magazines. The image so many girls are chasing after isn’t even what men are most attracted to. So what are they trying to do..look pretty for other girls…to meet some ideal that isn’t even that attractive or healthy for a woman?
        Plus, magazines can be(and are) airbrushed and there’s always makeup. Magazines are incredibly deceptive. They always take the best pictures and do their hair and make sure they’re wearing juust the right thing for their figure, etc. My eyes don’t lie…on campus here there are probably hundreds of girls who could look amazing on the front of a magazine. I’m just trying to say that beauty is more common than some realize…lots of the women on the fronts of magazines are much closer to “normal” than they appear.

        • rawr_becca says:

          Oh no, by “perfect” I did mean airbrushed and all that sort of thing. Primped and edited. Plus, the people in magazines are models, not “everyday girls.” Their whole job is about looking good. And I bet that if you saw an “everyday girl” up close or in a magazine next to all the models who have been airbrushed, she would look a little more crappy.
          And even if what is in women’s magazines isn’t what men want, people still kill themselves trying to look that good, because it’s what society wants, what someone who is in fashion, who runs a magazine, wants. And also, how much better or worse is that than reading a magazine about what men would want in women, and having women get as worked up over that?
          An upside to them being women’s magazines is that it’s about women, dressing how they want, finding things that good on them, and concentrating on looking nice by their own definition. I think that if women were to read how to look in men’s magazines, they’d be told to look like the half-naked super sexy Beyonce or whoever is on Maxim.
          I completely agree, whoever it is we try to please, it’s impossible to be like people in magazines or on TV or whatever. And even though most people know that, and even though everyone knows how edited and fake it all is, subconsciously, it still gets to people. And there are tons of normal good-looking people, but no one strives to be normally-good looking. It’s not what we see.

          • psuedoid says:

            I’m not just thinking of professional models..but also celebrities who really achieve the deepest mainstream saturation in magazines and the “collective ideal”. Most female celebs are fairly attractive but lots of Avril Lavigne, yes even Britney Spears..look pretty average to me. Spears was pretty hot when she was about 19 and was much more voluptuous, but she’s slowly gone downhill from there. Models, yeah lots of em are just really attractive and will look better than most girls, sure. But many of them don’t! I saw an ad for lingerie or something on a bus the other day and the woman seemed to have a nice enough figure(too skinny..) but her face was underwhelming. I also think you’re underestimating the power of makeup, airbrushing, lighting, and just the right angle, etc. I almost want to post some pics of myself to demonstrate. No makeup for me though.
            As far as women wanting to look good to themselves, well yeah sure. But that shouldn’t be a pressure-issue, IMO. Why stress over something you’re controlling and having fun with?
            I actually think most people don’t usually realize how doctored and fake the images they see are. Sure, if you bait a question and ask “Do you think magazine pics are doctored?” the average girl might think for a second and say..”oh yeah..probably”. But if you just neutrally ask their opinion about some magazine cover they’d probably be more likely to say “she’s really pretty!”
            As far as “normal good looking goes”….that’s starting to get pretty vague for me. There are ideals we have in our minds but I think “normally good looking” is just fine for many people. People know they aren’t david beckham or tyra banks. Good looking is good looking though….I think most people are relatively down to earth, even in this age of “hyperreality”. I never read it..but this reminds me of the book that was part of the inspiration for The Matrix called Simulacra and Simulation. It is easy to get caught up in Godlike notions of beauty but the mirror is ever humbling, isn’t it?
            What really bothers me is that the ideal image for women somehow got perverted into being overly skinny when a woman can never be more beautiful than when she is she can let it go a little and relax and probably be healthier for it. Yet there’s all this concern about being “too fat” when most girls are within a decent range when they’re young. Just makes no sense, and that’s really why this all bothers me. It’s bad for everyone except the media. As far as I’m concerned, a girl should be proud if she has a big butt. I don’t want a bunch of obese women with huge butts around, but I think the point is clear ’nuff.
            What happened to amy winehouse, to lindsay lohan? They were so much more attractive and healthy before they lost massive weight. Now they may be practically infertile.

          • rawr_becca says:

            Man, I totally agree that some “superhot” celebs are unattractive for me. Like Paris Hilton. And no, over-skinniness is really gross. I particularly hate when you can see the bones in someone’s chest between their boobs. I also would way rather healthy, full-figured women. But even the word “full-figured” now means fat. Because that’s what’s hot now. Being really, really thin.
            Yeah, I took a digital imaging class recently, and learned to do all kinds of insane things with pictures! we even had a discussion about what’s “unethical” and what is just normal picture editing.
            Personally, I have learned not to freak out or take things seriously, but I can totally see how other girls would. Even if they’re younger also.
            It’s sucky, I mean. Just because you and I don’t think super-skinniness is attractive, or that EVERY celebrity is amazing, it really, really affects people. Especially if they have low self-esteem. I can imagine 13 year old girls crying and going anorexic over those kinds of things. Actually, even grown celebrities do. We just aren’t giving people healthy, realistic expectations. 🙁

          • MRDA says:

            Lindsay Lohan was the yum circa Mean Girls; alas, her drug-fuelled downward spiral has kinda let her a somewhat emaciated rehab Rahab. Oh well – life continues….

        • MRDA says:

          Do you ever just look at certain models and just think: Yeah and…? – even if you get why everyone else might salivate over them?

    • MRDA says:

      Vida Guerra = Muy Caliente!
      I suspect the reason they only plaster Vida Guerra over so many magazines would be to keep global warming levels down to a government-acceptable degree, conscious of these things as they are…..

      • rawr_becca says:

        Re: Vida Guerra = Muy Caliente!
        I didn’t even know who she was until I just googled her.
        And. Her boobs are fake and nasty, and I don’t understand how seeing people’s ass cheeks is hot. Sorry.
        She is like the definition of fake, plastic beauty. I mean porn star.
        Come on. At least like, Dita Von Tees.

      • psuedoid says:

        Re: Vida Guerra = Muy Caliente!
        She does boost the carbon emissions, doesn’t she

  3. rawr_becca says:

    I think maybe they’re with ugly guys, because of like. Well, haven’t you heard that song “Make an ugly women your wife, then you’ll be happy for the rest of your life…” and she won’t cheat on you and will always be thankful to have you.
    And also, maybe to get away from all the superficiality of it. To give up on good-looking assholes and find someone who just loves you and also has a personality?

    • MRDA says:

      My point is: these women wouldn’t even look at those guys if they thought them ugly fucks, y’know?
      I suppose people do pair up with those they perceive as “lesser” to salve some inner wound, but I seriously don’t think that’s the case in many of these pairings, as hard as it is for the “OMG1111!!!” crowd to believe.

  4. rawr_becca says:

    oh yeah, and.
    there’s a whole ‘nother industry based on seeing people who are supposed to be perfect-looking when they look like crap, with no make-up or editing and their cellulite hanging out.
    And in a strange way maybe that helps? To know they aren’t really that great looking.
    But it’s crazy. Both sides of it.

  5. Pingback: Question Time? Indeed, It Is! « MRDA's Inferno

  6. Pingback: Sex and the Shibboleth « MRDA's Inferno

  7. Pingback: “Get Your Tits Out (of Our Rags)!” « MRDA's Inferno

  8. Pingback: “Get Your Tits Out (of Our Rags)!” « Attack the System

Leave a Reply