Riding crop costumes go bye bye

[€uroMeinke]

I don't know, by broadening the hiring standards I think you bring in a wide range people increasing the likelyhood of a guest encountering an attractive CM.

Personally, as I check out the various CMs I rarely have difficulty in finding someone I think is attractive. I know my standard is different from everyone elses - and that's okay, I don't need everyone to be Natasia Kinski.

But then I prefer foriegn and independent films where the actors look more like real people - so maybe my whole "entertainment aesthetic" is flawed.

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

To answer the question specifically, I think physical appeal is on the long list along with all the other things that make a CM a CM.

Perhaps, but I think Disney is right in abandoing the use of scale and dress size to measure such a subjective quality.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

And it's based on the famed "Disney Look" that was the basis for hiring and firing for many decades, and is making a rightful comeback.

What the For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge are you talking about? They're firing people for tardiness and unexcused absences. They're requiring people to tuck in their shirt and keep hair kempt. They're in a employment crisis; there's no need to not hire the plus-sized even IF you feel that the unattractive should be kept in the stockroom (and you're welcome to your prerogative however bigoted and archaic I find it.) Like the Catholic church wouldn't run out of appropriate people to be priests if they just let women join in, Disneyland would run out of employees if they stuck to only thin people. You're the one preaching obesity crisis, Steve. What do you want them to do, recruit from third-world countries?

Of fat equalling unattractive being "fact"? Oh, my. I'm going to dial down the rage long enough to point out that the plus-sized porn industry, the plus-sized dating website industry, the amount of art prints purchased that depict the large... is LARGE LARGE LARGE. Sure, a major portion of society shares your opinion. But fact it ain't.

This isn't the fifties anymore. Times have cha-anged. Anything goes. Blow, Gabriel, blow me.

[Prudence]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

Oops, missed this -Honesty always bites me in the ass. Ah well. Since you have your own list of traits you don't like, then it follows that every other living soul has their own list, and that it's no reason to feel personally insulted, right?

I don't tell people what I don't like about their physical appearance, particularly when it's something not easily changed. I feel that doing so would be personally insulting and I don't have any need to do that to most people, let alone people I care about.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

See, this is the probelem as I see it - Disneyland has long abandoned this "Size 12" standard - and it appears you are arguing that they shouldn't have, because "under size 12" is still considered a cultural norm for "attractiveness" - not that you personally feel this way - you are just taking Disney to task for not reinstating it, or that's how it's coming across.

I used the term "size 12" because you mentioned it. I couldn't point to a line of increasingly heavy people and say "there, that's where they get too big to be attractive, so whatever size they are is beyond the limit." I could, however, look between two people, interview them, and find out which are more able to fill the role I'm casting for.

I guess my question would be, where does it stop? Do they make costumes for size 24? Size 144? Is a person just above whatever increment they decide to stop at being discriminated against? Who decides? I sure as hell wouldn't be able to.

Sure Disney is within it's rights to require weight standards (though actually that might not be true if my recolection of recent stewardess lawsuits are correct) but I don't know why you would bring that up unless you feel the current crop of CMs are to "unattractive" for the "show."

I do feel that I would be cool with them putting a more focus on this.

It's like saying I have no problem with gay lifestyles, but I wish California would reinstate and enforce it's anti-sodimy laws - not that I believe in them becasue well, some of my best friends are gay.

I am fine with the movies casting attractive people for attractive parts. I don't mind that an unattractive person has a snowballs chance in hell of having a movie star career. Do you? Even though you may know some unattractive people? Even though I know that I personally would have that same snowball's chance in hell.

To restate - I have no problem with people that I'm not physically attracted to, but I hope showbusiness will continue to employ hotties, because I like looking at hotties. Doesn't everyone?

I know it's all hip to say that the movies are so fake and blah blah blah but come on, everybody likes eyecandy. And isn't unreality the point?

Perhaps I'm missing something in your posts, but that is how they have come across, and why I can see that someone might take offense.

My thanks to Chris for engaging me in conversation instead of condemning me without pointing to what I'm doing wrong.

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by tracilicious

The difference is that one of these is a biological fact and one of these is subjective opinion turned into a broad generalization. Two men cannot naturally make a baby. Neither can two women. Saying fat people are less attractive is not based on common sense fact.

I think it was Szcerbiakmaniac who pointed out quite nicely why, in modern-day Western culture, the generalization of fat=less attractive than thin is an acceptable generalization. It remains a mere generalization.

(And gay men have the same ability to contribute to a baby's conception as straight men, they simply have less opportunity ).

I happen to agree with Prudence that such a generalization must be combatted and should be changed. But I feel perfectly comfortable in assessing it to be a valid generalization for current Western society. Your mileage may vary.



Nevertheless, my position remains that no posts in this thread have crossed the line into insults of a particular person or derogation of a particular group. If someone ventured the opinion that short men were less attractive than tall men, I would not consider that a slur upon we short dudes.


Edited to add:

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

Crap, running behind....too many posts to catch up with

Ditto.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

I know it's all hip to say that the movies are so fake and blah blah blah but come on, everybody likes eyecandy. And isn't unreality the point?

I know you like to "speak the truth" (like a comic attempting to say what we're all thinking) but I think you're off-base here. Hip? I dunno about hip, but I much prefer eye candy that looks, well, more like me. Like, for instance: the woman I am most attracted to in the whole bunch of Disney onliner geeks is BluePeople. That's right. Plump, gorgeous Gretchen. Over everybody else. I'd much rather watch her in a movie than Jennifer Aniston. That's just my taste. Please don't imply that I am, or anyone else is, wishing for less plasticism in their pallate because it's "hip."

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

I guess my question would be, where does it stop? Do they make costumes for size 24? Size 144? Is a person just above whatever increment they decide to stop at being discriminated against? Who decides? I sure as hell wouldn't be able to.

Why not tailor the costume to the person who can play the role the best? It appears Disney is no longer imposing a size standard, why do you think they should? It's not like they are going out to Target to buy the costumes (yet) they are making them specially for the park.

I have no problem with people that I'm not physically attracted to, but I hope showbusiness will continue to employ hotties, because I like looking at hotties. Doesn't everyone?

Um, no - at least not in the standardized homoginized airbrushed and enhanced sense - which your posts continue to suggest is what you are refering to (a cultural norm that fits within some dress size or tonage). Like I said maybe my aesthetic may be all out of whack, but I find real people sexy and Hollywood hotness kind of - boring and overdone. But I'm only speaking for myself here.

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by LSPoorEeyorick

You're the one preaching obesity crisis, Steve. What do you want them to do, recruit from third-world countries?

I'm also the one who said that Tour Guides needn't be slim. I said they should be pretty.

Interesting how I think all the costumed characters we have discussed should be amongst the Park's most good-looking. I certainly want my Club 33 french maid to be quite the coquette. And I want the girl telling me my bedtime story aboard a Canal Boat to be sweet-faced. Certainly, I'd like that muscle-stud paddling my canoe to be a looker.

But, as CP pointed out, I'd cast those able to convey a creepy visage for Haunted Mansion duties. Some roles at the Magic Kingdom call for prettier people than do others. I would contend that the Tour Guide role is one of those. And it's because I love the current costume that I bemoan the change, not because the future outfit will accommodate larger women. I am far more upset that they're changing red plaid to blue than I am that the skirt is going from below the knee to above.

If they were really getting rid of the riding crop, I'd be heartbroken. But there's no point to the riding crop, imo, unless I can enjoy the thought of being swatted by the tour guide wielding it.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

I'm also the one who said that Tour Guides needn't be slim. I said they should be pretty.

Touche! Point taken.

(But I still don't agree. This is officially my I-suspect-I've-said-all-I-need-to-say point.)