Riding crop costumes go bye bye

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

I will never be hired by Panda Express. Woe is me.

From the Panda Express Website:

Panda Restaurant Group, Inc. is an
Equal Opportunity Employer

You'll see a pic including non-asian employees if you click on the link.

For the record, I've seen plenty of Latinas working at the Panda Express by my work place - which is just down the street from Panda Expresses corporate headquarters.

As for the other stuff, well I'm glad your happy with the status quo.

[Not Afraid]

You know, all I can say is that I am grateful I am not part of the status quo.

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

How can I fault Disney for going with the safest, common demonimator standards of beauty for something as common-denominator-pleasing as Disneyland? With thousands of cast members, there's bound to be an interesting range of looks no matter what beauty standards they apply. And whatever they do with the costume designs and sizes, I believe they - like many employers - will continue to hire the most beautiful, qualified people available.

Sorry - missed this the first time but:

Disney is not doing this now (at least using scale and ruler to determine beauty) your argument that they were in their rights to do so in 1955, implies you feel the current practice wrong - i.e. not using a "standard" for determining atractiveness/hirability. From what I understand they are hiring a diverse workfroce which ultimately satisfies more than just the common denominator of beauty - do you think this wrong?

[TigerLily]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

I was at a Panda Express yesterday and it occured to me that, at everyone one of those I've ever been to, for years and years, the staff has been 100% Asian.

the panda express's up here have hispanic and white people working in them. I did go into a mexican restuarant once to apply for a job and they would not even give me an apllication. Apparently because I'm white. Yeah it was annoying, but I wouldn't want to work in a place like that anyway. I refuse to dine there as well.

[Not Afraid]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

Sorry - missed this the first time but:

Disney is not doing this now (at least using scale and ruler to determine beauty) your argument that they were in their rights to do so in 1955, implies you feel the current practice wrong - i.e. not using a "standard" for determining atractiveness/hirability. From what I understand they are hiring a diverse workfroce which ultimately satisfies more than just the common denominator of beauty - do you think this wrong?

The reality is that, Disney is desperate for good people to work at the Parks. They are sadly understaffed and overworking the staff they do have. I think hiring people to fit some wierd outdated standard of something as subjective as "Beauty" is the least of their worries. Bring on the fat, the ackward, the ugly, the ethnic, the odd looking - just make sure they can work and word effectively.

And, if the current CM's don't meet your oogling standards then go to hooters or rent some porn. There are lots of options of simple base eye candy in the world.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by tracilicious

Completely inappropriate.

The bulk of this thread is about inappropriateness. The guy in that photo has allowed himself to get far too large (he is not taking responsibility for his own actions), and deserves to have fun poked at his size.

I am fat (though not as large as the photo). A month-and-a-half ago I weighed 270 pounds and I am down to about 240. I am still fat. So are some of the people posting in this thread. I accept the fact that I am not as attractive as "thinner" people. I don't believe I am ugly though.

But most importantly, I accept responsibility for my size. AND I accept responsibility that my size is less attractive than someone smaller than me. While it is easy to point blame at "the media," the bottom line is that, for the most part, the media just gives people what they want. And for the most part, people would prefer to look at thinner, HEALTHIER people than an overweight, out of shape person.

We as human's think that "survival of the fittest" only applies to the animal world. But it applies to ourselves as well. While not an absolute truism, fat people are less fit. And our base instinct drives us to be more attracted to a healthy partner than a not so healthy one (whether we choose to admit it or not). It is in our genes; we cannot help it. And to deny it is a falacy.

Anyone who thinks that they are "OK" physically being 50+ pounds overweight is fooling themselves. I accepted that I was out of shape, finally decided I would no longer accept it for myself, and did what I could to correct it (please note that I am still fat and overweight). Until I could accept my own responsibility for how I looked (and felt), I was not going to be able to change how I looked (and felt).

The core theme of this thread has been (in my interpretation at least) about whether "thin" is more attractive than "fat." I, as a fat guy, say that this is true. It doesn't mean that I am ugly though! Marilyn vos Savant is smarter than me; it doesn't mean that I am stupid.

And as somebody has already said (I am sorry I am not giving proper credit: I don't have the patience to look for the post); physical attractiveness is not the only trait that we as humans look for: we also look for emotional and intellectual traits that attract us as well. To be honest, while I can enjoy the eye candy of say Jessica Simpson, I cannot really be "turned on" by her because she strikes me as an idiot without any real sense of reality. My wife may not be ready to be a Playboy centerfold without any airbrushing, but to me she is the sexiest woman on earth.

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

The bulk of this thread is about inappropriateness. The guy in that photo has allowed himself to get far too large (he is not taking responsibility for his own actions), and deserves to have fun poked at his size.

The word desrves bothers me - I don't think anyone deserves to be ridiculed, though some ought to expect it. "Deserve" is far to judgemental and creepy a term for me.

The core theme of this thread has been (in my interpretation at least) about whether "thin" is more attractive than "fat." I, as a fat guy, say that this is true.

And that's great - for you. I think it's clear there are people who feel otherwise.

My beef all along has been the equation of weight or dress size to attractiveness and the fact that while there may be an overriding cultural perception of what constitues "beauty" it's by no means a universal - so why treat it as such, and furthermore why expect Disneyland to hire someone based on it?

I guess I kind of have to wonder if people here really think their experience at the park has suffered becasue the CMs have been less attractive? I guess they could only hire supermodels, but I bet that costs more than tailoring costumes to be more attractive (presumably - still haven't seen the outfits)

And while I'm at it - how does changing a skirt length from above the knees to below the knees impact attractiveness of a CM based on weight? Leg length or the presence of nobby knees perhaps, but weight? Similarly, what difference does a blue plaid vs red plaid impact attractiveness based on weight, if anything skin tone should be a consideration for this factor.

If you want to talk about the declining health of America due to the increased obesity of it's population great, start a thread - but to pin such things on a redesign of a Disney Costume is ludicrous.

[€uroMeinke]

Measuring Beauty - thought I'd dig this up, an old Newsweek article that explores ways one might actually be able to "measure" beauty:

Abstract: Recent research correlates physical attraction between human females and males to certain physical features
regardless of culture. Men and women are naturally drawn to symmetry in face and body. Men innately prefer women with a
small waist-to-hip ratio, a physical indicator of child-bearing ability.

Read the whole thing here

But if we wat to discuss this perhaps we need a new thread.

[CoasterMatt]

Maybe some people have developed fantasies around the "old" CM costumes?

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

The word deserves bothers me - I don't think anyone deserves to be ridiculed, though some ought to expect it. "Deserve" is far to judgemental and creepy a term for me.

I stick by the word as I (intentionally) didn't say HE deserved to be ridiculed, I said his SIZE did. Just as by my public posting can be criticised, judged, maligned, that the picture is publiclly available leaves room for that man's size open to criticism. To be honest, I posted it more for the humourous impact (which some found in poor taste), but the response drove my own comments.

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

And that's great - for you. I think it's clear there are people who feel otherwise.

I didn't claim to speak for anyone. I very clearly deliniated that the opinions were my own. I stated them knowing that others would not agree with them (though not BECAUSE they would).

And conversly, I stated that my size problem is my own doing. While I can blame it on the depression I often fight, the extreme stress I endure at work, that "my metabolism is slow" or any other factors, I ultimately know that I am the only one responsible for the state I am in. And I believe that many people, instead of accepting responsibility for themselves, prefer to pass blame to someone/something else. Alcoholism, drug addiction, propensity for murder, et. al. is not the fault of society - it is the fault of the person afflicted by it. Some chose to take responsibility for themselves and do something about (AA, counseling, seek help in any way, etc.) and others chose to blame others and/or wallow in their own depths.

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

If you want to talk about the declining health of America due to the increased obesity of it's population great, start a thread - but to pin such things on a redesign of a Disney Costume is ludicrous.

While I did not specifically bring in the American obesity problem to this thread, I can see how you might believe that I was making such an association. However, this thread long ago ceased being just ABOUT Disney's move (and Al Lutz's commentary on it) and DID become about human physical size and perceptions thereof. I simply attempted to point out the core basis that probably exists behind such perceptions and how they may not be *quite* as shallow and baseless as might be thought. Our biology, our natural insticts, contribute to our perceptions.

For the record, I know many "larger" people whom I like much more than some thin and healthy people I know (and conversely I know many thin and healthy people whom I like very much and some fat people who are complete imbeciles). I chose my friends based on whether I like them; not on what dress size or pants size they wear.