fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2061 ]

[ SECRET POST #2061 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2061 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

[Xena: Warrior Princess]

__________________________________________________

02.

[tales of symphonia]

__________________________________________________

03.

[The Girl From Tomorrow]

__________________________________________________

04.

[Spyro the Dragon]

__________________________________________________

05.

[Lamento -Beyond the Void-]

__________________________________________________

06.

[Aidan Gillen]

__________________________________________________

07.

[Skyrim]

__________________________________________________

08.

[Touhou Project]

__________________________________________________

09.

[Total Recall]

__________________________________________________

10.

[Castle]

__________________________________________________

11.

[Spyro the Dragon]

__________________________________________________

[ ----- SPOILERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]

12. [SPOILERS for the Dark Knight Rises]

__________________________________________________

13. [SPOILERS for Digimon 02]

__________________________________________________

14. [SPOILERS for the Borgias]

__________________________________________________

15. [SPOILERS for Tales of Symphonia]

__________________________________________________

16. [SPOILERS for asoiaf/game of thrones]

__________________________________________________

17. [SPOILERS for A Dance With Dragons]

__________________________________________________

[ ----- TRIGGERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]

18. [WARNING for eating disorders]

__________________________________________________

19. [WARNING for pedophilia, rape, child abuse]

__________________________________________________

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #294.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

But isn't she like 120 lbs according to most of those cards and stuff? That's not a unhealthy weight depending on your height. Sorry but I think your reaching trying to blame a number on a back of a trading card instead of oh I don't know magazines and TV.

It's a fine weight if you're 5'2-5'6. Anything taller than that, and it looks unhealthy.

She'd have to be about 5'0 to have that set of muscles and still be 120.

Not true at all--first, she's a mutant, second, she has super strength, so how that translates into musculature is different than how it would for a human.

I will admit that I don't read the comics, but I fail to see how the ability to absorb powers/life energy changes the density of muscle.

Rogue absorbed the powers of Ms Marvel at the time that card would have been printed--Ms Marvel has pretty much Superman powers. Flight, invulnerability, super strength.

And that changes what about the weight of her muscles?

It might. It might not. My point is she's not human, and her actual strength does not correspond with human musculature. So what her muscles look like vs what they weigh is not apparent.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-08-25 07:39 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-08-25 12:50 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

visp - 2012-08-25 17:58 (UTC) - Expand

True, but they usually draw muscles on her, so they'd have to weigh despite the fact they're not the true source of her super strength.

They'd have to weigh SOMETHING, yeah, but being that she's a mutant and her powers are, well, almost supernatural, their weight does not need to correlate with human weight.

Not if you're 5'10, which IIRC, is how tall Rogue was supposed to be. Also, I don't see how this is that separate from magazines and TV. It's a source of unrealistic expectations.

I think you're reaching here.

Even if 120lbs is "healthy" for some, that's not the point. EDs are accompanied by unrealistic thoughts and expectations; they're mental illnesses.
Just by having that one number to focus on, you've already got your fuel.

"Oh, maybe if I lose more than that, I can eat a bit and I won't be instantly overweight."
"I look like I'm more than 120lbs! People will never believe me if I tell them my weight."

etc etc

trying to blame a number on a back of a trading card instead of oh I don't know magazines and TV

At least magazines and TV have more variety to offer when it comes to women's bodies. If I grew up with comics like X-Men, I'm pretty sure I'd have unrealistic expectations about my body too.

My best friend has an ED, and she hates your typical women's magazines, TV shows, etc. In fact, she used to make fun of magazine articles that dealt with weight-loss and dieting - but look at her now. Fyi, she got her ED from nerdy movies and comics. I can definitely see OP's POV in this.

EDs are horrible things to have to live with. There is no doubt about that on any level.

But there's most likely a far deeper cause than growing up on comics. I did it, thousands of people did and did not develop EDs. Nobody "gets" an ED from a tv show or comic or movie. That might give them the unhealthy image to shoot for, but the issues under WHY they need so badly to achieve that unrealistic goal have nothing to do with the media itself. There's far more to it than that and if you think that's all there is to it, I think you've got some serious blinders on.

As stated, it's a mental illness. If the comics/movies/tv shows didn't trigger this, something else could have.

Even though it's true that cigarettes kill you, you can die from anything, so why not smoke three packs a day?

Also, maybe you were an extremely skeptical child, but most of us are/were highly impressionable. I remember getting all kinds of weird ideas about what "normal" meant from things I watched or read, offhand comments my parents made (and probably forgot making immediately), and god knows what else. I can totally imagine seeing stats like that on a card and accepting them into my personal canon for what a grown-up woman is supposed to be. If I had been susceptible to eating disorders as well, this secret might have been mine. People need to remember these things when creating media that attract children. It's just the responsible thing to do.

+1

Children are incredibly susceptible; I don't understand why so many people disregard this. Maybe it's because we dislike feeling like we're being controlled by outside influences?

I think people just forget what it's like to be a kid. I'm always catching myself saying things to my friends' kids that I remember adults saying to me at their age and that really bothered or confused me back then. I forget how on-the-spot I felt, and how sometimes everyone would laugh at my answer to their question no matter what it was. We're all in such a hurry to grow up and know everything so people will take us seriously that we'll take the first opportunity to ditch those memories of what it was like to know nothing.

(no subject)

spicandspan89.livejournal.com - 2012-08-25 03:04 (UTC) - Expand

You have a word in there that is very important. IF. IF you were susceptible. I am not saying that this isn't a factor. Everyone picks up strange ideas as kids. What I'm saying is that ignoring the base factor--in this case, the OP's own susceptibility--can be more harmful than not.

We as a society do need to be aware and responsible for what our kids think is acceptable, but saying "I got sick because of a TV show" will not help anyone get better.

I also said that I may well have accepted the stats as truth - that women who looked like that had those numbers. (In fact, I'm sure I would have.) Eating disorders aren't the only risk in feeding information like that to kids. Hell, not even just kids; IME plenty of grown-ass men have strange ideas about what women weigh. That kind of thing is harmful to everyone on so many levels, and for what? What is the point of telling people what a character weighs in the first place, when that particular statistic is so semantically loaded and influenced by so many variables? The risks (of which eating disorders are only the most serious) of inventing numbers to assign to characters like that are just so much greater than the benefits.

(no subject)

dazzledfirestar - 2012-08-25 02:43 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

logicbutton - 2012-08-25 03:22 (UTC) - Expand

But OP clearly states they got the numbers from the back of a trading card, why are you even trying to argue that?

That's like if I said I was inspired to be an astronaut from watching Pigs In Space as a kid, and you coming in and saying "no, that's reaching trying to blame the muppets instead of the obvious Star Trek."

Because, clearly, anon is the be all and end all of ED knowledge.

And this is the trap most people fall into: 120 is fine if you're below 5'7". Using BMI, it's low for 5'5" to 5'6" and below weight for 5'7". A woman who's 5'10" can be at 167 and not be overweight.

Rogue is 5'8" which makes makes her underweight. That the OP fixed on a number instead of a look could very well point to this card being the answer to where she found the source of an early trigger.

ED's are not directly caused by "magazines and TV". There are many different places and causes, including family, friends, and childhood heroes. That people keep trying to pin it solely on the fashion industry and Hollywood shows just how stupid those people are.

The BMI isn't a great indicator, jsyk. People vary greatly in factors like body density and muscle mass. For example I'm 5'3", over 140 lbs and I don't even look overweight (unless you stare really hard at my stomach, and that's only because I have a small chest).

I know it's not my healthy weight and I'm working to get down there (I'm actually shooting for 120, lol) but I'm so dense and compact that it doesn't really show. And even when I'm at my healthy weight people say I look like I weigh less. ~~I always fool the guesser at the fair.~~

That aside, I agree with you. If you're that tall 120 is definitely not a healthy weight to be shooting for - ESPECIALLY if you're muscular, because muscle adds weight.

In that you can be above the BMI's recommended weight due to muscle mass and not be unhealthy, yes (and the opposite in the elderly, though too little muscle mass rarely applies to the young). But it's a good indicator for minimum weight of the non-elderly.

lol no thats completely false wtf are you talking about

the bmi tells many ppl that are CHUBBY that they are UNDERWEIGHT simply because they have no muscle

sure they might not be the healthiest without muscle but they aint starving

im 5'10, 120 pounds, and a size 9. starving? fuck no, and fuck the bmi.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only