In my small research and the aplication to the Linden labs as inworld employee.. I discover the reason why there are SO many freaking barbies..(aside from the Alady Shop)
Many of the creators were employed by Mattel and Disney corperation.. is it only an escape from that mindset, style, design or is it an attempt to take those embedded images to another level to a world where we are expected to face it on a more personal, face to face situation? As residents are we able to discern what is the agenda of Linden Labs? Is there an agenda or is this too a babbling from one of the disconteded..?
Mattel is the product lable of "Barbie", now does it surprise you after knowing this that so many AVs look like "Barbies" (and "Kens")? With this also in mind, the majority of the designers who make prim shoes create them with this mindset of "feet set to "0"" what I consider a "Barbie" feature as well, as the doll always had amazingly small feet.. which brings used to frustrate me to no end.. until I got an actual doll that had flat and larger feet and even made some of my own bigger "dolls" in clay with beautiful chunky little feet...
Changing the train of thought, I find myself wondering how much of Barbie's design has gone into the female form of SL? And with that in mind, the idea of castles, Disney and "Kink" comes to mind as well... I always thought that Disney had a darker underbelly lerking within its messages and films.... there was always a feeling in my gut concerning the latest 30-40 years of film which has come out from this mega giant media monopoly... it is like the drawing and character design was all a secret langauge of "good is beautiful and evil is ugly" but in reality we all know that the myths of Christian faith portray the devil as a handsome man (and within the ideas of the more Jewish myths as a drop dead gorgous woman explained to me by someone). And why not?
Even in our cultural reality the multitude of serial killers had a handsome face and charm to lure the victims they selected.. so it only makes sense to me that we should be conditioned into that devilish little trap of looking at people's outter layer.. and not even focus upon their inner content. Its a trap that makes little girls dream of beauty contests (or is it their mother's dreams?) and even if beauty is not the end all be all, it reduces all that is good into a simple equasion.
Then for men the aquasition of the beautiful, the princessess.. it basicly is an equasion that makes certain that even if you are a good person, hunched over with a deformed back and ringing a bell in seclusion, you are only going to be the "friends" of the girls you love, and its always going to be that "handsome prince" who is going to get the girl in the end.. as the story is written.
Even still as Disney fights against that idea, in so many of its cute films with the same message about beauty and populatarity such as "Encino Man".. there is always a glitch in how they present their message, as even if the Cave "kid" was no longer covered in mud and cleaned up well, and was his own person, he was well formed and handsome enough to make my mother swoon and determined to see this film on every rerun its shown.
To understand this idealistic vision of people as real, and presented as real.. there is another message that was given to me.. (I guess my problem is that I want something deeper and it doesn't matter who the "actor" is as long as I feel something about the sincerity) the message was, in questioning the "IDEAL" when I did that, the very simplistic view of someone who I grew up was "who wants to see a film with a bunch of "ugly people" in it?"
I was horrified at this thought..because it brought up to the surface the real reason it bothered me so.. because it came down to a select few deciding what visual human beauty was.
Cute and Psycho
3 hours ago