|
We live in a society focused on perfection, beauty, youth.
Before the advent of live media (radio/tv), it was impossible to project one's "image" to all the people that one could reach with their "message".
And just as in person, the delivery of the message is almost as important as the message itself (perhaps more, as Obama exploited), when not in person, only the message and a second hand, hearsay idea of the "image" is known.
So since radiotelecommunications were invented, images weren't as powerful over large groups of people, mainly because it was not possible to project one's image to many people, easily. A sculpture is the best approximation, yet is but one snapshot "image".
Now let's spend some time venturing down Imaginary Lane.
The first stop is a reinforcement of the "image" vs "message" quality outlined above.
Consider someone that you meet, in person, whose face is riddled with facial ticks, whose body is wracked with spastic jerking, whose attention seems to be anywhere but on the conversation. Now imagine that you are in conversation with this person, though he struggles to communicate. Would not their message be clouded, overshadowed by their image? Contrast this with the person having dictated the message and you were presented with the message in writing, with no concurrent conflation of an "image" of that person and you can plainly see how someone's image can detract from their message.
The converse is also true. If someone speaks in calm, clear tones, in a predictable manner (not necessarily impassionate), with confidence, then people are predisposed to be in agreement with their message. We can all think of examples of idiots who fleece people by the thousands using just such an "image" despite an obviously flawed message.
The power of someone's "image" doesn't only depend on their manner. To some degree it also depends on their beauty. Of course we all know that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" - but, we also know that many people frequently find similar attributes as beautiful. Examples of this would be a smooth complexion, a fit physique, smooth, even teeth, etc.
Now let's traverse a little further down Imaginary Lane, and see where it can take us if we take these attitudes towards beauty to an extreme.
We are all aware of techniques that people use to make themselves look more beautiful, more attractive to others - cosmetic surgery, exercise, implants, etc.
Consider how effective we are at restoring a youthful look to people, using these techniques.
Imagine a 65 year old woman, with enough money to exhaust all avenues available in this society to augment her appearance, to detract from her apparent age, to rejuvenate her "image". The best modern methods can achieve is maybe taking 20 years of someone's "image" but that would be the upper limit. I've never once seen a person who I know to be in their 60's to look like someone in their 20's or even 30's.
But imagine if we could!
Imagine, more extremely, an 80 year old woman, who - on the outside, can be made to look like an 18 year old woman - her hair, her complexion, her apparent muscle tone, everything that epitomizes youth. But... on the inside would still be this decrepit, weak, old person, with weak bones, tired organs, and general infirmity that comes with such age.
Would you want to fuck that, after been having shown a picture of this 80yo lady prior to the reconstruction? Lol.
This is the extreme of a society focused on beauty to the degree that we are, and partly this is because of the advent of radio/telecommunications which has made "image" approach, if not surpass, "message" as the most defining qualities of a human.
_________________ 
|
