Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Young people glorify celebs and pretty faces all the time, and have been for years. Then they get older, and a little more mature and realize that there is more to life.
I think the hormones dying down has more than a bit to do with it, too. I didn’t just glorify David Cassidy, I was madly in love with him, lol.
There have been heroes and respected people throughout history, but celebrity worship over people who are total self-absorbed with no regional/political significance is a modern phenomenon.
You may want to believe otherwise, but its true.
We know a lot more about those times than you may want to believe. This is from History Channel website, 10 things you might not know about Roman gladiators:
10. Gladiators often became celebrities and sex symbols.
“Though often dismissed as uncivilized brutes by Roman historians, the gladiators won massive fame among the lower classes. Their portraits graced the walls of many public places; children played with gladiator action figures made of clay; and the most successful fighters even endorsed products just like the top athletes of today. They were also renowned for their ability to make Roman women swoon. Graffiti from Pompeii describes one fighter who “catches the girls at night in his net” and another who is “the delight of all the girls.” Many women wore hairpins and other jewelry dipped in gladiator blood, and some even mixed gladiator sweat—then considered an aphrodisiac—into facial creams and other cosmetics.”
Again, a lot of this is simply human nature. We are really not that different now than we were then. Human nature really does not change as much as some seem to think. We can act more civilized, and of course have many more advances, but our basic natures do not really change.
How far back 'modern' are you willing to go? In 1858, the play, Our American Cousin premiered. One of the main characters, Lord Dundreary, was SOOO popular, that people would quote 'Dundrearyisms' and men would grow out their side burns like the character, to the point that those kind of sideburns were called Dundrearys. The shop windows were filled with Dundreary scarves, and Brother Sam scarves, (another character in the play) and there were Dundreary collars and Dundreary shirts, and Dundrearyisms were on every lip. The actor, Edward Askew Sothern was very popular at the time.
Or...do we need to go back further? Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) famous inventor, famous diplomat, quite popular with the ladies, and apparently quite the stud in his youth. Did I mention that the ladies loved him? He was quite scandalous in France.
Quote:
Originally Posted by turf3
Have you ever read anything by Ovid Marcus Aurelius Livy Lucretius Catullus or Horace?
Thought not.
None of these posts have anything to do with celebrity worship.
But if your main thesis that people devoting their lives to someone totally external to them is healthy or natural, that is where you hit a brick wall.
You can take the name of famous people throughout history and none of them would amount to a justification of people forgoing their own social values for the sake of someone else.
Are you saying rabid celebrity worship is a good thing, or that its human nature?
Because neither of those things are true. Yet somehow saying the internet should have dispersed the power of major entertainers rather than give a rise to a new type of celebrity is ridiculous.
Seriously, why use that type of language, what's your point?
We know a lot more about those times than you may want to believe. This is from History Channel website, 10 things you might not know about Roman gladiators:
10. Gladiators often became celebrities and sex symbols.
“Though often dismissed as uncivilized brutes by Roman historians, the gladiators won massive fame among the lower classes. Their portraits graced the walls of many public places; children played with gladiator action figures made of clay; and the most successful fighters even endorsed products just like the top athletes of today. They were also renowned for their ability to make Roman women swoon. Graffiti from Pompeii describes one fighter who “catches the girls at night in his net” and another who is “the delight of all the girls.” Many women wore hairpins and other jewelry dipped in gladiator blood, and some even mixed gladiator sweat—then considered an aphrodisiac—into facial creams and other cosmetics.”
Again, a lot of this is simply human nature. We are really not that different now than we were then. Human nature really does not change as much as some seem to think. We can act more civilized, and of course have many more advances, but our basic natures do not really change.
What are you trying to achieve here?
Are you saying people in the ancient times had fame so therefore modern celebrity worship is natural and healthy?
None of these descriptors tell of a total homogenization of individuals for the sake of some trashy con-artist.
Why don't 13 year old girls have posters of their city councilmen on their walls instead of cute young guys that dance and sing?? Why don't young guys think hedge fund managers are as cool as race car drivers? Are you really asking that?? Has there even been a time where they did? I don't think so.
Your posts come across as being flippant...so I really don't care about your opinions at this point.
You also assume that we are idiots and don't know history - again flippant and not worthy of any serious response.
Just because little Johnny has always worshiped "stars" because of their make-believe world doesn't make it right, but hey...throw your useless two cents in to get your post count up.
Your original post is nothing more than a run-of-the-mill old guy rant about a younger generation.
Nothing interesting, new, or well thought out.
You don't respect celebrity worship. OK. You're not alone. But there's nothing unique about what you say about it and your assumptions about generational differences are spurious.
Are you saying rabid celebrity worship is a good thing, or that its human nature?
Because neither of those things are true. Yet somehow saying the internet should have dispersed the power of major entertainers rather than give a rise to a new type of celebrity is ridiculous.
Seriously, why use that type of language, what's your point?
OK I'll bite.
Celebrity relies on exposure.
The interwebs lowers barriers to exposure.
So (and I'm making a broad point here) we may not have just one Elvis these days but we have 100 mini-Elvises each with their rabid mini-set of fans.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
