ok i'm doing an essay on the use of drugs by sports people of all levels. the ethical question i'm having serious problems with is.what is the difference between a non pro body builder who just wants a better looking body taking steroids to speed up the process and someone going under the knife to achieve the same results. they both have costs and inherant dangers yet one has a terrible stigma attached to it and the other seems to be almost accepted practice. what are your views on this.

Just one persons opinion....
It is very difficult to get bigger muscles through cosmetic surgery. There are calf implants and pectoral implants...but... they almost always look like implants, and besides they are against IFBB rules just like steroids are. I mean...maybe if your not flexing and just wearing clothes, muscular implants look fine but if your on stage in a contest, they are not going to 'act' like natural muscles and the judges will *not* reward you for it. On the other hand, steroids greatly enhance a persons ability to build *real* muscle beyond their natural ability and since muscle is the name of the game, this could definaltely help you, especially on a pro level.
Example: I know an older gal (well, older than me..not to offend) who had an incredibly fit body but lots of extra skin from having kids. She had a tummy tuck and has subsequently done very well in bodybuilding. I do not consider this cheating. I do not think her removing excess *skin* to reveal her abs as being cheating. Not at all the same thing as someone who is juicing to get bigger muscles.
I suppose we could split hairs on it, depending on the type of surgery... but ,to me,
cosmetic surgery (perhaps short of muscular implants of some sort) is NOT the same as juicing.
and in fact, the IFBB standard is no steroids and no muscular implants. Otherwsie you can have all the facelifts or arm tucks that you want. They don't do a very good job of monitering the drugs but the stated rule seems fair to me, assuming people followed it. It is about the muscle so anything that affects the muscle, in my opinion, would be *cheating*.
2 cents
L2L

ok to put it slightly differently what is the difference between a body builder taking drugs to do better in his/her sport and say a model having cosmetic surgeory to get ahead in his/her proffesion. they are both effectivly the same. *aftificial enhancment*
it is not fair on other competitors if one has taken steroids and or other illegal substances but in the same vain it is not fair on other models if one beats them to more work due to outside assistance.

Cosmetic surgery is LEGAL and available to anyone who can pay for it. Steroids are illegal, and are, by default, unethical.

If you took the cosmetic surgery example out to its logical conclusion, then you would have to say that it would be unethical for a model to have dental work, or to color their hair.

Finally, the point of any athletic (or body building) competition is to take the human body out to its limits. Throw chemicals into the mix and you're moving the bar to an artificial point. The availability of cosmetic surgery doesn't create some hyper-beautiful form that didn't previously exist.

Well, I have to concur.. there really is no differance. Most models probably do have some sort of *help* and they almost have to just to keep up in their field. Most Pros (depsite the rules) *do* use drugs so it is a fairly even playing field since they are all breaking the rules. Personally, what others do doesn't bother me. I know bodybuilders who gear up and I know plenty of women (some who model) who have had plastic surgery. Do whatever suits you....
I do not use steroids, nor have I ever but I don't get upset about it because there is nothing I can do about it. It is their choice to do drugs and my choice to enter the contest knowing the circumstances. It is interesting to note that there are "natural' or tested contests and non-tested contests even though the athletes all claim to be clean??. I have compteted in both drug tested and non-drug tested shows and there is a marked differance in the developement of the athletes.
While I don't support drug use..like I said there is nothing I can do about it and I guess on some level it isn't any of my business.
To answer your question again. I do not see any differance between models seeking plastic surgery and Bodybuilders using drugs. Yes, they are both trying to get ahead and neither scenario bothers me cuz I can only control me.
L2L

Well, one difference I can name right off the bat is that a bodybuilding COMPETITION is a sport with strict rules and regulations...one of those rules (in amateur BB anyway) is that steroids and such are verboten.

I'm sure there are plenty of female bodybuilders who've had plastic surgery - boob jobs, nose jobs, facelifts, etc. From everything I've read, that's considered okay, since it doesn't have anything to do with the muscles. Butt/calf implants are becoming more popular, but from what I've seen (on Discovery Health, etc) like L2L says, once the clothes are off and the person flexes, you can definitely tell the 'real' muscle from the 'fake' one.

On the other hand, modeling is not a sport and there are no written rules...

I saw a woman on television recently and ended up sitting there watching her butt implant surgery. Just like 90% of breast implants...you could tell they were fake. There wasn't a "smooth" rounding of the buttocks. It looked like you took a flat rear end in a pair of spandex pants-and shoved a blown up whoopie cushion on top of each "cheek". You could see the edges of the implant all the way around...like you often can when a too-skinny woman with a bony chest gets "too large for her frame" breast implants.

I find that so ugly, so I can only imagne looking like that on the top AND bottom....ewwwww

Speaking of that...did anyone watch "The Swan" last night?(dumbest show EVER.) First time I have ever watched it...they don't make these women beautiful-they make them look fake and plastic. REALLY fake. It is one thing to maybe get a couple crowns on your teeth and color you hair...or to wear acrylic nails and maybe get a tummy tuck. But to have every single part of your body and face "fake" it just doesn't look right. The women end up looking like a cross between Barbie dolls and Latoya Jackson. They do the whole shebang on them-breast implants, fat in their lips, hair color, fake nails, fake boobs, tummy tuck, lipo, tanning bed, nose job, veneers on their teeth...really, a little hair color and maybe one procedure can give you a boost...but when you get all that-they sort of look like "freaks".

Was the butt-implant show on Discovery Health per chance? I saw that earlier this year. Yup - they looked TOTALLY fake, but dang, she was sooooo happy with the results!

I've yet to watch The Swan - just on too late for me (9 pm I think?). From what I've read (in People Mag) and heard, they get these gals for "x" number of weeks, where they go through an ultra-intense diet and training program, then the mega-surgery. The thing IS...most plastic surgeons would PREFER that before you have any work done (like tummy tucks, lipo, body lifts and such) that you maintain a stable weight for a set period of time before going under the knife - NOT crash-dieting prior to surgery, else you're just setting yourself up for post-surgery rebound.

You forgot the brow lifts which they gave to everyone last season despite the fact that most of the women were under-40 and well didn't need it at all... They all looked the same at the end too. I absolutely refuse to watch it at all this season. Glamour gave 6 women who were in line to audition for The Swan II (non-surgical) makeovers and they all looked fabbo after, I think at least two of the women changed their minds about auditioning.

Cheers!

Ali

Yeah-it was the same (butt implant) show. Did you see where she had her friends all come over to see her new butt?

Yeah The Swan is AWFUL. They take them for 3 months and do a ton of plastic surgery-everything at once. They go in get their teeth redone-go get plastic surgery on everything the same week-and the rest of the three month period-as soon as they recover from surgery enough to work out-is extremely intense 2 hour a day workouts, strict dieting (one of the women was on a 1200 cal. diet the whole three months) and everything.
I don't really like the overall attitude of the entire show...the doctor was really pushing the entire surgery thing-he had his consultation with one of the women who had recently lost some weight (about 30 pounds) and he said to her that the only thing to improve her body was surgery. It was quite apparent to me that she was a cardio exerciser alone-and she has never strength trained. She had good legs from the treadmill-but no arms/chest/ab muscles. If it were ME...I would have focused on the strength training for 3 months...it would have done a lot and some of her surgery would probably have not been neccesary. But...this guy is getting paid to do this show so of course he is going to advocate surgery.

The Swan goes very well with the topic of this thread... Is The Swan ethical?

The Swan last night was particularly BAD, in that the lady who had no self esteem, I don't think will have much more esteem AFTER this show unless she continues to see a psychologist. I really feel she needed help with the mind games we can play with ourselves when we see the "phantom" fat. I really didn't think her saddle bags where that bad when they showed her at the start of the show coming out of the pool... I also don't think that DD boobs will bring up that self-esteem.

I also doubt that she will continue any kind of workout or good food habits, because she was buckin' the producers of the show all the way by sneaking in food, not wearing her chin band...Whasup with that?

I thought the show was particularly discusting last night, it always is pretty stupid tho, who thinks up of these reality show concepts?

Yes-it was bad. And it was bad for the surgeon to not try and talk her out of those DD boobs...he just made the comment about that being big...he should have at least said something to her (because she was approx an A-B cup from my view) that a C-D would be better suited to her frame.
Yeah-I think that woman needed some help and therapy. She was a pretty lady to begin with-she would have looked wonderful with only the teeth and nose job (the only two flaws I really saw in her to begin with) and the rest in therapy.

We had a similar topic a few weeks ago when "The Biggest Loser" premiered. You can find my response right here - I don't think there's very much difference in the two shows, or most 'reality' shows for that matter.

It all comes down to ratings, and $$$. Judging from the cover stories on The Swan in People & Us magazines, I'd say that there is a lot more public interest than revulsion. Or maybe it's the train wreck syndrome - you know, hard to look away sometimes. (And judging from other boards I've browsed, there are LOTS of people more than eager to get on makeover shows for that free plastic surgery!)

Once the whole 'reality' thing gets old, and the public loses interest, then you'll stop seeing these shows. Right now it just seems like they're getting more and more outlandish with their 'perception' of reality. Also, we all know that Fox is known for pushing the envelope...and the bounds of good taste...