Role Models

[papayahed]

Did we discuss this already?

I'm annoyed with Michael Phelps. I just read an article about a recent picture taken of him where he was smoking a bong at a party. MP released a statement saying he's sorry and he'll never do it again.

I'm not interested in debating drugs, we've done that a gazillion times and it's always the same. What I'm wondering about is this whole celebrity/sports figures as role models? Is it fair?

[LostPrincess13]

Well, isn't it for the people to decide who their role models should be?

[papayahed]

What I mean is, we know Michael Phelps from the pool, he's admired for his hard work and dedication to his sport. Should he have to apologize for anything he does outside of his sport? Does it change after he pimped himself out to do commercials?

[papayahed]

Well, isn't it for the people to decide who their role models should be?

But is it fair to the person who is the role model?

[LostPrincess13]

I see nothing wrong with his apology. I mean, I believe he thinks what he did was wrong and that he's sorry for it. I guess he assumed the responsibility of being a role model, especially to every impressionable children, and he's taking the consequence of his actions.

[Chava]

he thinks what he did was wrong and that he's sorry for it.

Well, I'm not sure half the times people appologise they mean it, but there's hardly much alternative. It must be frustrating once you become a rolemodel that your personal freedom is inhibited. And why should he have to carry the burden of being a rolemodel, just because he's a great swimmer. We create our heros and we love to tear them apart. I would hate to live a life flawlessly, knowing that if i stepped over a line, everyone would know and blame me for it.

[AimusSage]

The thing people do with role models is that they build them up to such high standards that for the person in question it becomes nigh impossible to live up to. That is not fair to the person, and is also a dangerous aspect of idolization. The role model is still human, so how fair is it to attribute them superhuman abilities? Just because they happen to be good at one thing, does not make them Martians, which as everyone knows are as flawless as a perfect diamond.

Having said that, there is a lot of pressure on the role models, with sponsorships and contracts with a lot of money involved and as such they do have a responsibility towards the public. They get paid to behave in a certain way. If you lent yourself for a no smoking campaign, you had better make sure you're not caught smoking in public.

There is a lot more complexity of course, but not going into to much details here. It's not such a big deal for me, I am my own role model, and I also happen to be the best one around, everyone should take me as an example! :lol:

[dramasnot6]

The thing people do with role models is that they build them up to such high standards that for the person in question it becomes nigh impossible to live up to. That is not fair to the person, and is also a dangerous aspect of idolization. The role model is still human, so how fair is it to attribute them superhuman abilities? Just because they happen to be good at one thing, does not make them Martians, which as everyone knows are as flawless as a perfect diamond.

I agree. I think with any role model,celebrity or not, you need to treat them like the imperfect humans they are for them to be a role model at all. You can look at a person, admire them for specific characteristics, and realize that it's okay to see them for their flaws to. Is it realistic (for any one besides Aimus :p) to model themselves after perfection?

Also, it's good to acknowledge that we almost completely judge our celebrity role models based on the media-created identity of them. Sports celebs and movie stars have absolute accomplishments like setting records and achieving a brilliant performance. But it is much harder to determine what kind of people they are in their personal lives.
Anyhoo...looking at most celebrities' personal lives, I doubt I would ever want to model after most of them :p

[aBIGsheep]

Kid gonna git jack'd.

In all seriousness, I think that his apology is a load of crap. He's not sorry for smoking Marijuana. Probably the only reason Phelps went ahead and said he was sorry was because drug use is a 4 year suspension from the Olympics. He's going to be a good 6 months off for eligibility in the next big competition.

EDIT: Or maybe not. Just googled him and it turns out the IOC is a-okay with his apology. Derr

[Nightshade]

Yeah see P on general I think the whole thing is warped but too cold to think except it does matter when athlets are taking drugs because thats just plain cheating, or in the case of mmm I cant spellit weed, doesnt affect their ability which is what they are paid for which just makes him a bleeding ejit for risking his livlihood! Which makes him a crappy role noodle...
Im cold! :cold:

[Joreads]

Nightshade I hope it warms up.

I have a problem with sports people as role models in general. I am not saying they are not great at what they do but if they want to be my role model they need to do a little more. My role models are people that get up every day for very little money and go to work to save lives, protect us or teach is as well as many others.

[papayahed]

Yeah see P on general I think the whole thing is warped but too cold to think except it does matter when athlets are taking drugs because thats just plain cheating, or in the case of mmm I cant spellit weed, doesnt affect their ability which is what they are paid for which just makes him a bleeding ejit for risking his livlihood! Which makes him a crappy role noodle...
Im cold! :cold:

I just read about it, marijuana is not one of the banned drugs and it didn't happen during the competitive season. By the time the season gets here the drugs will be out of his system and nobody would have been the user if it wasn't for the picture.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/eonline/20090202/en_celeb_eo/81839

[JimmyRow]

It seems like he is a role model for the "smoke weed and still be a super-achiever" role. The problem is when you are not comfortable when your role meets the public. Everyone has the same issue, it is just on a much smaller scale for us nobodies.

[mono]

Bah, let the guy, the amazing athlete, do what he wants!
In my opinion, when individuals gets famous, society places way too many expectations upon them; they get recognized for their great achievements, and when they get caught doing something considered inappropriate by the masses, their vices get exposed more than their good recognitions (the media and parasitic paparazzi certainly do not help). I will long regard Michael Phelps as one of the greatest athletes to have lived, especially in my lifetime, and just because he got caught taking bong hits and looking glassy-eyed does not change my opinion of him. An Olympic athlete smoking marijuana seems a petty crime, and holding that against his accomplishments seems . . . well, pathetic and obsessive of the public. The stalkers we seem, we ought to applaud him for reading the expiration date on his milk jug before drinking from it. :lol:
Honestly, how the media expose celebrities for things unrelated to their careers disgusts me; and the people who attach their suckers onto the bloodstream of this lewd term for fecal matter disgust me more. Just because I have done illegal substances in the past, had premarital sex, gotten a speeding ticket, and paid my apartment rent late, does that make me an awful nurse?

[Silas Thorne]

I completely agree, mono. :) And I believe there are very few individuals who are simultaneously terrific sportspeople (or any other individual in the public eye) and sparkingly perfect role models. Many necessarily lie or hide aspects of themselves out of the need to be accepted by the media and so make money from sponsorships or just have good PR people around them keeping their image clean. But I'm not pessimistic, I think most people are basically good, and just don't want to hide that affair they had six years ago, or the fact that they had a few joints at a party with all their friends, or some other little thing, like dubbing a tape in a double tape deck when they were at school, or taking a cash payment from a friend for some work that they did for them.

But hell, let's ban all the sportspeople who have ever smoked marijuana! ;) That would cut out a huge group of extreme sportspeople, snowboarders and surfers. There are too many sportspeople on TV anyway, what would a few less matter. :p

I went to a few parties too, but hey, I didn't inhale. :p

I'm not sure about the medical facts on this, mono, but if you're a nurse maybe you can enlighten me: wouldn't smoking dope affect lung function adversely, making Michael Phelps achievements as an athlete even more impressive?

[mono]

I'm not sure about the medical facts on this, mono, but if you're a nurse maybe you can enlighten me: wouldn't smoking dope affect lung function adversely, making Michael Phelps achievements as an athlete even more impressive?
This seems very difficult to research, primarily due to the bias of whatever person/corporation/institution does the research. For example, everyone has heard of the experiment done in the 1950's or 60's of the chimpanzee that 'died from inhaling the smoke from marijuana.' The real story: scientists strapped an air-proof mask over the chimp's face, infused the smoke of marijuana into the mask, depriving it of oxygen, concluding that the chimpanzee died of cannabis intoxication (partially true), but the chimp likely more suffered from oxygen deprivation, since studies have shown that air is good.
According to an experiment in the 1990's, sponsored by the National Institutes for Health (NIH), rhesus monkeys intermittently exposed to cannabis smoke over the period of 1 year, during the exposures receiving adequate blood chemistry values to theoretically have an effect, showed no deficits over the period of time, other than some of the rhesus monkeys gained a small amount of weight . . . no kidding.
According to the trusted sources of my nursing school textbooks, in comparison to tobacco smoke, I would call marijuana not as systemically harmful. The smoke will harm the lungs over time, increasing chances for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); the tachycardia (fast heart rate) associated with chronic cannabis use can midly predispose someone to cardiac arrhythmias and hypertrophy ('enlarged' heart); in functional magnetic resonance imaging studies (fMRI) of brain, comparing the functioning activity of a chronic cannabis user vs. a non-cannabis user showed mild-to-moderate differences in the anterior cingulate cortex (an area associated with decision-making), and the dorsolateral frontal cortex, near the hippocampus (responsible for memory).

[Silas Thorne]

Thanks, that's interesting.

I didn't know about the chimp experiment though. Hideous. Reminds me of 'Plague Dogs'. Actually, I did some research on the language capabilities of chimps and bonobos a few years ago, and learnt a little about how genetically similar the great apes are. I don't know if you could perform experiments like this on chimps nowadays, right? They may be even under 'human' ethics.

And thanks for translating the medical terms a little for me, but I think I would have got most of them...well, not...got...most of them, fortunately. ;)

[Nightshade]

That's like the smoking dogs experiment isn't it? where they gave all those dogs lung cancer by having them chain smoke filterless cigarettes. I actually saw something last night that made me think of this thread....now what was it? oh yes! Comic Relief- The fools guide. All these comedians were talking about how it is their duty to raise the profile of people in need. It was kind of intresting :D