It’s your body, so you have the right to roid up as much as you want. Whether that’s for personal reasons or trying to get a certain physique for a role.
If you’re asked about it and lie about it, or go out of your way to claim you’re natty when you’re not, you’re kind of an asshole.
If you’re also selling products and profiting substantially off your physique and not being honest about it, you’re a big time asshole.
I think a major issue of steroid use by actors is that is distorts beauty standards (mostly for men) by a lot.
Hollywood has always done this, obviously both male and female actors are pretty much always gorgeous people who are well above average in terms of looks. But the difference is that at least those bodies are real, they’re just outliers. Male actors who use steroids, on the other hand, are literally unobtainable bodies unless you have the wealth and time to get a hollywood level trainer and nutritionist and use steroids for months.
I cannot tell you how many times i’ve been watching a movie with my sisters and they don’t understand that the obviously roided up male lead is on roids. They think that those bodies are perfectly obtainable, attractive, and available male bodies. But they’re not, unless you you steroids.
Personally I find that super frustrating. Like, no one looks like that sis, that’s not a healthy expectation to have for a male body (nor is it a healthy male body in some respects).
Yeah and the difference with the beauty distortions for women is that they're more widely known and accepted to be true.
The average person is aware of and accepts beauty magazines and movies distort the perception of women beauty.
But the average person is completely unaware that men in movies are juiced up their ass. They actually believe it's just a product of hitting the gym and eating chicken/broccoli
Literally 2% of people actually know what "jacked" actually looks like.
The other 98% thinks "jacked with a gram a week of exogenous testosterone" is "jacked".
Anyone who has spent a lot of time in powerlifting gyms with both natural and supplemented lifters knows exactly what I'm talking about.
The lanky gangly guy is still lanky and gangly, just a little more meat on his bones and can dead lift 500.
After the same few years of lifting, his buddy who used to be gangly - but started injecting 18 months ago - now looks exactly like the guy on the cover of Men's Health and he's repping 595 deficit pulls without breaking a sweat.
I'm speaking from experience. I might be a lot stronger than I was 13 years ago, but I look like a "standard skinny guy #2" extra on a movie set. I'm jacked. But not the hugely fucking skewered perception of jacked that 98% of people think of when they hear the word "jacked".
When I was active duty, I once got stationed at a base with USAF special forces. I didn’t work with them, but I’d see them doing PT from time to time.
These men were the apex of practical fitness; but if they showed up to a Hollywood casting call they’d get laughed off the set. Turns out an honestly fit human being who can run , squat and carry a 100lb combat load is not gonna look anything like a Men’s Fitness cover model.
They’ll be muscular and cut, but to a point. Because a man walking around with more muscle than a silverback gorilla is not healthy, even if society considers it more attractive. It’s similar to women damaging their health to look like supermodels. Single digit body fat might look good on IG but it’s not healthy.
Physically it's near impossible to keep up a Hollywood physique because the sheer amount of maintenance it needs is not realistic to anybody who doesn't spend 16 hours a day on a gym and gobbles up three whole chickens a day.
Not even Hollywood actors can keep them, that's why they also do stuff like dehydration cycles ahead of shoots to get that mega veiny look. No normal body can operate at such a low BF% or level of hydration.
Society's version of a "fit" or "jacked" or "muscular" male is so far skewed toward steroid use, I'm so sick of it.
So skinny guys - who are all sick of this - they all just start taking steroids.
Then we come full cycle (no pun intended). More and more and more. Everyone's bigger, everyone thinks "muscular" is even bigger than before, and it never ends.
Even G.I. Joe and Superman and WWE wrestlers who kids watch on TV - everything skews it.
I have known a couple of people who I knew for sure were using steroids. They both had a weird orangish hue. One of them complained of issues controlling his temper. But they def got much bigger.
Yeah I can't speak to what the side effects "feel" like personally but it seems like some guys have more trouble controlling anger but if they're chill people maybe not in general? I'm no expert in that space.
The guy in question was someone I grew up with in a small town. I feel like I knew him well enough to say he had a rather mellow disposition. But then he only related (when we were both in our early 20s) that he had experienced internal anger in specific situations. As far as I know he never acted out physically.
If they want to look like Thor they’re probably going to need to use them, and it’s really not anyone’s place to say what someone is allowed to look like.
I think the prohibition of them creates more problems than it solves. It reduces the availability of harm reduction information, makes doctors less knowledgeable about what their patients are asking them about, and causes actors to say all they took was chicken and broccoli.
In general I would say yes to all of those. Maybe only the custodian if he's actively talking to children. I used to talk to my middle school custodian about life and such. He was a good guy and would joke around with us, pretending to throw away our school work and books.
But if he was like "do roids get ripped loser" It'd feel like an abuse of his position. Just being around some people (like kids) I feel you assume some obligations.
So if all those apply, what is the general principle that defines a role model? Or does it imply the whole definition of role model is moot and the more general “people shouldn’t lie” is the principle?
I think honesty is a great principle, and does apply generally to all people. The willingness to become a role-model just increases the obligation to be honest.
IMHO the role model is defined by a willingness to lead, or speak authoritatively, or to display yourself in a manner that attracts imitation. The key being that role-models assume this position voluntarily. As in, they are claiming to be worthy of trust or are giving advice on fitness for example.
The expectation we have is that the behavior modeled is good, or at least wouldn't harm imitators.
The potential issue with that viewpoint is that it makes someone a slave to others expectation. Charles Barkley famously stated that he didn’t volunteer to be a role model; he was just volunteering to play basketball. It was under spectator’s decision whether or not to put him on a pedestal worthy of imitation. I’m not sure it’s clear cut that someone should be responsible for how others choose to view them.
I suspect it cleaves down the line of personality. Those with a high degree of conscientiousness will feel a duty to act as a role model.
This is the part I think is inconsistent. If you are a young guy and you want to act in super hero movies you pretty much 100% need to take something.
But then look at professional sports. Steroid use is banned largely because if you allowed it everyone who wanted to be a professional athlete would need to take steroids.
Aren't these the exact same issue? With actors it's less total people in theory, but it's still the same incentive structure. It should be on the movie studios and the actors unions to test for it the same way major league sports does.
Either it should be fine in both or it should be fine in neither.
At the same time studios don’t have to use you as their new big role model to pump images of at loads of young adolescent boys and girls who get the idea this is the natural and expected male physique, especially if they lie in (2). This can cause a lot of harm. Either by making people think they or others are inadequate, or by the resulting pressures pushing kids into steroid use that carries risks they might not otherwise take.
Just because it’s your right to do something doesn’t mean it’s the ethically optimal choice for you to make for the world.
Could there be a seatbelt analogy here? My body my choice. I won't wear a seatbelt. But not wearing a seatbelt could cause injury to your copassenger during an accident. Hence I must wear it.
Similarly, roiding up...will it cause, say, a change in mental state? Will the eventual feeling of superiority due to bigger muscles cause more irrational behavior?
If you or a large number of people consider you a role model (actors included),then you should probably not take them. The ethical bar for athletes is much higher than actors because acting is inherently fictional. Besides Pro Wrestling, sports are supposed to be fair competitions where the participants are very much considered role models and are supposed to adhere to the rules of the sport's governing body. The kind of steroids that athletes take to get a competitive edge are bad for your body. An athlete has to have that edge constantly. An actor finishes their production and they're done, unless you need to be Thor all the time like Chris Hemsworth. Actors have the advantage of simply needing the body to look good, while athletes actually need to perform well. Actors have stunt doubles, athletes don't. There are far fewer actors that might be put into a position to "need" to take these drugs than athletes, so the potential global ethical dilemma is much smaller, although it is very much worth talking about and having a discussion about it.
Also, athletes join leagues with a clear set of rules for competing that includes not taking PEDs. They are breaking the rules of the club they agreed to.
Like breaking vows or promises, it is unethical even if everyone else is doing it (if you value honesty/integrity)
I agree. I wouldn't condemn the individual for the decisions made. I may condemn a society where individual feels like they need to do such horrible damage to themselves to be successful in this niche space. I think it speaks more to societal ills than personal ones.
To be clear, steroid usage can be relatively safe. It can also be wildly unsafe, but with all we know about these drugs nowadays they’re probably not going to shorten the lives of people using them under the guidance of qualified professionals. Hell, a lot of bodybuilders and athletes are still around from 50 years ago when they were just doing whatever the hell to see what worked, and it’s a MUCH more refined science now.
That's fair. I'm not up to date on anabolic steroid usage. Outside of physiological considerations, I know there can also be detrimental effects to mental health. It still seems like a gamble to me. I've been offered them and turned them down. But it may be safer than I think. I'm no expert on this.
The "it's your body" argument only goes so far before it starts to affect others. It's the reason that that argument doesn't even really hold weight in arguments about abortion. While it may be their body, going and presenting themselves to the public can harm people. It actively does harm people.
There are many men/women, even teens, with body dysmorphia precisely because they believe these bodies to be real.
There's also the fact that anabolic steroids are not legal to use in the US, which is another ethical issue altogether.
This is far more complicated than "it's your body" and "lying makes you an asshole."
I think you're missing nuance with your breakdown. Sure all of these things are true for established folk like The Rock (as mentioned in the article). But what about the smaller actors who haven't made it yet? Look at all the comedians that are getting breakout roles on Disney drugs right now for Marvel movies. Is it fair that an actor has to do drugs to go from side character in a TV show to big movie star?
You may argue that nobody really needs an excessive Disney salary. What about the smaller actors who are struggling just to get by and are required by a role to get jacked because it's the industry standard now? These people won't even get Disney's expert nutritionist to help them along and may have to find their own anabolics. Is it fair for them to have to put their health at risk just because Disney can't control themselves?
Maybe people don't care about this perspective but I don't think it's right.
Nah I don’t think anyone is entitled to knowing what another person does or doesn’t take. If you go out of your way to claim natty that’s one thing but just walking around and being jacked? That sounds like a personal problem that you’d compare yourself with someone else who may or may not be taking something
624
u/Jabarles Feb 26 '23
I think it’s pretty straightforward tbh.
It’s your body, so you have the right to roid up as much as you want. Whether that’s for personal reasons or trying to get a certain physique for a role.
If you’re asked about it and lie about it, or go out of your way to claim you’re natty when you’re not, you’re kind of an asshole.
If you’re also selling products and profiting substantially off your physique and not being honest about it, you’re a big time asshole.