9 ms·

Facebook is an accelerant. The movie "Mean Girls" largely predated social media and highlighted many of the same issues. This seems to be a pretty ingrained iss

• mattgreenrocks 5y ago
  One recent realization: I suspect many (read: more than just teen girls) see social media as a real-time status market. There is a constant stream of information, and the subtext of that is often status-oriented. Thus, for the status-hungry, keeping up with updates feels necessary even if it makes them feel terrible. There are elements of addiction at work here, too, but if social media was a net negative it wouldn't be as sticky as it is now. People are obviously getting something they want from it.
  • padastra 5y ago
    Tobacco was a net negative and, without regulation, would have remained super sticky. Exercise is a net positive and, for many, is horribly unstick you. How sticky something is correlated better with how well it hits up those short term dopamine surges (or how well its absence causes short term dopamine deficits) than it does with the net value it provides a person.
• hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
  Your theory doesn't explain why boys don't act the same. Their attractiveness also dwindles with time - you could argue it's happening less steeply, but still.
  • wussboy 5y ago
    Males aren't sexually selected for attractiveness. They are selected for their ability to provide for a mother and baby. So, human male's desirability increases with time, peaking at some point where their peak wealth crosses their inability to procreate.
    • justToAddLink 5y ago
      this can also be seen through the fact that females are four times more sensitive than males to economic status cues when rating opposite sex attractiveness [1] [1] - Guanlin Wang, Minxuan Cao, Justina Sauciuvenaite, Ruth Bissland, Megan Hacker, Catherine Hambly, Lobke M. Vaanholt, Chaoqun Niu, Mark D. Faries, & John R. Speakman (2018). Different impacts of resources on opposite sex ratings of physical attractiveness by males and females. Evolution and Human Behavior, 39(2), 220-225. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S109051381730315X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S10905...
      • datavirtue 5y ago
        My old boss used to say he would just hold up a picture of his paycheck on Tinder if his wife ever dumped him. Unfortunately it would also show the child support deduction.
  • everdrive 5y ago
    >Their attractiveness also dwindlew with time First, young boys are certainly competitive with each other. Bullying is largely about social status, and social status is the main predictor for mate choice. Second, male attractiveness does not follow the same pattern. Yes, sperm quality does degrade with age, but that decline is nowhere near as sharp as the decline in a woman's reproductive health. Not only will their eggs run out, but their chance of surviving childbirth drops sharply with age. Remember, we're not talking about western societies with modern medicine, but evolutionary imperatives which would have developed prior to any sort of antibiotics, pain killers, C-sections, etc. Third, male attractiveness is strongly correlated with access to status and resources. Which young men almost universally don't have. (although young men may show traits which indicate potential future access to status and resources: intelligence, drive, assertiveness, popularity, etc.) However, an older man (30s-40s) still has very healthy sperm, and may have proven access to status and resources, which is nearly universally considered attractive. So, I don't think it's fair to claim that male attractiveness declines over time an sort of the same way as female attractiveness. (Once again, from a strictly evolutionary perspective.)
• revel 5y ago
  Can we please not react to this article by immediately blaming teenage girls? You have an article that shows one of the most powerful corporations in the world exploiting teenagers to boost revenues and lying about it in testimony before congress. That's the story.
  • debrice 5y ago
    I believe he’s not blaming the teenage girls but maybe trying to understand why it overwhelmingly impacts girls?
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • J-dawg 5y ago
    I don't understand how you could read the parent comment and decide that it's "blaming" teen girls, unless you are deliberately arguing in bad faith. Teenage girls are predisposed to behave in the way described, and Facebook/Instagram is profiting by exploiting that. Nothing about the explanation above is blaming them. If anything the comment makes a stronger case for Facebook's actions being immoral.
    • jhardy54 5y ago
      > Teenage girls are predisposed to behave in the way described, and Facebook/Instagram is profiting by exploiting that. Has this been studied, or are we taking an arbitrary thought experiment as a foundational axiom?
      • revel 5y ago
        Facebook studied it internally and covered it up in congressional testimony. That's literally what the article is about
      • mrgreenfur 5y ago
        Agreed. SOME may behave this way, but without more info who are we to say that they "are predisposed" in general. Teenage years are very hard for tons of reasons mentioned above and the way people handle those stresses comes down to tons of factors, support systems, upbringing, context, culture, etc. Facebook is immorally exploiting that stress.
• JohnWhigham 5y ago
  100% on the money. People will gnash their teeth because they don't like the truth being told out loud. It's the same reason why online dating is completely fucked up: incentives are completely different for men and women. Women hold access to sex (which men want), men hold access to relationships (which women want). The problem is that each wants completely different demographics; women generally want older secure men, and men want younger more fertile women. There's nothing wrong with this. This has been ingrained in us for millions of years yet people act like a few decades of social upheaval will change this.
  • tubby12345 5y ago
    >100% on the money. yea this random comment on a random tech site about evolutionary biology passes the smell test why? oh is it because of preconceived notions and biases rather than rigorous argumentation (i.e. well cited and published research)? hmmm
    • hrfbi 5y ago
      You talk as if psychological or sociological research held any value at all
    • everdrive 5y ago
      The tone of your comment is not helpful, but the factual claim you've made is definitely correct. This is something that I think seems reasonable, yes. But I am not a biologist, and no one (as far as I'm aware) has made any attempts to scientifically test my claim. At best, we have to call this a plausible idea. At worst, of course, it's not even that.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• yaseer 5y ago
  The toxic culture of Instagram is not driven by teen girls, it's driven by a toxic mix of a powerful capitalist machine and social media. Sell the perfect lifesfyle and body. For the record - I believe in capitalism generally, I just think the incarnation of capitalism on social media is particularly damaging. The free market has produced a product like big Tobacco did.
• vmception 5y ago
  Amongst mammals, human females actual limited fertility is the odd thing. Visual and maybe hormonal attractiveness may change over time with other mammals too, but not actual numeric quantity of eggs. (I'm not sure if there is broad enough data on egg viability across all mammals though, but the fixed quantity and therefore approximate time period of fertility is more easily seen) Given that this variable is the different one, the differences in human populations (ie. the competition for being chosen) really should be evaluated with this aspect weighted more heavily.
• jl6 5y ago
  Your theory seems backwards. Cut-throat competition for mating opportunities should be a strategy for the least desirable, who have the greatest need to compete for the scarce resource. If you're top of the desirability scale, you are the scarce resource, and your job is to discern the best suitor amongst the many who put themselves forward.
  • risky_opinions 5y ago
    What if you're second best? What if you don't know your position? Game theory.
    • foolinaround 5y ago
      when 'best' is subjective, perceptions and biases come into play...
  • webnrrd2k 5y ago
    This is just speculation on my part, but maybe being cut-throat is the strategy -- it's just applied to both potential suitors and potential competition. If you're at the top of the pyramid then the easiest way to discourage both unsuitable competition and unsuitable suitors is to be mean about it.
    • webnrrd2k 5y ago
      Now that I think about it a little more, it's probably more applicable to be mean to anyone in an outgroup. And now that I think about it even more, I really have no idea of what I'm talking about. Most of the time that I've been mean to people, when I was younger, it was basically because I was an immature and confused jackass. And, as far as relationships go, who hasn't made a complete ass of theselves at one point or another?
  • AlotOfReading 5y ago
    Part of the reason I dislike many evo-psych explanations as an archaeologist is that they end up reflecting a lot of the author's assumptions about the nature of human societies and not the diversity of forms we actually observe. You can support virtually any argument by just narrowing or widening this scope appropriately. One example here is that young women are free to actually decide which "suitors" to accept. In some gerontocracies, young women generally don't have that choice, socially at least.
• Enginerrrd 5y ago
  The primary objection I'd have would be that you haven't defined "young girls" here and the age group cohort (~14-18) that we're really talking about is actually probably NOT the most fertile cohort. There's overlap of course, but that'd probably be more like 18-25. Which, in my anecdotal experience is definitely a time where young women seem to treat each other a lot better.
• rendall 5y ago
  > If this is the period of their life where they are the most desirable, there might be an evolutionary benefit to be the most cut-throat when it comes to vying for the best mating opportunities. I appreciate the approach, but I do think it is probably (as you yourself warned) a "just so" story. Teenaged girls can be mean. Teenaged boys can be mean. Adults can be mean. Members of all of these groups can be nice, sometimes transcendently kind. These behaviors can be explained without reference to ancient drives to fertility and mating, I think.
  • everdrive 5y ago
    I really appreciate your comment. I still think my theory seems reasonable, but we should all be clear that a theory which "seems reasonable to some people" is very far something which is scientifically proven or even likely.
    • rendall 5y ago
      Agreed. Evolution drives our behavior; that fact horrifies some people; and for every observation there is an explanation that is clear, simple and wrong. We humans are apes and, so, teenaged girls are apes. Apes are obsessed with hierarchy, status and sex. That doesn't change because we communicate using abstract symbols over a ridiculously innovative invention.
      • bobthechef 5y ago
        You seem to be both treading into naturalistic fallacy and brushing up against ad hominem. The latter because you don't know the motives of those who disagree with you (they could just find your explanation unconvincing) and the former because just because human beings have been phylogenetically classified as apes does not mean you can deploy your syllogism so easily. Note: I am not arguing one way or the other here. Obviously there is competition for mates among human beings. What I'm suggesting is that we be careful when drawing on evolutionary explanations flippantly and simplistically. Lord knows that e.g. "evolutionary psychology" (which this would fall under) is packed with just-so stories.
• imgabe 5y ago
  Let’s suppose you’re correct: teen girls are evolutionarily predisposed to be especially cutthroat. Does this make it acceptable that a corporation like Facebook exploits this tendency for profit? Should we not recognize this vulnerability and protect our children against it?
  • everdrive 5y ago
    I'm very opposed to Facebook and social media in general. I think social media is bad for almost everybody. (and certainly bad on the whole for any large cohort.) Even if teenage girls were not predisposed to this sort of behavior, Facebook would still be bad for them. It would simply be bad for them in the ways which it is bad for everyone else. Instead, it's bad for them in all the other ways it's bad for people, and additionally bad for them when it comes to these particular social behaviors.
  • 9dev 5y ago
    I don’t think OP ever suggested this was acceptable? Can’t we discuss multiple facets of a piece of news individually, without everyone always having to condemn or support the overall premise of the article? I think the topic of young girls being predisposed to being mean is worth discussing on its own, no matter my opinion on it.
• elliekelly 5y ago
  > Why are young girls so awful to each other? Why does this conversation always have to exclusively revolve around how young girls treat each other? Young boys are awful to young girls. Women and men are awful to young girls. The question you should be asking is why do we as a society tolerate people (of any age and any gender!) being so awful to girls? The article is about Facebook, the company. Facebook isn’t run by young girls. And yet many comments in this thread are focused not on Facebook’s responsibility to (and profiteering from the exploitation of) girls mental health and are instead focused on blaming the girls themselves. Seems more than a little backwards to me.
  • prepend 5y ago
    Young girls and young boys (and adults, etc) have peculiar behaviors that differ among groups. Statistically speaking. Of course this isn’t exclusive behaviors among groups, but young girls are more likely to do some things than young boys. Since this article is talking about young girls, the interest is in behaviors and interventions that would be more impactful for young girls, as a population, than other groups. It’s not blaming young girls to develop interventions that work to help based on the common characteristics. Nor is it blaming African Americans to study and create specific diabetes interventions to address the specific risks of that subpopulation. It’s not African Americans fault that they have higher diabetes and different characteristics of the disease and they shouldn’t be blamed for this condition. But to help, creating customized interventions will be more effective. I would think it bad if there were only specialized interventions and no one address other parts of the population.
    • elliekelly 5y ago
      > Young girls and young boys (and adults, etc) have peculiar behaviors that differ among groups. But what I’m saying is this behavior isn’t “peculiar“ among these groups at all. It’s the same. Yet we only seem to talk about how it happens amongst young girls and ignore how the behavior is frequently directed towards them as well.
      • refenestrator 5y ago
• eplanit 5y ago
  Much of what you say about hormones has been considered scientific fact for a long time -- but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the facts have been banished by political correctness. Plus, Facebook is indeed a harmful product for society at large (like cigarettes), and often has bigger negative impacts on younger users (again like cigarettes). The combination of these is obviously bad...but Facebook knowing it and hiding the fact is very much (again) like what tobacco companies did.
• Ozzie_osman 5y ago
  > Why are young girls so awful to each other?. I don't think it's unreasonable to suspect that it has to do with "hormones" I don't see why this is relevant (if it's even true). The article barely talks about bullying or girls being awful to each other. It more broadly talks about people spending hours in their feeds comparing themselves to what they see and feeling bad about it, which seems like a very different problem.
  • pier25 5y ago
    It's related because, even when the article doesn't mention bullying, this competition influences the perception girls have of their body and self image.
• at_a_remove 5y ago
  In college, I suppose I must have looked especially naive, because this gal-pal of mine sat me down and explained in a rather grave tone: "at_a_remove, there are two things you should understand about women. First, everything we do is about men. Second, women hate other women." I scoffed. I scoffed for a long time. But there is an uncomfortable kernel to her statement that I have seen again and again, long before social media, in young women and their constant status hierarchy struggles, and Mean Girls wasn't even the first time it was made too evident. I would point to Heathers and Carrie as even earlier examples. Teenage girls are vicious with one another's emotions and friendships, trusts and secrets, in a way that boys and men rarely get a glimpse of.
  • lkey 5y ago
    You were right to scoff. Heathers was a movie also about an abusive sociopathic male engineering the deaths of his classmates in an act of petty rebellion against his abusive sociopathic father who killed his mother. Anyone that tells you that 'All {men,women} do is about {power,sex,men,women}'. is just telling on themselves and their social group specifically. On the first and second statement, lesbians the world over would like a word.
• dsr_ 5y ago
  It's cultural.
• thiagoharry 5y ago
  Teen girls are always mean, in all cultures? You always can pick any non-universal human characteristic from your culture and with creativity find biological hipothesis to justify this. But this is very dangerous because it can easily naturalize prejudices, taboos and social norms that never were biological. If you want to ask about these things, you first should first ask to anthropology how teen girls behave in different cultures before jumping to biological explanations.
  • analyst74 5y ago
    Agreed, American highschool dynamic is quite unique in many ways. I think partly due to American culture, partly due to lack of authoritative figures in school.
  • everdrive 5y ago
    I think this is a really fair counterpoint, and worth looking into. (so far as anyone would look into what I have suggested.) I'd offer a few things, though: We'd want to measure things like "stress" or "anxiety" rather than simply meanness, it's possible this trend is not always expressed through cruelty. (notably, the facebook article suggests explicitly that it's not.) I think in general the idea of leveraging sociology and anthropology in these cases is perfectly sound. If this only happened in America, I think there'd be a good argument that there is not a genetic component. (or perhaps, that there is a genetic component which is only activated in some contexts.) One point I'd like to push back on is something I observed when studying anthropology in college. (and to be clear and fair, I am not suggesting that you have pushed this point of view.) Evidence of a single and rare outlier would be brought forward as proof that a set of behaviors did not have an evolutionary basis. Usually this was taken even further: if an outlier could be found, then the entire trait was completely socially constructed. Evolution affects behavior for certain, but these are experienced as drives an impulses which get filtered through the mind, the contextual social, and more. So, if a behavior is very broadly expressed cross-culturally, it is reasonable to suspect there is an evolutionary component to it. (of course this alone does not prove it.) If the outlier scenarios are sufficiently rare, this is likely proof that although there is an evolutionary basis for the behavior, they are not set in stone, and can be suppressed by the right circumstances.
• magicink81 5y ago
  > "Facebook is an accelerant." What is the shape of evolution? Many believe the shape of evolution to be a line of deterministic "progress" with a forward and a backward movement that may be accelerated. Maybe evolution is a process which we are unconsciously subject to and consciously participate in forming. It seems directors, managers, and other employees working for Facebook may be more conscious of the role the Facebook systems play in social, psychological, and evolutionary processes, and the outcomes the systems grow.
  • everdrive 5y ago
    >Many believe the shape of evolution to be a line of deterministic "progress" with a forward and a backward movement that may be accelerated. I don't think this is correct. At least this is not a definition of evolution that I've ever seen reproduced. If anything, biologists I've read point to views such as this a misconception which must be corrected. Dawkins is mostly talking about evolution and creationism in "The Blind Watchmaker," (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blind_Watchmaker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blind_Watchmaker) but I think it applies here as well: evolution is not guided, and there is no progress in the human sense of the word. ie, people are not "more evolved" than our ancestors. We have different adaptations which might be better (or worse) suited for certain evolutionary challenges. If the evolutionary pressures lined up properly, we could easily evolve to be more similar to other mammals. (ie, some people would call that "devolve.")
• nonameiguess 5y ago
  Men can impregnate indefinitely many women. As long as we have communities in which an individual mother isn't totally dependent on the father during critical years, there doesn't seem much need for competition here. That's a result of monogamy and nuclear families that probably wasn't the norm when humans were evolving these behaviors hundreds of thousands of years ago.
• marjoram 5y ago
  Mean Girls wasn't a documentary, and as a former teen girl, I'd argue that girls aren't actually uniquely awful: what they are is especially sensitive to social cues and influences. You may note that the article here isn't really about bullying, it's more about girls making themselves miserable by comparing their lives and their bodies to what they see online. I do actually think there may be an evolutionary element to the fact that females are (on average) more oriented to language and interpersonal skills, more attuned to social feedback, and on the flipside, more prone to anxiety as a result, but I think it's a mistake to view that through too simplistic a lens.
  • techer 5y ago
    But it was based on a non-fiction book, “Queen Bees and Wannabes”.
• tomgp 5y ago
  the article is mainly concerned with body image and passive social comparison rather that ‘young girls being awful to each other’ a view which is not a universal truth and says more about the holder of the opinion than anything else.
• BackBlast 5y ago
  As a society we do a poor job helping children mature. We put them in environments where their models for behavior are peers instead of well-adjusted and behaved adults. So we end up with Lord of the Flys writ large. Many of the children-peer-models come from broken families, with significantly reduced ability to learn from stable well-adjusted adults. Worse, often their basic needs aren't being fully met, and they act out (bully, etc). We need fewer systems that put children (especially younger children) in situations where they are primarily interacting with and modeling the behavior of other children. This includes both our education and digital social systems. Some children have active and involved home and family lives. This helps. Some get more favorable interactions and time with teachers, this can help. Some find positive models in media (books and movies) and can help, but media is often negative.
• spiznnx 5y ago
  Does the evolutionary answer to "why are young girls awful to each other" matter? How does it inform our product design to make tech healthier for teenagers? We already know this is a vulnerable group, and that teen girls have tendencies to compare themselves with peers. Putting a 24/7 stream of perfect, curated, retouched posts from friends in front of all of them seems obviously not ideal. edit: I may be giving a gut reaction to seeing up-voted amateur evolutionary psychology
• babyblueblanket 5y ago
  Teen girls are not at all ready for pregnancy in any respect. Just because they started puberty doesn't mean puberty has been completed.
  • saltminer 5y ago
    Exactly, I hate seeing discussions about "peak fertility," especially since the people posting about it usually don't know it's more like 30. [0] And more than that, the risk of complications is much higher for teenagers. [1] A relevant quote: > Adolescent mothers (ages 10–19 years) face higher risks of eclampsia, puerperal endometritis, and systemic infections than women aged 20 to 24 years, and babies of adolescent mothers face higher risks of low birth weight, preterm delivery and severe neonatal conditions. (4) And just because you might be in the "peak fertility" period doesn't mean you should rush to have children. If you are not ready for kids, they will suffer for it, and none of the girls I knew who got pregnant in high school were mature enough to handle a child and finish school (much less the fathers), so their parents and grandparents had to step in and do most of the parenting. These kinds of discussions, especially combined with the evolutionary biology pseudoscience, really remind me of the way incel forums talk about women. Especially with the interesting absence of any mention of men's fertility, which also peaks around 30. [0] [0]: https://www.bumc.bu.edu/busm/2013/07/02/fertility-peaks-around-age-30-for-both-males-and-females-boston-university-study-finds/ https://www.bumc.bu.edu/busm/2013/07/02/fertility-peaks-arou... [1]: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/adolescent-pregnancy https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/adolescent-...
• lkey 5y ago
  You seem to be aware that you are just navel gazing here. You've based your analysis on a comedy you saw in the 2000s that in turn based itself on the experiences of white affluent American teenagers. The second leg of your analysis is not grounded in an understanding of actual female biology. The one 'fact' you cite is wrong, 'young girls' are not the most fertile, the range for peak fertility for women is from their very late teens (18-19) to late 20s. The majority peaks in their early to mid 20s (~24 years old). If you want to comment about how women and men function 'evolutionarily', please at least understand a bit about how human biology works right now.
  • everdrive 5y ago
    >You seem to be aware that you are just navel gazing here. I like to think of it more as "presenting the details of my argument clearly so that they can be discredited if I've made an error.," rather than "navel gazing." Of course, there is nothing wrong with criticizing ideas, and so thank you for your response. I don't know that I have a direct counterpoint to your claim, and it might be that my argument is irreparably harmed. I might still wonder that this is still wrapped up in evolutionary psychology, as it seems to be related to the onset of puberty. So, perhaps my idea still plays a role in what's going on here, even if it is not the primary role. (ie, perhaps it's one of many factors at play. Women could still be quite invested their sexual prospects shortly before they hit their peak fertility.) I suppose my question for you would be, what do you think about all this? Do you believe that young girls are affected differently than young boys by social media? If so, do you believe this relies on a psychological tendency which existed prior to social media? If so, do you believe there's any evolutionary component to it, or do you believe there's some other explanation?
    • saltminer 5y ago
      > Do you believe that young girls are affected differently than young boys by social media? Yes. Women are taught from a young age how they must act, dress, etc. What they should look like, that they should fit into a size 0, be <100 lbs, start counting calories when they hit puberty, etc. Keep in mind that every attempt at a teenage boy's magazine has flopped, while teenage girl's magazines (at least until the decline of magazines and print media more generally) were quite popular. And this is in large part because there are a lot of expectations placed on girls that were never placed on guys, so these magazines helped guide a lot of young women through puberty (whether they guided them well is a matter for another discussion entirely, but they certainly did hold a lot of influence). While there certainly are images of the ideal man that societies have held up over time, they don't have the same weight as expectations for women. If you have a dad bod, nobody is going to be glaring at you at the beach for showing it off, whispering about how "un-masculine" you look, that you need to show a little modesty, but a woman who goes to the beach with hairy legs will absolutely be subject to comments about how un-ladylike you are and that you look "masculine," even though body hair is entirely natural. But it's not just when you're at the beach, and it's not just leg hair - it's everywhere, about everything, and it starts very early on. It's your parents telling you, advertisements and Hollywood reinforcing it, being told by your teachers you should be more feminine, your pastor saying that your outfit isn't "appropriate" for Sunday school (because it's not a dress), random men saying you should lose some weight... it never ends. So while men are definitely having more body issues these days, it's nowhere near the same extent. Social media helps to reinforce societal beauty standards that have been taught to us all our lives. > If so, do you believe this relies on a psychological tendency which existed prior to social media? If so, do you believe there's any evolutionary component to it, or do you believe there's some other explanation? Not any innate tendency but just being beaten down until you conform. The advent of social media didn't magically erase the expectations we place on women, instead it became another place for reinforcing them. > Women could still be quite invested their sexual prospects shortly before they hit their peak fertility. I am single and have no desire to have kids despite being in "peak fertility." I am also not actively seeking out a partner. I'm not opposed to dating, it's just more convenient for me not to at the moment. This is entirely anecdotal, but of my friends who do want kids, they don't really think about "oh god gotta find a mate and have kids I'm about to turn 26." They're more interested in finding the right person first, especially since we have so many fertility treatment options today (and having kids has gotten more expensive than ever). Having kids when you're not ready is generally a bad idea, and I hope I don't have to explain why.
• chakkepolja 5y ago
  I understand Evo-psych is not a hard science. But boys are supposed to be much more competitive because they had a more 'winner takes all' situation in our evolutionary past. Thus I don't think this has much to do with evolutionary impulses instead of easy availability of photo editing tools, and just a large scale (being surrounded by photos of celebrities and models, who have PEDs + dedicated diet + make up + professional photography, but media perpetuating it as normal body image). Now there's similar issue with male body image, but somehow that's even more extreme (visible six pack abs with single digit body fat), thus boys will think its not achivable without 8 hour workout a day and not bother, whereas for girls it seems like contemporary female body image is perfectly achivable to them or their peers and they lose sleep over it.