I mean that literally. I have a house in a charming neighborhood in Austin Texas. All the houses at one time were one story. Now most are 2 story, as families found ways to build up and out rather than move from the neighborhood they love (a neighborhood chock full of mighty oaks and other noble trees, I might add). Now we have this lovely old neighborhood that is family-oriented and architecturally pleasing to the eye, the houses melding with the surroundings rather than conquering them - something that is virtually unknown in the McMansion neighborhoods of many of the burbs you have to go to for bigger homes.

Cary's advice is good - when you have something great, build on that. There are many ways to effect change, even when you stay in the same place.

Advertisers are NOT in the business of boosting self-esteem...and even if they were, what a losing proposition, as self esteem comes from.....the SELF, not a product.

There is nothing wrong with Dove trying to sell some of its products to 'real' looking women with a few extra pounds, cellulite, etc. Those women exist, and they need and/or want moisturizers and lotions etc.

There is also nothing wrong with Dove trying to sell some of its products to girls who want to feel sexy. Face it - "tutus and pirouettes are no match for lingerie and pole dancing" is pretty much a true statement when the goal is to get a boy's attention, or just to feel sexy. It's not a true statement when you are talking about developing hobbies or interests to be a well-rounded person - but Dove isn't trying to do that with this product, or the advertising for it.

Girls will always want to look sexy, if not actually be sexy. As I recall, this desire starts at a fairly young age - am I the only one who remembers sneaking on makeup in grade school and having battles about short skirts and tight clothes as early as 12 (and it would have been earlier had I not gone to a school with uniforms).

Part of accepting girls' self esteem is accepting that part of their adolescent separation/rebellion from parents involves trying to look grown-up at the earliest stage they can get away with. Looking grown-up often means looking sexy - and there's nothing wrong with that at all. It's time people stop thinking that advertisers so easily corrupt girls - when about half of them would be wearing spangled bra tops and mini-skirts with knee high boots and blue eye shadow at the age of 10 if they could get away with it.

We as a culture have a real fear of girls and women owning their own sexuality. Rent the documentary about the MPAA - "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" to see how the movie industry has codified objectifying women while rating any scene in which a woman is actually seeking out or enjoying sex as an R or X, a move that radically reduces potential ticket sales.

It's time to stop freaking out when a girl chooses to look sexy. We need to let girls navigate this part of growing up. Give them information and be willing to listen so they are prepared for the potential consequences - both fair and unfair - of their choices, and then back off and let them make those choices.

that is the most useful advice the LW could hope to get. nicely done!

They are not creating a market for multiple procedures, they are addressing the market that already exists.

I see nothing wrong with the concept, except the name. SI see no reason to require women to be content with the ravages of childhood on their bodies. If they ARE content, fine - no amount of advertising is going to change them. If they aren't content, then it's a good thing that advances in medicine provide them with a means of addressing their concerns.

It has always distressed me that women alter their appearance so much relative to men. But this is hardly the bastion of surgery - we spend more on clothes, hair, makeup, skin care, you name it. From puberty onward the majority of women have always invested much greater amounts of time and money in altering or enhancing their appearance vs. men. It's been going on for centuries, and I don't think it's a phenomenon that can be dismissed as being driven by the assumptiont aht women are simply lacking in self esteem. Women are the keepers of the keys to the kingdom of reproduction - attracting the best mate is a biological imperative that has, over the course of radical industrialization and modernization, morphed into an imperative that is as much psychological as biological.

We don't see articles bemoaning the practice of hair implants, chest implants and penile implants for impotent men. We don't psychoanalyze the entire gender on the basis of these patients having their needs met. For the most part, a guy getting hair implants is a guy who went bald, didn't like it, fixed it, and there's an end to it. True equality is not when men and women do the same things in equal numbers, but when we ascribe similar rationales for similar behaviors.