Is it bad taste to have a 'shortest man' record?

**Maggy J** · 09-09-2010, 08:24

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11228268

Quote:

The world has a new "shortest man" according to record keepers. But is documenting and publicising such a fact little better than staging an old-style circus freak show?

Quote:

The exhibition of remarkable human beings had been a form of popular entertainment since at least Samuel Pepys' time, but in late Victorian London the city authorities took a dim view of it, seeing it as a threat both to public morality and public order. It survived only in the fairground sideshow.
That it survives at all in the 21st Century is principally thanks to Guinness World Records.

After reading this article I too began to wonder not for the first time if it it is really terrible to enjoy reading such items in the news media from time to time.Then I thought about how it might just be another way of enjoying the truly remarkable variety of human beings that there are in this world.

Is it truly shaming to have this curiosity about such people?Or can it lead to a better understanding of other people's lives especially when they are often the subject in this day and age of tv documentaries..of which there have been a lot in the past year or so?

What do the CF members think?

joglynne · 09-09-2010, 14:39

I have mixed feelings on this. Mainly because I don't know where the line is between a genuine interest in everything that surrounds me and just being nosey for nosey sake.

If the only reason that I had for wanting to know more about certain groups of my fellow human beings was for salacious or intrusive reasons then I would hope that I wouldn't be tempted purely out of curiosity.

However I do believe that having a greater understanding of anyone gives me the knowledge to be able to grasp what it is like to walk in their shoes.

TheNorm · 09-09-2010, 14:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by joglynne

... I do believe that having a greater understanding of anyone gives me the knowledge to be able to grasp what it is like to walk in their shoes.

Agreed.

If the person concerned gives consent to the information being made public, I think the benefits outweigh the harms.

**Maggy J** · 09-09-2010, 18:22

So you don't think is smacks of voyeurism or is patronising?

TheNorm · 09-09-2010, 18:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggy J

So you don't think is smacks of voyeurism or is patronising?

Voyeurism, yes, but as I say if there is consent this isn't really an issue.

I don't see how it is patronising, unless people think the "shortest man" is somehow inferior to everyone else.

joglynne · 09-09-2010, 18:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggy J

So you don't think is smacks of voyeurism or is patronising?

As far as reading the entries in the Guinness Book of Records is concerned then no.

I understand that anyone who has an entry has given their permission that they be included.

Quote:

A key point is that all the record holders celebrated in the book have chosen to be included. Guinness respects the wishes of people who do not want to be named in the book, he says, or included in the Guinness database, because "they don't wish to publicise their condition"

.So I don't see how anyone reading their entry could be accused of being either voyeuristic or patronising. I feel that, IMHO, anyone objecting to the details being published who wanted to take issue on that platform was voicing what they thought ought to be a "politically correct" comment rather than taking the details as they were intended. A list of interesting facts.

TheNorm · 09-09-2010, 19:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by joglynne

... I don't see how anyone reading their entry could be accused of being either voyeuristic or patronising.....

Voyeuristic in the sense people are looking into someones private life.

joglynne · 09-09-2010, 20:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheNorm

Voyeuristic in the sense people are looking into someones private life.

I guess it's down to a persons definition of a voyeur.

TheNorm · 09-09-2010, 20:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by joglynne

I guess it's down to a persons definition of a voyeur.

I'm quite sensitive about my vital statistics...

**Chris** · 09-09-2010, 21:07

I think there are far more voyeuristic and patronizing things in popular culture we could get uptight about ... such as the early rounds of any Simon Cowell show, in which the only people actually allowed on stage are those who are quite good, and those who are utterly hopeless and are just there for everyone to point and laugh at.

If you want a 21st century equivalent to the Victorian freak show, it's right there on ITV1, not in the Guinness Book of Records.

**Paul M** · 09-09-2010, 21:10

Spot on Chris.

joglynne · 09-09-2010, 21:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

I think there are far more voyeuristic and patronizing things in popular culture we could get uptight about ... such as the early rounds of any Simon Cowell show, in which the only people actually allowed on stage are those who are quite good, and those who are utterly hopeless and are just there for everyone to point and laugh at.

If you want a 21st century equivalent to the Victorian freak show, it's right there on ITV1, not in the Guinness Book of Records.

That is so true. Only ever watched that show once and could only stand it for a couple of acts before switching it off. Making fun of people has never been a pass time that I have cared to indulge in or applaud as form of entertainment.

danielf · 09-09-2010, 21:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

If you want a 21st century equivalent to the Victorian freak show, it's right there on ITV1, not in the Guinness Book of Records.

Alternatively, go and see the Jim Rose circus. Great fun