Well the law in question here wasn’t made because ads were normalising being a skeleton. The law was made because people were starving themselves on purpose to become like that. The adverts set an unrealistic beauty standard and women were becoming malnourished trying to reach it. So yes it matters. It’s literally why the law was created years ago.
Making an argument about “normalising” unhealthiness is a whole other ball game.
Someone who sees a bonerack and says “I want to be like them!” has an eating disorder (less than 2% of teens are anorexic). We can go after the ads to protect this segment of the population, but ads don’t turn healthy people into malnourished skin bags, because healthy people view it as disgusting and unhealthy.
Consider that being dangerously underweight is almost unheard of in modern society outside of eating disorders, but obesity is extremely common and getting worse (over 22% of teens, according to the CDC).
Even the NIH makes almost no mention of being underweight as being a problem in any age group, and they also show a disturbing trend in obesity, even among kids and teens. (SOURCE)
In my opinion, these ads create the same level of harm for someone who is obese, sees a body positivity ad that normalizes obesity, and says “See, I’m perfect the way I am!”, and continues with unhealthy lifestyle choices because of that (as the studies suggest).
Look, I’m bias, I hate ads. I would love to see all forms of harmful ads being banned. Including promoting undereating, overeating, gambling, driving cars, drinking, smoking, weed, religion, and medication.
Ads are designed to manipulate people, and they are especially dangerous when they target vulnerable demographics (like teenage women or the obese), so laws should be put in place to protect people. In addition, I encourage everyone to preserve their mental health and defend against these marketing companies by blocking any and all ads.
I’d agree if you were arguing about banning all unhealthy behaviours in ads, that’s a better comparison and where this sort of argument belongs. I don’t think fat people need to be brought into it in this case though, this law is about the fashion industry encouraging eating disorders.
The majority of models responding to the survey did not feel under pressure to have an unhealthy weight but a significant number said they felt ‘quite heavy’ or ‘very heavy’ pressure.
What the hell is this conclusion in the report? Their own data shows “quite heavy pressure” as 10% and “very heavy pressure” as literally 0%:
The overwhelming majority says there’s “no pressure at all.” With such a glaring error that is clearly just written to support their position despite their data contradicting it, this report becomes completely useless.
The report opens with a bold statement:
A small group of supermodels inhabit the world of celebrity. […] Their faces and bodies make a splash in the pages of national newspapers and glossy magazines but their voices are seldom heard.
Oh no! Good thing we have this report to get their voices heard! What do they have to say?
“It’s unfair to discriminate against naturally thin models by assuming they have an eating disorder”
I see. The purpose of the report was never to make their voices heard.
I’d agree if you were arguing about banning all unhealthy behaviours in ads.
I’m for that.
I don’t think fat people need to be brought into it in this case though, this law is about the fashion industry encouraging eating disorders.
Per the paper I linked a few replies back, it’s completely relevant and urgent to bring fat people into this, because there is real harm in the messaging they receive, and it’s having even greater real-world consequences (due to the greater number of people impacted).
The fashion industry does need to be addressed. But I also think that people forget that fashion models also victims. The whole thing is awful.
No to “striving to be obese”, yes to “being ok with staying obese.”
Does that matter if the end result is people still being unhealthy because of the messaging in these ads?
Well the law in question here wasn’t made because ads were normalising being a skeleton. The law was made because people were starving themselves on purpose to become like that. The adverts set an unrealistic beauty standard and women were becoming malnourished trying to reach it. So yes it matters. It’s literally why the law was created years ago.
Making an argument about “normalising” unhealthiness is a whole other ball game.
Someone who sees a bonerack and says “I want to be like them!” has an eating disorder (less than 2% of teens are anorexic). We can go after the ads to protect this segment of the population, but ads don’t turn healthy people into malnourished skin bags, because healthy people view it as disgusting and unhealthy.
Consider that being dangerously underweight is almost unheard of in modern society outside of eating disorders, but obesity is extremely common and getting worse (over 22% of teens, according to the CDC).
Even the NIH makes almost no mention of being underweight as being a problem in any age group, and they also show a disturbing trend in obesity, even among kids and teens. (SOURCE)
In my opinion, these ads create the same level of harm for someone who is obese, sees a body positivity ad that normalizes obesity, and says “See, I’m perfect the way I am!”, and continues with unhealthy lifestyle choices because of that (as the studies suggest).
Look, I’m bias, I hate ads. I would love to see all forms of harmful ads being banned. Including promoting undereating, overeating, gambling, driving cars, drinking, smoking, weed, religion, and medication.
Ads are designed to manipulate people, and they are especially dangerous when they target vulnerable demographics (like teenage women or the obese), so laws should be put in place to protect people. In addition, I encourage everyone to preserve their mental health and defend against these marketing companies by blocking any and all ads.
Yes the law is because of those eating disorders. Here’s the report that led to it https://www.britishfashioncouncil.co.uk/uploads/files/1/The Report of the Model Health Inquiry, September 2007.pdf
I’d agree if you were arguing about banning all unhealthy behaviours in ads, that’s a better comparison and where this sort of argument belongs. I don’t think fat people need to be brought into it in this case though, this law is about the fashion industry encouraging eating disorders.
What the hell is this conclusion in the report? Their own data shows “quite heavy pressure” as 10% and “very heavy pressure” as literally 0%:
The overwhelming majority says there’s “no pressure at all.” With such a glaring error that is clearly just written to support their position despite their data contradicting it, this report becomes completely useless.
The report opens with a bold statement:
Oh no! Good thing we have this report to get their voices heard! What do they have to say?
I see. The purpose of the report was never to make their voices heard.
I’m for that.
Per the paper I linked a few replies back, it’s completely relevant and urgent to bring fat people into this, because there is real harm in the messaging they receive, and it’s having even greater real-world consequences (due to the greater number of people impacted).
The fashion industry does need to be addressed. But I also think that people forget that fashion models also victims. The whole thing is awful.
Omg stop