Slashdot Mirror


Government Should Ban Skinny Models To Curb Anorexia, Say Researchers

smoothjazz writes "Governments are justified to prevent very skinny models from walking the catwalk and ban photographs and advertisements suggesting that extreme thinness is attractive, according to a group of researchers who found that social and cultural environment influences on young women is largely responsible for the spread of chronic eating disorder."

676 comments

  1. Ban idiotic research first by sideslash · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oh wait, researchers have freedom of speech. Come to think of it, so do marketing firms.

    1. Re:Ban idiotic research first by Rockoon · · Score: 0, Troll

      Wait until we have real universal health care.. then the anorexics health becomes everyones business... and thus, justifying laws like the banning of skinny models. Think of this research like a wake-up call.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    2. Re:Ban idiotic research first by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 2

      Wait until we have real universal health care.. then the anorexics health becomes everyones business... and thus, justifying laws like the banning of skinny models. Think of this research like a wake-up call.

      The biggest problem with this isn't even the "big government" problem. It's that the researchers are empirically wrong about the solution.

      Are we not presently in the middle of an obesity epidemic? The problem is not that people want to be thin -- that would probably be a good thing. The problem is that they're doing it wrong, i.e. in an unhealthy way rather than through proper diet and exercise. So how can the solution be to make people not want to be thin anymore? That would just result in more couch potatoes and more heart disease.

      The solution is to see to it that the people who are dedicated to looking fit are educated about how to do that, i.e. a combination of sit-ups and peanut butter rather than nervous tension and starvation.

    3. Re:Ban idiotic research first by ceoyoyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Freedom of speech is limited in all kinds of ways. False advertising for example. Or making health claims. Controls on what you can and can't do in ads aren't new.

    4. Re:Ban idiotic research first by J'raxis · · Score: 1

      What country do you live in again?

    5. Re:Ban idiotic research first by Nicknamename · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't it make more sense to ask the fashion industry, "beauty industry," and media to be slightly responsible and stop ruining young women's lives and health? No, government must step in and limit freedom!

      --
      Hitler hates pedophiles.
    6. Re:Ban idiotic research first by sideslash · · Score: 2, Insightful

      OK, but saying that slender is beautiful is not false advertising, because beauty is inherently a subjective judgment. Thus it falls under free speech. To disallow that kind of free speech you'd have to find that it was somehow horribly harming people. That would be a difficult case to make, and probably even with that you still couldn't censor it. You'd have to settle for some kind of Surgeon General warning labels, like with cigarettes.

    7. Re:Ban idiotic research first by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they have their freedoms, but they would love to stomp out freedoms of other people to do what they want with themselves, like not to eat.

    8. Re:Ban idiotic research first by amRadioHed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Obesity is unrelated to eating disorders. People with eating disorders have an unrealistic ideas about body size and so they will starve themselves far beyond any healthy or attractive level of thinness. For these people wanting to be thin is indeed a problem.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    9. Re:Ban idiotic research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Skinny people have lower healthcare bills, and only a tiny fraction of them ever have an eating disorder. For the ones that do, well, dead skinny people are even cheaper.

      Now, compare to the number of expensive, long-term health issues that result from obesity... yeah. The government has zero incentive to ban skinny models.

      So, your logic fails.

      Besides, we already have universal healthcare in the US, we just have a ridiculously complicated and inefficient way of paying for it just so we can say the Evil Gub-Ment didn't fund it through direct taxes.

    10. Re:Ban idiotic research first by Dave+Emami · · Score: 2

      Freedom of speech is limited in all kinds of ways.

      You are, unfortunately, correct. That's no excuse for imposing more limits, however.

      False advertising for example. Or making health claims. Controls on what you can and can't do in ads aren't new.

      Laws against false advertising are really just taking laws against fraud and moving them to a prior step in the process. If I sell you quartz crystals by convincing you that they cure cancer, that's fraud, and is rightfully illegal. Airing commercials that say "buy our quartz crystals, they cure cancer" is pretty clearly an extension of the sales process. If I just say "quartz crystals cure cancer", without trying to sell you any, there's nothing the government should be able to do about it, false though my statement would be. It's up to listeners to decide whether or not to believe me. This goes triple in the skinny models issue, first because the statement is only an implicit one ("skinny people are more attractive than fat people"), and second because the statement is entirely subjective.

      If "it makes someone feel bad" is sufficient reason to infringe on peoples' freedoms, then what's next? Enact a law requiring high school athletes and cheerleaders to date the campus nerds?

      --

      "The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
    11. Re:Ban idiotic research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when is a company a person? Ok never mind, in the US the answer is "since forever".
      But really, free speech is a human right. It applies to people. Advertisement is the speech of a company, not the speech of a person.

    12. Re:Ban idiotic research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I sell you quartz crystals by convincing you that they cure cancer, that's fraud, and is rightfully illegal.

      Mere a draconial limitation on free speech on the part of a nanny state (/s). You have internalized the current restrictions, that's the only reason you think that they are the optimum level. In short, you are conservative instead of actually thinking about things, your kneejerk reaction is to keep things the way they are.

    13. Re:Ban idiotic research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once of the many reasons to not have universal healthcare

    14. Re:Ban idiotic research first by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wait until we have real universal health care.. then the anorexics health becomes everyones business...

      It won't take that long. We've been told for decades by a certain segment of the population that womens' reproductive organs are "everyones business".

      And in the past few weeks, it appears that the way women can and cannot use their own health insurance is "everyones business".

      It doesn't have anything to do with "real universal health care". No, when it comes to making private stuff "everyones business" we've been well on the way for at least 30 years.

      Personally, I have a moral objection to my insurance premiums going to pay for the high blood pressure medicine and angioplasties and heart diseases and colon cancers of all the people who just have to have that second triple quarter-pounder with extra cheese and mega-sized french fries until they need a scooter get around Wal-Mart to buy their extra plus-size "Big and Tall" size 48 sweat pants (with "extra-full cut" to accommodate that third slab of flab that hangs down to their knees. But I promise to lay off those morbidly obese gluttons and even chip in a few bucks for their gargantuan medical bills if those disgustingly fat slobs just promise to let a woman's health stay between herself and her husband and her doctor and her insurance company and not call her a "slut" and a "prostitute" just because her doctor has responded to her desire not to have to get pregnant every time she has sex.

      I mean, goddamn, if my wife had to get pregnant every time we had sex, I'd be knee-deep in brilliant, talented, attractive kids and I'd have to work until I'm 90 just to pay for their grad school and all their advanced degrees. Though it would be kind of cool to be the father of multiple Nobel Prize winners, I have decided to settle for just the one.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    15. Re:Ban idiotic research first by ceoyoyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Cigarette advertising is a good precedent - it's illegal on TV, radio and billboards in the US, and in may other media in other places. If a behaviour has been shown to be a serious public health hazard, and is encouraged by certain forms of media, that media has been banned in the past.

    16. Re:Ban idiotic research first by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Cigarette ads on radio and television are illegal in the US. That's a direct precedent.

      If "it makes someone feel bad" is sufficient reason to infringe on peoples' freedoms, then what's next? Enact a law requiring high school athletes and cheerleaders to date the campus nerds?

      I think you've got some problems with your analogy there (but it's great rhetoric, hey?). The situation we're considering is one where some advertising is shown to promote behaviours that are a public health problem. So going with your analogy, try putting an ad that promotes beating up nerds on TV. Or one that shows nerds cutting themselves because they're social outcasts.

    17. Re:Ban idiotic research first by J'raxis · · Score: 1

      In other words, we're already sliding down that slippery slope at breakneck pace, so why not speed up a little?

    18. Re:Ban idiotic research first by J'raxis · · Score: 2

      You mean try to persuade people to be responsible?

      What country do you live in? :)

    19. Re:Ban idiotic research first by taxman_10m · · Score: 2

      Yes, but is marketing speech harmless? Marketing is done to influence people's behavior. It's successful and makes marketing firms lots of money. Certainly these marketing firms will take credit for selling 12% more jeans this quarter or whatever. But what about the negative consequences that result from this marketing? Will they take credit for that? Should they? Can we at least say that these marketing firms are morally culpable when they influence people in a negative way?

    20. Re:Ban idiotic research first by GmExtremacy · · Score: 0

      Who says that I agree with that ban?

    21. Re:Ban idiotic research first by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

      Doesn't mean that we should resort to censorship because some people are easily influenced idiots.

    22. Re:Ban idiotic research first by artor3 · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, the United States isn't going to have "real universal health care" in our lifetimes. It was hard enough just to get subsidized coverage for the poor, common sense regulations for the insurers, and a no-free-loading law. For now, the health of anorexic people will just be our business indirectly, same as all other health problems.

      I do wonder though... almost every other country in the world has had real universal health care (either single payer or socialized) for a long time now. How many of them have banned skinny models? Must be a lot, if you know what you're talking about.

    23. Re:Ban idiotic research first by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

      So going with your analogy, try putting an ad that promotes beating up nerds on TV.

      And while we're at it, ban those evil violent video games that brainwash you into murdering people.

      The problem I have is that this is completely retarded censorship. People don't want to even think about the fact that they're easily influenced idiots, so other people ask the government to step in for them. No, I don't agree with the ban on smoking advertisements, either.

      Anything can be a public health problem if someone abuses it in the right way. I don't understand where this pro-censorship mentality is coming from. I thought I was on Slashdot.

    24. Re:Ban idiotic research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except there's no meaningful correlation. If images are causing anorexia, then how precisely do they explain male anorexics? There's very few images of men that have starved to near death outside of history class lessons on the holocaust.

      This is one of those "common sense" beliefs which never dies out because nobody really bothers to study it. It's one of those times where you'll see eating disorders popping up with quite some prevalence even in places where there are no mass media portrayals of women as being thing.

    25. Re:Ban idiotic research first by Freddybear · · Score: 1

      That's a really reaaaaaaly lousy excuse for wanting to limit it further.

    26. Re:Ban idiotic research first by Smauler · · Score: 1

      The difference is the selling - that's all.

      If you say something does something it doesn't, and don't sell it, you're ok (mostly).

      If you say something does something it doesn't, and do sell it, you're in trouble (mostly).

    27. Re:Ban idiotic research first by Dave+Emami · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Cigarette ads on radio and television are illegal in the US. That's a direct precedent.

      ... and one which should be overturned yesterday, as it's a crystal-clear violation of the First Amendment. To rephrase what I said previously, the fact that government has gotten away with something already is no excuse for letting them do more of it.

      If "it makes someone feel bad" is sufficient reason to infringe on peoples' freedoms, then what's next? Enact a law requiring high school athletes and cheerleaders to date the campus nerds?

      I think you've got some problems with your analogy there (but it's great rhetoric, hey?). The situation we're considering is one where some advertising is shown to promote behaviours that are a public health problem.

      With the exception of communicable disease or similar physical hazards -- things that can harm someone by contact or proximity -- there is no such thing as "public health." You're talking about something that people mentally react to, not a person spreading their typhoid germs around. Furthermore, "shown to promote behaviours" is just a fancier way of saying "make someone feel bad."

      So going with your analogy, try putting an ad that promotes beating up nerds on TV. Or one that shows nerds cutting themselves because they're social outcasts.

      If someone actually wants to do that, sure. That's their right. I stand with Voltaire on this issue. And I say that as a glasses-wearing program-writing member of the high-school wargamers (read: AD&D) club who was occasionally on the receiving end of unkind treatment by campus jocks and other nitwits.

      --

      "The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
    28. Re:Ban idiotic research first by misexistentialist · · Score: 3, Funny

      Is it really too much to ask for you and your wife to pay for your own birth control? As a celibate slashdotter I resent having to help cover the cost of your biannual matings.

    29. Re:Ban idiotic research first by Smauler · · Score: 1

      Personally, I have a moral objection to my insurance premiums going to pay for the....

      Don't pay them then. If you think you're a lot healthier than the average, it benefits you not to pay them. Save up.

      I mean, goddamn, if my wife had to get pregnant every time we had sex, I'd be knee-deep in brilliant, talented, attractive kids

      Do you know how the human reproduction cycle works? Also, do you know how contraception works (here's a hint - it doesn't always). Finally, do you know how genetics works? Because I'm guessing if they're your offspring, they're probably not going to be brilliant, talented or attractive.

    30. Re:Ban idiotic research first by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 1

      Obesity is unrelated to eating disorders.

      Well, I think it's pretty obvious that obesity is unrelated to anorexia. The trouble is that you're not just changing the ideal for people who are anorexic, you're changing the ideal for people who are obese as well.

      Again, the proper way to deal with anorexia is by educating people on how to live a healthy lifestyle and providing incentives to do so. For that matter, that is pretty well the proper way to deal with obesity too.

    31. Re:Ban idiotic research first by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Yep, exactly.

      Smoking bans didn't catch on until it was "everyone's" business what you did. Now, people are no longer to smoke inside their own premises.

      With something like this, they'll ban the skinny ads eventually. Of course, "skinny" will mean first what the demographers say it means, then later by popular media. It will hurt advertisers as well as the producers of products which sell to women, or use attractive, slender models to sell their products. Then you'll have people who are far from the then-current definition of skinny getting up in arms that the same non-skinny models are still discriminatory (blah de blathering blah) against them.

      Why will it happen? Because the people in the majority are fat. Women are catty bitches, and they don't like to see competition or an idealized image of femininity which they do not fit. I will be the first to agree when someone says that the models have "unrealistic" imagery, but this is absurd. One of the "hottest women" right now is Christina Hendrix, a so-called "plus size" who has a vivacious smile and a healthy amount of padding all around. Are large breasts and blowjob lips going to be banned, too?

      No, what these bemoaners need to do is stop eating so many fucking donuts. You're going to bitch about a late-teen, early-20s model looking good on a magazine? Go to the gym! If we're talking about magazine models and anorexic implications for health, why not address a much more health-related issue: obesity. It's much more prevalent. I believe it's now an official 'epidemic' - presumably called such to dissuade people from realizing it's something we can actually control. Here's a novel idea: why not actually take personal responsibility for things like over-eating, stop hating on (often, naturally) skinny attractive people, and

      If you want to ban something regarding ads, why not ban wanton alteration of bodily dimensions and leave the models looking human? This would, naturally, mean making women look 'fatter' in certain areas would also be banned, to similar positive effect. Don't lower your expectations, just make them more reasonable.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    32. Re:Ban idiotic research first by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Smoking bans didn't catch on until it was "everyone's" business what you did. Now, people are no longer to smoke inside their own premises.

      Smoking in an enclosed public space has always been everyone's business, it just was culturally accepted to shun people allergic to cigarette smoke. Smoking was *healthy*. Once people started realizing what a nasty habit it was (and the dangers associated), they realized that just one person could ruin the atmosphere of a room for everyone else. That's when smoking bans happened.

      I'll get on board with anorexia/bulimia bans when they start vomiting all over a restaurant instead of just in the toilet.

    33. Re:Ban idiotic research first by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 5, Funny

      celibate slashdotter

      One of these words is redundant.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    34. Re:Ban idiotic research first by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Don't pay them then. If you think you're a lot healthier than the average, it benefits you not to pay them. Save up.

      I use HSA's, thank you.

      Also, do you know how contraception works (here's a hint - it doesn't always).

      My vasectomy has never failed.

      Finally, do you know how genetics works? Because I'm guessing if they're your offspring, they're probably not going to be brilliant, talented or attractive.

      I know, right? But I've got a 22 year-old daughter who is proof to the contrary. She got her looks and brains from mom. She got her luck from me.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    35. Re:Ban idiotic research first by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      Is it really too much to ask for you and your wife to pay for your own birth control?

      Don't blame me, I paid for my vasectomy with bottle caps, S&H Greenstamps and frequent flyer miles.

      Is it really too much to ask for you and your wife to pay for your own birth control?

      I'll pay for my own birth control when you pay for your own angioplasty, stomach-stapling, and treatments for erectile dysfunction.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    36. Re:Ban idiotic research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What bullshit. No one has been discussing banning contraception. What's being discussed is proper respect for individual rights by not forcing people to pay to provide things to others that they are morally and/or religiously opposed to.

      If the state can mandate a church to violate its religious principles, there isn't much hope for anyone's freedom.

    37. Re:Ban idiotic research first by uncqual · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Is any form of free speech harmless?

      Religious free speech harms many by advocating positions that cause people to not act in their best interests. This includes such activities as PRAYING for something to help them rather than spending that time DOING something to help themselves (esp. when they do something like eschew doctors and rely on religion to cure their cancer resulting in their unnecessary early demise and possibly significantly more pain in their final days than necessary).

      Or should political speech encouraging or protesting gun control (each side claims the outcome the other side promotes harms people) be banned?

      Should people be banned from such religious or political speech or required to somehow "take credit" (i.e., pay for the damage they cause - as anything else isn't really "taking credit" if they continue to spout such nonsense).

      The fact it causes "harm" just isn't sufficient reason to ban speech IMHO.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    38. Re:Ban idiotic research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right. Let's start with making sure taxes paid by pacifists never goes toward the police or military.

      Among other problems, for many women (a large plurality, if not a majority of those on it) hormonal birth control is medically necessary. Overall, reproductive health is a large part of being healthy for women. Denying coverage of those issues and still calling what remains "health insurance" is absurd.

    39. Re:Ban idiotic research first by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

      It won't take that long. We've been told for decades by a certain segment of the population that womens' reproductive organs are "everyones business".

      I assume that this bit is about abortion, in which case, I sigh mightily at yet another person who fails (or refuses) to understand the issues under discussion. NOBODY, apart from a few genuine nutjobs, thinks that it's everyone's business what women do with their bodies. What some people do believe, however, is that an unborn child has certain rights, and that its mothers rights do not win in that conflict (to use the old and worn-out saying, "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."). The popular characterization of pro-life advocates as not believing women have the right to decide what to do with their body has about as much in common with reality as TV. There is a disagreement about what rights a fetus has, and whose rights should take precedence in case of conflict... not whether women have certain rights or not.

      And pro-lifers are equally guilty of similar bullshit - I have tried to get it through the thick skulls of some people I know that nobody (a few nutjobs excepted) thinks that it's OK to murder babies, even if they are pro-choice. I'm sick and fucking tired of the mischaracterization of the debate by both sides. It's shameful.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    40. Re:Ban idiotic research first by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

      A restaurant is not public property, and the public has no right to dictate what behavior it allows in its patrons (beyond the laws that apply everywhere, such as not murdering people). So no, smoking has never been everyone's business. It has been (and is) the business of the establishment's owner, nobody else's. Sadly, people have forgotten that they don't have the right to force others to run their establishments to suit them.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    41. Re:Ban idiotic research first by petman · · Score: 1

      Freedom of speech is overrated.

    42. Re:Ban idiotic research first by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Well I do think we should be fair about these things which we sure as hell aren't ATM. You watch commercials and you get chunky guys, skinny guys, big and tall guys, hell just about any shape and color of guy that is possible. But you look at ALL the females what do you see? perfect waist, perfect hair, hell the black girls look like chocolate barbie dolls. that's not normal, that not in any way shape or form reality, this is why we have women hating themselves, its Stepford wives all the way down.

      We guys just don't realize what that constant beating down can do to a woman's self esteem. I've been with my little Cherokee princess and its taken years to undo some of the damage and i'm still not close to being done. She grew up close to the rez and all she heard was how she didn't measure up, that she just wasn't as pretty or desirable as the white girls, simply because she looked Cherokee. The Cherokee woman is naturally shorter than the white, has wider hip bones and more pear shaped breasts along with the wider nose and the flat straight hair. These are simply natural features common to many of the tribes but she constantly heard, which was constantly reinforced on TV, that she simply wasn't as 'good", she didn't have the "good" hair or the "good" body shape. When I met her her self esteem was almost non existent and she had had two failed abusive marriages including the last one who had put her in ICU. She simply didn't believe she deserved to be treated like a person and the first time we got into an argument and I refused to even raise a hand to her she was so shocked she broke down crying because she automatically assumed if she didn't do to suit me she'd get the back of my hand.

      So let's not just "poo poo" this out of hand, okay? we guys have every body shape known to man out there in TV AND movies while they will sometimes make fun of the fat schmuck more often than not they'll have him get a girl that is MUCH prettier than he is handsome, hell look at American Pie where the "Shemanator" ended up with the hottie. We guys have simply never had to deal with that, one of the first TV stars was Jackie Gleason for the love of Pete!

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    43. Re:Ban idiotic research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh wait, researchers have freedom of speech. Come to think of it, so do marketing firms.

      No, marketing firms don't have freedom of speach.

      Swedish companies (I'm Swedish, I'm guessing you're USA-ian), often want to use similar marketing campaigns in USA as those that was successful in Northern Europe, they can't. Those campaigns show to much human skin (or body hair, or nipples, or any other part of the human body), or human affection to pass the censors (stately and/or privately) in USA, never mind that they don't picture anyone in a degrading manner nor are oversexualised (they aren't porn or even erotic, just show plain, everyday, natural human behaviour, similar behaviour that you can see almost anywhere in the world, including real life USA, but are not allowed to be display in US media). The other way around, US companies can't use marketing campaigns that are similar to some marketing campaigns used in USA, in Scandinavia, at least not within the same context as they are used in USA, they are censored because they are much to violent, and/or to degrading (to women, men, children, ethnicities, religions or whatever), and/or to sexualised (but much of those kinds of behaviours that are displayed in the US marketing, you can't see in real life around the world, because it is outlawed in real life, USA included).

    44. Re:Ban idiotic research first by chris.alex.thomas · · Score: 1

      you're right that it's freedom of speech. but what is happening is as follows, the team selecting the models selects the hottest, slimmest models, then from those, they select only the skinniest, then from those, the skinniest until they get the one they want.

      then they explain this is how you should look, so girls think, oh ok!! then go about getting to look that thin.

      the agency then selects more models, but now they are all two sizes smaller than the last time, rinse and repeat.

      so whilst it's obviously free speech, the girls are not forced to do anything, I would actually term it coercive speech, as in they are doing some kind of natural selection on body weight but the optimisation factor is the bank balance and not the health of the girls in question.

      so whilst it's correct, it's not exactly a nice thing to happen and whilst your 12, you find they often defer reasoning to people who "allegedly" know better, i.e. the modelling agencies....that might not be such a clever idea, no matter how free the speech might be.

    45. Re:Ban idiotic research first by Calos · · Score: 1

      Yes, yes, and soon, we will live in a world matching Kurt Vonnegut's description in Harrison Bergeron.

      --
      I vote based on politicians' actions, unless contrary to my preconceptions. Often wrong, never uncertain. #iamthe99%
    46. Re:Ban idiotic research first by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      OK, but saying that slender is beautiful is not false advertising, because beauty is inherently a subjective judgment. Thus it falls under free speech.

      OK, but saying that drinking gasoline is beautiful is not false advertising, because beauty is inherently a subjective judgment. Thus it falls under free speech.

      To disallow that kind of free speech you'd have to find that it was somehow horribly harming people.

      It is. Hence the recommendation for the ban.

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    47. Re:Ban idiotic research first by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      You'd have to settle for some kind of Surgeon General warning labels, like with cigarettes.

      Where do I apply for the job of putting the Surgeon General warning labels on all those young, thin models?

    48. Re:Ban idiotic research first by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      Cigarette advertising is a good precedent - it's illegal on TV, radio and billboards in the US, and in may other media in other places. If a behaviour has been shown to be a serious public health hazard, and is encouraged by certain forms of media, that media has been banned in the past.

      Don't forget that alcohol commercials (in the US) cannot show someone actually drinking the product.

    49. Re:Ban idiotic research first by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      The situation we're considering is one where some advertising is shown to promote behaviours that are a public health problem.

      Fat, cholesterol, processed foods, etc are all bad for people, and the overweight, obese and unhealthy bodies that result are a real public health problem. And I'm talking real obesity, but just the WHO & CDC telling me I'm classified as "overweight" because I'm 6' and weigh 185.

      So how about a ban on ads showing people eating fast-food, fatty foods, junk food, etc? What about all that sugary cereal? It can't be good for junior, so maybe they shouldn't be able to show ads with kids eating it? <insert appropriate slippery slope meme here>

    50. Re:Ban idiotic research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Warning: May make uglies insecure.....(I am an asshole for typing this, but I can't help myself)

    51. Re:Ban idiotic research first by sideslash · · Score: 1

      Kudos to you for helping your partner feel accepted for who she is. That is exactly what all of us need to be doing. However, trying to get the government to legislate it by censoring the media is the wrong approach -- not because it's a bad thing to do in itself, but because of the can of worms it opens. If we can get a panel of scientists to agree that (for example) fundamentalist Methodist religion is harmful to society (although not in any obvious illegal way, just more like by promoting bad social attitudes), then can the government censor religious advertising by fundamentalist Methodists? Congratulations, you've lost your freedoms of speech and religion. It's a slippery slope, and it's better to restrict the government than to restrict citizens. Citizens have to (a) regulate their own behavior within a wide zone, (b) accept that other citizens and corporations will behave like stinkers occasionally, and (c) let the government deal with the obvious, overt stuff, like murder and theft.

    52. Re:Ban idiotic research first by sideslash · · Score: 1

      Then I suggest that you set a good example and be the first to shut up, because the rest of us have no intentions of doing so.

    53. Re:Ban idiotic research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, now don't panic. DON"T PANIC! I said.
      We can get lemonade from this yet.
      We don't have to ban skinny models, we just have to understand from whence the problem springs.This may prove controversial.(clicks post anon checkbox for karma crash-helmet)
      From an evolutionary perspective we( those carrying on the species) are attracted to those fittest to breed with. Parts of this attraction include, if you will pardon my personal descripion; wide child bearing hips, some junk in the trunk, large mammaries and nips and well fed looking enough to endure a pregnancy. This doesn't mean(necessarily) two ton Tessie( although they're out there).
      There are those out there( falling out of the gene pool due to lifestyle choices or genetics as arguements go) whose demographic falls directly into the clothing industry for women. These mutations thrive on the form of a mate in the same species which includes slim, small breasted,boyish figures. Herein the conflict lies. The mutations inadvertently promote an unhealthy image as desirable beauty which has wreaked havoc on domestic mating rituals, the medical industry, social stability and hate crimes for the better part of a century.
      The solution is not to ban women who are falling out of the gene pool anyway, but to quite politically incorrectly regulate those who design clothing for women for attractivness rather than say... utility. This should be instituted for both the safety of hetero and homosexuals until such a time as a better solution can be made for a group who has more arguably more rights and protections than the rest of us now.Perhaps instituting a regulation on models capable of displaying average dress sizes based on a national norm.
            When you play chicken with gay lemmings, everyone loses.

    54. Re:Ban idiotic research first by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Maybe we can just use technology, now that there's chip and tech implants.
      Just turn the knob up from the "Twiggy" setting to the "Monroe/Mansfield" setting and leave it there. Now I'm happy, send 'em down the catwalk and maybe I'll throw em some of this excess cash for one of those dresses for my gal. I don't wanna see her in ANYTHING Elton John would wear. Duh!

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    55. Re:Ban idiotic research first by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Freedom of speech (and press) does not mean you're not responsible for what you say. You cannot be legally prohibited (except by contract, which covers military secrets and the like) from saying whatever you want; but if your speech causes damage (false advertising, inciting to riot) you are responsible for the damage you cause. The prohibition on health claims is unconstitutional and is being slowly beaten back in the courts (Look for Emord, Pearson, Shaw, et. al.)

      Freedom of speech and press means no "prior restraint".

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    56. Re:Ban idiotic research first by Requiem18th · · Score: 1

      Oh wait, researchers have freedom of speech. Come to think of it, so do marketing firms.

      Should != Must. It's their opinion. And I'm sure you are against anything good the Government could do to help but I propose for the government to make their own model magazine. Should be free of course and feature only average woman. Call it "Girl Next Door".

      --
      But... the future refused to change.
    57. Re:Ban idiotic research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Controls on what you can and can't do in ads aren't new."

      They also arent enforced.

    58. Re:Ban idiotic research first by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

      OK, but saying that drinking gasoline is beautiful is not false advertising, because beauty is inherently a subjective judgment. Thus it falls under free speech.

      Yes it does. What's your point?

      It is. Hence the recommendation for the ban.

      It is? You mean a small minority of the population? What a great reason to resort to censorship! Let's ban cars since certain people use them to commit crimes, too.

    59. Re:Ban idiotic research first by graphius · · Score: 1

      I will get modded into oblivion for this, but I think people here have it completely backwards. Marketing* is just telling people what they want to hear. If most people found overweight (and equally unhealthy) people attractive, all our catwalks would be reinforced to handle the weight of the extremely beautiful people on display...
      I know people will pull out the fact that there are a lot of large, even obese people in classical art, so skinny people are a modern fiction pushed on us. Wrong. During medieval times, food was not always easy to come by, a sign of affluence (admit it or not, money is a subtle indicator of beauty, for both men and women). Large people were therefore more successful.
      Fast forward a few centuries, and food is much more plentiful, but leisure time is getting more scarce. Only the more affluent can afford to play sports, go to a gym or otherwise take time (and again money) to keep fit.
      For further proof of this, look at other cultures around the world. This is getting harder, due to the widespread influence of western culture, but typically, Indian or African men prefer less skinny women.
      Marketing beauty is all about taking the 1% who represent the extreme of what society finds attractive and exaggerating their traits. Note I am not saying this is a good thing, but it is an inevitable result of society....

      *Disclaimer; I just finished a marketing course as part of my business degree...

    60. Re:Ban idiotic research first by 1u3hr · · Score: 1

      So how about a ban on ads showing people eating fast-food, fatty foods, junk food, etc?

      You think that's a silly suggestion; I think its an excellent one. Diseases caused by over-indulgence in fast food kills a lot more people than anorexia. Full speed down the slippery slope!

    61. Re:Ban idiotic research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Americans don't care about individual liberty any longer. They only care to feed their appetites and comforts and will sacrifice freedom for comfort just about any time they are given the choice. The nation gets the culture, government and economy it deserves

    62. Re:Ban idiotic research first by sleeepy2 · · Score: 1

      Seems like a bunch of fat kids where I live. Maybe we need skinnier models.

    63. Re:Ban idiotic research first by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      You are ignoring the fact this is an obvious concerted effort which distorts the very nature of things. look at blacks, if they don't dump chemicals in their hair and on their skin they aren't "good" because they don't have "good" hair and "good" skin color, and all the time this image of chocolate Barbie is being held up as the ideal. Now obviously this image is completely fabricated and is about as realistic as depicting American Indians as a bunch of white actors in face paint and I would argue more than a little racist.

      So where do you draw the line? How far do you allow them to get away with it before you accept its harmful? As many black musicians have noted its not the blacks pushing the "thug life!" the gangsta, killa, and dope deala lifestyle crap, its the white record companies. I wish I could find the link again as one black musician made a great video showing stereotypes through the ages and basically they are pushing the "violent darkie" that has been used since "The Birth Of a Nation" back at the turn of the 20th century.

      Like it or not there are limits to even free speech and that limit is usually drawn at where it is causing harm to others. one need only look at how many young women are killing themselves trying to look like an unattainable goal to see that it IS causing harm.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    64. Re:Ban idiotic research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Researchers and individuals are human beings---and therefore entitled to free speech.

      Corporations (advertisers) are NOT human beings. They are businesses who have shown time and again that they will and do constantly lie for profit, no matter whom their lies (and their products or services) hurt, endanger or kill.

      Big difference.

    65. Re:Ban idiotic research first by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      What some people do believe, however, is that an unborn child has certain rights, and that its mothers rights do not win in that conflict (to use the old and worn-out saying, "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.")

      So what exactly is your nose doing in that woman's uterus?

      The popular characterization of pro-life advocates as not believing women have the right to decide what to do with their body has about as much in common with reality as TV.

      Speaking of TV, we've got states passing laws requiring women to have a medical procedure (ultrasound) that has no medical necessity before they can be allowed to have a completely legal procedure (abortion) done. Now tell me this fight is not over a woman's rights.

      There can be a disagreement about which rights a fetus has, but the disagreement is not between points of view with equal validity. When that fetus is inside a woman's body, every one of those rights is subject to the woman's choice. Any suggestion otherwise is to deny a woman's dominion over her own body and her own right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If you must deny one person's rights to confer rights upon another, then there is a logical and a moral fallacy in your argument. The notion of the personhood of a fetus is a very recent development in our history, whether you're talking about social history or religious history. There is no basis in social tradition or faith tradition for fetal personhood. It's purely a post WWII phenomenon and entirely a stance requiring a particular religious belief. If an atheist claims to be "pro-life" he is espousing a religious point of view without admitting or without knowing it.

      Government does not grant us rights, and it cannot confer rights upon something that is inside another person's body. There is no conservative argument for fetal personhood. It requires the invention of a completely new category of person. It would be like asserting personhood for a teratoma. Is it human life? Well of course, what else could it be? Is it a person? Don't be silly. People have knows very well what a fetus was for centuries without believing it deserved some categorical personhood. The Church knew very well what a fetus was for centuries without suggesting personood. Suddenly, pose WWII a group of very religious people decide fetuses are people, based entirely on their belief that women are not persons.

      I have tried to get it through the thick skulls of some people I know that nobody (a few nutjobs excepted) thinks that it's OK to murder babies

      Have you tried to get it through the thickk skulls of a "few nutjobs" that it's not OK to murder doctors?

      If we do confer rights upon a fetus, the only way to protect those rights is to invade a woman's body. Any argument that can be made that government should have reach into a woman's body is ridiculous and goes entirely against the principles that this country was founded upon. This is why any "pro-life" position that includes constitutional protection of fetuses is ridiculous.

      . I'm sick and fucking tired...

      Too bad. The entire argument hinges upon the mischaracterization of a fetus as a "person" for the purposes of law. It's the single reason this is not an argument between two equally valid points of view. What you should be tired of is that the anti-abortion forces are trying to create rights and persons where they can not exist.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    66. Re:Ban idiotic research first by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      What's being discussed is proper respect for individual rights by not forcing people to pay to provide things to others that they are morally and/or religiously opposed to.

      Then we have to ban all health insurance, because I am morally opposed to being forced to pay for health care for people who refuse to take even this simplest steps to stay healthy.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    67. Re:Ban idiotic research first by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Food is more of a medical necessity than birth control. Why aren't you paying for my food?
      More to the point, using birth control is a volitional activity used to prevent the consequences of another volitional activity (sexual intercourse). Both of these activities are optional. Birth control is used before voluntary activity (usually), it is not used to cure a disease. If you're having an insurance company pay for birth control, then either you're foolishly using the inefficiency of a 3rd party payer, or you're defrauding the insurance company by using a lot more birth control than you're paying for. Having the government force insurance companies to pay for birth control is twice as silly as having the government force insurance companies pay for Nerf bullets so you can safely shoot yourself in the head.
      Treatment of diseases brought about by unhealthy behavior, no matter how vile or stupid the activity that brought about the disease, is treatment, not prevention, and should be considered differently than the doubly voluntary prevention that birth control is. In this context I'm just saying that the cases are not comparable.

      On a more rational note, government restrictions on insurance and health care make things much more expensive. Condoms aren't expensive, and "the pill" can be quite cheap (in Mexico you don't even need a prescription). But government rules make it difficult or impossible to buy cheap, high deductible insurance for someone who is healthy and takes care of himself. Most health insurance policies don't require a physical, so the morbidly obese are being subsidized by you and me.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    68. Re:Ban idiotic research first by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

      Too bad. The entire argument hinges upon the mischaracterization of a fetus as a "person" for the purposes of law. It's the single reason this is not an argument between two equally valid points of view. What you should be tired of is that the anti-abortion forces are trying to create rights and persons where they can not exist.

      Classic logical fallacy. You cannot assume as a given that your position on the point of contention is the correct one, and consider the argument closed. As they say: you lose, good day sir.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    69. Re:Ban idiotic research first by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      You're splitting hairs. It's pretty hard to prevent someone who's determined from killing someone too, but the punishment is made harsh enough that it's an effective deterrent for most people. Anyway, even in the US there are several legal limitations on freedom of speech: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#United_States

      I suppose if research conclusively links skinny models to anorexia and all the anorexics or their parents sue the fashion industry it will have much the same effect as an actual ban.

    70. Re:Ban idiotic research first by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Food is more of a medical necessity than birth control. Why aren't you paying for my food?

      Did a doctor prescribe your bacon and eggs this morning?

      Get out of here with this stupid stuff.

      On a more rational note, government restrictions on insurance and health care make things much more expensive.

      Actually, no. Did government restrictions on insurance in Germany, Sweden, Finland, Canada "make things more expensive"?

      Our "free market" system has been the most expensive in the world and nowhere near the best. You want to tie reason in knots to make an indefensible point? Do it with someone who will fall for it.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    71. Re:Ban idiotic research first by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      As they say: you lose, good day sir.

      Actually, the 59% of Americans who believe abortion should be legal and the Supreme Court both say you lose.

      But I defend your right to believe whatever nonsense you want.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    72. Re:Ban idiotic research first by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

      You still don't get it. This has nothing to do with whether or not you support abortion, this is about thinking rationally. You think that a fetus has no rights, fine. I don't have a problem with that. But what I do have a problem with is that you assume you're correct on something which is a matter of opinion (not fact), then use that to justify the rest of your reasoning such as "you can't grant rights to a fetus without trampling the rights of mothers". A statement like that is begging the question, and is untenable. That is why you lose: because you're ignoring the logical fallacies of your arguments.

      You're also making unfounded assumptions about my position. The fact that I'm calling out your poor argument doesn't mean that I disagree with your stance on abortion, it merely means I can see the flaws in your argument. I have, in fact, deliberately not stated my opinions because this isn't about my opinion or your opinion: this is about how for some ungodly reason, people lose the capacity for logic and reason when abortion is under discussion. And I have a huge problem with that.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    73. Re:Ban idiotic research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Smoking is a behavior. Being thin is not a behavior. This is akin to banning fat people from advertisements or television. Frankly their study is bunk in my experience. From the anorexic's I've worked with most start the behavior due to some other underlying issue and those issues won't go away if we ban thin people from media.

    74. Re:Ban idiotic research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      girls think, oh ok!! then go about getting to look that thin.

      A small number of mentally ill girls go about getting to look that thin, you mean.

      We have an obesity epidemic in the US, or hadn't you heard? If advertising causing anorexia were such a pervasive problem, I suspect we'd have a much lower average BMI, and 3 out of 4 people here wouldn't be overweight or obese. Compare that with the startlingly low rate of 0.5% of women in the US (one out of 200) being anorexic.

      Let's reframe that. In a random sampling of 200 women: 150 of them will be overweight or obese. 1 of them will be anorexic. The remaining 49 will be in the normal range.

      I'm having difficulty seeing where "skinny models in advertising" becomes a super-critical health issue justifying a new Federal agency with broad powers to censor and control the media.

    75. Re:Ban idiotic research first by mrmeval · · Score: 1

      If it can be done to cigarette makers it can be done to any fictional entity. Oh wait the supCT said they're "people" now so we can't regulate their speech at all! I need to let cigarette makers know this so they can make it seem Kool the fuck camels again.

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    76. Re:Ban idiotic research first by Americano · · Score: 1

      Smoking in an enclosed public space has always been everyone's business

      Ah, but a restaurant isn't a "public space." You, and the rest of the patrons, are guests of the owner on his property. If you don't like that he allows his patrons to smoke, you should either buy the property from him and change the rule, or find a new restaurant to patronize whose owners ask patrons not to smoke.

      Smoking bans happened when a bunch of overly zealous people decided to use the government to trample all over the rights of bar and restaurant owners.

      By the way: I'm not a smoker, and I detest second hand smoke, it makes me nauseous - but I believe it's the right of restaurant owners to set their smoking policy individually, not the government. The places which allow smoking wouldn't get my business, but I fully believe it's the right of each place of business to set that policy for themselves.

    77. Re:Ban idiotic research first by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      But what I do have a problem with is that you assume you're correct on something which is a matter of opinion (not fact)

      It is a fact that fetuses have no rights. That's not my opinion. Find me where fetus rights have been traditionally recognized. Show me where they appear in the constitution. Show me where they have been successfully won in any legal case. Show me where they appear in any religious scripture of any of the major religions. Show me where they exist anywhere but in the opinions of specific groups of very religious people.

      I have no problem with a person believing that a fetus is a human being and that they should treat the fetus as such. The problem comes when they decide that laws should be changed to enforce their belief, to force everyone to adhere to their belief, which as far as I can tell, is entirely based on post-WWII personal opinions and the diktats of the Catholic church.

      There is no long-standing tradition of fetuses being treated as individual persons. No scripture. Not in the thousands of years of Judeo-Christian culture. It's a late 20th century construct of religious extremism, and a rather selective extremism, that all life is sacred.

      Now, what part of what I just said is not based on either a) evidence or b) reason. Show me any possible argument based on reason that the contents of a woman's uterus should be under the control of anyone but that woman and whomever she chooses to share that control with. Please. I've been looking for such an argument forever, and I would love it if you could break some new ground and make an argument that the anti-choice movement has not been able to make in their 5 decade history.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    78. Re:Ban idiotic research first by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

      It is a fact that fetuses have no rights. That's not my opinion.

      No. That's like arguing, prior to the abolition of slavery, that it is a fact that slaves have no rights because they had previously been accorded none. Our country is founded on the philosophy of natural rights, and the fact that we may not have heretofore recognized some right does not mean it doesn't exist. This is a poor argument that should be abundantly clear is invalid based on the fact that we have, multiple times in our history, collectively realized that we were violating someone's rights and stopped.

      Show me any possible argument based on reason that the contents of a woman's uterus should be under the control of anyone but that woman and whomever she chooses to share that control with. Please. I've been looking for such an argument forever, and I would love it if you could break some new ground and make an argument that the anti-choice movement has not been able to make in their 5 decade history.

      Not that I should bother responding to anyone who is so closed-minded and antagonistic as to use the term "anti-choice" (which is just as ridiculous as calling pro-choice advocates "anti-life", because pro-life advocates aren't against women's rights and pro-choice advocates aren't for murder), but here you go:

      1. 1. At some point, a fetus is accorded the rights and privileges we consider human life to have.
      2. 2. At birth is an unsatisfactory line to draw, because it means that the rights we recognize for the organism are based solely on its location.
      3. 3. Ideally, we would consider each case individually to determine if the fetus should be considered "life", but that isn't feasible. We need to codify something into law.
      4. 4. It is probably fair to say that at some point during pregnancy, the change happens. So where do we draw the line? No matter where we choose to put it, it will not be perfect as all pregnancies do not develop exactly the same, and the state we recognize as "life" may happen a day earlier in one pregnancy, a day later in another, etc.
      5. 5. False negatives are intolerable. It is better to prohibit any number of permissible (by whatever standard we decide for when "life" is recognized) abortions than it is to allow one unpermissible abortion.
      6. 6. Thus, the line must be very early so as to catch every possible case. That is not necessarily at conception, but drawing the line at conception has the advantage of being a good concrete point that offers no possible grey area.

      It's not perfect. It may never convince a soul, and there's certainly plenty to disagree with or argue with there. But it is based on reason. And that's my point. There is a rational argument for either side here. We need to stop pretending like there isn't, and have a goddamn dialogue instead of a shouting match where our minds are shut to the possibility of ever considering an alternate point of view.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    79. Re:Ban idiotic research first by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      Do you actually think obese people will become *more obese* by seeing fewer skinny models? Or that average people are going to "tip over", because apparently everyone is chasing that ideal, and their success scales with the target?

      Anorexics and people with other eating orders are the ones chasing that ideal. Obese people gave up on it (and they're better off than the anorexics because of it). Making the models have a more average weight on average might reduce obesity by placing the bodies within range of a reasonable diet.

      (I don't agree with banning skinny models via government action, though I think consumer action to do the same would be good)

    80. Re:Ban idiotic research first by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      OK, that's not bad, but here's where you go wrong:

      2. At birth is an unsatisfactory line to draw, because it means that the rights we recognize for the organism are based solely on its location.

      Whether a baby has been born or not is a greater state change than just "location". I was there when my daughter was born. I watched. I helped in my own inept way. I saw here take her first breath. There is a reason the word "inspiration" is important enough to be Biblical, and it's obvious why so many cultures historically have taken that to be the moment when spirit enters flesh and a new being is born.

      Second, why do you want to devalue childbirth? This is really the part that makes be believe the anti-choice crowd is fundamentally misogynist. They believe the mother is just a vessel, a non-participant in creation. Oh, the father is the mighty inseminator and that's the really holy part, but once the seed does it's business to the egg, the woman's role is just to keep the nest warm. This is the argument that bothers me the most. Considering what happens at childbirth, who is really doing the thing, I cannot imagine that anyone but the woman has the right to decide the fate of the potential new human. Who else possibly could? She could have done it without me there. She could have done it without the midwife, without the hospital, without the government. Without the Mother Church.

      There is a reason that the moment of birth is the moment we start counting age. That is the moment of holiness, of inspiration. The moment spirit enters flesh. Now, of course, there are exceptions, different kinds of birth, caesarians, but the anti-mother movement just uses those to try to prove something that every culture, every mother, every father has known since the beginning: it starts at birth. At childbirth. It's probably why we call it "childbirth" because that is the moment the "child" is "born". No child...child.

      Since the rest of the steps in your argument are predicated on #2, it all falls apart there.

      You seem like an earnest guy who has thought a lot about this. But don't stop thinking about it because you believe you have come to a conclusion, and I promise I won't stop. And for christ's sake, continue to talk to women about the issue. Women of childbearing age. Young women, old women.

      The goddamn dialogue that needs to happen is the one that happens between a woman and her conscience. If she chooses, her husband, her doctor, her pastor, her mother etc. And never, ever by government. Never, ever by the Law. You don't want to turn every miscarriage into a crime scene. Really, you don't.

         

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    81. Re:Ban idiotic research first by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Freedom dies not with a bang, but with a whimper.

    82. Re:Ban idiotic research first by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      And while we're at it, ban those evil violent video games that brainwash you into murdering people.

      Disingenuous, offtopic strawman.

      But, to address your 'point', I'd be all for banning advertising of those evil, violent video games.

      Also, anyone who sticks up for the poor, misunderstood advertisers can seriously go fuck themselves. They do nothing but mislead (at best) and generally outright lie, waste our time, and intrude into EVERY POSSIBLE FACET OF OUR LIVES. The sooner we can get rid of push advertising altogether, the better.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    83. Re:Ban idiotic research first by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

      Disingenuous, offtopic strawman.

      Straw man? I never said they claimed that. I was just making a comparison. Oftentimes I've noticed people use the same kinds of arguments to try to push for censorship of violent video games.

      But, to address your 'point', I'd be all for banning advertising of those evil, violent video games.

      I don't see why. There's no real-world studies that I know of that accurately conclude that video games cause violence or even do anything permanently harmful to anyone whilst explaining why violent crime rates went down (even among youth).

      Unless that isn't your reason.

      Also, anyone who sticks up for the poor, misunderstood advertisers can seriously go fuck themselves.

      I'm sorry, but I'm 100% against censorship even if I don't like the people (I don't) being censored.

    84. Re:Ban idiotic research first by thunderclap · · Score: 1

      No, because we now have two generations that have suffered. A more appropriate example would be cigarette advertising. Once upon a time smoking was fine on advertisements. Heck, even cigarette companies could sponsor stuff. The solution isn't to ban slender model images. Its to ban the use of digital editing on model photos used on magazines for the purpose of selling the magazines or projects. Force them to go back to how it was in the 70s. Fine the design and model houses that use 80lb models. We must quit allowing the minority to dictate things. Why? Because it is horribly harming people. When parents who tell their eight-year-old girl every day that she's smart and strong and brave and beautiful, and that they love her, and that their proud of her it should be enough. However, she is at school and with friends, and online and we all know what the marketers and model house want, and she sees that digitally thin anatomically impossible model wearing the hottest new thing, she believes it. If she believes it, its her reality and no amount of praise can change that.
          Yet if the magazine has size 4 models and the runway shows have size 2 and 4 models, she believes her parents. Society isn't counteracting parenting. Isn't that what we all want? Everything has limits. Technology shows us those limits. Its governments job to set those limits technology reveals. This is one of those times.

    85. Re:Ban idiotic research first by thunderclap · · Score: 1

      Yes. Actually that would be an awesome thing. Everything single one should. ;)

    86. Re:Ban idiotic research first by thunderclap · · Score: 1

      Lets establish something: religion is a belief system. It isnt something that generally is proven to exist even without parenting and even without technology. So going down that route will pull the thread off course. Do some people misinterpret scriptures and say 'If I repeat this phrase, healing will appear,' Yes they do. However, there are as many cases where unexplainable things happened while someone was doing exactly that.
      In the TOPIC of modeling images being deliberately manipulated to sell product, there is a willful lie that is being believed. There is no belief in truth. We are arguing if Fire can be shouted in a crowded room after a guy detonates a smoke bomb outside the open windows. There is no fire. Just the lie.
      The fact it causes "harm" is sufficient reason to ban speech IMHO. This is why we vote. To establish what 'harm' is. 'Harm' is young girls starving and dying from food diseases to achieve the impossible. Harm is talented men saying that attractive curvy women are ugly and fat. Harm is saying you have to be a size 2 to achieve your dream even though your body structure would never allow that.

    87. Re:Ban idiotic research first by Magius_AR · · Score: 1

      It was hard enough just to get subsidized coverage for the poor,

      Medicaid has been around since '65 -- I don't recall it being "hard" to get through either (majority vote in both the House (307-116) and Senate (70-24)). Fat lot of good it did you too since we're all out of money and even sicker than we were back then.

  2. The government should ban by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    researchers with opinions...

    1. Re:The government should ban by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      researchers with opinions...

      Ban pill-popping, doc-shopping curmudgeonly radio show hosts, too.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:The government should ban by InsertCleverUsername · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This blows all the mods I've made, but the shear ignorance here is killing me. People need to get past their misogynist thinking that anorexia just means being lean.

      The reason curbing anorexia is a big deal is that it has "the highest mortality rate of any psychiatric disorder" and it's a highly cultural phenomenon, extremely rare in societies before modern advertising. Even with treatment, the prognosis is death most of the time. This is an avoidable danger, like prohibiting the glorification of drugs in kids' shows.

      Really... How would regulating this be any different than banning steroids in professional sports?

      --
      Ask me about my sig!
    3. Re:The government should ban by tverbeek · · Score: 2

      No, just the opinions that are wrong.

      Seriously, what kind of fucking moron thinks that the government should ban something just because it "sends the wrong message"? So do action movies, romantic comedies, reality TV shows, and all political advertisements. Do you have to have a particular kind of brain damage to think that A) banning it would work, and B) it would not have harmful consequences to our society to give the government that power?

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    4. Re:The government should ban by pla · · Score: 2

      Really... How would regulating this be any different than banning steroids in professional sports?

      Welcome to Slashdot, where a considerable portion of the population support legalizing all drugs.


      The reason curbing anorexia is a big deal is that it has "the highest mortality rate of any psychiatric disorder"

      So it corrects itself out of the gene pool. We don't seem to have a problem here. We have an incredibly sick attitude in our society toward purely self-destructive behaviors - Allow them to run their course, and they go away. Or as George Carlin put it, "See, somehow, I can't feel sorry for an anorexic, you know? Rich cunt, don't want to eat? Fuck her. Fuck her. Don't eat! I give a shit. Like I'm supposed to be concerned about this. I DON'T WANNA EAT! Go fuck yourself."

    5. Re:The government should ban by GmExtremacy · · Score: 2

      I think further education is needed rather than censorship.

      Teach people about logic. Teach people to not mindlessly accept everything they hear or see on television.

      I don't think we should ever resort to censorship because a minority of people choose to starve themselves. I see this as no different than the "think of the children" or "the terrorists are going to get us" nonsense.

    6. Re:The government should ban by Smauler · · Score: 1

      People need to get past their misogynist thinking

      I think you do. You're confusing anorexia with a female only problem.

      This is an avoidable danger, like prohibiting the glorification of drugs in kids' shows.

      Seriously? Which kids shows did that? Honestly, I'd really like to see a kid's show glorifying drugs.

      Anyway, about 50% of the populace has tried some kind of illicit drug or other, so I think the battle's lost there. Those that do, do, those that don't, don't.

    7. Re:The government should ban by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Teach people about logic. Teach people to not mindlessly accept everything they hear or see on television.

      You must be new here. And by "here" I mean this planet.

    8. Re:The government should ban by PapayaSF · · Score: 1

      How would regulating this be any different than banning steroids in professional sports?

      Because regulating drugs is rather different than regulating the display of photographs of clothed people based on their body type? Can you imagine having to submit every fashion photo to some government committee, which would then argue over whether each model was appropriately non-skinny? I'd call it Orwellian but it's too silly for that.

      But if this idiotic proposal becomes law, I suggest men rally and demand the end to all the unrealistically handsome and ripped men on the covers of every romance novel. It's horribly harmful to the self-esteem of all men who don't look like Fabio.

      --
      Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
    9. Re:The government should ban by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      That's because obesity is not classified as a psychiatric disorder.

    10. Re:The government should ban by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The shear ignorance here is killing me. People need to get past their misogynist thinking that anorexia just means being lean.

      No one's making that mistake. Trust me, every semester I've spent in any health class has devoted at least a month to anorexia and advertising; the point being to drive the point home that you just made. And where is the misogyny in thinking anorexia is "just being lean"? Anorexia affects EVERYONE, not just women.

      How would regulating this be any different than banning steroids in professional sports?

      Sports groups can and should be able to regulate steroid use within their group; the government cannot and should not be able to. TV stations can and should be able to regulate what they play on their station; the government can (unfortunately) but should not.

      Free speech means FREE SPEECH, not "free speech that I find acceptable." Somewhere, there's a person who finds something you watch or listen to as damaging as you find skinny models. Should they be allowed the control what YOU want to see or hear?

      It may help for you to consider this in a /.-friendly context. Imagine this is the internet, and not TV. Should the government be able to shut down a website because it doesn't have fat enough models, SOPA-style? What if the model appears skinny, but is healthy? Where's the line? Should fat models be banned to, because they promote obesity?

      tl;dr Censorship is censorship and it will do far more damage to society than free speech ever will.

    11. Re:The government should ban by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      Seriously? Which kids shows did that? Honestly, I'd really like to see a kid's show glorifying drugs.

      Scooby Doo, H.R. Pufnstuf, the Pacman cartoon show...

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    12. Re:The government should ban by fnj · · Score: 1

      How about we ban you first? Oh wait. I have an idea. How about we don't ban ANYBODY because of their opinions and life choices?

    13. Re:The government should ban by fnj · · Score: 1

      A WHOLE LOT of fucking morons think that.

    14. Re:The government should ban by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell you what... let's ban you from working because you are too smart and you make dumb people feel bad about themselves and do stupid things. Sounds fair to you, right?

    15. Re:The government should ban by khallow · · Score: 1

      Really... How would regulating this be any different than banning steroids in professional sports?

      Let us count the ways these two are different. 1) Who makes the ban. In the case of professional sports, the ban comes from the professional sports organizations themselves and the fans. For your example, it comes from government.

      2) Who is affected. Professional athletes only or everyone who wants to advertise a product or even parody an advertisement of a product.

      3) Harm to society. In the former case, athletes are being forced not to engage in a chemical arms race. Small number of people by a private group. Not much harm. In the thin model case, government is trying to change how society thinks and behaves through government force. Huge immediate harm. To be very blunt here, I do not think saving the lives of a few thousand women a year is worth the harm inflicted by this ban.

      4) Precedence. I know some people don't believe in the existence of the slippery slope, but it does remain that private groups imposing behavior restrictions on voluntary members or employees is nothing new. But once we have a ban on certain human behavior and communication due to one disease, that forms a precedent for the government to impose further bans for other tenuous health or public welfare excuses. A ban would also reward the doctors and organizations that advocated for it and empower them. I'd rather they be punished via marginalization for even daring to suggest just a vile scheme.

      5) Potential for abuse. In addition to creating a negative precedent on crucial human activities, it also creates a huge avenue of abuse for government to impose its will on businesses and non-profits that advertise. It's an lever for coercion of government whim over a business or charity. It's another means for one business to gain advantage over another through more rigorous enforcement of the ban on the latter.

    16. Re:The government should ban by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1

      Really... How would regulating this be any different than banning steroids in professional sports?

      1. Steroids are pharmaceuticals, and as such are heavily regulated. There is no constitutional protection for drugs. There is for speech, in such places that place a value on free speech. The standard is totally different.

      2. With regard to sports leagues, steroids are banned *by the leagues*.

      If your point is that modeling consortia should band together to ban skinny models, that would be a great step. I say this as a man who finds women who look like skeletons to be rather unattractive. Bring me healthier women any day. However, when you start talking about governments banning what people can talk about or the images they can portray, you have a different thing on your hands.

      People need to get past their misogynist thinking that anorexia just means being lean.

      Note that the argument about what people can talk about has nothing to do with cultural ideals of what women should/shouldn't look like, so the whole "let me justify my anti-free-speech position by declaring my opponents to be misogynist" angle isn't flying either.

    17. Re:The government should ban by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot Roger Ramjet and his "Proton Pills"

    18. Re:The government should ban by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes let's promote the idea that being fat is the norm cause that obesity rate in US is just really healthy. This is specifically US issue, related to eating and lifestyle habits.

    19. Re:The government should ban by General+Wesc · · Score: 1

      Really... How would regulating this be any different than banning steroids in professional sports?

      Seriously? What do you think is the difference between an apartment complex banning pets and the COUNTRY banning pets? Do you think there is none?

    20. Re:The government should ban by InsertCleverUsername · · Score: 1

      Sigh... At the peril of feeding a troll (I really can't believe someone could honestly miss the point so completely)...

      People need to get past their misogynist thinking

      I think you do. You're confusing anorexia with a female only problem.

      Congratulations sir, you win the more-PC-than-thou trophy! My bad, pointing out the obvious fact that "Anorexia nervosa occurs in females 10 times more than in males" and making the leap of thought that there is much more societal pressure for women to be thin --especially from men. If you won't take a few semesters of sociology and abnormal psychology, at least browse the article on Wikipedia.

      This is an avoidable danger, like prohibiting the glorification of drugs in kids' shows.

      Seriously? Which kids shows did that? Honestly, I'd really like to see a kid's show glorifying drugs.

      Um... Yeah... That was my point. I think everybody understands that would be a bad idea.

      Anyway, about 50% of the populace has tried some kind of illicit drug or other, so I think the battle's lost there. Those that do, do, those that don't, don't.

      Again... You're missing the point. Protecting impressionable kids is a different topic than limiting the rights of adults. Whoosh!

      --
      Ask me about my sig!
    21. Re:The government should ban by InsertCleverUsername · · Score: 1

      How would regulating this be any different than banning steroids in professional sports?

      Because regulating drugs is rather different than regulating the display of photographs of clothed people based on their body type?

      Sure, I'd agree it's significantly different, but at the root of it, it's a public health issue --and that's supposedly why pointy-headed politicians got all bent about steroids in baseball. The welfare of the professional players wasn't as much of a consideration as the message it sent aspiring young athletes. Both problems hinge on behaviors that are heavily influenced by culture.

      Can you imagine having to submit every fashion photo to some government committee, which would then argue over whether each model was appropriately non-skinny?

      No, nothing that ridiculous, but I can imagine something similar to what already happened with Spain's fashionistas. I don't think it's absurd at all to ask an industry to NOT encourage unhealthy employee behaviors.

      --
      Ask me about my sig!
    22. Re:The government should ban by InsertCleverUsername · · Score: 1

      Really... How would regulating this be any different than banning steroids in professional sports?

      O.K. Apologies for being a little over-dramatic, but there are some parallels I'd like to point out.

      1) Who makes the ban. In the case of professional sports, the ban comes from the professional sports organizations themselves and the fans. For your example, it comes from government.

      I'm with you, this shouldn't be government business, even though it was very popular with Congress and President Bush recently. A responsible industry should handle it themselves --Spain is a good example.

      2) Who is affected. Professional athletes only or everyone who wants to advertise a product or even parody an advertisement of a product.

      See above. Professional models --and, as in sports, their impressionable fans/followers.

      3) Harm to society. In the former case, athletes are being forced not to engage in a chemical arms race. Small number of people by a private group. Not much harm. In the thin model case, government is trying to change how society thinks and behaves through government force. Huge immediate harm. To be very blunt here, I do not think saving the lives of a few thousand women a year is worth the harm inflicted by this ban.

      I think the alleged point of the congressional hearings and media flap on steroids in pro baseball was that it encouraged the acceptance of steroid use by young athletes. It seemed more people were having a "think-of-the-children" moment than displaying genuine concern for the plight of professional ball players.

      And I am not surprised that you are unconcerned with the deaths of thousands of women.

      4) Precedence. I know some people don't believe in the existence of the slippery slope, but it does remain that private groups imposing behavior restrictions on voluntary members or employees is nothing new. But once we have a ban on certain human behavior and communication due to one disease, that forms a precedent for the government to impose further bans for other tenuous health or public welfare excuses. A ban would also reward the doctors and organizations that advocated for it and empower them. I'd rather they be punished via marginalization for even daring to suggest just a vile scheme.

      The political balance between regulation and freedom is tricky --and the first 100 tries usually fail. But if we didn't try, lawful civilization wouldn't exist. The fact we're not all paying over 90% in taxes is a thorough debunking of the slippery slope. The pendulum of human affairs always swings back when it's gone too far.

      5) Potential for abuse. In addition to creating a negative precedent on crucial human activities, it also creates a huge avenue of abuse for government to impose its will on businesses and non-profits that advertise. It's an lever for coercion of government whim over a business or charity. It's another means for one business to gain advantage over another through more rigorous enforcement of the ban on the latter.

      Again, I think we agree, ideally this should be the business and responsibility of the fashion industry, not government, to stop encouraging (sometimes demanding?) unhealthy behavior.

      --
      Ask me about my sig!
    23. Re:The government should ban by InsertCleverUsername · · Score: 1

      Note that the argument about what people can talk about has nothing to do with cultural ideals of what women should/shouldn't look like, so the whole "let me justify my anti-free-speech position by declaring my opponents to be misogynist" angle isn't flying either.

      Sorry if I wasn't clear. At the point I posted, most of the discussion seemed to reflect a callous "hey, if she ain't fat, what's the problem?" attitude. The conversation seemed to be missing the fact that anorexia is a deadly disease.

      I'm no opponent of free speech --far from it, but I'm also cool with not shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater. Trying to curtail the glamorization of anorexia, is more a pro bono publico issue than a free speech issue --like limiting the free speech of the pedophile film director's idea of entertainment.

      --
      Ask me about my sig!
    24. Re:The government should ban by InsertCleverUsername · · Score: 1

      Really... How would regulating this be any different than banning steroids in professional sports?

      Seriously? What do you think is the difference between an apartment complex banning pets and the COUNTRY banning pets? Do you think there is none?

      You think the government should be the regulator? Sure, they've dabbled, but that isn't what I'd propose at all.

      Professional sports organizations do the right thing and discourage unhealthy behaviors, the fashion industry should do the same.

      --
      Ask me about my sig!
    25. Re:The government should ban by khallow · · Score: 1

      Again, I think we agree, ideally this should be the business and responsibility of the fashion industry, not government, to stop encouraging (sometimes demanding?) unhealthy behavior.

      Nah, it should be the responsibility of women themselves. Anorexia, while relatively dangerous, is not the only form of self-mutilation that women perform in the name of beauty. It's a matter of free speech that anyone can demand any sort of unhealthy but legal behavior. One of the points of a free society is to accept both that everyone will make bad decisions now and then and not to impose on society when bad decisions are made.

    26. Re:The government should ban by General+Wesc · · Score: 1

      My point is, you were asking the difference between MLB regulating something and the GOVERNMENT regulating something. Now suddenly you're insisting there's a big difference because one is the government and one isn't.

      So I think you've answered your original question, yet you seem to think I'm promoting the position that there isn't a difference. My point was clearly that there IS a difference.

  3. It's True by crow_t_robot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Banning skinny models definitely would help fix the problem. I'm normally against such type of regulation but when the common person is blasted in the face by constant advertising in every form imaginable 24/7 then i tend to fall on the side of regulation.

    It's not like the average person can moderate the amount of advertising that rapes their eyeballs and subconcious every day.

    1. Re:It's True by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yet most of us are fat. Anybody else see a contradiction?

    2. Re:It's True by bhagwad · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But the average person has the discretion to decide whether to listen to the advertising or not.

    3. Re:It's True by craigminah · · Score: 0

      We always focus on the symptoms and forget about the cause. It's like all the bans they're considering for cars (e.g. banning cellphones unless hands-free, banning text while driving, banning gps devices, etc.) when what they really need to do is ban driving in a manner that is dangerous. Heck, if we'd just enforce the existing laws we wouldn't need anymore laws on the books. Why ban anorexics? Where in the Constitution does the federal government have this right? Enforce existing laws, don't make new ones.

    4. Re:It's True by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not really.
      Advertising is designed to exploit various characteristics of our brain that cause us to make unconscious decisions because of the advertising.

    5. Re:It's True by oldhack · · Score: 1

      But first things first. Ban idiots opening their mouths - "would definitely help" prevent the infectious stupidity.

      All you idiots, you've been warned. We've got your number. You so screwed now.

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    6. Re:It's True by niftydude · · Score: 1

      This. The obesity epidemic in western countries is a far greater problem (in terms of both number of people effected, and the severity of health effects) than anorexia is.

      --
      You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
    7. Re:It's True by QuasiSteve · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, not really.

      Although scientists whose area of expertise is in this area would have to show real data either confirming my gut feeling or disproving it (and I'll then blame the fish I had earlier)., I would guess that...

      When you're young and you're exposed to the imagery of 'ideals' you might try to actually reach those ideals. However, if you fail - and most of us do; even if you do make it to the ideal, a month later you may have bounced right back up and then some - that may make you sad at best and downright depressed at worst.

      The sadness/depression is, in turn, fought using - among other - comfort foods (It's no coincidence that a lot of people think that eating a bucket of ice cream is a great way to do away with the blues).

      But eating comfort foods is rarely health and in fact is likely to lead you to further weight gain.. which depresses you more, etc.

      At some point, though, you stop really caring. You've realized that you are overweight, and that while you have fleeting moments of wanting to do something about it, there's no real pressure to do so any more as you are now one of the millions of overweight adults who are accepted just fine by society as long as you don't go overboard in obesity (at which point you might become the subject of internet ridicule for a day, after which life goes on).
      In fact, once you reach that point, you realize that the superskinny are far more often pointed out in a negative way than the overweight (think Angelina Jolie).

      As such, if these distorted 'ideals' can be kept away from kids, then perhaps that would effect change. However, I don't think legislation is the answer. How would you actually legislate this anyway? The change has to come from within the fashion/magazine industry itself.

      However, as some in that industry have already suggested that Kate Upton (google, judge for yourself) is too 'curvy' (read: fat) for magazine covers, I doubt that change is coming anytime soon.

    8. Re:It's True by Idbar · · Score: 2

      What needs to be done is educating that correlation is not causation and that cause and effect are different.

      "You're thin because you exercise and you are healthy therefore attractive" is way different from just "you are thin therefore attractive".

      The main problem in the youth, is that they think they need to be thin to be attractive, and leave out the healthy out of the equation, because eating well and exercising is more trouble and you can cheat by just falling into eating disorders.

      I agree with no photoshopping, because it shows figures that are clearly impossible to attain. But, I'm guessing you should ban also cosmetics, and light effects, etc.... and that may just cross the line from photography perspective... so it will be hard to enforce or easily "bypassed".

    9. Re:It's True by afabbro · · Score: 2

      It's not like the average person can moderate the amount of advertising that rapes their eyeballs and subconcious every day.

      Nonsense. Don't watch TV. Don't listen to the radio. Use Adblock Plus. I'm assuming your eyes gloss pass magazine ads automatically.

      Seems pretty moderated to me.

      --
      Advice: on VPS providers
    10. Re:It's True by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Nope. Some people believe they're fat and do something about it. Some are wrong to start with, or do the wrong things about it. Others give up or don't care.

    11. Re:It's True by DurendalMac · · Score: 2

      What utter bullshit. You CAN regulate all of those ads. You know how? Turn off the damned TV. Install an adblocker in your browser. There, you just eliminated the bulk of that crap raping your eyeballs and subconscious, and you're probably intaking less general crap in the first place. Let's restrict freedom of speech because what someone says/does might inadvertently have a negative impact on someone else who can't practice some goddamned self-discipline. Sounds like a great idea. Nice slippery slope you're on. Now here's a better idea: Why not get people to boycott companies that use scrawny bags of antlers to advertise things? If enough people do so, then that will change. If not, then apparently enough people don't give a crap. Nah, that takes effort, just ban them!

    12. Re:It's True by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think I hear/see much advertisement on a day to day basis. I don't listen to the radio or watch TV (don't have the time). My home is 2 miles from my work and there is nothing but trees and houses between the two. I don't have time for magazines either. I run adblock and noscript on my browser. I rarely go shopping/go to stores/etc. My point is that it is possible to avoid advertising. You just need to be too busy to get in the advertisers' line of fire ;-)

    13. Re:It's True by jamesh · · Score: 1

      This. The obesity epidemic in western countries is a far greater problem (in terms of both number of people effected, and the severity of health effects) than anorexia is.

      Yes it doesn't make sense the amount of research and publicity that anorexia gets while obesity is a far greater problem. I guess it's more horrible for the individual in question (it's a mental illness too). That said, I probably don't understand the effectiveness of treatment of anorexia vs obesity and the return on investment for funds spent on either cause.

      Still... if images of skinny models are a contributing factor to anorexia, then maybe images of fatties are a contributing factor to obesity, and there should be a ban on obese models appearing on the front page of glamor magazines... oh wait.

    14. Re:It's True by J'raxis · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Nope.

      The government can solve that problem by just banning junk foods.

      The government can solve all our societal problems by just passing new laws banning things. Remember when they outlawed harmful substances like cocaine and heroin, and now there are no more drug addicts? And how when they ban guns and knives and sharp sticks, people just miraculously stopped committing violence against each other?

      So, to that end, we should probably just ban anything that anyone thinks is even indirectly responsible for causing harm to others. Maybe we should just pre-emptively ban everything since anything can, in the wrong hands, certainly harm someone.

    15. Re:It's True by dittbub · · Score: 1

      i'm wondering, are you a teenage girl? i have a feeling skinny models wouldn't affect you anyway if you did expose yourself to ads. ads are a part of the environment! their impact cannot be ignored, even if you are able to ignore the ads themselves.

    16. Re:It's True by Chakra5 · · Score: 2

      actually yes, really

      There are several choices involved that are all on the watcher. The first being to get educated and lead to discern when addressed by advertising. Some where in there is the ability to choose not to watch or read channels or magazines that go too far for your sensibilities.

      were we should be applying community influence is in education, both arming us against advertising of all types and in our ability to choose healthy foods and exercise activities. that of course is a short list.

      --
      Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.--Mark Twain
    17. Re:It's True by sdguero · · Score: 2

      Yeah totally. Freedom of speech should be thrown under the bus because a small minority of women don't have the mental fortitude to tell whether or not they are eating healthy. That makes sense...

    18. Re:It's True by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      So what if the figure is impossible to attain? It's impossible to walk into McDonald's and get a hamburger that looks like the one in the commercial. They aren't even selling the body is most cases (diet products would be selling the body, or the illusion that you could have that body). They are selling clothes, or make-up, or cars, or beer. If they have to stop using skinny models, they should also have to stop using muscular men, because it causes steroid use. And they should have to stop using models with large breasts as it causes people to go to south america for dangerous breast augmentations by unqualified doctors, and they should stop using ..... Ok maybe they should only be able to show the product against a white background. No talking allowed. Just a product shot. That should be nice and safe for everyone involved.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    19. Re:It's True by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be a superhero with the superpowers of "un-seeing" and "un-hearing"...

    20. Re:It's True by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, children better wise up! How dumb are they not to internalize a sophisticated understanding of the impact of advertising on their psychology? Morons.

    21. Re:It's True by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm normally against such type of regulation

      Government should ban cleavage to prevent over-sexualization of young people
      Government should ban action movies to stop the dramatization of violence
      Government should ban fast food commercials to help prevent obesity.
      Government should ban....

      Please, please please PLEASE stop giving more power to these god damn statists. You do/own/eat/drive/wear/watch/read/say/believe things they don't approve of and someone, somewhere will say "I'm normally against blah blah" and then go right ahead and sic the government on your ass. Don't fucking do this to others and don't fucking let them do it to you.

      Some fraction of people do stupid things and mess themselves up. This is normal. It doesn't need to be fixed. Leave the rest of us alone. We don't need the government micro-managing the precise body weight of every tart that gets in front of a camera.

      It's not like the average person can moderate the amount of advertising

      No, of course not. We're all helpless waifs trapped in a capitalist hell and only gubberment can save us from ourselves. We're either too fat for the damn government, or too thin for the damn government or too <fill-in-the-blank> for the damn government...

      Jesus fucking Christ.

    22. Re:It's True by arose · · Score: 1

      Yet the average researcher knows to use dobule blind testing fro drugs, tell me, is the average patient, doctor and researcher more prone to bias than the average person. If not, please reconcile that with your claim that a person has control over all of their preferences.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    23. Re:It's True by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If banning skinny models would curb anorexia, shouldn't banning fat television personalities curb obesity too?

      Over these last five or so years there's been a distinct increase in the average weight of television presenters, hosts, interviewees, infomercial people and the like, which seems to be a result of advertisers figuring that the audience will identify more with those of their own weight range. And I see this far more often than the skinny models that these researchers are up in arms about. The public needs to know that being overweight is not normal, and the media should not be helping them delude themselves.

    24. Re:It's True by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      The problem isn't "skinny" models. The only thing a skinny model does it remind us that we're fat and generally unhealthy and is no different than walking by your local gym and comparing yourself to the people inside. The real problem is an uneducated population that has no idea what the definition of proper diet and exercise truly means. Further compounding the problem are product marketing departments educating you on how fat and unhealthy you are as a means of motivating you to buy their snake oil. Thus millions of morons think that if they pop their magic pill or eat their magic candy bar, TV dinner, etc. they'll go from 250lb walruses to 105lb supermodels. Some might even wander down to a gym and make an attempt to exercise, but either lifestyle habits, or discouragement when their weight doesn't budge or even increases--because they exchanged fat for muscle--or both find them soon giving up.

      If you want people to be healthy you need to equip them with proper knowledge of what that actually means, give them an understanding of how to attain it, and motivate healthy changes to their lifestyle habits. People with eating disorders are some of the most motivated people on the planet to do something about weight, but all they understand is that food makes them fat and so that's what they target. If they understood that eating healthy combined with proper exercise--and what that really meant--was more effective I don't think most would end up going down that adversarial and deadly relationship with food.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    25. Re:It's True by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      It's really quite simple. Anorexia isn't a condition that leads itself to selling products. Obesity on the other hand...

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    26. Re:It's True by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

      Yeah! We need to ban skinny models because of what a minority chooses to do with their own bodies!

      These 'researchers' are truly brilliant.

    27. Re:It's True by GmExtremacy · · Score: 2

      Damn. I wish I had a mind of my own. Apparently, none of my thoughts are actually my own.

      Every single time I see an ad, I go out and buy the product. Magical brainwashing waves come out of the tv and force me to. I had nothing to do with it! I swear! It's all the television's fault!

      Actually, forget having a mind of my own. It's so much easier to play blame games and scream "for the children" so that we can ban advertisements I don't like.

    28. Re:It's True by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

      They don't need a sophisticated understanding of it. They need parents and education.

      They don't need the government's censorship.

    29. Re:It's True by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      People have adversarial relationships with food because people only understand that food makes you fat. They lack an understanding what foods contribute to health and what foods destroys health. Making matters worse are sedentary lifestyles that destroy metabolisms, and overall health in general.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    30. Re:It's True by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think that Kate Upton is all that curvy...in the real world she could afford to put on a little weight.

    31. Re:It's True by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'm normally against such type of regulation but when the common person is blasted in the face by constant advertising in every form imaginable 24/7 then i tend to fall on the side of regulation."

      Maybe the problem is the advertising itself, not the content of it.

    32. Re:It's True by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      The problem isn't "skinny" models. The only thing a skinny model does it remind us that we're fat and generally unhealthy and is no different than walking by your local gym and comparing yourself to the people inside.

      The only thing that a skinny model does is remind me that the man responsible for the advert is probably a pervert who would really want a young boy in the advert but can't because then he would be found out, so he uses a "woman" that comes as close as possible to what he really wants.

    33. Re:It's True by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      So you think seeing only fat people will somehow encourage you to become skinny? The fatties call anyone who is normal body-weight or who doesn't eat more than 5000 calories per day "anorexic". Good luck losing weight in that environment.

    34. Re:It's True by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 1

      Yet most of us are fat. Anybody else see a contradiction?

      Glamorizing unhealthy body types has been pretty heavily linked to unhealthy eating, both overeating and undereating. There's no contradiction. It's a related problem.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    35. Re:It's True by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 1

      This. The obesity epidemic in western countries is a far greater problem (in terms of both number of people effected, and the severity of health effects) than anorexia is.

      The immediate severity of the health effects of anorexia are much worse than obesity. You're much more likely to die in the next 5 years if you're anorexic than if you're 100 pounds overweight. They're both real problems and they're both incited by glamorization of unhealthy body types.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    36. Re:It's True by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except turning it off, not subscribing to mags.

      Are you really that incompetent you need the govt to do it for you?

      Skinny models are not the problem. People like healthy looks, people dislike unhealthy looks. Anorexia is not healthy.

    37. Re:It's True by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      Eating well and exercising won't make you as thin as a concentration camp prisoner, which is the "ideal" all the models try to achieve.

    38. Re:It's True by uncqual · · Score: 1

      Don't many anorexics believe they are fat when in fact they are emaciated?

      It seems like perhaps it's not the desire to be skinny that is the core problem but the inability to realize what reality is -- and that's a mental problem that seems likely to manifest itself in some other destructive way anyway.

      I don't see how banning thin models will help this. It seems likely that these same people will be delusional about something else and then act destructively on that delusion. Perhaps they will think they are not sufficiently tanned when they are roasting their skin in to melanoma or that they are "big boned" (or, just "curvy") when they in fact they are 150 pounds overweight or that they aren't rich enough so will rob a bnak when in fact they are quite comfortable financially.

      We can't (nor should we try) to ban all speech or expression which may cause those people who are unable to objectively evaluate their own state to do stupid stuff.

      In any event, if thin models are to be banned, "plus size" models should obviously be banned as well because they glorify unhealthy body weight and cause obese people to "feel better" about themselves rather than acknowledging they have a serious health problem that needs attention and probably difficult action on their part to resolve.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    39. Re:It's True by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that only applies to retards

    40. Re:It's True by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1

      Yep, in the land of the free, the average person can decide. That's why, unlike other countries, you frequently see large-breasted, bare-chested women selling orange juice in ads. Oh, right, we can't allow that because that's indecent and we have to "think of the children". Well, if we presume that skinny models are causing eating disorders especially in adolescents, then we're already half way there in the "think of the children" part. So, the only real question is, is it indecent for a person to be ridiculously underweight and be portrayed as a role model of some sort based on that property. If something as natural as nudity is indecent, something as unnatural as heavily controlled dieting to maintain an unhealthy low weight certainly seems to rank really up there.

      *sigh*

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    41. Re:It's True by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      This. The obesity epidemic in western countries is a far greater problem (in terms of both number of people effected, and the severity of health effects) than anorexia is.

      Yes it doesn't make sense the amount of research and publicity that anorexia gets while obesity is a far greater problem. I guess it's more horrible for the individual in question (it's a mental illness too). That said, I probably don't understand the effectiveness of treatment of anorexia vs obesity and the return on investment for funds spent on either cause.

      Still... if images of skinny models are a contributing factor to anorexia, then maybe images of fatties are a contributing factor to obesity, and there should be a ban on obese models appearing on the front page of glamor magazines... oh wait.

      who the fuck would want to study fat fucks?

      on more serious note, government control of what's beautiful or not is not what government should be doing, which is exactly what the researchers are implying should be done, even though it could increase mcd's profits and I bet the researchers would like the job to decide who is too skinny for adverts("Your application is still pending, please send some more pictures showing your behind!").

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    42. Re:It's True by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      The funny thing is I've seen a lot of these models and most of their bodies that don't look unhealthy. They're a little on the slim side but well within the normal range -- for girls in their 20s who are TALLER than average. Most fashion models are well over average height because designers like to see their clothes on tall girls.

      The trouble comes when other young women who are inches shorter with wider frames try to make themselves look like tall girls with narrow frames.

    43. Re:It's True by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      By not watching TV and using ad blockers in my browser I see hardly any advertising.

    44. Re:It's True by vikingpower · · Score: 1

      Yet most of us are fat. Anybody else see a contradiction?

      Most US Americans are fat.

      There, FTFY

      --
      Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    45. Re:It's True by thunderclap · · Score: 1

      I think really we should ban cosmetics. I found so beautiful women who hide under a shroud of makeup and so truly ugly ones who do the same. lets level the paying field. ;)

  4. Europeans by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    Why is it that Euro cosmopolitans have this desire to have that "concentration camp" look. Is there some form of strange bondage and domination fetish I'm not getting? The Nazis were bad. Hmm k?

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
    1. Re:Europeans by grumbel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why is it that Euro cosmopolitans have this desire to have that "concentration camp" look.

      The more skinny the models are, the more the design of the clothes stands out. If you have a curvy model that takes away the focus from the clothes and distorts the indented shape of the clothes.

    2. Re:Europeans by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, as I understand it, it doesn't necessarily have to do with the "beauty" of the models, it has to do with how the shape of a skinny person shows off the clothing. Basically, they want walking coat-hangers.

    3. Re:Europeans by Osgeld · · Score: 2

      maybe you have the point confused, if the shape of the clothes are distorted by putting a person in them, then what the fuck are you designing them for?

    4. Re:Europeans by gerddie · · Score: 2

      Well , to be fair to Europe, in Spain skinny models were/are banned at fashion shows.

    5. Re:Europeans by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      Then why not use a coat hanger?

  5. Government Should Ban Researchers To Curb Fear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Governments are justified to prevent very well known researchers from publishing fear mongering garbage in en effort to obtain funding and ban articles suggesting that publish or perish is attractive to funding, according to a group of editors who found that that published articles influencing gullible people is largely responsible for the spread of unjustified fear."

  6. Obesity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here in the United States I think we need to do something about obesity first...

    1. Re:Obesity by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 2

      Let's ban fat people on TV too. Everybody you see must be within 10% of their ideal weight as determined by government regulators.

    2. Re:Obesity by FooAtWFU · · Score: 2

      Next, a government agency dedicated to monitoring body fat content for all employees of media companies. It will "create" 50,000 jobs in the federal bureaucracy. When an editor for the New York Times cheats on her diet, it will be a federal offense punishable by a fine of $50,000 or up to 5 years imprisonment. Lawsuits and lobbyists will fight over whether Twitter and Facebook qualify as a "media" company and thus whether said legislation applies to all users who have created an account on those services. The Department of Health and Human Services will decline a waiver for employees of organizations affiliated with religious groups who have religious dietary restrictions.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    3. Re:Obesity by chaboud · · Score: 1

      Maybe we should ban sitcoms with fat dudes who score disproportionately hot women. That's just promoting the idea that it's alright to be a fat dude.

    4. Re:Obesity by afabbro · · Score: 1

      Here in the United States I think we need to do something about obesity first...

      I don't know why this was mod'd down. Obesity really is the problem. Most of those "skinny" models are not "skinny" - they're normal-sized. It's just that Americans have become a nation of morbidly obese people.

      --
      Advice: on VPS providers
    5. Re:Obesity by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Alternatively, the government could supply fat dudes with hot women. Now that is a government program I could support.

    6. Re:Obesity by Barondude · · Score: 1

      That's exactly what I thought. Far more people suffer from obesity related issues than from anorexia. Plus sized models have to go!

      Seriously, can the government stop trying to be our parent.

      --
      "That's the sort of blinkered, philistine pig ignorance I've come to expect from you non-creative garbage."-Monty Python
    7. Re:Obesity by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Here in the United States I think we need to do something about obesity first...

      The UK (where this study was conducted. Using government funding. That was so scarce they had to cut education funding for students) has an obesity problem too. In fact, it's the "fatest" country in Europe.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    8. Re:Obesity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everybody you see must be within 10% of their ideal weight as determined by government regulators.

      The sad thing is, some people will read this and think "Hey, great idea!"

      +1 Black Humour Funny.

    9. Re:Obesity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      adding to that some of those "skinny" models are ~16 or less and it is their job to look good, don't see may complainng that there no fat girls/guys competing in the olympics

    10. Re:Obesity by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      If you want to ban something ban product advertisements for garbage foods and their counterpart, weight loss pills, magic candy bars, shakes, TV dinners, etc.. Product marketing departments and the lack of knowledge about proper diet and exercise are only rivaled in their contribution to obesity and eating disorders by the unhealthy lifestyles that are a product thereof.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    11. Re:Obesity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're dead right. If you look at photos of normal people from the 1960s nearly all of them look skinny.

      It's fat researchers (or their fat wives) who hate seeing women who are more attractive than them.

    12. Re:Obesity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Proof that people are easily swayed by constant bombardment of unrepresentative imagery right there. No way do most models they have a healty body fat percentage (8-12% for women) and the ones that do likely don't after shopping, yet afabbro doesn't even blink anymore.

    13. Re:Obesity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, no, most models are not representative of any healthy body that most people have, otherwise we wouldn't be paying them so much money. What's more there's a lot of work that goes into the flawless look they usually have.

    14. Re:Obesity by fnj · · Score: 1

      Yeah, why not within 1%? I mean that literally; why stop at 10%? How about 0.1%? How about 0.000000001%, so there is only a single perfect specimen left?

    15. Re:Obesity by fnj · · Score: 1

      Some people are heavy. Some are LIGHT. Fucking DEAL WITH IT. Your idea of perfection, or some committee's idea, does NOT impress me.

      If you want to create a perfect robot race, with every one stamped out an exact copy, be my guest.

    16. Re:Obesity by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      Because it would be too difficult to get the regulators to agree on whether the perfect specimen is Liv Tyler or Beyonce Knowles.

      And how could you televise the cage match between the top champions of their perfection?

  7. The headlines in 20 years... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Government should ban overweight models to curb obesity, say researchers..."

  8. Don't ban them, ship them to the USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People here are too fat, so it all works out perfectly.

  9. Another voice calling for government by grantspassalan · · Score: 0

    to fix something that isn't even broken. The government can always fix everything can't they? Stupid!

    --
    A sufficiently advanced simulation is indistinguishable from reality.
  10. Isn't it clear by now? by telekon · · Score: 4, Funny

    Fat models, skinny controllers, dumb views...

    Oh, wait, are we not talking about code all of a sudden? Okay, in that case, dumb, skinny models, and no fat chicks.

    In fact, forget I was here.

    --

    To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

  11. Good luck, because... by fyngyrz · · Score: 2

    ...it's for the children (who are inadequately parented)!!!

    So there are going to be a lot of people who will throw everyone and everything else under the bus.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Good luck, because... by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 5, Informative

      Okay.

      I've got an eight-year-old girl. Every day I tell her that she's smart and strong and brave and beautiful, and that I love her, and that I'm proud of her. We've told her how they use computers to make models look different than in real life. (The Fotoshop by Adobé ad is great)

      Yet for all the work we do to tell her how incredible and awesome she is, there's a constant barrage of ads screaming that she's ugly and dumb and girls are wimpy.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    2. Re:Good luck, because... by JSG · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ... so who is winning?

      You say what you do and you say what ads do but no conclusion unless we have to take the last phrase of your comment as you feel that's what she thinks.

      I feel your pain but apparently parents have been worried for millennia about external influences on their children. If ads is the worst you've got then that's perhaps not too bad. You might like to compare your worries with parents in say the Syrian city of Homs.

      Wait until she's around 12-15. You'll really have worries then as she becomes rapidly more sophisticated and "teen" ...

      Best of luck (OK - enjoy every moment, even when you are shitting yourself with worry)

      Cheers
      Jon

    3. Re:Good luck, because... by icebike · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yet for all the work we do to tell her how incredible and awesome she is, there's a constant barrage of ads screaming that she's ugly and dumb and girls are wimpy.

      Really?
      Seems you must have an entirely different source of advertising than I see.
      The tendency over the last 10 years is to portray men and boys as idiots who can't figure out which end of a hammer to pound with, and are utterly helpless in taking care of themselves, while the 75 pound girl can throw two them over her shoulder and carry them up two flights of stairs.

      All these ads these days seem to be written by and for women. The same is true of most tv shows.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    4. Re:Good luck, because... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 2

      Sounds to me like she'll be fine. If she's getting the kind of validation from you that you say she is, she won't look for it elsewhere. If you're really that worried about it, though, why not just get rid of the TV?

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    5. Re:Good luck, because... by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

      Well, if she treats ads as gospel, I think something is wrong.

    6. Re:Good luck, because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Exactly! It seems like most ads these days depict men/fathers being bumbling fools, standing around like a caveman scratching their heads, and a super sophisticated, intelligent modern woman rolls in and sorts it out for them.

      I often think if that ad was reversed, I bet there would be a huge public outcry and the network would be bombarded with complaints and they would have to pull the ad. Men don't give a shit, but I bet all sorts of women's groups would get their panties in a bunch if it was the other way round.

      Inferiority complex much? No wonder we are raising and whole generation of fucked up boys...

    7. Re:Good luck, because... by turing_m · · Score: 1

      Why not take control over your children's video diet instead of letting television executives (and hence advertising and marketing execs) decide what your children are going to turn out like? HDDs are cheap. Media players are cheap. Even if you decide to buy DVDs rather than pirate, it's still not that expensive to buy things like TV series for kids rather than look at whatever crap the TV stations pump out. You are looking at the investment of a thousand or two that will last for a lot of their childhood. The other advantage to buying is that there is some really good (and usually old) content that the media companies have decided to make available. You won't often find these on torrent sites, but they are well worth having. So for a few thousand your kids can have "the best" during their formative years.

      --
      If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
    8. Re:Good luck, because... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      They don't need computers to present unrealistic choices. A tall Sudanese woman that grew up with malnutrition to the point of causing her knees to bend a different way became a supermodel. Without the same genetic makeup and starving upbringing a girl is not going to look like her. Similarly many healthy girls of european descent are not going to be able to look like a little woman from the Phillipines or Japan.
      I'm not knocking the models, such as Dirie Waris from Sudan who has written some interesting books, but instead the marketing firms that push agendas of beauty so hard that it inspires anoroxia. What else can we expect from the people that set out to make smoking popular amoung women and succeeded with dramatic effect?

    9. Re:Good luck, because... by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      But she isn't as great as you think/encourage her to be. Everyone has to come to terms with this sooner or later. True, an 8-year-old isn't ready to test her mettle, but saying that ads are touched-up just supports the delusion that everyone can become a model/genius/millionaire.

    10. Re:Good luck, because... by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      The problem is that you can justify almost any abridgment of the first amendment using that line of reasoning. And a world without free speech would probably be a lot worse for your daughter in the end (though you may be unable to see that now).

      Realistically, you are simply going to need to be aware of what's going on with her enough that you can tell if she develops an eating disorder. No amount of government regulation is going to relieve you of that responsibility.

    11. Re:Good luck, because... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      It just means she's not 35 yet. Kids will believe a lot of things until they know better.

    12. Re:Good luck, because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you seen the state of the world? Of politics? Can you honestly say that 35 year olds are much better? Sorry for being cynical, but our current society is still pathetically infested with ignoramuses.

      Judging people based on age alone won't get you very far. That's not to say experience doesn't matter at all, but you likely don't know what a person does or doesn't know based on just their age.

      If we treat kids like babies, they will be babies. If we censor everything for the children, everything will be censored.

    13. Re:Good luck, because... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I just picked a number high enough that everyone could agree it's an adult (was going for 25 but changed it to 35 to make it really obvious). There's a bit of a difference between what an 8 year old sees as credible and even a fairly cedulous adult sees as credible.
      There is also a difference between censorship and pointing out that something the kid has seen is not real.
      Anyway, compare these two images of a model that's tall and thin to start with (but a healthy 22 year old) to see what sort of shit fools these kids:
      http://ugpulse.com/images/articles/daily/20070717_100_447.jpg
      http://www.ugpulse.com/images/articles/20070717_100_1.jpg
      You and I can see that the aspect ratio of the second image has been played with to make the model look like an impossible Disney princess. The kids know enough that they know the cartoon princesses are not real but they'll fall for this image or more subtle ones. That's not even an extreme or a pre-pubescent model pretending to be a woman but two images that came up when I was trying to find the name of Waris Dirie (Sudanese model) for another post above.

    14. Re:Good luck, because... by epyT-R · · Score: 2

      maybe she is ugly and dumb?

      at some point society needs to accept the truth, whatever it is...and parents need to teach kids how to handle the truth instead of filling their heads with bs. most guys find thin girls more attractive because they are healthier.. encouraging overweight people to be comfortable with it just to appease feelings is not a good idea for anyone, and is another example of today's cultures demanding that feelings take precedence over facts.

    15. Re:Good luck, because... by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      you've already forgotten what it means to be a teenager.. once she hits that age, her peers become the ones she tries to live up to, not her parents.

    16. Re:Good luck, because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If she does get fat it's all over and I see nothing in your post about how you're helping her avoid being a fatty.

    17. Re:Good luck, because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go ever further. Go search for those pages with compilations of celebrities with and without makeup.

    18. Re:Good luck, because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I have some sad news for you they actually do look like that it's not a conspiracy, if you have doubts come to Elite model look in any slavic country or even just any regular night club, the fact that US has crazy obesity rate does not mean this is world wide issue.

    19. Re:Good luck, because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well a good portion of those models are from eastern europe and unless one considers not eating super sized extra fatty meals 3 times a day a malnutrition they just have a more healthy lifestyle.

    20. Re:Good luck, because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh don't spew bullshit like that. No kid takes the "you're such a beautiful, smart child" shit seriously.

      Even if it is meant sincerely it has not got the same effect as everyone in your class calling you fat and ugly because you aren't wearing the latest shit or are any larger than size 0.

    21. Re:Good luck, because... by Ihmhi · · Score: 2

      IMO, the best way to deal with stuff like this is to tell people the motivations behind the actions and hateful messages as best as you know them.

      Darling, the dieting companies are saying you are fat because they want you to think you are not fine the way you are. Then you'll sign up for their food delivery service and give them your money.

      The makeup companies want you to think you're ugly so you'll buy their makeup to be "pretty".

      And so on. I've told younger friends, kids of friends, etc. that whenever you worry about something like that, think more about the motivation of the person saying it. "This guy is saying I'm weak because he wants my money."

    22. Re:Good luck, because... by vakuona · · Score: 2

      For millions of years, parents were able to influence their children because individually, they had a lot more influence in their large community, and kids grew up around their parents, worked with them, and generally did stuff with them. Now, parents can hardly influence the environment around their kids. It's now luck of the draw, whether your kids turns out good or not.

    23. Re:Good luck, because... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Oh I remember the angst from my teenage years quite well. But the fact of the matter is, kids that grow up in supportive households tend to develop mostly healthy relationships with their peers, rather than shallow friendships.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    24. Re:Good luck, because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... so who is winning?

      Pop culture. She looks around, sees all the disgusting fatbodies cramming food into their faces at school, and thinks "God, I never want to be like that!"

      Seriously, people looking too thin in modeling photos is not the problem. HD TV is already solving that problem, rather appropriately as it was the camera's "add 10 pounds" that made the effect so bad in the 80's and 90's. Of course cocaine and heroine had a lot to do with it as well.

    25. Re:Good luck, because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm going to share the unpopular opinion here: "Telling" her that stuff is great... but is she actually that stuff? I know you're biased, and I am not trying to insult your kid. I'm simply pointing out that there's nobody on earth that can't use some improvement.

      I'm not suggesting that you should agree with the ads, and slag your daughter. But maybe these ads provide a teachable moment - "Well no honey, you shouldn't aspire to look like that, those women are unhealthily skinny. But maybe we're all a bit in the opposite direction in this family, and could stand to get more exercise - what do you say we take a walk together every evening, and find vegetables we like so we can start every meal with a good salad?"

      Good parenting isn't about swaddling your child in "nothing but positivity, even if they're lies" any more than it's about "not caring what the external influences in the media say to her."

    26. Re:Good luck, because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Children can tell when you are lying. You shower them with words. They know that words are empty. Your 8 year old is not old enough to be smart, strong, brave and beautiful. She might be all of those things someday if she works and studies, strives and overcomes. Has it ever occurred to you to simply eliminate TV's from your house and ban internet access for you kids. You might consider home schooling also.

      I dont know what media you are watching, but I have not seen anything about how girls are wimpy in decades...

      In fact, it is clear for the last 10 years that it is boys that are under assault all across our feminized society. One only has to look at the low participation rates of boys in school and the declining rates of attachment for males in the workforce.

      Is it an coincidence that 10 years in, the military and particularly combat arms have no difficulty meeting their recruitment goals.

      People want truth not lies. They want their accomplishments to be real not subsidized.

    27. Re:Good luck, because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should tell your daughter about Subliminal Distraction too. This problem was discovered when it caused mental breaks for office workers forty years ago. There is circumstantial evidence that classrooms can also cause the problem for a small number of sensitive people. The repeating subliminal appreciation of threat from failed subliminal attempts to execute the vision startle reflex acting as a punishment or reward for operant conditioning is probably the cause of Anorexia.

      Visit the Culture Bound Syndromes page at VisionAndPsychosis.Net.

    28. Re:Good luck, because... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Wait, you're suggesting that it's normal to treat ads as gospel up to the age of 35? I'd say if you still tread ads as gospel at 20 there's something very wrong.

      However that maybe explains the many spam messages saying "as seen on national TV" -- I always wondered if there's anyone who considers "seen on national TV" as sign of quality.

      (Disclaimer: I don't know if the spam messages still say that, that's from back when spam filtering was still in its infancy.)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    29. Re:Good luck, because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's excellent thinking. It also explains much of why the world works the way it does: follow the money.

    30. Re:Good luck, because... by hoggoth · · Score: 1

      I showed my eight-year-old girl Kick-Ass and told her she could be like Hit-Girl if she worked hard enough. "See honey, Hit-Girl is tiny and skinny just like you, but she just obliterated those drug-gang punks and hardly broke a sweat."

      You just have to look for the positive messages in the media, they are out there if you look for them.

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    31. Re:Good luck, because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then act like an adult and turn off the TV. Believe it or not you don't have to subject you and your children to the constant stream of media. Go outside and talk a walk, plant a garden, just get off your butt and act like a parent and quit using the TV to babysit.

    32. Re:Good luck, because... by mrbcs · · Score: 1

      Seems you must have an entirely different source of advertising than I see.

      What are these "ads" that you speak of? My house has a PVR and we record EVERYTHING before we watch it. The 30 second jump button works perfectly.

      --
      I'm not anti-social, I'm anti-idiot.
    33. Re:Good luck, because... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      No.
      Please see my other post as to how I just picked a high number to try to cut down on idiotic posts like yours and also please stop attempting to insert an entire fucking David Eddings novel series of complete fantasy between the lines. What I suggested is what is written.

    34. Re:Good luck, because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've got an eight-year-old girl. Every day I tell her that she's smart and strong and brave and beautiful, and that I love her, and that I'm proud of her.

      And she's going to meet a fella in high school or college who will do filthy, filthy, filthy things with her.

    35. Re:Good luck, because... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      That's a stark reminder of how bad the problem of corporate influence on the public has become.

      "Advertising is pushing my daughter to pursue a potentially unhealthy body image so that they can sell her crap to make some execs rich."

      "Well...you'll just have to keep an eye on her to make sure she doesn't develop an eating disorder, not much you can do..."

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    36. Re:Good luck, because... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      most guys find thin girls more attractive because they are healthier..

      Thinner than the US average, sure, but mostly not the super-thin curveless body that's popular in the fashion industry.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    37. Re:Good luck, because... by exomondo · · Score: 1

      there's a constant barrage of ads screaming that she's ugly and dumb and girls are wimpy.

      For example?
      I seem to recall seeing the opposite, that blokes are lazy, bumbling idiots that need the help of a woman just to get through the day.

    38. Re:Good luck, because... by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      That's a stark reminder of how bad the problem of corporate influence on the public has become.

      By the way, you should remember this, and shout it loud, next time someone seriously suggests that banning burqas is a good idea. Remind them that "mainstream" society doesn't exactly occupy the moral high ground when it comes to pressuring girls and women to look a certain way.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    39. Re:Good luck, because... by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Turning off the television is a start.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
  12. Would it work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe. Probably. I'd even edge towards definitely given time.

    Should they do it? Fuck no. That screams wrong in every way.

  13. It's living art. by earls · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The social manifestation of the persecution of beauty.

    1. Re:It's living art. by metlin · · Score: 1

      Well said, sir.

  14. Large Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With America being among one of the most overweight countries in the world, we could use a few more people to eat a little less. It'ud be better for the environment too.

  15. arent there more obese people.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You would think if a government was gonna start banning things it would be the crazy amount of unhealthy foods around.
    To the best of my knowledge obesity is a much bigger issue then Anorexia....

  16. Anorexia in Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  17. Actuarially, no. by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You know, the thing about insurance of groups, which is essentially a statistical undertaking, is that there are always outliers in both directions, and they are accounted for. There are insured people who never go to the doctor or need medical treatment. And there are insured people who go every time someone *else* sniffles. Over a large population, it'll balance out just fine.

    Whenever someone starts sniveling about the over-users, take a moment to remind them of me, someone who has been well insured for decades and hasn't *ever* made a health insurance claim -- I seem to have an immune system like a Sherman tank. So far, lol. 55 and counting, though, not too bad.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Actuarially, no. by Rockoon · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      You know, the thing about insurance of groups, which is essentially a statistical undertaking, is that there are always outliers in both directions, and they are accounted for.

      In most cases it seems, "both directions" do not cancel out in the way that you are describing. They are often additive as in this case, where the morbidly obese and the deathly skinny both cost everyone else in the risk pool more money over the long haul.

      Whenever someone starts sniveling about the over-users, take a moment to remind them of me...

      Yes, remind them of the guy that only needs catastrophic coverage but is getting completely ripped off with a regular maintenance health insurance plan. You are proving the point.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    2. Re:Actuarially, no. by Pharmboy · · Score: 0

      there are always outliers in both directions, and they are accounted for. There are insured people who never go to the doctor or need medical treatment. And there are insured people who go every time someone *else* sniffles. Over a large population, it'll balance out just fine.

      Not really. In this system, as someone who isn't a hypochondriac, I end up subsidizing their over-zealousness. Then again, it is still better than a government run system, as I at least have choices of carriers and coverage.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    3. Re:Actuarially, no. by icebike · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Outliers in both directions, but in the present case, not to the same extent.

      The outliers in weight clearly favor the heavy side, and its a far tougher nut to crack that the anorexic who looked at a magazine. I suggest the researchers come up with a believable way to control the tendency towards overweight by changing pictures in a magazine. Then they would have something of true value.

      One could even make the case that removing the skinny side of normal from the cultural images may push the tendency towards acceptance of more obesity. This would have a far greater effect on health care costs than anorexia.

      One half of one percent of women go thru a period of anorexia. Of these only 5 – 10% die of their disorder within 10 years. Yet 35.7% of Americans suffer from obesity. Medical costs for obesity on average were $1,429 higher per person per year.

      So the outliers aren't significant on the skinny side, but they are devastating on the fat side.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    4. Re:Actuarially, no. by jhoegl · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The way I see it, all people are societies responsibility.
      You want to harp on someone because they are too skinny, too fat, have too many pits in their face, dont have a square jaw, arent up to your standards?
      Fine, but you get to pay for their psychotherapy, or alternate cause because therapy is not covered in our society.
      People wonder why school shootings, beatings, rapes, etc. keep happening to our children. But what they should do is look in the mirror and think back at all the harm they have caused. Words dont hurt? Perhaps not right away, but over time... your attitude adds up and costs society.
      If you dont reap what you sew, too bad. Society must be held accountable from now on for its own actions.

    5. Re:Actuarially, no. by TheGavster · · Score: 2

      For traditional insurance from a private firm, this is exactly how it works. The policy generally places certain conditions on insurability, but market forces prevent the conditions from becoming too draconian. When the government is the sole insurer, however, there is no check on what is deemed a threat to health. Additionally, since there is generally no "opt-out" option provided (ie, subscription to the national insurance is mandatory), these conditions aren't simply limits to insurability, but carry the coercive force of law. The number one argument against public insurance is that it enables "personal health" to become the new "terrorism" in invading people's lives.

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    6. Re:Actuarially, no. by locopuyo · · Score: 2

      I think it already has in some of our society. People are always saying don't make fun of fat people and if someone does they are treated like a racist.

    7. Re:Actuarially, no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, my government run system is amazing. Cheap and everyone gets decent healthcare. It's not really doable in the US though because the doctors are so afraid of getting sued that they send someone for an MRI everytime they get a cough. Better safe than sorry... so universal healthcare is pretty much impossible.

    8. Re:Actuarially, no. by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      People are always saying don't make fun of fat people and if someone does they are treated like a racist.

      Really?

      What part of the country do you live...? I've never seen this happen. Have you never seen the emails forwarded around with all the lardo's waddling around WalMarts is scarily scantily clothes?? Everyone I know sends those around for a good laugh.

      Deservedly so.....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    9. Re:Actuarially, no. by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, remind them of the guy that only needs catastrophic coverage

      No. Look, the only way you can KNOW you "only" need catastrophic coverage is on the day you die and you can sum up your ENTIRE medical history. And then it's too late. I *need* medical insurance because I *may* get ill. Just because I've not *been* ill, doesn't mean that I won't *get* ill. That's what insurance is: trading some wealth today against the possibility something goes awry tomorrow. People who only get catastrophic coverage don't understand probability. But overall, across the pool, there WILL be people who are very healthy overall. The problem the individual faces is that you can't know if that's you or not until it's too late.

      Look, we're all better off if the fewest number of people are sick and/or suffering. Just bite the bullet and admit it. Just as an educated populace moves society forward, just as a good road system benefits everyone, including those who don't drive on it, so does a healthy society benefit us all. It's one of those things that is really pretty obvious when you really think about it.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    10. Re:Actuarially, no. by fyngyrz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No. It is *ridiculous* to hold person A responsible for what person B thinks.

      What society needs to do is imbue its members with a healthy sense of self that doesn't go gibbering into a corner when someone expresses a contrary opinion or otherwise says something that isn't a "good" thing in someone else's personal opinion.

      When some child (or adult, for that matter) goes off the rails and pulls a Columbine, and we are sure they are the party that did the deed, we should hang them high and give them zero publicity. That kind of acting out is the province of the subhuman.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    11. Re:Actuarially, no. by Rockoon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The way I see it, all people are societies responsibility.

      ..and thus, your health is everyones business.

      Smoker? Outlawed.
      Fatty foods? Outlawed.
      Skinny Models? Outlawed.
      ...

      The thing is that you will never see the end of the push for these laws because some people truly believe that individuals are societies responsibility. They only want to help. They are believers. You can't deter believers. Its for your own good.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    12. Re:Actuarially, no. by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      So the outliers aren't significant on the skinny side, but they are devastating on the fat side.

      Look, here's the thing. At the one extreme, we can completely control your diet so that you eat what we think to be the best diet possible, the exact number of calories, the one glass of wine every 2.3 days, we can strap you to your chair so your posture is always perfect, we can make you breathe through a mask, forbid smoking anything, shut down all industry and vehicular pollution generation, pad every sharp surface, force you to go to group calisthenics for your block every morning... etc. Obviously, this would be awful. It's a bad idea to even LOOK down that road, much less travel it.

      At the other extreme, we can *educate* people as to what the optimum choices are thought to be with our best research at the moment, and some people will do some of the things indicated to protect their health.

      I am far more inclined towards the latter than the former. And, observing that society paid for roads, but they are used quite unevenly, yet the benefit is huge... also police... also fire departments... I rather think that the same thing will apply to health care. I simply am not concerned if this group or that group uses more or less -- I want them all to have it so that the benefits, whatever they are, may accrue to us all in general.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    13. Re:Actuarially, no. by Smauler · · Score: 4, Informative

      Of course people are society's responsibilty. I live in the UK, and I do like the NHS.

      Some people I know use the NHS as emotional support. These people are not ill, either mentally, or physically. They just like seeing their doctor every so often.

      Some people I know use the NHS every time they get a cold - literally. The doctor tells them to piss off (not in so many words, but I wish he would), and they go home happy.

      When I tell these people that that's where your tax is going, they don't get it. When I tell them that's where my tax is going, they still don't get it.

      The people who are ill are not the the problem. The people who are fine and think they can use a "free" service as much as they like are.

    14. Re:Actuarially, no. by Rockoon · · Score: 3, Informative

      I *need* medical insurance because I *may* get ill.

      No, thats not why you need health insurance. You need health insurance because you cannot afford the out of pocket expenses of some illnesses. You seem to have a warped view of the role health insurance plays in society.

      Do you have $5000 in the bank? If so, then why do you need coverage for anything that will cost under $5000? The fact is that if you have $5000 in the bank then you do not. Thats why there exists catastrophic health insurance plans.. its for actual smart people that actually know what health insurance is actually for.

      You know what the United States health insurance reform mainly did? It made catastrophic coverage "not enough" .. its going to be illegal to play it smart.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    15. Re:Actuarially, no. by icebike · · Score: 1

      I fail to see how this argument is germane to anything I said.

      The idea that we should ban skinny models because .5% of girls have a brush with anorexia while doing nothing about banning fat models to "protect" the 35% of obese people is ludicrous.

      This has nothing to do with publicly funded health care.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    16. Re:Actuarially, no. by tukang · · Score: 1

      Identifying that outliers exist in both directions is not enough. You need to quantify them in order to reach the conclusion that they would cancel each other out over a large population and it is not clear at all that the rates would be roughly the same in both directions. Intuitively, it seems that the number of people who would NOT seek help when really sick would be much less than the number of people who would seek help even though they're completely healthy.

    17. Re:Actuarially, no. by fyngyrz · · Score: 1, Interesting

      No, thats not why you need health insurance. You need health insurance because you cannot afford the out of pocket expenses of some illnesses.

      This is just one consequence down the road. If I *don't* get ill, I won't need to be able to afford the healthcare.

      Do you have $5000 in the bank? If so, then why do you need coverage for anything that will cost under $5000?

      Sure, I've got 5k available. That's enough for one good ER visit, maybe a cast and an ambulance ride, or just a few minutes in the OR. $5000 isn't even a drop in the bucket in terms of potential financial liability for healthcare. The only way to make sure that a health problem doesn't rain utter financial destruction on my family is to pool the risk in a sane way.

      You know what the United States health insurance reform mainly did? It made catastrophic coverage "not enough" .. its going to be illegal to play it smart.

      FTFY: "You know what the United States health insurance reform mainly did? It made catastrophic coverage "not enough" .. its going to be illegal to play it clueless and assume you know what tomorrow will bring."

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    18. Re:Actuarially, no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's not that simple. Making fat people feel lousy for being fat and constantly reminding them how useless they are just makes them fatter - if a fat person is depressed they resort to food and eat more. But trying to make society accepting of everyone allows everyone to participate (fitness centres, sports etc) and become healthier.

      Constantly pushing extreme skinny models in front of everyone makes people resort to extreme yo-yo dieting which also makes people fatter in the long run. When you look at those statistics for anorexia, also add in bulimia and also just general bad dieting.

    19. Re:Actuarially, no. by icebike · · Score: 1

      Wait, where did I mention anything about making fat people feel lousy?

      I happen to be fat, you Insensitive Clod!

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    20. Re:Actuarially, no. by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Apparently you haven't see Full Metal Jacket.

    21. Re:Actuarially, no. by darkonc · · Score: 1, Redundant
      First of all -- pound for pound, being underweight is less healthy than being overweight. Consider: If you're 150 pounds overweight, it's likely to cut 20 years off of your life. If you'[re 150 pounds underweight, you're probably already dead and your skeleton picked clean. At some point, being under weight got a lot more unhealthy than being over weight.

      And, in terms of looks, consider that Marilyn Munroe would never get past the reception desk of most talent agencies today -- yet she's still considered one of the sexiest women of the 20th century.

      This has been a peve of mine for a while, and I actuallybelieve that the unhealthy obsession with being thin is costing us on both sides of the equation. If you get yourself artificially thin enough to fit the media view of 'normal', then you're unhealthy. If on the other hand, you give up trying to be the unhealthy 'normal', then you're at risk of becoming obese. Getting the press back on track with celebrating 'normal' as beautiful would probably be good for the health of almost everybody involved.

      --
      Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
    22. Re:Actuarially, no. by reub2000 · · Score: 1

      Anorexia is the most extreme eating disorder, and only accounts for a fraction of all eating disorders. All of which can have medical complications.

    23. Re:Actuarially, no. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      When some child (or adult, for that matter) goes off the rails and pulls a Columbine, and we are sure they are the party that did the deed, we should hang them high and give them zero publicity. That kind of acting out is the province of the subhuman.

      We treat children like subhumans. Why are we surprised when they act like them?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    24. Re:Actuarially, no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, Racists are dickheads.

      And when you pick on people and generally try to make fun of them (unless the person in reciept of the abuse knows you are his freind and takes it in kind) you are behaving like a dickhead.

      So I can see why you are confused and conflate the two.

      Try to stop behaving like a dickhead - see if that improves things?

    25. Re:Actuarially, no. by Smauler · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Consider: If you're 150 pounds overweight, it's likely to cut 20 years off of your life. If you'[re 150 pounds underweight, you're probably already dead

      No shit, sherlock.

      I personally don't think the problem is with the skinny models, it's with the photoshopping that goes on in the industry. It's absurd - look at this for example - scroll down a page to first photo..

      I mean, she was skinny to begin with... but attractive - with the photoshop, she's just odd looking. And that's what they're aiming for.

    26. Re:Actuarially, no. by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And, in terms of looks, consider that Marilyn Munroe would never get past the reception desk of most talent agencies today

      Her chunkiness has been exaggerated. First, remember that when she died she was 36 - she had already moved from modeling to movies by age 20, so those pictures of Marilyn that you see in the JFK era are when she was well past the age that she walked past the reception desk!

      I'm hardly a Marilyn fanatic, but I've seen enough of her movies to know that she's all over the place weight-wise, and in the early 50s you find pictures like this rack-o-ribs that show her looking rather emaciated.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    27. Re:Actuarially, no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People wonder why school shootings, beatings, rapes, etc. keep happening to our children.

      What, you mean those things committed by a tiny minority of the population? Do you suggest we censor everything for a minority? How about ban something because of what a minority might do (people sometimes use cars to commit crimes)?

    28. Re:Actuarially, no. by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 1

      Outliers in both directions, but in the present case, not to the same extent.

      The outliers in weight clearly favor the heavy side, and its a far tougher nut to crack that the anorexic who looked at a magazine. I suggest the researchers come up with a believable way to control the tendency towards overweight by changing pictures in a magazine. Then they would have something of true value.

      One could even make the case that removing the skinny side of normal from the cultural images may push the tendency towards acceptance of more obesity. This would have a far greater effect on health care costs than anorexia.

      One half of one percent of women go thru a period of anorexia. Of these only 5 – 10% die of their disorder within 10 years. Yet 35.7% of Americans suffer from obesity. Medical costs for obesity on average were $1,429 higher per person per year.

      So the outliers aren't significant on the skinny side, but they are devastating on the fat side.

      Comprehensive anorexia treatment costs about $120k/year, and the numbers I've read in recent papers show closer to 20% fatality rates, though when I've looked into the methodology used to create that number I saw a ton of guessing. I'm not saying anorexia is a bigger problem than obesity, but I am saying it's a huge, and expensive problem. It's certainly orders of magnitude more deadly than, for instance, terrorism. Glamorizing unhealthy body types has been linked to increased obesity as well as anorexia, too.

      Again, I'm not advocating an action, just urging kneejerk posters on Slashdot to recognize that anorexia is an increasingly terrible problem faced by hundreds of thousands of women and some smaller number of men.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    29. Re:Actuarially, no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reese's Peanut Butter cups... outlawed.

      Generic Senator Buddy approved Food Gel... approved!

    30. Re:Actuarially, no. by MechaStreisand · · Score: 1

      $5000 isn't even a drop in the bucket in terms of potential financial liability for healthcare.

      Do you not understand that that's what catastrophic coverage is for? Are you reading a single word he's saying?

      --
      Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
    31. Re:Actuarially, no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, I've got 5k available. That's enough for one good ER visit, maybe a cast and an ambulance ride, or just a few minutes in the OR. $5000 isn't even a drop in the bucket in terms of potential financial liability for healthcare. The only way to make sure that a health problem doesn't rain utter financial destruction on my family is to pool the risk in a sane way.

      ... or in other words: "The damn rich need to give me some of that money they have stashed away for their healthcare... it's not fair to me!"

    32. Re:Actuarially, no. by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      Sure, I've got 5k available. That's enough for one good ER visit, maybe a cast and an ambulance ride, or just a few minutes in the OR. $5000 isn't even a drop in the bucket in terms of potential financial liability for healthcare.

      You missed his point. His point was he doesn't need to pay a fortune for a plan with low deductables since he has $5,000 saved for emergencies. He would rather keep more of his money and have a plan with a $5000 deductable than pay more for a plan that has a $200 deductable.

    33. Re:Actuarially, no. by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Yet, when over 30% - a fucking third - of the adult population is obese - not just fat, but obese - the cost is much, much more highly distributed to people in a healthier weight class.

      Sorry, but when you're overweight, you have health implications. They impact everyone, particularly with a socialist state-run healthcare system or one which has high regulatory control at every level, like the one we're in now. (And in case you want to jump on me for saying 'regulation is bad', fuck off, that wasn't what I said and isn't what I mean, so kindly look into how highly regulated and upward cost-controlled before accusing me of being one of those people.)

      Obese people have more health problems than any other demographic: heart failure, diabetes, dermatology and orthopedic problems, you name it. It is massively, massively expensive. It isn't going to balance out: you're going to have people on health disability who sit at home, and on the other side you'll have people paying hundreds of dollars per pay period for what amounts to "oh shit" catastrophic life care, like an automotive accident or cancer.

      Sorry: it's not going to 'balance out' when a third of your "large enough" population is obese. You've got to start denying people healthcare for what is, essentially, a terminal illness (if left uncorrected).

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    34. Re:Actuarially, no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While the beginning of his post easily implies that the outliers in both directions as fat vs skinny the rest of his post implies he is talking about healthy vs unhealthy (I may be wrong, it's just how I read it). In such a scenario the healthy do indeed offset (subsidize) the unhealthy. The unhealthy could be fat, skinny, or have any number of diseases related to lifestyle, age or genetics. In the middle of the group there should be little loss or gain.

    35. Re:Actuarially, no. by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Myths of fat-acceptance. Marilyn had like a 22-inch waist, which is smaller than many emaciate fashion models. "Normal" is not beautiful, it's just average.

    36. Re:Actuarially, no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry if I seem harsh, but I will not dull down my points. You are straying from logic and intuition to either prevent hurting other peoples feelings or to try to someway bolster yours. Sorry, but as a just another animal going down the path of Darwinian evolution, I have to say and many others who are honest with themselves have to say that obese people are not attractive and they do not appear to be suitable mates. They come off as very unhealthy and don't appear to have traits conducive to survival.

      Society needs to start being honest with itself. Models are in magazines because people find them attractive. People who are obese are not attractive. There is nothing wrong with being unattractive, but we should not tell them that they are attractive. Telling people that it is ok to be obese is a horrible way to run society. If we tell adults this and they believe it, they will teach their children this and children will become obese because they think it is normal. This type of behavior will claim many lives of productive members of society. True, we might lose more members of society from them being too skinny if we act logical, but there will be far fewer of these cases because a majority of people think that being too skinny is also unattractive (being a model does not make you too skinny, but there are models that are too skinny).

    37. Re:Actuarially, no. by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Of course, given how "obese" and "overweight" are defined, sometimes the "overweight" ARE the deathly skinny. Given my lean body mass, my "normal" body weight is between 3% and -%15 body fat.

    38. Re:Actuarially, no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Emaciated? Hardly boss, if you look closely at how the bikini top cuts into the flesh of the side, or my favorite for rough judgement of fleshiness on the part of women, the tricep area, she's a perfectly normal 20 something. Also notice the softness of the mid to lower abdomen.

      Marilyn, for all your desire to paint her as such, was never "thin" she was using modeling techniques that were common in her era to create the illusion of thinness, and/or fitness (often also used with men, as in abdominal vacuuming).

      Marilyn would have be fine today, for the things she was good for in her day. Appealing to men. The women addressed in the 'anorexia' advertisements are more often found in magazines featuring fashion and/or lifestyle for women. In Marilyn's ere there was less of a discrepancy between the two.

      Would this solve the anorexia problem... hellefino. It would it more fun to flip through my wife's mags when I am stranded in the car waiting for her.

    39. Re:Actuarially, no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who has worked in the fashion industry as a photographer, Marilyn in the photo you linked would most definitely not be considered a "rack-o-ribs". I absolutely assure you that the areas highlighted here would be photoshopped out, and I've sat through a great many photo reviews. Though I can't for sure know if the highlighted lat is sag, it'd still be gone.

      Modern models, both male and female, are astonishingly skinny all over. Seeing them in person ratifies that. On several occasions I've been offered my fill of clothing after a shoot was finished, but I've hardly ever found things that fit. I'm no fat guy, I have a legit 26.2 sticker. But neither am I a rail, I can squat my body weight. Their shit just doesn't fit.

    40. Re:Actuarially, no. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 5, Informative

      Then again, it is still better than a government run system, as I at least have choices of carriers and coverage.

      I'll just keep using the Swedish *evil* government-run *evil* healthcare system that puts an affordable clinic and pharmacy in nearly every borough of Stockholm, thanks.

      Who needs a false "choice" amongst "carriers" (= middle-men/profiteers) when I've already got a better deal than any US insurance company ever has given or is ever going to give me?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    41. Re:Actuarially, no. by dr2chase · · Score: 1

      Quit worrying so much about the small fraction that abuses (or mis-uses, or gratuitously uses) the system, and be glad that you're not paying as much as we are in the US, dying earlier like we are in the US, and at risk of medical-bill-induced-bankruptcy like we are here in the US. Humans aren't perfect. They're not perfect "customers", not perfect patients, not perfect doctors, nor are they perfect administrators. You guys in England have a system that works decently well, and before you tinker with it too much to cut down on the frivolous users, remember, "first, do no harm".

      And who's to say that those people bothering the doctor with every little case of the sniffles does not need to see the doctor, not necessarily for the cold, but perhaps instead to relieve their nervous worry (their sincere, nervous, debilitating worry) that this time, it's Ebola.

    42. Re:Actuarially, no. by dr2chase · · Score: 1

      I think if the researchers came up with a way to reduce obesity through what was published, they would propose it. I read TFA, their point is that they believe (based on their studies) that anorexia and bulimia could be reduced by changing pictures in a magazine, and that would save lives, suffering, and medical expenses (and the rest of us are not that worse off for not seeing pictures of women skinnier than we are ever likely to encounter in the flesh; and it is, after all, commercial speech). The argument I keep reading in the comments here is that even though we have an idea that is likely to work, we should instead not attempt to save those lives, and instead, we should focus our efforts on a larger problem for which similarly easy solutions as yet elude us. Makes no sense -- why wait to do this, when we could do it now, and continue working on obesity?

      And if you look at historical trends for magazine models skinniness and population obesity, they seem to move in opposite directions -- we were thinner, when models were fatter.

    43. Re:Actuarially, no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a guy I don't find those models attractive - they're too skinny. Pencil thin doesn't do it for me. They have to have that moderate hour-glass figure (skinnier at the waist but not too skinny[1]). Plump but with a skinnier waist looks better than "wasting away".

      Might be my genes telling me that from a "evolutionary" perspective they are too skinny and so they won't be as fertile and able to carry, nurse and take care of a child.

      Just seems like in the fashion world (the "western" one at least) the designers just want "racks" to hang their clothes off. We guys may be sexist but anorexic women ain't our doing. Blame it on the fashion designers. They like the drug addict or "dying from AIDS/cancer" look for some strange stupid reason.

      [1] This is too skinny (looks diseased/sickly): http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/03/30/article-0-0B68C4F300000578-367_306x749.jpg
      This is ok:
      http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/03/30/article-1371705-0B69377F00000578-549_306x749.jpg
      (it's the same person, maybe the first photo is photoshopped to look worse?).

    44. Re:Actuarially, no. by webnut77 · · Score: 0

      The way I see it, all people are societies responsibility.

      You can't assume responsibility without CONTROL. Do we really want big brother/government/whatever controlling us?

      Some control (i.e. you will drive in the correct lane) is necessary for the safety of all. Control like "you can't be thin and be a model" is just ridiculous.

    45. Re:Actuarially, no. by donscarletti · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Then again, it is still better than a government run system, as I at least have choices of carriers and coverage.

      UK, Australia, NZ, Canada all have some degree of government run healthcare systems, two of those countries have lower tax rates than the US, the other two have tax rates not much higher meaning you still have money left to buy private health insurance, it costs much less and it still gives you your choice of doctor and hospital. Government healthcare is just a service, it doesn't cost all your money and you don't have to use it if you want a different treatment. Plus, if the government is not willing to pay for elective surgery, you can still go to its hospital as a private patient and it's still way cheaper since you just have to pay a surgeon their hourly rate. Oh, and you can buy medicine from a regular store for the same price that HMOs pay since the government collectively bargains.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    46. Re:Actuarially, no. by webnut77 · · Score: 1

      The way I see it, all people are societies responsibility.

      ..and thus, your health is everyones business. Smoker? Outlawed. Fatty foods? Outlawed. Skinny Models? Outlawed. ... The thing is that you will never see the end of the push for these laws because some people truly believe that individuals are societies responsibility. They only want to help. They are believers. You can't deter believers. Its for your own good.

      +1 Insightful. I had mod points yesterday. :-(

    47. Re:Actuarially, no. by Garridan · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Look to Canada, which has public health care.

      Smoker? Legal.
      Fatty foods? Legal.
      Skinny Models? Legal.

      FTFY.

    48. Re:Actuarially, no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      society's
      he or she is
      aren't
      (I'm not even sure how to fix the "alternate cause" because I don't know what you meant.)
      sow

      Also, punishing the group for the misdeeds of the few is unfair.

    49. Re:Actuarially, no. by khallow · · Score: 1

      Whenever someone starts sniveling about the over-users, take a moment to remind them of me

      Sounds like you aren't the problem and no matter how little health you consume, you remain not the problem. The problem is over-users of public goods. It's a standard "tragedy of the commons" issue.

    50. Re:Actuarially, no. by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      What society needs to do is imbue its members with a healthy sense of self [...] we should hang them high and give them zero publicity

      Yeah, that'll help. Just be a hard-ass and let the chips fall where they may. No wait, that's fucking stupid. Who is the party that did the deed? Surely not weapon manufacturers or school bullies, nobody who actually had a profit and enjoyed the ride as long as they got away with it. No, it's the desperate, self-destructive acts we have to show some indignation about. Simply say "that's not human" while being safely embedded into a completely pathological society where the right kind of sick gets you elected president. You know, the profitable kind of sick. The kind of sick that doesn't flinch when murdering thousands and ten thousands of people in exchange for control. *Not* the kind of sick that cuts up a puppy or goes on a shooting spree in exchange for death, which is the actually evil and subhuman sick, which should be "hanged high", labeled "subhuman" and not ever be talked about.

      Yeah fucking right. That's so dumb it's not even funny. You want a healthy sense of self? I have it, and I'm calling you an asshole.

    51. Re:Actuarially, no. by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Consider: If you're 150 pounds overweight, it's likely to cut 20 years off of your life. If you'[re 150 pounds underweight, you're probably already dead and your skeleton picked clean. At some point, being under weight got a lot more unhealthy than being over weight.

      This is in part a problem with using absolute numbers instead of percentages.... If an average 5'6 male were 150 pounds underweight, he would weigh less than zero, which would be quite amazing....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    52. Re:Actuarially, no. by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      slippery slopes? check!

      so why not make a slippery slope the other way, too? if others are not societies responsibility, why call the cops when the kid next door gets beaten to death? who other than an insane person or a clown would do anything other than snatching their valuables to an elderly person who fell down?

      gee, this is fun! only a total sociopath would not enjoy it.

    53. Re:Actuarially, no. by Plunky · · Score: 1

      When some child (or adult, for that matter) goes off the rails and pulls a Columbine, and we are sure they are the party that did the deed, we should hang them high and give them zero publicity.

      Hanging them high is publicity.

      That kind of acting out is the province of the subhuman.

      I'd say, that relegating people you don't like to subhuman status, was likely part of the problem there. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (of Columbine High School) were "bullied for years" and you seem to be suggesting that the fault was all theirs for not having a "healthy sense of self".

      Look at it from an engineering perspective, when you overload a bridge such that it is guaranteed to fail, you don't blame the weakest point, you blame the overloading. There is no way to engineer a bridge such that it can never fail.

    54. Re:Actuarially, no. by macshit · · Score: 1

      in the early 50s you find pictures like this rack-o-ribs that show her looking rather emaciated.

      Er, that doesn't seem like a very fair label for that picture—lying on your back like that will emphasize anybody's ribs, 'cause your organs etc, obey gravity too...!

      --
      We live, as we dream -- alone....
    55. Re:Actuarially, no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for that. Bored, reading /. , now I'm heading to peopleofwalmart.com

      I could do with a laugh.

    56. Re:Actuarially, no. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      The difference is that she had a fair pair of norks and a decent rump too.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    57. Re:Actuarially, no. by Stephan+Schulz · · Score: 1

      Outliers in both directions, but in the present case, not to the same extent.

      ...

      One half of one percent of women go thru a period of anorexia. Of these only 5 – 10% die of their disorder within 10 years. Yet 35.7% of Americans suffer from obesity. Medical costs for obesity on average were $1,429 higher per person per year.

      So the outliers aren't significant on the skinny side, but they are devastating on the fat side.

      There are several fallacies in your argument. First, your source does not say "go through a period", it says "one in 200 American women suffers from anorexia", i.e 0.5% is the current risk, not the lifetime riks of ever having an episode of anorexia. Of those, 20% will eventually die of complications of their eating disorder. That's 1.4 million people. How is that "not sognificant"?

      Going with a statistical life expectancy of ~70 years, we are talking about 20000 death per year. Compare this to 32000 traffic victims and 14000 murder victims a year. Consider how much the US spends on road safety and the criminal justice system, and tell me that it's not worth to try to tackle this problem.

      The fact that there are worse problems in not a reason to ignore this one. As a society with limited resources, cost/benefit expectation should be a guide to our actions.

      --

      Stephan

    58. Re:Actuarially, no. by Stephan+Schulz · · Score: 1

      When the government is the sole insurer, however, there is no check on what is deemed a threat to health. Additionally, since there is generally no "opt-out" option provided (ie, subscription to the national insurance is mandatory), these conditions aren't simply limits to insurability, but carry the coercive force of law. The number one argument against public insurance is that it enables "personal health" to become the new "terrorism" in invading people's lives.

      Exactly that has happend in all the developed European countries with national health care systems. Smoking is outlawed, as are strong spirits. Wine is available in small doses from iris scanning dispensers to avoid misuse. Everybody is assigned to a summer fitness camp, where they march in unison at the optimal 130 bpm heart rate, eating nothing but brocoli and olive oil until their BMI is 21.2. TVs are only allowed in exercise rooms and show mandatory aerobic programs 4 times a day. Everybody wears healthy and stylish uniforms, and central heating is controlled from the European central heating authority to ensure that the average temperature is 21 degrees centigrade in daytime and 17 degrees at night. And if your estimated treatment cost is higher than your remaining life income expectation, you are painlessly terminated as a drain on the community. Right.

      --

      Stephan

    59. Re:Actuarially, no. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      One could even make the case that removing the skinny side of normal from the cultural images may push the tendency towards acceptance of more obesity.

      Right. Because once the anorexics have become skinny the skinny people will want to maintain relative position so they'll feed themselves up until they're thin. Repeat through medium, chunky, chubby and finally the fat bastards will be stuffing themselves silly.

      Good time to invest in pie futures.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    60. Re:Actuarially, no. by zyzko · · Score: 1

      I'm all for focusing on smaller problems at the same time as facing bigger issues. But these issues are not black and white, and while maybe true that if we would ban skinny models anorexia and bulimia in general could be avoided are we sure that those actions (this is a free speech issue in the core of it) would not have side effects?

      Those pointing out that obesity is a bigger problem are right in a way that in post-industrial society overweight is the number one chronic problem. And there is a fine line between banning anorexia-suffering models and implying "it is ok to be fat". The first one can cause and has caused suffering among models (staying on a diet of one carrot and several doses of amfetamin per day for extended periods of time is not going to end up well) as well as people desperately trying to look like them but not realizing it is not humanly possible. But on the other hand...getting fat is easy (I know...) and we should not take the risk that by publicly saying "being too skinny is not ok, we are banning these images" we actually are sending a message that being fat is ok. It is not in the grand scheme of things in society.

      I would not draw a direct correlation between fatter models and skinnier general population - there are many complex reasons why trends have been what they have been, and for general people to be fat basic requirement is easy and cheap access to unhealthy food in excessive amounts.

    61. Re:Actuarially, no. by Aragorn+DeLunar · · Score: 1

      The people who are ill are not the the problem. The people who are fine and think they can use a "free" service as much as they like are.

      If only there were some way to dis-incentivize abuse of the system. Perhaps by attaching some sort of monetary cost to health care, in proportion to the level of labor and resources required to produce the service. But how would we determine the appropriate monetary cost? It's not like this sort of calculation happens invisibly and automatically.

      --
      Cynicism, like dogmatism, can be an excuse for intellectual laziness. - Susan Shirk
    62. Re:Actuarially, no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An educated populace moves society forward? Well that explains right wing whack jobs then. They want to move society backwards so naturally they attack education and educators every step of the way.

    63. Re:Actuarially, no. by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      You're forgetting that obesity can have psychological causes, too, and that one of those potential causes can be the decision that the societal ideal is unreachable, and to simply give up trying. I know too many women who have made that decision.

      Anorexic models should be banned, but not because they promote anorexia, because they promote an unrealistic and ultimately unattainable vision of beauty. When a size 8 is considered a "plus size" by the fashion industry, something has gone horribly horribly wrong: depending on your body type/build, size 8 may never be possible, and it's counterproductive to be pushing a message that says this is "plus size". Case in point, I am half an inch shy of 6' tall, and not a petite build. I am fit, and take good care of myself. I run a quarter marathon daily, and have very low body fat content, but the last time I wore less than a size 12 was before high school. My bone structure simply isn't small enough to fit into anything smaller. And yet despite that being something completely beyond my control, I am constantly bombarded with images which tell me that I'm unattractive because I'm too fat. If you don't have the self respect and self esteem to stand up to that kind of image, it can have a devastating impact on your well being.

    64. Re:Actuarially, no. by dr2chase · · Score: 1

      I'm not drawing any correlation, but rather pointing out that history suggests fat models are unlikely to exert a strong influence in the fat direction, else we would have been fat before. I.e., correlation is not causation, but lack of correlation strongly suggests lack of causation.

      Free speech for people, absolutely. Corporations, not-so-much; not only are they not people and thus should not enjoy the same rights, they don't enjoy the same rights already.

      We also have a pretty good idea what to do for obesity in most cases. People just don't want to do it, or don't have time to do it. (Diet and exercise, lather-rinse-repeat. There are other possible causes that we should not ignore.) Arguably, their employers (corporations, again) should be regulated to ensure that they have time, possibly our jack-booted infrastructure fascists should not make it quite so easy to drive-drive-drive to every last place, possibly advertising of sweet stuff to children should be sharply curtailed. Other countries do various combinations of these things, their populations are not all mopey and sad, they did not zoom down that slippery slope to NewSpeak, it might be worth a try.

    65. Re:Actuarially, no. by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      No. It is *ridiculous* to hold person A responsible for what person B thinks.

      You need to talk to some people who were bullied at school, ask them what they think of your theory.

      --
      No sig today...
    66. Re:Actuarially, no. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      "first, do no harm"

      Correct, and the first harm that's being done is extorting my money to pay for someone else's expenses.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    67. Re:Actuarially, no. by all204 · · Score: 1

      I'm one of those... if I lost 150lbs, 20lbs would have to dissapear from the universe! Which would have been cool to see, if I were still alive...

    68. Re:Actuarially, no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One could even make the case that removing the skinny side of normal from the cultural images may push the tendency towards acceptance of more obesity. This would have a far greater effect on health care costs than anorexia.

      Yea this is what I thought too. Just an excuse to be fat and the acceptance of fat as normal.

    69. Re:Actuarially, no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly! I am young still and keep myself in excellent health. I still see the physician ever so often but I pay out of my own pocket. It is surprisingly affordable to see a doctor if you are a cash customer and considering you will probably only do it twice a year. My insurance is for the rare case where I develop a serious illness or a heinous injury of some sort. Rather than paying $400 a month for healthcare I do not use I only have to pay $85. Forcing me into a regular plan just cushions the st. dev. of the rest of the largely unhealthy populace. Now I will have to pay for other people's obesity and/or bad health habits. The entire purpose of the health care reform is to get the healthy population into the same insurance batch as the unhealthy thereby spreading the cost around more evenly. If your ok with that then support it otherwise oppose it.

    70. Re:Actuarially, no. by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

      I think it's a sound theory. If someone was physically bullying someone, I think they should be stopped. I do not think the bully should be held accountable because the victim(s) chose to shoot up a school. That was their own decision, and one I do not believe is justifiable, bullying or not. I would have never done that.

      So basically, don't lump all of us into a group and pretend we all believe the same thing. Besides, asking someone who was bullied these types of questions will likely result in a biased answer (just like from anyone else).

    71. Re:Actuarially, no. by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

      if others are not societies responsibility, why call the cops when the kid next door gets beaten to death?

      This has nothing to do with government censorship. Your examples are just strange, I think.

    72. Re:Actuarially, no. by GmExtremacy · · Score: 2

      Anorexic models should be banned, but not because they promote anorexia, because they promote an unrealistic and ultimately unattainable vision of beauty.

      *sigh*

      Really? Is this the only reason we resort to censorship now? Is this all it takes?

      I give up. "For the children" and "stop the terrorists" bills, do your thing. Satisfy their paranoia and censorship-hungry minds.

    73. Re:Actuarially, no. by dargaud · · Score: 1

      One could even make the case that removing the skinny side of normal from the cultural images may push the tendency towards acceptance of more obesity

      Hmmm, not sure about that. Side effects can often be devious. Imagine that you are a little overweight and only see anorexic models in the magazines. You (rightfully so) think "I'll never be like that, so fuck it, let's just enjoy eating"... and become morbidly obese in the process.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    74. Re:Actuarially, no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fun fact: the Federal government spends more per head on healthcare than the British government. For the money, most Americans get bugger all; most Brits get full healthcare. It's a funny old world.

    75. Re:Actuarially, no. by SendBot · · Score: 1

      I seem to have an immune system like a Sherman tank.

      I don't know if that's really the analogy you want to go with. Sherman tanks were light, fast, and highly capable. But as far as protecting the crew inside? Look up why they were nicknamed "Ronson".

    76. Re:Actuarially, no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obesity is largely a problem because of ad magazines pushing girls to be skinny, pushing them into depression. Accepting obesity in a public light might reduce It's cases.

    77. Re:Actuarially, no. by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Do you have $5000 in the bank? If so, then why do you need coverage for anything that will cost under $5000?

      In case something that costs $4000 happens twice in the (let's say) two year period it takes to save up $5,000.

    78. Re:Actuarially, no. by darkonc · · Score: 1

      Emaciated? Hardly boss, ......

      Marilyn would have be fine today, for the things she was good for in her day. Appealing to men. The women addressed in the 'anorexia' advertisements are more often found in magazines featuring fashion and/or lifestyle for women. In Marilyn's ere there was less of a discrepancy between the two.

      Would this solve the anorexia problem... hellefino. It would it more fun to flip through my wife's mags when I am stranded in the car waiting for her.

      The thing is that these women's mag ads have a pretence that being sickeningly (literally) thin is going to get you your man -- when, in your example, the precise opposite seems to be true. I suggest that what most men find 'healthy' to be sexy, and overly thin isn't that healthy.

      --
      Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
    79. Re:Actuarially, no. by Americano · · Score: 1

      Okay, it's estimated that 8 million Americans have an eating disorder.

      That's roughly 2-3% of Americans. (Note: binge eating, i.e., bulimia without the puking, is also an eating disorder. Which means there is some non-zero overlap between this 2-3% and this next statistic...)

      It's estimated that roughly 75% of Americans (that's ~234 million) are overweight or obese.

      So... treatment for eating disorders (and the complications related to them) would have to be roughly THIRTY TIMES more expensive than treatment for obesity & overweight (and complications related to...) in order to justify banning skinny models, but not banning overweight or obese models. It would have to be *30 times* more harmful to society to have skinny models making girls feel bad about themselves than having fat models making girls think it's okay to be obese.

      Now do you get it?

    80. Re:Actuarially, no. by reub2000 · · Score: 1

      (Note: binge eating, i.e., bulimia without the puking, is also an eating disorder. Which means there is some non-zero overlap between this 2-3% and this next statistic...)

      That would be the nonpurging subtype of bulimia.

      So... treatment for eating disorders (and the complications related to them) would have to be roughly THIRTY TIMES more expensive than treatment for obesity & overweight (and complications related to...) in order to justify banning skinny models, but not banning overweight or obese models. It would have to be *30 times* more harmful to society to have skinny models making girls feel bad about themselves than having fat models making girls think it's okay to be obese.

      Except, that most plus-sized models are normal weight to slighty overweight. And there is no evidence than anyone is gaining any fat in order to look like models. Treatment for an eating disorder is also several orders of magnitude more expensive. Most overweight people can lose the excess weight by cutting out sugary stuff from their diet, while an eating disorder is treated with expensive therapy. I don't think many who are overweight see their habits as acceptable.

    81. Re:Actuarially, no. by darkonc · · Score: 1
      Doesn't make that much difference. If you were 1/2 weight vs double weight, you'd still be dead (or nearly so) vs unhealthy.

      The point still stands, in either case, that losing weight is more unhealthy than gaining it.

      --
      Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
    82. Re:Actuarially, no. by Americano · · Score: 1

      Except, that most plus-sized models are normal weight to slighty overweight

      Citation? Or did you mean "SOME" plus-sized models are normal to slightly overweight? Because I've seen quite a few plus-sized models, and very few of them look like "average" or "normal" weight. "Average" women's size is about size 14 in the US. And the "average" woman is overweight.

      And there is no evidence than anyone is gaining any fat in order to look like models.

      And how about the 184 out of 200 women who DON'T get an eating disorder as a result of looking at skinny models? If 200 women look at skinny models, and only 16 of them develop an eating disorder, it's quite likely that there is something way deeper than "skinny models cause it" - treat the mental illness that causes that small number of women who obsess over their body image.

      Treatment for an eating disorder is also several orders of magnitude more expensive. Most overweight people can lose the excess weight by cutting out sugary stuff from their diet, while an eating disorder is treated with expensive therapy. I don't think many who are overweight see their habits as acceptable.

      Again, care to offer a citation? Because last I checked, heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, stroke, and all of the other complications that come along with being overweight & obese are pretty damned expensive conditions to treat. If you want to oversimplify the cause & treatment of the obesity problem like that, why can't we do the same thing to anorexics: "anorexic people can just eat more food."

    83. Re:Actuarially, no. by udas · · Score: 1

      And part of that responsibility is to teach children, and even grown ups, the value of judgement calls. You cannot just listen to & accept everything from everyone. You need to choose what part you will hear. Either that, or we have to have moral policing rather than free speech. Soon this attempt to ensure that nobody hears evil will become its own hell hole. By curbing creativity and free will.

      So, I think, when masses learn to recognise that anorexics are not pretty, the problem will solve itself. Lets just focus on that!

    84. Re:Actuarially, no. by reub2000 · · Score: 1

      Sorry no citations.

      And how about the 184 out of 200 women who DON'T get an eating disorder as a result of looking at skinny models? If 200 women look at skinny models, and only 16 of them develop an eating disorder, it's quite likely that there is something way deeper than "skinny models cause it" - treat the mental illness that causes that small number of women who obsess over their body image.

      Agreed that AN is more complex than just media influencing youngsters into thinking they need to lose weight. It just seemed absurd to make decisions based purely on the numbers affected.

      Because last I checked, heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, stroke, and all of the other complications that come along with being overweight & obese are pretty damned expensive conditions to treat.

      Well those aren't guaranteed outcomes of obesity.

      If you want to oversimplify the cause & treatment of the obesity problem like that, why can't we do the same thing to anorexics: "anorexic people can just eat more food."

      Well Anorexia is a disorder with issues of emotional regulation and self-image. The other group is fairly broad group with multiple unrelated causes. Sure, some of the obese have emotional issues that need to be looked at. Others probably have undiagnosed endocrine issues. A fairer comparison would probably be the underweight vs the overweight, or those with eating disorders vs. those with emotional eating problems.

    85. Re:Actuarially, no. by eric_herm · · Score: 1

      Well, could the problem really be the unease of people on the 'obesity' side ? IE, the fact that more than a third of American would feel their own views to be incompatible with what is perceived as the common view would make them feel cognitive dissonnance ?

    86. Re:Actuarially, no. by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Sure, I've got 5k available. That's enough for one good ER visit, maybe a cast and an ambulance ride, or just a few minutes in the OR. $5000 isn't even a drop in the bucket in terms of potential financial liability for healthcare.

      Oh brother... you are awfully opinionated and vocal for someone that doesnt know what the hell they are talking about. You do know that you don't know what you are talking about, right?

      Catastrophic coverage covers... these very things.. these catastrophes that you are itemizing...

      Catastrophic coverage excludes general maintenance health visits.. things that you can afford out of pocket.. not things that cost tens of thousands of dollars...

      So not only have you proven that you are being ripped off by being in a general maintenance pool that you arent taking advantage if.. you have proven that you are too ignorant to even know any better even when its explained to you.

      Have a nice day forming those opinions and talking about them as if you were in a position of authority when you actually don't even know the basics of the subject you are blabbering about.... what a tool you are.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    87. Re:Actuarially, no. by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Check her measurements out. She just wasn't that big, and was actually skinnier than most of the women of her day. Her BUST was my waist size!

      Am I claiming that she was as skinny as these tall skeletons that you see? Heck, no. She was very... healthy looking, and at times even a bit chubby. But to claim that she "couldn't get past the reception desk" at her 19-year weight is silly.

      Besides, she didn't get past the reception desk back then either - she had to go back home and bleach her hair first!

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    88. Re:Actuarially, no. by Americano · · Score: 1

      Agreed that AN is more complex than just media influencing youngsters into thinking they need to lose weight.

      Then perhaps granting the government sweeping new powers to censor advertisers based on a tenuous correlation between "skinny models" and "eating disorders" is not really much of a solution?

      It just seemed absurd to make decisions based purely on the numbers affected.

      Actually, it seems absurd not to. First, because any government spending must be prioritized, because we don't have the money to do everything we might ever possibly want to do, fully funded, today. Second, because we're talking about granting the government broad censorship powers because a small number of people who are mentally ill, when exposed to these images, MAY develop an eating disorder. It would be the same thing as banning all alcohol advertisement because a small number of people become alcoholics. In fact, I'd argue that you could make a better case for banning alcohol advertising based on the numbers of alcoholics than you could make for banning "skinny models" based on the number of anorexics.

      Well those aren't guaranteed outcomes of obesity.

      ... really? Sorry, you just went right into nutter territory, and have lost any chance at establishing credibility in this discussion.

      Well Anorexia is a disorder with issues of emotional regulation and self-image.

      And you think obesity isn't? Ask anybody overweight whether it's "healthy" to be overweight. They'll tell you it's unhealthy. Ask them, "Then why are you overweight?" And watch the dance that ensues as they try to rationalize their behavior. Then compare it to someone who is anorexic, and tell me there's not just as strong an emotional and mental component to obesity as there is to anorexia. Doing something that you KNOW to be unhealthy for yourself is pretty much a textbook definition of self-destructive, nihilistic behavior - whether it's overeating or undereating.

    89. Re:Actuarially, no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those percentages would sway me to believe, that anorexia really is a disorder with mirror braincells, not a learnt problem.
      I mean, nobody advertises "get totally obese, yeah, cool!", but everything is always bigger in Texas...

    90. Re:Actuarially, no. by locopuyo · · Score: 1

      In our public school systems it does. The teachers heavily enforced this message.

    91. Re:Actuarially, no. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      If you dont reap what you sew

      Oh for crying out loud, would you kids please stop parroting phrases you don't know the meaning of? It isn't "sew", it's "sow," as in the verb "plant." The phrase means that whatever seeds you plant, that's the plant that will grow. Plant corn, reap corn. Sow cotton, reap cotton. If you sow seeds of discord, discord will grow. Besides weeds, you ALWAYS reap what you sow.

      And they modded you insightful... sheesh...

    92. Re:Actuarially, no. by thunderclap · · Score: 1

      You know while your point is valid, you also must realize that if you smoke you will destroy your lungs. If you overindulge in foods known to cause heart problems then you will get this. I support your right to eat and smoke. However, I WILL NOT PAY YOUR DOCTOR AND HOSPITAL BILLS PERIOD, if you do. See, if I am forced to pay for your medical bills through my taxes then I don't want you to do those known dangerous things because then you are squandering my money. So which is easier, being like the UK and having those rules forced down your throat while the cig is slapped away or being allowed to smoke and paying your own way?

    93. Re:Actuarially, no. by thunderclap · · Score: 1

      Ok so how about we increase the population of Stockholm to oh 25 million and see how well it will work. And let bump the total population of Sweden to say 200 million.
      What works for a tiny popluation will not work for large ones. Europe system will fail in China, India and the US.

    94. Re:Actuarially, no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not just Sweden, so try comparing that with the population of most of the EU, and try again.

    95. Re:Actuarially, no. by avandesande · · Score: 1

      One could make the case that overly thin models promote obesity too- ultra thin models are unrealistic role model for most women so they are ignored.
      Perhaps more fit and regular sized women in print and media would inspire some to care more about staying fit themselves.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
  18. What's the point? by jouassou · · Score: 1

    If we start censoring people with body shapes we consider outliers, how is that supposed to make people focus less on looks?

  19. Curves by HyperQuantum · · Score: 1

    "CURVES:
    If I wanted a woman who has the body of a ten year old boy, I'd just date a ten year old boy."

    Can't take credit for it; this story reminded me of a picture with this quote I ran into a while ago.

    --
    I am not really here right now.
    1. Re:Curves by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Link to the image for anyone who's interested. Should be safe for work. Unless you work at somewhere very puritanical

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  20. Sure, right after they ban fat chicks $ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no text.

  21. And ban obese models by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

    to curb our obesity epidemic?

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:And ban obese models by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And butterfaces.

    2. Re:And ban obese models by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      I was going to say - according to studies 0.5% of women in the US are anorexic, and 30% of the whole adult population is overweight.

      We'd be better off banning advertisement of all high calorie-low nutrition food (fast food, soft drinks, alcohol, etc) than models (many of whom, though way at the low end of average body mass, are not anorexic themselves but in excellent shape).

      In the end both ideas are absurd, of course...

  22. What if they are skinny for other reasons? by tlambert · · Score: 1, Interesting

    For example, they may be skinny because the government is spending on healthcare rather than spending on hunger.

    Maslow's hierarchy of needs starts with the physiolgical (food, clothing, shelter), which is more important than safety (which is where public healthcare resides): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

    It's always bothered me that people consider universal healthcare more important than universal food, clothing, and shelter. It's also bothered me that it's remained that way since Richard Nixon first proposed universal healthcare as an ide: http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2009/09/ted_kennedy_richard_nixon_and.html

    -- Terry

    1. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or they may be skinny because they couldn't afford health insurance and broke a limb in a mugging. Oh shoot, medical bills in the $12,000 region. I guess they can't afford to feed themselves anymore.

      Universal healthcare is not just the mark of a civilized society, it's cheaper than commercial healthcare, because you don't have to pay for all those claims adjusters and billing administrators.

      Nixon was opposed to the idea, by the way. He really liked the idea of HMOs though.

    2. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by J'raxis · · Score: 1

      It's always bothered me that people consider universal healthcare more important than universal food, clothing, and shelter.

      If the insurance cartels sold food, clothing, or shelter coverage, ...people would. Food, clothing, and shelter would cost ten times what it already does, the companies you pay to deliver it would actively seek ways of denying it to you, and if you actually got it, it would take weeks or months to be delivered and it would be crap when you finally received it.

      People would then be clamoring for the government to nationalize the food/clothing/shelter markets as a "solution," and the very same insurance cartels that caused all the problems would be right there to buy laws that compel people to buy food, clothing, and shelter through them. Curiously, people would celebrate this as a victory over the insurance companies.

    3. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by sideslash · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Universal healthcare is not just the mark of a civilized society

      You're certainly entitled to your opinion.

      it's cheaper than commercial healthcare, because you don't have to pay for all those claims adjusters and billing administrators.

      Yes, in the same way that communism is the most efficient and beneficial of political systems: "in theory", and as long as you ignore how things actually work out every time it's tried in real life. Real world governments are neverending breeders of corruption and incompetence, and the more you strengthen them, the more incompetent they get. It's naive to expect otherwise.

    4. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's always bothered me that people consider universal healthcare more important than universal food, clothing, and shelter.

      That's because healthcare is a RIGHT. People have that RIGHT because...just because. It became a RIGHT...when it became a RIGHT.

    5. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by icebike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For example, they may be skinny because the government is spending on healthcare rather than spending on hunger.

      Ah, no. Just No.

      Anorexia is a mental illnesses, not a poverty issue.

      Poor people in the USA aren't wasting away from lack of food.
      The majority of them are too fat, because they can only afford cheap fattening foods, and filling a belly of a hungry child is more important than filling it with a weight conscious diet.

      This has NOTHING to do with Anorexia which hunger or poverty.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    6. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by CrackedButter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Where I live that theory is a fact, even with commercial healthcare costing only $50 a month. I live in the UK, that figure is through BUPA. I probably pay $600 dollars roughly in National Insurance contributions. I just finished an MA and now work part time. I paid even less during Uni, did you?

      As to the second part of your post, the Scandinavians prove you wrong on the corruption front. Norway especially, is considered the least corrupted nation on the planet, followed closely by her neighbours and New Zealand.

      Give me more government I say (when it's good), lucky the majority of the best ones are in Europe or part of the Commonwealth.

    7. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Real world governments are neverending breeders of corruption and incompetence

      True for every government. That's why you need vigilance and checks and balances.

      There are perfectly functioning countries with universal healthcare. I don't like giving government much power at all, but this is one of the things I think would be okay. Or at least better than the garbage we have now.

      All of the current world's countries are absolute garbage, anyway. Some are slightly better than others in certain areas, but all of them (be they democracies or communisms) have governments trying to strip rights away from us. It's not entirely the government's fault when citizens are apathetic and stand for this.

    8. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by Ironhandx · · Score: 3, Informative

      Its not a fucking theory you nitwit.

      Canada has a single payer government system. Its a PROVEN PROCESS.

      Canadians live longer than Americans, by something like 3-4 years now. Yes the outlier cases of super specialized treatment send people from here south of the border into the US, however that is largely because we just don't have the population to support services for the things that affect 1 in 100,000 people and are pretty damned expensive.

      1 in 100,000 people in Canada is 300 people.

      1 in 100,000 people in the US is 3000 people.

      Now why don't we play with some grade 2 math and guess which country has better centralized care for that sort of condition?

      The funny part of it all is that Americans are coming to Canada for health care for some issues. With the population difference that should in no way happen.

    9. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Universal healthcare is not just the mark of a civilized society

      Which is why it can't work in the US: you can't really claim they are a civilized people. Compare, for example, the behavior of the New Orleans residents to Katrina with that of the (civilized) Japanese when the latest tsunami hit.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    10. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by toadlife · · Score: 2

      efficient and beneficial of political systems: "in theory", and as long as you ignore how things actually work out

      Your worthless platitudes don't change the fact that by several measurable metrics, socialized medicine has been shown in practice to work better than the United States' corporate dominated heath care system.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    11. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by sideslash · · Score: 2

      A couple points: (1) the two countries have radically different climates, demographics, lifestyles, etc, and (2) many people would disagree that Canada has better healthcare than the USA. And you know what's another thing that's funny? A lot of Canadians come to the USA for treatment. So you can take your correlation/causation and... feed it to a baby seal or something.

    12. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by sideslash · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Give me more government I say (when it's good)

      That's the real trick, isn't it? If the "more government" turns out to be bad, you typically don't have opportunity to "give it back". :p

    13. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because healthcare is a RIGHT. People have that RIGHT because...just because. It became a RIGHT...when it became a RIGHT.

      Saying it more than once doesn't make it true (or at least not what you think it means).

      I have the right to own a firearm, who's gonna pay for that?

    14. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by sideslash · · Score: 1

      Give me an example of one or two of these metrics.

    15. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Your first argument about demographics and lifestyles is actually wrong. Look it up. You are reaching by bringing up climate. It is irrelevant.

      2) Your second argument amounts to "many people agree with me" and "fuck you". I shouldn't have to explain that one.

    16. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by J'raxis · · Score: 2

      It became a right when people forgot what the word right means.

      Naturally speaking, rights are something you intrinsically have without the action of others. A right can only be taken away by the positive, proactive action of others. That is, all alone and without interference from other human beings, we automatically have freedom of speech, thought, belief, ownership, &c.. In an allegedly "free" society, it's the government's responsibility to guarantee these rights by not interfering with them. They're supposed to merely protect these rights.

      Entitlements or privileges are the opposite: They're something we can only have with the positive, proactive action of others. These things include education, welfare, employment, healthcare, and anything else that some might call a "right" but that they can't have without someone providing it to them. Some people distinguish these things by calling them "positive rights" as opposed to the "negative rights" in the previous paragraph, although I think this terminology is part of the problem---it's easy enough to drop the word "positive" and now we can easily conflate the two concepts.

      And that's exactly what has happened. Over the past century, we've seen more and more entitlements gradually moved into the "rights" column by people who want to lend legitimacy to the idea that these things ought to be guaranteed and provided to us by the government. After all, the government "provides" us with freedom of speech, they say, so shouldn't they "provide" us with the freedom from worry about healthcare, unemployment, and so on?

    17. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by toadlife · · Score: 4, Informative

      Three that I know off the top of my head:

      Cost per capita (The U.S spends on average, double what Western nations with socialized systems spend)
      Infant mortality rate (The U.S. ranks 34, right behind Cuba)
      Life expectancy (The U.S. is again in the 30s and again behind communist Cuba)

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    18. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by pla · · Score: 1

      The funny part of it all is that Americans are coming to Canada for health care for some issues. With the population difference that should in no way happen.

      Americans go to Canada for cheap routine healthcare and drugs, true. And Canadians come to America when they "really" break and want to live.

      I would argue the Canadians have the better system in that regard, since it keeps the most people healthy for the least money. But as the most sublime irony here, the Canadian system only works because they (who can afford it) can come to the US for treatment by the best-of-the-best when their "single payer" says "no".

    19. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by toadlife · · Score: 1

      Care to cite an example of the Canadian government denying care to a citizen and that citizen coming to the U.S. and getting successful treatment?

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    20. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by Ironhandx · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Many people anecdotally agree. Your hospitals in the US are sometimes more lavish than hotels. Who the hell isn't going to say the care is better there?

      In canada you get what you need to live. Which is the important bit. The living.

      The climate is REALLY fucking reaching because we have a much harsher climate and have many many more people per capita die to exposure than you do.

      The demographics and lifestyles are very very very similar. Go to Ontario, then go nearly anywhere in the northeastern US. You can't really tell much difference.

      I already mentioned that some Canadians go to the US for treatment, and thats already largely explained. A population that is over 10x ours has a larger need for rarer treatments, thus has more facilities better equipped to deal with it. Its generally a 4-6 hour or less flight to get there. Why would they open a specialized clinic for it here?

      As far as correlation =/= causation, its a bullshit strawman in this case. Our lifestyles are slightly different because we are taught differently. Our health care, because its publicly funded, for the public good, deals a LOT in preventative treatment and education on how to avoid things.

      Guess what? Preventative treatment and education are extremely effective and extremely cost effective. The fact that we're living longer while spending less than 1/5th of your per patient spending is plenty of evidence of that.

      Our improved lifestyle is a direct result of these organizations. The school milk program, the Canada Food Guide that was released in the 60s and continues to this day... etc... all government funded, all related to or directly funded by our universal health care.

      Try getting your fucking Insurance company to invest in education.

      I apologize for being curt with you but I've had it with people like you touting the virtues of a system that is partially responsible for your country being on the verge of circling the drain for the last 5 years

      You also fling communism around... communism isn't the answer, a socialist democracy on the other hand is fan-fucking-tastic. Ask us, or the Norwegians, or the Swedes... or any one of another dozen countries that are thriving in what are for america very troubled times, all thanks to our socialist systems.

      I should also point out that at Americas most successful it was damned close to a socialist government anyways.

    21. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by Smauler · · Score: 1

      it's cheaper than commercial healthcare, because you don't have to pay for all those claims adjusters and billing administrators.

      Yes, in the same way that communism is the most efficient and beneficial of political systems: "in theory"

      Yes, in exactly the same way. Communism is a good idea which went tits up. Commercial healthcare is a good idea which has gone tits up too.

      Look at the evidence - look at the healthcare in the US overall compared to other countries.

    22. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by Ironhandx · · Score: 1

      Routine care?

      Like open heart surgeries etc?

      Because Americans are flying into Ottawa on a daily basis to get our Universally provided advanced surgery procedures done. Ones that cost more than they do in America because we charge an arm and a leg to Americans for the privilege of getting in line to get the same services Canadians receive merely for paying their taxes.

      Less than 0.1% of Canadians have ever received health care in America for even a broken arm while on vacation.

      Yeah, that reeks of "Our health care system would fail if not for the american system propping it up"

      Get a clue and come back later.

    23. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by Ironhandx · · Score: 1

      He can't, because such a case doesn't exist.

      Going to the US for medical treatment in Canada is similar to Americans going to Europe for treatment for certain diseases.

      Some things are just rare and have facilities located elsewhere. Not many Canadians ever receive health care in America at all, ever.

      If the Canadian Health Care says no to something its probably because it just hasn't been approved in Canada. A significant portion of the health care Canadians go south of the border for is the same sort of health care that a US citizen would go into Mexico or China for. They heard about it, and its not legal here yet, but they want to try it anyway.

    24. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

      Than why does the US pay above average percentage of GDP for their healthcare with below average outcomes? There is a "HUGE" efficiency savings in billing. Just think: no uncollected bills, no paperwork to process, no credit checks, no time wasted when you first go into the er to make sure that you can pay rather than finding out what is wrong with you etc. Governments can piss money away your right but there is a large, perhaps 50% potential savings from universal healthcare (larger purchasing power, less administration, fewer people letting illnesses linger until there serious because they "can't afford it this month, maybe next month" etc). Add to that potential for more efficient resource allocation: no MRI sitting around because someone in the HMO isn't in need of it when someone in another plan can't find a space in their allowed hospitals. It might not be perfect but it is in theory better.

      After all why is there restrictions on mergers to prevent monopolies? The whole idea is one big company can set the price they want, in a similar way one big purchaser/regulator can put huge pressures on providers to give them stuff at the price they want. Hey GE if you don't like our CT prices than try to sell them all in asia kind of things.

    25. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by pla · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Like open heart surgeries etc?

      Exactly like open heart surgeries.

      Do you suppose the wealthiest Canadians needing a bypass put their name on the list and wait patiently... Or fly to Cleveland?

      Do you suppose wealthy (elderly) Canadians in need of an organ transplant resign themselves to age-based rationing and just die quietly... Or pull a Steve Jobs and fly to Tennessee for a no-fuss, no-muss, no-waiting-list liver?

      Or on the flip side of the equation, as a brilliant young surgeon, would you stay in Canada with its government-capped doctor's salaries... Or "defect" to your neighbor to the South where you can make 10x as much without the hassle of having to treat the masses of unwashed poor as a form of government-imposed forced charity?

      You really aughtn't act so defensive about this - As I said, I do think you have the better public health care system, overall. At the upper end, though, of-the-wealthy, by-the-wealthy, and for-the-wealthy, sorry, the US has that market cornered. And I don't say that as a positive!

    26. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      The problem with Canada is not single payer per se - it's the fact that you can't go to a private hospital for better treatment for stuff that is covered by public insurance - the government actually enforces its monopoly on buying the service (on your behalf) and sets the prices. However, this is not a required component of a public healthcare system - you can have both public hospitals funded by taxes, and private hospitals funded by fees they charge to patients, side by side. In effect, Canada already has that arrangement, being next door to US.

    27. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      It's usually not about denying treatment, but rather about skipping the queue for extra $$$.

    28. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by Algae_94 · · Score: 2

      I don't think of the climate in Canada as being much different at all from the climate in my state in the US. I live in Alaska though, so most Americans think I live in a wintry wonderland like they imagine Canada is.

    29. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      People have never "forgotten" the definition of right - it's just that it's one of those terms which don't have a strict universal definition. You gave the one that is considered canonical by your particular school of political and philosophical thought. Not all people belong to that school.

    30. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by sideslash · · Score: 1

      Cost per capita -- well, we've got more money than other people do (ha ha, except for being in debt up to our eyeballs), so this is not by itself compelling. And of course, note that socializing medicine is likely to increase our debt even higher than our eyeballs.
      Infant mortality rate -- I read that most comparisons of the USA's infant mortality rate to that of other countries are unfair and misleading, because we have higher standards and report it differently. For example, when many preemie infants are lost, the USA classifies as an infant death where other countries would classify it as an abortion. That kind of thing.
      Life expectancy -- I grant the statistics, but I question whether socialized medicine is necessarily the causative factor.

    31. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give me more government I say (when it's good)

      That's the real trick, isn't it? If the "more government" turns out to be bad, you typically don't have opportunity to "give it back". :p

      True. Just because it works somewhere else doesn't mean it would work in the US.

      In fact, it probably won't. The US government is the gold standard for inefficiency, outright waste, regulatory capture and general incompetence in the West; allowing something so obviously terrible to expand won't solve anyone's problems.

    32. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to stop paying for it in blood of my friends.

    33. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by J'raxis · · Score: 1

      It's one of those terms that has a very positive connotation, and so people have usurped the word hoping to have some of that positive connotation rub off on their ideology, sort of like how the corporatists stole the term "free market" or the progressives the term "liberal."

      And the definition I use is the original definition---in philosophy at least. When people first started philosophizing about natural "rights," they were only referring to various freedoms that they believed deserved to be protected: Life, liberty, property. No positive entitlements were included.

      In mediaeval times, however, it did have a different meaning: "Rights" were in fact just the things granted by feudal kings and overlords to their serfs. So maybe that's what the nanny-statists are really up to: Reverting us to a society where our government overlords grant us serfs whatever "rights" they want us to have, and revoke whatever rights they don't want us to have. :)

    34. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      what happens to the stats when we throw out the parasites and thieves who make the working part of society pay their way? Same thing as happens to the U.S. violent crime rate stats.....

    35. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by russotto · · Score: 1

      And Canadians come to America when they "really" break and want to live.

      Or, more often, when they have some sort of problem which is not life-threatening but is painful and/or debilitating, and don't care to suffer through the wait list.

    36. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US government is the gold standard for inefficiency, outright waste, regulatory capture and general incompetence in the West

      This, of course, is because American culture values personal gain far more that benefit to society. This means the people who go into politics treat policy like a marketplace and are largely more interested in what they can get out of their position than how they can make society better. In other parts of the world, the community is still valued.

    37. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I don't know about Canada, but in Australia my uncle that required a bypass got it a few hours after the doctors decided he needed it even though he had to be flown 1000km to get it. That is with a public system.
      Public can be good or suck, and Private can be good or suck - it really doesn't matter which type of system it is, merely the implementation on top of it.
      The USA however has an insurance system with a little bit of cash dribbling down to the medical system underneath. That is why it sucks. The medical system is good in portions but the sheer amount of waste to fund it is staggering.

    38. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by Ironhandx · · Score: 1, Informative

      Specialist salaries are not capped in Canada, only General Practitioner salaries.

      You, as most Americans, are grossly misinformed about our health care system

      You are only partially right about having the wealthy market cornered. Wealthy Americans routinely travel the globe to get treatments everywhere.

      You just *think* you have the wealthy market cornered because anyone with good health insurance gets to stay in a 4 star hotel while they recover. Also because, well, America did have that market cornered at one time.

      In reality your political interests, largely religious, are currently influencing your policy makers to the extent that new, successful high-tech treatments are being banned in America or going through 20 years of unnecessary hoops. So wealthy Americans are increasingly seeking treatment in european countries, Japan, Australia, Canada, and everywhere else across the globe.

    39. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by Ironhandx · · Score: 1

      It is exactly the same in Canada.

      The general population in the US is so grossly misinformed about our system that since we are neighbours, it can only be intentional spreading of misinformation by special interests.

    40. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by Ironhandx · · Score: 1

      Congratulations on the effectiveness of your reality distortion field.

      You must be proud.

    41. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by Ironhandx · · Score: 2

      Alaska still has trees even. Some parts of Canada don't, but where the majority of the population in Canada lives the climate is fairly similar to New York or Vermont.

    42. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by PapayaSF · · Score: 1
      Infant mortality rates are hard to compare across countries:

      Because in the United States if an infant is born weighing only 400 grams and not breathing, a doctor will likely spend lot of time and money trying to revive that infant. If the infant does not survive — and the mortality rate for such infants is in excess of 50 percent — that sequence of events will be recorded as a live birth and then a death. In many countries, however, (including many European countries) such severe medical intervention would not be attempted and, moreover, regardless of whether or not it was, this would be recorded as a fetal death rather than a live birth. That unfortunate infant would never show up in infant mortality statistics.

      As for Cuba specifically, why should we believe their health statistics any more than their election results?

      --
      Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
    43. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by zephvark · · Score: 1

      Poor people in the USA aren't wasting away from lack of food. The majority of them are too fat, because they can only afford cheap fattening foods

      I've heard this argument way too many times before, apparently from people who never actually cook or had money problems. A bag of rice, a bag of lentils, a few cans of generic vegetables, and maybe a few onions? Scarcely gourmet food, but that's a lot of moderately decent nutrition for less cost than one McWendy burger platter.

    44. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by nbauman · · Score: 1

      Yes, you are correct, Canadian health care costs half as much as U.S. health care, and the outcomes of the Canadian system are at least as good -- possibly better. This has been demonstrated repeatedly in scientifically rigorous comparisons in peer-reviewed journals.

      http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/view/8/1

      A systematic review of studies comparing health outcomes in Canada and the United States

      Gordon H Guyatt, PJ Devereaux, Joel Lexchin, et al.

      Background: Differences in medical care in the United States compared with Canada, including greater reliance on private funding and for-profit delivery, as well as markedly higher expenditures, may result in different health outcomes.

      Objectives: To systematically review studies comparing health outcomes in the United States and Canada among patients treated for similar underlying medical conditions.

      Methods: We identified studies comparing health outcomes of patients in Canada and the United States by searching multiple bibliographic databases and resources. We masked study results before determining study eligibility. We abstracted study characteristics, including methodological quality and generalizability.

      Results: We identified 38 studies comparing populations of patients in Canada and the United States. Studies addressed diverse problems, including cancer, coronary artery disease, chronic medical illnesses and surgical procedures. Of 10 studies that included extensive statistical adjustment and enrolled broad populations, 5 favoured Canada, 2 favoured the United States, and 3 showed equivalent or mixed results. Of 28 studies that failed one of these criteria, 9 favoured Canada, 3 favoured the United States, and 16 showed equivalent or mixed results. Overall, results for mortality favoured Canada (relative risk 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.92-0.98, p= 0.002) but were very heterogeneous, and we failed to find convincing explanations for this heterogeneity. The only condition in which results consistently favoured one country was end-stage renal disease, in which Canadian patients fared better.

      Interpretation: Available studies suggest that health outcomes may be superior in patients cared for in Canada versus the United States, but differences are not consistent. ....

      The United States also spends far more on health care, i.e., approximately 15% of its gross domestic product versus about 10% in Canada. In 2003, Americans spent an estimated US$5,635 per capita on health care, while Canadians spent US$3,003.

      http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa022033

      Costs of Health Care Administration in the United States and Canada

      Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., M.P.H., Terry Campbell, M.H.A., and David U. Himmelstein, M.D.

      N Engl J Med 2003; 349:768-775 August 21, 2003

      Results

      In 1999, health administration costs totaled at least $294.3 billion in the United States, or $1,059 per capita, as compared with $307 per capita in Canada. After exclusions, administration accounted for 31.0 percent of health care expenditures in the United States and 16.7 percent of health care expenditures in Canada. Canada's national health insurance program had overhead of 1.3 percent; the overhead among Canada's private insurers was higher than that in the United States (13.2 percent vs. 11.7 percent). Providers' administrative costs were far lower in Canada.

    45. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      source or gtfo

    46. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by nbauman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A couple points: (1) the two countries have radically different climates, demographics, lifestyles, etc,

      That's not true. As David Himmelstein said, the differences between Boston and Toronto are less than the differences between Boston and Jackson, Mississippi.

      (2) many people would disagree that Canada has better healthcare than the USA.

      So what? They're wrong. The evidence says that the outcomes in Canada are at least as good. The costs are about half. That makes it better.

      And you know what's another thing that's funny? A lot of Canadians come to the USA for treatment.

      So what? The numbers are few. The Canadians have done studies to find out why. Most Canadians who go to the U.S. for health care have relatives in the U.S. that they want to stay with. For example, they will have a knee replacement or open heart surgery and stay with their children in Florida or New York while they're recovering.

      For that matter, a lot of Americans come to Canada to buy their medicine, and more Americans them would buy medicine by mail from Canada if our lobbyist-funded government allowed it.

      If Americans could get Canadian health care, at Canadian price, quality and service, it would be the most popular health care plan in the U.S.

    47. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by nbauman · · Score: 1

      Yes, in the same way that communism is the most efficient and beneficial of political systems: "in theory", and as long as you ignore how things actually work out every time it's tried in real life.

      You ought to examine your own naive theories. There is no country in the world that has a functioning free-market health care system. The U.S. delivers about half of its health care through Medicare and Medicaid.

      When free-market theorists are desperate for an example, they sometimes come up with the Swiss health care system, which has the world's second highest free-market component after us, and the world's second-highest costs after us. There was a good article in the Journal of the American Medical Association where some American free-market theorists had it out with some reality-based Swiss doctors. One article, "Holes in the Swiss Health Care System," gives you an idea of how well it's going.

      You are basing your conclusions on a strongly-held belief that the free market is always better than government. I prefer basing my conclusion on the facts.

    48. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by nbauman · · Score: 1

      You also fling communism around... communism isn't the answer, a socialist democracy on the other hand is fan-fucking-tastic. Ask us, or the Norwegians, or the Swedes... or any one of another dozen countries that are thriving in what are for america very troubled times, all thanks to our socialist systems.

      Or the Germans. An American making less than $100,000 a year (in a secure job) would usually be better off in Germany or Scandinavia.

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2011/12/21/germany-builds-twice-as-many-cars-as-the-u-s-while-paying-its-auto-workers-twice-as-much/
      Frederick E. Allen
      12/21/2011 @ 5:42PM |60,178 views
      How Germany Builds Twice as Many Cars as the U.S. While Paying Its Workers Twice as Much

      I should thank the Canadians for sending down Adbusters to organize Occupy Wall Street, and show us how these things are done.

    49. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know much about the other statistics that you mentioned, but the infant mortality rate is one that you ought not use until you have delved into how mortality is figured in the respective nations. The US has one of the most inclusive ranges for what is considered a survivable birth, thereby greatly lowering their rankings in the mortality index. Obviously, one cannot precisely figure where the US would lie if it used the same reporting criteria that other nations used but you can make rough guesstimates based on comparisons between what is considered viable in one nation vs another. Another means to look at this is to look at look at perinatal (~1st week) or 2nd year mortality numbers where the definitions of living and dead are far more clear cut. When comparing those numbers the US fares much more competitively.

      For instance, among babies of abnormally low birthweight, the survival rate in the US is twice that of Canada, who overall has a reported higher survival rate. However, the standard of what is considered viable in Canada is more stringent in Canada, thereby forcing their birth mortality numbers lower (similar to the fashion by which the US lowers it's "unemployment numbers" by narrowly confining what is considered "unemployed"). Several friends of mine, one an actuary, another a pediatric medical researcher of some sort, both argue that for a given demographic the survival rates are very similar if not the same... but the US is far more likely to use "extraordinary measures" to save an infant. So, if you have an at risk child, the best place to be in the world is the US.

      Another example? The use of fertility drugs is much higher in the US when compared to other 1st world (who the heck knows compared to the 3rd), doubling between 1996 and 2006. This increases the number of multiple births... which are higher risk for infant mortality.

      This numbers game is not only played with infant mortality, it is also played with adult factors... When you judge the US using what I like to call the "lifestyle death window" 55-65 the US sucks winds with regard to mortality, but when you pass the age of death by smoking, fatness, or 'other', the number turns greatly to the favor of the US, usually with the US and Japan racing for the number one spot when broken out by 10 yr span cohorts.

    50. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by Nihilomnis · · Score: 1

      Hey! Don't make fun of McWendy's; I like their grease a la enfarto.

    51. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really, please refer to the WHO statistics for perinatal mortality, which uses the most unified comparison model available....

      Also, see the Netherlands who were called out for classifying premature live births as stillbirths, even though they were not deceased and could have died as much as 3 days later. (I seem to remember something similar about Canada, but the whiskey is interfering with my will to google it.)

    52. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by nbauman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or on the flip side of the equation, as a brilliant young surgeon, would you stay in Canada with its government-capped doctor's salaries... Or "defect" to your neighbor to the South where you can make 10x as much without the hassle of having to treat the masses of unwashed poor as a form of government-imposed forced charity?

      I know a bit about that. I've talked to a lot of Canadian doctors, some of whom were good surgeons (the word "brilliant" is overused hype). Many of them went for training in the U.S. (just as many American doctors go for training in Canada).

      Most of the best surgeons do want to stay in Canada. They like the idea of being able to treat their patients according to need, not according to whether they can pay for it. They feel that they got a free education, and they like the idea of giving something back to their country. They feel like they're part of their community. They like being Canadians, because, as Canadians say, "we care about each other." They like the idea of practicing scientifically-based medicine, which is very strong in Canada. They like the idea of contributing to medical research, publishing in American and international journals, and reporting their results at international conferences, which they do a lot.

      When you talk about the "unwashed poor", you show that you really don't know what's going on. Canadian doctors (and most American doctors, for that matter) don't regard their patients as "unwashed poor." They regard them as people in need of care that they can help. Doctors often say that it is a "privilege" to practice medicine and help others.

      Your fundamental problem is your ideological belief in the free market. It doesn't work in health care. Doctors get a comfortable salary, and for most of them it's enough. Greedy doctors give bad medical care. Financial incentives give bad medical care.

    53. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by nbauman · · Score: 1

      Americans on private health plans go outside the plan and pay cash when they have a problem that isn't treated by any of the doctors on their insurance company's plan.

      For example, I heard about a child with cancer. The parents wanted to take their child to a pediatric oncologist, but the plan didn't have a pediatric oncologist, and would only pay for a general oncologist.

    54. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those claims are debatable and don't show socialized medicine is better than US medicine.
        Many different ways to measure, be sure to compare apple to apples.

        http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/276952/infant-mortality-deceptive-statistic-scott-w-atlas

      The sexual revolution has led the US to hire teen pregnancy rates, which results in increased preterm births that are higher risk of infant mortality. Also other nations may not measure infant death rates as accurately, honestly or equal to the US strict standards.

    55. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by nbauman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's the real trick, isn't it? If the "more government" turns out to be bad, you typically don't have opportunity to "give it back". :p

      In the U.S., "more privatization" turned out to be bad, and we don't have an opportunity to give it back either.

      We have the Republican and Democratic parties getting $1 billion apiece from corporations just for the presidential race, by serving the interests of their multi-millionaire campaign contributors, and ignoring the interests of the rest of us.

      The wealthy 1% own the country, and we can't get it back.

    56. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by Zalbik · · Score: 1

      Way to stick your head in the sand there.

      The preemie issue is not due to "we have higher standards and report it differently". It's because the US has higher incidents of premature babies. And you know the reason for this....poor social care & health care!

      The NYT had an article about this a couple of years back...you can read it here

      From the article:

      Dr. Fleischman said the smallest, earliest and most fragile babies were often born to poor and minority women who lacked health care and social support. The highest rates of infant mortality occur in non-Hispanic black, American Indian, Alaska Native and Puerto Rican women.

    57. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      When people first started philosophizing about natural "rights," they were only referring to various freedoms that they believed deserved to be protected: Life, liberty, property. No positive entitlements were included.

      See, that right there is an important clarification - you're talking about natural rights theory. Within its bounds, everything you've said is true.

      Thing is, the assertion that those rights are in any way "natural" can and has been disputed. And, no, I'm not talking about feudal rights here. Rather, the idea is that rights are entirely a human construct that simply does not exist outside of human society. In that sense, a lone human out in the wilderness does not have a "right to live" - as, indeed, will be demonstrated by whatever predator he happens to come across. Similarly, a lone human does not have a "right to property", because property itself is an abstract concept - the recognition by other members of the society that some object belongs to someone, endowing him with certain exclusive rights to said object.

      "Natural rights" theory makes perfect sense for theists and deists: for them, there is a definite source of all those rights, so they can meaningfully claim the existence of those rights even in the absence of society or other humans. For atheists, it's murky territory - really, more dogma than anything else.

      And the other option is, of course, to assume that rights are something that we humans have come up with as our ethics has developed alongside our society. That makes rights more valuable, not less, since they have to be guarded and enforced, otherwise we revert to the "rightless" natural state.

    58. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by nbauman · · Score: 2

      I've gone through these statistics extensively. I've already quoted a couple of studies http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/view/8/1 here, and I can explain why you're wrong.

      Cost per capita -- well, we've got more money than other people do (ha ha, except for being in debt up to our eyeballs), so this is not by itself compelling. And of course, note that socializing medicine is likely to increase our debt even higher than our eyeballs.

      As that Guyer paper said, we pay a higher percentage of our GDP on health care than anyone else in the world. When you examine why, you find out that 30-50% of every dollar a customer pays to a private insurance company goes for administrative costs and profits. (Actually the administrative costs cost us more than the profits.) In addition, when government delivers medicine directly, as it does in the Veterans Affairs system, the cost is much lower, and the outcomes are just as good (sometimes better).

      You can pay $4,000 a year in taxes as the Canadians do, or $8,000 a year in insurance premiums, as we do.

      Of course, if you spend money, and cut taxes until you don't have enough to cover your spending, as the Republicans do, you will increase your debt.

      Infant mortality rate -- I read that most comparisons of the USA's infant mortality rate to that of other countries are unfair and misleading, because we have higher standards and report it differently. For example, when many preemie infants are lost, the USA classifies as an infant death where other countries would classify it as an abortion. That kind of thing.

      You read wrong. Doctors are pretty smart. They want to compare how well they're doing so they can identify areas of improvement and excellence. The infant mortality rates of all developed countries are based on the same definitions. Even if you did include premature infant deaths, the numbers are so low it wouldn't change the rankings.

      When doctors study American infant mortality rates, the most striking statistical pattern is race. Blacks, hispanics and native Americans have much higher infant mortality than whites. The south Bronx has higher infant mortality than many third-world countries.

      Race is probably a proxy for income. The U.S. has one of the most unequal societies in the developed world. Our Gini index is about that of Brazil.

      Life expectancy -- I grant the statistics, but I question whether socialized medicine is necessarily the causative factor.

      All studies find that life expectancy is correlated with income (and race). But in unequal countries, even the wealthy have lower life expectancies than people in more equal countries.

      It seems that socialized medicine is part of the whole package of greater equality and better social services for all that leads to longer life expectancy, but it's hard to separate it.

    59. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by nbauman · · Score: 1

      As for Cuba specifically, why should we believe their health statistics any more than their election results?

      Because their results are published by outside observers in peer-reviewed journals like Science, their critics are given full opportunity to rebut them, and they still hold up.

      I noticed that link to overpopulation.com doesn't cite any sources, and just seems to be an anonymous web site. It wouldn't meet reliable source standards for Wikipedia.

    60. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by fnj · · Score: 1

      where the majority of the population in Canada lives the climate is fairly similar to New York or Vermont

      In other words, two months of acceptable weather in the summer and DREADFUL all the rest of the time. It is so bad that there is an underground city in Montreal which makes it possible for quite a few people to avoid almost all outdoor excursions in the winter.

    61. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by PapayaSF · · Score: 1
      --
      Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
    62. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by nbauman · · Score: 1

      OK, how's this?

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615029/

      They're saying that outcomes are recorded as fetal deaths in the U.S. which would be recorded as infant deaths in the U.S. Maybe.

      http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA547ComparativeHealth.html

      This isn't peer reviewed. In fact it's an advocacy organization.

      http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db23.pdf

      Their conclusion is, "The main cause of the United States’ high infant mortality rate when compared with Europe is the very high percentage of preterm births in the United States."

      That makes sense. Of course, preterm births are associated with poor access to health care. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449857/?report=abstract

      It's possible that there is bias in reporting infant mortality in different countries. If I see a bunch of articles coming to that conclusion in reliable publications like AJPH, I'll believe it.

    63. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by safehaven25 · · Score: 1

      This is just wrong. Someone can eat mcdonalds 5 days a weak and still not be obese. Someone can eat nothing but whole grains, fruits, and vegetables and still be overweight. Its nothing to do with being able to afford healthy vs unhealthy foods; mostly because fruits, vegetables, pasta, and grains are not expensive relative to potato chips and soda, and also because diet is only a small contributor to weight gain. Generalizations make life easier but they arent always true.

    64. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by PapayaSF · · Score: 1

      The second link is full of footnotes, many to peer-reviewed journals.

      --
      Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
    65. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by icebike · · Score: 1

      Diet is NOT a small contributor to weight gain.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    66. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by deimtee · · Score: 1

      Why are you using canned vegetables? Go to the local produce shop and buy what's in season, locally. Way better than canned crap from China*, and usually cheaper too.

      *Read the label - if it says "from imported ingredients" then it is likely grown in China, no matter where it was canned and labelled.

      --
      I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
    67. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      1 in 100,000 people in Canada is 300 people.

      1 in 100,000 people in the US is 3000 people.

      Healthcare has is special maths magic in Canada? No wonder you've got free healthcare.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    68. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by Stephan+Schulz · · Score: 1

      Do you suppose wealthy (elderly) Canadians in need of an organ transplant resign themselves to age-based rationing and just die quietly... Or pull a Steve Jobs and fly to Tennessee for a no-fuss, no-muss, no-waiting-list liver?

      [...]

      You really aughtn't act so defensive about this - As I said, I do think you have the better public health care system, overall. At the upper end, though, of-the-wealthy, by-the-wealthy, and for-the-wealthy, sorry, the US has that market cornered. And I don't say that as a positive!

      This deserves some elaboration. Jobs is a good example of a failure of the system. That new liver has given him maybe another two years (and maybe he'd have lived much of that on his own liver, too). That's good for Jobs. But transplant organs are a limited resource. That same liver might have given someone with a better overal prognosis 20 years, or 40.

      --

      Stephan

    69. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by CrackedButter · · Score: 1

      Nobody picked me up on it but I meant to say I paid $600 a year roughly in NI contributions vs $50 a month private.

      Also here are some stats about Norway: http://news.discovery.com/human/nations-quality-of-life-rankings.html

    70. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by crossmr · · Score: 1

      As a Canadian who moved to South Korea a few years ago, fuck Canadian medicare.

      sure if I get cancer, it might be better for me under the Canadian system. Everything else?
      I've never had so much joy visiting a doctor.

      When I was in Canada last they were implementing the "write your question down, no more than 25 words and for the love of god don't speak unless spoken to" appointments for the family doctors where I lived and scheduling them for 3 weeks next friday.

      You know what I want to do if I want to see my doctor in Korea?
      I walk over to his office and 9 times out of 10 I see him in under 5 minutes.
      I tell him the problem and then he'll ask me 3 more times "Nothing else? are you sure? how about that problem you had a bit ago?"
      it costs me $2.

      I need to see a specialist? I do the exact same thing. I don't need to spend 8 months with my doctor doing pointless and endless tests, then get put on a list for a year while I wait for the only guy in a city of over a million people to get around to seeing me, all the while I'm suffering whatever the problem is.
      Costs me an extra $6-$10 to do that.

      prescriptions? covered as part of national healthcare. a few days prescription for your run of the mill stuff is nothing, $2-$3

      You get into more heavy stuff, cancer, heart disease, organ transplant, yeah you want to be in Canada but only for the out of pocket stuff. But your day to day general health care, not even a competition even with the slightly increased out of pocket.

      Is the Canadian system better than the American? Yeah.
      Is it better than Korea for serious medical stuff? only financially.
      is it better than Korea overall though? Well, depends on your perspective. For me, as someone who does tend to go to the doctor now and then for stuff, and has to get a regular prescription renewal, I'm pretty damn happy with it.

    71. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those are three statistics of specious value. Infant mortality is notoriously suspect, as it the inputs vary greatly from country to country. Life expectancy is a complex outcome. To simplify the argument into "socialized medicine is great; everyone should be doing it," ignores factors like size and diversity of population, and hoists up select statistics that are barely significantly different. You also woukd have to ignore contrasts in patient outcomes for specific diseases among types of health care systems (as well as the fact that there are over 100 countries WITH socialized medicine that lag behind the US).

      There's no magic pill here. We're about to really see how bad UK's NHS can get, as the country is out of money. 22% of citizens' wages are devoted to that program, and people still need to buy private insurance.

    72. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by sideslash · · Score: 1

      A couple points: (1) the two countries have radically different climates, demographics, lifestyles, etc,

      That's not true. As David Himmelstein said, the differences between Boston and Toronto are less than the differences between Boston and Jackson, Mississippi.

      I'm sitting here waiting for you to have an "aha" moment where you realize that comparing Canada to the northernmost parts of the USA only is silly, and that Jackson, Mississippi is in fact in the USA. Hmmm?

    73. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by sideslash · · Score: 1

      In addition, when government delivers medicine directly, as it does in the Veterans Affairs system, the cost is much lower, and the outcomes are just as good (sometimes better).

      Wow, we definitely have not read the same reviews.

    74. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Universal healthcare is not just the mark of a civilized society...

      "Universal healthcare", to be put into effect, requires either universal theft to pay for that healthcare, or enslaving doctors. Neither is civilized. You can't put your system into practice without pointing a gun at me.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    75. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by Ironhandx · · Score: 1

      No, using very very rough population numbers to demonstrate the absolute numbers difference. 1 person in 100,000 for canada with a population of about 30,000,000 is 300 people. 1 person in 100,000 in the US with a population of 300,000,000 is 3000 people.

      I just didn't think anyone reading slashdot would be dense enough to need that explained to them.

    76. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by Ironhandx · · Score: 1

      I don't know where the hell you've been living but if I have something thats urgent enough to bother the doctor for I get seen to within a few hours. Which is acceptable.

      As for the prescriptions and regular checkups... just don't be dense and make your next appointments as you leave.

      If it is actually something serious you will be seen by a specialist almost immediately. I blew my knee out badly and saw a specialist about surgery inside 12 hours, and there was a 4 hour flight in between there as I was in the Arctic at the time.

      If you have that much of a problem then you're one of those folks that goes to the doctor for every sniffle and I'm glad you're in Korea.

      Its a public system, and free here. So people like you clog the damned system to hell. There are new initiatives with the health care lines that are thankfully reducing this problem however.

    77. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by Ironhandx · · Score: 1

      I'm sitting here still waiting for your reality distortion field to fail.... its got some kind of crazy power supply.

    78. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US has much more inclusive standards for infant mortality rates than some other nations. Preterms are strongly related with infant deaths. After the sexual revolution the US now has very, very high rates of teen pregnancies which are higher risk pregnancies leading to more preterm births. The US spends money and puts in significant effort trying to keep these preterm babies alive. This helps to drive up cost.

      With the US including the many babies that die in preterm births, unlike some other nations, we see lower expected life rates and infant mortality rates.

    79. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Peer reviewed does not mean the publications claims are accurate. Nor does that mean that papers critiquing or counter arguments haven't been published. Nor does it mean that all the methods and data gathering was done consistently or honestly or accuaretly executed.

      Peer review is nice to have, but too often people think and imply that it is something that it is not. A little research into professional ethics and peer review does the people good.

    80. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, why is it that a Canadian I know quite well moved to the U.S. because of health care issues?
      FYI this particular Canadian is quite well educated and has a family member that works as a health care provider in Canada.

    81. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Rights apply to humans: humans have them, and the restrictions they entail apply to humans. The right to life is the right not to have your life ended by other humans. In a wilderness, the right to life has no relation to a mountain lion having you for lunch because the mountain lion is not human. Alone in the wilderness my right to life exists, and is protected by default, because there is no human to violate my right.

      The right to property is the right not to have things taken from me or damaged by other humans. I have this right alone in the wilderness, and it is protected because there are no humans around to take or damage my property.

      It is essential to properly define rights, and to recognize that those rights exist even when they are violated. A right is a subset of "how a person should not be mistreated by other humans", and exists whether or not a person is mistreated, and whether or not there is another person to do the mistreating. Natural rights exist for a man in the absence of other men, even if they are moot.

      assume that rights are something that we humans have come up with as our ethics has developed alongside our society.

      Rights are something that we humans have identified as our ethics has developed alongside our society. The rights, like hydrogen or the properties of triangles, have been there as long as homo has been sapiens; but it's taken centuries of human thought to properly sort out the many varieties of human action and name some of them "rights".

      "Natural rights" are so called because they apply to humans, as a result of the nature of human beings. There is the additional implication that if it weren't for other people (i.e. in a state of nature), there would be neither a need for the help of others to protect those rights, nor would there be others violating those rights. By being able to identify rights as natural, a great barrier is constructed against those who would fabricate "rights" out of thin air: the defender of natural rights says "in a state of nature, who will provide this new thing that you call a right?" If that is not sufficient to reject the fabrication immediately, it does lead into a discussion of costs and whose fundamental rights are being violated to provide the new thing.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    82. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Well, that's the idea of democracy: If your government doesn't work well, you just elect a better one next time.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    83. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

      The most profound mark of Japanese civilization and duty for me was the senior citizens volunteering for nuclear reactor cleanup duty, because they figured they were nearly dead anyway and the young-uns deserved to live a life without having their gonads irradiated.

    84. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by sideslash · · Score: 1

      I have to keep cranking up the power because it doesn't seem to have any effect on you, lol! Cheers.

    85. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by crossmr · · Score: 1

      I blew my ankle and couldn't walk for over a month without crutches and had constant pain and randomly lost all ability to stand on it, it took me 6 months to get to the first specialist, and 2 years before they finally sent me to a surgeon.

      My aunt currently has 2 "large" (As the doctor has described them) hernias, which means she can't do her job as a personal caretaker and has been on the list to see the specialist for several months already, with an expected wait time for surgery of about a year.

      Don't make assumptions. It makes you look like an idiot.

      The last time I was in Canada, family doctor's appointments were first come first serve, and the next available appointment was always over a week away or longer. Go to emergency or the clinic? forget it.
      They were running stories at the time of people dying in the waiting room of emergency because they'd been left there 24 hours without proper attention.
      At the after hours clinic you were looking at usually 3-4 hour wait minimum at one place, a hospital at least 12-24 hours, and the midway place (semi-hospital, more than a clinic) over 8 hours.
      Then once you go into those places, they acted as if you were a burden, wrote you a prescription as fast as they could, and barely talked to you at all, that includes the family doctor. It wasn't a joke. You had 2 questions? you had to make 2 appointments.

      For the tiny fee I'll take the doctor I can see whenever I want and who genuinely seems interested in taking care of me.

    86. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by treeves · · Score: 1

      "...the [climate] differences between Boston and Toronto are less than the differences between Boston and Jackson, Mississippi."

      True, and importantly something like 90% of the population of Canada lives within 100 miles of the US border. [according to the answer to a trivia game I played with my family].

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    87. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've heard that argument, apparently from people who thought they were as poor as you can get.

      It becomes much harder to cook when your time is consumed working multiple jobs. For instance, if you're trying to pay the kid's medical bills...

      (there are places where you could support a family on a low-paying job, but moving is expensive too).

    88. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

      You say "theft", I say "shared responsibility".

      Shared responsibilities are what civilization is all about ; you don't seem to want to participate. If you don't want to pay your taxes (which after all, require the implied use of force by the state to collect), then you don't have to join in. Unless the law changes to allow you to secede your survivalist ranch from the United States, I suspect you may have to move to another country though.

      What is the mark of civilization? Every man for himself? Or everyone helping out?

      Ironically, your vision of universal theft very neatly describes what occurs right now in the USA ; you spend more than double per capita what the next nearest of the G8 nations spends, but get outcomes that are very similar to other nations. The insurance companies utilize far more deadly force than the IRS by denying treatment and reaping the profits - just because their force comes from the barrel of a pen rather than a gun doesn't make it any less dangerous.

    89. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by Ironhandx · · Score: 1

      I still have no idea where you were.

      I've heard some horror stories from the Toronto area but I've heard similar horror stories about hospitals and clinics in New York etc, unless you have zounds of cash for premium insurance or are able to just go elsewhere for treatment.

      I've also heard the same about some clinics and hospitals in London, so I'm making what I feel is a fairly safe assumption that huge cities have congestion problems with medical services. They have congestion problems with everything else so it would make sense.

      The largest place I've ever lived was Halifax, and I've never experienced anything close to what you describe, or had anyone in my immediate friends/family circle experience it. Excepting one Aunt that lived in Toronto for awhile.

    90. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by crossmr · · Score: 1

      I was in a big city, my aunt is in a town of 80,000.

      However, if big cities are having congestion problems it would mean that the average Canadian is having those problems and its your experience that is atypical. The top 10 metro areas in Canada contain over 50% of the population of Canada and all are bigger than Halifax. But my aunt is evidence that it isn't just a big city problem. I would say you got quite lucky to see the specialist as fast as you did, and frankly it's probably unheard of in Canada. The fact that you were in the arctic tells me you aren't telling us the whole story. The average Canadian doesn't just hang out there.

      You really don't have to go far in Canada to find someone complaining of wait times. The wait times for specialists and surgeries are completely out of control in some areas.

      Canada is great for picking up the tab, but when it comes to overall access I find the Korean system to be much better. Korea has a co-pay with the government, but most things are significantly cheaper than the American system. But if you want to talk about cost:
      uninsured doctor's visit in Canada is in the neighbourhood of $150
      uninsured doctor's visit in korea is about $14

      Cost of living is fairly similar overall as well. Canada's system needs a completely overhaul. it's become bloated and broken, and if it continues it will collapse. It really isn't an example of a great system any more. People cannot get the healthcare they want when they need it. Some people linger with debilitating conditions for months or years unless they want to pay for it by going to the states or another country.

      Korea does need to improve the way it handles more serious issues though. A friend's daughter was born with a heart condition a small hole, she had to have surgery last christmas, around 8 years old. Cost about $8,000. I'm told this would be several times the price in the US, but $8,000 is no small burden.

    91. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      Yes, in the same way that communism is the most efficient and beneficial of political systems: "in theory", and as long as you ignore how things actually work out every time it's tried in real life. Real world governments are neverending breeders of corruption and incompetence, and the more you strengthen them, the more incompetent they get. It's naive to expect otherwise.

      You can keep spewing this garbage, or you can just look at every other first-world nation and compare them to us, and see that you're absolutely wrong. At this point your ignorance would be funny if it weren't so sad.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    92. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which country do you live in? "Free education"?!? You gotta be kidding! Nice try - you obviously fooled those those are already inclined to believe as you do since you got "insightful".
      Truth is the healthcare system here is a disaster for a whole host of reasons. If you Americans want to chuck away yours, go ahead - none of my business - land of the free and all that - but then please have the decency not to whine when you find out how the other half lives.

    93. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by Ironhandx · · Score: 1

      Wow, I make a legitimately informative post and what I can only assume are republitards come along and mod me down after the story has been off the front page for days. Congrats.

    94. Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? by thunderclap · · Score: 1

      Please list your metrics. Inheritantly biased metics are meaningless.

  23. Regulation is not the answer by Hentes · · Score: 1

    Dr. Joan Costa-Font and Professor Mireia Jofre-Bonet of City University in London conducted the world’s first economic analysis of anorexia, consisting of 3,000 women between the ages of 15 to 34 in Europe and found that the eating disorder was mainly socially induced, and that the larger the peers’ body-mass, the lower the chance the individual will be anorexic

    People not eating have a lower mass? Now that's a surprising result!

    More to the point, I don't think this a huge enough problem requiring government regulation. Even more, I think anorexia is just a symtpom of low self-esteem, and if those women won't have a problem with their mass they would find another way of destroying themselves.

    1. Re:Regulation is not the answer by Dahamma · · Score: 2

      Hmm, maybe you should read the bit you highlighted again. It said the larger their *peers'* (i.e OTHER people they associate with) body mass, the lower their chances of being anorexic. Not even remotely what you paraphrased.

      Not that I think regulating pictures of thin people makes any sense at all, it's ridiculous. Might as well ban all food and drink ads to prevent obesity (which would cut out 1/2 of all advertising, it seems).

  24. Music by internettoughguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem is not that these body images are harmful, but that girls are trained to think that their appearance is their most important attribute.

    This is not improving, this shallow culture is being promoted to men and boys as well, perhaps in order to stave off charges of sexism, but more likely it's just a realisation within these cosmetic and fashion industries that they are missing out on a potential market.

    1. Re:Music by drsmack1 · · Score: 0

      >> but that girls are trained to think that their appearance is their most important attribute

      Girls are genetically coded to think that their appearance is their most important attribute.

    2. Re:Music by djmurdoch · · Score: 1

      Girls are genetically coded to think that their appearance is their most important attribute.

      A claim like that needs some evidence, otherwise it just looks like the usual Slashdot gynophobia.

    3. Re:Music by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is not that these body images are harmful, but that girls are trained to think that their appearance is their most important attribute.

      It doesn't help that boys are being trained to think a girls appearance is their most important attribute too.

    4. Re:Music by eulernet · · Score: 2

      The problem is not that these body images are harmful, but that girls are trained to think that their appearance is their most important attribute.

      It's probably true, but it's also men's fault, because most of them are only attracted by women's appearance.

      The real problem is that we tend to focus only on external attributes, because it's easy to change them if you have money.
      It reminds me of somebody who said that 50 years ago, people tended to focus on attitudes (internal behaviour), and now, people tend to focus on easy ways to influence people (external behaviour).
      External improvement has a much better return on investment than internal improvement.

      What worries me the most is the merchandising about all our social relations. What is the easiest way to attract people, so I'll be liked ?
      How many friends can I collect, so that my value increases ?
      How much money do I need to spend to possess things that'll make jealous my neighbours ?

    5. Re:Music by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

      The problem is not that these body images are harmful, but that girls are trained to think that their appearance is their most important attribute.

      This is not improving, this shallow culture is being promoted to men and boys as well, perhaps in order to stave off charges of sexism, but more likely it's just a realisation within these cosmetic and fashion industries that they are missing out on a potential market.

      nobody likes looking at a fat ugly person. Someone more attractive ATTRACTs attention to the advertisement.
      No conspiracy here folks move along...this is a flametrollbait article...

    6. Re:Music by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's probably true, but it's also men's fault, because most of them are only attracted by women's appearance.

      That would make it really babies' fault, since they are so rude as to die more often when coming out of morbidly obese old women, so the men who impregnated young (so therefore slim) women were the ones who had more live offspring. Yes, let's blame the babies. Or perhaps blaming people for something that they do not control is pretty silly?

    7. Re:Music by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Appearance is not shallow: it provides a huge amount of information about genetic compatibility and health. Since that is what sex is about, men are entirely in the right.

    8. Re:Music by metlin · · Score: 1

      It may not be *the* most important attribute, but it certainly is an important attribute.

      How you look, what your skin color is, how you're dressed, how you're groomed, and what your demeanor is all factor into how people perceive you.

      I certainly have more women hit on me when I work out at the gym regularly and sport a six pack and a tight tee. And I definitely get better service when I'm well groomed in a suit and tie, no matter where I go.

      People underestimate the importance of looking good, or the subconscious perceptions that society makes (as a brown man, I've been mistaken for a valet when I was dressed in jeans and a hoodie).

      So, yes, a skinny chick certainly has a better chance of being hit on than a fat (or even "normal" chick, whatever that may entail). On the other hand, I very much doubt if a skinny guy would get hit on as much as a buff guy. A lot of these things are biologically wired -- I realized the type of women I was attracted to when I was in middle school, and it's not changed much since them.

      So, yes, let's be honest here. Being unfit is unattractive to most people -- whether you are chubby or anorexic. And people have preferences on the spectrum. Now, you may date outside your "preferred" segment out of desperation, love, or whatever, but that in no way changes your biological imperative to prefer a fit partner.

      Personally, I wish they would ban fat people on shows and the runway (the recent trend towards 'curvy' models) -- it sends the wrong message that being unhealthy is acceptable, or even desired.

    9. Re:Music by V!NCENT · · Score: 1

      They should do something else. Instead of banning things (which never works; look at drugs) and robbing people of theoretical freedom, they should start a media campaign in which hot people of the opposite sex explain why abnormal sizes are not sexy. That means size zero (no-one thinks males and female skeletons are sexy (duh)) and obese people are not sexy, obviously.

      Size zero models are not selected because they're sexy (fashion designers are usualy attracted to males), but because the cloths they're wearing look better. That's it.

      Also; the campaign should show that looks are not everything; heterosexual chick don't give a shit about what males look like, but how they act (and ofcourse shower for hygene). Heterosexual males can fall in love with females because they are cool chicks and choose them instead of a hotter duckface chick. But for males looks are important, but it can be stretched a little.

      The underlying problem is cognitive failure, because people think that their DNA, in relation to looks, decide what they are worth. If most people are so damn ugly, then ask yourself why their genes are in the gene pool. If nobody likes these genes, then why are these genes still in the gene pool? It's natural.

      --
      Here be signatures
    10. Re:Music by eulernet · · Score: 1

      Yes, you are right, but our western culture encourages skinny people, but it has been showed that they are less fertile than moderately fat people.

      The goal of men is to reproduce as much as possible to spread their genes, so young and fertile women are preferred.

      What is amusing is that fashion for women is generally designed by people who don't have an interest in women ;-)

    11. Re:Music by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As I asked the last time this very question was raised. Why is it that I as a man should care that women somehow are made to feel bad because they are not thin enough?
      I can go online on any feminist forum and read about how women should have the right to promote any male body ideal they so desire, without having to take flack for it from anyone. To sum it up, you can drool over six-pack abs and 9"+ dicks all you want, but that also means that you keep quiet when men drool over d-cup boobs and 9% body fat.

    12. Re:Music by rdnetto · · Score: 1

      Because not all women are feminists.

      --
      Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
  25. So should we... by neo8750 · · Score: 0

    So should we ban obese models too?

    1. Re:So should we... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.

  26. And, yet, by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 0

    obesity is at an all-time high.

  27. i dont like round models by KingBenny · · Score: 0

    i never will, maybe there's a reason why, when unregulated and everything just going its way the skinny ones are the supermodels, not that i know it, except for the fact that i really like skinny women, but other than that it's just more censorship . I suppose these researchers have been threatened out of sex by their round moms on the couch, i definitely have to veto this. If anyone feels like starting an agency for fat moms and round models only, why dont they do that then instead of using the b-word again?

    --
    Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
    1. Re:i dont like round models by jamesh · · Score: 2

      I'm not sure that you are the target audience of the modelling industry. Most of the mens magazines have women in them that seem to be relatively well proportioned. Not necessarily really skinny, but healthy (eg the sort of woman likely to give you healthy kids). It's the magazines targeted at women that have the really skinny girls in them, and women keep buying them.

    2. Re:i dont like round models by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      i am most likely not the target of that modelling industry but i heard this so many times before, i dont really see a lot of kids starving themselves because of what they see in magazines either but most of all the fact that some of these skinny models are compared to anorexia patients baffles me, someone suffering from anorexia is pretty much incapable of doing anything they look indeed like walking skeletons, definitely not like anything you'd see on a catwalk, with a few exceptions probably. Anyway, i'm opposed against censorship of any kind, even if its offensive (most of the time it is to someone somewhere). That goes from censoring muhammad out of south park to forcing magazines to ban certain kind of photo's, no matter the subject, as long as its voluntarily, i'm definitely not including child porn here even if that seems to be the perfect hammer to block about everything right now

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
    3. Re:i dont like round models by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      i'm very sorry to post twice on this but i just read some stats and from what i see, overweight or obesitas or what's it called professionally seems to be a much bigger problem than anorexia (sorry, just felt i had to add this)

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
  28. Fine, fine.. by wbr1 · · Score: 1

    Just send them over to my house. I'll take care of them.

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
    1. Re:Fine, fine.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please do. Maybe it'll end the whole "a well-defined ribcage is sexy" nonsense.

  29. Right....What next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And in other news, attractive women have been banned from pornography as it was determined that Erectile dysfunction is caused when males are no longer interested in their wives due to a bias created by watching said pornography.

  30. But who defines "skinny"? by Xandrax · · Score: 0

    I would agree with this premise, depending on who is defining skinny. I know athletic women that are called a "skinny bitch" by people.

    This is one of those "best of intentions" ideas that has a basis in, and quickly becomes about, political correctness. While I understand that people have become increasingly overweight and don't like being reminded of that, it doesn't change the fact that the majority of people find certain body types more attractive.

    Even in the era of supposed "curvier women" (Marilyn Monroe timeframe), the average waist size of famous actresses, based on dresses they wore, was along the lines of 18 inches. Marilyn herself was tiny and they couldn't even find a manaquin small enough to show her dresses on.

    Now, I would completely agree that Kate Moss skinny is, in fact, a problem, and I would definitely not want kids using her as a role model.

    1. Re:But who defines "skinny"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. That's correct. WHO defines skinny.

  31. Why is this on Slashdot? by pz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why is this article here?

    Does it include neato new technology?

    Does it review some new CPU or video card?

    Does it discuss a new or old computer game?

    Does it include high-energy physics or cosmology?

    Does it include something about programming languages?

    Does it include cryptography or security breaches?

    Does it include anything at all about computers?

    Hell, does it talk about Bitcoin?

    Might as well just post scans from the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue that's out right now.

    --

    Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    1. Re:Why is this on Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It does involve questions of free speech, which as a rule is of interest here.

    2. Re:Why is this on Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it deals with political freedom. Ever since the "free" side of free software became a geek thing here anything that touches or harms libertarian ideals gets a front page space on slashdot.

    3. Re:Why is this on Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or at least post links to some somewhere else!

    4. Re:Why is this on Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Might as well just post scans from the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue that's out right now.

      I Agree.

    5. Re:Why is this on Slashdot? by thunderclap · · Score: 1

      You mean this: http://gofatherhood.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/kate-upton-sports-illustrated-swimsuit-edition.jpg Oh the article talks about the very issue we are discussing. And you can even get the scans with bitcoins.

  32. Something like this has already been done in Spain by toadlife · · Score: 1
    --
    I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
  33. Define ... "Skinny" ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd love to see them try to define what "skinny" is ... That'd be a mess.

    1. Re: Define ... "Skinny" ... by toadlife · · Score: 1

      In Spain it was defined as a BMI of less than 18. In the article I read, an example of a 18 BMI was 5' 8"/125 lbs, which is pretty damn skinny in my opinion.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
  34. Obesity is the epidemic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just like the proposal to put disturbing photos on cigarette packs all snack cakes, chips, sweets and fast food should come with photos of 400LB models in bathing suits. You could even do a 100LB to 1000LB grading system so the most healthy foods you get 120LB women and 150LB men modeling the swim suits up to the very worst displaying 1000LB individuals. If that doesn't help curb bad eating habits nothing will.

  35. But do they know they have discretion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or are they too stupid to "critically" examine the ads? (And are an example of why Democracy is only one of the better instances of the worse forms of government. Marketing for capitalism = advertisement. Marketing for politics = campaign.)

    1. Re:But do they know they have discretion? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      There is nothing wrong with stupid people, it's OK they are stupid, the problem is only that they are allowed to vote in the first place, which should really be discouraged.

  36. keep evolution alive, let them die by holophrastic · · Score: 0

    it's not difficult to not be affected by what you see. you'd think that eating would be at the top of the list of things that are easily achievable -- being evolutionary and all. let's keep evolution alive, and let people who don't eat die.

    1. Re:keep evolution alive, let them die by sackvillian · · Score: 2

      it's not difficult to not be affected by what you see

      This seems to be a common notion on slashdot, maybe due to a mix of disdain for the softer sciences and some arrogance about the ability of intelligence to triumph over everything else.

      I'll just point out that there exists an entire industry dedicated to 'affect you' by what you see (or otherwise sense). It's called 'marketing' and it's extremely effective and therefore extremely profitable. Would we really be so incredibly saturated in advertisements 24/7 if human beings could easily be unaffected by it?

      And PS - That bit about letting 'them' die for some sort of evolutionary goal is despicable.

      --
      Hey mate, spare a sig?
    2. Re:keep evolution alive, let them die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's not difficult to not be affected by what you see

      Maybe not what I or even you see, which I frankly doubt, but what about children? What happens if you grow up seeing a ridiculously dangerous ideal from your youth and grow up thinking that's what you should strive for?

      you'd think that eating would be at the top of the list of things that are easily achievable.

      So...the obese are evolutionary superhumans?

    3. Re:keep evolution alive, let them die by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

      It's difficult to the average person to "not be affected by what you see." For other people, the magical brainwashing waves don't exist.

    4. Re:keep evolution alive, let them die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er that's not how it works. Most of the time they end up getting helped, they live just they have to struggle. Unless you think that it's perfectly okay to let someone die just because they have a problem. Do we also let sick people die? Suicidal people kill themselves? I've had two friends with this problem in the past, one still is suffering from it. Would you expect me to just say fuck it it's evolution I might as well just let her hurt herself? Hell no I talk to her about it and make sure she's doing okay, she's seeing a psychiatrist, if I knew she was doing something serious to hurt herself I would do something about it. Do you think that she can't contribute to the world because she's anorexic, she just doesn't count as a person we might as well just let her die?

      It's also ridiculous to say that eating is easy so this shouldn't be a problem. Have you ever met a REAL person? My friend that's currently having issues is one of the smartest people I know, she knows it's stupid, but when she eats she feels unhappy. That's not an easy problem to solve. As of now, she eats. But she's also unhappy much of the time which isn't exactly great.

      Basically, you're an asshole and I hope you get hit by a truck. Show some fucking compassion you're not a goddamn computer.

    5. Re:keep evolution alive, let them die by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      You understand that if those marketers waited for me to buy their stuff, they'd go bankrupt immediately. I don't make purchases due to marketing. You won't find clothing, vacations, cars, foods, et cetera on my annual expenses that were marketed to me. You'll find movies that I enjoyed, you won't find more than the occasional movie that I didn't enjoy (so you're correct to the tune of $30 per year), concerts and the like. You'll find houses and household expenses.

      Certainly, for some marketing, I'm very important. I buy one cleaner over another equivalent cleaner based on marketing, sure. But I don't choose a bad cleaner over a good one due to marketing.

      And of course my comment is despicable. I think so too. But that's the point. I don't want to live my life having to worry about those people who add needless complexity. Their problems are not my problems. I don't want to be involved in solving them.

      And what of the skinny person who isn't anorexic, but is very skinny -- genetics can do that -- and wants to start a modeling agency of their own? You're going to tell them that it's illegal for them to model clothing?

      And of course it's common on slashdot. I love the softer sciences, and they are very relevant. They are excellent things to fight - because unlike hard sciences, you can fight them without equipment. The're a House episode floating around with a line to the effect of: if you don't require those who suffer to fight their own fight, you deny those that do the respect that they deserve.

      We all have our shit. There are skills that I find incredibly difficult to master, or even to learn in the first place. I fight really hard, for example, to teach anyone anything. It turns out that I can't serialize knowledge at all. That's no the way I think of things. Occasionally, I'm in a position where I really need to teach someone something. I fight hard to do it. And I win. I don't turn and say that the world should allow me to never need to teach anyone anything, that I should have my own private teacher to help me whenever I do.

    6. Re:keep evolution alive, let them die by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      part of being a parent is to raise your children however you see fit. yes that includes keeping them away from things if you believe that they shouldn't see it. a big part of growing up, on the other hand, is to suddenly realize that what you learned wasn't all real, and you now, quite suddenly, need to unlearn things. santa clause comes to mind. so do three incorrect definitions of acids and bases. also primary colours, the shape of an atom, and a good 30% of what you learn in high school. and if you grow up enough, religion too.

      in the middle ages, when food was tough to come by, yes the obese were considered superhuman. so yes. nowadays, obese have health problems (because we live longer than they used to). but if you want to know the best thing I ever heard from a mother, it's this: "my son was ill last week, he had a cold. but because he's a little chubby, I didn't worry than if he missed a meal or two that I'd need to forcefeed him so he wouldn't starve". buffer weight is superhuman, yes.

      I fight to break free of a lot of things. That includes other people's ideals.

      Hey, I'm currently fighting all of my family and friends by choosing to purchase a house that I can afford with a cheque, instead of taking a mortgage for twenty years because I believe life is better without financial debt. It's forced me to move farther than my friends would have liked, and it'll put me into a category of people without problems -- while my friends will struggle to make bank payments, ultimately pay a lot of interest, some will get divorced over it, and some will kill themselves over it. most will spend less time with their families too.

      you fight for what you believe will be a better life. if you fight for what others believe will be a better life, they'll have that better life, you won't.

    7. Re:keep evolution alive, let them die by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      we're not talking about friends. we're talking about making it illegal for someone to do something because someone else has a problem with it. think of the healthy skinny person who wants to start their own modeling agency. you're going to say it's illegal for that person to model their own clothing? just because other people stop eating when they watch those ads?

      my sister was and is no longer anorexic.

      it's got nothing to do with being able to contribute to the world. everyone can. and I'd hope that you'd help your friend, that's what friends are for. but that's not what strangers are for.

      and in this case, you're asking me to help your friend, with my freedom, with my time, or with my money. her problem is not my problem. it may be your problem if you call yourself her friend, but it's not my problem.

      and the fact that you'd demand that my government force me to help your friend with your friend's problem, makes you the goddamn computer. it makes you uncompassionate about me. I've got my own problems, and you don't see me demanding your forced assistance.

      now things are different with sick people. and by sick, I assume you mean ill. because that's an interspecies attack. I just as vulnerable to cancer as the next person (within a degree of significance). but that's not true with regard to athletic injury. would you demand that I help someone who breaks their arm playing football, by choice? there's a line there. I'm not certain where it is, but I know where it's not. and I'm not going to take the gun out of someone else's mouth. if they want to kill themself, I'm neither for nor against it. and after I weigh everything that they could still contribute, against the cost that it'll take, it's their life not mine.

      and that's the point. it's their life to end, and it's their life to deal with. and that's why they have friends to help them, if they want friends. and if they want to live on the edge of death, because they like the taste of the gun, then I'm not going to take that gun away from them -- until they point it at me.

      you should never stop helping your friend. and you should never be forced to help mine.

    8. Re:keep evolution alive, let them die by hort_wort · · Score: 1

      Basically, you're an asshole and I hope you get hit by a truck. Show some fucking compassion you're not a goddamn computer.

      This is by far the most quotable thing I've read today.
      So... you get compassion unless you're an ass, which is in "compassion", so it's even punnier. :P

    9. Re:keep evolution alive, let them die by fnj · · Score: 1

      Marketing targeting STUPID PEOPLE works. It just bounces off anyone with a trace of actual intellect. I for one am perfectly OK with genetically stupid people being selected OUT of the gene pool by their own characteristics. Not that that is a significant result of marketing in actual fact, mind, but I would be fine with it if it were. I can't imagine why some caricature of a do-gooder busybody would NOT be fine with it.

    10. Re:keep evolution alive, let them die by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

      Marketing targeting STUPID PEOPLE works. It just bounces off anyone with a trace of actual intellect. I for one am perfectly OK with genetically stupid people being selected OUT of the gene pool by their own characteristics.

      I don't know, man. How do you know that's not what they want you to think? They want you to think you're not being affected by their magical brainwashing waves! It's all part of their plan to make you not buy their products whenever you see an ad!

  37. We need a norm . . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

    "We know now that there must be a single purpose! A single norm! A single approach! A single entity of peoples! A single virtue! A single morality! A single frame of reference! A single philosophy of government! We must cut out all that is different like a cancerous growth! It is essential in this society that we not only have a norm, but that we conform to that norm! Differences weaken us! Variations destroy us! An incredible permissiveness to deviation from this norm is what has ended nations and brought them to their knees! Conformity we must worship and hold sacred! Conformity is the key to survival! "

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:We need a norm . . . by Chakra5 · · Score: 1

      Thought that read "We need a nom" nm

      --
      Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.--Mark Twain
    2. Re:We need a norm . . . by fnj · · Score: 1

      Independent thinking detected! This one is dangerous! KILL HIM!

  38. Ah yes the true american approach to fixing things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When we dont like something in this country we want anything to do with it automatically banned. Yes the true americans approach to fixing problems isnt to actually try and fix the problem, we just want to ban everything to do with it. Kind of like sweeping the dirt under the rug approach to solving things. Only in america do we all shout and yell about freedoms on monday and then on tuesday we want censorship for everyone on things we dont agree with.

    And guess what? Freedom means marketing agencies have as much right to market to thin women as they do average and heavy women. You dont get to pick and chose or lest you lose the key phrase "freedom" in there. If you dont market to skinny women and only to heavy women then youll get bitched at for saying obesity is ok, or if you market to average then youre not marketing for healthy. Either its all ok or none of its ok.

    Besides what is the problem in this country anyway? Too skinny or too fat? Someone needs to make up their mind because everyday whats bad changes topics.

  39. Models are too skinny, sure... by cfalcon · · Score: 2

    While I'm trivially opposed to legislation like this, I will point out that imagery doesn't really change what men want in a woman- that's coded deep or something- but it DOES change what WOMEN try to look like to compete with each other. Most men don't prefer the super skinny models. It's fashion designers who force that on us, and I think it's fair to point out that most men don't follow such fashion. I think everyone knows that a glamour model can be super hot, and a fashion model is... not. And of course, glamour models, while still often at a level of thinness that would be unachievable for all women, have genuinely feminine shapes to them, and are not some concentration camp throw-away.

    Anyway, I don't dispute the findings of the researchers, merely the morality of attacking speech.

    1. Re:Models are too skinny, sure... by J'raxis · · Score: 1

      Anyway, I don't dispute the findings of the researchers, merely the morality of attacking speech.

      A very salient point that a lot of people miss in disputes over scientific research like this. Just because science says X is bad, doesn't mean that a policy has to be implemented to regulate or ban X (nor the converse, that we should subsidize X when science says X is good).

      To automatically jump to that conclusion is to tacitly accept the philosophies of Utilitarianism and/or Technocracy. Neither of these philosophies are what our system of government is supposed to be based on.

    2. Re:Models are too skinny, sure... by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      DOES change what WOMEN try to look like to compete with each other.

      Really, you see lots of women competing for bodies like fashion models? Most chicks can't be bothered to change out of their pajamas when they leave their house.

    3. Re:Models are too skinny, sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most fashion designers are gay men and choose models meeting their ideal.

      Short of choosing a young man to model their clothing lines, they choose the girls with the most boyish features they can.

      Ironically, that leads women to pursue an ideal designed to appeal to men who aren't interested in them.

  40. Anorexic spouse - this is only part of it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My wife is anorexic. She's stable, and she's become a successful practicing MD. Understanding the problem doesn't cure it.

    She grew up in a home with two half-sisters under a frequently single mother who went through many marriages. Her (now also anorexic) mother has career success, ridiculously low self esteem, and she married at least two physically abusive men. The worst of them was a churchgoing man who physically abused all his daughters/stepdaughters and repeatedly raped his own daughter (thankfully my wife did not endure that). He hid it from his wife/my mother-in-law and everyone else (except the girls) for several years. When my mother-in-law finally understood it was happening, she divorced him as soon as she felt she could without physical abuse as a repercussion. I don't think that was right away. And because of fear, he was never reported or punished. I don't think he even quit attending church.

    My wife had no control of her life in her childhood. She could control her appearance. She became anorexic to give fulfill her need for a sense of control in her life.

    Banning the ads would help reduce the draw of that manifestation of the need for control. But the root problem is very commonly associated with domestic abuse and/or unhealthy childhoods like the one my wife grew up in.

    1. Re:Anorexic spouse - this is only part of it by pauljlucas · · Score: 1

      My wife had no control of her life in her childhood. She could control her appearance. She became anorexic to give fulfill her need for a sense of control in her life. Banning the ads would help reduce the draw of that manifestation of the need for control.

      No offense, but being in that messed-up of a home environment and additionally that messed-up in terms of a need of control would manifest in some other way if anorexia were off the table.

      --
      If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
    2. Re:Anorexic spouse - this is only part of it by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      My wife had no control of her life in her childhood. She could control her appearance. She became anorexic to give fulfill her need for a sense of control in her life.

      Banning the ads would help reduce the draw of that manifestation of the need for control.

      No offense, but being in that messed-up of a home environment and additionally that messed-up in terms of a need of control would manifest in some other way if anorexia were off the table.

      No shit. OP is going to join the ranks of the bitter ex-husbands club sooner than he thinks.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  41. A better idea by Jazari · · Score: 1

    The government should ban busybodies from serving in government or the legislature.

  42. statists say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gov't is the solution!!!! Who would have thought?

  43. Ban Well-endowed Pr0n Actors while we're at it... by bughunter · · Score: 1

    Because, you know, seeing too many pornos starring well hung dudes banging skinny skanks with big teets gives young men the wrong ideas about body image, too.

    Makes about as little sense as the OP's proposal.

    Here's an idea. Instead of *banning* certain forms of expression and restricting the speech of the fashion industry, why don't these public health scientists exercise their free speech. Done creatively, they could use dark comedy, satire and ridicule to point out how downright freaky these anorexic models really are... break a few rules and they could even create enough buzz to get peoples' attention.

    - Show a bulemic model excuse herself after a meal to go throw up, then return to the table and give a deep tongue kiss to her date, who shows a visible reaction to the taste.
    - Show an anorexic model's view of herself in the mirror as a normal person, then zoom out to show she's really a bag of antlers. Use a digital overdub of a real concentration camp victim.
    - Show a train of size zero models walking down the runway, overdubbed by a horse race announcer type... then one trips and breaks her femur in three places as the announcer verbally cringes and says, "ooh, that one's gonna have to be put down. What a shame..."

    See... if I can do it, and I'm just a friggin' engineer, then it's not that hard.

    --
    I can see the fnords!
  44. I'd rather by Threni · · Score: 1

    they ban McDonalds and other shitty food to curb fat fucks. Look around you - anorexia is the least of our problems. From public transport to medical care, it's lettuce dodging, sweaty waddling lazy freaks with no self respect who are (literally) consuming our resources.

  45. Too Bad Students by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

    FTFA:

    and that the larger the peers’ body-mass, the lower the chance the individual will be anorexic.

    What a revelation! Fat people hang out with other fat people? Who could have known that? Why, it's as if bird of a feather flock together!

    Maybe if they would put these high-paid researchers (doing useless research) into the classrooms teaching, they wouldn't have needed to institute those austerity measures that were so severe that students were in the streets rioting about it.

    --
    "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
    --- Jerry Garcia
  46. Are they serious? by pclminion · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Let's restrict freedom of speech in order to solve social problems. Sure buddy, whatever. If we're going to do that, let's start with a few other things first, such as Fred Phelps and the KKK. Any American who thinks this is a good idea, please step out back and shoot yourself, thanks.

    1. Re:Are they serious? by J'raxis · · Score: 1

      Of course, this is far from the first example. It's just the next step down the slippery slope that true-free-speech advocates have been warning about for years.

    2. Re:Are they serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First of all, a report by researchers isn't any step at all. Second, your right to free speech is much stronger today than it was in 1800, no matter which country you reside in, but certainly in the United States in particular. Don't ever forget that it was many of the so-called Founding Fathers who passed the Alien & Sedition Acts.

      A slippery slope is the one of the poorest arguments that can be made. It's not a fallacy per se, but in practice about as close as you can get.

    3. Re:Are they serious? by J'raxis · · Score: 1

      You are correct that nowadays is a lot better than 1800, but that does not mean it is by any means "good" or even the best it has been relatively speaking. Looking at the history of freedom of speech in the U.S., the high point was probably in the late 1960s through the early 1970s. This was the short era after the courts started striking down virtually all infringements upon political speech, and had just started coming around on topics like obscenity, but before they started implementing new bans on speech and moving backwards again.

      In the early 1970s, the government got away with banning "child pornography," justifying the ban by saying that if we attack the supply side, it would diminish demand for such material and in turn protect children against abuse. (This "supply-side" attack, incidentally, has been proven an abject failure time and time again, most notably in the War on Drugs, but that's another topic entirely.) Banning child porn was, however, the "camel's nose under the tent" that in due time justified more and more restrictions on free speech. The same justification has since been used to ban animal abuse videos, leaked crime scene photographs, and more and more as time goes on. The justification that "banning _____ will protect the direct victim depicted in the image" has been broadened to "banning _____ will protect indirect victims who might ultimately be harmed by someone looking at this _____," and has led to things like banning simulated or drawn child porn, and (not yet in the U.S., but in the U.K.) the banning of bondage/S&M images.

      And now, "in this post-9/11 era," with a couple generations of people thoroughly inculcated to the necessity of banning speech that might cause or depict harm, the government has started once again attacking political speech using this as a justification.

      Whether or not it be a logical fallacy to automatically conclude that X leads us down a slippery slope to Y, the so-called slippery slope is a damned accurate depiction of reality.

    4. Re:Are they serious? by NicknameAvailable · · Score: 1

      It only becomes a "slippery slope" when some Napoleonic prick is caught attempting to break the constitution - kind of odd that a fear of public sentiment is a factor without a clause in the constitution to allow for the punishment of people attempting to change the law to circumvent it - after all they are doing it with all the formal procedure required of a bureaucrat and there is nothing to stop them from trying repeatedly.

    5. Re:Are they serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corporations shouldn't have any such right to begin with. You're a complete moron to compare the rights of citizens and multi-billion dollar corporations.

    6. Re:Are they serious? by thunderclap · · Score: 1

      I am all for censoring the KKK and Fred Phelps because they are a danger to all of us. I am tied of the all of nothing people. There are limits there has to be or there is anarchy. Telling a fashion house or a photographer that the 80 lbs seriously thin womans photos you took cant be bought because we fined won't lead to baning other forms of speech. Its isnt like porn or religion. Its health.

  47. Fatty-fatty-bo-batty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With all the fatties I see running around, it's pretty obvious that skinny models aren't having that much of an influence.

    Does anyone want to tell me why it's socially-acceptable to be a flat slob, but if someone stays thin through dieting, that's an eating disorder?

    1. Re:Fatty-fatty-bo-batty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anorexic != Thin

      Read up on it before you go defending it as a natural personal decision.

  48. Yes. by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

    Resort to censorship because some people are idiots/have problems. Smart move!

  49. They are just plain more enjoyable! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Skinny cute girls are definitely more "thoroughly" stimulating than their tubby counterparts. Come on, who wants all that extra skin and fat getting in the way, anyway?

    1. Re:They are just plain more enjoyable! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, we are not talking about "normal" skinny, but about "concentration camp" skinny. If you like that, OK, but I'd rather look at a "normal" skinny girl, not one whose ribs are visible.

  50. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  51. why don't we ban all advertizing instead? by PJ6 · · Score: 2

    It's not like people would stop buying stuff they need.

  52. Missing the point - CONTROL, not weight itself by ace37 · · Score: 2

    I'm not sure how great a solution this is. It's incomplete, that's for sure.

    Anorexia is typically tied to a need to have control, and the weight issue is where that is manifested. The second part is what we tend to focus on, but the need for control is the root cause. An unhealthy childhood environment is very common among anorexics, which is where the need for control is born.

    To me the real research question is, if it were to not focus on unhealthy physical appearance, how would those who would turn to anorexia fulfill their need for control? Some other appearance-based criteria, or through a different venue entirely? If it didn't require enough work to be 'ideal,' the self-deprivation required to 'discipline' oneself would be gone and it may not produce any control-related benefits. I suspect overly rigorous athletic training would be one likely venue, but heavily working in any other person-specific field might be another.

    I would like to see results of a study that is able to address that question.

  53. Models are skinny for a reason by zelkovamoon · · Score: 1

    I think most people would agree that they feel more attracted to slender models, as opposed to say, fat models. It makes sense to think that the companies which profit from modeling aren't hiring skinny models to promote Anorexia; what good are designer clothes if your consumer base is falling over dead from self starvation? They are hiring skinny models because people like and respond to skinny models. Supply and Demand. We should not need government regulation to censor and stifle everything that can be found to be detrimental to society in some way; the public should be made better able to make the right choice for themselves. Switching focus a bit, I would think that a much more significant portion of the population is being influenced by fast food advertizing (Fast food Among other things) ; and I would argue that this is a significantly contributing factor to obesity in America. Now, i don't have any actual data to back up this claim, but I would think that the damage caused to society as a result of obesity is hundreds of times more significant than the damage caused to society by anorexia. If the government is allowed to censor models to allegedly reduce anorexia, then will it really stop there? If we censor a relatively insignificant matter, how much greater will the move be to censor more influential matters? I would much rather prefer that we move to promote education (and not just by throwing money at the problem), and better personal decision-making. Help kids learn earlier on how to make the right choice; in this case, helping them realize that Anorexia will not solve their problems. Higher and better education standards are a much better fix; one might call a proactive solution against such easily preventable problems.

    1. Re:Models are skinny for a reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Skinnier models look better on TV and in print. But in real life, not so much. What we should be teaching young people is that the old adage that the camera puts on 15 lbs is an understatement. That's why most actors are short and skinny. That male actor w/ the chiseled face and ripped muscles is 5-foot nothing and a 120 pounds. Models are like that, just taller to emphasize what they're modeling. Both kinds of performers look like caricatures in real life. Pretty caricatures, but I doubt something that would look attractive next to someone who is fit and trim but still much heavier.

    2. Re:Models are skinny for a reason by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      are you kidding, those bony runway models look very bad naked. They would look even worse without their fake boobs. Those are not porn starlet material.

    3. Re:Models are skinny for a reason by cffrost · · Score: 1

      [A]re you kidding, those bony runway models look very bad naked. They would look even worse without their fake boobs. Those are not porn starlet material.

      Exactly.

      I find it incredible that anyone, advertisers included, regard supermodels as a standard of beauty. For one thing, the physical structure of a supermodel is incompatible with the ingrained human ideal of feminine attractiveness. For example, (off the top of my head...) wide hips and normal (i.e., extant) breasts are preferred; they suggest reduced risk of childbirth complications, and ability to provide nourishment, respectively. Porn producers are intelligent enough to recognize and cater to these ideals. I haven't seen evidence of any porn genre that utilizes the supermodels' body-shape.

      In my mind, it seems the fashion industry is aiming closer to the shock-value of old-fashioned freak/geek shows. If girls are basing their diets on these horrors, perhaps she should put down the Cosmo/Seventeen and pick up some healthy, wholesome porn.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    4. Re:Models are skinny for a reason by zelkovamoon · · Score: 1

      That my friend, is what we like to call personal taste. Personally, I agree; i generally find healthy looking women allot more attractive than overly skinny ones; but this doesn't detract from my point.

  54. Re:Ah yes the true american approach to fixing thi by J'raxis · · Score: 1

    It's not just an American thing. More of an Anglo cultural or legal mindset thing, I've noticed: Countries like the U.K. and Australia are much farther along with this kind of nanny-statism than the U.S. is. I often keep an eye on what these two countries do because it usually shows up in the U.S. 5-10 years later.

  55. Don't jump too far ahead by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    Corporations are not people. Corporations are government created legal entities without any rights other that which government gives them (and shouldn't be allowed to do anything beyond the power of government since that is an obvious backdoor.)

    YOU the photographer can photo skeletons modeling etc. Corporation X however can be regulated and restricted to the point of non-existence (which is always their red herring defense against imposing any limitations, including ones with a successful history to point to.)

    Smoking and Drinking ARE regulated and censored already.

    Phelps is Christianity regardless how many people it upsets; the whole operation falls within the 1st.

    The KKK as long as they do not incorporate can do what they want-- but if they incorporate then they should be required to allow black membership. Oh that one could be interesting...

    1. Re:Don't jump too far ahead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corporations are not people. Corporations are government created legal entities without any rights other that which government gives them (and shouldn't be allowed to do anything beyond the power of government since that is an obvious backdoor.)

      YOU the photographer can photo skeletons modeling etc. Corporation X however can be regulated and restricted to the point of non-existence (which is always their red herring defense against imposing any limitations, including ones with a successful history to point to.)

      Smoking and Drinking ARE regulated and censored already.

      Phelps is Christianity regardless how many people it upsets; the whole operation falls within the 1st.

      The KKK as long as they do not incorporate can do what they want-- but if they incorporate then they should be required to allow black membership. Oh that one could be interesting...

      Hmmm, let's see:

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

      What other RIGHTS are idiots like you willing to take away in your arrogance?

      You and all the other thoughtless "corporations aren't people" parrots need to understand the consequences of your asinine demands.

      Should CBS News be prevented from airing political news that could hurt a candidate before an election? CBS is after all one those EEEEVIL corporations.

    2. Re:Don't jump too far ahead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FWIW, there's a critical difference between the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment specifically grants to the federal Congress plenary powers to address discrimination. The First Amendment is all but an absolute bar on any federal legislation restricting free speech.

      The corporate personhood question is a separate question entirely. It's about how the First Amendment applies to states via the Fourteenth Amendment. The interplay between the First and the Fourteenth Amendments is complex. Your comment makes a complete mush of these issues.

    3. Re:Don't jump too far ahead by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

      Corporations are not people.

      People make up corporations. Besides, even if they're not people, does it matter? Should we resort to censorship?

      Smoking and Drinking ARE regulated and censored already.

      That doesn't mean we have to agree with it.

    4. Re:Don't jump too far ahead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What kind of twisted definition of a corporation are you using that makes it something that is not a group of people.

    5. Re:Don't jump too far ahead by bussdriver · · Score: 1

      you undo yourself in your own posting with: "or of the press" when quoting from the 1st.
      CBS News is press.

      Corporations do not have human rights. I'm shocked at how difficult my post was for Anonymous Cowards to handle. People in a group are not the same as a legal entity created by a small group of people.

    6. Re:Don't jump too far ahead by bussdriver · · Score: 1

      The legal definition. I have incorporated before with just myself so its not technically a group of people. Its a legal entity exists solely at the government's whim and did not exist as it does today prior to the civil war.

  56. But I *like* skinny girls. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Deal with it.

  57. They're British by brillow · · Score: 1

    The authors of the study are based in Britain, where they don't have freedom of speech. They are also much more accepting of gov't control than the US (but not by much).

  58. This is a problem in the US??? by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Frankly, considering that the majority of women I see are obese, often morbidly so....is this really a problem with the skinny models?!?!

    No, men aren't off the line either...but from looking on a daily basis at typical people in the US any time I go out.....skinny models causing anorexia is NOT a problem....I can't remember the last time I saw anyone, particularly a chick that looked anywhere or any way too skinny....

    Hell, its hard to find anyone out there that looks anywhere close to 'fit'....

    I was that way...at least I'm trying with better diet, proper portions...and yes...exercise.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    1. Re:This is a problem in the US??? by benjamindees · · Score: 5, Funny

      The study was only done in Europe.

      So, as a simple and immediate solution to this problem, we only need to send half of obese American women to Europe in exchange for thin European women.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    2. Re:This is a problem in the US??? by tnk1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So, as a simple and immediate solution to this problem, we only need to send half of obese American women to Europe in exchange for thin European women.

      APPROVED!

    3. Re:This is a problem in the US??? by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Several hundred thousand women in the United States suffer from anorexia and ~20% of them will die of anorexia-related symptoms. Being 30 pounds underweight is a lot worse than being 30 pounds overweight, or even 100 pounds overweight. Comprehensive anorexia treatment has rather low success rates and costs around $10k/month, and your health insurance premiums are funding it.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    4. Re:This is a problem in the US??? by jd2112 · · Score: 3, Funny

      So, as a simple and immediate solution to this problem, we only need to send half of obese American women to Europe in exchange for thin European women.

      APPROVED!

      As a result Europe has declared war on the US. Except the Greeks, who are in even worse financial shape than the US. France surrendered before the declaration of war was formally declared.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    5. Re:This is a problem in the US??? by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      Dream on, slashdotter!

    6. Re:This is a problem in the US??? by kick6 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Several hundred thousand women in the United States suffer from anorexia and ~20% of them will die of anorexia-related symptoms. Being 30 pounds underweight is a lot worse than being 30 pounds overweight, or even 100 pounds overweight. Comprehensive anorexia treatment has rather low success rates and costs around $10k/month, and your health insurance premiums are funding it.

      Approximately 75 million women in the US are overweight. Which do you think is a bigger problem?

    7. Re:This is a problem in the US??? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      Got links to stats on that?

      Even if the number is close to that...which ones cost us the most money for public healthcare....remember, we're going to universal healthcare...which is more costly?

      Ok...strange argument, but really...is it the federal govt. (in the US) responsibility to censor our media and commercials because someone too pretty might influence someone that doesn't have the self control to be their own person and try to be healthy?

      There's always going to be fringe cases on pretty much any health issue...do we now cater to the lowest common denominator?

      I know when I see healthy men in magazines....I do think, "Hey...maybe if I ate less, ate properly and exercised...I could look better too". Is that unhealthy?

      No...someone that takes it to the other extreme has a mental problem. People that do most any activity to the extreme do it due to mental problems. So, because some people out there are on the fringe....normal people (the majority) have to suffer and give up...?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    8. Re:This is a problem in the US??? by Surt · · Score: 1

      Anorexia is mostly a problem of younger girls. It's rare to see it persist past 25 without killing. So if you want to see some anorexia, go cruise a high school.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    9. Re:This is a problem in the US??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wait, more than 60,000 women die from anorexia in the US, every year? That's like 150% of all women that die from breast cancer.

      I'm calling bullshit.

    10. Re:This is a problem in the US??? by pthisis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Several hundred thousand women in the United States suffer from anorexia and ~20% of them will die of anorexia-related symptoms. Being 30 pounds underweight is a lot worse than being 30 pounds overweight, or even 100 pounds overweight. Comprehensive anorexia treatment has rather low success rates and costs around $10k/month, and your health insurance premiums are funding it.

      This is an incredibly dangerous way to present this information. The numbers differ based on the source, but it's between hundreds and thousands of times as many women who die from obesity in the US as from anorexia, bulimia, nutritional deprivation, and other undernourishment conditions. Anorexia is much more of a trendy, popular place to focus attention, but if you're actually interested in saving women's lives you need to acknowledge the bigger (by several orders of magnitude) problem first.

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    11. Re:This is a problem in the US??? by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      People that do most any activity to the extreme do it due to mental problems. So, because some people out there are on the fringe....normal people (the majority) have to suffer and give up...?

      eating and spitting out child like models like the fashion industry does IS an extreme activity, and you don't even get to start at it without mental problems, much less become successful at it. so because those people are fucked, normal people have to suffer and endure the pointless advertisement? is that what you're saying? we have to have our brains warped even though we don't buy their shit? hmmz!

      not that I'm for banning anything. I'd be for defacing the advertisements instead. laugh them into obscurity... but I do consider them an attack -- not on me, but on women, imagine that -- and just about any backlash is fine with me.

      I know when I see healthy men in magazines....I do think, "Hey...maybe if I ate less, ate properly and exercised...I could look better too". Is that unhealthy?

      Well that's the thing, you hardly see that type of female model. you know, a healthy, handsome, or even intelligent and strong person. which is exactly the fucking point, and that you and I as men aren't affected, doesn't mean much. but it does mean you're not paying much attention, and/or are blinded by the fat women of america (who are irrelevant here, this being about europe).

    12. Re:This is a problem in the US??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think we can let Greece off the quota exchange, since without exception, greek women have significant moustaches and you can imagine what that correlates to, down below.

    13. Re:This is a problem in the US??? by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      what makes you think the unrealistic expectations regular women get blitzed with every fucking day don't make most eat a lot while it makes a small number become anorexic?

      at any rate, "you need to acknowledge the bigger (by several orders of magnitude) problem first." is a game that can be played without end, and it's quite a false dichotomy. I mean, it's not like anorexic models keep obese women "in check", at the cost of some women being anorexic, or that only one problem can be addressed at one time. that's just not how it works. not that I know how it does work, but that's not how it works.

    14. Re:This is a problem in the US??? by Burning1 · · Score: 2

      I think the focus on an unattainable vision of beauty tends to feed into the obesity epidemic. Being attractive by these rules takes an unbelievable or literally unattainable level of effort. By these rules you are ugly and worthless if you have the wrong body type or an average weight. By those rules what's the point of being in shape? After all, food is an immediate and available comfort, and beauty is impossible. If the goal is impossible and you don't value your health, why exercise? Why deny yourself simple comforts?

      There's a saying: "Winners never quit, and quitters never win. But those who don't win and don't quit are idiots."

      If there's no way to win, is someone wrong to quit?

    15. Re:This is a problem in the US??? by Dr.+Hellno · · Score: 2

      Several hundred thousand women in the United States suffer from anorexia and ~20% of them will die of anorexia-related symptoms.

      Your mortality rate is a little bit high, I think. In the article, the authors of the study are quoted, saying that "About 6percent of those who suffer from anorexia nervosa die from it."
      The National Association of Anorexia Nervosa and Associated Disorders (ANAD), reporting results from the American Journal of Psychiatry, puts the mortality rate at 4%

      I don't mean to minimize the death toll here - 4% is still a tragedy.

    16. Re:This is a problem in the US??? by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

      Frankly, considering that the majority of women I see are obese, often morbidly so....is this really a problem with the skinny models?!?!

      No, men aren't off the line either...but from looking on a daily basis at typical people in the US any time I go out.....skinny models causing anorexia is NOT a problem....I can't remember the last time I saw anyone, particularly a chick that looked anywhere or any way too skinny....

      Hell, its hard to find anyone out there that looks anywhere close to 'fit'....

      I was that way...at least I'm trying with better diet, proper portions...and yes...exercise.

      Go to a local shopping mall. The sickly skinny preteen and teenage girls are all over looking like they might keel over at any moment. I'm not saying that's all you'll see, but there's certainly no shortage.

    17. Re:This is a problem in the US??? by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      What is this "win" you speak of?

      Approval of advertising? If so, one needs to spiral, crash and burn and learn to think better.

      And what "goal"?

      To be a clone of some vacuous nice to photograph prop?

      Again I would promote the crash and burn technique for recovering a rational outlook on life and one's self.

      I however, have this odd belief that if you set yourself stupid goals and then succeed in attaining them, you deserve the rewards.

    18. Re:This is a problem in the US??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure who's winning - which side are the Italians on?

    19. Re:This is a problem in the US??? by composer777 · · Score: 1

      What makes you think they aren't symptoms of the same problem? The problem is a combination of impossible standards on one side and a food industry that is pervasive with 24/7 adverstising that turns food into a drug of choice. Is it any wonder that women are treating food like a drug, with some binging into an early grave, and others completely avoiding it all together to meet impossible physical standards. We're seeing a polarizing effect and I think it largely has to do with food advertising, engineering of foods to make them as addictive as possible, and impossible standards of beauty (causing people to constantly get on and off the wagon in pursuit of better looks when they are on, and when they go off the wagon they go in the opposite direction). A great example of this is the biggest loser. People go from massive overconsumption to extremely over-the-top physical regimens, and many go right back to overconsumption, in a vicious cycle their entire lives. But, you know, over-consumption of food combined with sales of weight loss gimmicks is much more profitable than a sane food industry, so I guess it's ok. We apparently have no problems with being swamped in a mountain of advertising and manipulative messages, but get freaked out by the slightest regulation of it, go figure...

    20. Re:This is a problem in the US??? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      You know...I don't think you can legislate someone into being their own person, and dealing on their own with their own self image.

      At some point, a person has to deal with themselves.....themselves.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    21. Re:This is a problem in the US??? by alienzed · · Score: 1

      Define "bigger".

      --
      Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
    22. Re:This is a problem in the US??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) A lot of people give up on controlling their weight at all because the "ideal" is so ridiculously unattainable.

      2) It depends on where you live. Here in NYC, I see as many unhealthily-skinny women as morbidly obese women, but the vast majority are fit and healthy; same goes for men. When I visited Texas, I was shocked by the average size of the residents.

      I chalk up a lot of this to lifestyle (NY living enforces daily walking and stair-climbing simply to commute, vs walking 12 feet to the driveway to get in your car) and the prevalence of healthy alternatives for food (here it's easier to find a deli than a fast food joint, and chain restaurants like Applebee's are almost nonexistant; the opposite seems to be the case in other parts of the country. And our local restaurants generally serve reasonable portions instead of single dishes that exceed the daily calorie limit for an adult.)

    23. Re:This is a problem in the US??? by mcgrew · · Score: 1
      1. A few hundred thousand out of three hundred MILLION is very, very few.
      2. If they die from their symptoms, they need no more health care
      3. My insurance premiums aren't funding it because my insurance company doesn't cover it.

      You have 20% of "several hundred thousand" from anorxia vs half a million people dying annually from heart attacks, half of them woman and almost all of them overweight. Anorexia is a non-problem. Contrast it with other mental illnesses and you'll see that it is actually NOT a problem. Yes, it's a problem for the individuals afflicted, but not for society as a whole.

    24. Re:This is a problem in the US??? by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      OsBAMA / BInlaDEN

      Seriously? This is what you're reducing your level of political discourse to?

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    25. Re:This is a problem in the US??? by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      "One might speak to great length of the three corners of reality: what was seen, what was thought to be seen, and what was thought ought to be seen."
      -Marvel Bell

      "The reality of life is that your perceptions -- right or wrong -- influence everything else you do. When you get a proper perspective of your perceptions, you may be surprised how many other things fall into place."
      -Roger Birkman

      "Reality, if rightly interpreted, is grander than fiction."
      -Thomas Carlyle

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    26. Re:This is a problem in the US??? by JohnnyBGod · · Score: 1

      As someone who is neither French nor American, nor particularly fond of either France or the US, can someone explain to me where the hell does the French surrender meme come from? 'Cause it certainly has no basis in reality...

  59. the real problem is fat people by PJ6 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Skinny is fashionable now for the same reason being heavy was hundreds of years ago.

    Fat is the opposite of attractive now because it's unhealthy. You don't pick an obese woman to marry these days because you don't want to find her dead at 45.

    This problem of glorifying anorexia will go away when we solve the obesity epidemic.

    1. Re:the real problem is fat people by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Skinny is fashionable now for the same reason being heavy was hundreds of years ago.

      It's a sign of being wealthy enough not to have to work for a living?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    2. Re:the real problem is fat people by evilviper · · Score: 2

      Absolutely everything you said is complete nonsense...

      Skinny is fashionable now for the same reason being heavy was hundreds of years ago.

      No. Fat was an indicator of weath... like a luxury/sports car. It was never actually considered attractive.

      Fat is the opposite of attractive now because it's unhealthy. You don't pick an obese woman to marry these days because you don't want to find her dead at 45.

      That's not why at all. Attractiveness is tied to ideal body ratios, and other biological indicators of fertility. You can be overweight and attractive if you're stomache is smaller than your hips & chest, but generally, obese means you're large in all the wrong places.

      This problem of glorifying anorexia will go away when we solve the obesity epidemic.

      This comment makes NO SENSE AT ALL. Anorexia was a problem decades ago, before obesity was an issue, and it will continue to be an issue long after it gets resolved.

      Of course, I don't buy the 'thought crime' solution at all, but your theories on the subject aree completely nonsensical as well.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    3. Re:the real problem is fat people by antifoidulus · · Score: 2

      In certain societies and time periods there is evidence that "plump"(not morbidly obese, but probably what today would be classified in the lower echelons of what is now classified as "overweight") women were considered attractive. Probably because they were more fertile and/or more likely to deliver a healthy baby, esp. if food became scarce, not an uncommon event.

    4. Re:the real problem is fat people by martin-boundary · · Score: 1
      The Greeks and Romans didn't think so. Their ideals of body proportions are what we still call classical beauty.

      The Venus of Willendorf is the canonical example of a statue depicting a fat beauty. But is that really proof that fat was viewed as beautiful in the stone age, or could it be explained as the limited skillset of the artist? Early representational art is certainly not very realistic (which is no fault of the artist, just the limited state of the art)

  60. Which researchers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article just says "The researchers" without ever actually identifying specifically who these people were? Well hell, I know some "researchers" who discovered that American's eat too much and most of the rest of the world doesn't suffer from poor body image. #firstworldproblems

  61. Government Should Ban Skinny Models To Curb Anorex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because that ban on fat models worked to curb obesity... Oh, wait...

  62. Government: Is there nothing it cannot do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Government: Is there nothing it cannot do?

    Folks, you keep sitting around with your thumb up your ass, voting for democrats and other Statists, and you're going to get the government you deserve.

    1. Re:Government: Is there nothing it cannot do? by J'raxis · · Score: 1

      "Democrats"? Implying that the Republicans are much better? It's not the Democrats who are trying to ban gays marrying, assisted suicide, evolution and sex ed being taught in schools, public funding* of stem cell research and reproductive health, ...

      * Not that I support public funding---for anything. But since we're talking about government bans as social engineering, it's a pertinent example.

    2. Re:Government: Is there nothing it cannot do? by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

      "Democrats"? Implying that the Republicans are much better?

      I like how people assume that if you attack one of the two major parties, you must be part of the other one...

    3. Re:Government: Is there nothing it cannot do? by J'raxis · · Score: 1

      I did not assume you were part of the other major party, just wondered why you seemed to give them a free pass. The whole American political system is full of statists like this, not just the Democratic Party.

    4. Re:Government: Is there nothing it cannot do? by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

      I did not assume you were part of the other major party

      I'm not that guy.

      just wondered why you seemed to give them a free pass.

      Does he have to mention all of the opponents of the people he's mocking whenever he mocks someone?

    5. Re:Government: Is there nothing it cannot do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As bad as they are they won't ban skinny models.

  63. Why can't we just live our own lives? by raal · · Score: 1

    We are adults and can make our own choices with what we want to do with our lives. Why can't the Govt leave us alone if we only effect our lives.
    If they want to be skinny models so be it.

  64. Hvae you ever lived under a govt-run system? by zooblethorpe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...it is still better than a government run system, as I at least have choices of carriers and coverage.

    Have you ever lived under a government-run healthcare system?

    I'm from the US, and I've lived in Japan for years at a stretch. In Virginia, Kaiser Permanente listened to my wife's explanation of her symptoms (chronic sinusitis, excessive post-nasal-drip, resulting digestive issues, among other issues) and decided that the trouble in her gut was actually evidence that she needed her ovaries removed. Um, no.

    In Tokyo, the local hospital (as part of the government-run healthcare system) listened to her symptoms, and then also to her lungs, and said "hey, you have light asthma -- here's how you manage it." Problems (mostly) solved.

    Just because a healthcare system is government run doesn't mean that it's necessarily bad. Just because a healthcare system is left to run on market dynamics and choices doesn't mean that it's necessarily better.

    FWIW, the opposite is also true -- we've also experienced crappy medical care in Japan, and good care in the US. Ultimately, a lot of it comes down to the quality of the doctors themselves.

    --
    "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
    "A four-foot prune."
    1. Re:Hvae you ever lived under a govt-run system? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Ultimately, a lot of it comes down to the quality of the doctors themselves.

      Yeah, this is why you hear a lot of scare stories from socialized medicine, and a lot of scare stories from non-socialized medicine.

      Ultimately, if you're at the doctor because you're sick, you're already in a bad situation. Doctors can do a lot, but even in the best case, all you hope for is a return to base-line health. (Note: unless you're this guy).

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Hvae you ever lived under a govt-run system? by CAIMLAS · · Score: 0

      My uncle lived in Tokyo for 10 years. I don't know where you went to the hospital, but here's my understanding of how it really works, based on what he's mentioned:

      * You go to the doctor's office. They ask you what's wrong but don't really care.
      * More than likely, they subscribe antibiotics or pain killers for it.
      * If you need dental work done, it will more than likely result in a hasty tooth removal.
      * Any work done will likely require a full day of waiting in line at a clinic.
      * Even though it's state-funded, you still have to pay to see the doctor.
      * Doctor's offices and hospitals are crowded, and if you can do without going, you're better off not: you'll get a secondary infection while there, more than likely.
      * They spend almost twice as much per GDP as the US does on the military - 8.5% vs. 4.7%. Keep in mind that the US military funding also goes towards funding Veterans hospitals and free healthcare for veterans for life.
      * If you have something genuinely wrong with you, they'll probably shove you through a dozen multi-million dollar machines, but good luck actually getting treatment; there's a very long line.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    3. Re:Hvae you ever lived under a govt-run system? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Virginia, Kaiser Permanente listened to my wife's explanation of her symptoms (chronic sinusitis, excessive post-nasal-drip, resulting digestive issues, among other issues) and decided that the trouble in her gut was actually evidence that she needed her ovaries removed.

      I spent 6 years in the US. My personal feeling is that the a lot of US docs are not that good at diagnosis. You go to them, they order 10 tests. That makes it easy to diagnose problems where a test clearly indicates a disease or not. However a lot of problems don't have a clear test indicating the same.

      In a lot of countries, when you visit a doctor, he listens to your symptoms and if it's not something life threatening, they try to diagnose your problem and treat you before ordering tests. A majority of the times the treatment works and the tests never have to be done. Only if the first line of treatment fails, tests are ordered. This makes the doctors very good at diagnosis - they get a lot of experience diagnosing stuff from symptoms.
      Of course, I am not talking about problems where you have confirm diagnosis by tests (for eg diabetes) before you start treatment.

      My wife did more lab tests in her 6 years in the US then what was done in the other 34 years of her life.

    4. Re:Hvae you ever lived under a govt-run system? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know anything about Tokyo; but you left something out about military healthcare. It covers veterans, their spouses and their dependants. I'm not sure if you need full retirement for dependant coverage. My father had full retirement. I assume active duty gets the same coverage. Reserves? I doubt it; but maybe they get a discount. I'm not sure how many people the system covers and if it's actually a DoD line-item or a separate line-item apart from the DoD budget. The VA may be separate from care for retirees and dependants. Thankfully I never had to deal with the beurocracy other than occasionally carrying my Dad's file folder.

      I can't vouch for the quality of care. We lived in the DC area so I suspect we had top-notch military docs. YMMV; but in that vicinity we regarded it as better than private hospitals. We were being cared for in the same hospital as the president, for cryin' out loud. Bethesda National Naval Medical Center was the full name I believe. It's probably an outlier.

      It would be interesting to hear from people in less distinguished regions. There are certainly many VA horror stories; but like I said care for retirees and dependants may not always be at a VA facility. Bethesda took care of many active duty, including a guy who was there while my father was. Blown by IED in Iraq. I had to sit there with his mother while my father was dying from old man stuff. Not good. Not good at all; but the hospital did its best.

    5. Re:Hvae you ever lived under a govt-run system? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you are missing a large chunk of where the difference shows up, waiting lists, technological improvement, underfunding, overworking, cost cutting in the places where it makes the least sense, because it is needed to make a political point, lack of flexibility, capacity planning. Then later on come the attempts at saving money with economies of scale, which will be poorly thought out, and even worse execution. In a government-run healthcare system, you are not the customer, you are the product.

      Another thing to consider, even if it is a public option and private businesses,too, is that you don't get to pick either-or. you pay for either one or both.

    6. Re:Hvae you ever lived under a govt-run system? by artor3 · · Score: 1

      Wow, was your doctor in Virginia a Jewish lobster-person by any chance? What sort of quack sees someone with post-nasal drip and decides it must be the ovaries!?

    7. Re:Hvae you ever lived under a govt-run system? by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      They spend almost twice as much per GDP as the US does on the military - 8.5% vs. 4.7%.

      Yes, but the US does spend about 6% of GDP on various federal health care programs. When you consider that constitutes about 60% of overall healthcare spending in the US, you can see that the US spends about 10% of GDP on healthcare. On top of that, you can hardly say that what we have is not government health care. Worse still, not everyone is covered (myself included).

    8. Re:Hvae you ever lived under a govt-run system? by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      I know that the fly over zones have a couple 'regional' hospitals which are, by far, preferred by veterans over private hospitals. Sioux Falls, South Dakota has veteran care which is good enough to drive 300 miles to get to, in preference over closer and supposedly "good" private care, regardless of cost.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    9. Re:Hvae you ever lived under a govt-run system? by cstacy · · Score: 1

      Remind me again, artor: universal health care -- fatal, or non-fatal in your economic system?

    10. Re:Hvae you ever lived under a govt-run system? by zooblethorpe · · Score: 1

      I think you are missing a large chunk of where the difference shows up, waiting lists, technological improvement, underfunding, overworking, cost cutting in the places where it makes the least sense, because it is needed to make a political point, lack of flexibility, capacity planning. Then later on come the attempts at saving money with economies of scale, which will be poorly thought out, and even worse execution.

      Huh. Up to here, I was right with you -- only I thought you were describing the mess of the US quasi-public / quasi-private system, where costs are cut to boost profits where possible (depending on the HMO/etc's structure -- non-profits seem to do less of this) and where various regulatory regimes make things interestingly difficult.

      FWIW, I saw more problems from what you describe here in the US than I did in Japan. YMMV, and all that, of course.

      --
      "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
      "A four-foot prune."
  65. In Other News, Ban on Sugared Sodas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Um, what else is on the list Charlie...cigarettes, red meat, undercooked eggs, booze, ....getting to the bottom of same list... hard boiled eggs, potatoes, green beans, paper...oops, ran out of things to ban ... hello... anyone there?... where did you all go?... oh, right, you all were banned on page 59

  66. The solution... by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

    Just lower the legal age for marriage. They tend to put on 5 lbs. per year after the wedding. ;-)

    1. Re:The solution... by kyrio · · Score: 0

      The minimum legal age of marriage is not where the problem is. With parental consent, you can get married at 15 years old, pretty much anywhere in the world. The problem is that divorce is legal, too easily attainable and way too favourable to women (it's not the 50s anymore!), giving women the ability to do the following:

      >Marry
      > stay thin so she can fuck as many guys as she can
      > While she's at home, making her husband's daily life as shit as possible
      > Divorce
      > She takes all of the guy's money
      > She's still thin, she still fucks tons of guys
      >> Possible final stage a) Living off of her ex-husband for the rest of her life
      >> Possible final stage b) She gets married, her ex-husband finds out, goes to court and loses, he now has to pay more
      >> Possible final stage c) She gets married, her ex-husband finds out, goes to court and wins, he no longer has to pay (very unlikely)
      >> Possible final stage d) She meets someone that she says she loves, they both live off of her ex-husband for the rest of her life; she still fucks other guys
      > Ex-husband can never move on with his life, can never get a better job, will very likely lose everything he has and live like a turd, will not be able to marry because his new wife will now be paying for his ex-wife, can only be saved if he can prove that his ex-wife is married.

      This is the real problem with marriage.

    2. Re:The solution... by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

      The problem is that divorce is legal

      Is that an actual problem? It's surely abused sometimes, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be legal (the abuse is what needs to be fixed). I don't think people should have to be married to those they no longer care about.

    3. Re:The solution... by kyrio · · Score: 1

      No, the problem started when it became legal. The current problem is the "too easily attainable and way too favourable to women" part. Back in the 50s women didn't have an income, they needed the payments, and the men could afford to make them. These days, the men are getting paid half as much as the men of olde, and have to pay just as much, or more, to the women.

    4. Re:The solution... by guitardood · · Score: 1

      Too bad you are such a retard. Is the 'and more' your retarded exultations from on high your retardedness?

      --
      -- L8R, guitardood
    5. Re:The solution... by guitardood · · Score: 1

      The minimum legal age of marriage is not where the problem is. With parental consent, you can get married at 15 years old, pretty much anywhere in the world. The problem is that divorce is legal, too easily attainable and way too favourable to women (it's not the 50s anymore!), giving women the ability to do the following: >Marry > stay thin so she can fuck as many guys as she can > While she's at home, making her husband's daily life as shit as possible > Divorce > She takes all of the guy's money > She's still thin, she still fucks tons of guys >> Possible final stage a) Living off of her ex-husband for the rest of her life >> Possible final stage b) She gets married, her ex-husband finds out, goes to court and loses, he now has to pay more >> Possible final stage c) She gets married, her ex-husband finds out, goes to court and wins, he no longer has to pay (very unlikely) >> Possible final stage d) She meets someone that she says she loves, they both live off of her ex-husband for the rest of her life; she still fucks other guys > Ex-husband can never move on with his life, can never get a better job, will very likely lose everything he has and live like a turd, will not be able to marry because his new wife will now be paying for his ex-wife, can only be saved if he can prove that his ex-wife is married. This is the real problem with marriage.

      A mysoginist and a retard. I learn more and more about you on every post. I'm not sure about marriage, but you sure do make a good case for abortion, pinhead

      --
      -- L8R, guitardood
  67. Re:It's True... NOT. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude, shut off your TV. You wanna live in Oceania?

  68. But we're getting fatter by jader3rd · · Score: 1

    Every piece of data I've seem shows that we're getting fatter, not skinnier. If the advertising was working we wouldn't be having an obesity epidemic.

    1. Re:But we're getting fatter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who the fuck cares? not your business. not my business.

      Maybe we should allow free people to be free?

  69. Yes to Big Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, more Government control, more regulation, more laws. We should jail those that are too skinny because they are bad influence on our children. People, why can't you think of the children?

  70. Blah blah blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The government should stop funding fat ugly researchers who hate skinny people.

  71. Better solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Got a problem with alcohol? Stop drinking all together. Moderation? What on earth is that?

    The solution is simply to have models of all types. Skinny, fat, short, tall, dark, light, etc.

    Problem solved.

  72. As usual superficial analysis leads to censorship by divisionbyzero · · Score: 2

    Why not take a step back and say, "Why do these women want to be like these models?". They want the popularity and ego satisfaction that goes along with looking like those models. The fact that their self-worth is based on the opinions of other anonymous people is the problem. It's their parents' job to redirect them to base their self-worth on more objective criteria. In other words the researchers have cause and effect backwards. These women already have low self-worth and think looking like anorexic models will make them better because people with low self-worth always think being popular makes them better. The fact that it's anorexic models is arbitrary. In other places and times it was Rubenesque models. It's a moral problem and as usual people want to find a short-cut to dealing with moral struggle by imposing censorship. Censorship doesn't solve the problem. It just forces the issue to manifest in another way.This research is worthless. Actual it's even worse than that. It's positively harmful.

    P.S. You also see the inverse, being anti-popular (i.e. pick your "counter-culture" movement of choice) is seen as giving self-worth. It's all the same. The point is to make being popularity irrelevant to self-worth.

  73. Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clearly, the plethora of skinny models has had a negative effect on the American populace. I mean, they're wasting away.

  74. News for nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stuff that matters?

  75. I'm conflicted by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    On the one hand, catwalk models tend towards ridiculously skinny; deaths from malnutrition are not unknown. There are one or two TV series that we've stopped watching because the obvious anorexia of some of the actresses kept drawing us out of the story. (cough-90210-cough) Moreover, in a completely perverse move, we've seen advertising groups take deathly skinny models and photoshop them to be *more* skinny. I don't like this any more than the "heroin chic" of a few years ago. It's gone beyond trendy and gotten vulgar.

    On the other hand, I can't help imagining that after the government steps in, fashion shows will start looking more like this.

    Is there possibly a solution that restores sanity, without having the government replace the current insanity with a different kind of insanity?

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  76. Nanny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once again we see how we're too stupid to live our lives without the elites wielding the blunt instrument of government force to tell us how we should behave, for our own good.

    FUCK THEM.

    And what the hell is this doing on /.?

  77. false correlation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    this is false. as a sufferer of this condition, i can tell you body
    image is always a proxy for other things. it's a way to control
    something (even if that has nothing to do with what you'd like
    to control). if you fix the underlying issues, typically the eating
    disorder gets better. obviously, there are people with e.d. who
    develop an addiction to the chemical state starvation brings. but
    none of this has anything to do with advertising.

  78. Mass Media Bull by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lets get this over with and just ban all major media!

  79. All right by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

    Ban fat people too.

  80. Ban overweight models to prevent obisity. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Government should also ban even slightly overweight models, to prevent obesity.

  81. The US is NOT true free market health care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The United States is a highly regulated health care system already. Many procedures are legally restricted to expensive doctors. There is a big battle between the hospitals/doctors, and the insurance companies. Both have grown in size for negotiating power over the other. People want to pay as little for health care as they can, they might say otherwise, but that is not true. If we let people die outside of the Emergency Room for lack of money as Ron Paul suggests, we would have people paying more attention to their health, and being more proactive.

    I want Walmart and Walgreens to enter the low end medical care market and squeeze those profitable companies.

    1. Re:The US is NOT true free market health care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it's CVS that's starting to do that. http://www.minuteclinic.com/

  82. If only we had more laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All problems would be solved.

    How about just make it illegal to live.
    No more crime or illness!

  83. Re:Ban Well-endowed Pr0n Actors while we're at it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're an idiot.

  84. Why is it that everythign the government does by xmorg · · Score: 1

    causes unemployment?

  85. The most important right of all by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    The most important right of all that is holy and dear for the progressive Western heart is the right to behave stupid, irresponsible, antisocial, self-destructive and plain vanilla irrational.

    Whenever somebody treads even close to that holy right, the Wise Pastor of the Past arguments are invoked, Godwin law is suspended and burning coal-hot aforementioned individualistic heart reaches the gaping heights of dignified eloquence.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  86. NOt what Government is for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is not what government is for. My goodness, some people thing that the government is the answer to everything.

  87. No, they shouldn't. by Red_Chaos1 · · Score: 1

    As much as I think runway models are fucking stupid, it's not the governments place to be doing shit like that. We need to get out of this mentality that we can tell people how to live by having the govt make laws. that's not how it's supposed to be.

  88. parenting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or how about parents, guardians, mentors, family friends, etc... start raising their kids instead of sticking them on the internet, TV, etc... and letting the media raise them. Good lessons at home, love, and acceptance will affect better changes than some nanny government.

  89. pushing it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is right up there with AU banning certain kinds of ads with women below a B cut because it "Was promoting child porn"

  90. Can't legislate attractive by tompaulco · · Score: 1

    You can't legislate how people feel about one another. If society finds skinny people attractive, then banning them from TV is not going to affect it. Just like changing what you are allowed to call a certain race of people is not going to change how you feel about that race of people.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  91. Way more are fat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Several hundred thousand women in the United States suffer from anorexia "

    And several million women in the United States suffer from being fat.

    The good of the many outweighs the good of the few.

    1. Re:Way more are fat by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think Spock would agree that you don't understand the gravity of the situation.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    2. Re:Way more are fat by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      So.... anorexic models in Europe help bring the weight down of fat women in the USA? Interesting! Or maybe it's complete idiots like you that make American woman desperately seek some relief in the arms of chocolate, and the topic has nothing to do with it, who knows?

    3. Re:Way more are fat by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      The bulk of a few of them outweighs the bulk of the rest.

  92. What the study really showed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the study really showed was that the problem did not have anything to do with models, but instead had to do with whether or not the girls had any fat friends. So, we instead just to make sure that we appoint a fat friend to each thin girl.

       

  93. You lost me at by blueforce · · Score: 1

    "Government should ban..."

    What government should ban is government banning things; we could use fewer government bans.

    --
    If you do what you always did, you get what you always got.
  94. I don't think this is the solution by atomicxblue · · Score: 1

    Granted, I do believe that only showing skinny people in ads damages the psyche, but people come in all shapes, forms and sizes. The print ads should reflect this by having a good cross section of the population. Any anorexic model can make any outfit look good, but if it still looks good on a plus sized girl, shoppers will be begging to stuff their cash in your registers... trust me on this!

  95. or legalize weed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    seriously. Like, that's the one ACTUAL, UNDENIABLE medical use of Marijuana.
    It'll give you the munchies, and it'll make you chill the hell out.

    not that there aren't probably daddy issues and the rest of it, but there's therapy for that.
    and banning skinny models doesn't address those issues either.
    so if we're going to go after symptoms instead of root causes, let's at least go the effective route.

  96. Ban idiot politicians.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh wait, there isn't any other kind these days. Oh wait, that's a good thing. Yes, get rid of all politicians, all scumbag lawyers (non scumbag lawyers are welcome to stay).

  97. Re:Ban Well-endowed Pr0n Actors while we're at it. by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

    See... if I can do it, and I'm just a friggin' engineer, then it's not that hard.

    Ads cost millions. Where are you going to get the money for these ads? The fashion industry will have more money and will be able to get more ads (though I don't get how the fashion industry can stay in business if all the clothes are designed only for concentration camp prisoners, that is, they don't fit the majority of the market - normal women)

  98. Delusional image by jklovanc · · Score: 1

    While thin models contribute to some eating disorders like bulimia they are not the main contributor to anorexia. The issue with anorexia is the sufferer's delusional view on how thin they are. I have seen a couple of anorexic models but most are thin and healthy. Most anorexics see themselves a fatter that their goal no matter what their weight is. Even when their pictures and weight are compared against models who are heavier then them anorexics still believe that the model is thinner. Even if thin models are banned there will still be anorexics who view themselves as fatter. That is why it is a disorder as it is a problem with perception and not weight.

  99. Fatasses on the Catwalk by jsepeta · · Score: 1

    The moment when high fashion becomes the people we meet at Walmart, they've lost me.

    Thin is healthy and attractive to me.

    --
    Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
  100. Re:As usual superficial analysis leads to censorsh by jmerlin · · Score: 1

    The difference between an overweight and an underweight woman is this: I would never make fun of an overweight woman's body. Being overweight may not be healthy in many cases, nor may it be the peak of sexual attraction, but being underweight is absolutely fucking disgusting. I want to date a woman, not a skeleton with some skin draped over it.

    Physical fitness is so much more important. I would highly doubt that an underweight person is "more healthy" in a sedentary lifestyle than an overweight one. There's this thing we call "skinny fat." Horrible fitness level with just very low calorie intake. Awful. The worst. They have such a high body fat to body muscle ratio that the primary deposits (the stuff you can't get rid of short of starving nearly to death) appear as an excess of fat would. Sure, you might fit into a size 0, but you're absolutely horribly disgustingly ugly. Eat a goddamn hamburger and hit the gym once in a while.

    http://www.crossfitsouthbay.com/2011/05/skinny-fat/

  101. At "all-bodies-beautiful.com" they're ugly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is a tough website to view.

    Some people shouldn't breed. Actually a lot of them.

  102. Universal healthcare and costs by tlambert · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Universal healthcare is not just the mark of a civilized society, it's cheaper than commercial healthcare, because you don't have to pay for all those claims adjusters and billing administrators.

    Actually they don't go away under the currently enacted-but-not-in-effect U.S. system. You are required to purchase insurance from an insurance company under the new system. The costs stay the same, or go up, since you can't opt out because of rising costs.

    The U.S. system as enacted is a universal coverage system, not a universal healthcare system. We already have a universal healthcare system, it's just hideously expensive when uninsured people utilize it at a hospital emergency room.

    The problems with the system that will be replacing the current system is that it's exactly the same as the current system in the most important respects:

    o. You pay an insurance company for health insurance
    o. The insurance company pays the doctor for your visit
    o. The doctor pays a portion of the money back to the insurance company for malpractice insurance
    o. The insurance company pays for use of equipment like MRI machines
    o. The company that manufactures the MRI machines pays a protion to the insurance company for liability insurance
    o. The hospital pays an inflated cost for the machines to cover the vendors liability insurance in the cost
    o. The hospital pays the insurance company for liability insurance related to the machine
    o. The hospital pays malpractice insure related to the machine ...looks like a Ponzi scheme to me. The only people who make out are the insurance companies, and they have incredible incentive to drive up costs at some multiplier of their desired margin. And that doesn't change under universal coverage.

    If they gave us single payer and tort reform, that would be one thing, but this isn't it.

    I'd really rather pay for food for someone than to line the pockets of an insurance company.

    -- Terry

  103. "furthermore ..." by macshit · · Score: 1

    ... continued the researchers at the infamous "Fat University," pausing to wash down the cake they were continually stuffing into their mouths with a milkshake, "low calorie foods should be bannnnnnned, ... those horrible skinny people think they're so great and "attractive", but we know they're unnatural freaks! Fat is beautiful and.... we'l......asl34!!%*"
    (at this point the spokesman keeled over from an apparent heart attack.. or maybe he just choked to death on cake; more on this breaking story as it develops)

    --
    We live, as we dream -- alone....
  104. Ban Fat Girls by glorybe · · Score: 1

    I like thin girls. No I do not mean some deluded idiot that thinks that starvation is a goal. But I have no reason to want to see fat women in movies or on TV. Anorexia is a condition caused by being a mid to upper class suburbanite and probable stems from a serious rage towards parents. Has anyone noticed that young men with anorexia are rare as hens' teeth? Spoiled young women with nothing to do just get whacky sometimes.

  105. I think they should be banned becaust they're ugly by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    They're gross... If I'm going to ban something then I might as well be honest about my motivation for it. Crazy girls are going to be crazy. You're not going to stop girls from starving themselves by removing skinny models anymore then you'll stop crazy boys from killing people by banning video games.

    BUUUUT... they're gross... so ban them.

    Feel the same way about those female body builders that look like they're smuggling breast implants in their arms. It's really nasty. I'm sure most women feel the same way about body builder men... though frankly that isn't as weird looking as the women who have broader chests then the average linebacker.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  106. this situation!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wanted to ban dumbasses from TV shows, but that's a whole other Situation.

  107. 1st address image manulpulation by metalmonkey · · Score: 1

    1st ban or enforce disclaimers where images of the models bodies have been modified to shrink waist lines and exaggerate breasts etc. At least prevent from girls striving for the impossible.

  108. I hope the government listens! by kyrio · · Score: 1

    I don't really care if all of the models are properly average in size; most of those girls are currently nasty looking from being so thin, anyway.

    I just hope the government listens, and while banning too-skinny models, they ban any model that would medically be obese. Obviously, since it's a medical ban, any muscle girl would still have her advertising job. It's just the disgusting obese women who will have to work for their money, instead of happily gorging themselves, for once.

    The skinny girls won't lose their jobs, they'll only be extremely thankful that the government has given them the chance to eat properly, and to stop using a massive amounts of alcohol and drugs, in order to have a job.

    1. Re:I hope the government listens! by guitardood · · Score: 1

      I don't really care if all of the models are properly average in size; most of those girls are currently nasty looking from being so thin, anyway.

      In other words, your a huge fat ass retard who likes em big, you self aggrandizing misinformed little child. If you know sooooo much about everything then why is your domain a .us? Mommy and daddy wouldn't spring for a real registrar?

      --
      -- L8R, guitardood
  109. Whatta bunch of helpless babies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why this dependence on the government to wipe your behind?
    Grow up and make choices for yourself.

  110. Alpha Female Syndrome by Grindalf · · Score: 0

    Why should you assault sexy women because some mental health patients get an eating disorder as part of their symptoms. This is just SICK! But then again assaulting alpha males and females is also a vicious standard mental health disorder symptom ... Leave fit and healthy people alone!

    --
    The purpose of existence is to make money.
  111. This is a problem in Europe??? by thomst · · Score: 2

    First of all the actual article sucks - it contains no link to the actual published research, nor does it even bother to identify the journal in which the study was published. Christine Hsu, the article's author, contradicts herself on whether Austria or Italy has the lowest female BMI:

    Of all the 17 European countries studied, women in Austria were had the lowest average body mass index, a measurement of weight compared to height, at 23.67, which was lower than the European average of 25. Italy had the lowest average BMI for young women at 21.40.

    And, predictably, she makes NO mention of the actual survey's contents or methodology, beyond stating how many participants there were. So, we have no way of telling how those participants were selected, what questions they were asked, what the margin of error was calculated to be, and so on.

    But the biggest fraud of all, is the conclusion that, based on one survey, European governments are somehow justified in dictating which models advertisers may or may not employ. That's not even a slippery slope - it's a precipice that makes the Matterhorn look like a Dutch tulip field.

    Crappy reporting on execrable science. Nothing to see here ...

    --
    Check out my novel.
  112. Just ban it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ban everything beautiful so I don't have to feel bad about myself anymore.

  113. Government to ban food to curb boulimia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Population on allowed celery and yogurt. Eternal happiness ensues.

    Such proposals are nonsense. They confuse symptoms and root causes. The root cause is psychological (not accepting oneself, insecurity, possibly abuse, ...). That anorexics feed their insecurities using popular media doesn't mean that said media is responsible or that removing it will help anorexics. They will simply latch onto the next best thing.

  114. What commercials do you watch? by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    Fat guys? Pimply guys? Guys without muscles? Guys with cheap cars? Oh, they exist in commercials alright. As points of ridicule. Ads are not a very nice representation of humanity. They try to sell us something by telling a very quick and simple story and the best way to do it is with stereo-types and pleasant pre-conceptions.

    There are plenty of ads with old, fat or whatever type of woman. An ad for heating has an elderly couple in it that I saw yesterday before I zapped away. Yes, an ad for soap aimed at women will see it being used by an attractive woman AND that woman getting the attention of very unrealistic attractive males. Are we going to ban them too? Only ugly people can appear in ads? Then how will the pretty people feel about that? I have noticed more then once that it is the pretty girls who are the most insecure. A woman with some padding tends to be a lot more sure about herself and comfortable with herself then a woman who has the right weight and measurements.

    That you are a delusional freak is proven by the fact that men suffer from eating disorders as well. Just that Oprah (a woman) doesn't pay attention to it. Men undergo costmetic surgery to implant muscles or have their penis extended because they are insecure because of constant jokes in the media about how size matters. Ah... yes... say that a woman with small breast is less of a woman, that is a no-no. But penis jokes are perfectly fine.

    The simple fact is that the media is a lie. We can then sanitize the hell out of it but where do we go? To be truly free a media program and ad would have to include an awful lot of stuff. An Axe commercial for the fat, one for the ugly, one for the handicapped, one for gay people, one for people who abstain, one for who don't, one for addicts, one for people with skin diseases, one for the blind, one for the deaf, one for animal lovers, one for the pedo's. Anyone could get upset about themselves not being represented in the media.

    For instance, I am quite upset by all the ads showing a capable housewife and a clutch of a husband. Makes me feel very insecure... who do I sue for a million bucks?

    Isn't it sad that some women get an eating disorder? Sure but you can't make the entire world safe because it would never ever end. Proof? FAR more kids get injured and killed by cars driving faster then 10km/h. Since you care so much about the harm you do, you here by agree never ever to travel faster then brisk walking speed. For the children. Don't want to? Child murderer!

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  115. Keira Knightley by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Keira Knightley is the actress from the Pirates of the Caribean with rather small breasts. For another role, there exists a rather famous comparison picture in which her breasts are photoshopped to be a couple of sizes bigger. It was done against her will, she agreed to some touching up but not to go from A to C.

    Is she pretty? Your tastes might differ but a lot of people would say yes...

    So... does this stop all the girls out there from worrying their tits are to small? Hell no. For that matter, most super models got modest chest sizes. Does that stop girls from worrying? No. So WHAT image from the media is telling girls that they need to have big tits? Not a famous movie star, not super models.

    Yet the claim stands that thin fashion models influence how girls view their body but not the breast part? No, it is a load of bull.

    Some people feel insecure about their image, they then find anything out there to justify themselves in feeling bad about it. For a rather extreme and dangerous example, how many black people claim they are kept down by discrimination when the most powerful man on the planet right now is black? Somehow the fact Obama got elected president of the US does not factor into the claim of racism.

    Mind you, things are never black and white, there is racism and the media and society put a lot of expectations on how people should be. This isn't just looks, many a person keeps looking for the magical love where violins suddenly start playing. I have met people who really thought that when they became adults, there lifes would be like that in Friends and other sitcoms, sitting around all day drinking coffee with the occasional visit to work if it suited them. Reality? You want to be able to afford even a single coffee, you work so hard that all you want to do in the evening is sleep.

    Does this matter? I don't know if the term loverboy is universally known but these are men who seduce young girls with money and a flash lifestype and then get them into prostitution. The girls affected really believe the movie lifestype. "He always got money" and "He always was ready to have a good time" never makes them question how the two combine. It doesn't matter in sitcoms so why should it in real life that a guy with no job has plenty of girls and all the free time in the world and a lot of spare cash?

    People who aren't to smart use the media to justify their insecurities, neuroses and world views, and ignore the bits of media that don't match. Porn girls have big tits so big tits are the norm and all the porn with small tits, every single super model don't exist. In comedy, fat ugly women often have attractive wives... of course the BBC series Miranda doesn't count where a very tall and none to skinny rather plain woman has not one but TWO hunky guys interested in her. And gosh, she NEVER goes after men who are overweight or plain looking or, horror of horror, to short.

    Media isn't realistic. Or rather it is but we tend to look only at the bits that offend us. Porn is young girls ignoring all the granny and MILF porn. Super stars have big tits except for the ones who don't.

    If we start to censor the media to be realistic... then what about those of us who are naturally skinny? Who are just plain good looking? Should they be subjected to a media showing that only ugly people can be happy?

    Silly? It isn't the fat chicks or plain looking ones who tend to suffer from insecurity, it is the pretty girls. After all, the fat chick might not get a lot of boys after her but the one who does is probably really interested in her, the person. Where as the pretty girl only gets the guys after her who see her as a trophy and the ordinary guys do not approach her. Being pretty is no guarantee for happiness. See the lives of many a movie actress ending in misery.

    There are a lot of things wrong with ads but the biggest is that so many people take them to serious and lack the capacity to look further then their own insecurity at the real world. Believe on pretty people ca

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  116. It's not the governments's responsibility by adewolf · · Score: 1

    It's up to us a parents to teach our children that being too anything is not healthy. It's also up to us to teach our children that fashion is not a lifestyle and should not dictate how we see ourselves. We always explain to our 11 year old how the TV ads work and how marketing works (selling a "lifestyle/happiness") and what a lie it is. It's time for us to stop the consumerism of our culture, that is a lot of the crux of this problem and legislation is not going to fix it. All that said I am a good Liberal and I do believe that government belongs regulating commercial industries, such as big oil, who refuse to regulate themselves.

    --
    "The Brady Bunch is back...working homicide"
  117. BMI wouldn't work well for this by cs668 · · Score: 1

    Should really be based on bodyfat % not BMI, since muscle weighs more than fat you could end up with some really unattainable bodies that according to BMI are obese, but look awesome and ripped.

    Many sports models would be overweight according to BMI.

  118. Why spelling matters by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    If you dont reap what you sew, too bad.

    That's just nonsense. The correct word is "sow".

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    1. Re:Why spelling matters by BitterOak · · Score: 1

      If you dont reap what you sew, too bad.

      That's just nonsense. The correct word is "sow".

      Umm, a sow is a female pig. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    2. Re:Why spelling matters by Qwade79 · · Score: 1

      You're both right. Sow is a female pig. Sow is also the act of planting seeds.

  119. weight discrimination to skinny to fat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gaaaaaa I am tired of some ^@#$%@ wining that someone is to skinny or too fat.
    Its the new politically correct discrimination for the 21st century.
    Insecure people need to pick on a group To try to feel superior but its not PC to pick on race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age etc so lets discriminate on a persons weight and bash to skinny or to fat people or anyone whose body does not exactly match the body image De-joure.

  120. they have those by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wasn't aware that the government had skinny models, I thought they just had fat cats.
    Some people tend to think that the word "government" means "parent".
    People who come up with ideas like this need to grow up and learn to govern themselves. Stop looking to someone else to dictate that the world should behave as you believe it should.

  121. Obesity is a far worse and more common threat. by couchslug · · Score: 1, Informative

    So ban fat models too. THAT would trigger a shitstorm worth watching.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  122. If only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "That's what insurance is: trading some wealth today against the possibility something goes awry tomorrow."

    That would be great if thats what health insurance actually was. All they've ever given me was excuses.

    When my dental plan didnt cover cleanings because it 'only covers major surgery'... and then the next month, the very same policy didnt cover major surgery because it "only covers cleanings"... i left the whole industry behind.

    I dont need to pay you guys for excuses... i can get those for free any time.

  123. Obesity the bigger risk by 1u3hr · · Score: 1

    I recently heard an interview with a dietician who said that the idealisation of thinness was a net positive; for every kid who ended up anorexic there were many, many more who were one their way to obesity, diabetes, heart disease ;and anything that made that less likely was worth hurting some feelings.

  124. I work with women by Cann0n · · Score: 1

    Beauty is within. A women that is more focused on looks and will damage her body to fit into a jeans isnt attractuve. By damaging, I mean laxitives, bulimia, anorexia, and surgery. I work with beautiful women every day and my opinion (like it matters) is low self-esteem is less attractive than letting it all hang out. I personally like BBWs... I dont like girls that appear fragile and boring. I lost 90 lbs the hard way, exercise and determination. Ive kept it off for 7 years. Even when I was fat, I was still getting attention from beautiful women. Attitude matters more than anything. My advise for you lazy chicks griping about not being the ideal image.... Free yourself from the media. Instead of watching Jersey Shore, go for a walk.

    1. Re:I work with women by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Beauty is within.

      Nothing gets me going like a personality -- that I can see at 50 meters. Seriously, wtf?

      I personally like BBWs... I dont like girls that appear fragile and boring.

      So what YOU think is beautiful is what many would consider "fat" and boring/slovenly. Thin women aren't 'fragile and boring'.

      Free yourself from the media. Instead of watching Jersey Shore, go for a walk.

      Agreed.!

  125. No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No thanks, let people use their own reason and if they fail at that then the epidemic is human stupidity. Not advertising. I don't need a nanny state.

  126. What causes obesity? by minstrelmike · · Score: 1

    Seems to me if 1/3 of Americans are obese and another third overweight, there are two criticisms:
    1. Anorexia isn't as big a problem as some other dietary issues
    2. If seeing skinny models increases anorexia, then we need to do more of it in order to solve the obesity problem.

    Their conclusions weren't thought thru very carefully.

  127. The Slippery Slope by spaceyhackerlady · · Score: 1

    I've seen this one up close. Over the last couple of years I've lost a lot of weight, 150 pounds. Nothing fancy, just counting calories and exercising. It's done wonders for my physical and mental health, and has attracted a lot of attention. People stop me in the hallways, in the elevators, hell, even in the street.

    "How much weight have you lost?"

    "How did you do it?"

    "You look amazing!"

    If losing this much weight means I look amazing, I attract attention, people like me, maybe if I lose some more, I'll look even more amazing. And attract more attention, and people will like me even more. There's the slippery slope. I've resisted it, partly because I'm not so emotionally fucked up as to crave that sort of attention, and partly because excessively thin middle-aged women get a certain "hard" look that I dont like, and don't want for myself. I'm not toothpick skinny, but am slim and nicely curvy. I'm a woman, dammit, not a stick insect. I like it.

    As for photoshopped/anorexic models, I shop at places that use reasonable looking models (and carry clothes in reasonable sizes), and ignore the places that don't. If more people did so, things would change. The dollar is mightier than the sword.

    ...laura

  128. What is this really about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem underlying eating disorders, especially anorexia, is not advertising. The occurence of such neuroses is due to deeper psychological issues, namely the preservation of one's ego and its boundaries. Succumbing to one's egotistical desires generates vanity and a perceived need to be accepted and praised. There is no limit to what a human protecting their ego is capable of doing to themselves or others. Previous emotional trauma is a potential cause of such behavior, but it's not an excuse to do further harm. Placing the blame and responsibility on society at large is cowardice. "Everybody else" is the easiest scapegoat to find. It is not society's role, nor the government's, to protect individuals from themselves.

    Advertising can certainly exacerbate the preexisting conditions which would otherwise result in an eating disorder on their own, and it can be avoided or ignored. To outlaw a trigger of bad behavior is a misguided and ineffective solution. Just as drug prohibition does not prevent drug use and actually encourages abuse, banning certain advertisements would not help prevent anorexia and may even provoke it: all forms of prohibition induce some rebellion which often manifests in excessive ways. Eg: Millions of people drive cars in this country every day. There exists a minority of drivers, whether due to ego or illness, who think they should drive faster and more dangerously than everyone else. Traffic accidents and fatalities are a daily occurence yet there is no ban on automobiles or driving. Even if that were the case some people would still drive and most of those being the original idiots the ban sought to eliminate from the road.

    Look, folks, it all boils down to self control. Most of you out there aren't mentally ill; you're capable of weighing the risks of your actions and acting on your own free will. If not then seek help for your condition - that in itself is an example of harnessing self control for positive results. An unfortunate situation need not remain so, as long as you have the ability to choose.

  129. this is idiotic! by xuvetyn · · Score: 1

    plus size models were never banned during the whole waif craze.

    --
    alive to the universe, dead to the world
  130. he can go fuck himself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He can go fuck himself.

    Furthermore obesity is a much larger problem then Anorexia.

  131. Hell no! but.... by darkonc · · Score: 1
    Force them to put a prominent acknowledgement whenever they modify a woman's body image, or a health warning when the model is more than one sigma below 'normal' weight.

    I can't remember who it is that said that "the answer to bad speech is more speech, not censorship", but I agree. In this case it would be to allow them to use whatever image they want, but force them to acknowledge what they're doing

    --
    Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
  132. Skinny is healthy by SonOfKrorg · · Score: 1

    Malnutrition may be unhealthy, but skinny is not. If anyone is unsure about this, I'd invite them to do some research on Calorie Restriction. Let's not forget that more years are lost to obesity-related causes than to anorexia. Banning pictures of skinny models would do much more harm than good.

  133. sooo.... Skinny women should be illegal? by ender89 · · Score: 1

    This is exactly like what legislation in Australia tried to do when they banned nude models with A-cup breasts, saying it was promoting pedophilia[1]. Or how regulations around softcore magazines lead to photoshopping out protruding labia minora[2]. Both of these "conditions" are completely natural, and telling women that you can't show the goods if you have small breasts or a "messy vagina" is unforgivable. It lead Australian women to get unnecessary cosmetic surgery to match up to the government mandated acceptable appearance. While this might seem like the exact same thing that's happening without government involvement, women getting force fed an unattainable image of beauty, at least being skinny isn't illegal; which is what these researchers are proposing. So if don't want to let photoshop decide beauty, and you can't legislate a standard without infringing on the rights of others, maybe what we need is a little common sense. We all agree that many of these perfect images are a result of photoshopping, taking models who are human and elevating them to god-like proportions. Perhaps what we should be banning isn't who, but what. Regulate how photoshop can be used specifically on covers and advertising, make it a fine to make a size 4 a size 0. While it won't make anorexia go away, it will at least bring back some attainable standards of beauty. [1] http://boingboing.net/2010/01/28/australian-censor-bo.html [2] (nsfw, but in an educational way) http://jezebel.com/5535356/the-labiaplasty-you-never-knew-you-wanted-%5Bnsfw%5D

  134. Dissatisfaction in General by GrandTeddyBearOfDoom · · Score: 1

    The problem with modern marketing, and the skinny model thing is but one example of this, is that it is easier to sell something to someone who is dissatisfied with what they already have. Thus much marketing aims to induce this kind of dissatisfaction with the status quo in the hope that you'll plump for their 'fix'. The real solution is to change how you view yourself and the world, but this is not easy, and not easy to educate about when the media and marketing people have a vested interest in spreading the opposite. What's needed is satisfaction, joy with life and general responsibility rather then dissatisfaction, greed and selfishness, which is alas the norm for the modern world.

    --
    -- The Grand Teddy Bear has Spoken: "Windows 8 Source Code Available NOW! more disgusting than your pr..."
  135. A simpler way by LienRag · · Score: 1

    Would be to ban advertising.

  136. OR you could just teach your kids that advertising by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

    is always lying, and that it's not about properly informing or educating you, but rather, to manipulate you into behaving the way some corporation wants you to. Usually with profoundly shallow and anti-social consequences.

  137. Ducking quacks by zooblethorpe · · Score: 1

    Wow, was your doctor in Virginia a Jewish lobster-person by any chance? What sort of quack sees someone with post-nasal drip and decides it must be the ovaries!?

    It's been many years, but what I recall of the ethnicities was your basic white-bread caucasians.

    The line from "chronic runny nose" to "removing ovaries" did at least have a detour through "chronic gut problems", so there was some connection to the torso at least. But the quacks didn't connect the dots, and thought my wife's gut issues and abdominal sensitivity were because of ovarian cysts, rather than the true cause of irritable bowel due to chronically excess mucus and some undiagnosed minor food allergies.

    My guess was that basic respiratory health management advice and the occasional albuterol inhaler prescription wouldn't make Kaiser as much bank as hospitalizing my wife and removing her organs. Cynical, sure, but I really can't think what else would have prompted their line of bizarre thinking.

    Suffice it to say, we didn't follow through with the ovarian removal, and instead changed "healthcare" providers as soon as possible. (Actually, after that was when we moved to Japan for two years.)

    Cheers,

    --
    "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
    "A four-foot prune."
  138. Alternatives to waifiness? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fat ugly women DON'T get raped. Become a lesbian and double your protected status.

  139. YMMV, I guess. by zooblethorpe · · Score: 1

    WARNING -- Long post here. :) I reply to each of CAIMLAS's points, describing my related experience. TL;DR: It still comes down to the individual doctors.

    My uncle lived in Tokyo for 10 years. I don't know where you went to the hospital, but here's my understanding of how it really works, based on what he's mentioned:

    * You go to the doctor's office. They ask you what's wrong but don't really care.
    * More than likely, they subscribe antibiotics or pain killers for it.

    I think that's common to many places and many systems -- it depends a lot on the individual doctor you get to see. We had a couple shit doctors in Japan, who took the easy "here's some drugs, now go away" approach; but we mostly had better luck with good people who actually seemed to pay attention and care, and who followed through with real healthcare.

    * If you need dental work done, it will more than likely result in a hasty tooth removal.

    I never had much dental work done in Japan, but this doesn't jive at all with what I've heard from other zainichi gaijin (i.e. foreigners in Japan). The Japanese healthcare system's reimbursement plan for dentists is based in part on the number of visits, and I heard numerous stories of people going in for basic cleaning that was split across multiple visits -- top left one day, top right the next, bottom right a week later, and finally the bottom left, for instance -- as the dentist in question worked the system to their own gain. "Hasty tooth removal" would mean one single visit, which would mean the dentist was short-changing themselves. The more likely scenario would be many appointments spaced across weeks as the dentist did various things to fix the issue while also generating as many visits as possible.

    * Any work done will likely require a full day of waiting in line at a clinic.

    Maybe dental, dunno. But that was never our experience in the medical system. We were generally done within a few hours, and that includes mucking about with check-in, waiting to be called, seeing more than one doctor, and then waiting at the PX afterwards for whatever meds were needed.

    * Even though it's state-funded, you still have to pay to see the doctor.

    You could make the same gripe about the US mostly-private system -- Even though it's already funded through ever-rising premiums, you still have to pay to see the doctor..

    The truth of the matter is that, for most things, all you pay out of pocket is a simple co-pay, which tends to be around $5 to $20 in US dollar terms. (Any meds would be separate from this, but still quite inexpensive out-of-pocket compared to the US.) If you're doing something on an in-patient basis, you can opt to pay a bit extra for a private room, for example, or for special meals -- but those are extras, and the fees weren't that high in our experience (my wife had her appendix out while we were in Japan, and due to some minor complications, she spent about a week in hospital).

    * Doctor's offices and hospitals are crowded, and if you can do without going, you're better off not: you'll get a secondary infection while there, more than likely.

    Very much not our experience. Japanese healthcare facilities are more decentralized than anything I've seen in the US, with oodles of smaller clinics scattered around the neighborhoods, some getting quite specialized. The huge multi-wing hospitals like you see in the US are generally (but not always) university setups. We got my wife's bicycle-accident broken arm treated at a local place of only maybe a dozen rooms, and her appendicitis treated at a similarly small surgical clinic. Meanwhile, we went to a different and much larger place for her asthma care after we moved to Tokyo. Despite being larger (large enough to get lost in, like most US hospitals I've been to), the Tokyo place we went to was never "crowde

    --
    "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
    "A four-foot prune."
  140. CITATION NEEDED! by unassimilatible · · Score: 1

    What absolute bullshit numbers! Like 100 women a year die of Anorexia in the US! Millions die from obesity!

    --
    Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
  141. Better idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not just ban fat people and leave the skinny ones for us to look at?