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."

22 of 676 comments (clear)

  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 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.

    2. 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.

  2. 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 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.

    3. 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.

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

    The social manifestation of the persecution of beauty.

  4. 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 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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."
  5. 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.

  6. 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

  7. 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.
  8. 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.

  9. 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!
  10. 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 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)
    2. 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?

  11. 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."
  12. 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.