×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Government Should Ban Skinny Models To Curb Anorexia, Say Researchers

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the too-fat-for-me dept.

Government 676

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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

676 comments

Ban idiotic research first (5, Insightful)

sideslash (1865434) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227095)

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

Re:Ban idiotic research first (0, Troll)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227159)

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.

Actuarially, no. (5, Insightful)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227227)

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.

Re:Actuarially, no. (1, Flamebait)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227387)

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.

Re:Actuarially, no. (0)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227395)

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.

Re:Actuarially, no. (5, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227549)

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 [state.sc.us] 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 [cdc.gov] . 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.

What if they are skinny for other reasons? (1, Interesting)

tlambert (566799) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227277)

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 [wikipedia.org]

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 [everydaycitizen.com]

-- Terry

Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? (3, Insightful)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227421)

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. [youtube.com]

Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? (2, Insightful)

sideslash (1865434) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227507)

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.

Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? (5, Insightful)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227637)

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.

Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39227649)

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.

Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? (1)

J'raxis (248192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227487)

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.

Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39227535)

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.

Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons? (4, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227633)

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.

Re:Ban idiotic research first (2)

Anthony Mouse (1927662) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227321)

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.

Re:Ban idiotic research first (3, Insightful)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227659)

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.

Good luck, because... (2)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227171)

...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.

Re:Good luck, because... (5, Informative)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227251)

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.

Re:Good luck, because... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39227331)

Little girls should be married to men. Like how Mohammed married ayeshia. Or how moses men took the little girls.

Marry your young daughter to a man so that he may be happy.

Re:Good luck, because... (4, Insightful)

JSG (82708) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227493)

... 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

Re:Ban idiotic research first (4, Insightful)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227461)

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.

Re:Ban idiotic research first (2, Insightful)

sideslash (1865434) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227573)

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.

Re:Ban idiotic research first (1)

Nicknamename (2572429) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227541)

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!

Re:Ban idiotic research first (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227627)

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.

The government should ban (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39227105)

researchers with opinions...

Re:The government should ban (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227455)

researchers with opinions...

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

It's True (4, Insightful)

crow_t_robot (528562) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227119)

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.

Re:It's True (4, Insightful)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227161)

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

Re:It's True (1)

niftydude (1745144) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227377)

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.

Re:It's True (1)

jamesh (87723) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227583)

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.

Re:It's True (4, Insightful)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227451)

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.

Re:It's True (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227483)

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.

Re:It's True (1, Insightful)

J'raxis (248192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227597)

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.

Re:It's True (3, Insightful)

bhagwad (1426855) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227201)

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

Re:It's True (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39227343)

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

Re:It's True (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39227539)

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 ;-)

But do they know they have discretion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39227403)

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.)

Re:But do they know they have discretion? (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227653)

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.

Re:It's True (1)

craigminah (1885846) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227333)

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.

Re:It's True (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227363)

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.

Re:It's True (2)

Idbar (1034346) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227465)

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".

Re:It's True (2)

afabbro (33948) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227479)

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.

Anorexic spouse - this is only part of it (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39227497)

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.

Re:It's True (2)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227511)

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!

Re:It's True (2)

Absolut187 (816431) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227657)

The purpose of government is not to cure every evil in society.

Commercial speech is protected by the First Amendment, and the proposed regulation would almost certainly be struck down.

What exactly what would be the text of this proposed regulation?

"Whoever publishes an image of a woman having a body mass index below 0.66 shall be fined $X.XX."

Please, someone in favor of this crap draft up a law that is not vague, over-broad, and just plain laughably ridiculous.

Europeans (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227125)

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?

Re:Europeans (3, Interesting)

grumbel (592662) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227655)

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.

Government Should Ban Researchers To Curb Fear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39227133)

"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."

Obesity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39227137)

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

Re:Obesity (2)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227183)

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

Re:Obesity (2)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227255)

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.

Re:Obesity (1)

chaboud (231590) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227347)

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.

Re:Obesity (1)

tsotha (720379) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227577)

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

Re:Obesity (1)

Barondude (245739) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227643)

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.

Re:Obesity (1)

afabbro (33948) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227491)

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.

The headlines in 20 years... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39227145)

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

Don't ban them, ship them to the USA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39227147)

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

Another voice calling for government (0)

grantspassalan (2531078) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227157)

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

Isn't it clear by now? (4, Funny)

telekon (185072) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227165)

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.

Would it work? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39227185)

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

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

Large Americans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39227195)

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.

arent there more obese people.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39227215)

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....

What's the point? (1)

jouassou (1854178) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227235)

If we start censoring people with body shapes we consider outliers, how is that supposed to make people focus less on looks?

Curves (1)

HyperQuantum (1032422) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227239)

"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.

Sure, right after they ban fat chicks $ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39227261)

no text.

Regulation is not the answer (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227281)

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.

Music (5, Insightful)

internettoughguy (1478741) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227289)

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.

Re:Music (1)

drsmack1 (698392) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227431)

>> 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.

Re:Music (1)

djmurdoch (306849) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227571)

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.

Re:Music (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39227629)

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.

i dont like round models (0)

KingBenny (1301797) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227313)

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?

Right....What next? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39227325)

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.

But who defines "skinny"? (0)

Xandrax (2451618) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227337)

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.

Why is this on Slashdot? (3, Interesting)

pz (113803) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227361)

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.

Define ... "Skinny" ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39227383)

I'd love to see them try to define what "skinny" is ... That'd be a mess.

Re: Define ... "Skinny" ... (1)

toadlife (301863) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227467)

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.

Obesity is the epidemic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39227399)

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.

keep evolution alive, let them die (0)

holophrastic (221104) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227415)

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.

We need a norm . . . (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227433)

"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! "

Ah yes the true american approach to fixing things (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39227435)

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.

Models are too skinny, sure... (2)

cfalcon (779563) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227439)

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.

statists say (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39227503)

Gov't is the solution!!!! Who would have thought?

Ban Well-endowed Pr0n Actors while we're at it... (1)

bughunter (10093) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227515)

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'd rather (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227523)

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.

Too Bad Students (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227529)

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.

Are they serious? (3, Insightful)

pclminion (145572) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227553)

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.

Re:Are they serious? (1)

J'raxis (248192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39227661)

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.

Fatty-fatty-bo-batty (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39227557)

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?

They are just plain more enjoyable! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39227593)

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?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...