General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThis Urban Outfitters Photo Has Been Banned For Its “Harmful” Thigh-Gap
A picture of a skinny model on a fashion chains website has been outlawed as irresponsible and harmful.
The clothing company Urban Outfitters has been ordered to remove the photo amid claims it could fuel anorexia.
The ban has been imposed by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), which was particularly concerned about the models thigh gap.
The image, which shows only the lower half of a young womans body, is part of an advertisement on the US firms British website for a pair of polka dot mesh briefs priced at £6.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2891708/Banned-fashion-chain-s-ad-model-Urban-Outfitters-ordered-remove-photo-website-amid-claims-fuel-anorexia.html
http://www.buzzfeed.com/rossalynwarren/urban-outfitters-photo-has-been-banned-for-its-harmful-thigh
BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)QuestionableC
(63 posts)pnwmom
(108,973 posts)Because only Barbie dolls, not actual human beings, have legs that disproportionately long compared to their mid-sections.
That picture is photoshopped. Someone stretched out those legs and enlarged the thigh gap at the same time.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)I'm not convinced this advertisement should have been banned, but I can see why it was.
BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)chrisa
(4,524 posts)TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)further down is a report on their new porn rules.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)The ASA considered that the model was very thin, and noted, in particular, that there was a significant gap between the model's thighs, and that her thighs and knees were a similar width. We considered that the model looked underweight in the picture. We understood that Urban Outfitters' target market was young people and considered that using a noticeably underweight model was likely to impress upon that audience that the image was representative of the people who might wear Urban Outfitters' clothing, and as being something to aspire to. We therefore concluded that the ad was irresponsible.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.3 (Responsible advertising).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told the advertisers to ensure that the images in their ads were responsibly prepared.
http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2014/12/URBN-UK-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_281965.aspx
tridim
(45,358 posts)GreatGazoo
(3,937 posts)To put it simply: Anorexics don't think other people are fat -- they think THEY are fat.
Has nothing to do with airbrushed ads for chain stores that sell washed down printed t-shirts at $38 each. It seems to be Urban Outfitters strategy to play with controversy. At least some of these were done on purpose to stay in viral media:
http://theweek.com/article/index/220370/racist-navajo-attire-and-7-other-urban-outfitters-controversies
daleo
(21,317 posts)GreatGazoo
(3,937 posts)not fat, too thin, etc. If they can step on a scale or look in the mirror and still insist they are too heavy, even when they are thinner than 99.5% of the population then reality and accurate comparisons to the world outside of themselves is not a factor. If they will literally starve themselves to death then we are not dealing with sane choices that can be influenced by reality.
Ms. Toad
(34,060 posts)But partly they are trying to make their bodies live up to what they see portrayed as ideal - stick-figure models. They do have distorted view of their own bodies, and in their eyes they appear much heavier than they actually are.
But for many their initial weight goal and drive to lose weight is heavily influenced by the media (including advertising). But while they start with a goal of matching their bodies to already unnaturally thin models, once they get there their minds convince them they are still not there yet.
I don't know that laws are the solution, but do I strongly support a move to more accurately portray the breadth of body shapes, colors, races, hair types, etc. (including by using the power of the pocketbook).
GreatGazoo
(3,937 posts)but the goal of advertising is to make ALL of us uncomfortable with not having whatever they are selling -- cars, food, trendy clothing -- so I think advertising makes many people uncomfortable with their bodies.
But I believe what researchers tell me about real anorexia:
Believe it or not, anorexia isnt really about food and weightat least not at its core. Eating disorders are much more complicated than that. The food and weight-related issues are symptoms of something deeper: things like depression, loneliness, insecurity, pressure to be perfect, or feeling out of control. Things that no amount of dieting or weight loss can cure.
http://www.helpguide.org/articles/eating-disorders/anorexia-nervosa.htm#weight
Many recent studies of anorexia have focused on the reward centers of the central nervous system. It is possible that extreme dieting could start this lethal feedback loop:
http://www.cell.com/trends/neurosciences/abstract/S0166-2236%2813%2900006-4
Ms. Toad
(34,060 posts)with advertisements (and other forms of media) which idealize stick figure models being a contributing factor - because they influence what people (with and without anorexia) strive for as perfection (the pressure to be perfect in one quote, and perfectionism in the other).
It isn't that losing weight will solve their problems - it is that in people with a predisposition to anorexia, the extreme dieting (or binging and purging) with the goal of looking like what society tells them is ideal via advertising (among other things) alters how they perceive themselves.
And if you don't think stick figure models are touted as the ideal, you aren't paying attention.
The average height and weight for fashion models according to one site is 5'9" to 5'11"; 108 - 130 lbs. That is a BMI of 15.9 to 18.1 - even at the highest weight, that is underweight. For editorial/fashion modeling according to another site the range is 5'8" to 6'0", with a weight range from 90 to 120. That is a BMI range of 13.7 to 16.3. Not even close to normal weight.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)for a great reply. People do not take this seriously. I have a sister who was anorexic--she was absolutely influenced by fashion models. She eats now but is still fetishistic about food amounts and thinness. You give the statistics to my anecdotal story.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)Reter
(2,188 posts)I'd say why but it's dirty.
Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)and does not give the appearance of being necessarily healthy.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)The people in my family are naturally thin, and my 21 year old size zero daughter is built just like the model in the photo. She's also one of the fittest people you'll ever meet (she doesn't like cars, and rides at least 15 miles a day just getting to school and around town). It really is genetic; my sisters and grandmother were built the same way, and I was 6'1", 135lbs when I graduated high school...and I ate like a horse. It wasn't until I became older and more sedentary that my waistline started expanding. One of my sisters is now a 39 year old mother of three, and is still a smallish size two...she was bragging at Christmas that she can still squeeze into a size one if she is willing to be uncomfortable. The rest of my sisters have grown into threes and fours after age and children took their tolls (which is still pretty small).
While naturally skinny people certainly aren't "average", there is nothing innately unhealthy about it. My family jokes that we just have some elf in our bloodline somewhere.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)Last edited Mon Jan 5, 2015, 06:29 PM - Edit history (1)
I know more than one woman of 6 feet tall and neither has legs that long compared to their waists.
Neither of them has legs proportioned like a Barbie doll's, like this photoshop model has, and I bet you don't either.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)And yes, her legs do look weirdly long. She's always been a bit gangling and awkward (she refuses to even try dancing, telling everyone that she has "ganglevitis" .
The human body comes in all sorts of shapes and sizes. It's entirely possible that the photo is of a real person. Lots of people with that body type end up in modeling for a reason.
FWIW, when my daughter was visiting a friend at NYU last year and touring the city, she was approached by no less than three different "agents" who said that she was built like a runway model and that they could make her famous...in the span of a week. Living in Los Angeles, it's taken her two whole years to get three "movie producers" to make her the same offer. New Yorkers are apparently more aggressive My daughter, a feminist working toward a career in environmental law, politely told them where to shove their offers. People wanting to "make her famous" annoy her just as much as the people who are constantly telling her to "eat a sandwich".
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)since no actual human being does. Or are your daughters legs really 50% longer than her arms?
Here's more on that:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2308658/How-Barbies-body-size-look-real-life-Walking-fours-missing-half-liver-inches-intestine.html
And Urban Outfitters is known for its weird photoshops. I bet your daughter's legs aren't like this model's, either:
http://swaggernewyork.com/2014/10/28/urban-outfitters-predicts-one-leg-trend-is-in-this-season/
Xithras
(16,191 posts)My daughter is tall and thin, and has inherited a lot of her mothers Native American facial features. We joke that she has the look of Olivia Munn (seriously, right down to the faint freckles) married to the body of Kate Moss. Very pretty with just a hint of "multiracial foreignness" and yet tall and thin to the point of being awkwardly gangling all at the same time.
I don't dispute that virtually all modeling photos are photoshopped nowadays, or that some of them are blatant. I'm just pointing out that "long legs and thigh gap" aren't necessarily dead giveaways. Lots of exceptionally skinny girls end up in modeling specifically because that's what the marketers are looking for. They pursue these young women relentlessly in order to promote their false idea of beauty to the public.
I'm just glad that my daughter hasn't bought into the crap. She's been hearing "you should be a model" from clueless strangers since she was 13 freaking years old. As if skinny people can have no aspirations beyond showing their bodies to the world
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)like your daughter has, and freakishly stretched out legs, courtesy of photoshop.
Unfortunately, some teens viewing these ads might not understand the difference.
JI7
(89,244 posts)I Wonder of there is some Photoshop to make legs look longer.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)LiberalFighter
(50,865 posts)Taitertots
(7,745 posts)Should we ban overweight models because over eating is harmful.
Or can we just admit that health has nothing to do with it.
Silent3
(15,190 posts)Or something like that.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)in ads aimed at minors?
That picture doesn't depict a naturally skinny model. It stretches out her legs to inhuman proportions while at the same time making them skinnier.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)Thighs are normally thicker than that. I've seen legs like that before, but on cancer patients.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)with legs that weirdly long compared to their mid-sections. Just think how log these legs would be if you could see the whole calf. This is a bad photoshop job.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)Kurska
(5,739 posts)Rushing to defend this government censorship.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)in my opinion. They shouldn't aim these pro-anorexic ads at teens any more than they should aim cigarette ads at them.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Speech is speech.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)Unless the book dealt honestly with anorexia.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)I will never support the censorship of art, no matter how noble the cause.
kcr
(15,315 posts)Ads can be artistic, but the regulation of ads is not the same thing as censoring art.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Are book covers not art?
kcr
(15,315 posts)I have no problem with government regulation, including the regulation of advertising.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Why is this image toxic in advertising, but not in something probably even far more influential like a movie?
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)Look at how ridiculously long her legs would be (if the whole calf showed in the picture), compared to her midsection.
When they were stretching her legs out, they probably gave her that thigh gap, too. She might have had a small one and they made it bigger.
I'm glad about the decision. They shouldn't allow this kind of photoshopping in any publications aimed toward teens.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)They not only stretch out legs and increase thigh gaps -- sometimes they'll eliminate a whole leg!
http://swaggernewyork.com/2014/10/28/urban-outfitters-predicts-one-leg-trend-is-in-this-season/
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)I also don't buy that heavy metal causes suicide , nor Dungeons and Dragons. I don't believe video games cause violence. I don't think Beavis and Butthead causes arson. I don't think that just because one senator's nutter wife think rap lyrics are too dirty that there should be congressional hearings or a voluntary censorship regime. I don't think it is a good idea to outlaw alcohol. I don't think comic books cause juvenile delinquency. I don't think day care workers are parts of satanic cults that rape and murpder tots.
Have I covered all the moral panics?
Runningdawg
(4,516 posts)the next super (skinny) model emerges, womens clothing sizes get smaller. I haven't gained or lost weight in 15 years. I can hold an old pair of CK jeans size 10 up to a new CK pair size 18 and they are the same. 15 years ago I shopped in the Jrs dept, now I have to buy "plus" sizes. What changed? my body sure as hell didn't.