Should overly skinny models be banned?

[delalluvia]

Should Overly-Skinny Models Be Banned?

    This week Spanish authorities banned overly-skinny models from a major Madrid fashion show for fear they could send the wrong message to young girls who may develop eating disorders. Spain's ban set off a storm in the fashion world. Britain may soon follow suit, but the U.S. most likely will *not* be banning overly-skinny models from American catwalks.

Interesting.  I think it would be nice if high end designers made clothes that actually fit normal women instead of making clothes that only fit certain body types.

Personally I think it was insulting that rather than sell larger sizes under her designer label of Liz Claiborne, the designer decided to make a separate line and call it Eliisabeth.  Talk about making things obvious.

[opinionista]

Should Overly-Skinny Models Be Banned?

    This week Spanish authorities banned overly-skinny models from a major Madrid fashion show for fear they could send the wrong message to young girls who may develop eating disorders. Spain's ban set off a storm in the fashion world. Britain may soon follow suit, but the U.S. most likely will *not* be banning overly-skinny models from American catwalks.

Interesting.  I think it would be nice if high end designers made clothes that actually fit normal women instead of making clothes that only fit certain body types.

Personally I think it was insulting that rather than sell larger sizes under her designer label of Liz Claiborne, the designer decided to make a separate line and call it Eliisabeth.  Talk about making things obvious.

Actually, Spanish authorities aren't banning overly-skinny models from fashion shows. It's the Goverment of the City of Madrid who's doing it. It's a local ban, restricted to the Cibeles Fashion Show only (Madrid's fashion show). I'm not sure if the City of Barcelona is going to follow suit when their fashion show opens, if it hasn't opened already.

But anyhow, this is something very positive that should have been done a long time ago. And I agree with you, models do not represent normal women. A lot of them say that they do not suffer from anorexia. Well, it could be true but the ones that aren't anorexic are probably hooked on coke or something.

[moremojo]

I think it's laudable that authorities are conscious of the importance of sending healthy messages to young citizens, but I am not in favor of banning. That is treating people as if they lacked the capacity to think these kinds of issues out for themselves.

[delalluvia]

I think it's laudable that authorities are conscious of the importance of sending healthy messages to young citizens, but I am not in favor of banning. That is treating people as if they lacked the capacity to think these kinds of issues out for themselves.

Mojo,

Adults can certainly think for themselves.  Most children cannot.  They absorb what is around them and think it is right or/and normal.  That is who the ban is trying to protect.  Sadly, as we all know, prejudices are learned early.  This is no different.  Put a young boy or young girl in front of such model friendly magazines their whole young lives and by the time they are reaching young adulthood they think this is how you have to be or look or what is desirable.

[moremojo]

Mojo,

Adults can certainly think for themselves.  Most children cannot.  They absorb what is around them and think it is right or/and normal.  That is who the ban is trying to protect.  Sadly, as we all know, prejudices are learned early.  This is no different.  Put a young boy or young girl in front of such model friendly magazines their whole young lives and by the time they are reaching young adulthood they think this is how you have to be or look or what is desirable.

That is why it is important for children to have guidance from trusted, mature adults, to provide counterbalance to the various messages received by the media. That seems like a better route than any kind of censorship, which can impede the legitimate pursuits of adult citizens, whose needs and interests are important too.

[delalluvia]

That is why it is important for children to have guidance from trusted, mature adults, to provide counterbalance to the various messages received by the media. That seems like a better route than any kind of censorship, which can impede the legitimate pursuits of adult citizens, whose needs and interests are important too.

True, but as we all know, parents fall down on the job too often (the facts about sex and its role in life is extremely important for teenagers to learn from their parents, but how many parents actually do it or do a good job of explaining it?  And that's an extremely important topic).  The culture of thinness and youth is much less important on the scale of things important in life, so I doubt parents will do much better in that realm.

[serious crayons]

I agree, but as a proponent of free expression speech I'm not happy about a government ban on a private enterprise. I realize different countries have different customs, and I'm no fan of anorexic models as role models. But I can't really support the banning.

Children get exposed to all kinds of unfortunate things -- always have, probably -- and it's up to supportive adults to try to help them learn to judge those things for themselves in a healthy way. Some, of course, never do, and they become adults with unhealthy attitudes, but that's how life goes. Others realize that you must always question culture, and I think that's a good thing.

But -- and this is just my view -- banning does not really accomplish the purpose. Somehow, we have to create a culture where people just don't want models like that.

Del: Your post came in while I was writing this. I can't quite tell if we agree or not?

[delalluvia]

I agree, but as a proponent of free expression speech I'm not happy about a government ban on a private enterprise. I realize different countries have different customs, and I'm no fan of anorexic models as role models. But I can't really support the banning.

Children get exposed to all kinds of unfortunate things -- always have, probably -- and it's up to supportive adults to try to help them learn to judge those things for themselves in a healthy way. Some, of course, never do, and they become adults with unhealthy attitudes, but that's how life goes. Others realize that you must always question culture, and I think that's a good thing.

But -- and this is just my view -- banning does not really accomplish the purpose. Somehow, we have to create a culture where people just don't want models like that.

Del: Your post came in while I was writing this. I can't quite tell if we agree or not?

Hiya Kat,

I'm not sure.  I read that back in the 70's before the advent of cable and video and the internet, mainstream TV shows used to be much more violent than they are now.  There was a backlash of sorts, people believed strongly this stuff was too violent for their kids to watch, that it made kids either indifferent to violence in the real world or violent themseves.

You hear that argument now about video games, movies etc.

Personally, I thought parents should have monitored what their kids watched a lot closer to solve that issue.  It's what you and mojo and I agree should have happened.  However, it didn't.  Instead, in response to consumer pressure, TV execs toned down the violent aspects of all shows.

So in that circumstance, a type of censorship DID occur.  Obviously young adults or adutls with kids couldn't have cared less what was bad for little kids to watch.  THEIR TV shows were censored and they had to put up with it.

I'm not sure, but I read that it wasn't the fed government per se in Spain that banned skinny models.  It was some city watchdog agency and then it was for only that one particular show - there are many shows.  Why was that agency acting?  Because one or two people made a decision that they should ban models or were they acting on consumer/citizen pressure? [shrugs]

[serious crayons]

I read that back in the 70's before the advent of cable and video and the internet, mainstream TV shows used to be much more violent than they are now.  There was a backlash of sorts, people believed strongly this stuff was too violent for their kids to watch, that it made kids either indifferent to violence in the real world or violent themseves.

 in response to consumer pressure, TV execs toned down the violent aspects of all shows.

So in that circumstance, a type of censorship DID occur.  Obviously young adults or adutls with kids couldn't have cared less what was bad for little kids to watch.  THEIR TV shows were censored and they had to put up with it.

I'm not sure, but I read that it wasn't the fed government per se in Spain that banned skinny models.

Well, networks or fashion shows responding to consumer pressure isn't quite the same as censorship. If the networks think there are enough people who want to watch the violent shows, so they can still make money by showing them, they'll keep showing them. But if they think that the parents' views outweigh others and they'll lose PR points and/or money if they don't pull the shows, they'll pull them. I guess I have no problem, in principle, with that. That's just how the marketplace works.

The government, whether federal or city, ordering something banned is different.

Two more quick sideline points, while we're on the topic: I've written quite a bit about how kids respond to violent programming. Research has found little to no evidence that it makes them more violent. Also, I'm not sure how much less violent TV is these days. Fewer corpses, maybe, but I've seen things on "24," for example, that would have shocked me in the 70s. They shock me now!

[delalluvia]

Two more quick sideline points, while we're on the topic: I've written quite a bit about how kids respond to violent programming. Research has found little to no evidence that it makes them more violent.  Also, I'm not sure how much less violent TV is these days. Fewer corpses, maybe, but I've seen things on "24," for example, that would have shocked me in the 70s. They shock me now!

If you watch some of the '70 cop shows, not only do they show bodies, they show how they got in that condition.  People are shown being beaten, shot and stabbed and the wounds actually having bloody holes and blood splattered.  Nowadays you see someone shot on TV, the person falls down and there is either no sign of a wound or you just see a hole or a bloody shirt and no wound.

[serious crayons]

If you watch some of the '70 cop shows, not only do they show bodies, they show how they got in that condition.  People are shown being beaten, shot and stabbed and the wounds actually having bloody holes and blood splattered.

Oh, I guess I didn't remember them that way. But then, I didn't watch that much TV in the '70s. Or maybe I got desensitized myself! 

I guess nowadays if you want blood and gore, you have to turn to medical shows. Some of those are pretty sickening.

Nowadays you see someone shot on TV, the person falls down and there is either no sign of a wound or you just see a hole or a bloody shirt and no wound.

That's true. What I was thinking of are incidents I've seen on "24," like when Jack Bauer, in a hurry to pressure this guy into handing over some info, suddenly without warning shot the guy's perfectly innocent wife in the kneecap right before the guy's eyes. I think he has also tortured, or threatened to torture, various other people (I only started watching last season). From what I've seen the wounds aren't particularly bloody, but having the hero of a show resort to those kind of methods is something I don't think they did in the '70s.

[Penthesilea]

Back on topic:

I'm with moremojo and Katherine here: I don't like overly skinny models, too. And I think it can (not must) damage children's image of how they should look like and can cause problems.
I'de be happy if overly skinny models weren't shown anymore. But: I'm not for banning. The thought of state authorities (in this case: local authorities) ruling and intervening into marcetplace for such a "minor" reason makes me cringe. Governments have always and will always intervene and rule certain aspects of economy, which is right and necessary (the ban of child labour is a good example). But governments should not overly intervene where it is not absolute necessary.

Children are exposed to many different things which can harm them: violent TV programms, alcohol, street traffic - it's an endless row.
It's the parent's duty to protect their children from it respectively to make them able to deal with these things.

The fact that some (many?) parents fail their duties does not justify to let governments overregulate things. Governments intervening should be reserved for the most important (as most dangerous) aspects. In my opinion aclohol is more threatening for children's/teenager's health than false role models. So I'm ok with laws for alcohol consume, but not for overly skinny models. (BTW: is the legal drinking age in all US states 21? That's something which for me, as an European, is strange too: letting teenagers drive cars at age 16, letting them vote and being an adult by law at 18, but they can't drink a beer before 21. But that's another topic).

That's true. What I was thinking of are incidents I've seen on "24," like when Jack Bauer, in a hurry to pressure this guy into handing over some info, suddenly without warning shot the guy's perfectly innocent wife in the kneecap right before the guy's eyes. I think he has also tortured, or threatened to torture, various other people (I only started watching last season). From what I've seen the wounds aren't particularly bloody, but having the hero of a show resort to those kind of methods is something I don't think they did in the '70s.

Uaaarg  . This is so awful. The massage is clear: it's ok to torture if it serves the purpose. I'm really not overly sensitive, but to show the "good" guys misregard humanity, to violate Human Rights means showing far more wrong role models for teenagers as overly skinny models are.

[delalluvia]

(BTW: is the legal drinking age in all US states 21? That's something which for me, as an European, is strange too: letting teenagers drive cars at age 16, letting them vote and being an adult by law at 18, but they can't drink a beer before 21. But that's another topic).

It is, but an interesting off-topic.  Last I heard, don't know if this is no longer the case, some states still had under 21 drinking, but it depended upon the strength of the alcohol - some beers were OK, but not hard liquors.

I remember one of my classes got into a debate about the age of drinking in Europe versus the U.S.  I think it was said that it costs a lot of money for someone to get a driver's license in Europe - in the particular case Germany - but you could buy a beer very very young.

So you had a dearth of very young people being able to buy and drink alcohol AND those who were able to drive legally.

In the U.S. it doesn't cost very much at all to get a driver's license or buy a beer, so you could have a large population of very young people both drinking AND driving.

The discussion went something like that.  I don't know how accurate it was. 

[serious crayons]

I turned 18 a few years after my state lowered the drinking age from 21 to 18. Then a few years later, the federal government said any state that wanted federal funding for highways had to set its drinking age at 21, and after that I think they all did.

So I was in that brief window of 18-year-old drinking (though I actually started at 15 -- I had friends who either were 18 or could pass for it.)

And yes, it seems incredible that you are considered old enough to get married, buy a house or fight in a war 18, but not to drink a beer.