Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    21 Mar '12 07:10
    "A new Israeli law bans showing overly thin models from local advertising in an attempt to fight the spread of eating disorders. It also requires publications to disclose when they use altered images of models to make the women and men appear even thinner than they really are. The law, passed late Monday, appears to be the first attempt by a government to use legislation to take on a fashion industry accused of abetting eating disorders by idealizing extreme thinness. It could become an example for other countries grappling with the spread of anorexia and bulimia, particularly among young women."

    http://tinyurl.com/6mozlql

    Ramifications?
  2. 21 Mar '12 14:03
    Originally posted by FMF
    "A new Israeli law bans showing overly thin models from local advertising in an attempt to fight the spread of eating disorders. It also requires publications to disclose when they use altered images of models to make the women and men appear even thinner than they really are. The law, passed late Monday, appears to be the first attempt by a government to use le ...[text shortened]... and bulimia, particularly among young women."

    http://tinyurl.com/6mozlql

    Ramifications?
    FMF, it seems that you so rarely offer opinions, but rather solicit and question them.

    I wonder if you've read far too much Plato.

    To your thread, its way too much government interference.
  3. 21 Mar '12 14:12
    Originally posted by badmoon
    FMF, it seems that you so rarely offer opinions, but rather solicit and question them.

    I wonder if you've read far too much Plato.

    To your thread, its way too much government interference.
    I think FMF knows his own opinion on the issue but was trying to get others to express theirs without influencing their initial response.

    I tend to agree with you that there is not a huge governmental need to regulate the size of models.
  4. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    21 Mar '12 14:15
    Originally posted by badmoon
    FMF, it seems that you so rarely offer opinions, but rather solicit and question them.
    The key to understanding someone's take on something is often found in the questions they ask, rather than the assertions they make.
  5. 21 Mar '12 14:49
    Originally posted by quackquack
    I think FMF knows his own opinion on the issue but was trying to get others to express theirs without influencing their initial response.

    I tend to agree with you that there is not a huge governmental need to regulate the size of models.
    Surely if the policies of the fashion industry are damaging to the health of young adults and children the government has a duty to act?

    The big government required need not be any bigger than the government it takes to regulate the 'trades description act' or the regulations regarding pornography or violent materials.
  6. 21 Mar '12 15:41
    Originally posted by kevcvs57
    Surely if the policies of the fashion industry are damaging to the health of young adults and children the government has a duty to act?

    The big government required need not be any bigger than the government it takes to regulate the 'trades description act' or the regulations regarding pornography or violent materials.
    It is fairly ridiculous to claim the fashion industry is damaging the health of our citizens.

    Is the food industry giving too big portions?, is Hallmark promoting Halloween, Easter and Christmas which leads to too much candy? Is the bathingsuit industry leading to too much exposure to UV light? is the TV industry leading too much passive activity and therefore weight gain? is the chess industry occupying too much of my time and making me less productive?

    It is dissatisying to me when the government picks on one group the fashion industry when their product is no more damaging than many of the others listed and the damage is far less direct.
  7. 21 Mar '12 15:58
    Originally posted by FMF
    The key to understanding someone's take on something is often found in the questions they ask, rather than the assertions they make.
    So we should respond to your questions with questions?
  8. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    21 Mar '12 16:01
    Originally posted by quackquack
    It is dissatisying to me when the government picks on one group the fashion industry when their product is no more damaging than many of the others listed and the damage is far less direct.
    I rather thought it was eating disorders like anorexia and bulimia that the government had in its sights. I wonder how much money the fashion industry will lose if the models they use are healthy with normal weight, or if their editors aren't allowed to falsify photographs. I wonder if the new law will save any lives.
  9. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    21 Mar '12 16:03
    Originally posted by badmoon
    So we should respond to your questions with questions?
    I am not interested in critiquing your posting style or telling you how to post, except to say that I have found you a good deal more interesting at times in the past than you're being here.
  10. 21 Mar '12 16:12
    Originally posted by quackquack
    It is fairly ridiculous to claim the fashion industry is damaging the health of our citizens.

    Is the food industry giving too big portions?, is Hallmark promoting Halloween, Easter and Christmas which leads to too much candy? Is the bathingsuit industry leading to too much exposure to UV light? is the TV industry leading too much passive activi ...[text shortened]... ir product is no more damaging than many of the others listed and the damage is far less direct.
    well I do apologies if you have been dissatisfied in any way.

    But if you think that anorexia and bulimia are: A) Not damaging, and B) In no way related to the dishonest images that young people are bombarded with by the fashion industry amongst others; then you are either being obtuse or in some way dis-ingenous.

    To speak of the corporate fashion houses as if they were an ethnic or religious minority goes way beyond 'ridiculous'.

    P.s The only example you gave that had any credible relation to the topic was the over large portions dished out by the food industry(fast food) and yes they are culpable as far as I am concerned, and should be open the legal action the way that the tobacco industry is in the U.S.
  11. 21 Mar '12 16:18
    Originally posted by FMF
    I rather thought it was eating disorders like anorexia and bulimia that the government had in its sights. I wonder how much money the fashion industry will lose if the models they use are healthy with normal weight, or if their editors aren't allowed to falsify photographs. I wonder if the new law will save any lives.
    Why is it thin models in advertisements which cause anorexia but not thin people in movies or thin people in TV shows?
  12. 21 Mar '12 16:24
    Originally posted by kevcvs57
    well I do apologies if you have been dissatisfied in any way.

    But if you think that anorexia and bulimia are: A) Not damaging, and B) In no way related to the dishonest images that young people are bombarded with by the fashion industry amongst others; then you are either being obtuse or in some way dis-ingenous.

    To speak of the corporate fashion hou ...[text shortened]... oncerned, and should be open the legal action the way that the tobacco industry is in the U.S.
    You just seem more concerned about eating disorders than other possible ailments such as skin cancer.

    To me the connection between lying out on the beach (promoted by the vacation and swim suit industry) and getting skin cancer seems more casually connected than the fact that a model might be overly thin and later a person with other psychological ailments gets an eating disorder.
  13. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    21 Mar '12 16:43
    Originally posted by FMF
    "A new Israeli law bans showing overly thin models from local advertising in an attempt to fight the spread of eating disorders. It also requires publications to disclose when they use altered images of models to make the women and men appear even thinner than they really are. The law, passed late Monday, appears to be the first attempt by a government to use le ...[text shortened]... and bulimia, particularly among young women."

    http://tinyurl.com/6mozlql

    Ramifications?
    The idea that pop culture seems to convey that women have to be super thin to be beautiful and even worthy of respect is, IMHO, terribly demeaning to and harmful to women. I have seen this personally: women who are already thin (BMI under 20) think they have to lose more weight to get rid of "hips" and to be as thin as these wafer thin models. I've seen this even in the case of happily married women. It's bizarre and almost frightening.

    Still, as badmoon said, I don't think it's government's place to ban advertisements because it doesn't like the content. I would love to see more education about the health risks of being super-thin, though.
  14. 21 Mar '12 17:02
    Originally posted by quackquack
    You just seem more concerned about eating disorders than other possible ailments such as skin cancer.

    To me the connection between lying out on the beach (promoted by the vacation and swim suit industry) and getting skin cancer seems more casually connected than the fact that a model might be overly thin and later a person with other psychological ailments gets an eating disorder.
    No I am not more concerned about eating disorders than skin cancer but I think the link between the images of the perfect and 99% of the time unattainable body which the industry in question uses to sell its products is much more defined than the more diffuse link between swimwear and sun worshiper's.

    The U.K sees an annual migration from our cloudy shore to the sun drenched beaches of Spain and Portugal and we are not lured there by bikini adverts; most of the herd would go naked if they could. In fact I cannot remember seeing a bikini advert but I accept that I may not be reading the right magazines, oh wait, they probably appear in fashion magazines, having been produced by fashion designers.
  15. 21 Mar '12 17:06
    Originally posted by kevcvs57
    Surely if the policies of the fashion industry are damaging to the health of young adults and children the government has a duty to act?

    The big government required need not be any bigger than the government it takes to regulate the 'trades description act' or the regulations regarding pornography or violent materials.
    "Surely if the policies of the fashion industry are damaging to the health of young adults and children the government has a duty to act?"

    Only if we define the government as the people, acting through their constitutionally and freely elected representatives. If this is the case, then the government can stay hands-off if the people so want, and it will have done its duty.

    Of course you are free to push for the government's having the duty you describe, and if you get enough support, what you push for will be the government's duty to provide.