Bravo Israel!

From the JPost:

The Ministerial Committee for Legislation approved a bill forbidding extremely underweight models to be shown in advertisements, on Sunday.

In addition, using Photoshop and other graphics programs to make models look thinner will be against the law.

The only thing that bothers me is the phrase “extremely underweight” – does that mean that “underweight” is ok?

Bookmark and Share

Post Written by

No Comments

  1. a couple of pounds underweight is not the end of the world but pictures like the first lady here: are just messed up

    • HSaboMilner says:

      how the folks at Ralph Lauren could think such a blatant airbrushing would be believable, I do not know. if a woman was that skinny she would not be posing for pictures – she’d have a feeding tube direct to her stomach.

      someone has a distorted perception in that company. Shudder.

      • The funniest thing (in a sardonic way) is that men do not tend to like women who are skin-and-bones. Different men prefer different figures and body-types, but whichever figure and body-type a given man prefers, I guarantee you that he wants the woman to be a healthy weight for her body type. Men want women who look healthy.

  2. Now, don’t get me wrong: I do think it is evil and disgusting to advertise morbidly-underweight models.

    Nevertheless, what strikes me about this legislation is that it is frighteningly authoritarian and heavy-handed. If you cannot advertise underweight models, might that also result in a ban on displaying any underweight women, even for educational purposes? Will scientific textbooks be censored and forbidden from displaying dangerously underweight women?

    Similarly, many fear that bans on flag-burning will result in a ban on even displaying an image of another’s flag-burning for education purposes. See Attack of the Utility Monsters: The New Threats to Free Speech, by Jason Kuznicki.

    In other words, where will this legislation lead? And the problem is more than that. I am also skeptical of whether any government has this jurisdiction or authority in the first place. What happened to the right to free speech? Any speech, no matter his disgusting or vulgar, should be protected unless it displays an incitement to unlawful activity, which is the United States Supreme Court’s litmus test. That is, unless the speech somehow advocates harmful or violent or unlawful deed, that speech cannot be touched. You can demonize Jews, for example, or deny the Holocaust all you want, as long as you do not advocate violence against Jews or advocate that a Holocaust be performed. And this is exactly as things should be.

    The government’s job is to prevent unlawful activity and to prevent one party from harming another. It is not the government’s job to regulate society or to guide the direction of that society. Social-engineering is outside the purview of legitimate government. That is why there is a separation of church and state: for it is not the government’s job to decide what is morally good for society or not. The government is to be a policeman and a provider of basic essential services, nothing more (and the latter is debatable, as private utilities are certainly feasible).

    It is not that I find the advertisement of such models to be a decent thing. Heaven forbid! But no matter how evil these advertisements are, their regulation is simply not within the jurisdiction of duly-constituted and constitutionally-limited government.

    And as for photoshopping, that ought to be covered by the model’s contract with her photograph or modeling agency, or some such. If she does not want her images to be photoshopped, she should stipulate such in her contract.

  3. mrsmelissasg says:

    every once in awhile i have to pull out the “i’m a recovered anorexic” card, and this is one of those moments. anorexia is a mental illness which is often triggered by societal influences. i’m proud of any country/region/state which outlaws the use of extremely underweight models (and general underweight is harder to censor, b/c it is a tenuous line) — if we give women less “thinspiration” maybe we won’t push ourselves to our death beds aiming for unrealistic goals.

    • Mellisa, if you’ll please forgive me for the following, and abstain from answering if it offends you:

      Given that men do not find the skin-and-bones models to be even slightly attractive at all, what inspires women to imitate them? I mean, if men find such underweight models to be unattractive, then for what reason are other women imitating them? It simply perplexes me, because I cannot find any logical or rational reason to imitate these models. What does it gain? It turns men off, so what’s the point?

      • mrsmelissasg says:

        Happy to respond… Its not about men. Its a mental issue where people see themselves differently than how they really are and become beyond focused. It is more of an internal thing and sometimes a societal reflection, but generally not about attracting the attention of the opposite sex – and when it is (from my experience and studies), it often becomes out of control and loses sight of reality….

        • If it’s a mental issue, then what does it matter what the models on TV or in fashion magazines look like? Won’t the same mental condition develop?

          I remember seeing once that in Mauritania – where being overweight is considered sexually attractive – women have the same rate of eating disorders as in the West. Apparently, it not only doesn’t matter what men find attractive, but it doesn’t matter what “society” in general finds attractive either. Apparently, even in Mauritania, the same number of women develop body-image problems and become underweight.

          • mrsmelissasg says:

            B/c for some women it is triggered by external influences…. However, not for all women, or men – who also are affected but rarely talked about.
            If you want to continue to have a conversation about it, shoot me an email…

Leave A Reply