The Israeli Knesset became the latest legislative body to ban skinny models. The new law prohibits both Israeli and foreign ads with “underweight” models and requires disclosure of when pictures have been manipulated to make the model look thinner.
I have been a critic of these laws. I have significant reservations about both the constitutionality (in the US) and practicality (anywhere) of such laws. Such restrictions on the right of models and photographers limits free expression and artistic freedom in my view. Even when viewed as merely commercial speech, there remain legitimate speech concerns.
I understand that five percent of young Israelis have been found to have eating disorders. However, the best way to address this problem is not to limit the freedom of others but to educate young people, particularly young girls. Dr. Rachel Adatto, a legislator and doctor, says that with the law, such skinny models “can no longer serve as role models for innocent youths who adopt and copy the illusion of thinness.” That seems hopeful thinking unless they are going to force stars, celebrities, and others to eat. Notably, magazine covers and other images are likely to continue to advance the “never too thin” view of beauty. We are unlikely to embrace Rubenesque values by act of legislation. The perception of beauty as thin is the result of a host of cultural norms.
The law defines underweight with the use of the Body Mass Index (BMI) standard, a ratio of weight compared to height. Anyone with a ratio under 18.5 is considered underweight and thus barred under the law as a model. The message is “eat or starve” as a model in Israel.
I view such laws as a matter of personal freedom for photographers, models, and media. For that reason, I sympathize with the motives but have to disagree with the means.
Source: Times of Israel as first seen on Reddit.
And they think they are going to change the Haute culture….. Not even for a billion dollars….. Too much ego involved….
I understand that five percent of young Israelis have been found to have eating disorders. However, the best way to address this problem is not to limit the freedom of others but to educate young people, particularly young girls.
——————————
I disagree. Show me your study. Young women today get blasted on all sides by magazines, television, boyz at school, peers, blah blah blah they don’t need MORE education (tho this is a huge and important part of…) , but they DO need some protection from those elements that attack thier developing psyche from level that are much more pervasive than just education or positive home environments alone.
Zaftig is not a dirty word and now that we have a government that has broadcast the message that womens bodies do not belong to them….well we’d best find a way to let girls/women/those of the female persuasion know that they are worth a whole lot more than this world is showing them.
I know its hard to relate to a those who don’t view women as simple chattel by maybe we could find a way to make it red white and blue ok to be a woman and sovereign in that space.
I know its hard to relate to a those who don’t view women as simple chattel by maybe we could find a way to make it red white and blue ok to be a woman and sovereign in that space.
should be; I know its hard to relate to a those who don’t view women as simple chattel BUT maybe we could find a way to make it red white and blue ok to be a woman and sovereign in that space.
The amygdala and limbic brain areas throb and drum out a “need to belong” which deceptively erodes individualism until there remains a gummy, easy to manipulate mess.
Thanks Bernays.
“The Knesset approved a law late Monday night that bans the display of underweight models in Israeli advertising, prohibits ads from abroad if they feature models deemed underweight, and requires advertisers to note when images have been visually manipulated to make the models appear thinner.”
So this is a restriction on one very specific form of commercial speech, which I do not believe is the same thing as a restriction on the speech you represent as a “personal freedom for photographers, models, and media.”
This law does not seem to prohibit a photographer and model of any size taking photos for a photo exhibition.
There may be some overlap between the two forms of speech, for instance a very famous photo taken for artistic and even commercial artistic reasons could not be used in advertising, but it is not an outright prohibition, nor does it seem far removed from other restrictions we place on business (health rules that prevent Peking Duck, or from selling raw milk, …) that are also a restriction on commercial speech.
Often, as my 10th grade civics teacher told me, and even as reiterated in various econ courses, often, capitalism and free enterprise requires a bit of regulation or else it will strangle and kill itself (and take the rest of us with it.)
“Zaftig is not a dirty word and now that we have a government that has broadcast the message that womens bodies do not belong to them….well we’d best find a way to let girls/women/those of the female persuasion know that they are worth a whole lot more than this world is showing them.
I know its hard to relate to a those who don’t view women as simple chattel by maybe we could find a way to make it red white and blue ok to be a woman and sovereign in that space.”
Derpity derpity doo.
Red white and blue? This is Israel.
“now we have a a government”… Be honest, be really honest, dig deep and remember when you were a kid if you need to, when you wrote this you were referring to the Republicans and not Likud, right?
Zaftig is certainly not a dirty word. That we can agree on. Here’s a nice nsfw search for zaftig for all our pleasuring this morning. http://bit.ly/GE1zLk
oh thanks for the porn anon (mmmm, those 2 words sound so much alike…..) try this on your mainstream media mind http://www.google.com/search?q=actresses+zaftig&hl=en&rlz=1C1LENN_enUS444US445&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&ei=G-ppT_LXMaSLsQL7tfScCw&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=2&ved=0CAwQ_AUoAQ&biw=1366&bih=643
yes, I made an American response on this American blog….I am not really qualified to say much about the knesset but I saw by Mr. Turleys syntax that he was referring, also, to the trend….
“The Israeli Knesset became the latest legislative body to ban skinny models.” ~Mr. Turley
What Woosty said … every word, including the rewrites.
Attributing to photographers, models, etc a choice as to free expression seems to me naive in the commercial world. Restraint for the public good is not an encroachment on free expression. Just as the ad trick of writing “NO THIS THAT OR THE OTHER IN THIS PRODUCT” has at least been forbidden I believe.
How far to go is always a judgement call.
For example I would approve forcible use of the following model on flour containers:
“This product has been enriched with vitamins to replace those lost due to processing the seeds. This is in no way a guarantee that this product has the nutritional value of a flour produced by stone grinding at low speed from whole wheat grains.”
I forgot to say, am with Woosty
but the beginning of that sentence confused me, but OK with this:
!…maybe we could find a way to make it red white and blue ok to be a woman and sovereign in that space.”
Particularly love “sovereign in that space”.
Damn tootin’.
When I see those sitting beside the catwalk and those walking it, gads what a chasm. In many ways, need I say. Personnally I dig women’s clothes as an expression of being what you feel for the moment.
A shame guys can’t without being gay. Oh well. sigh.
I mean simply, art is supposed to express emotions and cause emotional response.
So do clothes. Haute couture or no couture, c’est egal. Et meme le corps nu. N’est ce pas?
Woosty,
Keep this in mind when assaulted with porn as a tool in argument:
“Women do not believe that men believe what pornography says about women. But they do.” (Andrea Dworkin)
Here’s an interesting study on “Pornography, Rape, and the Internet”:
http://www.law.stanford.edu/display/images/dynamic/events_media/Kendall%20cover%20+%20paper.pdf
Great post, Blouise. We support you Woosty. Have to run.
“Keep this in mind when assaulted with porn as a tool in argument:”
What a dip.
Nobody was assaulted with porn.
I said I agreed with Woosty that zaftig is terrific, and presented a link that I clearly described as nsfw.
I understand you feel a need to continually misrepresent what others have to say. And I note that once more this is done in the name of feminism.
I ask if feminists are taught that clear and intentional misrepresentation of an argument is a valid form of argument in their women’s studies classes, or if this is something that feminists develop in their blogs?
Either way, it’s clear, it’s obvious, and shameful.
derp-boy, interesting choice of search: “zaftig XXX”, lot of hostility specific to woosty apparent in that particular posting. That all you got? Is that the full measure of your debate skill? A puerile retreat to ‘dirty’ pictures as a counter-argument? C’mon man, step it up, this is a respected law blawg, have a little respect for your host. You’ve just reached the level of an inarticulate 9 year old drawing a penis on the sidewalk in front of someones house. It even lacks the saving grace of wit! It is entirely wit-less on a blawg that forgives much if only you bring a bit of savoir faire and wit to the table.
Let me illustrate. See, if I was going to do an image search to respond to one of your posts, say the one above, I could make a point without resorting to graphic sex with some bondage thrown in and at least add a touch of humor:
http://www.google.com/search?
rlz=1T4GGHP_enUS423US424&q=horses+ass%27&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=ZRhqT5OHCdOnsALb3pSVCQ&biw=972&bih=812&sei=ahhqT9zAFcaBsgKo0IGqCQ
anon,
You are seriously creepy out there in your porn driven fantasy world.
However, I can understand that posting porn as an attack pron is something you can only get away with on a free speech site such as this. Don’t forget to zip up before leaving the cafe.
Fixed:
http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1T4GGHP_enUS423US424&q=horses+ass%27&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=JB5qT9WjMdGMsAKt0oGWCQ&biw=972&bih=812&sei=KB5qT_CzBefq2AWk2q3dDw
anon,
And I’m not at all offended and certainly won’t complain to the host … I hope no one else does either for the beauty of a free speech site is that what one chooses to post is a self-proclamation of who one is. Besides, It’s a wonderful reference point.
The proposed law is nothing more than a truth in advertising statement. If you see the statement “This image manipulated to make the model appear thinner” it’s simply revealing one of the tricks used to sell a product. It doesn’t even rise to the level of “Smoking causes cancer…” .
The outright ban is more troubling though. I would think a simple disclaimer ‘Don’t try this at home kids’ sort of thing would actually be more effective. Aside from any free speech issue that it’s banned makes it more attractive and that in itself works against the message.
Hey it’s nice ANON revealed his porn need.
i alway have said, it’s been many years since it was necessary here, in Sweden, that porn consumers are guys who aren’t getting any, have no reason for saving it and get it off the best way they can, which means porn.
I read some as a teenager, sheesh, i was cherry until 18.
And dug it when coming to Sweden, this was ’68. It was new! But needing it. Nope. But, that’s my take. But as someone said (Blouise?), it kinda places you, particularly in an argument, when you drop that in front of the debate lectern (?).
But i already called him a coward, and also said he was good only to laugh at. Now i join in the general derision. But is that petty, no he asks for it.
But he must be equivalent to mentally retarded, something is not quite right with him.
This need to hang here and run this crap seems weird. Is it his need for opposition? Is he unnoticed in his daily life?. this is his only outlet?
wow, thanks for the back-up! and hahahahahahha! Lottakatz! that was excellent
One of the reasons I could never be a lawyer is that I didn’t even recognize the low-blow till you pointed it out to me. I’m just not attuned to the ‘contest’…. Blouise that report is interesting, I haven’t finished it yet but I would have to wonder did the internet actually impact the number of sexually aggressive crimes or did it simply change the point of commission? [for instance...are there more non-consensual porn videos being made to profitize on a larger more aggressively sexualized audience?, more 'disempowered' males actualizing thier needs via pornography vs. engaging in appropriate sexual social behaviors, etc.....]
We discussed it on the ” Professor Defends” thread first, Woosty. Then Blouise moved over here and landed a knockout followed up by lk.
idealist, Have you heard of ODD?
an excellent tag team!
thank you!
Woosty,
There are more up to date studies out there concerning the internet and porn but generally speaking, men constitute 86% of the cyber-pornography users which makes your questions very relevant to today’s society.
And perhaps … perhaps, this latest War on Women is indeed driven by the “ownership-of-female-bodies” fantasies of porn addicted men.
does this mean the christian children’s fund is going to have to find some chunkier kids for their commercials?
wasn’t anon the one bragging about two prostitutes in a vegas hotel room a little while back.
pete,
I respectfully disagree with you, Mr. Turley. In the USA we have myriad laws regulating our personal safety. Seat belt laws come to mind. According to your reasoning, I should be able to drive without a seatbelt; after all, the only risk is to myself, yes? Should I extend this right to not seat-belting my young children? Of course not. Moreover, many professions are highly regulated, such as the medical professions or airline pilots, neither of which we would want to work while intoxicated. So, because anorexia is the most deadly of the psychological disorders (up to 10 percent of those with the disorder die from it according to NIMH), why shouldn’t the government regulate this aspect of the modeling profession? Especially when the impetus to diet to emaciation is often required by the modeling agency. What right does the modeling agency have to require models to risk their lives? And if the models or modeling agencies do not like the regulations, they have the freedom to pursue other careers.
SwM
ODD Obsessively Dominant Denialists? Orbital Dreading Dames?
Obscure Dumb Drips? Oh, Double Damn?
Nope, haven’t. My breath is bated. Clue me.
What Blouise said:
“And perhaps … perhaps, this latest War on Women is indeed driven by the “ownership-of-female-bodies” fantasies of porn addicted men.”
It may well indeed. Their porn fantasies mating with Jesus (an alterego) in their religious delusional worldview. Is possession of Mary Magdalena and making her pure, but still horny, only in his embrace, their ultimate wet dream?
Dredd,
Clad my terms in brain terminology please, Impress me as usual, with a space flight.
I just woke up from a nap, with such a space flight dream. Inspired by a netpapers promise that it was only 2 years away for us billionaires (almost wrote bullionaires—–which has 2 interpretations in my current mind.).
Such are the dribblings of a half-awakened mind. Smile.
Prof. JT,
Are you perhaps, half in irony, a shill for American industries disdain for other nations’ markets, counting on their position as “American” to get by with using whatever methods or means which suits them to achieve their purposes??? That is one example of the results of corp=corp, ie corporation=person.
As for defense of freedom of speech, our government’s race to 1984 in 2000 technological costume, and it’s cowing of free speech is of greater concern to me. You have certainly addressed this many times, am sure.
But Mabel’s objections seems reasonable to me.
OT but still free speech.
The feeble response to the new extension to an old law, to wit: being armed with as little as a picket sign on a stick giving 10 years felony imprisonment when the SS or events of national importance are taking place, was disappointing.
(Did you read the whole of that unwieldiy sentence—-if it was that?) Some did comment, but far too few. Of course it’s not a race or a sex or ………whatever hot button issue. We perhaps did not really understand to what evils it loans itself to.
Just a little fantasy, shows that all that would be required legally would be a few SS agents in a “virtual” perimeter at points on America’s borders, which would put us all in danger , if we should decide to make a protest.
idealist, It is oppositional defiant disorder.