I have previously criticized the effort to criminalize or sanction companies for using models who are deemed too thin in an effort to change the expectations for young girls. There is no evidence that these efforts have a real impact on the social preference for thin body types, but officials continue to police the body shapes and weight of models. That was the case this week with the action against Nasty Gal by the U.K.’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) for using models deemed “unhealthily underweight” women in a 30-second ad.
The ASA declared “While the female model in the ads generally appeared to be in proportion, there were specific scenes which, because of her poses, drew attention to her slimness placed focus on her chest where her rib cage was visible and appeared prominent.”
After 22 complaints, the ASA banned the ad as “irresponsible”. However, Nasty Gal has reported that the model has health body mass index at 5 feet 8 inches and 134 pounds. Indeed, inputting those dimensions into the NIH calculator, it comes out “normal.”
The purpose of ASA regulations is laudable. Young girls experience tremendous pressure to be thin in our culture, which can result in eating disorders and psychological pressures. However, I have serious concerns about the regulation of a matter of creative expression. Paintings like Pablo Picasso’s Girl in a Chemise featured thin models as did medieval pieces like Lucas Cranach the Elder’s work above. Few painters have returned to a Rubens fascination with more full bodied women. It is also highly doubtful that policing model weight will really end the obsession with being thin for young girls in my view.
What do you think?
Government overreach.
Completely and totally off topic:
It has become obvious that Trump and his supporters are laboring under the mistaken impression that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s confidential letter carried the same legal force as a Non-Disclosure Agreement between Dr. Ford and Kavanaugh. That’s why Trump is pointing the finger at Senator Feinstein for allegedly leaking the confidential letter and violating the supposed Non-Disclosure Agreement. And that’s why Trump’s supporters are chanting “Lock her up! Lock her up!” at Trump’s campaign rallies for Republican Senators and Republican Congresspersons.
You see, Trump, The Republicans and The Supreme Court–including especially Kavanaugh–are going to reinterpret existing Rape Shield Laws as Non-Disclosure Agreements that protect the reputations and good names of the accused as well as the accusers. On the odd chance that that sounds far too twisted to be believed, consider who we’re talking about here: Trump and his supporters and The Republicans and The Supreme Court. But especially Trump!
How many women voters do you suppose will vote for candidates who want to remake Rape Shield Laws into Non-Disclosure Agreements?
No, Late4Dinner. You have completely misunderstood the argument. Trump, and both Republicans and Democrats have roundly criticized Feinstein for the letter being leaked to the press.
According to a recent poll, 75% of people believe that Feinstein mishandled the situation. What she was supposed to do was promptly provided it to the committee. Dr Ford should have stayed anonymous. Dr Ford should have promptly cooperated with the committee, instead of pretending she was afraid of flying, and apparently, even afraid of telling her story over the phone. Dr Ford should have given exhaustive testimony behind closed doors. Then she would not have been pilloried for all of the holes in her story. She could have come forward without having to suffer any backlash.
It is not Dr Ford’s fault that her accusation came forward after the committee finished its hearings. It’s Feinstein’s fault, and Ford should not be criticized for such. It is not yet known who leaked Ford’s letter. For all I know, it could have been Ford herself, since she had such a well established history of political activism for the Democrats in general, and anti-Trump especially. Therefore, it is wrong to criticize Feinstein for the leak until and unless it is proven that she was responsible. All she was responsible for was delaying informing the committee, and turning this into a political stunt.
“You see, Trump, The Republicans and The Supreme Court–including especially Kavanaugh–are going to reinterpret existing Rape Shield Laws as Non-Disclosure Agreements that protect the reputations and good names of the accused” What the holy hell are you talking about??? Do you not have the slightest idea about jurisprudence? All allegations should be investigated. Ford’s was investigated, as it should have been. It was discovered that she lied about a fear of flying, that 2nd front door was put in place 4 years before she discovered a repressed memory, and it was for Google interns, her former boyfriend said she had no problem living in a tiny studio apartment with one front door, no trouble flying, and no sign of trauma. She changed her story from she was 17 (when Kavanaugh was out of state) and 4 boys assaulted her, to she was 15 and it was 2 boys. She said, on camera and under oath, that the only reason why she thinks she was 15 was because she has no idea how she got to or from a party 36 years ago, so she must not have had her license yet. Then all 3 of her named witnesses have no idea what she’s talking about. She doesn’t know where the party was, whose house it was, when it was, may have been off by years, doesn’t know the month, or season, and no one she said was there knows anything about it. In addition, she purposely scrubbed her social media of extremely virulent anti-Trump activism, including a brain hat, and she lied about not coaching anyone on lie detector tests. Oh, and her ex boyfriend accused her of stealing from him, AND her own yearbook discussed her frequently passing out from being drunk, which indicates gaps in memory.
In what world would this be considered proof of anything? If anything, it seems extremely confused and changeable. At worst, it is either a false memory mistaken for a real one, quite common under hypnosis, or a political ballistic missile.
A rational, civil society can easily determine if an accusation is credible or not. Her accusation is not credible based on the information that she gave, her changing testimony, and her untruths. Plus, it is highly unlikely that a rapist did not accumulate a reputation for assault. Kavanaugh had zero such complaints in his lifetime. Zero. Zip. Nada. Nil. Omicron. There were no such complaints until he was nominated to the Supreme Court. All of a sudden, disproven allegations were made against him. In the most egregious, Swetnick submitted a statement that Kavanaugh ran a gang rape ring. She said she attended 10 gang rapes. I guess for entertainment??? But on camera, Swetnick changed her story and said, well, I did see him giving out a lot of red Solo cups. That’s it. Solo cups. At a party. You do the math. Of course, proven allegations should promptly be acted upon, regardless of political affiliation. Of course, non credible allegations should be dismissed. That’s the only fair and just course of action.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal
A Modest Proposal For preventing the Children of Poor People From being a Burthen to Their Parents or Country, and For making them Beneficial to the Publick, commonly referred to as A Modest Proposal, is a Juvenalian satirical essay written and published anonymously by Jonathan Swift in 1729 …
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/paralipsis
paralipsis (countable and uncountable, plural paraleipses). (rhetoric, linguistics) A figure of speech in which one pretends to ignore or omit something by actually mentioning it …
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophasis
Apophasis is a rhetorical device wherein the speaker or writer brings up a subject by either denying it, or denying that it should be brought up. Accordingly, it can be seen as a rhetorical relative of irony. The device is also called paralipsis ( παράλειψις) – also spelled paraleipsis …
L4Yoga enables David Benson, R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – oh goody, you found something new to bang on about for a week.
There are twenty-five days remaining between today and November 6th, 2018. We’ve got America’s Sweetheart on our team, now. Looky, looky who you’ve got on yours. I’m sorely tempted to feel sorry for you and your fellow schnooks. The best that you’ve come up with thus far is that the confidential letter written by a supposedly lying false accuser ought to have protected the confidentiality of the supposedly innocent man whom the former had accused of sexual assault either instead or as well. The current complaint seems to be that supposedly lying false accusers should protect their own anonymity for the sake of protecting the anonymity of the supposedly falsely accused. You know that’s not too far off the mark of treating rape shield laws as though they were Non-Disclosure Agreements of the type so commonly used by The POTUS, Trump. Good luck campaigning on that position over the course of the next twenty-five days. Stranger things have happened.
thin models topic, nothing to bang on. so to speak
Karen S. said, “Dr Ford should have stayed anonymous. Dr Ford should have promptly cooperated with the committee . . . Dr Ford should have given exhaustive testimony behind closed doors. She could have come forward without having to suffer any backlash.”
Dear Karen S., please read the links provided above. Then reconsider the possibility that your very own sentences cited above effectively argue in favor of the very position which you are endeavoring to rebut or refute. I suspect that such an effort will prove challenging. Therefore, as an incentive, try to keep in mind the question as to whether the confidentiality of an accuser’s name and identity should also shield the name and identity of the accused. IOW, should the confidential letter of an accuser carry the same legal force as a Non-Disclosure Agreement with the accused?
ASA doesn’t indicate any place that NastyGal can go to request an appellate review of the decision.
Model Tyra Banks is a saver, not a spender
Businesswoman, supermodel, author, and creator of “America’s Next Top Model,” Tyra Banks, is worth an estimated $90 million. Mom’s advice is eat more pizza & gain some weight.
Ahhhh, Tyra Banks appears to be blessed with a wonderful mama. She seems like such a grounded, kind person.
Good
Their country, their rules. Still at 5’8″ she is well within the normal range. Or maybe they like their women more beefy in the UK now.
Its subjective and just absurd. Government has no business getting involved with this. The stupidity of government employees is unlimited and Britain is leading the charge
One angle that is probably not considered is the right of the model here to engage in her chosen profession. Indirectly, the government here discriminated against her by virtue of her body shape. I haven’t seen the UK government require a specific BMI for employment so in a way the government violated this woman’s right to engage in her profession, modeling, on account of her physical appearance.
22 complaints out of millions of citizens. Not much of a problem it seems
On a side note a couple weeks ago I was in England visiting family. The home is in a rural area and I was pleasantly surprised to not see the landscape and small cities inundated with “in your face” billboards and signage that is resident here in most US states. Very refreshing and easing on the mind, that was until I passed through the security line at Heathrow’s #3 terminal and was inundated with the aroma of perfume and glitter as we snaked through all these over-the-top commercialist shops everywhere. It was as if all the advertising of Eastern England was transplanted to the airport and concentrated at one point. A singularity of consumerism.
Anyway here is a picture of the low advertising footprint in the more rural areas. This was on the coast.
Click on the image for a larger picture. The advertising includes the gray banners on the wall in front of the business.
Darren……..this is so attractive, and tastefully done, as one would expect.
Good point about the government discriminating against her right to work. The rural countryside looks charming, cool, and refreshing, as I write from a desert.
Jonathan Turley, advertising is regulated speech. You are waaay out in left field.
Nonsense. You cannot excuse such stupidity
But it is English stupidity. . I don’t have a role in excusing it.
Neither do you.
We are free to excuse or criticize globally. We just have no role in changing it. Hopefully, the local people will tire of being treated like children by their government.