NationStates Jolt Archive

linky (http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/story.html?id=e36d1494-3db5-4ae8-88cf-d7cb5cdc4d7f&k=18067)

A controversial bill adopted by France's lower house of parliament Tuesday could be a watershed in the worldwide fight against eating disorders.

Should the bill become law after going to the Senate in the coming weeks, it would make it illegal for anyone -- including magazines, websites and advertisers -- to publicly promote extreme thinness or unhealthy methods of dropping a few dress sizes.

The groundbreaking bill is the most drastic in a series of related measures sparked by the 2006 anorexia-linked death of Brazilian model Ana Carolina Reston.

According to the bill's author, the legislation is primarily aimed at pro-anorexia websites. But it would also give judges licence to sanction those responsible for any public photo spread of a model whose thinness altered his or her health. Punishments for violations would include jail time of up to two years and a maximum fine of 30,000 euros (about $48,000). In cases where a victim died of an eating disorder, imprisonment increases to three years, with 45,000 euros (about $72,000) in fines.

Now I support the recent moves to weed out underage and underweight models from the fashion industry (still not as wide-spread as it should be IMO), and I think the pro-ana websites are...disgusting. But I'm not sure that criminalising it is an effective method of combating eating disorders.

Thoughts?

(edit: I was so hungry I ate the 'L')

Moar sites:
Australia to follow suit? Naaaa. (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/call-to-ban-anorexia-websites/2008/04/16/1208025283081.html)
What about acceptance of obesity? (http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=a73a5fec-c844-479a-bade-cc44d6ca8d0d&k=38783)

I pretty much agree with you except for the eating of the 'L'. That was disgusting and immoral.

linky (http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/story.html?id=e36d1494-3db5-4ae8-88cf-d7cb5cdc4d7f&k=18067)



Now I support the recent moves to weed out underage and underweight models from the fashion industry (still not as wide-spread as it should be IMO), and I think the pro-ana websites are...disgusting. But I'm not sure that criminalising it is an effective method of combating eating disorders.

Thoughts?

(edit: I was so hungry I ate the 'L')I can see how banning and removing advice on how to stay thin will reduce anorexia. What other incentive can one put up to prevent peer pressure in the various media other than criminalizing it?

But how does one dissuade those who promote anorexia?

Crap, Laerody beat me to it

linky (http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/story.html?id=e36d1494-3db5-4ae8-88cf-d7cb5cdc4d7f&k=18067)



Now I support the recent moves to weed out underage and underweight models from the fashion industry (still not as wide-spread as it should be IMO), and I think the pro-ana websites are...disgusting. But I'm not sure that criminalising it is an effective method of combating eating disorders.

Thoughts?

This is a ridiculous bill and if the law gets passed, France will be the laughing stock of the entire European Union. Granted, eating disorders are no laughing matter, but education is the key element here, not criminalizing if magazines and advertisements showcase very thin models. Educate, educate, educate.

This is a ridiculous bill and if the law gets passed, France will be the laughing stock of the entire European Union.
I dunno, Italy's going to take some beating in terms of being the EU's laughing stock :p

But yeah, this is crazy. Ah well.

Thoughts?[/url]

None. Though a model named Ana dying of anorexia seems... fitting.

I can see how banning and removing advice on how to stay thin will reduce anorexia. What other incentive can one put up to prevent peer pressure in the various media other than criminalizing it?

Well, let's take a look at it. Is anorexia illegal? No. So the websites promoting it aren't doing anything wrong.

So one could argue.

Alternatively, eating disorders like anorexia and bulimia have been characterised as mental illnesses, in which case, these websites still aren't doing anything wrong.

Shoule we criminalise religious resources which encourage people with mental illnesses to seek exorcism, or other 'spiritual' treatments rather than medications?

What about websites that give you suicide tips? Or tips on becoming obese?

As well I'm entirely unclear how this is going to help when it comes to the internet...since many of these websites will not fall under French jurisdiction. Will there be a penalty for viewing them, hosting them, allowing access to them etc?

Crap, Laerody beat me to it
>=D

France will be the laughing stock of the entire European Union.
Then France will pass a law making it illegal to laugh at the French.

This is a ridiculous bill and if the law gets passed, France will be the laughing stock of the entire European Union. Granted, eating disorders are no laughing matter, but education is the key element here, not criminalizing if magazines and advertisements showcase very thin models. Educate, educate, educate.

Unfortunately kids tend to value the contents of magazines far more than what they are told at school.

This is a ridiculous bill and if the law gets passed, France will be the laughing stock of the entire European Union. Granted, eating disorders are no laughing matter, but education is the key element here, not criminalizing if magazines and advertisements showcase very thin models. Educate, educate, educate.

Then again, we don't just expect minors to not drink of their own, educated free will...we criminalise it...

:D I think this might work

the french can always drag up their dislike of the british by pointing at Victoria Beckham in england and say "this is a criminal"

nice to know that Victoria beckham/posh spice/skeletal spice can no longer legally step into france:D

"im sorry miss, france is a 1st world contry, no starving 3-rd world look-a-likes allowed"

Well, let's take a look at it. Is anorexia illegal? No. So the websites promoting it aren't doing anything wrong.Is suicide? And is promoting suicide illegal?
Also, websites promoting starvation are doing something wrong. Period. The question is only about whether it should be illegal.
So one could argue.

Alternatively, eating disorders like anorexia and bulimia have been characterised as mental illnesses, in which case, these websites still aren't doing anything wrong. You're not going to make a mental disorder any better by providing advice on how to most effectively pursue it, nor by glorifying it.
Shoule we criminalise religious resources which encourage people with mental illnesses to seek exorcism, or other 'spiritual' treatments rather than medications?They're not criminalized? That must be ammended.
What about websites that give you suicide tips? Or tips on becoming obese?Same.

Maybe anyone who puts up a photo spread of an obese person who had a heart attack should get fined, too.

I can see how banning and removing advice on how to stay thin will reduce anorexia. What other incentive can one put up to prevent peer pressure in the various media other than criminalizing it?

I think that putting it in the news that people can be arrested for promoting that lifestyle would be one way for people to get the fact about it being bad out there. There will also be less role models for the potentially anorexic to look up to, so in the long run, that should also decrease its prevalence over time. Education is really an effective tool, this is just an extension of it.

Alternatively, eating disorders like anorexia and bulimia have been characterised as mental illnesses, in which case, these websites still aren't doing anything wrong.

Ah, untrue. Because if indeed anorexia and bulimia ARE mental illnesses, then it is possible to argue that the people suffering from these illnesses lack the capacity to make informed choices about their 'treatment' (or lack thereof). As well, since many people suffering from eating-disorders are underage, this can be characterised as an attempt to protect minors who also are deemed to lack the capacity to make fully informed decisions.

It is not just a situation of promoting unsafe behaviour...it is a situation of targeting the mentally ill, or underage children (or both) and exploiting their inability to make rational choices.

I'm not sure I agree with myself.

They're not criminalized? That must be ammended.


Yikes! What about books describing how to make bombs, list pharmaceuticals and their lethal doses, how about pamphlets with recipes for drink mixes?

At what point does one say...censoring this is getting out of hand?

Who will this bill be aimed at? The big media corporations will generaly have good representation if they are ever brought before the law and will probably play their defense on the vagueness of the term 'too thin'.

The other target group, the pro-ana sites, are usualy run by depressed teenage girls who have to cope with these problems themselves. This bill will probably do little to scare them off. Also, it resembles the 'crackdown' on illegal mp3 distribution, which usualy came down to branding 13 year old teenage boys in their mom's basements as criminals.

Rehab centers would probably be the best - educate first and then if someone shows signs, send them to rehab where they can get intensive education. The whole prohibition thing never really seems to work very well.

Who will this bill be aimed at? The big media corporations will generaly have good representation if they are ever brought before the law and will probably play their defense on the vagueness of the term 'too thin'.

BMI can be quite useful there.
Besides, calling a woman of normal height weighing 25 kg "not too thin" will be hard.

The other target group, the pro-ana sites, are usualy run by depressed teenage girls who have to cope with these problems themselves.

"Cope with" is not the same as "glorifying". Which is what pro-ana sites do.

I dunno, Italy's going to take some beating in terms of being the EU's laughing stock :p

But yeah, this is crazy. Ah well.

LOL!
It's just that it's ridiculous to criminalize something like promoting anorexia. As another member already stated, how the heck are we going to persuade those who promote anorexia? How do we know they're promoting it. I know of people that decide that the best way to drop a few pounds is by inducing vomit and no one else has told them to do that.

And now that we're on the topic, if fashion magazines are going to be fined for putting thin models on their pages, then, those movies that deal with eating disorder cases should be fined too. Aren't they promoting, in their visuals, anorexia and bulimia? Hm? It's a cycle. That's why I say that education is better.

I'm also aware that airhead teenagers usually pay more attention to magazines than to what's on text books but still. Educate. And of course, society should stop being so friggin' vain for that matter.

Yikes! What about books describing how to make bombs, list pharmaceuticals and their lethal doses, how about pamphlets with recipes for drink mixes?

At what point does one say...censoring this is getting out of hand?When it poses serious harm and has no beneficial reason. Listing lethal doses can be used to avoid them. Recipes for drink mixes aren't as harmful as starving yourself. Making bombs... I seriously can't see a legitimate reason for the Anarchist Cookbook.

Then France will pass a law making it illegal to laugh at the French.

Made me think of that episode of the Simpsons when the French nuke Springfield, and they all laugh like giant frogs.

BMI can be quite useful there.
Besides, calling a woman of normal height weighing 25 kg "not too thin" will be hard.



"Cope with" is not the same as "glorifying". Which is what pro-ana sites do.

A good point there, concerning the BMI. But when referring to the girls who run those sites, I didn't mean they're not doing anything wrong: I'm just saying a €71.000 fine isn't going to help them, and this bill isn't going to stop them either.

This is a ridiculous bill and if the law gets passed, France will be the laughing stock of the entire European Union. Granted, eating disorders are no laughing matter, but education is the key element here, not criminalizing if magazines and advertisements showcase very thin models. Educate, educate, educate.
This.

It's a shame that everything which 'might' cost a little more money is handled with just another law which just won't be enforced anyways.
And then the politicians come and brag 'see I did stuff'. It's terrible.

Rehab centers would probably be the best - educate first and then if someone shows signs, send them to rehab where they can get intensive education. The whole prohibition thing never really seems to work very well.End of pipe solutions are shitty solutions and tend to be more expensive or work intensive than preventive measures.

A good point there, concerning the BMI. But when referring to the girls who run those sites, I didn't mean they're not doing anything wrong: I'm just saying a €71.000 fine isn't going to help them, and this bill isn't going to stop them either.It can reduce the amount of people they encourage, if the site is taken down.

And now that we're on the topic, if fashion magazines are going to be fined for putting thin models on their pages, then, those movies that deal with eating disorder cases should be fined too. Aren't they promoting, in their visuals, anorexia and bulimia? Hm? It's a cycle. That's why I say that education is better.
Interesting...I guess it would hinge on the definition of 'promoting'. If the character, with an eating disorder, was shown only in a bad light, there wouldn't be much of a case...but what if you were sympathetic to the character? Started to like him or her? Would that be promotion?

A good point there, concerning the BMI. But when referring to the girls who run those sites, I didn't mean they're not doing anything wrong: I'm just saying a €71.000 fine isn't going to help them, and this bill isn't going to stop them either.

Also a valid point.

But what to do ? The problem is that people with anorexia in general do not simply believe that being ultrathin is beautiful and well worth risking death. That can be a subjective opinion and I could respect such beliefs, though would not allow children the freedom to act on them.

What they believe is that they are fat. No matter how thin they are, they think they are far fatter than other women and therefor (in their thoughts) uglier. That is a big difference.

Interesting...I guess it would hinge on the definition of 'promoting'. If the character, with an eating disorder, was shown only in a bad light, there wouldn't be much of a case...but what if you were sympathetic to the character? Started to like him or her? Would that be promotion?

That's the thing. If they're going to penalize the promotion of eating disorders, they would have to penalize both the bad promotion and the good one. It's still promoting, no matter how you look at it. If the French government passes this bill they're going to have to carefully state what's considered eating disorder promotion.

What about fad diets? Not even pro-ana websites, but 'the grapefruit diet' or 'the water diet' or whatever. If the legislation is aimed at all unhealthy weight loss, what could the impact be on these sorts of 'resources'?


Ugh, just googling pro-ana websites...."for people who accept those with anorexia and bulimia"...argh.

I know I shouldn't necessarily get caught up in the content of these pro-ana sites but lordy:

Suggestions on hiding your eating disorder!?
If you plan to say you stopped by a fast-food place or restaurant, be sure to take out several dollars from your wallet (or wherever you keep it) and hide them someplace they won't be discovered. Be sure also to stop and wait for about the amount of time it would have taken to eat the food before going home, and know what you supposedly ordered. The money you hide can be saved up as a reward.

Spend different meals with different groups of people, tell them all that you had a big meal earlier or will be eating something later on. Make sure the different people will not be comparing notes. Or plan your schedule so you're too busy at mealtimes to eat then.

Trash. Watch where you dispose of uneaten food or other "evidence", make sure that it isn't going to be seen or found by anyone. Wrap food up and throw it away outside the house. If you live alone, always take the trash out before anyone else comes over.

Buy food. People are fairly predictable. If they see you buy food and come home with food, then they just naturally assume that you eat it as well. Get things like crackers and cookies and dried fruits, keep them in your room, and carefully pack them out again later to throw away. Careful, this can be a little dangerous if you're prone to binging and have trouble keeping food around, or if you feel guilty about throwing food away. If the food's something you don't like and won't binge on this may be easier to do.

Don't get angry. Don't deny everything if confronted. People will believe a little truth with a big lie much easier than a huge lie. Act as if it's no big deal instead of reacting emotionally and people will tend to believe you.

Tell people you're on a diet, you became a vegetarian, your doctor has you eating only certain things, whatever. Often people will be very helpful in keeping you from eating if they think there's a socially acceptable reason for it.

That's the thing. If they're going to penalize the promotion of eating disorders, they would have to penalize both the bad promotion and the good one. It's still promoting, no matter how you look at it. If the French government passes this bill they're going to have to carefully state what's considered eating disorder promotion.No it's not. Promotion has a pro in it for a reason. "Bad promotion" is called discouragement.

Their definitions seem vague. Anorexics don't see themselves as being unhealthy, so they will have to have a specific definition of what constitutes unhealthiness.

Ok, what about fat-acceptance movements? On the other extreme of things are those sites which actively promote acceptance of 'fat people'. Just like you can be skinnier than normal AND healthy, you can be a lot bigger than normal and be healthy. But it's not the norm, and it's not a huge percentage on either side that actually ARE healthy.

For example you have NAAFA (the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance)

Its purpose:

Work towards providing equal opportunity for fat people wherever obstacles and/or discrimination exist.

Disseminate information about the sociological, psychological, legal, medical, and physiological aspects of being fat.

Advocate and sponsor responsible research about the various aspects of being fat.

Empower the large number of people regarded by the medical profession as "obese" to accept themselves, to live more fulfilling lives, and to promote acceptance of fat people within society.

Should this be illegal as well?

No it's not. Promotion has a pro in it for a reason. "Bad promotion" is called discouragement.

Yes, it is. Specially if you get a person that sympathaizes with anorexia or bulimia (ex: the ana-websites). I'm not saying those movies based on eating disorder cases are bad. But if the French are going to pass a law, and I stress the if, they will have to clearly state what, according to the law, is promotion and what, according to their goals, is discouragement.

It feels odd to make things like this illegal, since although it's a mental illness it's there own choice to do those things.
1 Thing I REALLY ponder about, is why the héll anorexia-style models are even popular in fashion-land, it doesn't even let there clothes look good nor representative. It really amazes me why it's such a hype, can anyone explain it?

Their definitions seem vague. Anorexics don't see themselves as being unhealthy, so they will have to have a specific definition of what constitutes unhealthiness.

Not having the legislation in hand, it's impossible to know if these terms are defined...one would assume they would be...including the term 'promotion'.

No it's not. Promotion has a pro in it for a reason. "Bad promotion" is called discouragement.

While I agree for the most part, and assume that 'promotion' will be thoroughly defined...look at movies where there is smoking. Even when the characters are unsympathetic, having those people smoking is still considered by many to be the promotion of that particular habit.

Although if you had a movie about someone dying horribly of smoking-related cancer, it'd be a tough argument to make that it was still promotion.

End of pipe solutions are shitty solutions and tend to be more expensive or work intensive than preventive measures.

I proposed a full circle solution - start with education, end with rehab if education didn't work. I don't see how education is not a preventative measure. I don't see how rehab isn't a preventative measure.

You are proposing the true end of pipe disaster of bureaucracy gone wild with fines/jail. How are laws preventative when people ignore them?

making drugs illegal hasn't stopped drug sells, drug use or information on how to get/make drugs.

making alcohol illegal didn't stop alcohol sales, use or information on how to get/make alcohol.

making suicide illegal - same

it sure did help the black market to make money though while filling up our jails unnecessarily (well not suicide)

I see the same fate for this law were it to pass. Illegal activities are much more exciting and easier to drive underground and make money from (weight loss pills) and harder to educate on because it becomes taboo to talk about things openly and replaced with government sanctioned literature.

anorexia (like drug/alcohol use, and suicide) really only physically hurts the person taking part in it. People should have a right to live unhealthy lives and harm themselves if they choose as long as they don't infringe on another persons right to live a healthy life. I should be able to take drugs provided I don't drive while on them. I should be allowed to commit suicide if I am so mentally tortured that I don't wish to live anymore. I's my life after all. If I want to eat until I am obese or not eat until I am rail thin, then that is my choice and I will suffer the consequences health wise, relationship wise and whatever else wise. You might say that there will be a financial cost to society in the health sector but a recent study found that healthy people cost more in teh long run because they live longer and end up needing the most expensive type of care.

It feels odd to make things like this illegal, since although it's a mental illness it's there own choice to do those things.
1 Thing I REALLY ponder about, is why the héll anorexia-style models are even popular in fashion-land, it doesn't even let there clothes look good nor representative. It really amazes me why it's such a hype, can anyone explain it?

It's the gay agenda. Most fashion designers are gay men, and they want their models to look as much like young boys as possible. In the meantime, they encourage women at large (hahaha) to also emaciate themselves, resulting if not in death, then generally in infertility or other long term health problems that will reduce the number of women available to hetersexual men, causing said heterosexual men to start beefing up in order to attract homosexual men.

It's a glorious, and brilliant scheme.

Ok, what about fat-acceptance movements? On the other extreme of things are those sites which actively promote acceptance of 'fat people'. Just like you can be skinnier than normal AND healthy, you can be a lot bigger than normal and be healthy. But it's not the norm, and it's not a huge percentage on either side that actually ARE healthy.

For example you have NAAFA (the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance)

Its purpose:


Should this be illegal as well?Are they encouraging people to become unhealthily fat or stay fat?
Yes, it is. Specially if you get a person that sympathaizes with anorexia or bulimia (ex: the ana-websites). I'm not saying those movies based on eating disorder cases are bad. But if the French are going to pass a law, and I stress the if, they will have to clearly state what, according to the law, is promotion and what, according to their goals, is discouragement.Promotion is not discouragement. You can argue semantics all you want, but "The Hole" simply doesn't promote bulimia, no matter how you twist the definition of the word "promote".

Promotion is the act of advertising or encouraging something. Discouraging someone from engaging in said act is therefore not promotion.

Are they encouraging people to become unhealthily fat or stay fat?


While I understand the distinction I'm not entirely sure it's all that important.

Being obese is unhealthy, period. Whether you become obsese as a result of these websites, or refuse to do anything about your obesity, the fact is, you are going to be unhealthy.

The pro-ana websites can both encourage you to become too skinny, or to remain so if you already are. Not all that qualitatively different from the pro-fat websites.

Where are all the rabid 'don't criminalise anything the free market is God' Usians?

Are they encouraging people to become unhealthily fat or stay fat?
Promotion is not discouragement. You can argue semantics all you want, but "The Hole" simply doesn't promote bulimia, no matter how you twist the definition of the word "promote".

Promotion is the act of advertising or encouraging something. Discouraging someone from engaging in said act is therefore not promotion.

I'm not discussing semantics with you. I'm telling you that there's a loophole here. They're crimilazing eating disorder encouragment, and movies can be viewed as advertising and, in twisted cases, promoting the disorder. Are you reading properly what's been stated in the OP?

I proposed a full circle solution - start with education, end with rehab if education didn't work. I don't see how education is not a preventative measure. I don't see how rehab isn't a preventative measure.You're stretching the meaning of "preventative". While education is a preventative measure, rehab will never be, as it comes after the damage is done. Flue gas scrubbers in coal power plants are not preventative measures either, despite the fact that they prevent harmful compounds from being emitted. They are end of pipe treatment measures because they attempt to lessen the damage done.
You are proposing the true end of pipe disaster of bureaucracy gone wild with fines/jail. How are laws preventative when people ignore them?Up until now it hasn't been illegal to promote anorexia, so people haven't really been ignoring them. The preventative act is on behalf of the people that would otherwise be influenced by the information they see or read, not the disseminator.

making drugs illegal hasn't stopped drug sells, drug use or information on how to get/make drugs.

making alcohol illegal didn't stop alcohol sales, use or information on how to get/make alcohol.

making suicide illegal - sameMaking it illegal to advertise drugs, alcohol, cigarettes or suicide, on the other hand...

The law isn't about making anorexia illegal, its about making encouraging anorexia illegal, which it currently isn't. It's closer to making ads for cigarettes illegal, which I'm pretty sure has had a negative impact on the promotion of smoking.

Don't criminalize ANYTHING - the free market is GOD!:fluffle:

Don't criminalize ANYTHING - the free market is GOD!:fluffle:

Muahahahhaahhah!

Man NSG is slow...is every else writing finals too?

I'm not discussing semantics with you. I'm telling you that there's a loophole here. That is a semantics discussion, my dear. Discussing the potential meanings of words is the purest form of semantics.

Muahahahhaahhah!

Man NSG is slow...is every else writing finals too?Nah. I'm only into my second week of classes.

Don't criminalize ANYTHING - the free market is GOD!:fluffle:
Err, no.

You don't want people being completely lost to substance abuse, because that's happened to me and it's just utterly tragic. Which doesn't help anyone, whatsover, and lowers morale all over the place.

You're stretching the meaning of "preventative". While education is a preventative measure, rehab will never be, as it comes after the damage is done. Flue gas scrubbers in coal power plants are not preventative measures either, despite the fact that they prevent harmful compounds from being emitted. They are end of pipe treatment measures because they attempt to lessen the damage done.
Up until now it hasn't been illegal to promote anorexia, so people haven't really been ignoring them. The preventative act is on behalf of the people that would otherwise be influenced by the information they see or read, not the disseminator.

Making it illegal to advertise drugs, alcohol, cigarettes or suicide, on the other hand...

The law isn't about making anorexia illegal, its about making encouraging anorexia illegal, which it currently isn't. It's closer to making ads for cigarettes illegal, which I'm pretty sure has had a negative impact on the promotion of smoking.


Rebab often prevents people from doing the same thing again. Sounds preventative to me. More so than jail or fines.

Do you propose that any movie producers where somebody is enjoying drugs or alcohol should be fined? Does real life need to be censored to where we cant talk about how we feel openly since the government doesn't like it because some church group got it banned (or whatever)?

I don't see how you could draw clear lines on what is promotion and what is just merely talking about something.

Blog entry: "When I was younger I was anorexic and I had the most amazing body at the time." Promotion or recount of an experience? Should the person who wrote that be fined or jailed?

While I understand the distinction I'm not entirely sure it's all that important.

Being obese is unhealthy, period. Whether you become obsese as a result of these websites, or refuse to do anything about your obesity, the fact is, you are going to be unhealthy.

The pro-ana websites can both encourage you to become too skinny, or to remain so if you already are. Not all that qualitatively different from the pro-fat websites.It is qualitatively different due to the differences in social acceptance between anorexia and obesity. While both share a bad influence on health, they aren't really comparable due to social values tacked onto both states.

Ok, what about fat-acceptance movements? On the other extreme of things are those sites which actively promote acceptance of 'fat people'. Just like you can be skinnier than normal AND healthy, you can be a lot bigger than normal and be healthy. But it's not the norm, and it's not a huge percentage on either side that actually ARE healthy.

Again: there is a vast difference between saying

"thin/big is beautiful and I like to be it, so stop bitching to me about my weight"

and

"OMG - I weigh 20 kg ! I am so fat ! Noone is honest to me, they all laugh behind my back about my fatness ! I must secretly puke everything out to be loved !"

One is making a life choice. The other one is a mental disorder. Promoting the second is not good.

How exactly does one determine if something is "promoting extreme thiness?" Subjective and broadly worded censorship laws invite abuse, by leaving the door wide open for frivolous lawsuits and prosecutions. That, and censorship is generally a bad idea. Very dark paths begin with well-intentioned first stepps. This is probably going to cause problems similar to Canada's hate speech laws: overzelllous prosecutions, exploitation of the law for personal agendas, and state interference in the media, including, potentialy, journallistic coverage of eating disorders. I admit that these consequences probably won't be very noticable or dramatic for most people, but that doesn't make this any better an idea. I would opose this ill-consieved law on principal, regardless of practical coonsequences.

Err, no.

You don't want people being completely lost to substance abuse, because that's happened to me and it's just utterly tragic. Which doesn't help anyone, whatsover, and lowers morale all over the place.

You can't protect people from it with laws against it. Iif they want to do it, they will find a way. There are better ways to urge people to avoid things. Like if you want to stop people from smoking meth, show them pictures of meth mouth.

Rebab often prevents people from doing the same thing again. Sounds preventative to me. More so than jail or fines.Yes. But as I said, you're stretching the definition of "preventative measure" to cover something it is not. I'm all in favor of rehab, just not in favor of mislabelling it as preventative.
Do you propose that any movie producers where somebody is enjoying drugs or alcohol should be fined? Does real life need to be censored to where we cant talk about how we feel openly since the government doesn't like it because some church group got it banned (or whatever)?If it's shown in a positive light, it certainly shouldn't be taken lightly.
I don't see how you could draw clear lines on what is promotion and what is just merely talking about something. You can't. The line is fuzzy and it moves. Promoting anorexia clearly falls onto the bad side of that line, though.
Blog entry: "When I was younger I was anorexic and I had the most amazing body at the time." Promotion or recount of an experience? Should the person who wrote that be fined or jailed?Is that it? Does said person give advice or encouragement concerning becoming anorexic or do they admit it was a mistake?

That is a semantics discussion, my dear. Discussing the potential meanings of words is the purest form of semantics.

Just for future reference, Laerod, I find dear, sweetheart, sugar, dearie, missy and lovey patronizing and therefore, unsuitable for proper debate. So, if you would be so kind as to refrain from using them when addressing me, I'd really appreciate it.;)

If it seemed like I was discussing the meaning of words, sorry, that wasn't what I intended to do. My intention was to point out the loophole in this ridiculous bill.

Penalizing the endorsement of eating disorders is laughable, at best, because people, those who are desperate enough, will do it no matter what. And it's subjective too. If a magazine is going to be fined for presenting an awfully thin model, wouldn't presenting the methods of bulimia and anorexia on a movie be the same as endorsement?

To sick minds, and anorexics and bulimics are sick, these two conditions are mental illnesses, these movies might be more of a motive to keep engaging in purging, binging and refusal to eat than means to prevent it.

Again: there is a vast difference between saying

"thin/big is beautiful and I like to be it, so stop bitching to me about my weight"

and

"OMG - I weigh 20 kg ! I am so fat ! Noone is honest to me, they all laugh behind my back about my fatness ! I must secretly puke everything out to be loved !"

One is making a life choice. The other one is a mental disorder. Promoting the second is not good.
What about 'all these women are thin and it's beautiful', full stop?

Some pro-ana sites are just pictures of anorexic women. Examples of life choices.

You can't protect people from it with laws against it. Iif they want to do it, they will find a way. There are better ways to urge people to avoid things. Like if you want to stop people from smoking meth, show them pictures of meth mouth.It's not about urging people to avoid things, its about preventing people from urging them to do things.

You can't protect people from it with laws against it. Iif they want to do it, they will find a way. There are better ways to urge people to avoid things. Like if you want to stop people from smoking meth, show them pictures of meth mouth.
Prohibition makes it harder for people to start, which is important. As to Crystal Meth, that's a poor man's crack, so nobody uses it here. The friend in question has moved on from cannabis to heroin, which is a complete tragedy.

As to showing pictures and such - nobody cares if they're doing it, and if you show such things to teenagers, they'll laugh about it, because we're like that.

It feels odd to make things like this illegal, since although it's a mental illness it's there own choice to do those things.
1 Thing I REALLY ponder about, is why the héll anorexia-style models are even popular in fashion-land, it doesn't even let there clothes look good nor representative. It really amazes me why it's such a hype, can anyone explain it?

They want the model to look as unhuman as possible. Fashion models are our alien overlords.

How exactly does one determine if something is "promoting extreme thiness?" Subjective and broadly worded censorship laws invite abuse, by leaving the door wide open for frivolous lawsuits and prosecutions.
This is not a problem everywhere in the world you know.


That, and censorship is generally a bad idea. Very dark paths begin with well-intentioned first stepps. This is probably going to cause problems similar to Canada's hate speech laws:
There are no hate speech laws in Canada, you've been misinformed.

Anorexics need help, not prison time. Criminalizing this behavior will have more bad consequences than good.

Not having the legislation in hand, it's impossible to know if these terms are defined...one would assume they would be...including the term 'promotion'.Most likely they would - I'm concerned that they'd pick a poor definition to use though. As Bottle is fond of pointing out, the BMI is bullshit, but yet some people still view it as valid. It would be highly unfortunate if French lawmakers were among these people.

I lol'd.

What about 'all these women are thin and it's beautiful', full stop?

Some pro-ana sites are just pictures of anorexic women. Examples of life choices.

No problem with that, though as I said I would forbid children to make this life choice until they are adults.

Most likely they would - I'm concerned that they'd pick a poor definition to use though. As Bottle is fond of pointing out, the BMI is bullshit, but yet some people still view it as valid. It would be highly unfortunate if French lawmakers were among these people.

I think, since they would be mostly looking at portrayals (pictures of extremely thin women for example) and advice (how to starve yourself), that 'promotion' will not hinge on BMI alone.

No problem with that, though as I said I would forbid children to make this life choice until they are adults.

To be clear. It's okay, in your mind, to passively show pictures of anorexic women who have made lifestyle choices.

Then why is it a big deal to provide details as to how these women went about making said lifestyle choice? They don't have to say 'you should do this.' What about simply saying, 'I did this, this was my choice, look how I turned out'.

Is that okay too?

Just for future reference, Laerod, I find dear, sweetheart, sugar, dearie, missy and lovey patronizing and therefore, unsuitable for proper debate. So, if you would be so kind as to refrain from using them when addressing me, I'd really appreciate it.;)Noted.
If it seemed like I was discussing the meaning of words, sorry, that wasn't what I intended to do. My intention was to point out the loophole in this ridiculous bill. I didn't see a copy of the bill, so discussing its wording is not something we can do.
Penalizing the endorsement of eating disorders is laughable, at best, because people, those who are desperate enough, will do it no matter what. And it's subjective too. If a magazine is going to be fined for presenting an awfully thin model, wouldn't presenting the methods of bulimia and anorexia on a movie be the same as endorsement? Showcasing a thing model in beautiful clothing is encouragement while watching Keira Knightly puke blood and die is not. It depends on in what light it is presented.
To sick minds, and anorexics and bulimics are sick, these two conditions are mental illnesses, these movies might be more of a motive to keep engaging in purging, binging and refusal to eat than means to prevent it.Showing someone suffer from anorexia and bulimia will be less encouraging than making it seem normal.

Also a valid point.

But what to do ? The problem is that people with anorexia in general do not simply believe that being ultrathin is beautiful and well worth risking death. That can be a subjective opinion and I could respect such beliefs, though would not allow children the freedom to act on them.

What they believe is that they are fat. No matter how thin they are, they think they are far fatter than other women and therefor (in their thoughts) uglier. That is a big difference.

I agree!
There is a huge difference between a skinny girl who wants to get skinnier and does so using methods that are unhealthy. and an anorexic who has a panic attack if she gets too close to a piece of cheese.

Yes. But as I said, you're stretching the definition of "preventative measure" to cover something it is not. I'm all in favor of rehab, just not in favor of mislabelling it as preventative.
If it's shown in a positive light, it certainly shouldn't be taken lightly.
You can't. The line is fuzzy and it moves. Promoting anorexia clearly falls onto the bad side of that line, though.
Is that it? Does said person give advice or encouragement concerning becoming anorexic or do they admit it was a mistake?


Prevention from recurrence is a preventative measure. Simple as that.

What if it's a documentary about hippy's and shows them all smoking pot and taking acid and laughing hysterically, having "Love Ins' and dancing to some groovy music? It's not a documentary about the effects of drugs, but just a part of the story about what hippy's were doing.

In the blog, imagine that was the extent of it. They are showing a positive effect in their mind of the anorexia. It looks like it could be encouraging to me (the resulting amazing body), especially since they never say anything bad about it. Fine them or no?

I agree!
There is a huge difference between a skinny girl who wants to get skinnier and does so using methods that are unhealthy. and an anorexic who has a panic attack if she gets too close to a piece of cheese.
A huge difference? Really?

When both situations can lead to health problems? When both situations are admitedly unhealthy period? I'm sorry, I'm not seeing the huge difference between the two. Two girls, skinny to an unhealthy degree.

A huge difference? Really?

When both situations can lead to health problems? When both situations are admitedly unhealthy period? I'm sorry, I'm not seeing the huge difference between the two. Two girls, skinny to an unhealthy degree.

One is anorexia it is a psycological disorder. One is an unhealthy choice.

Also a valid point.

But what to do ? The problem is that people with anorexia in general do not simply believe that being ultrathin is beautiful and well worth risking death. That can be a subjective opinion and I could respect such beliefs, though would not allow children the freedom to act on them.

What they believe is that they are fat. No matter how thin they are, they think they are far fatter than other women and therefor (in their thoughts) uglier. That is a big difference.
Plenty of healthy women think they are far fatter than other women and therefore uglier. Thinking you are fat isn't the important distinction here.

Women risk dangerous surgeries to improve their looks. Should this be criminalised as well?

Let industry promote what it wants. Let people get smart enough not to buy it.

One is anorexia it is a psycological disorder. One is an unhealthy choice.

A psychological disorder that may or may not have genetic links, which is nonetheless triggered by the changes in the body of a person who is using prolonged, unhealthy methods to lose weight.

Both are unhealthy choices, both can lead to psychological disorder. You lack the ability to truly know that one of them wouldn't develop said disorder. It is more likely that they both would.

Let industry promote what it wants. Let people get smart enough not to buy it.

Anorexia as darwinism in practice?

Prevention from recurrence is a preventative measure. Simple as that. Nope. But I'd rather not get into another semantics pissing match, so lets not discuss that further.
What if it's a documentary about hippy's and shows them all smoking pot and taking acid and laughing hysterically, having "Love Ins' and dancing to some groovy music? It's not a documentary about the effects of drugs, but just a part of the story about what hippy's were doing.Inside the fuzzy line.
In the blog, imagine that was the extent of it. They are showing a positive effect in their mind of the anorexia. It looks like it could be encouraging to me (the resulting amazing body), especially since they never say anything bad about it. Fine them or no?Too little evidence to judge. Since that was the extent of it, that's what it is.

Let industry promote what it wants. Let people get smart enough not to buy it.
Bit optimistic, aren't we?

There's dysgenics going on at the moment in certain countries such as the US and Denmark, which is causing people to actually get stupider generation on generation. People will not get smart enough not to buy stuff, quite the opposite.

Maybe my problem is with the concept of "promote," but the thin style of Anime should be allowed.

A controversial bill adopted by France's lower house of parliament Tuesday could be a watershed in the worldwide fight against eating disorders.

Should the bill become law after going to the Senate in the coming weeks, it would make it illegal for anyone -- including magazines, websites and advertisers -- to publicly promote extreme thinness or unhealthy methods of dropping a few dress sizes.

The groundbreaking bill is the most drastic in a series of related measures sparked by the 2006 anorexia-linked death of Brazilian model Ana Carolina Reston.

According to the bill's author, the legislation is primarily aimed at pro-anorexia websites. But it would also give judges licence to sanction those responsible for any public photo spread of a model whose thinness altered his or her health. Punishments for violations would include jail time of up to two years and a maximum fine of 30,000 euros (about $48,000). In cases where a victim died of an eating disorder, imprisonment increases to three years, with 45,000 euros (about $72,000) in fines.

I agree with criminalising the positive portrayal by the media of unhealthily thin models and of the promotion of unhealthy weight loss techniques. It's a travesty that they are able to market this and promote it to an audience so vulnerable to peer pressures at a time when they are unsure of how they should look and what 'normal' is. The media has a frightening amount of power particularly to such a vulnerable audience, and I'm all for freedom of speech, but quite frankly the positive portrayal of excessive thinness is an abuse of power.

Banning the pro-ana websites, I assume here we are talking not about the media or corporations, but the forum type sites where anorexics join a community and meet similar sufferers.

Well a) even if you did ban them, they would just re-arise within a few days. The websites are a product of a community, and removing the websites simply means another will be created because the community is still present, and b) even if it were possible, I don't think banning the pro-ana websites is such a good idea as it is trying to ignore the problem. At least with the pro-ana websites it's out, well, fairly, in the open. Pushing the anorexic community underground will simply alienate them further. Many anorexics, when confronted with resistance and disapproval from their family and/or friends regarding their condition internalise it as part of who they are. They take on 'the rebel' or 'the maverick' as part of their identity, which strengthens the hold anorexia has on them. Banning the websites will simply perpetuate the impression that the anorexics are the rebels, now not only against their parents and/or friends but the very government itself. They will have to unite together and in their disorder against the resistance. The thrill of the illegality of logging on to a newly formed pro-ana website. Banning pro-ana webstes will exacerbate the problem by forcing it out of sight. The disorders of the individuals must be openly dealt with, and while I acknowledge that the pro-ana websites allow girls to swap techniques on how to decieve their families and therapists, and allow them to support each other in their unending quest of weight loss, and allowing them to find thinspiration together, banning the sites will not solve anything, and will make the girls feel even more alone. If a sufferer feels alone she is more likely to close up and become further away from the possibility of help.

To be clear. It's okay, in your mind, to passively show pictures of anorexic women who have made lifestyle choices.

Then why is it a big deal to provide details as to how these women went about making said lifestyle choice? They don't have to say 'you should do this.' What about simply saying, 'I did this, this was my choice, look how I turned out'.

Is that okay too?

Again: sure. I just have a problem with pro-ana sites that promote the "everybody lies to me when they say I am not fat" or "I will not be loved unless I am a skeleton" thinking. The ones that glorify the mental illness version and tell women not to seek help - that they in fact should hide from their loved ones.

Sites that promote honesty are fine.

A psychological disorder that may or may not have genetic links, which is nonetheless triggered by the changes in the body of a person who is using prolonged, unhealthy methods to lose weight.

Both are unhealthy choices, both can lead to psychological disorder. You lack the ability to truly know that one of them wouldn't develop said disorder. It is more likely that they both would.

First the person gets anorexia then the person stops eating. Not the other way around.

Often an anorexic wants to eat and they still can't bring them selves to do it. It is not a choice it is like an obsessive compulsive disorder.

Maybe my problem is with the concept of "promote," but the thin style of Anime should be allowed.

Ein?
How is this relevant to the topic?
Anime style is just that, anime art style. It doesn't translate into real life, unless you're talking about some crazy otaku girl that wants to look like Ayanami Rei or one of those Sailor Moon characters.:rolleyes:

Anorexia as darwinism in practice?Or outlaw the advertisement of alcohol, tobacco and fast-food. Cuz people might make unhealthy choices or develop a psychiatric problem. Like an eating disorder or addiction.

Prohibition makes it harder for people to start, which is important. As to Crystal Meth, that's a poor man's crack, so nobody uses it here. The friend in question has moved on from cannabis to heroin, which is a complete tragedy.

As to showing pictures and such - nobody cares if they're doing it, and if you show such things to teenagers, they'll laugh about it, because we're like that.

No prohibition makes it easier for kids to get drugs because the black market makes it profitable to criminals and criminals don't check for ID's. It also makes people with substance abuse problems too scared to come out about it.

Adults should have the right to do unhealthy things if they so choose. Friends and family interventions and rehab are more effective in combating these things than are fines and jail.

Good (not govt. approved propaganda) education early before people get into something unhealthy is effective. If someone is already into it then it's less effective, yes.

Also, I have gotten way more into this debate than I wished and I've gone off topic. So I've said my piece. I don't think this law is a good idea, the line is too fuzzy and can prevent free speech, plus it's just another bureaucratic nightmare waiting to happen. There are far more pressing matters to be dealt with.

No prohibition makes it easier for kids to get drugs because the black market makes it profitable to criminals and criminals don't check for ID's. It also makes people with substance abuse problems too scared to come out about it.
Simply untrue, it's a peice of piss to get a hold of alcohol etc. because it's perfectly legal for adults to buy, so you can tempt them with a tenner and an offer that they can keep the change if they get you a bottle of vodka or whatever.

Drug dealers are a different matter. For starters, you have to know one. Then you need to take the (fairly large) step of asking for what they have and what it costs, then come back with the money in a while, meet up with them etc. etc.

You sell weed in a shop, and you'll get a situation much like we currently have with alcohol and cigarettes.

First the person gets anorexia then the person stops eating. Not the other way around. Educate yourself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anorexia_nervosa#Diagnosis_and_clinical_features). It's important.

There is no single cause of anorexia or bulimia. One of the triggers of the disorder are the physical changes involved in losing weight rapidly. You do not 'get the disorder' and then stop eating. People who develop anorexia often have an eating disorder before the psychological disorder. It has been described as a feedback loop...you diet extremely, which results in cognitive flexibility (the inability to break out of a habit) leading to more dieting and more loss of cognitive flexibility.

Often an anorexic wants to eat and they still can't bring them selves to do it. It is not a choice it is like an obsessive compulsive disorder.
link (http://psychologytoday.com/conditions/anorexia.html)

Anorexia nervosa is an eating disorder characterized by refusal to stay at even the minimum body weight considered normal for the person's age and height. Other symptoms of the disorder include distorted body image and an intense fear of weight gain. Inadequate eating or excessive exercising results in severe weight loss. Eating disorders frequently develop during adolescence or early adulthood, but some reports indicate their onset can occur during childhood or later in adulthood. Anorexia nervosa is one of the two major types of eating disorders; the other is bulimia.

People with anorexia see themselves as overweight even though they are dangerously thin. The process of eating becomes an obsession to them. Unusual eating habits develop, such as avoiding what they perceive as high caloric food and meals, picking out a few foods and eating only these in small quantities, or carefully weighing and portioning food. People with anorexia may repeatedly check their body weight and many engage in other techniques to control their weight, such as intense and compulsive exercise or purging by means of vomiting and abuse of laxatives, enemas, and diuretics. Girls with anorexia often experience a delayed onset of their first menstrual period.

Eating disorders frequently co-occur with other psychiatric disorders, such as depression, substance abuse, and anxiety disorders. In addition, people who suffer from eating disorders can experience a wide range of physical health complications, including serious heart conditions and kidney failure, that may lead to death. Recognition of eating disorders as real and treatable diseases, therefore, is critically important.

Please explain to me how a severe eating disorder resulting in the same level of unhealth in a person is better than the above. You will be unable to, because inevitably, eating disorders are diagnosed as as psychological disorder. Most of them begin with the same maladaptive behaviour...eating less, obsessing over weight...and then spiral into worse habits. But they don't become eating disorders until those habits are no longer under the person's control.

Again: there is a vast difference between saying

"thin/big is beautiful and I like to be it, so stop bitching to me about my weight"
and
"OMG - I weigh 20 kg ! I am so fat ! Noone is honest to me, they all laugh behind my back about my fatness ! I must secretly puke everything out to be loved !"

One is making a life choice. The other one is a mental disorder. Promoting the second is not good.
To be clear. It's okay, in your mind, to passively show pictures of anorexic women who have made lifestyle choices.

Then why is it a big deal to provide details as to how these women went about making said lifestyle choice? They don't have to say 'you should do this.' What about simply saying, 'I did this, this was my choice, look how I turned out'.

Is that okay too?

Again: sure. I just have a problem with pro-ana sites that promote the "everybody lies to me when they say I am not fat" or "I will not be loved unless I am a skeleton" thinking. The ones that glorify the mental illness version and tell women not to seek help - that they in fact should hide from their loved ones.

Sites that promote honesty are fine.

Once again, I’m not seeing the ‘vast difference’ you speak of. In fact, I see very little difference at all except for the tone used. Even if the ‘hysterical’ tone is used, and that girls is just talking about her own experiences, there is little qualitative difference between her and the ‘passive portrayals’ I spoke of that you agree are fine.

Please point out to me the ‘vast difference’, where it lies and what it is comprised of.

I agree with all that Neesika. All those descriptions of anorexia are different than just not eating right despite the fact that you are already skinny. Maybe one will lead to the other but they are not the same.

I see the same fate for this law were it to pass. Illegal activities are much more exciting and easier to drive underground and make money from (weight loss pills) and harder to educate on because it becomes taboo to talk about things openly and replaced with government sanctioned literature.

anorexia (like drug/alcohol use, and suicide) really only physically hurts the person taking part in it. People should have a right to live unhealthy lives and harm themselves if they choose as long as they don't infringe on another persons right to live a healthy life. I should be able to take drugs provided I don't drive while on them. I should be allowed to commit suicide if I am so mentally tortured that I don't wish to live anymore. I's my life after all. If I want to eat until I am obese or not eat until I am rail thin, then that is my choice and I will suffer the consequences health wise, relationship wise and whatever else wise. You might say that there will be a financial cost to society in the health sector but a recent study found that healthy people cost more in teh long run because they live longer and end up needing the most expensive type of care.

This is a very difficult point to argue against.

It's not the anorexics who should be punished, as, like you say, it doesn't make sense to punish someone for whatever they want to do with their own body (yes, I know we don't generally adopt this mindset in law, ie laws on drugs, but I'm being idealistic NB I'm personally anti-recreational-drugs but that is a whole different issue) however it's the promotion of it by the media to an impressionable and vulnerable audience that should be criminalised and subsequently punished, not the sufferers themselves.

The law isn't about making anorexia illegal, its about making encouraging anorexia illegal, which it currently isn't. It's closer to making ads for cigarettes illegal, which I'm pretty sure has had a negative impact on the promotion of smoking.

Agreed.

And regarding the comparisons between pro-fat and pro-ana:

Again: there is a vast difference between saying

"thin/big is beautiful and I like to be it, so stop bitching to me about my weight"

and

"OMG - I weigh 20 kg ! I am so fat ! Noone is honest to me, they all laugh behind my back about my fatness ! I must secretly puke everything out to be loved !"

One is making a life choice. The other one is a mental disorder. Promoting the second is not good.

Well said. To be fair anorexia can be a lifestyle choice and obesity can in many cases be a disorder, depending on your point of view, but what is said above holds true to the majority concerned.

-------------

and

You can't protect people from it with laws against it. Iif they want to do it, they will find a way. There are better ways to urge people to avoid things. Like if you want to stop people from smoking meth, show them pictures of meth mouth.

Yes but you can discourage them from doing it by making it less available and being legally able to punish the dealers.

how could france do such a thing. promoting thinness. thats just asking for little girls to go home and become bulimic or anorexic. they should be setting the example of be healthy not ubber skinny. besides no one really likes an super thin girl.

Once again, I’m not seeing the ‘vast difference’ you speak of. In fact, I see very little difference at all except for the tone used. Even if the ‘hysterical’ tone is used, and that girls is just talking about her own experiences, there is little qualitative difference between her and the ‘passive portrayals’ I spoke of that you agree are fine.

Please point out to me the ‘vast difference’, where it lies and what it is comprised of.

In situation A one realises their judgement is merely subjective and is able to see the consequences of their actions. One realises other people indeed think they are too thin and that they are playing with their life, but decides it is worth it. That is fine for adults.

In situation B one thinks subjective and objective are identical and has a distorted view of reality. The decicision to get thinner and thinner is the result of this distorted view. Keeping that delusion alive is not allright.

Both situations can (and probably will) lead to selfharm. But in the first case that is a conscious choice.

how could france do such a thing. promoting thinness. thats just asking for little girls to go home and become bulimic or anorexic. they should be setting the example of be healthy not ubber skinny. besides no one really likes an super thin girl.

Buh??

In situation A one realises their judgement is merely subjective and is able to see the consequences of their actions. One realises other people indeed think they are too thin and that they are playing with their life, but decides it is worth it. That is fine for adults.

In situation B one thinks subjective and objective are identical and has a distorted view of reality. The decicision to get thinner and thinner is the result of this distorted view. Keeping that delusion alive is not allright.

Both situations can (and probably will) lead to selfharm. But in the first case that is a conscious choice.
You miss the point that after a while, physical changes due to lack of nutrition actually lead to psychological changes which cause a person to NOT be able to break out of their self-destructive habits. At some point, that can become anorexia, but even before that, it is an eating disorder, and not just a conscious choice that one can revoke without help.

No, new litigation is silly. However it is still immorall. peer presure is the best but, of course that's just my thoughts on the matter.

No, new litigation is silly. However it is still immorall. peer presure is the best but, of course that's just my thoughts on the matter.

What's with all the puppets?

I haven't read the full text of the proposed law so I can't make any judgements about how it would actually work. However, I think fining or jailing people with anorexia who take part in pro-ana sites is not particularly helpful. I'm more interested in how it might affect those who employ very thin models and would be interested to understand whether they should already be regulated under health & safety type rules.

Here are pictures of models who are being paid to look like this: http://www.mhariolincoln.jor.br/media/1/20061205-modelo_magra1.jpg
http://www.treatmentonline.com/blog/images/218.jpg

In my opinion, this is clearly promoting anorexia, since she is so obviously in a bad way at the same time that she is paraded around the catwalk as a supposedly beautiful woman. As far as I understand it, an employer must mitigate as many risks to the health of his employees as possible, must provide safety equipment, must not expose his employees to hazardous substances etc... Although some employees do take risks in the course of their work, such as firemen and police officers, is it reasonable to expect clothes horses to do so? (That is not meant to be derogatory to models, but to underline the difference in the impact of their jobs). Shouldn't current employment legislation already cover this? I'd be glad to hear from anybody who knows more about it.

This is a ridiculous bill and if the law gets passed, France will be the laughing stock of the entire European Union. Granted, eating disorders are no laughing matter, but education is the key element here, not criminalizing if magazines and advertisements showcase very thin models. Educate, educate, educate.
There is "education," but the problem is it is coming from those who support, passively or actively, anorexia. You can't teach the impressionable that being so thin that it affects your health isn't beautiful when that is what is all over the print and television media. For something like this, the problem must be stopped before a successful campaign can be mounted against it. You can't fight propaganda while the propaganda keeps pouring forth and trumps your education in relative importance.

One of the nice things about living in the PRC is, even in comparatively wealthy Guangdong, the wonderful fitness and svelteness of all the girls.

For those who answered yes, I'm curious as to why you'd be in favor of even more Government control over your life.

I, like prettymuch everyone else, believe anorexia is a problem but it seems to me that a law like this goes well beyond the scope of simply protecting people from anorexia and wades into the murky waters of enforcing opinions through legislation.

For those who answered yes, I'm curious as to why you'd be in favor of even more Government control over your life.

I, like prettymuch everyone else, believe anorexia is a problem but it seems to me that a law like this goes well beyond the scope of simply protecting people from anorexia and wades into the murky waters of enforcing opinions through legislation.

Personally, I see this law in much the same vein as outlawing tobacco advertising, or advertising alcohloic drinks before kids films in cinemas and in between kids programs on TV. There's some debate on making fastfood ads that are tailored to children illegal, and I'm all for it. I don't see it in any way as enforcing opinion one way or another.

For those who answered yes, I'm curious as to why you'd be in favor of even more Government control over your life.

I, like prettymuch everyone else, believe anorexia is a problem but it seems to me that a law like this goes well beyond the scope of simply protecting people from anorexia and wades into the murky waters of enforcing opinions through legislation.

If we're talking about punishing the anorexics themselves who set up pro-ana websites, then I'd be inclined to agree with you.

And, while there is the danger of a slippery slope of government censorship, already the media can't broadcast anything it wants. Limits and controls are enforced on it. Watersheds. Not selling certain DVDs or magazines to minors, etc. Controls being put in place so that modelling campaigns can't glorify unhealthily underweight models as the social ideal for young girls is not enforcing opinions through legislation. The government has a duty to protect the people, and yes, that duty could easily be abused through censorship, but in terms of just banning positive portrayal of anorexia in the media I don't think that that is too far, and certainly not enforcing opinions. It's not opinion that being dangerously underweight is unhealthy, and it is not opinion that a very impressionable demographic is being fed the message that that is how you should look.

Umm and this has nowt to do with the french preses likeing for models?

linky (http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/story.html?id=e36d1494-3db5-4ae8-88cf-d7cb5cdc4d7f&k=18067)



Now I support the recent moves to weed out underage and underweight models from the fashion industry (still not as wide-spread as it should be IMO), and I think the pro-ana websites are...disgusting. But I'm not sure that criminalising it is an effective method of combating eating disorders.

Thoughts?

(edit: I was so hungry I ate the 'L')

Moar sites:
Australia to follow suit? Naaaa. (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/call-to-ban-anorexia-websites/2008/04/16/1208025283081.html)
What about acceptance of obesity? (http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=a73a5fec-c844-479a-bade-cc44d6ca8d0d&k=38783)

I think it's an interesting idea and I want to give France a hug, but it's probably not going to be entirely succesful.

This is a ridiculous bill and if the law gets passed, France will be the laughing stock of the entire European Union. Granted, eating disorders are no laughing matter, but education is the key element here, not criminalizing if magazines and advertisements showcase very thin models. Educate, educate, educate.

Of course education is the most important element, but I can see the logic in saying "no" to magazines using emaciated women and portraying it as "ideal".

None. Though a model named Ana dying of anorexia seems... fitting.

This joke has been done a thousand times, and she died ages ago.

Well, let's take a look at it. Is anorexia illegal? No. So the websites promoting it aren't doing anything wrong.

We're not talking about pot, sweetheart.


Alternatively, eating disorders like anorexia and bulimia have been characterised as mental illnesses, in which case, these websites still aren't doing anything wrong.

Pro-ana websites and communities are doing something wrong. Coming from someone who has been actively involved in this kind of thing, pro-ana websites and communities have the ideology that Anorexia is a lifestyle choice, not a disorder, and that it is an inherently good thing to starve yourself to achieve extreme thinness. Promoting an activity to young girls that will undoubtedly damage their bodies or even kill them, is the wrong thing to do, therefore pro-ana websites are doing the wrong thing.

Shoule we criminalise religious resources which encourage people with mental illnesses to seek exorcism, or other 'spiritual' treatments rather than medications?

It should certainly be frowned upon, especially if it is targeted at young impressionable girls.

What about websites that give you suicide tips? Or tips on becoming obese?

Pro-ana websites do more than give "tips": they promote the eating disorder as a good thing. If someone had a website that was like "hey, suicide is good. you should kill yourself because that will make you cool. here's how to do it" and targeted it to young impressionable people, they would be doing the wrong thing. Perhaps you can't criminalise it, in the interest of free speech, but it's certainly not a good thing.

As well I'm entirely unclear how this is going to help when it comes to the internet...since many of these websites will not fall under French jurisdiction. Will there be a penalty for viewing them, hosting them, allowing access to them etc?

Many pro-ana websites have been eradicated in recent years. Around 2002-late 2004 there were many active pro-ana websites. Many of these mysteriously disappeared. There are still many pro-ana communities on places like Livejournal, but there are also communities focused on recovery and support.

Then France will pass a law making it illegal to laugh at the French.

I think there already is one... ;)

Ah, untrue. Because if indeed anorexia and bulimia ARE mental illnesses, then it is possible to argue that the people suffering from these illnesses lack the capacity to make informed choices about their 'treatment' (or lack thereof). As well, since many people suffering from eating-disorders are underage, this can be characterised as an attempt to protect minors who also are deemed to lack the capacity to make fully informed decisions.

That defense was actually used in a Law and Order episode...

It is not just a situation of promoting unsafe behaviour...it is a situation of targeting the mentally ill, or underage children (or both) and exploiting their inability to make rational choices.

*nods*

I'm not sure I agree with myself.

Can I ask: do you, or have you, suffered from an ED?

LOL!
It's just that it's ridiculous to criminalize something like promoting anorexia. As another member already stated, how the heck are we going to persuade those who promote anorexia? How do we know they're promoting it.

Uuuh, if you don't know when people are promoting anorexia...

I know of people that decide that the best way to drop a few pounds is by inducing vomit and no one else has told them to do that.

You are seriously dellusional if you think that that's what's going through their heads. People who purge do so because they want to inflict harm on their body, they feel guilty about eating, and/or they want to lose weight because they are unhappy with themselves. Why are some people unhappy with the way they look? Because the media tells them they should look emaciated!

And now that we're on the topic, if fashion magazines are going to be fined for putting thin models on their pages, then, those movies that deal with eating disorder cases should be fined too. Aren't they promoting, in their visuals, anorexia and bulimia? Hm? It's a cycle. That's why I say that education is better.

Education would certainly serve you well.

There is a difference between idealising thin models in magazines and making a film that deals with eating disorder themes. Emaciated models in magazines promote un-natural thinness. Films that deal with eating disorders are exploring a mental illness and its repocussions.

I'm also aware that airhead teenagers usually pay more attention to magazines than to what's on text books but still. Educate. And of course, society should stop being so friggin' vain for that matter.

You truly need an EDucation.

Airhead teenagers aren't the only people who suffer from self-dissatisfaction caused by the idealistic images in the media.

I had an eating disorder, and I assue you, I care about text books.

And society will never stop being vain, but we can do one thing: we can stop promoting an image that people will literally die to attain.

Personally, I see this law in much the same vein as outlawing tobacco advertising, or advertising alcohloic drinks before kids films in cinemas and in between kids programs on TV. There's some debate on making fastfood ads that are tailored to children illegal, and I'm all for it. I don't see it in any way as enforcing opinion one way or another.

I agree. We have laws to protect minors, and especially with something as damaging as anorexia, minors need to be protected. Perhaps the proposed law should be revised so that the censorship in, say, films or television has the same limits put on it as other watershed limits that protect minors. Still, if the promotion of ultra-thinness as beautiful is anywhere in the media, it's going to reach minors, and if it's restricted to the adult media, then it will be seen as part of being adult and that will add to the appeal. It's going to be a very difficult law to get right, but apart from the banning of the pro-ana forum sites and the punishment of the anorexic individuals themselves, I'm all for it.

I think...

*applauds post*

Personally, I see this law in much the same vein as outlawing tobacco advertising, or advertising alcohloic drinks before kids films in cinemas and in between kids programs on TV. There's some debate on making fastfood ads that are tailored to children illegal, and I'm all for it. I don't see it in any way as enforcing opinion one way or another.

If we're talking about punishing the anorexics themselves who set up pro-ana websites, then I'd be inclined to agree with you.

And, while there is the danger of a slippery slope of government censorship, already the media can't broadcast anything it wants. Limits and controls are enforced on it. Watersheds. Not selling certain DVDs or magazines to minors, etc. Controls being put in place so that modelling campaigns can't glorify unhealthily underweight models as the social ideal for young girls is not enforcing opinions through legislation. The government has a duty to protect the people, and yes, that duty could easily be abused through censorship, but in terms of just banning positive portrayal of anorexia in the media I don't think that that is too far, and certainly not enforcing opinions. It's not opinion that being dangerously underweight is unhealthy, and it is not opinion that a very impressionable demographic is being fed the message that that is how you should look.

Good points, and if the law was carefully worded to specifically deal with it in this way, I'd be all for it. That isn't the impression I got though. It sounded more like the Government seeking the power to go on a witch hunt.

Good points, and if the law was carefully worded to specifically deal with it in this way, I'd be all for it. That isn't the impression I got though. It sounded more like the Government seeking the power to go on a witch hunt.


According to the bill's author, the legislation is primarily aimed at pro-anorexia websites. But it would also give judges licence to sanction those responsible for any public photo spread of a model whose thinness altered his or her health. Punishments for violations would include jail time of up to two years and a maximum fine of 30,000 euros (about $48,000). In cases where a victim died of an eating disorder, imprisonment increases to three years, with 45,000 euros (about $72,000) in fines.

Now, correct me if I got this wrong, but as I understand it the law would make it illegal to publicly spread photos of models whose health is suffering due to their thinness.

That's not a witch hunt, sorry. It's a hunt for photos of witches...

Now, correct me if I got this wrong, but as I understand it the law would make it illegal to publicly spread photos of models whose health is suffering due to their thinness.

That's not a witch hunt, sorry. It's a hunt for photos of witches...

LOL

But the thing is, it says "a model whose thinness altered his or her health" and that just doesn't st rike me as being specific enough.

I mean, technically, *ANY* diet affects your health (positively, generally speaking) but suppose a model is working out to lose weight and suffers, say, from exhaustion or cardiac arrest as a result of a previously unknown heart defect. Even in cases where they're working to attain a healthy weight one could argue that their health was altered and thus in violation of the law.

I know that's not the intent but... The law revolves around what's actually written, not what the intent was.

Can I ask: do you, or have you, suffered from an ED?



Uuuh, if you don't know when people are promoting anorexia...



You are seriously dellusional if you think that that's what's going through their heads. People who purge do so because they want to inflict harm on their body, they feel guilty about eating, and/or they want to lose weight because they are unhappy with themselves. Why are some people unhappy with the way they look? Because the media tells them they should look emaciated!



Education would certainly serve you well.

There is a difference between idealising thin models in magazines and making a film that deals with eating disorder themes. Emaciated models in magazines promote un-natural thinness. Films that deal with eating disorders are exploring a mental illness and its repocussions.



You truly need an EDucation.

Airhead teenagers aren't the only people who suffer from self-dissatisfaction caused by the idealistic images in the media.

I had an eating disorder, and I assue you, I care about text books.

And society will never stop being vain, but we can do one thing: we can stop promoting an image that people will literally die to attain.


If I stroke a chord, sorry. As for the teenagers' remark, let me inform you that, although they're not the only ones who suffer from ED, in their case, the percentage tends to be higher.

Idealizing thin models and anorexia films are not the same, true, but if the French government is going to criminalize the promotion of EDs, they have to specify what is, according to them, promoting.

I'm not dellusional as you oh so expertly put it, Amor. Chill. I didn't know you suffered from an ED, I don't know you. And I've never suffered from one, I'm cheery with the way I look and I don't give a hoot about fashion magazines. I find models and the fashion industry quite shallow. Perhaps I'm just lucky.

I've seen people suffer from EDs. I've heard the same people say that they just decided to induce vomit because they thought they were too fat. It is obvious they also want to inflict bodily harm on themselves because they hate their bodies, I just didn't stated it that way. There was no need. Anyone who puposefully vomits after eating is obviously doing him/herself harm.

And since you're referring to TV shows, CSI showed one episode that's particularly interesting. The main character, a fashion model, suffered from anorexia, bulimia and excessive grooming. Her obssession was so intense that she purged herself violently. She wanted to be even, the wanted her body to excrete the same amount she injested. Before dying, she scarred her face, became septic and died of blood-loss.

If you're going to speak about your plight, do so without attacking. Yes, we all need education. You do too.;)

LOL

But the thing is, it says "a model whose thinness altered his or her health" and that just doesn't st rike me as being specific enough.

I mean, technically, *ANY* diet affects your health (positively, generally speaking) but suppose a model is working out to lose weight and suffers, say, from exhaustion or cardiac arrest as a result of a previously unknown heart defect. Even in cases where they're working to attain a healthy weight one could argue that their health was altered and thus in violation of the law.

I know that's not the intent but... The law revolves around what's actually written, not what the intent was.

We'd have to see the text of the actual legislation that's being proposed to decide on that one. Right now, all we got to go by is a third person's summary of it... my guess is he picked the word "altered" to cover several symptoms that can result from extreme weight loss.

I haven't read the full text of the proposed law so I can't make any judgements about how it would actually work. However, I think fining or jailing people with anorexia who take part in pro-ana sites is not particularly helpful. I'm more interested in how it might affect those who employ very thin models and would be interested to understand whether they should already be regulated under health & safety type rules.

Here are pictures of models who are being paid to look like this: http://www.mhariolincoln.jor.br/media/1/20061205-modelo_magra1.jpg
http://www.treatmentonline.com/blog/images/218.jpg

In my opinion, this is clearly promoting anorexia, since she is so obviously in a bad way at the same time that she is paraded around the catwalk as a supposedly beautiful woman. As far as I understand it, an employer must mitigate as many risks to the health of his employees as possible, must provide safety equipment, must not expose his employees to hazardous substances etc... Although some employees do take risks in the course of their work, such as firemen and police officers, is it reasonable to expect clothes horses to do so? (That is not meant to be derogatory to models, but to underline the difference in the impact of their jobs). Shouldn't current employment legislation already cover this? I'd be glad to hear from anybody who knows more about it.
Those photos are horrifying to me.

I believe that changing the promotion of images of beauty and social status is going to have a much greater and more lasting effect on reducing eating disorders than prohibitions like the French law. The fashion industry is, in a way, the ultimate advertising -- it exploits and manipulates the deeply personal psychology of ideas of social status, social interaction, sexuality and sexual attractiveness, in order to sell its products. No industry has generated more social icons -- people whose images embodied in the public imagination the entire image or personality of a nation/culture/generation/gender/etc -- than fashion. Beauty is as the fashion industry does.

The drive to fit in is what drives most people to try to change or control their appearance. The fashion industry dictates what appearance is desirable at any given time. They can change it. They should change it.

I tried a quick search about this, but apparently the debate is only just beginning. Spain recently passed a law banning ultra-thin models from runways, but the effectiveness and reasonability of that law is still being tested and debated. Other countries are considering similar actions directed to fashion employers, and the fashion industry is considering trying to head off legal restrictions by self-regulation. Only a few fashion designers have so far made any effort to hire healthy-weight models rather than super-skinny ones. Here are a few articles about the debate that I found in a quick search (the second one is from a London law firm):

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/Story?id=2450069&page=1
http://www.fashionapparellawblog.com/2007/07/articles/model-of-health-proposed-for-london-fashion-week/
http://www.nypost.com/seven/12112006/gossip/pagesix/pagesix.htm

The next few years will be interesting, because I really believe changing fashion will do more to help combat EDs than anything else.

Spain recently passed a law banning ultra-thin models from runways

Do they make the floors of the runways railed? Like how they stop cattle getting past a gate because their legs are too thin?








Humblest apologies for that but I saw an opportunity for a joke and...well, I took it.

Seriously though, great post, very well argued and thought-through, and I agree with you in that I think when we get the censorship right on the extreme side of the fashion industries promotion of unhealthily underweight-ness, it will have a positive impact on the frequency of EDs, although it would take at least a decade or two to show some actual effect.

Can I ask: do you, or have you, suffered from an ED?
Nope, but I grew up with a number of girls who struggled with eating disorders since early elementary school. It's what convinced me that the bulk of 'pretty girls' have the worst self-esteem imaginable, and made me never want to be one of them.

To be clear, the majority of my opening posts were playing devil's advocate. I support this move by the French in much the way I support the censoring of adverts that promote smoking and drinking among minors. In the main, I think this will target the large corporations...fashion magazines and the fashion industry in general. The pro-ana websites are a small portion of the problem, and many (as you've pointed out) have already been pressured to close up shop as it is. Yes, there is the possibility of a person suffering from anorexia being targeted under this law when their pro-ana website is found...I would hope in those situations that the French authorities would deal with the people involved as one would deal with anyone with a mental illness...by seeking treatment for them, rather than simply imposing criminal sanction.

When it comes to the powerful fashion industry however...throw the book at 'em.

In situation A one realises their judgement is merely subjective and is able to see the consequences of their actions. One realises other people indeed think they are too thin and that they are playing with their life, but decides it is worth it. That is fine for adults.

In situation B one thinks subjective and objective are identical and has a distorted view of reality. The decicision to get thinner and thinner is the result of this distorted view. Keeping that delusion alive is not allright.

Both situations can (and probably will) lead to selfharm. But in the first case that is a conscious choice.

There is little objective difference between the impact of the first situation and second situations.


a site with pictures of anorexics, and a personal account of how an individual maintained her anorexia
a site with pictures of anorexics, and advice as to how to maintain anorexia

You are incorrect in believing that people with eating disorders are fully aware of the consequences of their actions (or any less so than anorexics), and also incorrect in believing that you can have any eating disorder without a distorted view of reality. And as I've pointed out, once self-starvation begins, there is little 'self-choice' involved in stopping these particular behaviours. Whether one is angry or paranoid about it, or happy and content with the process shouldn't be the factors that cause you to decide which person is 'mentally healthy' and which is not. BOTH are unhealthy, physically and mentally. That's the point.

Your 'vast difference' is non-existent.

A girl who is undereating, and who wants encouragement, is going to find both sites listed above helpful.

Seriously though, great post, very well argued and thought-through, and I agree with you in that I think when we get the censorship right on the extreme side of the fashion industries promotion of unhealthily underweight-ness, it will have a positive impact on the frequency of EDs, although it would take at least a decade or two to show some actual effect.
I actually think it could show effects faster than that. I majored in advertising design in art school and have spent many years studying the industry. The power to manipulate images is tremedous. Fads can take hold in a moment, and be dropped just as quickly. BUT when advertising media put their minds to it, they can give an idea legs, keep it going for many years, and transform a fad into an accepted social belief. I believe a concerted effort on the part of the fashion industry -- followed by all the other media related to it or dependent on it -- could actually start to change what young people think they should look -- what cool and sexy look like -- very quickly. Then they must keep it up over time to change a fad for meat over skeleton to a societal assumption that when pretty people walk, you see their muscles moving, not their bones.

You know, it's a little ironic for me, because as an artist, I use images of skeletons and skeletized/emaciated/partially disassembled human figures all the time -- but when I do it, those figures are supposed to represent the presence of death.

There is little objective difference between the impact of the first situation and second situations.

The impact is irrelevant. Both indeed lead to the same destination, but the road taken is what matters.

It is somewhat like how killing a man because you like bloodshed is a crime, while killing the exact same man because you are certain he is about to murder a few dozen schoolchildren is less frowned upon - even though the endresult (dead man) is the same.

You are incorrect in believing that people with eating disorders are fully aware of the consequences of their actions (or any less so than anorexics), and also incorrect in believing that you can have any eating disorder without a distorted view of reality. And as I've pointed out, once self-starvation begins, there is little 'self-choice' involved in stopping these particular behaviours.

So ? You realise that when you start it. Just like drugs - you know there is a risk of addiction when you start. If you did not think about that, too bad. Being an adult carries a certain responsibility for ones own actions.

What I object to are pro-ana sites claiming that the false ideas anorexia patients have are all true. Not to sitees that will utlimately lead to people devoloping those ideas, should they opt to follow the site.

I actually think it could show effects faster than that. I majored in advertising design in art school and have spent many years studying the industry. The power to manipulate images is tremedous. Fads can take hold in a moment, and be dropped just as quickly. BUT when advertising media put their minds to it, they can give an idea legs, keep it going for many years, and transform a fad into an accepted social belief. I believe a concerted effort on the part of the fashion industry -- followed by all the other media related to it or dependent on it -- could actually start to change what young people think they should look -- what cool and sexy look like -- very quickly. Then they must keep it up over time to change a fad for meat over skeleton to a societal assumption that when pretty people walk, you see their muscles moving, not their bones. I really do hope this will be the case. It bothers me to no end to have my daughters growing up in a culture that is so bizarrely obsessed with weight. Seeing an achievable, healthy body type as the norm would do wonders for the self-image of so many girls and boys who are obsessing over their bodies at younger and younger ages.

It wasn't as bad when I was younger, but it was enough...I have never been happy with my body until after the fact...until I look back at pictures and say, 'wow, and I thought I was ugly?'

It'd be beyond nice frankly is we could aspire to health over appearance.

There is little objective difference between the impact of the first situation and second situations.


a site with pictures of anorexics, and a personal account of how an individual maintained her anorexia
a site with pictures of anorexics, and advice as to how to maintain anorexia

You are incorrect in believing that people with eating disorders are fully aware of the consequences of their actions (or any less so than anorexics), and also incorrect in believing that you can have any eating disorder without a distorted view of reality. And as I've pointed out, once self-starvation begins, there is little 'self-choice' involved in stopping these particular behaviours. Whether one is angry or paranoid about it, or happy and content with the process shouldn't be the factors that cause you to decide which person is 'mentally healthy' and which is not. BOTH are unhealthy, physically and mentally. That's the point.

Your 'vast difference' is non-existent.

A girl who is undereating, and who wants encouragement, is going to find both sites listed above helpful.

We're discussing semantics again, but: if we accept that if you have an ED, you have a disorted view of reality, which is a fair point.

But if someone is intentionally undereating but is doing so simply because they care more about their looks than about being healthy, but makes sure they don't become dangerously underweight, do they have a distorted sense of reality and therefore an ED?

I'm not taking either side, I'm just thinking this through aforum.

But if someone is intentionally undereating but is doing so simply because they care more about their looks than about being healthy, but makes sure they don't become dangerously underweight, do they have a distorted sense of reality and therefore an ED?

Even if they do not take care I do not mind. If people wish to commit suicide that is up to them.

But only if they *know* they are doing that.

I actually think it could show effects faster than that. I majored in advertising design in art school and have spent many years studying the industry. The power to manipulate images is tremedous. Fads can take hold in a moment, and be dropped just as quickly. BUT when advertising media put their minds to it, they can give an idea legs, keep it going for many years, and transform a fad into an accepted social belief. I believe a concerted effort on the part of the fashion industry -- followed by all the other media related to it or dependent on it -- could actually start to change what young people think they should look -- what cool and sexy look like -- very quickly. Then they must keep it up over time to change a fad for meat over skeleton to a societal assumption that when pretty people walk, you see their muscles moving, not their bones.

A very fair point. The advertising industry and the media hold tremendous power because of how we live our lives. All the time we are exposed to adverts and what the media decide to distribute because that's the sort of socity we live in.

And in response to I'm curious as to why you'd be in favor of even more Government control over your life.

Well, it's either the government or the media. The media isn't explicitly the voice of the people, it's the voice of the corporations, and personally I'd prefer the government to be more in control of the current messages on beauty that we are being fed than the corporations.

The impact is irrelevant. Both indeed lead to the same destination, but the road taken is what matters. Not in law. The impact is indeed relevant. The 'road taken' according to your definitions completely ignore the psychological and physiological realties of eating disorders. Both sites in effect promote unhealthy thinness. That one does so less directly than the other is unimportant.

It is somewhat like how killing a man because you like bloodshed is a crime, while killing the exact same man because you are certain he is about to murder a few dozen schoolchildren is less frowned upon - even though the endresult (dead man) is the same.
Your analogy is not at all useful. The 'why' of the promotion is unimportant. The act of the promotion itself is the focus. The first case, glorifying your own anorexia, is still promotion, though less problematic than giving detailed advice and active encouragement to others to become anorexic....but again, the 'vast difference' is no such thing. Both are promotion, both provide encouragement.


So ? You realise that when you start it. Just like drugs - you know there is a risk of addiction when you start. You give (mostly teens) entirely too much credit when it comes to your assessment of how informed they are on the subject. ESPECIALLY when there are websites out there glorifying eating disorders...either personally (our first example) or actively (our second example).

What I object to are pro-ana sites claiming that the false ideas anorexia patients have are all true. Not to sitees that will utlimately lead to people devoloping those ideas, should they opt to follow the site.
You should also be objecting to the sites where a person unapologetically describes how she has achieved anorexia, regardless of whether the tone is happy and content, or shrill and paranoid.

Just one more thought re if anything/anyone should be criminalized in this issue:

Some people have made arguments to the effect that adults should have the freedom to make unhealthy choices voluntarily. Maybe so, but I wonder, in reference to the fashion industry, just how voluntary such choices are.

Fashion models must undergo weigh-ins and measuring frequently. Who takes those measurements? Doctors? Not to my knowledge. Rather, I believe it is the modeling agencies and the designers making hiring decisions. They have control over whether a model gets a job or not, and if they make unreasonable/unhealthy demands, models will feel the pressure of losing their livelihood if they do not conform. Even if many models decide to quit the industry rather than comply, that may leave no one but people prone to pressure and eating disorders in the industry, making the problem only worse.

Now my question is, if we know that extreme skinniness is unhealthy and potentially fatal, how can fashion designers get away with demanding extreme skinniness as a condition for holding a job without violating workplace safety and/or labor rights laws? In the US, companies are not allowed to create and maintain unsafe work environments or conditions. They are not allowed to deny employees food, water, bathrooms, ability to take care of their health, breathable air, ability to escape the workplace in an emergency, etc. They are not allowed to demand that you put your life and health at risk beyond a reasonable level in order to work.

Obviously, there are jobs that have inherent risk factors, but being a fashion model is absolutely nothing like being a firefighter (for instance). There is absolutely zero requirement that people should have to push their bodies to unhealthy extremes just to show off a dress.

I fail to understand why workplace safety regulations cannot be applied or amended to apply to the fashion industry. Yeah, maybe if we stop letting clothesmakers starve models to near death, we might the be able to do something about their sweatshop addiction, too. And that might have a beneficial effect not only on young people's self-image, but also on their willingness to stand up for their rights when they enter the work force.

Just saying.

Yikes! What about books describing how to make bombs, list pharmaceuticals and their lethal doses, how about pamphlets with recipes for drink mixes?

At what point does one say...censoring this is getting out of hand?

Ironically, ashweb methods of suicide actually gave me the information to realize that the overdose I'd just taken was not the peaceful sleepy exit I'd been looking for, and changed my mind.

Rehab centers would probably be the best - educate first and then if someone shows signs, send them to rehab where they can get intensive education. The whole prohibition thing never really seems to work very well.

I agree, but it's never going to happen. The number of good rehab centers for EDs, at least in the US, is pretty pathetic. Insurance doesn't want to pay for a skinny white girl to cry about how her parents don't love her at $2K a night, and the government sure as hell won't.

And now that we're on the topic, if fashion magazines are going to be fined for putting thin models on their pages, then, those movies that deal with eating disorder cases should be fined too. Aren't they promoting, in their visuals, anorexia and bulimia? Hm? It's a cycle. That's why I say that education is better.

I'd think the opposite, actually--go after movies that use extremely thin actors as if they're "normal" paradigms of beauty. At least if the movie is about EDs they're portraying it as abnormal.

Even if they do not take care I do not mind. If people wish to commit suicide that is up to them.

But only if they *know* they are doing that.

Yeah, an incredibly difficult line to draw, as in the medical profession, of how do you decide when someone is in their right mind or not to make a decision regarding their life? If someone genuinely wants to die do we label them as clearly mentally unfit to decide because we can't understand their viewpoint? I'm reminded of the Brian Clark play and film "Whose Life Is It Anyway?"

Sorry, I'm diverging onto euthanasia, although you can argue that is closely linked to anorexia, but blah blah blah.

Anyway, with regard to my response to your post, it's an incredibly difficult line to draw, whether they *know* or not, but that does not invalidate the point. The point still stands, it is just difficult to enforce, as many things are.

Ok ok ok ok.....

I just read the "pro-ana" website....


What the fuck is wrong with all those idiots? They are honestly insane. Like the whole thing is a bunch of insane people who get together and call their insanity a lifestyle. It's a fucking cult.

......

Does anyone else feel this way when they read or hear about pro-ana?

http://grotto.projectshapeshift.net/

:(


I hate this.
To eat is to die, and to starve is to live.
But starving is slowly killing yourself.
To be as light as air.
To be as a whiff of smoke, to move gracefully and float and curl up and around the others.
To become transparent and to disappear.
I will accept that air that is within me,
it is all I need to survive,
Drunk on water. Feeding on the air.
reducing and disappearing until I am nothing,
but gone.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My wrists are nothing but bone and skin.
my arms long and lean. Only a little bit left, only a little more to go.
my legs are thin and weak, only a little more, a little bit more to whittle away.
Self destruction can be such a beautiful thing.
cheek bones, chiseled and aware,
The sheathing giving away and disappearing to show the beautiful structure underneath.
:(:(:(
I have no words for stuff like that....:(
They need help. Now.

We're discussing semantics again, but: if we accept that if you have an ED, you have a disorted view of reality, which is a fair point.

But if someone is intentionally undereating but is doing so simply because they care more about their looks than about being healthy, but makes sure they don't become dangerously underweight, do they have a distorted sense of reality and therefore an ED?

I'm not taking either side, I'm just thinking this through aforum.

Definitions/explanations (http://www.answers.com/eating+disorder&r=67)

Your definition fits exactly into the definition of eating disorders. If they care more about looks than being healthy, there is no guarantee that they would make sure they don't become dangerously underweight. There is 'undereating' and there is 'eating properly'. The first is based on a disturbance in self-perception, the second is health based.

If you are not eating healthily, it doesn't matter if you 'don't become dangerously underweight'...you are still going to suffer from problematic health issues as you mess with your immune system. Anyone willing to take that kind of toll on their own body because of their self-perception has an eating disorder, and a distorted view of reality.

I know I shouldn't necessarily get caught up in the content of these pro-ana sites but lordy:

Suggestions on hiding your eating disorder!?

That is sad, but two points to keep in mind:
1. Most personal sites aren't like that. Most eating disordered people would never give out tips, tricks or other forms of encouragement--they don't WANT anyone else to suffer through an ED.
2. No one really needs to learn "tricks" to being disordered. It's not hard to think up "eat as little as possible and lie your ass off" all on your own.

1 Thing I REALLY ponder about, is why the héll anorexia-style models are even popular in fashion-land, it doesn't even let there clothes look good nor representative. It really amazes me why it's such a hype, can anyone explain it?

The gay designer theory makes some valid points, but I believe more in the old rule that what's beautiful is what's difficult to attain--what shows one's wealth and status. In the past, when there was widespread hunger, having a potbelly was beautiful. In less developed countries ultra-thin is not generally beautiful--it's a condition of life that afflicts many people. But in countries of excess like the US and western Europe, food is abundant, in your face, on every corner, so denial of food, emaciation, shows a higher status.

Where are all the rabid 'don't criminalise anything the free market is God' Usians?

I know you're teasing, but the stereotyping does get old after awhile, even in jest. As does Usians. At least capitalize the S if you can't type out US Americans.

No problem with that, though as I said I would forbid children to make this life choice until they are adults.

And who will forbid their parents from making them obese?

Definitions/explanations (http://www.answers.com/eating+disorder&r=67)

Your definition fits exactly into the definition of eating disorders. If they care more about looks than being healthy, there is no guarantee that they would make sure they don't become dangerously underweight. There is 'undereating' and there is 'eating properly'. The first is based on a disturbance in self-perception, the second is health based.

If you are not eating healthily, it doesn't matter if you 'don't become dangerously underweight'...you are still going to suffer from problematic health issues as you mess with your immune system. Anyone willing to take that kind of toll on their own body because of their self-perception has an eating disorder, and a distorted view of reality.

I am playing devil's advocate here, these are not necessarily my views.

Just because health is the primary concern for you, doen't mean you should enforce that view on other people.

If someone genuinely wants to commit suicide because they've weighed up everything that they have to live for against everything of detriment in their life, and they find that suicide is the rational answer. Are they mentally ill and should be sectioned?

Good health the ultimate evolutionary goal of any organism. Therefore anyone who wants to purposefully damage their health, such as choosing an anorexic/ultra-thin lifestyle or committing suicide is going against their natural nature, and so is mentally ill. So euthanasia is out of the question, regardless of how much pain someone is in. And surely reproduction is the main goal of any organism, what about people who choose not to have kids? Are they going against nature?

What about people who face health risks through plastic and cosmetic surgery? What about the obese? Are they mentally ill? Is someone who never goes to the gym and thus is not achieving their maximum potential lifespan mentally ill?

Is it possible for a person to choose to undereat as a lifestyle, while maintaining a grip on reality? Should we respect the fact that health is not a primary concern for them? Like people who enjoy Extreme Danger Sports? And I'm not sure I agree with you when you say "If they care more about looks than being healthy, there is no guarantee that they would make sure they don't become dangerously underweight." How would you know what someone is thinking? That is like saying someone who is slightly tubby around the midriff and comfortable being so is at risk of becoming life-threateningly obese.

That is sad, but two points to keep in mind:
1. Most personal sites aren't like that. Most eating disordered people would never give out tips, tricks or other forms of encouragement--they don't WANT anyone else to suffer through an ED.

Most personal sites may not be like that but the pro-ana forum type thinspiration sites are.

2. No one really needs to learn "tricks" to being disordered. It's not hard to think up "eat as little as possible and lie your ass off" all on your own.

True. Pro-ana sites offering tips give encouragement to people who are already suffering, but theoretically will not affect completely healthy individuals. However they are a danger to those on the edge or susceptible. Those who are not anorexic yet but are desperate to find a group to be a part of and who aren't happy with the way they look.

The gay designer theory makes some valid points, but I believe more in the old rule that what's beautiful is what's difficult to attain--what shows one's wealth and status. In the past, when there was widespread hunger, having a potbelly was beautiful. In less developed countries ultra-thin is not generally beautiful--it's a condition of life that afflicts many people. But in countries of excess like the US and western Europe, food is abundant, in your face, on every corner, so denial of food, emaciation, shows a higher status.

Very insightful.

There's dysgenics going on at the moment in certain countries such as the US and Denmark, which is causing people to actually get stupider generation on generation. People will not get smart enough not to buy stuff, quite the opposite.

Thank god that hasn't happened in England, where 25% of people think Winston Churchill was a fictional person. :rolleyes:

Many pro-ana websites have been eradicated in recent years. Around 2002-late 2004 there were many active pro-ana websites. Many of these mysteriously disappeared. There are still many pro-ana communities on places like Livejournal, but there are also communities focused on recovery and support.

Ironically, I only discovered pro-ED sites after they were all over the news in 2002, with everyone from Oprah to 60 Minutes talking about how terrible they were. I'm not sure I'd have known about them otherwise.

You are seriously dellusional if you think that that's what's going through their heads. People who purge do so because they want to inflict harm on their body, they feel guilty about eating, and/or they want to lose weight because they are unhappy with themselves. Why are some people unhappy with the way they look? Because the media tells them they should look emaciated!

I don't think that's the only reason---at least, that was not my only reason---but I think the media is one of the reasons women choose that outlet for their feelings, if that makes sense?

Airhead teenagers aren't the only people who suffer from self-dissatisfaction caused by the idealistic images in the media.

I had an eating disorder, and I assue you, I care about text books.

Thank you. I'm so sick of people thinking you have to be retarded to have an ED. Do you have to be retarded to have a drug addiction or be depressed? It's ridiculous. People just want to shuffle anorexics into a little box labeled "white teenage melodrama" so they don't have to bother with them.

Those photos are horrifying to me.

For what it's worth, both of those photos are photoshopped. They're widely circulated--you can even find a site where they show the before and after of the second photo.

For what it's worth, both of those photos are photoshopped. They're widely circulated--you can even find a site where they show the before and after of the second photo.

Oh really?

I didn't know that.



NB: That was not sarcasm, I was showing genuine surprise and interest.

Do you have a link to the before/after photoshop?

linky (http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/story.html?id=e36d1494-3db5-4ae8-88cf-d7cb5cdc4d7f&k=18067)



Now I support the recent moves to weed out underage and underweight models from the fashion industry (still not as wide-spread as it should be IMO), and I think the pro-ana websites are...disgusting. But I'm not sure that criminalising it is an effective method of combating eating disorders.

Thoughts?

(edit: I was so hungry I ate the 'L')

Moar sites:
Australia to follow suit? Naaaa. (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/call-to-ban-anorexia-websites/2008/04/16/1208025283081.html)
What about acceptance of obesity? (http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=a73a5fec-c844-479a-bade-cc44d6ca8d0d&k=38783)

I agree with you. Yes this kind of thing is immoral, but criminalizing it is not the way to go. Education and counseling are the ways to stop the spread of eating disorders. I don't see how France is going to effectively enforce this law.

Oh really?

I didn't know that.



NB: That was not sarcasm, I was showing genuine surprise and interest.

Do you have a link to the before/after photoshop?

Found them!

First picture (http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j188/skinny_pics/Manipulated%20Photos/Model4.jpg)

Second picture (http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j188/skinny_pics/Manipulated%20Photos/Jodi.jpg)

Admittedly the second model, Jodie Kidd, is still VERY skinny--she's one of the skinnier high-profile models. But the model in the first picture is actually quite normal.

Found them!

First picture (http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j188/skinny_pics/Manipulated%20Photos/Model4.jpg)

Second picture (http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j188/skinny_pics/Manipulated%20Photos/Jodi.jpg)

Admittedly the second model, Jodie Kidd, is still VERY skinny--she's one of the skinnier high-profile models. But the model in the first picture is actually quite normal.

Much thanks.

I think even the model in the first picture is on the skinny side of normal, but she is a model after all.

We'd have to see the text of the actual legislation that's being proposed to decide on that one. Right now, all we got to go by is a third person's summary of it... my guess is he picked the word "altered" to cover several symptoms that can result from extreme weight loss.

Fair enough.

Those photos are horrifying to me.
<snip>


Me too. Who looks at those and sees beauty? All I see are a couple of emaciated women who desperately need to put on some weight before they die.

It made me think of those infomercials asking for donations to feed starving people in Africa. The same skeletal look, sunken in features... ::shiver:: All that's missing is the swollen starvation belly and I do NOT want to know how they prevent that.

I think it should be banned, I mean so many women are constantly starving themselves just to get rid of a few inches, sure they can model it but if I was a woman I'd rather buy it and wear the dress when I wanted not when I was on the verge of death just to get rid of the few inches needed to fit the dang thing.

Fair enough.



Me too. Who looks at those and sees beauty? All I see are a couple of emaciated women who desperately need to put on some weight before they die.

It made me think of those infomercials asking for donations to feed starving people in Africa. The same skeletal look, sunken in features... ::shiver:: All that's missing is the swollen starvation belly and I do NOT want to know how they prevent that.

Lack of parasites.

Enough water consumption

Lack of parasites.

Enough water consumption

Although the swollen stomachs are usually caused by oedemas, where the blood plasma concentration is so low that water can't be drawn back into the blood vessels by osmosis and so tissue fluid builds up. Although I'm not entirely sure why you don't see it in anorexics. Possibly because most of them aren't quite at that stage yet, but probably because in third world countries they don't have access to many high-protein foods, their main source of nourishment being rice, and the like. Still, seeing as anorexics aim to eat mext to nothing, I'm not quite so sure.

the companies that promote weak, skinny, unhealthy women as the standard of beauty are using psychic violence against the entire population, degrading the fundamental dignity of many people, and exploiting millions...that said, the government shouldn't have anything to do with this kind of thing...non-government led boycotts, strikes, and so on wouldn't hurt though.

A survey of fashion models
http://www.fashionverbatim.net/canadian-beauy-dispels-model-myths/

"In fact, more than 80 per cent of both groups scored well within the normal, healthy range for eating behaviours.With 74 per cent claiming they did not have to lose any weight to begin their career in modelling, McWhirter’s results suggest models are thin naturally and likely don’t attain their physiques through extreme and unhealthy habits."

Lack of parasites.

Enough water consumption

Although the swollen stomachs are usually caused by oedemas, where the blood plasma concentration is so low that water can't be drawn back into the blood vessels by osmosis and so tissue fluid builds up. Although I'm not entirely sure why you don't see it in anorexics. Possibly because most of them aren't quite at that stage yet, but probably because in third world countries they don't have access to many high-protein foods, their main source of nourishment being rice, and the like. Still, seeing as anorexics aim to eat mext to nothing, I'm not quite so sure.

Hmm, apparently oedemas do occur in a substantial number of anorexia sufferers. Interestingly it usually occurs when the patient is in refeeding therapy. However as refeeding therapy continues the oedema will tend to resolve itself as the blood protein concentration rises.

Also, apparently during refeeding therapy insulin and glucagon start being secreted in higher amounts, as the body is ingesting more food and sugars than usual, plus the levels of hormones such as oestrogen rise due to more cholesterol being available to synthesise them from, and apparently the changes in various hormone levels affects the devlopment of oedemas. I don't understand it fully.

End of pipe solutions are shitty solutions and tend to be more expensive or work intensive than preventive measures.

As the proverb goes "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

I suppose the French picked the latter because it's an anti-anorexia/eating disorder law.

A survey of fashion models
http://www.fashionverbatim.net/canadian-beauy-dispels-model-myths/

"In fact, more than 80 per cent of both groups scored well within the normal, healthy range for eating behaviours.With 74 per cent claiming they did not have to lose any weight to begin their career in modelling, McWhirter’s results suggest models are thin naturally and likely don’t attain their physiques through extreme and unhealthy habits."
Sorry, but I am skeptical of this. Yes, it is true that different body types will be healthy at different weights, and it is perfectly natural for some people to be quite skinny and still be healthy. However, it is also true that the fashion industry puts pressure on models to maintain a certain size and that size does not vary for things like height or muscle mass. It is also true that the "ideal" fashion model form never varies to show body types other than angular, long-limbed with prominent major bone structures (cheek bones, shoulders, etc), and smaller muscle development.

Considering what I have seen walking down runways, I just do not believe that all these people are at their own optimal health levels. I also do not believe that promoting that one body type as a "beautiful" is good for all the people in the world who have different body types and will never be able to look like those models unless they starve themselves.

For a brief period, when sports and working out were in vogue, fashion designers hired fashion models built like olympic athletes. You saw women with perfectly sculpted hips, thighs, abs, arms, backs, etc, walking with energy down the runways. What you didn't see was every bone in their torsos or that their pants were hung on their pelvises like they were clotheshangers. But the basic fact is that skeletons are more uniform in size than muscles, so when you're making specimens of designs, it's easier to fit ultra-skinny people than ones with meat on. You can cut all your clothes from the same base patterns and put them on any models that happen to show up for the job without much fuss if you have to make personnel changes along the way.

I stand by my argument that the demand for skinniness in the fashion industry not only creates an unhealthy work environment for models, it also promotes an unrealistic and unhealthy standard of beauty for the rest of humanity by designing for only one kind of body. And I stand by my argument that the fashion industry could change that image if it wanted to. Finally, I stand by my argument that changing fashion would do more to lessen eating disorders generally than France's prohibition likely will.