NEW YORK – Hip-and-trendy clothing company Urban Outfitters is being accused of promoting something called the “inner thigh gap,” a term used to describe the space between a thin woman’s thighs. The popular store was forced by the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) to remove an image of a model with an “unhealthy” gap.
The image in question shows a model from the waist down wearing black polka-dot bikini briefs. A complaint was filed with the ASA saying the model was extremely underweight and could have a negative impact on young consumers. The ASA agreed and had the photo removed.
“We understood that Urban Outfitters’ target market was young people and considered that using a noticeably underweight model was likely to impress upon that audience that the image was representative of the people who might wear Urban Outfitters’ clothing, and as being something to aspire to,” the ASA said on their website. “We therefore concluded that the ad was irresponsible.”
According to the ASA, Urban Outfitters disagreed with their ruling, saying it is common practice to use skinny models in ads.
On the one hand, I think the emphasis on thigh gap can be unhealthy, on the other hand as an American I don't see a government role to enforce body image. Promote, sure, incentivize, surely... enforce, not in my opinion.
But, if the UK people are good with this, good for them.
Ouze wrote: On the one hand, I think the emphasis on thigh gap can be unhealthy, on the other hand as an American I don't see a government role to enforce body image. Promote, sure, incentivize, surely... enforce, not in my opinion.
But, if the UK people are good with this, good for them.
The idea of the government regulating body image bothers me as well. Not quite for the same reasons, I don't share the typical American unease with more intrusive government. Rather there are some people who are going to have the body structure for that gap to exist without also being dangerously unhealthy (specifics of the exact model in question aside).
Seems outside of cases where somebody is clearly suffering some kind of physical distress from their condition you're going to be sending a someone the wrong message by going "Oh no, people like you can't be presented publicly it's far too dangerous".
It's a fair point that the number of folks who can achieve what models look like, even when dangerously underweight are limited. It's just not a common a body structure. It'd be nice if there was a way to ensure companies putting forward aspirational images for the sake of profit, were required to do so in a way that had minimal chances of negatively impacting the public. I just don't think it's a problem with an elegant solution, I certainly can't think of one.
I guess among all possible evils this is probably one of the lesser ones, but still...
Having looked at the picture, whilst I think the ruling is fething stupid for a number of reasons, I'm pretty sure having so little flesh on one's bones isn't a good sign.
Ouze wrote: On the one hand, I think the emphasis on thigh gap can be unhealthy, on the other hand as an American I don't see a government role to enforce body image. Promote, sure, incentivize, surely... enforce, not in my opinion.
But, if the UK people are good with this, good for them.
Organisations like the ASA and Ofcom have complaints systems that work off the "vocal minority". Action can be taken against adverts and shows that tens of people complained about, but tens of thousands did not, or even enjoyed. Their proceedures in no way mirror the actual opinions of the viewers, only the opinions of the minimal number of people 'outraged on the behalf of others'.
Ouze wrote: On the one hand, I think the emphasis on thigh gap can be unhealthy, on the other hand as an American I don't see a government role to enforce body image. Promote, sure, incentivize, surely... enforce, not in my opinion.
But, if the UK people are good with this, good for them.
They're not actually enforcing body image per se, they're limiting how companies can advertise on public health grounds. Honestly I'm not just "ok with this", I think it's entirely rational; the UK still has(at least in name, the Westminster government are doing their best to ruin it in England & Wales, thankfully here in Scotland health is devolved to our own parliament) an entirely public health system, so on top of the core argument that the wellbeing of individuals who might be negatively impacted by certain types of advertising should be more important than whether or not corporations can advertise in those ways, you can also say that advertising products in a way that could lead to people's health being impacted is entirely the state's business, since it is the state and through them the taxpayer that will have to pick up the bill.
Regardless, limiting the behaviour and expression of corporate entities is not the same thing as limiting the behaviour and expression of individuals; corporations are not people here(or indeed anywhere sane), they are profit-seeking enterprises, and there are manifold situations when the interests of society as a whole are more important and more worthy of protection than corporate interests. I fail to see how this incident can justify throwing terms like "thought police" around.
The fact of the matter is that advertising works, it does affect people in measurable ways, so when those effects are likely to be negative or damaging but companies are still irresponsible enough to advertise in that way anyway, I have no problem with the idea of the Advertising Standards Authority doing their job and telling them to knock it the hell off.
Upon re-reading myself being quoted I feel like I perhaps need to clarify my earlier post. When I said "if the UK people are OK with this, good for them" it sort of maybe comes across as a swipe, but I meant it literally, in that I gave my (outsider) opinion and then ultimately decided as a someone who never even visited the UK, let alone resided there, that I'm not really qualified to comment on your culture other then from my US biased prospective - I wasn't making a judgement.
So far as the "tens of people" are upset comment, that does remind me of something like that in the US - the Parents Television Council. It turned out that when the FCC got a bajillion complaints about a television show, the vast overwhelming majority were generated by this one single organization via form letters, essentially (this is mostly pre-internet).
Ouze wrote: On the one hand, I think the emphasis on thigh gap can be unhealthy, on the other hand as an American I don't see a government role to enforce body image. Promote, sure, incentivize, surely... enforce, not in my opinion.
But, if the UK people are good with this, good for them.
I'm not good with this. I'm fed up of the government lecturing me on eating too much sugar, or too much fat, or not exercising enough, or deciding what I can or can't listen too etc etc
Things are getting that bad, Ouze, that it's getting to the stage where I expect to sitting by the telephone one day, waiting for the government's permission to go to the toilet and do a you know what
Edit: Ouze, don't worry about making comments or passing judegement on the UK, we're always sticking our noses in the USA's business.
You should visit the UK the first chance you get - see some good castles and proper battlefields. None of that Lexington and Concord nonsense
I am not surprised at the wave of knee jerk sex related legislation. After backing down on law enforcement over the course of over a decade due to fears of inflaming race relations has shown that ethnic peadophile gangs have been able to molest children unchecked. Furthermore it has come to light that efforts to stop the activities by parents were being blocked by the local police.
Guvment must now appear tough on perversions to compensate, and it is getting more and more absurd.
This is the image for all those who have not yet seen it;
Spoiler:
Why was this ad not tolerated, but United Colors of Benetton's ads involving people dying from AIDS, people suffering from anorexia, clothes riddles with bullet holes and blood from the Bosnian War, and child soldiers were?
That or they really like big butts and they cannot lie...
to be fair, those other brothers can't deny, when a girl walks in with an itty bitty waist and a round thing in your face, you get sprung...
To be fair, it is quite common for ads to be banned for some reason.
Like we banned the Yakult advert because it claimed that it had special bacteria which could reach the gut alive. The ASA told them to bin it because it was scientifically incorrect.
To be fair, it is quite common for ads to be banned for some reason.
Like we banned the Yakult advert because it claimed that it had special bacteria which could reach the gut alive. The ASA told them to bin it because it was scientifically incorrect.
There is a difference between banning an add because it outright lies, and banning an ad because you think a woman looks unhealthy.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: This is the image for all those who have not yet seen it;
Spoiler:
Why was this ad not tolerated, but United Colors of Benetton's ads involving people dying from AIDS, people suffering from anorexia, clothes riddles with bullet holes and blood from the Bosnian War, and child soldiers were?
I think removing the advert is fine, there are lots of reasons advertising can be inappropriate and promoting clearly unhealthy values is one of them. Since starting teaching I've found the number of young girls with eating disorders quite shocking, and in part it's due to imagery as in this advert being everywhere and promoted as normal/aspirational.
To be fair, it is quite common for ads to be banned for some reason.
Like we banned the Yakult advert because it claimed that it had special bacteria which could reach the gut alive. The ASA told them to bin it because it was scientifically incorrect.
There is a difference between banning an add because it outright lies, and banning an ad because you think a woman looks unhealthy.
Unhealthy like smoking is unhealthy? Because your country limits tobacco advertising. You have advertising standards in the US too.
Incidentally, I sincerely hope you haven't been trawling for stories to discredit European countries and culture after the latest 'gun debate thread' got locked. That would make you a very sad man indeed.
Three points:
1. Its a real issue. underweight models in women's magazines have been a major driver in eating disorders and other psychological problems for da wimminz. I've know three wimminz who've had eating disorders. (I have an eating disorder too its called Dachshunditis- if left to my own devices I will eat until I burst).
2. Having said that, I would not push for a law. I'd prefer social pressure to nanny statism, as typically the nanny staters want to restrict me four times as much as they do things I support.
3. This is a UK issue, so I support whatever they want to legally do.
The Advertising Standards Authority enforces standards in advertising.
If you are worried about the government enforcing body image, do not move to Japan, where every year you will be scolded by doctors for being too fat if your waist measurement is higher than the government appointed level.
Kilkrazy wrote: The Advertising Standards Authority enforces standards in advertising.
If you are worried about the government enforcing body image, do not move to Japan, where every year you will be scolded by doctors for being too fat if your waist measurement is higher than the government appointed level.
What, they have compulsory annual weight checks? Can you not just tell them to bugger off and refuse to visit the doctors?
Kilkrazy wrote: The Advertising Standards Authority enforces standards in advertising.
If you are worried about the government enforcing body image, do not move to Japan, where every year you will be scolded by doctors for being too fat if your waist measurement is higher than the government appointed level.
If I were Japan, my doctor would have to immediately commit seppuku.
Kilkrazy wrote: The Advertising Standards Authority enforces standards in advertising.
If you are worried about the government enforcing body image, do not move to Japan, where every year you will be scolded by doctors for being too fat if your waist measurement is higher than the government appointed level.
If I were Japan, my doctor would have to immediately commit seppuku.
Doubt it. He/She more likely hand you the sterilize Tanto and to help you out using a skin ink pen to indicate where to start and the direction of cut
Kilkrazy wrote: The Advertising Standards Authority enforces standards in advertising.
If you are worried about the government enforcing body image, do not move to Japan, where every year you will be scolded by doctors for being too fat if your waist measurement is higher than the government appointed level.
If I were Japan, my doctor would have to immediately commit seppuku.
Fret not : you'd have been harpooned when you waddled on-shore
Dreadclaw69 wrote: This is the image for all those who have not yet seen it;
Spoiler:
Why was this ad not tolerated, but United Colors of Benetton's ads involving people dying from AIDS, people suffering from anorexia, clothes riddles with bullet holes and blood from the Bosnian War, and child soldiers were?
that pick isnt dangerously underweight at all...
shes just fit, there is plenty of muscle on those bones, just no fat.
very far from anorexic, and very far from being a problem
Kilkrazy wrote: The Advertising Standards Authority enforces standards in advertising.
If you are worried about the government enforcing body image, do not move to Japan, where every year you will be scolded by doctors for being too fat if your waist measurement is higher than the government appointed level.
What, they have compulsory annual weight checks? Can you not just tell them to bugger off and refuse to visit the doctors?
No. It is done at work. You get a load of free medical checks done at the same time, so it balances out.
Kilkrazy wrote: The Advertising Standards Authority enforces standards in advertising.
If you are worried about the government enforcing body image, do not move to Japan, where every year you will be scolded by doctors for being too fat if your waist measurement is higher than the government appointed level.
If I were Japan, my doctor would have to immediately commit seppuku.
Doubt it. He/She more likely hand you the sterilize Tanto and to help you out using a skin ink pen to indicate where to start and the direction of cut
Kilkrazy wrote: The Advertising Standards Authority enforces standards in advertising.
If you are worried about the government enforcing body image, do not move to Japan, where every year you will be scolded by doctors for being too fat if your waist measurement is higher than the government appointed level.
If I were Japan, my doctor would have to immediately commit seppuku.
Fret not : you'd have been harpooned when you waddled on-shore
This is true. Alternatively, I'm sure the vet for the newly arrived "bipedal walking grizzly bear with bad breath and mange" would understand I'm just putting on fat for the winter.
I'm not good with this. I'm fed up of the government lecturing me on eating too much sugar, or too much fat, or not exercising enough, or deciding what I can or can't listen too etc etc
Things are getting that bad, Ouze, that it's getting to the stage where I expect to sitting by the telephone one day, waiting for the government's permission to go to the toilet and do a you know what
Edit: Ouze, don't worry about making comments or passing judegement on the UK, we're always sticking our noses in the USA's business.
You should visit the UK the first chance you get - see some good castles and proper battlefields. None of that Lexington and Concord nonsense
I think government permission to use the toilet is very sensible. Elvis died on the toilet, you don't wan't to die, do you?
Kilkrazy wrote: The Advertising Standards Authority enforces standards in advertising.
If you are worried about the government enforcing body image, do not move to Japan, where every year you will be scolded by doctors for being too fat if your waist measurement is higher than the government appointed level.
If I were Japan, my doctor would have to immediately commit seppuku.
Doubt it. He/She more likely hand you the sterilize Tanto and to help you out using a skin ink pen to indicate where to start and the direction of cut
Kilkrazy wrote: The Advertising Standards Authority enforces standards in advertising.
If you are worried about the government enforcing body image, do not move to Japan, where every year you will be scolded by doctors for being too fat if your waist measurement is higher than the government appointed level.
If I were Japan, my doctor would have to immediately commit seppuku.
Fret not : you'd have been harpooned when you waddled on-shore
This is true. Alternatively, I'm sure the vet for the newly arrived "bipedal walking grizzly bear with bad breath and mange" would understand I'm just putting on fat for the winter.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: This is the image for all those who have not yet seen it;
Spoiler:
Why was this ad not tolerated, but United Colors of Benetton's ads involving people dying from AIDS, people suffering from anorexia, clothes riddles with bullet holes and blood from the Bosnian War, and child soldiers were?
that pick isnt dangerously underweight at all...
shes just fit, there is plenty of muscle on those bones, just no fat.
very far from anorexic, and very far from being a problem
Yeah, not really. The number of people who have a body type that allows for "thigh gap" when they're merely "just fit" is pretty small, for the vast majority of women to achieve that "look" they have to be dangerously underweight.
It takes very, very little to have an advert banned in the UK. I believe even a small number of complaints about something will make the Advertising Standards Agency look at something.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: This is the image for all those who have not yet seen it;
Spoiler:
Why was this ad not tolerated, but United Colors of Benetton's ads involving people dying from AIDS, people suffering from anorexia, clothes riddles with bullet holes and blood from the Bosnian War, and child soldiers were?
that pick isnt dangerously underweight at all...
shes just fit, there is plenty of muscle on those bones, just no fat.
very far from anorexic, and very far from being a problem
Yeah, not really. The number of people who have a body type that allows for "thigh gap" when they're merely "just fit" is pretty small, for the vast majority of women to achieve that "look" they have to be dangerously underweight.
Indeed. I can say from plenty of first hand experience that the picture in question is outright disturbing.
I get some blood elf
Spoiler:
vibes, actually. It's that bad.
I have no problems with the government stepping in here.
I'm sorry, but in accordance with the Advertising Standards Agency rules your image will have to be removed as the AT-AT walkers are all displaying a significant thigh gap that may have a pernicious influence on other AT-ATs, and AT-STs.
Huh, guess its only body shaming when they are overweight and unattractive. SJWs being hypocrites? Nah. Just stay offended forever and complain when your feelings are hurt.
Ravenous D wrote: Huh, guess its only body shaming when they are overweight and unattractive. SJWs being hypocrites? Nah. Just stay offended forever and complain when your feelings are hurt.
I know this is likely futile, given you jumped straight to "ermagerd SJW amirite guise?!", but lets give it a go anyway. This is nothing to do with "body shaming". It is not about judgement, about tying someone's body-type to their worth as a person. There is a demonstrable link between the standards of beauty promoted by the fashion and clothing industry and the behaviour and attitudes of people among the general populace, and that link is primarily achieved through advertising. When the standards of beauty being promoted are ones which require the vast majority of women to become dangerously unhealthy to attain, that is a problem. We're not talking about girls going on the Special K diet here, we're talking about young girls literally(and I mean that in the dictionary sense of the word) starving themselves to the point it has long-term health consequences, and those are the ones that achieve their goal; far more attempt to attain a figure with "thigh gap" and end up stuck in a cycle of depression-driven binging and purging because it's simply not biologically possible for them to achieve. People like to pretend advertising doesn't work and such people are just "weak" because acknowledging that reality forces them to confront the idea that perhaps their behaviour is not entirely their own choice, but that's willful ignorance.
Consider it this way; lets say the standards of beauty valued by the industry were to change, that it were to become fashionable to be monstrously, morbidly obese; a body type just as "unnatural" for most women as being so thin as to have a "thigh gap", and which also brings with it serious health problems. Regardless of what you personally find attractive, regardless of whether there are a small minority of people out there who naturally tend towards that body type and could achieve it without any serious impact on their health, would it not be irresponsible for the industry to promote the attainment of that level of morbid obesity in full knowledge that doing so would cause health problems, physical and mental, for large numbers of women? And if they are not willing to be responsible members of society, is it not justifiable to compel them to, just as we do to corporations in many other ways?
People can talk blether on about "government overreach" and SJW's all they like, it's comfortable and easy to dismiss the issue. Spend some time volunteering with mental health charities and try to keep whinging about SJW's after you've seen a girl of 20 who has to wear dentures and has diminished kidney function because she starved herself so severely as a teen as a result of the pressure to conform to that unattainable standard that her teeth fell out and she ended up in hospital being fed intravenously.
You guys have some weird standards if that picture is so disturbing to you. It's a relatively skinny set of hips, but looks well within 'normal' to me. Go google "really skinny model" and you can find some creepy stuff. This is not that bad.
I mean, what's the solution here? There are a bunch of you talking about how this is a problem, but I'm not seeing a whole lot of suggestions on what we should do. There are always going to be prettier people out there.
djones520 wrote: Barely average? Her thighs are about the size of my waist.
I'm not saying she's fat, but she does not have an "average" build.
According to the internet she's a US dress size 12, which is the equivalent of UK dress size 14 or 16. In the UK size 14-16 is the average dress size for women. From a quick google search apparently the average dress size in the US is 10-14, so she's average there, too.
djones520 wrote: Barely average? Her thighs are about the size of my waist.
I'm not saying she's fat, but she does not have an "average" build.
According to the internet she's a US dress size 12, which is the equivalent of UK dress size 14 or 16. In the UK size 14-16 is the average dress size for women. From a quick google search apparently the average dress size in the US is 10-14, so she's average there, too.
I'm pretty sure the average person in both the US and UK is overweight.
Medium of Death wrote: When fat becomes the average it doesn't make it healthy or right.
And when the perception of what is "fat" changes thanks to anorexic models?
After all, when this and this are a thing, it's hard to argue that perception of what is and isn't "fat" or healthy is massively skewed.
In particular:
Bridget Jones: She weighed nine and a half stone (133 pounds). Yup, real whale there. Although the point might be that she obsesses about her weight so much, not that she's actually fat. Renee Zellweger at her Bridget Jones weight was considered too fat for the cover of Harper's Bazaar. Zellweger as Bridget Jones was supposed to be a UK size 14 (which is a US size 10). She gained only enough weight to reach a size 6, but even this spawned dozens of newspaper and magazine articles on her weight gain. Though during interviews at the time, she claimed to enjoy being heavier, she lost the weight as soon as filming was done and when it came time to film a sequel, she refused to gain weight until the studio literally paid her for every extra pound she put on.
djones520 wrote: Barely average? Her thighs are about the size of my waist.
I'm not saying she's fat, but she does not have an "average" build.
According to the internet she's a US dress size 12, which is the equivalent of UK dress size 14 or 16. In the UK size 14-16 is the average dress size for women. From a quick google search apparently the average dress size in the US is 10-14, so she's average there, too.
I'm pretty sure the average person in both the US and UK is overweight.
Well, I guess if you look at it in that light, she would be "barely average" since 1 in 4 citizens of the UK are Obese.
I mean, the average male pant size in America is a size 38 for a dude that is 5'9."
I wear a 38, but am nearly 6'1, and I'm not in great shape, and certainly need to lose some weight. I own that. I recognize that. I'm not pushing for dudes that look like me to be on the cover of Men's Fitness or in Calvin Klein's next underwear ad. Gross.
Basically, I'm saying our "average" is "overweight" and as someone else put earlier in the thread, that's sad.
cincydooley wrote: I mean, the average male pant size in America is a size 38 for a dude that is 5'9."
I wear a 38, but and nearly 6'1, and I'm not in great shape, and certainly need to lose some weight. I own that. I recognize that. I'm not pushing for dudes that look like me to be on the cover of Men's Fitness or in Calvin Klein's next underwear ad. Gross.
Basically, I'm saying our "average" is "overweight" and as someone else put earlier in the thread, that's sad.
So much this.
There's a massive online presence of people wanting to change the medically established norm because of their feelings.
I'm 6' with a 34-36 waist. I need to loose weight, i'm aware of that. I'm sitting near borderline on BMI so I need to come down a notch.
I'm not about to start advocating a beer based lifestyle with no exercise. Although I think it would probably take off really well.
BMI as a classification system is pretty gak l though and has lead to many people in the UK being labelled as obese despite being quite clearly healthy (or more accurately not fat, for their height and build).
cincydooley wrote:I mean, the average male pant size in America is a size 38 for a dude that is 5'9."
I wear a 38, but am nearly 6'1, and I'm not in great shape, and certainly need to lose some weight. I own that. I recognize that. I'm not pushing for dudes that look like me to be on the cover of Men's Fitness or in Calvin Klein's next underwear ad. Gross.
Basically, I'm saying our "average" is "overweight" and as someone else put earlier in the thread, that's sad.
I'm 6' and I wear a 32" and I'm trying to cut down to 30"...apparently I'm anorexic...
Things I've learned from this thread:
1) Meghan Trainor isn't overweight even though she is visibly chubby/fat...
2) Having a thigh gap indicates that someone is unhealthy and starving themselves
3) Consensus truth is alive and well
Kilkrazy wrote: The Advertising Standards Authority enforces standards in advertising.
If you are worried about the government enforcing body image, do not move to Japan, where every year you will be scolded by doctors for being too fat if your waist measurement is higher than the government appointed level.
If I were Japan, my doctor would have to immediately commit seppuku.
Is it wrong that I immediately pictured tiny Japanese men in lab coats and hardhats running away pointing and screaming "Frazzilla, FRAZZILLAAAAAA!"
Basically, I'm saying our "average" is "overweight" and as someone else put earlier in the thread, that's sad.
I'm 5'9 ~190, with ~8% body fat; at least according to a week old hydrostatic measurement. I also have a 34" waistline and would be considered overweight by many of the popular metrics, despite being able to run 10 miles in 1.5 hours.
Though it must be said that there is a body of research suggesting that carrying too much mass, of any kind, is hazardous to one's long-term health.
dogma wrote: Though it must be said that there is a body of research suggesting that carrying too much mass, of any kind, is hazardous to one's long-term health.
That's only true if your lifestyle does not account for the extra mass.
That's only true if your lifestyle does not account for the extra mass.
The argument that is generally made is that overweight people tend to live shorter lives, even controlling for body fat percentage. What hasn't been adequately controlled for is that fact that overweight, active people tend to use steroids and supplements at a higher rate than overweight, inactive people; they also generally engage in a larger number of risky recreational activities.
I'm seeing a lot of before and after thigh gap photos...and most of them involve a fat/chubby girl going down to a healthier size without being too skinny. Not seeing the problem here. Might be NSFW.
Spoiler:
It looks like many women can naturally have a thigh gap at a perfectly healthy size...so what is that hate about? This is a far cry from thinspo/proana.
Thigh gap is when a women stands upright with knees touching and there is a gap between her thighs.
None of the possibly NSFW photos show thigh gap. They show a young woman who has lost some weight but still has fat on her thighs. (Which is pretty normal for women.)
Kilkrazy wrote: Thigh gap is when a women stands upright with knees touching and there is a gap between her thighs.
None of the possibly NSFW photos show thigh gap. They show a young woman who has lost some weight but still has fat on her thighs. (Which is pretty normal for women.)
Why would her knees be touching? That's not a natural posture.
I'm a big dude with tree trunk legs, and my knees don't even touch.
Kilkrazy wrote: Thigh gap is when a women stands upright with knees touching and there is a gap between her thighs.
None of the possibly NSFW photos show thigh gap. They show a young woman who has lost some weight but still has fat on her thighs. (Which is pretty normal for women.)
Why would her knees be touching? That's not a natural posture.
