Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I swear I'm not trying to slam on the UK, just seems to be a lot of stories of them being thought police of late.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2015/01/05/urban-outfitters-slammed-for-promoting-inner-thigh-gap-in-online-catalog/

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.

More at link.

"Noticeably underweight?"

Oh, go feth off. You can Meagan Trainor can go have some tea together.

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.

Can't wait to see the government mandated "Hold the Big Mac" provision forcing McDonald's to refuse Big Mac's to anyone "noticeably overweight."

 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...

It bothers me. I mean, I know it's a little hyperbolic, but how long until we're entering the Bergeron zone?

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

So when do we start banning ads with obviously overweight people?

I think the emphasis on thigh gap can be unhealthy. Yeah i do agree.

 djones520 wrote:
I swear I'm not trying to slam on the UK, just seems to be a lot of stories of them being thought police of late.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2015/01/05/urban-outfitters-slammed-for-promoting-inner-thigh-gap-in-online-catalog/


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.

[PURGATUS]

This is the image for all those who have not yet seen it;



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...

Holy Photoshop Batman!


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.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Holy Photoshop Batman!


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 this requires further investigation.

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.

 djones520 wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Holy Photoshop Batman!


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.

 cincydooley wrote:
"Noticeably underweight?"

Oh, go feth off. You can Meagan Trainor can go have some tea together.

Wait Wait Wait, What do you have against Meagan Trainor?

He's not about the bass/ all treble?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
"Noticeably underweight?"

Oh, go feth off. You can Meagan Trainor can go have some tea together.

Wait Wait Wait, What do you have against Meagan Trainor?

He likes treble?

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.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
"Noticeably underweight?"

Oh, go feth off. You can Meagan Trainor can go have some tea together.

Wait Wait Wait, What do you have against Meagan Trainor?

I dunno man, I think she's awesome. I'm into her in a big way.

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.

 Ouze wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
"Noticeably underweight?"

Oh, go feth off. You can Meagan Trainor can go have some tea together.

Wait Wait Wait, What do you have against Meagan Trainor?

I dunno man, I think she's awesome. I'm into her in a big way.

Wins the thread

 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?