Urban Outfitters Ordered to Remove Outrageous Thigh Gap Picture on Their UK Website

PHOTOSHOP FRAUD: IS EXCESSIVE DIGITAL PHOTO ALTERATION OF COMMERCIAL PHOTOS DECEPTIVE ADVERTISING? April 11, 2014 · by Stephanie Crosson · in Uncategorized On July 14, 2011 Fiona Geraghty was found hanging in her bedroom by her father. Fellow classmates had subjected the 14-year-old girl to bullying and harassment about her weight at her school in Somerset, England.[ii] Her parents have stated that this bullying lead to her becoming bulimic and ultimately suicidal.[iii] The coroner, on the other hand, believes there is someone else who is directly responsible for Fiona’s death.[iv] Michael Rose, the coroner who investigated Fiona Geraghty’s death, believes that the fashion industry, and their excessive use of digital photo altering (commonly called “photoshopping”), is to blame for her suicide.[v] Mr. Rose stated, “The one class of person not here who I feel [is] directly responsible for what happened is the fashion industry.”[vi] He called for the fashion industry to stop promoting images of “wafer-thin” models and said, “I do ask, particularly the magazines in the fashion industry, to stop publishing photographs of wafer-thin girls. One magazine, I believe Vogue, has recently taken the decision not to do so. I do implore it, because at the end of the day for their benefit, families like this must suffer. It is, I am afraid, an increasing problem and until they control themselves it will continue.”[vii] What the coroner failed to point out is that even these “wafer-thin” models are not what they seem. Most photos in fashion magazines and commercial advertisements have been altered so heavily that even the models portrayed in them are not as thin as they appear to be. Model Katie Green, an advocate against the use of underweight models, has expressed her concern by stating, “It’s sad because it’s not real – 90 percent of girls in magazines will have been airbrushed. But a 14-year-old won’t realize that.”[viii]

www.lawschoolblog.org...

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
Now it's only advertisements, soon you'll have police on the street equipped with tape measures. Offending thigh gaps will be affixed with a restrictive device to keep the legs closed. Wake up people!

I'm awake! I volunteer to lead a citizen-led thigh-gap patrol. We will be armed with tape measures, clipboards cameras, etc., to gather evidence for whatever authoritative body (no pun intended) that wants to collect the evidence.

For myself, I'm immediately going to have various units of measure (meters/inches) tatooed on my fingers so I won't even need to carry a tape measure...just the clipboard, camera and citation papers.

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: karmicecstasy

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Jamie1
So you're all for discriminating against girls being perceived as underweight being allowed to earn money modeling?

No I'm not.

I am agreeing with the ASA's ruling that the advert was inappropriate for the target audience as the model was "noticably underweight". You probably don't know anyone who has been felt she was worthless because her body shape was never going to be "perfect" i.e. thin. It's a serious issue and not to be so casually brushed off.

Regards

Why are you making personal judgments about me and who I might know?

It's sexist, judgmental, and body shaming to have a bureaucrat look at a photo of a girls body, and declare the image of her body "irresponsible" and "dangerous."

That's body shaming. It's doing the exact thing you're against - telling a young girl her body isn't good enough the way it is.

And it's even worse BECAUSE the target market is young girls who are probably thin. It's sending a message to them that there's something wrong with their thin bodies.

No wonder obesity is at an all time high and we need to ban soft drinks and force kids on diets. Thin girls are being shamed to believe their bodies are dangerous.

Your body shaming argument might hold weight, if the photo was a real undoctored photo. However, it is not a real undoctored photo. It is obviously photo-shopped.

There was no claim the the photo was photoshopped.

And it's still body shaming when the government declares one gender, women, and one type of woman's body, thin, is so dangerous and harmful that a photo of the gap between her thighs can't be shown.

I'm very good friends with a bikini model, and hang out with her other model friends. They're not anorexic. They're health fanatics. Their legs look very similar to the photo that was banned.

So you're for censorship?

Not at all. I already said in my first post that the government should not be regulating this. Everything after that was just my personal opinion/taste on the subject. What I think. Not what I think governments should be doing.



Again, while I think the government has better things to do than regulating advertisements. The government has a long history of doing this. This is no different than the ratings system for movies and television. Right or wrong. What we can and can not see has pretty much always been regulated in some form or another. Even thighs have been regulated before. Bathing suits had to be a certain length to not show too much thigh. People did go around and measure them. Again I think all that is wrong. But it has happened before.



I also know a lot of models. My cousin and her friend were poster models for a beer company at one point in time. My cousins friend now owns her own modeling company. For the most part they are pretty healthy. They are some of the most naturally in best shape people on the planet. Yet that is still not enough. If you have friends that model. You also know photo-shopping is the norm in the industry. That photo the source is about. Is obviously photo-shopped. If the peak of human physical fitness is not enough. Don't you think that is a problem? A problem that has nothing to do with body shaming skinny people. The models I know sure do think it is a problem.



Granted, being photo-shopped is not why the photo was pulled.

a reply to: Jamie1

Therefore, we must hire bureaucrats to police images used in advertising to make sure thin girls aren't used in the ads so this doesn't happen.

I think we should care enough to have HONEST ads like we used to and CLEA ads like we used to and CARE about the kids like we used to. The anything goes policy has degraded our whole society.

Do you think we should also ban rap music promoting gun violence?

Yes.

originally posted by: alishainwonderland
While I fully agree that the over-policing of EVERYTHING has got to stop.... I do wish companies would use more realistic looking women (and men) in their ads. It doesn't bother a lot of people, but there are a lot of people who really react to ads like that. They try to achieve the "perfect" body and gain health and mental issues during the process. It's interesting how much MSM can affect our own ideas and beliefs.

If that's the perfect body then 99.9% of females have got it wrong. That pic is disgusting and most likely modified. Anorexic skeletal looking bodies aren't perfect, they're sick looking.

The message they're sending is wrong but I have to agree, they should have the right show it. Maybe next to it, they could show the bottom half of a *REAL* sexy body in the same undies.

originally posted by: Annee

PHOTOSHOP FRAUD: IS EXCESSIVE DIGITAL PHOTO ALTERATION OF COMMERCIAL PHOTOS DECEPTIVE ADVERTISING? April 11, 2014 · by Stephanie Crosson · in Uncategorized On July 14, 2011 Fiona Geraghty was found hanging in her bedroom by her father. Fellow classmates had subjected the 14-year-old girl to bullying and harassment about her weight at her school in Somerset, England.[ii] Her parents have stated that this bullying lead to her becoming bulimic and ultimately suicidal.[iii] The coroner, on the other hand, believes there is someone else who is directly responsible for Fiona’s death.[iv] Michael Rose, the coroner who investigated Fiona Geraghty’s death, believes that the fashion industry, and their excessive use of digital photo altering (commonly called “photoshopping”), is to blame for her suicide.[v] Mr. Rose stated, “The one class of person not here who I feel [is] directly responsible for what happened is the fashion industry.”[vi] He called for the fashion industry to stop promoting images of “wafer-thin” models and said, “I do ask, particularly the magazines in the fashion industry, to stop publishing photographs of wafer-thin girls. One magazine, I believe Vogue, has recently taken the decision not to do so. I do implore it, because at the end of the day for their benefit, families like this must suffer. It is, I am afraid, an increasing problem and until they control themselves it will continue.”[vii] What the coroner failed to point out is that even these “wafer-thin” models are not what they seem. Most photos in fashion magazines and commercial advertisements have been altered so heavily that even the models portrayed in them are not as thin as they appear to be. Model Katie Green, an advocate against the use of underweight models, has expressed her concern by stating, “It’s sad because it’s not real – 90 percent of girls in magazines will have been airbrushed. But a 14-year-old won’t realize that.”[viii]

www.lawschoolblog.org...

Some people enjoy living in a world where everybody else is to blame. It absolves them from their own responsibilities.

Have you ever worked with suicide survivors? The first 101, snap back to reality fact is that the person who decided to kill themself made that decision, nobody else. If somebody chooses to hang themselves, and we start looking for who to blame other than the person that put the cord around their neck, then where does it stop? Their parents? Their grandparents? Society? The girls at school who teased them?

Generally speaking, blaming somebody because of your own actions is irrational and self-defeating. It's certainly not going to empower girls to teach them they are helpless victims of what others think of them.

As for fraudulent advertising? The ads were selling underwear.

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: Annee

PHOTOSHOP FRAUD: IS EXCESSIVE DIGITAL PHOTO ALTERATION OF COMMERCIAL PHOTOS DECEPTIVE ADVERTISING? April 11, 2014 · by Stephanie Crosson · in Uncategorized On July 14, 2011 Fiona Geraghty was found hanging in her bedroom by her father. Fellow classmates had subjected the 14-year-old girl to bullying and harassment about her weight at her school in Somerset, England.[ii] Her parents have stated that this bullying lead to her becoming bulimic and ultimately suicidal.[iii] The coroner, on the other hand, believes there is someone else who is directly responsible for Fiona’s death.[iv] Michael Rose, the coroner who investigated Fiona Geraghty’s death, believes that the fashion industry, and their excessive use of digital photo altering (commonly called “photoshopping”), is to blame for her suicide.[v] Mr. Rose stated, “The one class of person not here who I feel [is] directly responsible for what happened is the fashion industry.”[vi] He called for the fashion industry to stop promoting images of “wafer-thin” models and said, “I do ask, particularly the magazines in the fashion industry, to stop publishing photographs of wafer-thin girls. One magazine, I believe Vogue, has recently taken the decision not to do so. I do implore it, because at the end of the day for their benefit, families like this must suffer. It is, I am afraid, an increasing problem and until they control themselves it will continue.”[vii] What the coroner failed to point out is that even these “wafer-thin” models are not what they seem. Most photos in fashion magazines and commercial advertisements have been altered so heavily that even the models portrayed in them are not as thin as they appear to be. Model Katie Green, an advocate against the use of underweight models, has expressed her concern by stating, “It’s sad because it’s not real – 90 percent of girls in magazines will have been airbrushed. But a 14-year-old won’t realize that.”[viii]

www.lawschoolblog.org...

Some people enjoy living in a world where everybody else is to blame. It absolves them from their own responsibilities.

Have you ever worked with suicide survivors? The first 101, snap back to reality fact is that the person who decided to kill themself made that decision, nobody else. If somebody chooses to hang themselves, and we start looking for who to blame other than the person that put the cord around their neck, then where does it stop? Their parents? Their grandparents? Society? The girls at school who teased them?

Generally speaking, blaming somebody because of your own actions is irrational and self-defeating. It's certainly not going to empower girls to teach them they are helpless victims of what others think of them.

As for fraudulent advertising? The ads were selling underwear.

Yeah, being part of a responsible society really sucks.

Whats with the pro-fat agenda? Just a bunch of mostly lazy folks that want everyone else to be fat too so they dont feel bad about it. I have no problem if folks choose to be like that, but the pro-fat agenda has been getting ridiculous in the last few years. The American population is obese and its not a positive thing. Its damned unhealthy. Yes, there are a small percentage of people that have thyrood issues, but mostly its lack of eating healthy and exercising.

Ill save my rant against feminism for another thread, but its tied into the pro-fat agenda.

a reply to: Jamie1

It's irresponsible to show skinny girls in ads because women will see this, and unable to protect themselves from media brainwashing, will desire to be skinny like the girl in the ad.

Strange they take issue with this but don't have a problem with painfully anorexic looking runway models.

a reply to: Annee

It could be the breakdown of the successful family structure.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Annee

It could be the breakdown of the successful family structure.

That and respect are probably the only 2 things I miss from the 50s.

But, most of it is selective memory. There really wasn't family cohesion, as some might think, as gender roles were defined.

I understand why people are concerned about women and their self-image, but in my opinion the real issue is that so many women actually allow advertisements to dictate their personal beliefs. Maybe the focus should be on fixing people's psychological issues, because this is definitely a psychological issue. A woman has to lack such self-confidence to think that she HAS to look like that at all costs. And for what? To please herself? That doesn't make much sense in my opinion, unless of course there is a deeper, underlying psychological issue. Is it to please men? Again, underlying issues. Too much emphasis is placed on making others conform. It is ridiculous. The advertising company is not pushing anyone to conform to the standards of their advertisements, so where is this pressure coming from? Again I contend that it is a psychological issue.

And another thing. What kind of society do we live in when we are looking at what amounts to a picture of a half-naked woman in her underwear, a very erotic picture in that sense, and we are upset about the distance of her thighs? I mean decades ago such a picture would not have been permissible, yet here we are, supposedly having "progressed," and now it is unacceptable because her stomach is too thin? It just blows my mind. I think that we should be stopping all the sexual ads that are everywhere if we want to do something. I mean children can see advertisements just about anywhere, ads they should not be seeing. But it is not because the women in the ads are too skinny.

I'm guessing it was some fat activists / health at every size types who got offended by seeing someone so skinny.

originally posted by: JiggyPotamus
I understand why people are concerned about women and their self-image, but in my opinion the real issue is that so many women actually allow advertisements to dictate their personal beliefs. Maybe the focus should be on fixing people's psychological issues, because this is definitely a psychological issue. A woman has to lack such self-confidence to think that she HAS to look like that at all costs. And for what? To please herself? That doesn't make much sense in my opinion, unless of course there is a deeper, underlying psychological issue.

You think this is about women? It's about shielding children from the types of psychological issues that can develop from this being presented as how the average person looks in underwear.

originally posted by: new_here
a reply to: Jamie1

It's irresponsible to show skinny girls in ads because women will see this, and unable to protect themselves from media brainwashing, will desire to be skinny like the girl in the ad.

Strange they take issue with this but don't have a problem with painfully anorexic looking runway models.

What's next? Barring skinny girls from going to the beach wearing bikinis?

At some point the idiocy of this approach has to stop.

originally posted by: new_here
a reply to: Jamie1

It's irresponsible to show skinny girls in ads because women will see this, and unable to protect themselves from media brainwashing, will desire to be skinny like the girl in the ad.

Strange they take issue with this but don't have a problem with painfully anorexic looking runway models.

This was about a print model, but there's been plenty of discussion about runway models.

Dressed Real Size Models On The Runway In London: We Want To Hear What You Think!

www.glamour.com...

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: new_here
a reply to: Jamie1

It's irresponsible to show skinny girls in ads because women will see this, and unable to protect themselves from media brainwashing, will desire to be skinny like the girl in the ad.

Strange they take issue with this but don't have a problem with painfully anorexic looking runway models.

This was about a print model, but there's been plenty of discussion about runway models.

Dressed Real Size Models On The Runway In London: We Want To Hear What You Think!

www.glamour.com...

This is so degrading to thin women. What? Thin women aren't real? They don't exist?

It's body shaming, no different than calling a kid fat. Why are women's body's fair game to be evaluated and judged like this?

Imagine doing this with anything else. I think the root of it is jealousy. Frumpy women are attacking thin women and saying they're not REAL women. Ridiculous.

a reply to: Jamie1

Didn't get past the headline, eh? Why am I not surprised?

originally posted by: TheArrow
a reply to: Jamie1

Didn't get past the headline, eh? Why am I not surprised?

He was too offended to read the rest.

They should just making Photoshopping in adverts illegal.

Real people only allowed. Big , small etc.... ALL are valid and hence acceptable if they are people.