It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: thedeadtruth
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.
originally posted by: lonesomerimbaud
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.
Do you think that this "perfect" body is propagated by men or women?
Is it women who are putting the pressure on themselves or are men dictating to women what their ideal of the perfect body is?
The current ideal of "perfect" is really totally contrary to what is natural for women. It is squeezing women quite literally into an unrealistic shape. I guess this has always gone on in history; head binding, feet binding, neck lengthening, on and on.
Also, the perfect body for whom? The perfect body in which era?
As a guy, the most positive thing I can do is to not put the pressure on. I'm happy with the diversity that nature presents us with, that is beautiful enough for me.
originally posted by: Timely
Once upon a time ... referred to as " child bearing hips " . Not a bad thing for a family oriented bloke.
Sexist - hell yeh ! Was it true and topical in the day - hell yes !!
Marilyn Monroe would be considered a bloated so and so today.
The pic posted by OP was not in any way showing bones due to anorexia.
Genetics folks ...have always been there. Attitudes sway in the breeze !
Be proud of who you are Ladies and Gents ....
You are one of a kind !
Tards need to focus on something more meaningful to the bettering of our species ...
That crap is not it !
Pfft !!
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
originally posted by: Son of Will
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
I know this is a touchy subject, but IMO the fundamental issue here is general ignorance of health. Of course, skinny women plastered in magazines and on billboards and TV will make girls want to have that shape. But it is IGNORANCE which leads them to unhealthy habits like calorie restriction, or bolemia, etc. To blame the ads is the height of ignorance. For those supporting legislation, you're the problem. Not the ads. You should be targeting public confusion over proper nutrition, and start with your own.
Do a google image search of "fruitarians". They are the healthiest demographic on the planet, and are routinely as skinny as the woman in the *doctored* photo. (Dangerously underweight? No. Good color in the flesh, no ribs showing... That woman is in great health.)
I stuff myself with food all day long, rarely exercise, and maintain a 6-pack just because I never gain weight. Why? It's not genes. It's because the food I eat is optimal for bodily performance. Very-low-fat, high-carb, plant-based, lots of fruit, whole foods, no processed food. No supplements except B12 twice a week. I used to be routinely 15 pounds overweight with much more exercise than I do now, so don't think I have special genes. That's a cop out. It's just living an understanding of nutrition. After figuring out how nutrition actually works, I can honestly say that I look younger than I did 10 years ago.
It's deceptively easy.
originally posted by: riiver
a reply to: Jamie1
The CDC put out a meta-study last year showing that people who were "normal" or "underweight" according to their BMI had a higher mortality rate than those who were in the "overweight"---though NOT "obese" category, actually.
Edit to add: I'm not in favor of "banning" any body type---thin, fat, or in-between. I AM dead set against heavily photoshopping pictures and presenting them as reality. Someone who NATURALLY has a thigh gap? Not a problem. Photoshopping girls who don't have one to make it look like they do? No.
originally posted by: Turq1
originally posted by: riiver
a reply to: Jamie1
The CDC put out a meta-study last year showing that people who were "normal" or "underweight" according to their BMI had a higher mortality rate than those who were in the "overweight"---though NOT "obese" category, actually.
Edit to add: I'm not in favor of "banning" any body type---thin, fat, or in-between. I AM dead set against heavily photoshopping pictures and presenting them as reality. Someone who NATURALLY has a thigh gap? Not a problem. Photoshopping girls who don't have one to make it look like they do? No.
How the crap does it matter to you or anyone else, in the context of media, if it's a natural or Photoshop thigh gap? (lawl btw). The effect a picture has on someone, the viewer, is the same whether it's a "real" 2 inch thigh gap (again lawl) or a "unreal' Photoshop 2 inch thigh gap.
I don't really see the reasoning...nothing would change, you'd just have the same standards for what's considered attractive, less models to choose from, and models with that feature would get paid more.
Who or what says they're being presented as reality? What if they're being presented as art?
originally posted by: Jamie1
Yes. Now photos of thigh gaps are "harmful" and "iiresponsible."
Urban Outfitters was ordered by the UK thought police to remove an image of a model because the size of the gap between her thighs was too large.
Irresponsibly large. Yes, irresponsibly large thing gaps are a serious public issue these days.
But not just irresponsible. The photo of a too-large thigh gap is also harmful.
Yep. We can't show photos of women who are too skinny. And we can't drink 32 oz Cokes or eat normal meals during lunch at school because well... that will make everybody too fat. We have to conform to what our government tells us is proper. Thank God we will be protected from our own inability to manage our own lives.
The most chilling part of this new era of thought police?
Source
Yes, we now live in a world where bureaucrats will measure the gap between your thighs, determine if that gap is the appropriate size, and then force 3rd party search engine companies like Google to ban you from search results if your thigh gap size is irresponsibly harmful.
Be careful what you post on ATS. The British thought police may find it harmful and irresponsible, and force it to be removed.
originally posted by: TKDRL
a reply to: 8675309jenny
False advertising is photoshop enhancing the product that is being sold..... The woman's thighs are not for sale, and don't unfairly enhance the clothing item that is for sale, now does it?