263
Internet full of people blatantly arguing in bad faith shocker.
Anyone who shops at zara is a moron.
What's sad is I'm sure most of them are the kinds of idiots that think they "need" more money.
Generally: Good! Nuance: Some people are super thin by default and still healthy. However, that is not the standard and should not be pushed on anyone. Can we find a way to regulate health requirements for models? There's so much technology we can use these days to see if someone is damaging their body by behaving a certain way, would mandatory screening for that not be the best way forward?
That's not to say less/unhealthy people can't be models or beautiful, but just to make sure nobody feels like they need to starve themself in any way.
Ooh do Dollskill next
That's good news.
Can we also ban ads with obese people in them, too?
There are two ends to the unhealthy weight spectrum, so it's not right that only one is being targeted.
False equivalence.
Obese is not a fashion standard people pursue, being extremely thin is.
It is not just about being unhealthy, it's about not setting unhealthy standards.
a fashion standard people pursue, being extremely thin is.
I strongly disagree.
Standard people want to look healthy, fit, and maybe have some muscle. You know, the stuff that the majority would say brings sex appeal.
But nobody wants to look like a sad, malnourished bonerack, unless they have an eating disorder. I'd argue that most people find the look of gauntness, protruding bones, no muscle, etc. to be unflattering and quite disgusting. There are probably studies on this, I haven't looked.
The issue is that the fashion industry seems to like this look, and people with eating disorders find validation in that. It is a terrible cycle, no denying that.
That does beg the question, though: why not set the standard by having fit people wear your clothing? Why malnourished and sickly? Only a tiny fraction of the population has an eating disorder that causes them to be underweight, and I doubt very much that these companies are making all their profits off them.
It is not just about being unhealthy, it’s about not setting unhealthy standards.
I agree, which is why we should not be normalizing obesity, one of the top causes of death and morbidity, in advertisements. This isn't an opinion, I already linked a study showing that ads, even when intended to be positive, negatively affect obese people due to the normalization of this unhealthy standard.
But nobody wants to look like a sad, malnourished bonerack
That is more common than you are probably aware of. Of course they don't see it that way, they only see themselves as too big, even when they are far from it.
Unfortunately many clothes designers prefer models that are basically clothes racks. This is AFAIK the reason the standards have become so unhealthy they need to be regulated.
There are plenty horror stories about fashion houses that pressure their models to lose weight, and even provide drugs to endure not eating, despite they are already underweight. So there is 100% a widespread unhealthy attitude towards weight in the fashion industry, that needs to be regulated. The same is not the case for being fat that I have ever heard about.
we should not be normalizing obesity
Absolutely, but there also needs to be the possibility for clothes brands that specialize in clothing for "big" people to show their products in a reasonable way.
It can be very difficult for both overweight and even just tall women to find clothes that fit well. I don't think banning advertising that helps anybody.
It's very obviously not either a fashion or beauty ideal.
This is not normally nearly as much a problem for thin people. Although it can be for very small women too, I've heard of some that have to buy clothes and shoes for Children.
So there is 100% an unhealthy attitude towards weight in the fashion industry, that needs to be regulated.
In fairness, the fashion industry is a circus, almost literally. The stuff you see on the runway is so ridiculous that they might as well simply be costumes and not clothes. And the models, while they do suffer real consequences, are forced to have an unhealthy look to fit the character they play in this circus.
I would much rather see positive education into how to actually be fit and healthy, so that teens have no reason to look at these circus performers as a template.
but there also needs to be the possibility for clothes brands that specialize in clothing for “big” people to show their products in a reasonable way.
Absolutely. The reality is, people come in all different shapes and sizes, so there's a realistic expectation that they'll still need to buy clothes. But the normalization of super heavy (or super skinny) needs to go away.
The fashion industry is so much more than just the "circus" you mention. That is just the top of the iceberg. These standards have also spread to more common fashion, advertising clothes for ordinary people.
I would much rather see positive education into how to actually be fit and healthy, so that teens have no reason to look at these circus performers as a template.
If there's a method for that, that actually works, that would be great.
These standards have also spread to more common fashion, advertising clothes for ordinary people.
No doubt.
If there’s a method for that, that actually works, that would be great.
First, block and avoid ads. They are poison to the mind. Dropping social media is also strongly suggested.
It's hard to not fall prey to marketing companies if ads surround you on a daily basis, and I can't honestly imagine how difficult it must be for any teen who uses the internet or apps unfiltered. It's a losing battle if those influences aren't dealt with first.
I have all ads blocked, I never see ads in my everyday life, not on TV, not on my phone or on my computer, and not on radio. I'm personally 99.9% ad free.
But the only reason that's possible, is because we are a tiny minority, probably about 90% of people don't care enough or don't know how to get around the advertising.
To do that for everybody would be a major shift for society, that is not possible to do without a strong legal framework to achieve it, something that is not at all realistic in the current political situation in any place in the world.
So I think for now, the best we can do, is to regulate very thin models in the situation we are debating here.
Bad comparision since the obese look is not something that young people strife for when they see an ad showing an obese person.
Normalising obesity makes it seem like less of a problem. It should not be normal to be so unhealthy that one is obese, let alone nearly half the country.
But I know that absolutely nothing will be done to improve the quality of life for people by our current government, and quality of life is a big factor in obesity as food is an easy comfort. So even if obese people were no longer shown in adverts etc, it would only mean that obese models and actors would get fewer roles.
load more comments
(14 replies)
What's with all the stupid comments here?
She is obviously unhealthily thin, and of course she is allowed to be thin.
What is not allowed, and shouldn't be anywhere, is to idealize such extreme unhealthy standards in advertisements, and particularly not as a "fashion statement".
Edit PS:
The reason it is banned in some places, and should be banned, is that it sets an unhealthy standard, and causes eating disorders among especially teenager girls. It's basically for the same reason that advertising tobacco is illegal in most places.
So by that logic we should ban all ads featuring fat people too?
You have to compare this to being obese, not simply being fat, that girl is not simply slim, she is extremely thin bordering on anorexic.
So no, and the reason it is banned in some places and should be in all, is that it causes eating disorders especially among teenage girls that try to become unhealthily thin to live up to an impossible fashion ideal.
There is no similar fashion ideal for being obese. But if hypothetically there was, and it caused a similar effect, it should also hypothetically be illegal to use obese models.
I'm that thin too. Do you know how fucking tired I am of hearing about how I'm "bordering on anorexic"? Shut the fuck up, I probably eat more than you. You're right, there are a lot of stupid comments in here, as you put it. But they all sound like you. Reread your comments with the new understanding that there are thin people reading them too.
This is just a bunch of fat people collectively saying 'ew you should eat more' and it's gross.
Seriously. This was my take too. It's gross that people are calling a thin person that they know nothing about "unhealthy".
This assumption that young women are so silly and impressionable that they can't be allowed to see thin women modelling clothes because they might be inspired to become dangerously underweight, is really starting to annoy me.
Yes having only very thin women modelling in adverts is bad, but this isn't bad because 'fashion obsessed girls are so dumb they're gonna stop eating if they see this', it's bad because not all women are thin, and advertising only with the thinnest narrows the market you appeal to.
And if eating disorders in young women were really such a big worry for the government, surely they would instead fund nhs mental health services properly to make getting help for disordered eating and the issues which cause it (here's a hint, it's not fashion), much easier and safer to access?
But no, this is not what is being done, they're banning adverts with thin models instead.
Starmer really doesn't like women it seems. Too thin and you're stupid and impressionable and promote mental illness by existing, too many children and you're a scrounger who doesn't deserve government support, lacking an extra X chromosome and you're banned from public loos and refused healthcare.
load more comments
(8 replies)
Why do you say she's obviously unhealthily thin? Per the article:
both models in question had medical certification proving they were in good health when the pictures were taken.
The only evidence the article gives to there unhealthiness is the protruding collarbone. As someone who is naturally very thin I can assure you that you can be healthy and have a protruding collarbone.
I understand ads are setting beauty standards that are unachievable for a lot of girls and women which causes a lot of problems, but I don't think ths solution is to mark certain body shapes as unhealthy and ban them, there is no universal healthy body shape, what is healthy for some is unhealthy for others. This isn't even getting into issues of race and other unchangeable attributes someone else might have and feel bad for not matching a standard. The solution is to ban fashion advertising in general, or at least to teenage girls, so you don't have to deal with these issues.
Trump also has stellar health certificates despite being obese, when they are obviously false, why should I give a shit about a piece of paper where you can be paid to write anything?
I did not make my conclusion based on the wording in the article, but based on the pictures. And 2 things stood out to me, her sunken eyes, and her very thin legs.
Regarding the protruding collarbone, it's not just protruding which I agree can be normal, but hers is extremely protruding.
She may be built that way maybe having some fat burning gene or something, but she is still extremely thin, and using that kind of models to depict what is fashionable, has been very well documented to be harmful to especially teenage girls and cause eating disorders.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have
Why is the description a snippet of Rule 3?
UK try to go a day without banning something challenge: impossible
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2025
263 points (100.0% liked)
World News
48976 readers
2017 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS