Friday, September 15, 2006
Cracking down on skinny people
Suddenly the news is filled with reports of activism against supermodels and super-modeling. They are too thin for the tastes of certain busybodies.
Experts say legislation is now needed to protect the health of the models and of the teenage girls and young women who are influenced by them.
They are urging London to follow the lead taken by Madrid — and likely to be adopted by Milan — of banning models below a certain size from the catwalks.
The immediate cause of this outrage is nothing more than the usual operation of natural selection:
Last month South American model Luisel Ramos died moments after stepping off the catwalk from heart failure.
The 22-year-old had been told by a model agency she could "make it big" if she lost a significant amount of weight, and for three months she ate nothing but green leaves and drank only Diet Coke.
While it is true that every problem does not have a solution, this problem already has a solution. Nature is clear in its regulation of people who choose not to eat, however noble or base their motivations. No human laws are necessary.
Of course, the models are not asking for us to stop them before they starve again. The people who want governments to mandate that models have more body mass say that they are doing it for the children.
Steve Bloomfield, spokesman for the Eating Disorders Association, said today: "We do think legislation is needed.
"This is about protecting the young women and men who work in the fashion industry, as well as those who are at risk of an eating disorder and can be influenced by the pictures that they see."
But of course. "Protect the children!" has become the rallying cry of every busybody who does not like the way somebody else is living their life. Since it is possible to generate a statistical or merely intuitive link from any adult activity to some allegedly adverse impact in children, "protect the children!" has become the default justification of authoritarians who want to take away our freedoms but lack a well-considered reason to do so.
In this case, though, I wonder if the busybodies won't end up actually hurting "the children," to say nothing of their impact on the Sports Illustrated annual swimsuit issue.
Let's start with the premise of the regulators, who hold that the image of a very skinny supermodel will influence children in a way that a merely thin supermodel will not (the regulators are no, after all, calling for "husky" models, be they super or otherwise). It is either true that children will emulate ultra-thin supermodels and try to get very thin themselves, or it is not. If it is not true, then there is no need for the regulation. If it is true, then we might ponder the impact of that emulation. Let's suppose that lots of children will try to get skinny upon exposure to supermodels.
The dominant medical problem among Western children is obesity, not starvation. In the United States, more than 30% of children are overweight, and more than 15% are obese. This is a vastly more prevalent health problem than the sorts of eating disorders that might result from supermodel emulation, anorexia nervosa and bulimia. Apparently, around 1% of female adolescents suffer from the former, and about 4% of college-aged women suffer from the latter. While it is true that these conditions are more acute than obesity and can threaten life more quickly, they affect a small percentage of a small percentage of the population.
So, if the high profile of a supermodel's low profile will indeed cause children to eat less, what will be the net consequences? Sure, the "pressure" to be thin may influence some eating disorders, but relieving the pressure to be thin might also lead to even more obesity. If we grant for the purposes of argument the dubious proposition that the appearance of supermodels influences children, how do we know if the net effects of that influence isn't positive, rather than negative? Fewer fat kids seems like a huge upside, even if a few of them go too far. And, if celebrity style is so influential, why not ban fat comedians? They seem to die young much more predictably than supermodels. If you believe that the behavior of these people has a systematic impact on the behavior of the average kid, it seems to me obvious that any social signal that being obese is in any way cool is far more destructive than too-thin models of role.
Of course, the people calling for this regulation are actually not particularly concerned about the health of either supermodels or children. They just don't like the idea that the fashion industry defines an ideal of female beauty. In the eyes of these PC puritans, supermodels are aesthetically and politically offensive. J.K. Rowling (of Harry Potter fame) gives away the game:
JK Rowling has launched an attack on the "skinny obsessed world" on her website.
She said she did not want her two daughters to grow up to be "empty headed, self-obsessed, emaciated clones".
Of course, a quick stroll through your nearest WalMart will prove that normal people are not "self-obsessed, emaciated clones." The social requirement to be thin is an artifact of ultrarich culture, with which JK Rowling has only recently become acquainted. No wonder she's appalled. But she shouldn't forget how "different from [the rest of] us" the rich really are.
12 Comments:
By 
Cardinalpark, at
Fri Sep 15, 02:54:00 PM:
MAyeb they should just legislate what body weight we should all be. Wouldn't that be nice:)
By Fabio, at
Fri Sep 15, 05:06:00 PM:
I do not support legislating these matters, but some models are more like walking skeletons that women, for god's sake. Give me curves!
By The Leading Wedge, at
Fri Sep 15, 05:13:00 PM:
First of all, I state that I agree completely that such regulation is meaningless and most likely counterproductive.
In considering the effects that seeing super thin and thin models might have on impressionable persons, you may have missed one possible effect. Many who have a vice, weakness or problem (real or imagined) may not have the willpower or the possibility to correct it completely. They may start the correction and fail - likely several times. The despair that results from the failure may lead to a sense of resignation which might actually drive them further into their problem. Think of the smokers who actually start to smoke more for comfort after receiving the lung cancer diagnosis.
It's probably easier and better just to wait until sickly thin goes out of fashion.
By TigerHawk, at
Fri Sep 15, 06:35:00 PM:
Leading Wedge, your argument is a sound one. Is that not, therefore, a compelling reason to ban fat actors, comedians, and other celebrities who might influence people to become obese? It seems to me that if we are not willing to do that, worring about the thin people is more than a little silly.
By Lanky_Bastard, at
Fri Sep 15, 10:46:00 PM:
Lanky ones unite!
Just want to point out that some people are naturally lanky. My weight has been pretty constant for the last 12 years. I guess I was up 5 lbs when I ran regularly and down 5 when I had a stomach flu. Nowadays as a grad student, I eat crap food, soda, and booze. I don't exercise. I ate at McDonalds today. I could die of heart disease tomorrow, but I'm still Lanky.
If these models are starving themselves and dying, then there's a legit issue there. But some people are just meant to be skinny, and telling them "that's not ok" isn't going to lessen the cultural obsession with body images.
By 
, at
Sat Sep 16, 12:40:00 AM:
Where does it stop? I can see it now... A fat guy walks into a restaurant and the waiter says, "Sorry buddy, you've had too much. You're cut off. Now give me your car keys and walk home!"
By , at
Sat Sep 16, 03:46:00 AM:
Sickly thin is out of fashion. Haven't you seen any recent SI swimsuit calendar? They look nothing like, for example, Calista Flockhart.
By The Leading Wedge, at
Sat Sep 16, 05:51:00 PM:
Tigerhawk, I agree with your line of reasoning and only provided my comment to round out the arguments against your position for the sake of completeness. As long as we are going to start banning things which might influence someone somewhere negatively, then, yes the fat actors, comedians, etc. will have to find something else to do. I am chuckling about this latest idea of banning of the lissome from the catwalk (thought it must be a joke when I saw the first headline about it). I am of the opinion that we should tolerate all shapes and sizes, and that each of us must be held accountable for our own actions and eating decisions.
I have a 10 year old daughter who is just slightly in the direction of chubby. It's just baby fat, but I am able to witness in real time the effects the skinny girls on TV and in magazines have on her self-esteem. Although there is absolutely nothing wrong with her, she feels fat and talks about it. Rather than wishing that the skinny people would disappear from the media, I treat it as an important part of her upbringing. Namely, to teach her to understand that everyone is different, the inner beauty thing, and, above all, tolerance and confidence. Self-confidence is not about being perfect or better, or skinnier, than ones peers. It's about accepting ones own flaws and weaknesses and not being afraid that someone might notice. Fortunately, I think she is indeed learning this.
An interesting parallel in the world of ski jumping has been playing out the last 3-4 years. When the jumpers realized that they could fly farther if they were lighter, they basically stopped eating. Several of the jumpers apparently developed eating disorders and other health problems. It got so bad that the powers that be in the world of ski jumping finally set limits on how light the jumpers could be in relation to their height. I suppose that one might stretch it a bit and consider catwalking to be a form of competitive sport in which case we'd have to accept that, if it was OK for the ski jumping authorities to set lower weight limits, then we should accept the same thing in competitive catwalking.
As you mentioned in your original post, obesity is the main issue these days. I think it is just time we all learn to accept fat (and super-skinny) people and not try to attach morality issues to a person's weight.
It will be interesting observing how all this impacts the fashion world in the future. The playing field is no longer level. Will we see skinny-flight to more laissez-faire modelling regimes? Will the countries with excessive catwalk regulation be able to maintain their competitive position?
In case anyone is wondering, I am reasonably fit but not skinny.
By , at
Fri Oct 06, 05:09:00 PM:
I just have to add my 2 cents, because that's what I love to do! My problem with the whole situation is that there seems to be no variety as far as body type and size in the media. If all we see are slender women, then we come to the conclusion that if you are not thin, then you are not worth looking at. It's as simple as that. It's got almost nothing to do with super-skinny and eating disorders... it's got everything to do with acceptance of each individual based not on their size and shape, but one who they are! It would be nice, refreshing and also beneficial to see women of all different races, ages, sizes, shapes and walks of life on TV, movies and in magazines. Part of the reason why there are so many obese people is because we all have such low self-esteem and many deal with those feelings by eating for comfort. We know we can't live up to that image, so why try? Plus, did you ever notice when they're selling Cheetos, or Burger King or Coca-Cola, the people chowing down in the ads are never fat... not even close... they all look great! Ultimately, it's up to us as parents and individuals to realize that all the stuff on TV, movies and commercials is fake, fake, FAKE!!!! Airbrushed, photoshopped, unatainable even for the person in the picture, FAKE! Still, it would be nice to see some curves... I'm done.
By , at
Mon Dec 18, 02:42:00 AM:
Ignore weight, test health. Everyone has to be able to do 10 chinups and deadlift twice their bodyweight or they are banned from TV.
That'll solve the problem. In both directions.
By TigerHawk, at
Mon Dec 18, 09:15:00 AM:
Well, doctorpat, that would certainly disqualify me!
By , at
Wed Jan 21, 02:09:00 PM:
Actually if we follow trends of beauty compared to population, fatter models might make us more thin. Look at any beauty through the ages article and you will notice a trend: as the population gets fatter, models get thinner. And fat was beautiful when most people couldn't afford to be fat. Now what does that mean?
