Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Banning Underweight Models -- a jumping off point for a broader discussion
Options
Replies
-
CipherZero wrote: »If the article and legislation talked about banning overweight models we wouldn't be having this discussion because it'd be seen as stupid, unnecessary, and discriminatory for no good reason.
I'd be in favor of banning an employer, to coerce a model to gain weight; if they're already a healthy weight!1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »chocolate_owl wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »chocolate_owl wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »chocolate_owl wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Do we ban plus size models that are obese?
This was my first thought. Is there any evidence to support that underweight models are less healthy than overweight/obese models? Or that underweight models cause harm to the public?
It kind of reminds me of when I was child and people wanted to ban Barbie because she was giving us unrealistic body expectations.
On a personal level I couldn't care less what models look like. But banning people from a job based on weight seems, I don't know, wrong somehow.
As has been mentioned upthread, being overweight/obese increases risk factors for health problems over time. It's not immediately dangerous, whereas the estimated 40% of models with eating disorders who are starving, purging, or taking laxatives are in much more danger in the short term.
As for harm to the public, there have been studies showing large percentages of young girls develop ideas of "ideal" body images from what the see on TV and in magazines. But is that actually harmful? Is that something shifting toward slightly healthier norms with the prominence of fitness models and models like Kate Upton and Myla Dalbesio? I've been waiting for that portion of this debate to really take off...
Interesting. Where does the "estimated 40% of models with eating disorders" figure come from. Are these diagnosed disorders?
If it is the health of the model that we are concerned about, why would we ban those who are underweight only from modeling? Why not ban them from holding any job? Does focusing on the model industry suggest it's not really the models we are concerned about?
I've seen the quote on a couple of different sites referencing a 2007 study, but the study itself seems to have been taken down. Here's a blurb. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/76241.php The 40% statistic is what the California bill is being justified with. (And I agree it's a terrible, pointless bill.)
There's also a claim that modeling wasn't the focus of the study at all, and the 40% number applied to industries outside of modeling: http://www.newmodels.com/Disorders.html
So it could be a terrible stat, and no, I wouldn't think they'd be diagnosed disorders. I'd still wager the rate of eating disorders is significantly higher among models than among the average population.
I don't really understand your last question. Retired models often increase to normal-weight BMIs when they stop working. They stay underweight specifically for modeling jobs because employers have measurement and/or body fat requirements.
Re: the bolded section. While I wouldn't wager either way, I do wonder if this is true. If simply being underweight constitutes a disorder, then shouldn't being overweight also be considered a disorder? If they are underweight of their own free will because they want a job, is that an eating disorder?
You know there's a difference between being underweight and having an eating disorder, right?
Yes, that was partially my point.
Edit: I do see now that I deleted a sentence that left my post confusing. What I meant was I wonder if the incidence of diagnosed disorders is really higher among models.
From an anonymous survey of 241 female models, 31% say they've had an eating disorder: http://modelalliance.org/industry-analysis
I don't know if they've been diagnosed or if it's self-reporting. I'd imagine it's hard to encourage models to go to a doctor for an eating disorder diagnosis as it could cost them work - some agencies won't work with anorexic models.
I've seen estimates for eating disorders among the general population range between 3% and 10%.0 -
Been given a business card by a model talent spotter in Leeds yesterday and asked if I had considered plus size modelling.....
As a UK12 dress size (sometimes a 14 for fitted items - damned boobs!) would you take it as an insult or compliment??
I think the problem with models and all 'body types' is the labelling we give people.1 -
Been given a business card by a model talent spotter in Leeds yesterday and asked if I had considered plus size modelling.....
As a UK12 dress size (sometimes a 14 for fitted items - damned boobs!) would you take it as an insult or compliment??
I think the problem with models and all 'body types' is the labelling we give people.
I say take it as a compliment.0 -
Been given a business card by a model talent spotter in Leeds yesterday and asked if I had considered plus size modelling.....
As a UK12 dress size (sometimes a 14 for fitted items - damned boobs!) would you take it as an insult or compliment??
I think the problem with models and all 'body types' is the labelling we give people.
I'd take it as a sales pitch, frankly. Mostly when those guys give you cards they are trying to get $ from you, not for you. Tread carefully, check the agency online. If they ask you for hundreds for a portfolio, or want you to pay for training, that's a scam.3 -
Oh yeah. Never pay to model. They are supposed to pay you.0
-
BinaryPulsar wrote: »Also just to add. Anorexia means under weight. If a person has a BMI of 17.5 they are diagnosed with Anorexia. That doesn't mean they have the eating disorder Anorexia Nervosa. There could be other reasons or other medical issues causing it. 17.5 is just the diagnostic criteria for when a person is actually considered to be at the upper end of underweight. Not 18, 17.9, or 18.5 (those numbers are based on population averages). But, being underweight varies per person.
No, anorexia does not mean underweight. You can be anorexic and be obese. The definition is "an emotional disorder characterized by an obsessive desire to lose weight by refusing to eat". A 300 pound person can become anorexic and lose 100 pounds in 3 months but is still obese. Eventually, over time, continuing anorexia can lead to being underweight, but it is not equivalent.
1 -
While I disagree with employers abusing their employees with ridiculous demands that compromises safety, I also question any time you get the government involved in regulating adult choices and behavior. For my job, I have absolutely abused caffeine and stimulants for more than 15 years, as well as suffered through days with no sleep and weeks and months on subminimal sleep in order to keep up with their demands. Every MD out there has probably done the same at some time in pursuit of their chosen career. It is my choice to do so. Of course, I can always quit my job - but it pays very well and I enjoy it and it is my career. But it has definitely compromised my health - both in the short and long term. Casino workers have to deal with second hand smoke if they enjoy their career. There are all kinds of choices and compromises to our health people can make that may not be directly dictated by their job, but which we feel compelled to undertake in order to keep our job. OSHA starts out innocent enough, but it will expand beyond the direct demands eventually. Just worrisome. Let me handle my health and life choices for the most part.1
-
BinaryPulsar wrote: »Also just to add. Anorexia means under weight. If a person has a BMI of 17.5 they are diagnosed with Anorexia. That doesn't mean they have the eating disorder Anorexia Nervosa. There could be other reasons or other medical issues causing it. 17.5 is just the diagnostic criteria for when a person is actually considered to be at the upper end of underweight. Not 18, 17.9, or 18.5 (those numbers are based on population averages). But, being underweight varies per person.
No, anorexia does not mean underweight. You can be anorexic and be obese. The definition is "an emotional disorder characterized by an obsessive desire to lose weight by refusing to eat". A 300 pound person can become anorexic and lose 100 pounds in 3 months but is still obese. Eventually, over time, continuing anorexia can lead to being underweight, but it is not equivalent.
I think it's technically called ednos (eating disorder not otherwise specified) until you reach 17.5 or at least it was when I was diagnosed.0 -
Been given a business card by a model talent spotter in Leeds yesterday and asked if I had considered plus size modelling.....
As a UK12 dress size (sometimes a 14 for fitted items - damned boobs!) would you take it as an insult or compliment??
I think the problem with models and all 'body types' is the labelling we give people.
If I were you, I'd take it as a compliment. The talent spotter obviously thought you wear clothes better than most.
If it were me, I'd take it as an insult. I'm short, which pretty much disqualifies me from any modeling where the size would be a concern. I'd be assuming the recruiter was not serious and just being a sarcastic *kitten*.1 -
singingflutelady wrote: »BinaryPulsar wrote: »Also just to add. Anorexia means under weight. If a person has a BMI of 17.5 they are diagnosed with Anorexia. That doesn't mean they have the eating disorder Anorexia Nervosa. There could be other reasons or other medical issues causing it. 17.5 is just the diagnostic criteria for when a person is actually considered to be at the upper end of underweight. Not 18, 17.9, or 18.5 (those numbers are based on population averages). But, being underweight varies per person.
No, anorexia does not mean underweight. You can be anorexic and be obese. The definition is "an emotional disorder characterized by an obsessive desire to lose weight by refusing to eat". A 300 pound person can become anorexic and lose 100 pounds in 3 months but is still obese. Eventually, over time, continuing anorexia can lead to being underweight, but it is not equivalent.
I think it's technically called ednos (eating disorder not otherwise specified) until you reach 17.5 or at least it was when I was diagnosed.
Yeah. Also sorry for the confusion.
Anorexia is the medical term for underweight.
Anorexia Nervosa is the eating disorder.
But, we all just call the eating disorder Anorexia. Which is fine. But, I was saying that the term Anorexia can be applied in a medical context even when a person doesn't have an eating disorder. That's why side effects sometimes list Anorexia. They mean excessive weight loss, not that it causes the person to have an eating disorder. Sometimes Anorexia also applies to loss of appetite. It doesn't matter. I was just saying that Anorexia can mean different things in different contexts.
Definitely people can have an eating disorder at any weight. That wasn't what I was saying. Just wanted to clarify. Sorry for the confusion.0 -
singingflutelady wrote: »BinaryPulsar wrote: »Also just to add. Anorexia means under weight. If a person has a BMI of 17.5 they are diagnosed with Anorexia. That doesn't mean they have the eating disorder Anorexia Nervosa. There could be other reasons or other medical issues causing it. 17.5 is just the diagnostic criteria for when a person is actually considered to be at the upper end of underweight. Not 18, 17.9, or 18.5 (those numbers are based on population averages). But, being underweight varies per person.
No, anorexia does not mean underweight. You can be anorexic and be obese. The definition is "an emotional disorder characterized by an obsessive desire to lose weight by refusing to eat". A 300 pound person can become anorexic and lose 100 pounds in 3 months but is still obese. Eventually, over time, continuing anorexia can lead to being underweight, but it is not equivalent.
I think it's technically called ednos (eating disorder not otherwise specified) until you reach 17.5 or at least it was when I was diagnosed.
To clear all this up: anorexia nervosa is the eating disorder. There used to be weight requirements (BMI under 17.5 or body weight of less than 85% of expected healthy weight) for diagnosis under the ICD-10 and DSM-IV, but I believe the DSM-V focuses on significantly low body weight in the context of the person's condition prior to disordered eating.
Anorexia (not anorexia nervosa) means a prolonged loss of appetite, and it is linked to other medical conditions like anorexia nervosa, anxiety, cancer, etc. It is considered a symptom of another illness and has nothing to do with BMI.3 -
chocolate_owl wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »BinaryPulsar wrote: »Also just to add. Anorexia means under weight. If a person has a BMI of 17.5 they are diagnosed with Anorexia. That doesn't mean they have the eating disorder Anorexia Nervosa. There could be other reasons or other medical issues causing it. 17.5 is just the diagnostic criteria for when a person is actually considered to be at the upper end of underweight. Not 18, 17.9, or 18.5 (those numbers are based on population averages). But, being underweight varies per person.
No, anorexia does not mean underweight. You can be anorexic and be obese. The definition is "an emotional disorder characterized by an obsessive desire to lose weight by refusing to eat". A 300 pound person can become anorexic and lose 100 pounds in 3 months but is still obese. Eventually, over time, continuing anorexia can lead to being underweight, but it is not equivalent.
I think it's technically called ednos (eating disorder not otherwise specified) until you reach 17.5 or at least it was when I was diagnosed.
To clear all this up: anorexia nervosa is the eating disorder. There used to be weight requirements (BMI under 17.5 or body weight of less than 85% of expected healthy weight) for diagnosis under the ICD-10 and DSM-IV, but I believe the DSM-V focuses on significantly low body weight in the context of the person's condition prior to disordered eating.
Anorexia (not anorexia nervosa) means a prolonged loss of appetite, and it is linked to other medical conditions like anorexia nervosa, anxiety, cancer, etc. It is considered a symptom of another illness and has nothing to do with BMI.
I do know this, just was referring to the person saying you can be obese with the disorder anorexic when technically it would be called ednos not anorexia.
I have had both anorexia nervosa and anorexia (not at the same time). I sometimes have anorexia from my crohn's.1 -
Been given a business card by a model talent spotter in Leeds yesterday and asked if I had considered plus size modelling.....
As a UK12 dress size (sometimes a 14 for fitted items - damned boobs!) would you take it as an insult or compliment??
I think the problem with models and all 'body types' is the labelling we give people.
I'd take it as a sales pitch, frankly. Mostly when those guys give you cards they are trying to get $ from you, not for you. Tread carefully, check the agency online. If they ask you for hundreds for a portfolio, or want you to pay for training, that's a scam.Been given a business card by a model talent spotter in Leeds yesterday and asked if I had considered plus size modelling.....
As a UK12 dress size (sometimes a 14 for fitted items - damned boobs!) would you take it as an insult or compliment??
I think the problem with models and all 'body types' is the labelling we give people.
I'd take it as a sales pitch, frankly. Mostly when those guys give you cards they are trying to get $ from you, not for you. Tread carefully, check the agency online. If they ask you for hundreds for a portfolio, or want you to pay for training, that's a scam.
To be fair, all big agencies do use model scouts to look for teenage girls who fit the ideal so it very well could be legit. When I was 16 I got scouted by one of the big ones but in the end they decided I wasn't 'small' enough (Kate Moss had just got famous and I didn't look waifish enough because boobs etc.) To be honest I think I dodged a bullet - the experience of being scrutinized from every angle and having every part of me measured (even my ankles) was not enjoyable.1 -
If underweight models are banned, than overweight models should be banned as well.
Actually I think the whole thing is ridiculous for a few reasons.
One, each individual person is responsible for his or herself. If I want to be an underweight model, or an overweight model, that's my business and no one else is responsible for my health or my well being. Sure... people can suggest professional help but you can only lead a horse to water.
Second, the whole plus size model thing and the marketing of "It's okay to be obese as long as you love yourself". Okay, yeah... love the skin you're in but let's not say it's OK to be unhealthy and yeah, I've heard the argument that just because someone is overweight doesn't mean they are unhealthy... well, yes it does. Sorry, if someone is obese than all of their organs are straining under the extra weight and so on... Same as if someone is underweight, the body and organs are struggling to keep whatever little nutrition or energy it has.
Third, After struggling for several years, after working my ever-loving *kitten* off, after training so hard that I've thrown up, after fighting so hard that I've passed out, after going through all of the emotions, struggles and hard ships of not only losing weight but building muscle and then maintaining it through strict nutrition and many sacrifices... I feel completely disrespected at the suggestion of banning someone because they are underweight.
I am not pro-anorexia so please don't assume my words above imply that. But I've worked too hard to have things swing in the other direction now! If it were really OK to be plus sized, obese, over-weight, just plain fat, than this application wouldn't have millions of users struggling to lose weight and get healthy.
That's my rant. Feel free to rip it apart.3 -
This is an interesting topic.
My first question: Who is the doctor who determines this? Will he be paid off by the modeling agencies. Do the models have to provide their own doctors note. Will he be hired by the government to oversee this?
another thought: In non modeling careers it is supposedly illegal to discriminate based on weight. How does that apply to modeling? Discrimination based on appearance is intrinsic to the job, you are hired based on how you look. But saying you have to be at whatever weight for a "good reason" basically furthers it. How is supporting regulation of models weight any different than regulating weight in any other job? Because they are seen more?0 -
Personally, I have always been under weight, and still very healthy. My weight is only low, because of my family's genetics, and would be pretty pissed if I was fired because of my weight.3
-
But there is a fine line between my condition and unhealthily skinny2
-
Isnt this weight discrimination? can't ban underweight models and allow overweight models... (just because fatties gonna fat)2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions