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
Replies
-
diannethegeek wrote: »Okay, the other thread on why some people are aiming for lower goal weights in the underweight category didn't go well. And since I was one who pointed out that I think there's a broader discussion to be had that can't be had over there, it feels like I should start a thread where maybe it can be had.
Debaters of MFP, I bring you a subject. Run with it. Expand on it. Have at it with this thread.
In 2015 France banned all models who are under a healthy weight as determined by their doctor.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35130792A previous version of the bill had suggested a minimum Body Mass Index (BMI) for models, prompting protests from modelling agencies in France.
But the final draft approved on Thursday allows doctors to decide whether a model is too thin by taking into account their weight, age, and body shape.
It also says that digitally altered images making a model's silhouette "narrower or wider" should be labelled "touched up".
France is not the first country to legislate on underweight models - Italy, Spain and Israel have all done so.
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/style-beauty/news/a37979/what-models-really-think-about-france-banning-extremely-skinny-models/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ainsley-mcwha/i-wish-france-had-banned-underweight-models-when-i-was-one_b_7020356.html
Good idea? Bad idea? Are there better ways?
So long as we also ban the incompetent doctors, underperforming teachers, dreadful parents, and other people who do not perform in their professions the way the government would like them to. I think it's a horrible idea to have the government be able to ban me from making a living the way I see fit. Let's start banning the publications that employ these models. Or better, let's not perpetuate a stereotype of beauty that is so bony.
I agree with this. It's a Very Bad Idea for the government to get involved in regulating things like weight requirements for anything. Especially when then handing over the authority to individual doctors who may have personal motives for their decisions. Age requirements, yes - that's a well-established and clearly defined line - you're either 18 or 21, or you're not. If you're of age to make your own decisions then the government has no business setting broad restrictions on those decisions, good or bad. And then there's the precedent set for setting restrictions in other areas - overweight dietitians, doctors and nurses should be banned for instance. Heck, start banning anyone who isn't within healthy weight guidelines from working in any profession that might influence the general public in unhealthy directions. And ultimately, that sort of insanity would blow back far more harshly on the overweight.1 -
I'm not sure regulation solves anything.
1. There are naturally underweight people who do not starve themselves and are perfectly healthy. They should not be restricted from a profession of their choice due to their weight/BMI.
2. There are unethical doctors out there who will approve an unhealthy underweight model for money
2 -
AdamAthletic wrote: »This issue has been massively hyped up over the years.
There are very few actual underweight models in my eyes now, there are fairly strict controls on recruitment and selection of models for top agencies.
I've dated a couple of models over the past few years (and trained a couple) and not one of them would I call an unhealthy weight - slim and toned, yes! Unhealthy? Far from it.
I see having athletic models as a good thing.
Just my opinion
I think you're wrong about "very few actual underweight models" as I would wager than virtually all high fashion runway girls are technically underweight, considering that most of them are 5'10" at minimum and with those 32-23-33 type measurements.
However, I also think that when the general public thinks of "models", it's not the Vlada Roslyakovas or Magdalena Frackowiaks they're talking about and I agree that your typical catalogue/ad model is more likely to just be a healthy-looking slim. VS models are probably a good example - most of them don't work in high fashion (except the ones who are photoshopped larger for VS) because they're "too big" by those standards, but they look pretty fit and healthy to most people, I think. The current fashion for stronger, more-muscular looking models for print/video is IMO just as difficult to achieve as a very skinny look but at least it's a little more likely to be a healthy thing.1 -
AdamAthletic wrote: »This issue has been massively hyped up over the years.
There are very few actual underweight models in my eyes now, there are fairly strict controls on recruitment and selection of models for top agencies.
I've dated a couple of models over the past few years (and trained a couple) and not one of them would I call an unhealthy weight - slim and toned, yes! Unhealthy? Far from it.
I see having athletic models as a good thing.
Just my opinion
I think you're wrong about "very few actual underweight models" as I would wager than virtually all high fashion runway girls are technically underweight, considering that most of them are 5'10" at minimum and with those 32-23-33 type measurements.
However, I also think that when the general public thinks of "models", it's not the Vlada Roslyakovas or Magdalena Frackowiaks they're talking about and I agree that your typical catalogue/ad model is more likely to just be a healthy-looking slim. VS models are probably a good example - most of them don't work in high fashion (except the ones who are photoshopped larger for VS) because they're "too big" by those standards, but they look pretty fit and healthy to most people, I think. The current fashion for stronger, more-muscular looking models for print/video is IMO just as difficult to achieve as a very skinny look but at least it's a little more likely to be a healthy thing.
The VS models are an interesting case. They're underweight, with BMIs in the 16s and 17s, but they're still often given as examples of "healthy" models. They also are generally 5'9", 18% BF or slightly less, and 34-24-34 dimensions. I think that 18% BF is key to the "healthy" look - they're not approaching critical levels, and they've kept enough fat to have underwear-modeling curves.
Whether they're actually healthy or not is a different question. They do engage in extreme behaviors before auditions/shows, but beyond that I'm not their doctor and have no idea.0 -
BinaryPulsar wrote: »I like that it says "as determined by their doctor". Whether or not a person is underweight is determined between the person and their doctor that understands their personal history, family history, frame size, health, etc. And if their doctor is concerned for their health then I think it's ok to ban them. Certain careers often involve a small frame like certain modeling or dancing jobs (not all). And it's ok for a small framed person to be slim and healthy. Outsiders can misjudge. It's opinion. So, I like that it is by doctor evaluation. And it's important to have an accurate safeguard against ED in these fields. I'm a dancer. When I was 16 I became too thin, and it was a barrier, not a plus for me as a dancer. To some people I am considered very tiny and slim. Other times my body is curvier than what is often seen in dance (it depends on the dance style). Edit to add: and for other styles I would be not curvy enough. We face pressure from the audience when doing a performing art.
I think underweight, normal weight, overweight are all pretty straight - forward categories based solely on BMI.0 -
mommarnurse wrote: »BinaryPulsar wrote: »I like that it says "as determined by their doctor". Whether or not a person is underweight is determined between the person and their doctor that understands their personal history, family history, frame size, health, etc. And if their doctor is concerned for their health then I think it's ok to ban them. Certain careers often involve a small frame like certain modeling or dancing jobs (not all). And it's ok for a small framed person to be slim and healthy. Outsiders can misjudge. It's opinion. So, I like that it is by doctor evaluation. And it's important to have an accurate safeguard against ED in these fields. I'm a dancer. When I was 16 I became too thin, and it was a barrier, not a plus for me as a dancer. To some people I am considered very tiny and slim. Other times my body is curvier than what is often seen in dance (it depends on the dance style). Edit to add: and for other styles I would be not curvy enough. We face pressure from the audience when doing a performing art.
I think underweight, normal weight, overweight are all pretty straight - forward categories based solely on BMI.
No, people can have different frame sizes. That's why one person isn't underweight at 18 bmi, but another would be underweight at a much higher bmi. This is one of the biggest sources of confusion and conflict on mfp. If people understood this then setting goals and understanding differences would be much more smooth. That's part of the reason that bmi is a range and not just one number. I can explain this more. I'm just busy.
Edit to add: muscle mass is also a factor. But, a person with broad shoulders and a large rib cage has bigger internal organs and more space within their body frame that needs to be filled out with fat and muscle. For example I can't donate my kidneys to someone with a bigger frame size because my kidneys are too small to function at the capacity they need for their body size. On the flip side I could get a larger kidney if I needed it. The largest point on my rib cage is 25 inches. That's based on frame size. Other people wouldn't get that small from losing weight because their bone structure is different. There is a lot of variation.2 -
chocolate_owl wrote: »AdamAthletic wrote: »This issue has been massively hyped up over the years.
There are very few actual underweight models in my eyes now, there are fairly strict controls on recruitment and selection of models for top agencies.
I've dated a couple of models over the past few years (and trained a couple) and not one of them would I call an unhealthy weight - slim and toned, yes! Unhealthy? Far from it.
I see having athletic models as a good thing.
Just my opinion
I think you're wrong about "very few actual underweight models" as I would wager than virtually all high fashion runway girls are technically underweight, considering that most of them are 5'10" at minimum and with those 32-23-33 type measurements.
However, I also think that when the general public thinks of "models", it's not the Vlada Roslyakovas or Magdalena Frackowiaks they're talking about and I agree that your typical catalogue/ad model is more likely to just be a healthy-looking slim. VS models are probably a good example - most of them don't work in high fashion (except the ones who are photoshopped larger for VS) because they're "too big" by those standards, but they look pretty fit and healthy to most people, I think. The current fashion for stronger, more-muscular looking models for print/video is IMO just as difficult to achieve as a very skinny look but at least it's a little more likely to be a healthy thing.
The VS models are an interesting case. They're underweight, with BMIs in the 16s and 17s, but they're still often given as examples of "healthy" models. They also are generally 5'9", 18% BF or slightly less, and 34-24-34 dimensions. I think that 18% BF is key to the "healthy" look - they're not approaching critical levels, and they've kept enough fat to have underwear-modeling curves.
Whether they're actually healthy or not is a different question. They do engage in extreme behaviors before auditions/shows, but beyond that I'm not their doctor and have no idea.
Are you sure their BMIs are that low? I am not tall like a model, so maybe it's different. My measurements are in that range: 30-23-34. My bmi is 18.5. My doctors say I am at a healthy weight. I eat over 2000 calories a day.0 -
Body Shaming is Body Shaming regardless of if the person is overweight, or underweight. How about we address that first.....6
-
My issue is as follows. I have a very good friend who is at a bmi of 17 and stunningly beautiful. She eats like a horse and have tried every fattening diet there is with no success.
If she wanted to become a model, I could not find it in my heart to stop her just because she is underweight. Yet, I do not want to see models starving themselves as at a bmi of 18 they are told they are fat.
I used to live with a model for a while in a flat share, she was a skinny minny, and seeing how on shoots they would pull her skin back with duct tape to make her look skinnier was an eye opener.
I am not sure what the answer is here. I want healthy models on the catwalk. But how do we ensure they are actually healthy and not paying off a doctor to get a certificate stating they are healthy?0 -
For me (and this goes back to the previous thread as well), the issue is that very few people have any idea what healthy is or how it looks. Nevermind the fact that it would be impossible to make blanket statements across an industry about what was or wasn't healthy with any degree of accuracy. How are you going to tell 1 model she is healthy and another that she isn't. And then what happens on the men's side? It may be a different set of healthy issues, but I'd bet there are concerns there.
This, like so many other things, ultimately tracks back to education. And right now, schools and families are in an informational war with advertising, media, perspective, etc etc.3 -
BinaryPulsar wrote: »chocolate_owl wrote: »AdamAthletic wrote: »This issue has been massively hyped up over the years.
There are very few actual underweight models in my eyes now, there are fairly strict controls on recruitment and selection of models for top agencies.
I've dated a couple of models over the past few years (and trained a couple) and not one of them would I call an unhealthy weight - slim and toned, yes! Unhealthy? Far from it.
I see having athletic models as a good thing.
Just my opinion
I think you're wrong about "very few actual underweight models" as I would wager than virtually all high fashion runway girls are technically underweight, considering that most of them are 5'10" at minimum and with those 32-23-33 type measurements.
However, I also think that when the general public thinks of "models", it's not the Vlada Roslyakovas or Magdalena Frackowiaks they're talking about and I agree that your typical catalogue/ad model is more likely to just be a healthy-looking slim. VS models are probably a good example - most of them don't work in high fashion (except the ones who are photoshopped larger for VS) because they're "too big" by those standards, but they look pretty fit and healthy to most people, I think. The current fashion for stronger, more-muscular looking models for print/video is IMO just as difficult to achieve as a very skinny look but at least it's a little more likely to be a healthy thing.
The VS models are an interesting case. They're underweight, with BMIs in the 16s and 17s, but they're still often given as examples of "healthy" models. They also are generally 5'9", 18% BF or slightly less, and 34-24-34 dimensions. I think that 18% BF is key to the "healthy" look - they're not approaching critical levels, and they've kept enough fat to have underwear-modeling curves.
Whether they're actually healthy or not is a different question. They do engage in extreme behaviors before auditions/shows, but beyond that I'm not their doctor and have no idea.
Are you sure their BMIs are that low? I am not tall like a model, so maybe it's different. My measurements are in that range: 30-23-34. My bmi is 18.5. My doctors say I am at a healthy weight. I eat over 2000 calories a day.
Take these Internet stats with a grain of salt, but here's their stats published by celeb stalker sites:
Alessandra Ambrosio, 5'10", 119 lbs, BMI 17.1
Adriana Lima, 5'10", 123 lbs, BMI 17.6
Candice Swanepoel, 5'9", 119 lbs, BMI 17.6
Doutzen Kroes, 5'10", 125 lbs, BMI 17.9
Miranda Kerr, 5'9", 117 lbs, BMI 17.3
Rosie Huntington-Whitley, 5'9", 117 lbs, BMI 17.3
Lily Aldridge, 5'8", 121 lbs, BMI 18.4
Lindsay Ellington, 5'11", 117 lbs, BMI 16.3
Chanel Iman, 5'10", 115 lbs, BMI 16.5
0 -
I was on board with a discussion about how to change the culture so that we aren't promoting unhealthy beauty standards. I am not, however, on board with "banning" expression. That is never the solution, for one it doesn't work and for two it is using authority to force your world view. Have to win hearts and minds, not use force.9
-
BinaryPulsar wrote: »chocolate_owl wrote: »AdamAthletic wrote: »This issue has been massively hyped up over the years.
There are very few actual underweight models in my eyes now, there are fairly strict controls on recruitment and selection of models for top agencies.
I've dated a couple of models over the past few years (and trained a couple) and not one of them would I call an unhealthy weight - slim and toned, yes! Unhealthy? Far from it.
I see having athletic models as a good thing.
Just my opinion
I think you're wrong about "very few actual underweight models" as I would wager than virtually all high fashion runway girls are technically underweight, considering that most of them are 5'10" at minimum and with those 32-23-33 type measurements.
However, I also think that when the general public thinks of "models", it's not the Vlada Roslyakovas or Magdalena Frackowiaks they're talking about and I agree that your typical catalogue/ad model is more likely to just be a healthy-looking slim. VS models are probably a good example - most of them don't work in high fashion (except the ones who are photoshopped larger for VS) because they're "too big" by those standards, but they look pretty fit and healthy to most people, I think. The current fashion for stronger, more-muscular looking models for print/video is IMO just as difficult to achieve as a very skinny look but at least it's a little more likely to be a healthy thing.
The VS models are an interesting case. They're underweight, with BMIs in the 16s and 17s, but they're still often given as examples of "healthy" models. They also are generally 5'9", 18% BF or slightly less, and 34-24-34 dimensions. I think that 18% BF is key to the "healthy" look - they're not approaching critical levels, and they've kept enough fat to have underwear-modeling curves.
Whether they're actually healthy or not is a different question. They do engage in extreme behaviors before auditions/shows, but beyond that I'm not their doctor and have no idea.
Are you sure their BMIs are that low? I am not tall like a model, so maybe it's different. My measurements are in that range: 30-23-34. My bmi is 18.5. My doctors say I am at a healthy weight. I eat over 2000 calories a day.
Height does make a big difference - a 23" waist on a 5'10" woman is a bit different than on a 5'2" one - but I would also challenge the statement that VS models have BMIs that low. Apart from the couple that they do often plump up in photos, none of them look anything near your average high fashion model as far as low weight goes and I'd consider them to be more "actress slim" than "model skinny". I'm obviously no expert but I'm casually interested in fashion so it's something I've noticed before.1 -
BinaryPulsar wrote: »chocolate_owl wrote: »AdamAthletic wrote: »This issue has been massively hyped up over the years.
There are very few actual underweight models in my eyes now, there are fairly strict controls on recruitment and selection of models for top agencies.
I've dated a couple of models over the past few years (and trained a couple) and not one of them would I call an unhealthy weight - slim and toned, yes! Unhealthy? Far from it.
I see having athletic models as a good thing.
Just my opinion
I think you're wrong about "very few actual underweight models" as I would wager than virtually all high fashion runway girls are technically underweight, considering that most of them are 5'10" at minimum and with those 32-23-33 type measurements.
However, I also think that when the general public thinks of "models", it's not the Vlada Roslyakovas or Magdalena Frackowiaks they're talking about and I agree that your typical catalogue/ad model is more likely to just be a healthy-looking slim. VS models are probably a good example - most of them don't work in high fashion (except the ones who are photoshopped larger for VS) because they're "too big" by those standards, but they look pretty fit and healthy to most people, I think. The current fashion for stronger, more-muscular looking models for print/video is IMO just as difficult to achieve as a very skinny look but at least it's a little more likely to be a healthy thing.
The VS models are an interesting case. They're underweight, with BMIs in the 16s and 17s, but they're still often given as examples of "healthy" models. They also are generally 5'9", 18% BF or slightly less, and 34-24-34 dimensions. I think that 18% BF is key to the "healthy" look - they're not approaching critical levels, and they've kept enough fat to have underwear-modeling curves.
Whether they're actually healthy or not is a different question. They do engage in extreme behaviors before auditions/shows, but beyond that I'm not their doctor and have no idea.
Are you sure their BMIs are that low? I am not tall like a model, so maybe it's different. My measurements are in that range: 30-23-34. My bmi is 18.5. My doctors say I am at a healthy weight. I eat over 2000 calories a day.
Height does make a big difference - a 23" waist on a 5'10" woman is a bit different than on a 5'2" one - but I would also challenge the statement that VS models have BMIs that low. Apart from the couple that they do often plump up in photos, none of them look anything near your average high fashion model as far as low weight goes and I'd consider them to be more "actress slim" than "model skinny". I'm obviously no expert but I'm casually interested in fashion so it's something I've noticed before.
I tried posting this upthread, but I got an error. I guess it never went through.
This is what I've found from various celebrity stalker sites, which may or may not be accurate, which may or may not be reporting "show" weight, and which may or may not be from after 2012 when the Angels started lifting bigger weights as part of their training regime:
Candice Swanepoel - 5’9", 119lbs, BMI 17.6
Adriana Lima - 5’10", 123lbs, BMI 17.6
Alessandra Ambrosio - 5’10", 119lbs, BMI 17.1
Doutzen Kroes - 5’10", 125lbs, BMI 17.9
Lily Aldridge - 5’8", 121lbs, BMI 18.4
Lindsay Ellingson - 5’11", 117lbs, BMI 16.3
Chanel Iman - 5’10", 115lbs, BMI 16.5
Rosie Huntington-Whiteley - 5’9", 117lbs, BMI 17.3
Miranda Kerr - 5’9", 115lbs, BMI 17.0
Compare this to high fashion models when "heroin chic" was the trend in the 90s:
Kate Moss - 5'7", 105 lbs, BMI 16.4
Tyra Banks - 5'11", 105 lbs, BMI 14.6
Gisele Bundchen - 5'9", 110 lbs, BMI 16.2
Kristy Hume - 5'11", 115 lbs, BMI 16.0
Elle McPherson - 6'0", 128 lbs, BMI 17.4
ETA that I do think this shows that society is now valuing higher BMIs and more athletic builds, and the fashion industry is responding to that, slowly.
ETA ETA: Average "slim actress" BMI is around 18 from what I've seen, so yes, the VS models are more in line with actresses, but they're still all underweight per the BMI scale.2 -
.
0 -
I agree with others who have said it would probably be pretty easy to find a doctor to say your weight is fine.
You could probably save a trip by getting your Rx for medical pot for your back pain and your letter for your presidential campaign at the same time.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »@RachelElser do you think more underage people would drink if underage drinking wasn't banned? Of course they would, a lot of underage people want to drink and sometimes they can't get any hooch, making it easier to get will mean more underage drinking. So, yes, banning underage drinking means there's less of it. Banning things doesn't eliminate them, but it can help.
@NorthCascades - But I don't think the standard for success should necessarily be fewer people drinking. Instead, I would think it should be healthier societal attitudes and behaviors towards drinking.2 -
mom23mangos wrote: »I'm not sure regulation solves anything.
2. There are unethical doctors out there who will approve an unhealthy underweight model for money
I don't have much to add to the OP that hasn't already been said, but would like to address ^^ this coment:
Years ago I did a DOT physical for a man with diabetes, high blood pressure, sleep apnea and disabling gout. I did NOT pass him as none of those problems were under control. He "fired" me and went to another doc who happily passed him.
Two months later he fell asleep (due to his poorly controlled sleep apnea) while driving his big rig and impaled himself on the steering wheel. My colleagues can tell numerous similar stories. Yes, doctor shopping is real, and common, and it means "regulation" is easily overcome....if your wallet is thick enough.
3 -
disasterman wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »@RachelElser do you think more underage people would drink if underage drinking wasn't banned? Of course they would, a lot of underage people want to drink and sometimes they can't get any hooch, making it easier to get will mean more underage drinking. So, yes, banning underage drinking means there's less of it. Banning things doesn't eliminate them, but it can help.
@NorthCascades - But I don't think the standard for success should necessarily be fewer people drinking. Instead, I would think it should be healthier societal attitudes and behaviors towards drinking.
I agree with this, its not just about getting to a goal its about how you get there as well. This should be about changing societal values, not building prisons to put people in with regulations and laws. I get that it is a cycle, that magazines not only depict unhealthy bodytypes because the public find them aluring but also the public finds them aluring because that is what magazines put forth. I get that it might seem that preventing magazines from doing that would be a first step towards healing the society itself. But to me the ends do not justify the means there. Banning things is not the way to progress or a progressive society. Censorship is not the way.
0 -
-
Putting workplace-safety regulations on models vis-à-vis minimum BMI requirements would make sense. "Changing society" not so much.1
-
Putting workplace-safety regulations on models vis-à-vis minimum BMI requirements would make sense. "Changing society" not so much.
Really? Safety regulations regarding models weight? Would that work both directions on the weight scale? Look I really would like to see societal change from the inside out, perhaps that is ignorant or overly optimistic....but literally making being an unhealthy weight a workplace violation is taking it pretty far isn't it? Not sure I'd be willing to support something like that. that is a pretty harsh precedent to set.
Would you be okay with say a news agency requiring that their anchors not be overweight and if they become overweight firing them claiming that they were violating "safety regulations"?1 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Putting workplace-safety regulations on models vis-à-vis minimum BMI requirements would make sense. "Changing society" not so much.
Really? Safety regulations regarding models weight? Would that work both directions on the weight scale? Look I really would like to see societal change from the inside out, perhaps that is ignorant or overly optimistic....but literally making being an unhealthy weight a workplace violation is taking it pretty far isn't it? Not sure I'd be willing to support something like that. that is a pretty harsh precedent to set.
Would you be okay with say a news agency requiring that their anchors not be overweight and if they become overweight firing them claiming that they were violating "safety regulations"?
Models already do lose jobs if they weigh above the requirements for the job. A job like modeling is different from other jobs in that way. And sometimes people lose jobs if they are putting themselves at risk. It depends on what the employer is comfortable with. And they might not hire someone that is going to end up in the hospital and not able to keep working.2 -
BinaryPulsar wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Putting workplace-safety regulations on models vis-à-vis minimum BMI requirements would make sense. "Changing society" not so much.
Really? Safety regulations regarding models weight? Would that work both directions on the weight scale? Look I really would like to see societal change from the inside out, perhaps that is ignorant or overly optimistic....but literally making being an unhealthy weight a workplace violation is taking it pretty far isn't it? Not sure I'd be willing to support something like that. that is a pretty harsh precedent to set.
Would you be okay with say a news agency requiring that their anchors not be overweight and if they become overweight firing them claiming that they were violating "safety regulations"?
Models already do lose jobs if they weigh above the requirements for the job. A job like modeling is different from other jobs in that way. And sometimes people lose jobs if they are putting themselves at risk. It depends on what the employer is comfortable with. And they might not hire someone that is going to end up in the hospital and not able to keep working.
Well can't say that makes me more comfortable with it but if that is morally acceptable for others I'm not going to try to argue the point.0 -
Aaron, I don't know how'd much exposure to modeling you have. Models are under extreme pressure to be as thin as humanly possible. Eating disorders are rampant, as is smoking and drug use, and so is coercion of the typically young, female workers. It goes far beyond just a draconian regulation of weight. In terms of hostile and abusive workplaces, the modeling industry (particularly in agencies) really takes the cake sometimes.
Upthread, BMIs of models were posted. When you look at the health outcomes for women below 18 BMI, you start running into very high morbidity and mortality; worse than any group including type III obesity. It's not an aesthetic thing, it's downright dangerous. This is mitigated somewhat by a preference for and strong use of adolescent girls rather than women, but then the workforce is even more vulnerable to coercion. The healthy thin women everyone knows? They're the ones who survived the very brutal vetting.
This is why i see a role for OSHA. "What society values" is a whole different ball of wax.The fashion industry absolutely should be accountable when it pushes extreme weight restrictions that compromise the immediate health and safety of the workers.
To draw a parallel with overweight models is a bit of a red herring. First, the plus size model niche is very small in comparison. Second, most plus size models are quite slender and certainly very, very few are overweight. Third, the epidemiological risks of being obese are lower than of being significantly underweight, and ate long-term rather than acute. Fourth, the industry already enforces weight limits at the top.
*My stepdaughter, my best friend in college, and two of my cousins have worked as professional models.12 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »
This!0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »
This!
Being overweight generally leads to long term health issues. Being underweight generally presents immediate morbidity and mortality issues. They're hardly equivalent.
And aside from a very small few "plus size" models are rarely even in the 'overweight' BMI range, much less obese.3 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »
This!
Being overweight generally leads to long term health issues. Being underweight generally presents immediate morbidity and mortality issues. They're hardly equivalent.
And aside from a very small few "plus size" models are rarely even in the 'overweight' BMI range, much less obese.
If you could assure me that this wouldn't result in a bunch of OSHA authority creep, I might be a little more willing to bend. History does not bare that out however. They're another of those "give them an inch" agencies.2 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »
This!
Being overweight generally leads to long term health issues. Being underweight generally presents immediate morbidity and mortality issues. They're hardly equivalent.
And aside from a very small few "plus size" models are rarely even in the 'overweight' BMI range, much less obese.
If you could assure me that this wouldn't result in a bunch of OSHA authority creep, I might be a little more willing to bend. History does not bare that out however. They're another of those "give them an inch" agencies.
Agree0 -
My knee jerk reaction was "good for them". I agree that normal weight girls wanting to be models are required to diet down to unhealthy levels, and it's dangerous and offensive. (First hand experience on this one). But then I thought of jockeys (horses not discs). If no one should be required to be underweight to perform their job do we legislate that industry too? Perhaps runway/magazine models are likely to affect a bigger segment of society than a jockey. If so, is it society we are trying to protect or the models themselves?1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions