chucK Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 This is a similar issue to the voluntary ban on alcohol and cigarette advertising on TV (is cigarette still voluntary?). If government can try to influence decisions of people in a way that they honestly believe will help them, I have no problem with that. Once they start passing mandatory compliance, that's when I'd rather have a lot better evidence than what they've got wrt heroin chic causing anorexia. WRT the alcohol advertising, I have recently been noting lots of booze ads on Discovery Channel (cable TV). Is the alcohol advertising ban only limited to airwaves? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 (edited) As someone who personally dealt with an eating disorder for over 20 and now work with women who struggle with an ed, I have to disagree with disregarding the influence of the media. It is by far not the only factor. You are correct that the influence of family, peers, personality, possibly biological factors all play a role in the development of an eating disorder. Media images feed the disorder. Looking at photos of skinny women serves as a motivation to continue on your quest of starvation. If these images dont contribute to the development, at the very least they contribute to the persistance to remain thin. Thin (at least portrayed in the media) = control, love from others, attention, acknowledgement, admiration, beauty, power....the list goes on. It would be great to not have those dealing with this problem not look at the media. Yet, how does one go about doing that without walking around the rest of their lives with their eyes closed? Its everywhere! Its like asking a newly recovered alcoholic to spend a certain amount of time each day in the bar surrounded by a bunch of drunk friends. Doesnt mean they will absolutely turn back to alcohol, but it sure doesnt help their odds. Tshav-I wish your friend and her daughter the best. Your proscription would require that all media cease to exist, because there are millions of neurotic, psychotic, and troubled people out there, each with their own personal, unique media 'triggers. Case in point: When Hinkley shot Reagan, he was obsessed with Jodie Foster after having seen Taxi Driver. The guy was obviously a nutter, but does that mean Taxi Driver should have been banned because of this one dood? Harsh as it may sound, our problems are our responsibility to resolve, not the rest of society's, and certainly not the media's. If you're troubled by your consumption of images, then it is your responsibility to limit that consumption, not government's. Government prohibition would infringe upon the 99.9% of the rest of your fellow citizens who may want to consume that image. Carried to it's logical conclusion, all media would have to be banned, because you never know. Gay teletubbies. Dazed and Confused teens. Where would it end? Would you want a society with no media? I wouldn't. Edited January 25, 2007 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PLC Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 According to Wikipedia, only 8-13 people out of 100,000 suffer from anorexia, and almost all of these are girls between the ages of 15 and 19. About 10% will die, and the others grow up and get over it. Also, "media influence" has been shown to be somewhat correlated with anorexia, although it is not clear whether looking at thin models preceeds or proceeds from anorexia. We don't know which is the cause and which is the effect. Basically, anorexia is a serious psychological disorder than impacts a tiny percentange of a very specific group of people, in which media exposure may or may not play a small role in the development of the disorder (certainly genetics, OCD, clinical perfectionism, despression, biological imbalances all play a more significant role). It seems completely ridiculous to me that 99.9% of people would need to sacrifice their freedoms so that we can maybe protect the 0.01%. I'm allergic to eggs - should be ban the sale of eggs? Or how about banning the advertisment of any product which contains eggs? There are plenty of alcoholics - should we ban the advertisment of alcohol? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Exactly. There are two things that concern me about this kind of legislation and the thinking that animates it. The first concerns the rights of consenting adults to voluntarily engage in activities that others might find distasteful or dangerous for their tastes. Professional jockeys, bull-riders, porn-stars, NFL Linemen, climbers, boxers, ballerinas, sword-swallowers, and members of a gazillion other professions assume certain risk and voluntarily subject their bodies to risks and hazards and strains in the course of earning a living that neither you nor I might want to adopt ourselves. Should we enable the state to outlaw all such occupations on account of the harm that could come to others who might be influenced by becoming aware of their actions? Is the benefit of protecting mentally competent people against their own decisions equal to the cost of enabling the state to restrict private functions in order to secure some nebulous public benefit? We aren't talking about public goods here. If anything is private, it is your body, and the arguments that center on governing things like roads and highways and airports just don't apply here. If you are a jockey and you can't make weight, it's time to find another profession. If you are an NFL lineman and want to slim down to 180, time to retire. If you are a model and can't or don't want to look the way the person paying you expects, find a different employer or find a different profession. The other problem with this kind of legislation is that it won't have any meaninful impact on the problem. It's easy to point fingers at the media, but pretending the shoving all images of extremely thin women down the memory hole is going to protect young women who are susceptible to anorexia or bullemia is pure fantasy. They'll certainly never notice the thin women around them, and I'm sure that it will escape their notice that thin, fit women seem to get alot more attention from men. Better find ways to legislate against these realities as well, not to mention domineering parents, competitive school environments, etc, etc, etc. Meanwhile, there's another eating disorder that affects millions more people, that will impose far greater costs on society and on the individuals who suffer from it. It's about time to pretend that we can legislate that one away too. Let's ban all images of high calorie food, let the government mandate what we can eat, and pretend that something outside of ourselves is ultimately responsible for our obesity or lack thereof. That'll surely solve the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
counterfeitfake Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Legit eating disorders are only one possible impact, and maybe the far end of a spectrum of possible impacts. You may also consider the possibility that media makes women pissed off and unhappy in a variety of less severe and less measurable ways. I know media makes this man pissed off and unhappy in a number of less severe and less measurable ways... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 The only legislation I want to see is the one that bans the government from using propaganda. That'd shut them up a fair bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
counterfeitfake Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 That said, I think free enterprise usually works the way it's supposed to- where there's a demand, someone will step up to provide. So... what do you do about that? I've always thought it was a weird dichotomy, that there's a lot of attention given to the way magazines and tv are making people feel like they need to be thin, while at the same time you hear a lot about how we're all getting fat. So it's like... the magazines and tv aren't working? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PLC Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 The media can't MAKE you unhappy. Your reaction to the media is your choice entirely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PLC Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Meanwhile, there's another eating disorder that affects millions more people, that will impose far greater costs on society and on the individuals who suffer from it. It's about time to pretend that we can legislate that one away too. Let's ban all images of high calorie food, let the government mandate what we can eat, and pretend that something outside of ourselves is ultimately responsible for our obesity or lack thereof. That'll surely solve the problem. Exactly - why are we worried so much about the .01% of people who are too thin when 30-40% of people are way too fat. If the media influences you to lose weight, we need MORE thin models. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Isn't Climbing magazine designed to make us unhappy? Look at Beth and Tommy climb 5.13! You can't, can you!? Hah! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 The headlines of the New York Times stresses me out nearly every day. Ban it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 The headlines of the New York Times stresses me out nearly every day. Ban it. You need to spend more time with Michelle Malkin then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
counterfeitfake Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 The media can't MAKE you unhappy. Your reaction to the media is your choice entirely. While I applaud the appeal to personal responsibility, this is a gross oversimplification. It's undeniable that your environment shapes you, and almost nobody has complete control over their emotions like you suggest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Seems like if we were to restrict the media glorifying ultra-thin people, we also better make sure we restrict any shows glorifying morbidly obese people. We could call it the John Madden law. This seems like something of a strawman. I don't think this "no thin models" thing is very controversial. It's not a government mandate is it? Sounds like an "agreement" with the clothes manufacturers. What do you guys think of the voluntary ban on liquor advertising? Do you think the govt. should be restricted from trying to encourage businesses to voluntary comply with a public-health initiative? Speaking of heroin chic...what do you guys think about the government ban on heroin? What about the govt. restrictions on morphine? I'm only killing myself if I get addicted. Why shouldn't businesses be able to advertise and sell it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 The media can't MAKE you unhappy. Your reaction to the media is your choice entirely. While I applaud the appeal to personal responsibility, this is a gross oversimplification. It's undeniable that your environment shapes you, and almost nobody has complete control over their emotions like you suggest. Welcome to the planet earth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 OMFG!!!! I just heard an ad on the radio saying you should watch your diet and eat a lot of fruits and vegetables!!! MIND CONTROL!!!!!! NANNY STATE!!!!! WHY ISN'T THE GOVERNMENT PROTECTING ME FROM THESE PEOPLE TRYING TO PROTECT ME? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 OMFG!!!! Another govt. intrusion on my right to eat toxic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 I'm only killing myself if I get addicted? That only works if you have no friends or family or children and you never drive under the influence and that the public health services and public safety officials have no legal, moral, or financial responsibility for you. If you can die by yourself without endangering anyone, without harming your family, and without costing Joe Taxpayer a cent...well, go for it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carolyn Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Just some links to information about eating disorders (which includes more than anorexia) for anyone interested. Im not posting them with the intention to prove myself right or someone else wrong. Its soley for educational purposes - these are all reputable organizations. Now - I need to go pack for Canada! ANRED Eating Disorders Coalition ANAD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Thanks, carolyn. Have fun in the wicked Great White North. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 By your friends, family and children argument then we certainly shouldn't be climbing Mt. Hood in the WINTER . By your costing taxpayers a cent argument, then you certainly shouldn't eat sweets if you qualify for dental care under medicare. Hell, by your not costing taxpayers a cent argument, we certainly shouldn't be driving on the roads and wearing them down. And STUDDED TIRES!!!! OMFG don't even get me started. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 And you shouldn't have to pay school taxes if you don't have kids and you shouldn't have to pay for the Defense department if you don't get to use any of their cool toys to blow stuff up! What is WRONG with this country? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 I don't understand your logic here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 i was joking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 oh, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.