It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Urban Outfitters Ordered to Remove Outrageous Thigh Gap Picture on Their UK Website

page: 4
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1
What point are you trying to make here?

I have no idea. I couldn't find one.


Your inability to find my point doesn't disprove it's existence, it merely points to a closed mind.




posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
a reply to: Jamie1



Imagine if this was about race, and a dark skinned black model was banned because their skin tone was too dark.

It's not though is it?
What's wrong with you?


I was responding to another poster who brought racism into the thread.

Is that ok with you?



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
a reply to: Jamie1



Imagine if this was about race, and a dark skinned black model was banned because their skin tone was too dark.

It's not though is it?
What's wrong with you?


I was responding to another poster who brought racism into the thread.

Is that ok with you?


You're the one baiting race. Just like you always do, like your thinly veiled "gangster rap/gun violence" analogy.



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: Jamie1
What point are you trying to make here?

I have no idea. I couldn't find one.


Your inability to find my point doesn't disprove it's existence, it merely points to a closed mind.



Or perhaps it was your inability to communicate your point.

Can you summarize it in a short sentence or two?

You believe that the government should evaluate women's bodies, and censor photos of certain women's bodies because the government, by looking at one photo, has determined the woman was "underweight?"

Why is it that a woman's body is her body when it comes to abortion, but when it comes to modeling underwear, the government gets to choose which women can appear as models?



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 04:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
a reply to: Jamie1



Imagine if this was about race, and a dark skinned black model was banned because their skin tone was too dark.

It's not though is it?
What's wrong with you?


I was responding to another poster who brought racism into the thread.

Is that ok with you?


You're the one baiting race. Just like you always do, like your thinly veiled "gangster rap/gun violence" analogy.


If there are studies showing that rap music promoting gun violence leads to blacks being murdered, would you support a ban of rap music?



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1
If there are studies showing that rap music promoting gun violence leads to blacks being murdered, would you support a ban of rap music?


Why don't you make a thread about it? Maybe we could discuss it there.



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1
You believe that the government should evaluate women's bodies, and censor photos of certain women's bodies because the government, by looking at one photo, has determined the woman was "underweight?"


The woman wasn't underweight, because it wasn't a woman. It was a manipulated photograph. A cartoon.



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Jamie1
So you're all for discriminating against girls being perceived as underweight being allowed to earn money modeling?


No I'm not.

I am agreeing with the ASA's ruling that the advert was inappropriate for the target audience as the model was "noticably underweight". You probably don't know anyone who has been felt she was worthless because her body shape was never going to be "perfect" i.e. thin. It's a serious issue and not to be so casually brushed off.

Regards


Why are you making personal judgments about me and who I might know?

It's sexist, judgmental, and body shaming to have a bureaucrat look at a photo of a girls body, and declare the image of her body "irresponsible" and "dangerous."

That's body shaming. It's doing the exact thing you're against - telling a young girl her body isn't good enough the way it is.

And it's even worse BECAUSE the target market is young girls who are probably thin. It's sending a message to them that there's something wrong with their thin bodies.

No wonder obesity is at an all time high and we need to ban soft drinks and force kids on diets. Thin girls are being shamed to believe their bodies are dangerous.


Your body shaming argument might hold weight, if the photo was a real undoctored photo. However, it is not a real undoctored photo. It is obviously photo-shopped.




posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: Jamie1
You believe that the government should evaluate women's bodies, and censor photos of certain women's bodies because the government, by looking at one photo, has determined the woman was "underweight?"


The woman wasn't underweight, because it wasn't a woman. It was a manipulated photograph. A cartoon.


That's false. It was a woman. Urban Outfitters responded to the ban, giving the woman's waist measurement as 23 1/2 inches.

There was no claim made by the ASA that it was photoshopped. The ad was banned because the bureaucrat judged the image of the woman's body as being harmful and dangerous.

It's body shaming thin women. It's discriminatory, degrading, and an attack on women based on their body size.



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1
You believe that the government should evaluate women's bodies, and censor photos of certain women's bodies because the government, by looking at one photo, has determined the woman was "underweight?"


I think you are going awry with this one.

1. The ASA is not "government". Go and look it up.
2. The ASA reacted to a complaint about an advert and made a judgement based on criteria as to whether the advert was appropriate.
3. Companies are asked to remove adverts if they breach the advertising codes and standards. This one did.

If it was a giant vagina shown, would you think it was appropriate to show?

This has nothing to do with sexism or judging women's bodies. It has nothing to do with government control or skinny models. It has everything to do with an inappropriate advert.

Most of the incredulity you are offering up is invented.

Regards



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Reading this makes me cringe, if they regulators want to be moral crusaders then why don't they go and tackle the biggest issue on the Net Porn sites, the most gratuitous form of content ever delivered over the net.
edit on 5-1-2015 by AthlonSavage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Jamie1

The "Natural Law" is pretty simple. Don't alter beyond natural enhancing aesthetics.

Do you know of any ads that photoshop "weight" to the clothing model --- that is aimed at young girls?

My guess is you are single with no children. Probably female. I definately could be wrong, but don't think so.

FACT: I am raising a teenage girl. Neither she nor any of her friends naturally look like that model. Not even close.

Anyone who hasn't personally raised children ---- doesn't have a clue.



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: karmicecstasy

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Jamie1
So you're all for discriminating against girls being perceived as underweight being allowed to earn money modeling?


No I'm not.

I am agreeing with the ASA's ruling that the advert was inappropriate for the target audience as the model was "noticably underweight". You probably don't know anyone who has been felt she was worthless because her body shape was never going to be "perfect" i.e. thin. It's a serious issue and not to be so casually brushed off.

Regards


Why are you making personal judgments about me and who I might know?

It's sexist, judgmental, and body shaming to have a bureaucrat look at a photo of a girls body, and declare the image of her body "irresponsible" and "dangerous."

That's body shaming. It's doing the exact thing you're against - telling a young girl her body isn't good enough the way it is.

And it's even worse BECAUSE the target market is young girls who are probably thin. It's sending a message to them that there's something wrong with their thin bodies.

No wonder obesity is at an all time high and we need to ban soft drinks and force kids on diets. Thin girls are being shamed to believe their bodies are dangerous.


Your body shaming argument might hold weight, if the photo was a real undoctored photo. However, it is not a real undoctored photo. It is obviously photo-shopped.





There was no claim the the photo was photoshopped.

And it's still body shaming when the government declares one gender, women, and one type of woman's body, thin, is so dangerous and harmful that a photo of the gap between her thighs can't be shown.

I'm very good friends with a bikini model, and hang out with her other model friends. They're not anorexic. They're health fanatics. Their legs look very similar to the photo that was banned.

So you're for censorship?



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: AthlonSavage
Reading this makes me cringe, if they regulators want to be moral crusaders then why don't they go and tackle the biggest issue on the Net Porn sites, the most gratuitous form of content ever delivered over the net.


Isn't that really reaching beyond the perimeters of the subject issue?

GO EXTREME, OR GO HOME? Yada yada yada



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1
That's false. It was a woman. Urban Outfitters responded to the ban, giving the woman's waist measurement as 23 1/2 inches.

There was no claim made by the ASA that it was photoshopped. The ad was banned because the bureaucrat judged the image of the woman's body as being harmful and dangerous.

It's body shaming thin women. It's discriminatory, degrading, and an attack on women based on their body size.


I don't care if there is a claim of Photoshopping or not. It's a Photoshopped image. You're not actually going to argue that the image wasn't manipulated, are you?



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: Jamie1
That's false. It was a woman. Urban Outfitters responded to the ban, giving the woman's waist measurement as 23 1/2 inches.

There was no claim made by the ASA that it was photoshopped. The ad was banned because the bureaucrat judged the image of the woman's body as being harmful and dangerous.

It's body shaming thin women. It's discriminatory, degrading, and an attack on women based on their body size.


I don't care if there is a claim of Photoshopping or not. It's a Photoshopped image. You're not actually going to argue that the image wasn't manipulated, are you?


Seriously!

What era was it a non-photoshopped ad was released? 1910?



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Jamie1
You believe that the government should evaluate women's bodies, and censor photos of certain women's bodies because the government, by looking at one photo, has determined the woman was "underweight?"


I think you are going awry with this one.

1. The ASA is not "government". Go and look it up.
2. The ASA reacted to a complaint about an advert and made a judgement based on criteria as to whether the advert was appropriate.
3. Companies are asked to remove adverts if they breach the advertising codes and standards. This one did.

If it was a giant vagina shown, would you think it was appropriate to show?

This has nothing to do with sexism or judging women's bodies. It has nothing to do with government control or skinny models. It has everything to do with an inappropriate advert.

Most of the incredulity you are offering up is invented.

Regards


Cool! Nice to know it's not government censorship.

The ad was deemed dangerous and harmful, i.e., inappropriate, because it was judged that the woman in the photo was underweight.

If the ASA feels underweight woman are not appropriate to show in ads, that's their business obviously. But it doesn't diminish that the consequence is discrimination against models who the ASA judges to be "inappropriate."

I would sue if I were them.



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: Jamie1

The "Natural Law" is pretty simple. Don't alter beyond natural enhancing aesthetics.

Do you know of any ads that photoshop "weight" to the clothing model --- that is aimed at young girls?

My guess is you are single with no children. Probably female. I definately could be wrong, but don't think so.

FACT: I am raising a teenage girl. Neither she nor any of her friends naturally look like that model. Not even close.

Anyone who hasn't personally raised children ---- doesn't have a clue.






You have ZERO knowledge of anything about my age, gender, race, or whether I have kids.

And yet you continue to make up your own fantasies, then support you conclusions to try to invalidate my points based on your fantasies.

I have bikini model friends that all look like the model in the photo. They do photo shoots for bathing suits all the time.

They're happy. And healthy.

And you didn't answer my question. Do you think movies, magazines, television shows, social media, everything should be monitored and censored to make sure some "unrealistic" bodies are not shown?



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 04:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1
The ad was deemed dangerous and harmful, i.e., inappropriate, because it was judged that the woman in the photo was underweight.


No, there you go again. You are making it up.

The advert was deemed inappropriate because showing a "noticeably underweight" model to an audience of potentially impressionable girls and young women would portray the wrong message. They did not say the advert was "deemed dangerous and harmful" and that is a fallacy you keep repeating.

In other adverts I am sure such models would be acceptable. You need to consider context and (as I have stated previously) read the judgement, because I don't think you are doing much work to research this subject.

Regards



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 04:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1
I have bikini model friends that all look like the model in the photo. They do photo shoots for bathing suits all the time.


No you don't.

Unless your friends look like they've been badly photoshopped.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join