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: 6
19
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 10:37 PM
link   
Personally, i like the second photo. I did look up pictures of Jo Swinson from the ASA, I'm gotta think she is a bit biased on skinny people and thigh gaps.




posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 10:42 PM
link   
a reply to: mugger

Yeah, I'm not sure why she think's it's cool to degrade an entire category of humans by calling them "not real."

There are lots of thin women. Maybe not in the U.K., but in the rest of the world, especially Asia.

Jo Swenson - Body bigot?




posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 11:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: thedeadtruth
They should just making Photoshopping in adverts illegal.

Real people only allowed. Big , small etc.... ALL are valid and hence acceptable if they are people.


I don't mind a little for enhancement.

After all, fashion is kind of a dress up fantasy.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 01:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: lonesomerimbaud

originally posted by: alishainwonderland
While I fully agree that the over-policing of EVERYTHING has got to stop.... I do wish companies would use more realistic looking women (and men) in their ads. It doesn't bother a lot of people, but there are a lot of people who really react to ads like that. They try to achieve the "perfect" body and gain health and mental issues during the process. It's interesting how much MSM can affect our own ideas and beliefs.


Do you think that this "perfect" body is propagated by men or women?

Is it women who are putting the pressure on themselves or are men dictating to women what their ideal of the perfect body is?

The current ideal of "perfect" is really totally contrary to what is natural for women. It is squeezing women quite literally into an unrealistic shape. I guess this has always gone on in history; head binding, feet binding, neck lengthening, on and on.

Also, the perfect body for whom? The perfect body in which era?

As a guy, the most positive thing I can do is to not put the pressure on. I'm happy with the diversity that nature presents us with, that is beautiful enough for me.



The thigh gap thing was something invented and propagated obsessively and neurotically by younger girls, who may or may not have an eating disorder. As well as seen as a literal measure of beauty and something of a competition. This is on girls, or a disease, it's not about the media putting pressure on girls or men's doing. This is a choice/decision that these types of girls gladly take on, and want.

The thigh gap thing is not about being thin, as men and women are seen as attractive for such, but about being underweight. You could be a super skinny/in shape women and not have this whole thing about a thigh gap.

Some of these posts on the first page.....

"Why the attack on thin women?"

One, this isn't thin, "thin" is a casual word....like saying a starving baby in Africa is "thin". Well I guess it is but there's a little more there.

Regulating tobacco advertisement to kids, attack on smokers? Wouldn't think so.

"What's wrong with a women's intimate regions?"

This story has nothing to do with that, do you even know what this thread is about?
edit on 1/6/2015 by Turq1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 02:11 AM
link   
It is my firm belief that a good number of people in the fashion industry, those people who actually SET TODAY'S BEAUTY STANDARDS (whether this is intended or comes just as a result) are homosexual.

Because no heterosexual man would like women to look like this



Absolutely not.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 02:25 AM
link   
Once upon a time ... referred to as " child bearing hips " . Not a bad thing for a family oriented bloke.

Sexist - hell yeh ! Was it true and topical in the day - hell yes !!

Marilyn Monroe would be considered a bloated so and so today.

The pic posted by OP was not in any way showing bones due to anorexia.

Genetics folks ...have always been there. Attitudes sway in the breeze !

Be proud of who you are Ladies and Gents ....

You are one of a kind !

Tards need to focus on something more meaningful to the bettering of our species ...

That crap is not it !

Pfft !!



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 02:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Timely
Once upon a time ... referred to as " child bearing hips " . Not a bad thing for a family oriented bloke.

Sexist - hell yeh ! Was it true and topical in the day - hell yes !!

Marilyn Monroe would be considered a bloated so and so today.

The pic posted by OP was not in any way showing bones due to anorexia.

Genetics folks ...have always been there. Attitudes sway in the breeze !

Be proud of who you are Ladies and Gents ....

You are one of a kind !

Tards need to focus on something more meaningful to the bettering of our species ...

That crap is not it !

Pfft !!


Great points.

The photo that was banned was nothing close to anorexia. It was a thin woman. Where I live a large number of the women look like this. I've been to the U.K. Yes, a large number of women in the U.K. do NOT look like this. Maybe that's why the U.K. regulator chick thought the photo was dangerous and irresponsible.

And you're right.... banning certain body types from ads has got to be way down on the list of what's important for bettering our species lol



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 02:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1




Well after Christmas she putted on a few extra and this picture of someone who didn't was an insult to the pig in her...



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 02:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Jamie1
The CDC put out a meta-study last year showing that people who were "normal" or "underweight" according to their BMI had a higher mortality rate than those who were in the "overweight"---though NOT "obese" category, actually.

Edit to add: I'm not in favor of "banning" any body type---thin, fat, or in-between. I AM dead set against heavily photoshopping pictures and presenting them as reality. Someone who NATURALLY has a thigh gap? Not a problem. Photoshopping girls who don't have one to make it look like they do? No.

edit on 6-1-2015 by riiver because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 02:58 AM
link   

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


I know this is a touchy subject, but IMO the fundamental issue here is general ignorance of health. Of course, skinny women plastered in magazines and on billboards and TV will make girls want to have that shape. But it is IGNORANCE which leads them to unhealthy habits like calorie restriction, or bolemia, etc. To blame the ads is the height of ignorance. For those supporting legislation, you're the problem. Not the ads. You should be targeting public confusion over proper nutrition, and start with your own.

Do a google image search of "fruitarians". They are the healthiest demographic on the planet, and are routinely as skinny as the woman in the *doctored* photo. (Dangerously underweight? No. Good color in the flesh, no ribs showing... That woman is in great health.)

I stuff myself with food all day long, rarely exercise, and maintain a 6-pack just because I never gain weight. Why? It's not genes. It's because the food I eat is optimal for bodily performance. Very-low-fat, high-carb, plant-based, lots of fruit, whole foods, no processed food. No supplements except B12 twice a week. I used to be routinely 15 pounds overweight with much more exercise than I do now, so don't think I have special genes. That's a cop out. It's just living an understanding of nutrition. After figuring out how nutrition actually works, I can honestly say that I look younger than I did 10 years ago.

It's deceptively easy.
edit on 1 6 2015 by Son of Will because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 03:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Son of Will

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


I know this is a touchy subject, but IMO the fundamental issue here is general ignorance of health. Of course, skinny women plastered in magazines and on billboards and TV will make girls want to have that shape. But it is IGNORANCE which leads them to unhealthy habits like calorie restriction, or bolemia, etc. To blame the ads is the height of ignorance. For those supporting legislation, you're the problem. Not the ads. You should be targeting public confusion over proper nutrition, and start with your own.

Do a google image search of "fruitarians". They are the healthiest demographic on the planet, and are routinely as skinny as the woman in the *doctored* photo. (Dangerously underweight? No. Good color in the flesh, no ribs showing... That woman is in great health.)

I stuff myself with food all day long, rarely exercise, and maintain a 6-pack just because I never gain weight. Why? It's not genes. It's because the food I eat is optimal for bodily performance. Very-low-fat, high-carb, plant-based, lots of fruit, whole foods, no processed food. No supplements except B12 twice a week. I used to be routinely 15 pounds overweight with much more exercise than I do now, so don't think I have special genes. That's a cop out. It's just living an understanding of nutrition. After figuring out how nutrition actually works, I can honestly say that I look younger than I did 10 years ago.

It's deceptively easy.


Yes! Great post. You expressed it much better than I did.

Those promoting banning the ads are the problem. Not the ads.

And I think it's completely the opposite of what's being portrayed, or at least it's not as cut and dried as those people want to believe.

The magazines use models in the ads that their target market already wants to look like. Not the other way around. Think about it. If it were that easy to change how people want to look, they could put frumpy girls in the ads and everybody would quit going to the gym.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 03:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: riiver
a reply to: Jamie1
The CDC put out a meta-study last year showing that people who were "normal" or "underweight" according to their BMI had a higher mortality rate than those who were in the "overweight"---though NOT "obese" category, actually.

Edit to add: I'm not in favor of "banning" any body type---thin, fat, or in-between. I AM dead set against heavily photoshopping pictures and presenting them as reality. Someone who NATURALLY has a thigh gap? Not a problem. Photoshopping girls who don't have one to make it look like they do? No.


How the crap does it matter to you or anyone else, in the context of media, if it's a natural or Photoshop thigh gap? (lawl btw). The effect a picture has on someone, the viewer, is the same whether it's a "real" 2 inch thigh gap (again lawl) or a "unreal' Photoshop 2 inch thigh gap.

I don't really see the reasoning...nothing would change, you'd just have the same standards for what's considered attractive, less models to choose from, and models with that feature would get paid more.

Who or what says they're being presented as reality?

"Thigh gap"....probably at a worse level than member length discussions.

"I thought you said # in/cm?"

"Well , uh, you see, as per Men's Health magazine, this is measuring past the sub-pubular fat pad...."

"???"

"Pressing in."
edit on 1/6/2015 by Turq1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 03:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Turq1

originally posted by: riiver
a reply to: Jamie1
The CDC put out a meta-study last year showing that people who were "normal" or "underweight" according to their BMI had a higher mortality rate than those who were in the "overweight"---though NOT "obese" category, actually.

Edit to add: I'm not in favor of "banning" any body type---thin, fat, or in-between. I AM dead set against heavily photoshopping pictures and presenting them as reality. Someone who NATURALLY has a thigh gap? Not a problem. Photoshopping girls who don't have one to make it look like they do? No.


How the crap does it matter to you or anyone else, in the context of media, if it's a natural or Photoshop thigh gap? (lawl btw). The effect a picture has on someone, the viewer, is the same whether it's a "real" 2 inch thigh gap (again lawl) or a "unreal' Photoshop 2 inch thigh gap.

I don't really see the reasoning...nothing would change, you'd just have the same standards for what's considered attractive, less models to choose from, and models with that feature would get paid more.

Who or what says they're being presented as reality? What if they're being presented as art?


Well, it's because they've justified censorship based on the the premise that they have the moral authority to ban non-realistic images. Therefore, for them to feel righteous about infringing on others free will, they must justify it with, "Oh... that 2 inch thigh gap is not realistic because you photoshopped it. But yes... this one... the real one is ok."

It's completely dumb.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 04:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Turq1

There is a line that should be not - explored.



ED: That sounded wrong -

Apologies.
edit on 6-1-2015 by Timely because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 05:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1
Yes. Now photos of thigh gaps are "harmful" and "iiresponsible."

Urban Outfitters was ordered by the UK thought police to remove an image of a model because the size of the gap between her thighs was too large.

Irresponsibly large. Yes, irresponsibly large thing gaps are a serious public issue these days.

But not just irresponsible. The photo of a too-large thigh gap is also harmful.

Yep. We can't show photos of women who are too skinny. And we can't drink 32 oz Cokes or eat normal meals during lunch at school because well... that will make everybody too fat. We have to conform to what our government tells us is proper. Thank God we will be protected from our own inability to manage our own lives.

The most chilling part of this new era of thought police?


Source

Yes, we now live in a world where bureaucrats will measure the gap between your thighs, determine if that gap is the appropriate size, and then force 3rd party search engine companies like Google to ban you from search results if your thigh gap size is irresponsibly harmful.

Be careful what you post on ATS. The British thought police may find it harmful and irresponsible, and force it to be removed.



Your post is really over the top IMO. This is NOTHING to do with "thought police" and everything to do with ADVERTISING STANDARDS. (hence the ASA involvement if you didn't notice). There's no thigh-police going around worrying about peoples taint measurements.

Urban Outfitters used a photoshopped image in an Advert. That should rightly be banned.

Go watch a youtube video or two showing the photoshopping they do on models for shoots. Some of these girls show up the shoot, well-proportioned and AMAZING looking, and they photoshop them into anorexic bubbleheads with anime-eyes and 6ft long legs. It's DISGUSTING.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 05:43 AM
link   
a reply to: 8675309jenny
False advertising is photoshop enhancing the product that is being sold..... The woman's thighs are not for sale, and don't unfairly enhance the clothing item that is for sale, now does it?



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 06:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: TKDRL
a reply to: 8675309jenny
False advertising is photoshop enhancing the product that is being sold..... The woman's thighs are not for sale, and don't unfairly enhance the clothing item that is for sale, now does it?


That has nothing to do with it. The ASA has a say in how advertising is presented, end of story. It's not about the panties being non-photoshopped.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 06:31 AM
link   
I'm assuming you have some advertising standards in the states? I mean can you advertise cigarettes as a healthy treat for kids?



posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 12:39 AM
link   
a reply to: 8675309jenny

If you don't look like the people in those advertisements, then you're not living a healthy lifestyle. Simple as that.

The problem is you, your ignorance of health, and your attitude that anything you find uncomfortable can just be magically "legislated" away. Go to the source of the problem, and stop looking for bandaids to mask the real issue: ignorance of health.

No offense intended.



posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 02:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Jamie1

Wow im not one on censorship but good.
Take that girls picture down and give her a cheese burger .
Mabey it wasnt so much a sexual banned thing as it was a public health issue.
Like hey stop telling our young girls that the anorexic look is sexy.
And the only curves that girl has ever had was on the car ride to the photo shoot
I dunno Im not attracted to big girls unless they are really pretty big boobs and nice personality.
But they girl looked like she just left chemotherapy.
For gods sake look at her knees mabey it was a feed the children add.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join