Meredith

In a rare example of a positive effort by government, the Arizona state legislature is considering a bill that would mandate advertisers to identify when images have been Photoshopped, airbrushed, or otherwise distorted.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarep...-women-ads.html

All I can say is, it's about time:


Sounds good so far? Now here's the bad news:


That's simply pathetic. The time for "discussion" is over. People keep having "discussions" and nothing gets done. These "discussions" are useless, and worse than useless, as they create the illusion that something is happening, but nothing is.

If this bill were to pass, that, at least, would be a beginning. It's not nearly enough, though. The bill should be banning underweight models altogether and mandating the use of fuller-figured models, size 14 and higher. Or at least altogether banning size-related airbrushing. Simply creating a law requiring that airbrushing be identified would be the tiniest of victories, the most basic nod to common sense. That such a law is still deemed impossible to pass is a devastating condemnation of the democratic system.

Also, I can't believe that anyone is still duped enough to call airbrushed bodies "perfect." There's nothing "perfect" about them. They look gaunt, emaciated, and synthetic. They are actively unattractive. Step one would be for people to dispense with the idiotic notion that there's anything "perfect" about size-0 frames. Quite the opposite. Perfect is a figure like that of Katherine Roll, or Shannon Marie, or Mayara Russi. Perfect is size 18+.

Still, at least it's a movement that has traction:


Traction, and support:


Bingo.

The truly infuriating aspect of the article is not the fact that the Arizona legislature won't pass the bill, though. It's the insufferable excuses peddled by the advertising industry to justify their corrupt practices and why they should be allowed to keep warping girls' minds:


Pardon me while I retch. They know what's right? This industry that promotes anorexia, glamourizes drug use, and sends starving (sometimes fatally starving) models down the runway, excludes full-figured women, and shames natural plus-size bodies, they know what's right? That's like saying that a drug dealer knows what's right and should therefore be allowed to keep peddling his wares.

Rather, the media should be prosecuted for the damage they inflict on society. They neither know nor care what's right. They simply seek to generate as much self-loathing among women as possible to maximize their profiteering.

This part is especially rich. I'm amazed anyone could say it with a straight face:


Oh, my God. So for the past half-century, advertisers and the media have done everything in their power to wage an ideological war against the family, against family values, and against parents' influence on their children. And now they say that the parents should be responsible?

A century ago, before the media was hijacked by the degenerate establishment that runs it today, which hates all forms of tradition and traditional family structures, sure, then you could have expected the family to be able to counter media influence, to a point. But now that mothers are in the workplace instead of at home, and that kids grow up learning to rebel against all forms of authority, especially their parents, now it is hypocritical in the extreme for any member of the media to try to foist the responsibility for childrearing on parents.

The media has aggressively and deliberately destroyed the traditional family, so now, the media must be regulated as the overweening influence on children and youth that it has become.

Hannah

Meredith's article notes that "the bill is modeled after laws in the United Kingdom," and it turns out that those laws are actually having an effect.

Just a few weeks ago, a L'Oréal ad was banned because the airbrushing was deemed too extreme.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/201...el-weisz-banned

The pertinent points:


In fact, this is just the latest in a string of successes for U.K. legislators in curbing the excesses of airbrushing:


While anything that compels the fashion industry to behave more responsibly is laudable, I am skeptical about how much of an effect this will have when it comes to promoting plus-size beauty. The trouble is the lack of focus


This is the perpetual problem. By vaguely emphasizing "diversity," body image becomes just one of many points, and it inevitably gets relegated to the sidelines, like a token plus-size model in a waif-filled magazine. As with the case of H&M making one of its computer-generated emaciated frames dark-skinned, advertisers might easily comply with every other one of the "diversity" criteria, yet slyly continue suppressing the fuller female figure. And when criticized, they'll mendaciously say, "But we're already being diverse in oh-so-many ways!"

Thus, body image - the most important factor - gets sidelined once again, while other, lesser criteria are addressed.

Still, if nothing else, these cases show that the fashion/advertising industries cannot and will not regulate themselves responsibly, and thus require government oversight. What is needed is for that oversight to target the most crucial topic of all - body image - by banning underweight waifs and mandating the use of true plus-size models.

Graham

What I don't get is where the idea even came from that over-airbrushed images were attractive.

Men certainly don't look for the objects of their desire to resemble plastic mannequins with synthetic skin. Men find a soft, natural appearance very attractive, and contrary to what the media would have you believe, they find dimpled flesh very sensual. No airbrushing required.

The paintings in this site's Pinacotheca show how artists throughout the ages depicted Venus and other goddesses of ultimate beauty as exhibiting plump, dimpled flesh. And it's not just a historic ideal. It continues through to today.

Here's one example. Even men who find underweight girls attractive consider Scarlett Johansson to be beautiful.

http://www.biggreensmile.com/green-...sson$11286.aspx

It's certainly not men who are pushing for the plastic look:


As if to prove the point, one celebrity Web site posted a host of images showing Scarlett Johansson, unairbrushed, on the beach.

http://theblemish.com/2012/02/scarl...dy-in-hawaii-8/

She's extremely thin, but the images clearly show dimpled flesh along her thighs and reverse-view curves.







And remember: this is the look that, as the above article notes, men consider to be the most beautiful.

Therefore, ads that show airbrushed models with artificial, mannequin-like, plastic-looking skin are brainwashing women into pursuing a look that men don't even find appealing. The dimpled flesh that women are self-conscious about is a trait that men consider attractive.

I hope that more plus-size models will allow their natural, unairbrushed images to be publicly released.