Site Meter Reflections on Playboy: Madrid’s guilt trip over skinny fashion models

September 17, 2006

Madrid’s guilt trip over skinny fashion models

Thanks to Susan Konig at National Review Online, I’ve learned that the regional government of Madrid, Spain, has banned models below a minimum body mass index from its current Fashion Week in order to protect the delicate sensibilities of young women from the temptations of anorexia and bulimia. If you believe Ozzy Osbourne deserved to be sued for recording a song that makes teenagers kill themselves, then the Madrid policy makes sense. But if you’re like me and you don’t ascribe Jedi mind-control powers to songs and fashion shows, it’s pure scapegoating.

Like suicide, anorexia grieves, terrifies, and bewilders friends and family members, who can be forgiven for placing blame somewhat irrationally. Advocates for a “socially responsible” fashion industry generally pay lip service to freedom of speech and freedom of the press. But if the media have such voodoo-like powers to make people do things against their will, it must follow logically that those freedoms are too dangerous to preserve. Admit it.

I’m disturbed by the fact that Konig’s article cheers on the policy and its rationale, which was formerly the province of the feminist left and is now endorsed on a conservative web site. As a libertarian, I’ve depended on the left and the right to expose the opposite side’s sanctimonious guilt trips. Are they becoming as indistinguishable as the human and porcine ruling classes at the end of Animal Farm?

Of course, eating disorders demand an explanation of some kind. In order not to leave a complete vacuum, I humbly recommend the work of Judith Rich Harris and Thomas Szasz for clues to the answer. I’m convinced that, taken together, they can do for psychopathology what Copernicus did for astronomy and Darwin did for biology.

Posted by Brian Sorgatz at 1:40 PM

  • Blogger ariadneK, Ph.D. left this comment at September 17, 2006 3:38 PM  
    I'm personally laughing my ass off every time I read about this new policy: I think it's great. :-)

  • Blogger ariadneK, Ph.D. left this comment at September 17, 2006 3:38 PM  
    (Oh, great blog, BTW!!!) :-)

  • Blogger Omni left this comment at September 17, 2006 3:53 PM  
    "But if the media have such voodoo-like powers to make people do things against their will, it must follow logically that those freedoms are too dangerous to preserve. Admit it."

    The media DOES have just that power; if it didn't, the advertising industry wouldn't exist. There's nothing "dangerous" about the power to persuade, however; we can nearly all talk people into doing stuff they don't want to do, and no one thinks there's anything "dangerous" about THAT... it's a normal part of human interactions.

  • Blogger Brian Sorgatz left this comment at September 17, 2006 4:06 PM  
    ariadneK,
    Do you laugh with or at the policy?

    Omni,
    As I’ve written in an earlier post, the existence of the advertising industry proves only that advertisers’ clients hope they have that power, nothing more.

  • Blogger Omni left this comment at September 17, 2006 5:12 PM  
    Sorry, but that's not so; if the advertising industry couldn't PROVE that they have the power to manipulate minds, via inarguable, significant increases in sales, no one would pay them and they'd all go out of business.

    The size and profitableness of the advertising industry demonstrates just how effective they are.

  • Blogger Brian Sorgatz left this comment at September 17, 2006 6:58 PM  
    Omni,
    Advertisers’ clients are businesspeople, not scientists. They’re more gullible than you think. Don’t let the witch doctors frighten you.

  • Blogger Lux Lisbon left this comment at September 19, 2006 3:10 AM  
    I would have to agree w/ omni. but i would also like to point out that if you have spent any time with girls with ED you would know that this post is incorrect. ED stem from multiple issues but are often triggered by images in fashion mags, TV movies ect (i have studied EDs)
    It's Madrid's choice to turn away what ever models they want for what ever reasons they deem. The modeling agencies are going to fight it because they are losing money. it's business to them. They don't care if the girls are ANA/B as long as they are working.

  • Blogger Brian Sorgatz left this comment at September 19, 2006 9:35 AM  
    Lux,
    People’s stated reasons for doing what they do are not necessarily the real reasons. Before he was executed, serial rapist and murderer Ted Bundy claimed that pornography made him commit his crimes. However sincerely he may have said it, a competent social scientist would not take his statement at face value. I don’t know where you studied eating disorders, but I’m wary of the politicization of this issue by many “experts.” Again, would these experts blame Ozzy Osbourne for teen suicides?

    The private businesses and trade organizations that put Fashion Week on can set any policy they like. But when the government at any level mandates it, it’s called censorship. To the great misfortune of the Spaniards, Spain apparently lacks an equivalent to the First Amendment.

  • Blogger Michelle Lopes left this comment at September 19, 2006 12:53 PM  
    You do know that the Madrid minimum is 123 pounds for a woman 5'9" in height? It's not really too much to ask.

  • Blogger Brian Sorgatz left this comment at September 19, 2006 1:44 PM  
    Michelle,
    Any prohibition by any government of the victimless crime of parading up and down a catwalk is too much to ask. The specific minimum makes no difference at all.

  • Anonymous Lady Penelope left this comment at September 19, 2006 3:33 PM  
    Great site. Personally, I think anorexia has more to do with control than body image. I've some notion that it has something to do with increasing female independence (over the past thirty years or so), and in light of that, the struggle to assert oneself against concerned, protective parents. Fathers today don't worry any less than fathers of yesterday, but teenage girls expect a little more lassitude. Refusing to eat can be a profound act of defiance. Of course, that wouldn't account for all cases, and it wouldn't account for eating disorders among older women and men, but it might account for the higher rate of eating disorders among girls of a certain age. The Madrid initative may have the best intentions, but I doubt it will be effective.

  • Blogger Brian Sorgatz left this comment at September 19, 2006 3:49 PM  
    Lady Penelope,
    Thank you. Please come back and leave more comments.

  • Blogger ariadneK, Ph.D. left this comment at September 20, 2006 9:02 PM  
    I agreed with the policy. Obviously, since I've stated this, you will flame me, bu whatever. Just expressing my honest opinion...nd hopefully you will be able to respect it as such.

    regards,
    K.

  • Blogger Brian Sorgatz left this comment at September 20, 2006 11:21 PM  
    ariadneK,
    What makes you think I’ll flame you? Haven’t I shown good manners on this comment thread?

  • Blogger Simon left this comment at November 22, 2006 11:07 PM  
    Why then do McDonalds advertise in schools and with funding sporting equipment? Are they just wishing for success that way?

  • Blogger Brian Sorgatz left this comment at November 22, 2006 11:46 PM  
    Yes, Simon.

  • Blogger Ron Amos left this comment at November 26, 2006 2:59 PM  
    Governments create such tom foolery because it keeps the politicians who cateer to it in office.. if the tom fools who desire such legislation were to have a little bit of initiative they could maybe start a business enterprize that could be directed toward solving this problem without coercing anyone.

  • Blogger Brian Sorgatz left this comment at November 26, 2006 4:29 PM  
    In other words, Ron, people get the government they deserve.

    • Post a Comment

    « Home

    Create a Link