Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014
Size zero models, banning of
Section F. Culture, education and sport
The modern fashion industry typically uses thin models; this debate focuses on the extreme of that trend, with (almost exclusively female) models becoming dangerously underweight. Reasons vary; many models simply profess a desire to improve their employment prospects, or the need to do so for a particular show, but the phenomenon is also linked very closely with eating disorders such as anorexia and bulimia. Public outcry reached its height when two Brazilian model sisters, Luisel and Eliana Ramos, died within six months of each other, both for reasons believed to be related to malnutrition. In 2007, the Madrid and Milan Fashion Weeks both banned size zero models, and Spain and Israel both have legislation preventing the use of underweight models. However, they are still legal, and widely deployed, in the USA, the UK and France.
Pros
[1] Most obviously, being size zero is highly dangerous for these models’ health. While a ban would not guarantee that they would pursue a healthier lifestyle, it gives them a strong economic incentive to do so, because they have to gain weight to be employable. At the extreme end, this will prevent deaths, but it will also ensure that far more young women avoid doing long-term damage to their bodies by being dangerously underweight for much of their teens and twenties.
[2] Size zero models can serve as very dangerous role models for young girls. Their fame and wealth often make their lifestyles seem highly desirable, and so girls seek to emulate them in every way; this often includes crash dieting, taking pills to speed up their metabolisms and competitive undereating. Banning such models is merely protecting some of the most vulnerable people in our society from highly dangerous influences.
[3] The decision to be size zero is not a free or rational one, but is typically driven by severe psychological illnesses. Anorexia, bulimia and other eating disorders are recognised medical conditions which impair these models’ ability to think freely about their weight, quite literally distorting their self-perception so that they think themselves hideously fat even when they are in fact very thin. The state often steps in where people’s decisions are ultimately harmful and they cannot rationally choose, and this is a paradigm case.
[4] Banning size zero models sends a powerful message that women should not be objectified. Much of the size zero trend rests on the idea that it is acceptable for anything to be demanded of women’s bodies, even when extreme or unhealthy, as long as it makes them more attractive. This places a clear limit on that trend, and in doing so refocuses the fashion industry on normal, healthy body shapes, which do not require women to transform themselves because of a dominant perception of how they ’should’ look.
Cons
[1] There is no reliable measure for deciding what really constitutes a ’size zero’. Many people are simply naturally very thin, and this policy discriminates against them by preventing them earning a living in their chosen career. Moreover, for those people, this policy is simply unnecessary. ’Size zero’ is not always absurdly thin; for many, it actually represents a perfectly healthy body shape.
[2] This policy is an unreasonable restriction on liberty. The state does not, in general, prevent people from doing harm to their own bodies, even where it might be fatal; cigarettes, alcohol and bungeejumping are all examples of this. These women are perfectly capable of making rational decisions; many of them are not anorexic, and it is offensive to suppose that they are incapable of choosing to look a certain way of their own free will.
[3] Runway models simply do not have that much of an impact on the real problems of unhealthy body images within society. So it would be inconsistent to outlaw them, while keeping actors and musicians with unhealthy body images legal. Few people watch runway shows or read high-fashion magazines; indeed, adverts for the clothes that most ordinary women wear and buy are modelled by those with a much healthier body image. It is absurd to suggest that a size zero model does more damage to society than magazines running stories on which celebrities are ’looking fat this month’.
[4] This policy is ultimately counterproductive. Anorexic and bulimic women need help and support, not exclusion. The message of disapproval sent by the criminalisation of their activities does not encourage them to approach family, friends and medical professionals for support, but rather demonises them and blames them for their conduct. Particularly with an illness so strongly bound up with low self-esteem, this is obviously ineffective as a solution.
Possible motions
This House would ban size zero models.
This House would require all models to have a minimum BMI.
This House believes that models should also be role models.
Related topics
Beauty contests, banning of
Cosmetic surgery, banning of