According to its website, Australian underwear brand Lovable says it is “dedicated to changing the culture surrounding eating disorders and body image”. It does this “by using happy, healthy models in our campaigns and promotional activities and by continuing to design intimates that are not created to objectify women’s bodies…”
I’m sorry, but I’m a bit confused.
Because I don’t understand how you change the culture with advertising like this.
Like Girlfriend misusing the word ‘revolution’ in its alleged new approach to body image (Girlfriend: we’re still waiting for the beauty revolution), Lovable is abusing the term ‘cultural change’.
Reinforcing cultural messages about the superiority of thin women who conform to conventional notions of beauty (with help from airbrushing and possibly even plastic surgery) doesn’t transform the culture.
Sexualising advertising designed to provoke certain responses in men doesn’t turn society upside down either.
It seems to me companies like Lovable are happy to spruik a love-your-bodies-we’re-all-beautiful-positive-self-esteem message, while not doing all that much. It has become an empty mantra. Can any corporation wear the badge of honour and become a sponsor of positive body image campaigns while at the same time harming the cause?
Lovable has a deal with a major eating disorders charity. That’s fine. I hope it gets lots of money. It’s also funding this week’s Body Image & Eating Disorder Awareness Week.
But the double standards around claiming to boost self-esteem in women and supporting positive body image, while acting in ways that undermine these messages, have to be exposed.
Lovable supposedly cares about poor body image, yet it continues to use ultra thin models – including supermodel and former Miss Universe Jennifer Hawkins
As one woman in her 20s, who recovered from an eating disorder, wrote to me:
The guff about not objectifying women is a little rich. Pornified imagery and styling features prominently in Lovable’s latest campaign, despite their denials to the contrary.
[vimeo]http://vimeo.com/14761592[/vimeo]
One ad shows Hawkins eating an ice cream that is dribbling down her arms, a classic intimation of a popular practice in pornography. (Women dribbled in substances is becoming increasingly popular in advertising). Another shows her sucking her index finger in a suggestive way.
There is nothing creative or empowering about Lovable’s ads. These representations reinforce existing scripts about women’s bodies and what women are “good for.”
And men’s magazine FHM must have missed the memo from Lovable about “not objectifying women’s bodies”. Here’s Jen Hawkins – “The Cream of the Crop” – in the latest issue. She’s described as “hotter” and “stickier”. There’s no questioning how FHM’s readers will interpret the image.
In 2007, New Zealand banned Lovable ads showing Jen Hawkins with a stuffed animal looking into the camera with the question “horny?” in every ad.
Clearly, Lovable’s models are waxed to within an inch of their lives, reinforcing another pornified beauty ideal.
We’re supposed to believe “Everybody’s Lovable” at the same time that Lovable’s ads link physical attractiveness to social attractiveness and more opportunities – and to being enviable. We are to envy Jen Hawkins (her breasts especially, judging by placement of the word). How does that promote self-acceptance? How does that stop body judging?
Maybe Grazia didn’t see the body love memo either. Its latest issue features Jen Hawkins and Aussie face of Portmans Jess Hart posing together on a cover that shouts: “Jen & Jess: how to get their $5M bodies!” Hawkins says she works out six days a week with 90 minute cardio and weights etc and Jess says she gets “super strict about her diet” prior to a photoshoot with an emphasis on carrots etc.
And Grazia is still promoting the “Thin by Friday Diet” along with other dieting /rapid weight loss articles.
Here we have more problems with engaging Brand Hawkins – ‘one of the most envied bikini bodies on the world’ – to support body image and eating disorder recovery. It’s a point I’ve made before .
Also on its website, Lovable says it wants to support the ‘physical and emotional needs of women’:
Our research shows that only 1% of women are totally happy with their bodies, citing their own self pressures, the outside influence of celebrity and model culture, and shopping environments as the leading causes for their dissatisfaction. We want to help reverse this thinking and encourage women to believe that Everybody’s Lovable.
So why does Lovable continue to reinforce standard beauty ideals when it claims to care about women? Why does it idealise rare and mostly non-attainable body types?
Lovable, show us you mean it. Show us you really do think ‘Everybody’s Lovable’. Don’t just say you’re challenging the status quo. Do it.
38 Responses
yes… yet another corporation profiting from speaking out of both sides of their mouths. thanks for highlighting the hypocrisy melinda! why do these companies and magazines like Grazia get to wear a badge of honour for promoting girls’ self esteem when in reality they are contributing to the problem? We must hold them accountable!
I don’t necessarily disagree with your primary theme, but I do have to question this line:
“Sexualising advertising designed to provoke certain responses in men doesn’t turn society upside down either.”
Men don’t buy women’s underwear. (At least most of us don’t, although 1 in 40 men apparently enjoy wearing women’s clothing – nothing wrong with that either.) If advertising is as able to shape buying habits as you’ve previously claimed, what would be the point of directing advertising for a product, that is bought almost exclusively by women, at men? Am I missing something or is there some cognitive dissonance in this claim?
Perhaps your point here would be easier to see if you lifted up what you considered to be good underwear advertising for women. It seems to me that all underwear advertising emphasises sex and attractiveness to some degree.
arved
the point is that lovable is claiming to change culture and promote healthy body image and self esteem in women, by challenging the status quo. yet linking a woman’s self worth to what how sexually desirable she is, while only using very thin models like jen hawkins, is hardly changing culture.
hawkins looks like she’s had quite a bit of plastic surgery if you ask me (click on link in the piece). then grazia mag uses her to promote healthy body image. this is really messed up.
LOVable, DOVable, SHOVable!
Mixed messages! We are forever hearing mixed messages. There’s no trust in their brand because there is no truth in their message.
Lovable and Dove (I might as well have a red hot go at them whilst I am on it!) have the same vibe going on and that’s to sell products and to see how much exposure they can claim on a shelf and what space they can inhabit in a glossy mag.
They don’t really care, as if they care.
Their message is clear WE DONT CARE but our PR department will write a good statement to say we do whilst whacking Hawkins in FHM, or using our products to debase women under the camouflage of ‘we support the physical and emotional needs of women’
Pretending to help and support women – bollocks.
Why do we still buy into these tales? Why do we get shocked when there is a rise of girls and women having issues with body shame, shape concern and comparison? I am not sexy, not thin which means I am ugly and equates to being worthless.
It’s a sad world in which we live. More so, it’s a sad world these mags and companies are creating for our women.
Where is the strong CEO of these companies who will stand and give us a message that is believable, encased by integrity and one we can actually trust?
I am moving to an island, anyone coming? (and no, I am not taking any magazines with me!)
Dominique – oh I can see the hypocrisy, but that wasn’t what I was questioning. Melinda implied that women’s underwear advertising was designed to get a particular reaction from men. That does not compute, as men do not buy women’s underwear, and advertisers aren’t stupid, and do not aim their advertising at markets that will not buy their products.
Men’s underwear advertising is pretty similar in terms of styling. The only major difference I see is that black and white photography seems to be more common in men’s underwear advertising.
So, I definitely see that a company claiming to be countering body image issues while producing this kind of advertising is somewhat hypocritical, that wasn’t what my concern was. I was asking why Melinda thinks that advertising aimed at women is designed for men. I think that seeing what she thinks is good women’s underwear advertising would go someway to helping me understand that.
Hi Arved,
In response to your comment here: “Melinda implied that women’s underwear advertising was designed to get a particular reaction from men. That does not compute, as men do not buy women’s underwear, and advertisers aren’t stupid, and do not aim their advertising at markets that will not buy their products.”
The image is designed to appeal to men. This is why the men’s mag have jumped on it and added their ‘sticky Jenn Hawkins’ caption. The idea is that if women look this way, behave this way, wear this underwear, they too can get this reaction from men. That is why men’s reaction is relevant.
A substantial amount of women’s underwear is bought by men for women. And it’s usually bought with an expectation influenced by the depiction of the underwear models.
I was so happy when I saw you’d posted about this ad. All I have to do is see a still from this ad and I feel horrible. There aren’t many ads that can tear at my self esteem anymore, but this ad does it to the core everytime I see it, no matter how hard I try to resist. I hate this ad more than any other.
Natural – Do you have any statistics on that? I’m curious now. I don’t have any idea of the numbers. If we were talking lingerie, I’d accept your premise. (Although I don’t have any data on that either, just that is a popular meme. It does, of course, also come with a whole suite of other sexist problems.) But everyday women’s underwear having a large number of male buyers for women? Doesn’t sit right with me. A quick search only gave me transvestite tips, so I’ll have to think about the correct search terms to find anything useful.
Kelly – I’d agree if there was substantial amount of men buying women’s underwear for women. As a counter example, search for ‘male underwear models’ in Google Images. Are these ads then designed for women? They seem pretty sexualised to me. This obviously doesn’t excuse anything, but I think it may be pretty hard to advertise underwear without the model looking sexual in some way.
Just to be clear, I am not questioning the hypocrisy of Loveable’s claim of trying to improve body image; that’s clear. I’m just exploring the idea that women’s underwear advertising is aimed at men. As I asked before, this really makes me wonder what ‘good’ women’s underwear advertising looks like. Does such a thing exist? Can it exist?
It’s Hateable.
Arved: I see the appeal to men by advertisers as two-fold: one, the men who will ask theri wives/gfs to buy that lingerie based on the ads (yes it is lingerie, most women don’t rock around in g-strings and low cut bras everyday), and two, women will buy the underwear on the assumption that it is pleasing to men. I mean celarly the ads aren’t designed to appeal to straight women, they are sexual, and most stright women are not turned on by a model sucking her finger. Underwear ads aimed at women are ones which show how a bra is comfortable or useful or makes you feel good about yourself, or looks smooth under your tshirt etc.
JE – Okay, but then are men’s underwear ads designed to appeal to women? They often contain very attractive, idealised men, and often in a sexual manner. Eg. thumb in the waste band, legs spread, etc. Cisgendered heterosexual men aren’t turned on by that either. Again, not to excuse it, but it seems men and women are being hit with similar advertising. If underwear advertising aimed at women is designed to appeal to men, then what does that mean for underwear advertising aimed at men? Is all advertising aimed at men?
With regards to your first point, isn’t that more a problem with the products themselves rather than the advertising? And I’m not sure that you can make that a universal claim. I have a relative who is very feminist but actively prefers g-strings to other types of underwear, and her biggest problem with bras is finding ones that fit well and are comfortable. She certainly wears them for herself and not to please anyone else. That’s anecdotal sure, but I think it shows that some people prefer the skimpier underwear. I think the bigger problem here is that some men feel entitled to dictate what their partner’s wear. I’m not convinced that that problem is caused by this kind of advertising.
I am so pleased to see people taking notice of this blog Melinda!! There are even men objecting to the Ads! Great post!
Great blog Melinda. You have done well to outline so clearly this problem.
@Lisa- yes Loveable = Hateable
has anyone thought of approaching jen???? just a thought….
I am a typical male and enjoy the sight of a female body….however jen hawkins is so over exposed that i dont even notice her any more.
We’ve all seen her in pretty much this same pose for the last 5 years or so….she bores me to tears.
Dammed if you do and dammed if you don’t. Why don’t you put up 25% of your profit for such a cause?
I felt very unlovable when I saw this ad. It made me feel three things.. one. that I wanted to have sex. two that I had to look like her to get sex and to be lovable and three that I could not eat any of those things if I wanted the first two. I think Jen is a pretty but I think she looks like a whore in this ad
Whats your problem. There giving money away to a organization that needs the money (GOOD THING) yet your complaining about the way they advertise the goods. Your a fool. If they donated there money to the famine in Africa does that mean they need to use Somalians as models. NO there giving money because they believe that it’s a cause worth giving to. But they still need to advertise there clothing line. And sorry to say but having Jenifer Hawkins covered in ice cream makes me want to buy something lovable for my girlfriend. And to call that an u attainable body reinforces the fact that most people that don’t have that body type give up trying to attain it or don’t try hard enough. Now I know what replies I’ll get “I did try but I’m still fat” I’m sorry but 1) you didn’t try hard enough and 2) you need to do it more that 1 month. Your unhealthy and your body is use to it. So you need to train it to think differently. And that takes TIME and EFFORT.and BTW I’m not the ideal body either. So you can’t use that againt me. You complain when they don’t help. You complain when they do. what do you think would help more. Putting healthy people up there promoting this is what we should be like (healthy and happy) instead of somebody promoting that being fat is a fact of life, Our heart and blood and vital organs of any kind don’t matter. just as long as the clothes fit. I inspire to be these people with healthy bodies like Jenifer because I know that I would live a life without medication for longer than if I didn’t care about myself at all.
In conclusion
Stop Complaining There Doing A GOOD THING. with both regards. 1) donating money to people that need the help to get healthy 2) showing them someone to look up to on there journey to being healthy.
Why on earth are we suprised by this hypocricy?
Let’s remember- this is Jennifer Hawkins- the person supposedly attempting to combat body image issues by posing naked on the cover of magazines.
Whether this second strike speaks of her stupidity or some fantastic PR team smugly believing this ridiculous effort of false social responsibility will once again be smoothed over, I don’t know.
All I know is I have avoided buying anything associated with the Jawko brand, and will continue to do so for a very long time.
Is it possible there is a little bit of envy going on here, the model, Jen, in question is a total knockout, so leave her alone and Lovable also. You Aussie sheilas always knock the babes especially if you are fat Aussie sheilas. Also your new Prime Minister looks like a chook.Sorry Aussies you gave us heaps about that bloke Helen Clark.Eat ya hearts out, sorry about the rugby.
All I have to say is, Loose your fattitudes! I get the feeling that the only people who complain about this are people who are obviously unhappy about themselves. I am sorry but there are so many overweight people who are called “curvy”, Don’t you think that promotes the wrong body image? Encouraging people to be overwieght? It’s ridiculous! People should want to look like Jen Hawkins. By the way, She WAS Miss Universe! Of course she’s super hot! She actually can’t help it. And sex sells, get over it. Maybe do some exercise too and then you won’t need to complain.
I havn’t even read the entire article but get the idea. This topic has been circulating for decades with the same meaning – and might i add equivalent to a dog chasing its own tail. Its about the same 2 issues everytime….1. I have to look like a model like Jennifer so i can get a man…and 2. just another opportunity for Jennifer to promote herself. Jennifer couldn’t give a continental what the issue is suppose to be about – she’ll take any attention she can get. These type of promotions actually do more psychological harm than good. Its basically saying if you don’t look like Jennifer you won’t get laid or receive love. The reason why these ads are harmful is because most people are self conscious in general. I’m a fit and healthy male and i work out regularly so body image isn’t an issue for me – but even i can see how these type of ads create hurt.
Amber – Pull your head out of the sand – the women who are called “curvy” by the magazines are actually TINY. They are not overweight – they are usually a max of a size 10 Australian – they just happen to have the bone structure of an actual woman rather that a 13 year old boy. ie: hips and a waist. P.S. I’m a size 10 but have curves in ALL the right places.
Anyway I am sick of Jen Hawkins promoting herself as an “average” Aussie Woman – she’s NOT. She won Miss Universe, without being airbrushed to the hilt and before the major plastic surgery. She needs to realise she is not “approachable”, “attainable”, “average” – 99% of women do not get paid to nor have the luxury of spending hours and hours toning our body and receiving facials.
I have no problem with these type of advertisements but I do have a problem with a company running these types of adverts whilst for some bizzar reason trying to hide under the banner of social change. What an absolute joke.
I dont’ mean to get people upset but i think that this ad is fine. Sure it has some provocative images and sexual poses but what can you do about it? I know that some people who watch this will start to get low self asteem about them selves and i do start to feel sorry for people who have suffered anorexia or body image disorders mentally, but what about everyone else? Just think… how she got this body?
With ‘skinny’ girls, some just cut down on their food dramatically, which i think is wrong and a terrible thing, but then there are some models and women that exercise and work hard. How many times a week do you go to the gym, or you exercise? What do you eat for breakfast, lunch and dinner? How many starbuck drinks do you have a week, toppled with whipped cream and sugar?
Becuase in my opinion i think that there are some people who are fat and when they see ad’s like this, they become uncomfortable in their own shape, and call those girls anorexia,and say that their a ‘healthy shape’ even though that’s not true. And yet don’t do anything about themselves.
ANNIE: Of course Jennifer Hawkins is not an average Aussie woman. WHY? Because more people, especially teenagers are becoming overweight. 1 in every 3 kids from the age of 12- 17 is overweight. So just think, Most Australain people have no self control over themselves.
to Arved: they make the advert appealing to men, so that women buy it, hoping that they will be appealing to men by wearing it.
to the author
my only problem is… what is the solution? is it to have women with normal bodies pose naked?! or in bikinis or covered in icecream?
i found it utterly ridiculour that Dove had a whole bunch of normal women naked for a picture. why do women have to be naked?! and then that ad with the jelly belly. i dont think it made women happier about their jelly bellies, lol. again, why do women have to be publicly naked?!
the entire culture has to change. women need to know that they have control over their bodies and they are worth more than eye candy. they have to face reality that their bodies will not stay youthful, they’ll get wrinkles, greys, most likely a jelly belly and not so perky breasts if they decide to have children. thats just the way life is.
because the culture revolves around body image, unfortunately women pay the price at the end. the solution is not having more women naked, the solution has to be a complete overhaul of the culture
Oh look the fat haters are here. Let me guess:
Obesity is killing you all!!!! Jennifer will save you!
You’re just jealous!
You’re criticising Jennifer because you’re fat! Diabetes and so on….
Leave Jennifer alooooone! *sob*
Does that cover it or have I missed something?
I agree with what you are saying – but looking at the butterfly foundation website there is a section where you can purchase their t-shirts. Funnily enough they only go up to a size 14… does no one realise that overweight, obese and morbidly obese people may (and quite likely are) suffering from an eating disorder? Why do these people have to figure out their eating disorders without a t-shirt…. sounds insane that you would say that and a t-shirt seems trivial, however if you have ever been a sufferer or known someone suffering from an eating disorder who is overweight then you would know how important it is for them to receive help!
OK, having read the comments on this article I feel compelled to add my two and sixpence. I’d like to add that as backup for some of the things I’m about to say – I used to be a personal trainer, and I am currently a doctor.
Firstly I completely agree with the article about the hypocrisy of Lovable sponsoring the Butterfly Foundation. The fact that you can click on the Lovable link on the BF website and be taken to an ad with Jen Hawkins slinking all over the place covered in icecream just absolutely astounds me.
And for those who don’t understand why it’s a problem if the company are providing finance for a good cause, this is why: I’m not talking about people who are carrying a bit of extra weight. I’m talking about eating disorders. People who have eating disorders suffer daily under the feeling that they are not thin enough or attractive enough to be loved or desired. They feel this to such an extent that people throw up or starve themselves until they die over trying to get thin enough. Organisations like the Butterfly Foundation are designed to be a place of safety and support for people who feel this way, one voice telling them that being their own weight is ok and is good enough as long as they are healthy. And that the purpose of their existence is not to be attractive – it’s to enjoy their own life. Lovable is a company which both exploits women as sexual objects to sell products, and represents Jennifer Hawkins as it’s ideal. Even their “fuller figure DD” bras are sold with pictures of people with JH type of body. For the BF to associate with this company tells people with body image issues (and in fact all of us) that this is what it considers a healthy body, and that it has no problem with the sexualisation of women. This is an enormous betrayal of those the Butterfly Foundation claims to support.
And, for those who say that it’s not ok to be fat, as a doctor I agree. People are tending toward being overweight and if it does harm your health then that’s a problem. But many comments have implied that if we disagree with Jen Hawkins weight, then we are advocating people being overweight. Do you understand the ridiculousness of that statement? JH is 180 cm tall and weighs 57kg. This gives her a BMI of 17.5 which is considered dangerously underweight. Then in addition she is airbrushed for these ads. There are thousands of people in Australia who have perfectly healthy BMIs between 20-25 (myself included – I am 173cm and weigh 63kg) who end up feeling like we are actually OVERweight, because of ads like this. And as a personal trainer I happen to know that that weight is, as well as being unhealthy, almost unattainable for most women unless they do indeed begin to stave themselves, or throw up what they do eat. SO are we being encouraged to have poor body image and develop eating disorders? Your call. But in the shouting about whether people should be fat/thin/allowed to advertise how they like etc, try to remember the thousands of people in our society who are literally starving themselves to death because we continue to allow them to be told that they are not fit to be loved.
Well, to the men and women that can not spell correctly, or use the correct punctuation; I am saddened by you.
The “fact” that Jennifer Hawkins is, as you all say, attractive, is not the primary focus of the article. You don’t have to be ugly or overweight to be affected by imaging in advertising, you don’t have to be old, you don’t have to be disfigured. For some of us, it seems, we are not oblivious to our imperfections, and yes, it will make us jealous. Jealousy is a destructive feeling, and the thing that you have to remember is that you can be envious of anybody, anywhere, any age or body shape.
It’s frustrating to me, as an average teenage girl, that most people do not understand that to have the body of a supermodel, you can’t just be born with a good metabolism and bone structure. There are many models, actresses, singers and everyday people that admit to having to drastically reduce their food intake to be considered for certain jobs or campaigns, as well as being airbrushed to oblivion. It’s unhealthy, is the point. If we all forced ourselves to starve to feel attractive we would cut down our livelihood, we would not be able to function, and some people suffering from eating disorders have gone so far that they are no longer able to have children. These women get PAID to look the way they do, not to be healthy. They get paid enough money that they are able to afford body modifications and personal trainers to push them to keep looking the way they do. Fit women are not stick thin, healthy women are not stick thin. There is no borderline for this weight and being healthy; that is a ridiculous assumption that makes the blissful ignorance of this advertising relatively easy to overcome for people who possess little imperfections themselves.
Not everybody gets reminded every day that they are different, and beautiful because of that. Not every woman has somebody to let them know they’re sexy, that they’re wanted. Some of us can exercise every day and just not see the finish line, some of us starve and hurt ourselves and others, some of us have deeper problems, some of us just aren’t so lucky.
You can’t push advertising that promotes unhealthy weight, that creates the image in our minds that we can’t be perfect, that makes young women or men think that this is healthy for them. If you think this is just about women, you are very wrong. In case you haven’t heard, there is a definite increase in men with body image disorders, and it is just as serious.
When it comes to saying “Well, we can’t do anything. This is going to keep happening, it sells!”, then congratulations, you are a defeatist. Unfortunately, for us, advertising doesn’t hold a “what good can we do for the public today?” meeting on their agenda, and it isn’t easy to complain. Luckily, though, we are given the option to read articles like Melinda’s, and form new opinions, and let those people with body image issues know that they are not alone! Maybe one day things will change for the better and young girls and boys won’t have to grow up with this prejudice that advertising pushes on us. But that is really up to us as consumers.
How embarrasingly pathetic you people are! Anyone who looks at this ad and feels anything but admiration for a girl who clearly looks after her body, should be ashamed of themselves. But the sad fact is, you are simply jealous. Jealous that you haven’t got the drive to get up and exercise or eat healthily enough to achieve such afantastc physique. The girl is the epitomy of health and Australian Beauty and I for one am PROUD to say that she represents aussie women. She is ot unhealthily slim, she is fit and fabulous. How about we encourage youths to look at this image and strive to be as healthy and fit as she is? No, your right, it’s much better to show a size 16 woman who is overweight in underwear, because that is what society strives for these days….obesity! You know what, the small number of women who are anorexic or who have other eating disorders are sick., mentally ill. And regardless of whether Jennifr Hawkins shows off beautiful lingerie or not, the will continue to be sick. They have a mental illness that needs treatment and should not be trying to blame others for their problems. This is the whole problem with society these days, everyone wants to blame someone else for their own pathetiic inadequacies. Take responsibility for your own issues and look after yourself. I don’t feel sympathy for the anorexic only the poor loving family who support her and comfort her while she throws her life down the toilet….litterally. Lovable sould be free to use WHOEVER they want in their advertising campaigns. People riddled with jealousy for a life they will NEVER have should keep their noses out of it! Keep up the good work Jen Hawkins – you are a beautiful aussie woman and I for one strive to be as fit and healthy as you! You make a FANTASTIC role model for young women around Australia – fit, healthy, ambitious and intelligent!
It constantly astounds me how much our society hates women. It really shouldn’t anymore, but it does.
The fact that the current trend in women’s bodies is toward those who are skeletally thin is not actually a good thing. It’s representative of the most minute minority of women’s body’s in the world, and for SOME OF those women it may very well be healthy – but for others it would literally kill them if they were to stay at that body shape and size for too long. Just some of the risk factors of being underweight:
• Anemia and Nutrient Deficiencies
• Bone loss and osteoporosis
• Heart irregularities and blood vessel diseases
• Amenorrhea (loss of periods for women)
• Increased vulnerability to infection and disease
• Delayed wound healing
• Increased risk of mental illness such as depression
just to name a few. But we’re willing to point to those women who are representative of those health risks and say “This is healthy! This is ideal!” It’s bullshit, is what it is. Women are literally DYING to be thin. And fat hatred and fear encourages it. It’s ridiculous.
The thing is that looks are never an indicator of health. There are thin people who live off junk food, never exercise and have extreme health risks and problems – and there are fat people who are active, eat well, and still carry excess weight. BMI is THE. WORST. INDICATOR ever of health – one only needs to good “The BMI project” to see why.
I wonder where this nonsense will end? Will it be when, as we’re seeing now with increasing numbers, men are being diagnosed with eating disorders as often as men? Will it stop when men’s bodies are represented in the same narrowly-defined, man-hating, dangerous and unhealthy ways that women’s bodies are?
Or will it stop when we tell advertisers that it’s unacceptable for them to say one thing, and do another – all to line their disgusting greedy pockets whilst not giving a damn – and worse, actively harming and disparaging – the audience to which they target their wares. Of course that could only happen if people removed their heads from their sphincters and saw that what is being sold to them as ‘healthy’ and ‘beautiful’ is shallow, narrow, limiting, and poisonous.
justme – I already addressed that. If it is the case that women’s underwear advertising is primarily aimed at men, then how do you explain advertising like this:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Kl7yL_h95qc/SeklDsdaRcI/AAAAAAAAQCE/FFnIMbsb4Qg/s1600-h/Marios+Lekkas+greek+male+model04.jpg
Do you think most men look like this? Isn’t this sexualised? Is this then primarily aimed at women? This is not to excuse anything; as I said, I do see the hypocrisy in Loveable’s stance. However, as I said, I think the bigger problem here is that some men feel entitled to dictate what their partner’s wear. I’m not convinced that that problem is caused by this kind of advertising.
—
As to the fat comments, I have a few things to say. First, let me preface with saying that I agree that BMI is a pretty poor indicator of personal health. It is a bit sad that it has become so widespread. It is useful as a statistic tool, however, and should be accepted in that light. It is undeniable that there are health issues (mental and physical) associated with being over or under weight. These issues get more extreme the further one drifts from ‘normal’.
Now, I do think that Hawkins’ body is ‘attainable’ in some sense. I think it is harmful to accuse women (or any other gender for that matter) who happen to match the current ideal of not being ‘real women’. They are just as real as anyone else and should not be shunned or rejected because of their bodies either. It’s just the basic common respect that every human should have. That’s not to say that airbrushing or plastic surgery aren’t problems. They do make it appear that the ‘ideal’ is far more common than is the case. Neither should be relied upon for happiness.
I should expand on what I mean by ‘attainable’. I think the better way to think this is in terms of trade-off. While there are some lucky people who have a metabolism that allows them to maintain close to the current ideal without much work, for most of us this is not the case. Attaining and maintaining an ‘ideal’ body is then a large investment of time, money and effort. It means long hours in the gym, a hyper-healthy diet, and numerous other sacrifices that may not be immediately obvious. It can mean dedicating a large fraction of your time to working on your body. That amount of work isn’t obvious in pictures, but it should be respected.
For most people, myself included, there is a trade off to be made. Is an ‘ideal’ body worth the time, money and effort required. Are you prepared to spend less time with loved ones for the extra boost to your self esteem? It is up to each and every person to decide where that trade off lies for them. No one should be punished, shamed, or humiliated for making a trade-off, no matter which way they choose. It is a question of priorities, and those are very personal.
Having said all that, privilege makes it far easier to have a body closer to the ideal. Well off people are money and time rich. High quality food is expensive. Having the time to invest in exercise is a luxury. Even if that exercise is secondary to ‘fun’ activities (dancing, swimming, walking in the bush, etc), if you are well off, you have more time to dedicate to such pursuits. This makes obesity largely a class problem. To my mind, that makes solving class problems the bigger issue.
tabitha in so many ways i disagree with you on what you agree with. But firstly what is the point in saying that you used to be a personal trainer or doctor? Do you really think that by saying that it gives you more authority?
Also BMI is the most faulty thing ever created, the results are totally false and tell nothing correctly. If you had to do the BMI of rugby or football players, they would be classified as overweight, even if they were fit, skinny and healthy. The truth is BMI doesn’t calculate muscle mass it just times you height and weight and whatsoever and tells you false things!
Hi Melinda,
I am hoping you will be able to read this response. I heard about this article quiet a while ago and was completely shocked about Lovable’s claims to be “dedicated to changing the culture surrounding eating disorders and body image.” I completely agree that their advertising is so double standard.
I completely love the brand Sportsgirl but also find it a little hypocritical when they present their clothes on ultra thin models, but at the same time support The Butterfly Foundation – who supports “Australians with eating disorders.” I also find it a little hypocritical that The Butterfly Foundation relies on the support of Sportsgirl as don’t most women acquire eating disorders from advertising such as that from Sportsgirl and Loveable etc??
Obviously, what The Butterfly Foundation does is fantastic and the amount of funds Sportsgirl has raised for them is also incredibly amazing, but once again, if the message of promoting healthy body image and self esteem needs to be transformed how is this going to happen if foundation and companies alone continue to use models who are practically perfect??!!
Wouldn’t it be good if, as a national community of women, we could unite and promote health and celebrate inner beauty and physical beauty in all shapes and sizes, transforming the ideals of the ‘perfect body’ and the way in which companies advertise their products??!! Rather than submitting to the quest for the perfectly thin body??