After reading this thread and the arguments for both sides, I’m less sure of what I should think. The best answer is probably to let it stay up, it’s not all that bad in the grand scheme of things, and comparable ads get a pass. But the weight-loss supplement company should be legislated against, on principle of likely being a scam, or dangerous to health.
Didn’t England legalize that pump that lets you gorge on food and then dump 1/3rd of it into the toilet 3 years before the US? Diet supplements like this seem like a minor thing to get upset over in regards to potential diet-related safety all things considered.
Well, realistically, nobody is going to spend any money to put up a picture like this that says the truth, which is that you are never going to have a beach body like this, if you are most people, and it’s okay to go to the beach however you are. That would be a public service, but it wouldn’t pay for itself.
I don’t see anything wrong with the ad. Every ad out there is trying to sell something to gullible people and most of those things aren’t going to work any better than this supplement. The whole ad industry exists to make you feel like you’re missing something.
I’m not bothered by it. It’s presenting an idealised image of what a “beach body ready” figure should look like and while we can argue it’s not healthy or realistic for the majority of people, I certainly wouldn’t be offended by an ad with a shredded dude in Speedos saying the same thing.
In short, people need to stop finding fairly insignificant things to be offended about, IMHO.
Never read the book, I take it.
If you absolutely must inject glib social commentary, it’s better to stick with something safe, like “it takes all kinds” or “that’s how they getcha!”
Now shut up and take your soma.
Come on now, It’s only 12,000 ad spaces within the city. What’s a little less freedom among like-minded people.
Interesting fact: The mustard yellow shade was pumped from a little sick dog ( who quickly made a complete recovery ) who ate a dodgy mushroom whilst his owner was meeting new friends in the bushes of Hampstead Heath.
I’ve said I’ve no understanding as to why London needs a Mayor at all, and since the first two were decided comic Characters ( Ken and Boris ), and this one spends his time thinking about stuff like this, the mystery deepens.
I think the problem is your interpretation or “take” on the caption.
If you distill down all “fashion related” advertising, be it clothing, perfume, hair color/style, etc., the fundamental message that is attempted to be conveyed is: “If you use our product, it will make you attractive/more attractive (to whoever it is you want to be attractive to)”. Period. “Attractive” being purely surface/physical. Nothing about what you should or should not do. Just that you will be (more) attractive. They use models to further cloud this thinking because these models already have a leg up: they’re already attractive without using the product.
This ad is no different. Who do single/un-attached men and women want to draw attention from at the beach ? And given that part of the “beach scene” is skimpy swimwear and shirtless men (lots of body exposed), the “fashion” aspect is making your body “more attractive”.
So really what the caption is saying (in a more direct, advertising way) is “Are you as attractive as you can be when it will be time to go to the beach ?”
One can certainly not care about just how attractive/unattractive/even downright repulsive one might look in beach wear, so the ad has no bearing on them. And taken as “the intent to be as attractive as you can be”, the ad does NOT say “you shouldn’t go to the beach unless you look like this”.
If this was a private billboard, I’d say it is overreach.
But the subway is a public service, and any ads on it exist for the good of the public (I imagine they raise revenue to support the subway service.) Both body image and shady supplements are documented public health issues, and I see no reason why a public service shouldn’t refuse ads that work against public health efforts.
It’s be pretty silly for the Tube to be telling you one thing and the health department (or whatever England has) to be telling you the opposite.
If the pill is a scam, the ad is the least of the problem. Just pull the thing from the market.
But what if the ad was for surgery or something that actually worked? What if the ad was a before and after pic, where the photo was real? Still body shaming?
And how about resort ads showing hot men and women walking down the beach in skimpy bathing suits? That is even less relevant. If you think this picture is unrealistic, how about an equally think model who is shown with three kids? Yeah, right.
Or how about the exercise equipment ads? I don’t feel shamed by the men, and that stuff works about as well for most people as these pills.
As the recent study showed, it is not that easy. People come with preset appetites, and the advice to just stop eating doesn’t work all that well.
My preset metabolism keeps me thin without worrying at all about what I eat, but that doesn’t make me a better person - just a lucky one.
“TfL will not allow ads which could reasonably be seen…”
Who will be the judge on what is reasonable or not? The mayor?
If you want to ban this, ban things like posters encouraging young people to go to college.
If things like this are too unrealistic to show to people who are not genetically gifted, then the same could be applied to other non-physical aspirations as well. The average person can’t get ripped, ever afford a car beyond compact economy level, buy a house over 200 grand or so, graduate a 4 year college (<30% of US adult population), etc. Maybe I feel “shamed” by ads showing people who can afford $700 phones, alcohol, and so on. Most of these things are not realistic or healthy for the majority of the population. Applies to almost everything advertised or promoted. What about the kid with a 100 IQ who will never manage to master even the basic math and science requirements of some liberal arts colleges? Or the kid who is going to take on student loans to get a BA in History and wait tables? Or the guy who gets a good job but cant afford to go to music festivals, have all the latest gadgets and buy a car without a trust fund? Please ban this ad from my local zoo, because it hurts my feelings and just makes me feel too bad to explain to my daughter that we need at least $200 in liquid cash to go see the pandas, and that’s our whole weekly food budget and I can’t get off work anyway (then I would pay double, too).
Honestly, I’m not bothered by body shaming. Yes, I am male and I can still have a valid opinion. I understand genetics play a huge role in that, but IMHO they play less of a role in physical shape than other more substantive life achievements. It’s a lot easier to lose 20 lbs than add $100,000 to your salary or make a scientific breakthrough, discovery, invention, or something else notable. Frankly, it’s fairly easy for the average person to get fairly lean (or at least not morbidly obese) and have some decent muscle mass. As much conflicting “expert” information is out there, it’s still something that is fairly straightforward compared to almost everything else in life.
I am not ripped. I CHOOSE not to be and I accept that choice. If I see someone who is, good on them. Maybe they won the genetic lottery, maybe they just make better choices than I do. And you know what? I feel bad if I am obese, and that’s not exactly a bad thing. I understand I don’t want to look like a fat slob when I go to the pool. I also know several actionable things that can improve that if I so choose.
As far as women and whether “any body is a beach ready body”- there are several obese models currently sticking up for “all body shapes” and I probably encounter those in the media much more than I do unrealistically lean bodies. You see 300 lb pregnant women covered in tattoos wearing bikinis. It’s not like we are talking about pools or beaches instituting a weight limit for entrance or not allowing women to wear swimsuits. It’s more like “this is a hot body to a lot of people” and you might want to try to improve yours. You don’t have to. Just like I don’t have to shave my pubes or take a full body Nair bath and wear the waistband of my shorts below my crack and like 99% of the pictures you see of “hot” male celebrities.
Or maybe the mayor could take some time out of his oh-so-busy schedule and be a parent. He could point out the ads to his daughters and explain to them that it is an ad, and as such it presents an idealized version of what a woman’s body should look like and is in no way realistic or expected.
If he has any sons, he should be ready to explain to them as well, this is not what the average woman looks like, so don’t be disappointed the first time you see a naked woman.
But hey, bitching and moaning and groaning about an ad is so much easier than taking responsibility for raising your own kids to have a healthy, realistic body image.
There is a series of ad, for insurance I think, where someone recognized as a genius comes to tell the actor how simple something is. So far I haven’t heard complaints about brain shaming.
I bet it is easier for the average Fortune 500 CEO to add $100K to his salary than lose 20 pounds - and keep it off. It appears losing is simple, staying lost is hard.
I voted “get rid of it immediately”, because, like many people, I think it’s a ugly ad, and the dishonest peddling of diet pills makes me angry.
Body shaming? I’m not convinced that language control or image censorship or the Ministry of Truth will be an effective method.
That is not an ultra-skinny woman. That is a realistic image for a YOUNG woman. The point here is that it’s telling you if you take the pills, you can have that body, which is bullshit.
I don’t see it in any way saying, “You can’t go to the beach unless you look like this.” I assume anyone interested in going to the beach has BEEN to the beach, and therefore knows that actual beach bodies come in all shapes. (Or else they have an unrealistic view and think that everybody at the beach will look like that and they haven’t been because they don’t look like that, which is sad.)
Frankly, if I even noticed that ad, I would think, “What an ugly, cheap ad.”