France to ban pro-anorexia sites

[heiss93]

http://www.webuser.co.uk/images/spacer.gif France to ban pro-anorexia sites
April 16, 2008
JJ O'Donoghue


http://imagebank.ipcmedia.com/imageBank/a/anoerxia.jpg France, the home of high fashion and ultra-thin catwalk models, is to adopt legislation which bans websites that promote eating disorders.

Under the new law passed by the French parliament yesterday, sites and blogs which peddle the gospel of "eating less and living on starvation" are to be outlawed.


The law is the first anywhere in the world to clamp down on 'pro-ana' sites, a movement which started in the US with a cult-like devotion to achieving size-zero status.


The bill still has to face a vote in the French senate but if passed the owners of magazines, blogs and websites that promote eating disorders like anorexia or bulimia could face three years' imprisonment or fines in excess of £20,000.


The bill's sponsor Valérie Boyer, a conservative law-maker said: "We have noticed that the sociocultural and media environment seems to favour the emergence of troubled nutritional behaviour, and that is why I think it is necessary to act."


A simple search by Web User of 'pro-ana' returned over 1,210,000 hits with websites, blogs and forums providing information and images on anorexia and bulimia.


However, Susan Ringwood, chief executive of Beat, a British charity that provides support and information for people affected with eating disorders told Web User that it wouldn't be calling for similar legislation in the UK.


"We do know that the content is disturbing and can be harmful but how would a global ban be enforced?" she said, pointing out that if 'pro-ana' sites were banned in the UK, British teenagers could still access sites originating in other countries.


Ms Ringwood said that Beat has been working with social-networking sites like MySpace and Bebo to promote awareness of eating disorders, which are a form of mental illness, and that the industry had been cooperative.


She added that understanding the root cause of eating disorders rather than banning 'pro-ana' websites would be more effective.

[spartan]

There are pro-anorexia sites!

Jesus Christ anorexia can kill you, dont the people who run these sites know that young teenagers are vulnerable to this kind of absurd mainstream promoted fashion culture where everyone has to be stick thin and thus run the risk of developing anorexia?

What kind of sick fuck promotes that kind of shit?

This is a serious illness we are talking about here which can kill the person suffering from it, how utterly careless of the people who run these pro-anorexia sites.

[Kami]

Agree with spartan entirely here, however it seems implausable to stop citizens from accessing pro-anorexia sites in different countries, what with the international nature of the internet and all.

Brings to light the old question as to whether all censorship is wrong, doesn't it?

[cappin]

That's good. It's a step for the better, even if small.

[careyprice31]

There are pro-anorexia sites!

Jesus Christ anorexia can kill you, dont the people who run these sites know that young teenagers are vulnerable to this kind of absurd mainstream promoted fashion culture where everyone has to be stick thin and thus run the risk of developing anorexia?

What kind of sick fuck promotes that kind of shit?

This is a serious illness we are talking about here which can kill the person suffering from it, how utterly careless of the people who run these pro-anorexia sites.

yep. some sick fucks out there to be sure.

btw while my mother was getting her education degree at Memorial University of Newfoundland, one of her classmates and friends, Renata Withers, died of anorexia nervosa.

http://www.edfnl.ca/news.php

http://www.mun.ca/marcomm/gazette/issues/vol38no3/obituary.php

btw several girls,at least 2 girls i went to grade school with developed anorexia nervosa after they grew up. I talked to one of them years ago when she was in hospital. I have no idea what happened to either one of them if they lived or died.

actually the correct name is anorexia nervosa. Anorexia is just lack of appetite. Anorexia nervosa means that there is a psychological component the 'nervous' part. Not eating is not the disease, its just the symptom. The disease is.....how the person feels about himself or herself.

but sites that actually promote starving yourself? What the fuck?

[Unicorn]

Most likely those sites are administered by anorexic women. I am against censoring such websites. Censorship should be limited to undesirable far-right political content, IMO.

There are very popular drug-related websites and it is common that the idiots there encourage people to OD. (http://www.shroomery.org/ for example) Should we ban them too?

[superiority]

Unicorn, a quick perusal of that website on my part finds no encouragement for overdosing. Deeplink plz?

And OT, although the pro-ana and -mia cultures are disgusting, censorship of the internet is just not feasible.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Disgusting.
This is harmful stuff to be sure. There's already enough promotion of such conditions in the media. It's just a way for the bourgeois to exploit people by promoting an idealistic vision of beauty and as a result marketing products like "yo-yo diets" and other methods that allegedly help people lose weight. Seriously, those "I lost 20 pounds in a single month!" commercials/"Infomercials" need to be taken off the air and taken down wherever they're found..and whoever is involved in their making should be shot. I have a friend who has suffered from bulimia and this shit promoting it is just unacceptable.

[Cencus]

There are pro-anorexia sites!

Jesus Christ anorexia can kill you, dont the people who run these sites know that young teenagers are vulnerable to this kind of absurd mainstream promoted fashion culture where everyone has to be stick thin and thus run the risk of developing anorexia?

What kind of sick fuck promotes that kind of shit?

This is a serious illness we are talking about here which can kill the person suffering from it, how utterly careless of the people who run these pro-anorexia sites.

Just to throw a spanner in the works on change anorexic references to alcohol references.

There are alcohol sites!

Jesus Christ alcohol can kill you, dont the people who run these sites know that young teenagers are vulnerable to this kind of absurd mainstream promoted drinking culture where everyone has to be shitfaced and thus run the risk of developing scirosis?

What kind of sick fuck promotes that kind of shit?

This is a serious illness we are talking about here which can kill the person suffering from it, how utterly careless of the people who run these pro-alcohol sites.


I am not in any way pro-anorexia but the arguement used here many times is where does the censorship stop.

[Unicorn]

Unicorn, a quick perusal of that website on my part finds no encouragement for overdosing. Deeplink plz?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Vedas

[Cymru]

The problem is that, no matter what measures 'they' introduce (banning of these sites, restriction to the size of cat-walk models etc), people, women especially, will always be subjected to the media portrayal of the perfect women. Every day there is a program on the TV portraying the average women (Dawn Gets Naked, Coleens Real Women etc) but untill there is clamp down on these airbrushed models, there will always be anorexia, and the persuit for 'prefection'.

p.s im in the UK, and I dont watch those programs myself, my girlfriend does :P

[BobKKKindle$]

Just to throw a spanner in the works on change anorexic references to alcohol references

This is a silly comparison. Drinking alcohol is only dangerous when you drink too much, and most people are aware of how much they should drink, and can stop when they reach that limit. Drinking is an accepted aspect of social interaction, such that a site which encourages drinking (for example, a site dedicated to cocktail recipes) would be acceptable. Anorexia is not something you can do safely, the objective of pro-Ana sites is to encourage people to eat less than what they need to remain healthy, so they become abnormally thin. Anorexia is a mental disease.

[Module]

Most likely those sites are administered by anorexic women. I am against censoring such websites. Censorship should be limited to undesirable far-right political content, IMO.

So you're against the censorship of material that promotes the adoption of a live threatening eating disorder, but you're okay with the censorship of entirely fictional pornography involving the rape of Nazi's? :rolleyes:


... Where ever that thread was moved to it says I don't have permission to view it. :p

[TC]

I'm currently studying for exams so I don't have much time to respond to this thread (I will probably revisit it after exams) but I think the topic is important as a case study because its an area where the bulk of the left takes an incredibly unscientific position.


I ask you before then however, to consider the following from a disinterested, rational, unemotional perspective:



1. The degree of fanaticism in pursuing "eating disorders", which outstrips in both intensity and volume given to activities that hae far more negative impacts on far more peoples lives is part of the patriarchal compulsion to control the bodies and behavior of young women and girls. Simply because many so called feminists line up behind it, and its put in language of whats best for the women and girls effected (and yes, i'm afraid its as much of a gendered illness as breast cancer: a few guys are diagnosed with it but not enough to make it seem anything close to gender neutral) does not make the compulsion to fuck with these girls and women any less socially conservative. The same is of course true of abortion and pornography.


2. When one looks at the actual scientific data, from real peer reviewed studies, rather than hysterical claims (which are often loosely based on poorly produced studies that often only consider in patient populations, include bulimia and so called ED-NOS not just anorexia, and count depression produced suicide statistics and co-existing disorders) anorexia in the clinical sense is just NOT THAT DANGEROUS. As in, there are extremely few fatalities from the DSM-IV defined anorexia nervosa itself, virtually all fatalities attributed to it, in fact have real cause of death in either co-existent "disorders" such as bulimia, depression (suicide), or drug addiction.

I comprehensively refuted this myth in a post here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=666827&postcount=28

evaluating peer reviewed studies.


3. The scientific, methodological basis for "mental illness" as diagnostic categories is incredibly weak. The 'mental health' professions have a financial interest vested in the creation of a subject matter to which they're experts which they can order expensive treatment for, and the bourgeois in general has a vested interest in being able to control people via psychiatric diagnosis.

On an epistemic level psychiatry does not hold up under scrutiny with regard to an empirical application of the scientific method. Some people diagnosed with mental disorders may clearly have symptoms suggesting abnormal minds, but that does not make those diagnoses conceptually coherent catagories from a positivistic perspective.

I discuss this issue in this thread here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/discrimination-against-victims-t49381/index.html

This is a major topic in philosophy of science and philosophy of psychology (which is, along with Marxism, my formal research specialty) and the majority of philosophy of science philosophers and a large number of academic psychologists dispute it. Psychiatrists only hold their scientific prestige in the lay population and among themselves and colleagues.


4. Discussions about the causes of "anorexia" tend to be incredibly patronizing and condescending to girls and young women. Seeing a skinny model doesn't make girls starve themselves anymore than playing Grand Theft Auto IV makes boys carjack people. The left realizes how profoundly stupid and patronizing similar conservative attempts to censor culture are with male directed media, its failure to do so with female directed media is a sign of its uncritically examined sexism and this should be a topic for self-criticism on the left.


5. Simply because some people claim to have 'anorexia' or claim to have had their kids "die of anorexia" (which as suggested above, is something that theres reasons to be skeptical of) does not, uncritically mean its the case. Someone adopting and identifying with a label assigned to them or self-identified does not make it any more "real" or theoretically coherent than if they did not. Media hysteria around anorexia has led to an extreme over-reporting of deaths and misattribution of deaths.

This is similar to the media treatment of MDMA/Ecstasy. MDMA/Ecstasy is an extremely safe drug that in of itself causes a negligible amount of fatalities (far less than most over the counter meds), however it is very common for deaths to be misattributed to Ecstasy for propaganda value when they were in fact caused by heat stroke from dancing too much in poorly ventilated environments, other more dangerous drugs taken while on ecstasy, dehydration from dancing, or hyperhydration from being so stupid as to drink unsafe amounts of water because of media generated fears over ecstasy and dehydration. These deaths in ecstasy users caused by things other than ecstasy itself are not only reported as ecstasy deaths but widely overexposed so as to produce a myth that ecstasy is a really dangerous drug that can kill you; when under normal circumstances (i.e. no allergies) this is nearly impossible. The same model applies to the misrepresentation of anorexia fatalities.


6. Non-peer reviewed sources such as newspapers will often quote statistics that cannot be backed up by well researched peer reviewed journal articles when these are politically convenient or simply expedient for the sake of the story. You should view these with skepticism. I have personal experience with planting statistics mainstream, even national, newspapers and seen others do the same, just with press releases, and once its in one it will be repeated over and over again by others.

7. "Pro-ana" websites are almost always harm-minimizing in nature and purpose in that the only information they provide is how people who already want an 'anorexic' body type can achieve one without truly compromising their health (having a BMI of 17 and amenorrhoea isn't dangerous in of itself, having stomach acid in the wrong places too often or severe electrolite imbalances is, and pro-ana sites effectively tell people how to avoid that). These sites also provide a sense of community and solidarity to a group of people who are scorned by their peers, parents and doctors and need to be able to confide in people who understand them and their subjective desires rather than treating them as objects to manipulate.

To extend the analogy with ecstasy, going after "pro-ana" websites is like going after DanceSafe testing kits or free needle distributors for heroin users; its clearly an instance of policing people's morals at the expense of their health which reveals the compulsion to stamp out anorexia or ecstasy to be an ideological or emotional one and not a rational one.


8. State censorship is virtually always wrong, state censorship of art, is ALWAYS WRONG. To think that girls and young women need some kindof special protection in a way that leftists don't support for media associated with men or gender neutral (violent video games, smoking, alcohol, automobiles, weight training, sports, etc) associated with far more statistically dangerous activities is a sign of the internalized paternalism within the left that should be examined through criticism and self-criticism, not blindly adopted from the bourgeois.


9. Those who want to censor 'pro-ana' websites, skinny models, and confine "anorexic" girls in eating disorder clinics against their will (for their own good), might like to think that if the topic were something primarily effecting fully grown men or even young men or teenage boys, or both genders and age groups equally, they would treat it the same, but the fact is that in reality they don't. Alcohol and tobacco kill many magnitudes more in both raw and percentile terms but no one ever seriously suggests not only banning but criminalizing the promotion of alcohol or tobacco. Hell, even the promotion of illegal hard drugs isn't criminalized (you can still promote heroin just not sell or buy or hold it). Male body builders are every bit as neurotic about compulsively and obsessively wanting to achieve their preferred atypical body type (I know one who is every bit as, well, creepy, about it both clinically and self-identified "anorexic" girls I know) and have more associated physical risks, but no one calls for clamp downs on their sub-culture, or patronizes them by suggesting that they're the result of male models and male sexual objectification taken to an extreme, much less institutionalize them or criminalize promoting their lifestyle. The same is even more obviously true for obesity and over-eating, which is far riskier behavior and far more widespread but as it effects both genders and is more common in older people than young adults and teenagers, is never treated in the same patronizing and pathologizing way even though the health risks are well documented and obese people often have the same sort of fixation on food that "anorexics" have, they just treat it differently.


-spent way too much time on that post...back to studying.

[Dimentio]

Most likely those sites are administered by anorexic women. I am against censoring such websites. Censorship should be limited to undesirable far-right political content, IMO.

There are very popular drug-related websites and it is common that the idiots there encourage people to OD. (http://www.shroomery.org/ for example) Should we ban them too?

No, they are most often run by people who are sadistic fucks who have stated that they are creating these websites to increase the amount of anorexia amongst teenage girls.

[TC]

No, they are most often run by people who are sadistic fucks who have stated that they are creating these websites to increase the amount of anorexia amongst teenage girls.

Anyone who has any real experience with this subculture, anyone who was or is a teenage girl, anyone who was ever close friends with a member of this subculture or has ever been familiar with these sites, knows that what you're saying is utterly untrue.

You are clearly projecting wishful thinking since it would be easier for you to justify your hatred of these websites if they weren't run by the "victims." The fact is that they are, they are in fact self-organized communities by self and clinically defined "anorexic" girls for "anorexic" girls.

You making such a claim with neither evidence nor logic is simply without basis or merit. You don't seem to know what you're talking about.

[piet11111]

i think most of us here have a problem with these sites because instead of trying to get these women to seek help for their condition they instead tell them its not only OK to starve yourself but that its actually the right thing to do to look "pretty".


i am against these websites because of the reasons above.
but i would like to know why TragicClown is defending these websites.

[Jazzratt]

Yeah, having a shit diet in order to be as hideous as humanly possible is self destructive. When I roll up a a pinch of dried, shredded leaves in a small bit of gummed, liquorice flavoured paper with a foam filter at one end and then set fire to it in order to inhale the deadly smoke I'm doing something self destructive.

France is coming for the relatively unimportant, but will you be next?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Yeah, there's really no need or mandate to censor things which may promote an unhealthy lifestyle.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

Anorexia is the result of a standard of beauty pushed upon us by the corporate-funded pop culture. It may be a lifestyle choice born out of corporate shit, but it is a lifestyle choice nonetheless. I advise against it, but hey, if you want to look like you just took a diet program at Aushwitz, that's your choice.

[piet11111]

look i disagree that smoking and anorexia are on the same level here.
if someone is anorexic and does not want to change that ok but having websites promoting it as some sort of desirable "lifestyle" instead of trying to urge these people to get help is not the right thing to do.


i see anorexia and similar psychological conditions as self destructive behavior that needs to be corrected.
and having pro-anorexia websites that say its not self-destructive but actually something desirable undoes all the efforts to get these people help.

[Vi~]

I think TragicClown summed up the debate pretty well. The issue is really, really exaggerated by the media. The only thing I would add is that the fact that these are internet sites is exploited by the media to exacerbate parents' fears of the 'dangers of the internet.'

[Vi~]

Moreover, as TragicClown asserted, pro-ano sites offer health advice, and indeed, means to limit the most severe consequences of this eating disorder - yes, they /do/ recognise it as an eating disorder. They also have suicide-help links. For example the largest pro-ana site: net33.com/thin/purging.htm (sorry for double post, internet is breaking down :()

[superiority]

stuff

Wow. Actually very enlightening. Certainly gave me pause for thought. Thanks for that.

[Jazzratt]

look i disagree that smoking and anorexia are on the same level here.

Because cancers, emphysema & a whole raft of skin & lung diseases are trivial?


if someone is anorexic and does not want to change that ok but having websites promoting it as some sort of desirable "lifestyle" instead of trying to urge these people to get help is not the right thing to do.

It's stupid that how much food you choose to shove into your head should be considered a "lifestyle" but websites shouldn't be damned for being stupid.


i see anorexia and similar psychological conditions as self destructive behavior that needs to be corrected.

What makes the self destructive behaviour of anorexics a psychological condition when compared to someone who just has a generally poor diet, drinks to excess, takes a variety of drugs and smokes cigarettes? Does someone's right to choose a body shape end when they become "too thin" for your liking?


and having pro-anorexia websites that say its not self-destructive but actually something desirable undoes all the efforts to get these people help.

So, not only do you want to censor the internet you want to force people who don't want treatment to have treatment?

[piet11111]

What makes the self destructive behaviour of anorexics a psychological condition when compared to someone who just has a generally poor diet, drinks to excess, takes a variety of drugs and smokes cigarettes? Does someone's right to choose a body shape end when they become "too thin" for your liking?


a poor diet smoking and (assuming its recreational and not an addiction) drugs
is not the result of a psychological disorder.
if someone looks as if he/she just came out of Auschwitz and still thinks he/she looks like a whale sounds to me like that person is not psychologically healthy.


So, not only do you want to censor the internet you want to force people who don't want treatment to have treatment?

i do not want to force treatment on anyone (well not in the case of anorexia) but i am certainly in favor of censorship of the internet.
i understand the need of anorexic people to have their own support group but those pro-anorexia websites are giving the impression that people with anorexia can remain that way without serious risk.
the way i understand anorexia (not an expert obviously) is that no matter how thin they get they will always think they are too fat so even if these websites manage to get them on a somewhat balanced diet they will eventually cut back on eating even more then they already have.

i just think its a very bad idea to leave anorexic people on their own without professional help that is all.

[TC]

Moreover, as TragicClown asserted, pro-ano sites offer health advice, and indeed, means to limit the most severe consequences of this eating disorder - yes, they /do/ recognise it as an eating disorder.

Thats certainly true mostly...but like I wrote earlier, the fact that people self-identify with a label as a 'disorder' doesn't actually make it a scientifically valid or conceptually coherent 'disorder.' Anorexia is one of the least coherent "disorders" up there with ADHD/ADD.

Teenagers diagnosed as having an 'eating disorder' certainly however form a real social demographic and are extremely vulnerable to abuse by their parents, peers and doctors who try to deny them personhood and agency to 'save them from themselves.'

Like race, its a real social category even if its not a real scientific category.


a poor diet smoking and (assuming its recreational and not an addiction) drugs
is not the result of a psychological disorder.

Comments like this one are why its important for leftists to have a background in philosophy of science or epistimology or otherwise take a critical stand at the concepts and catagories the bourgeois and their professions assert exist in order to realize that these are invented non-neutral labels.

Even people who believe in the disease model of psychiatry recognize that nothing is the "result of a psychological disorder." Everything described as a "psychological disorder" has to have some origin or cause not itself (just as every medical disorder, i.e. the type that actually have empirical evidence to justify the category, are not self-causing).

What qualifies as a 'psychological disorder' is entirely up to the whim of the psychiatric profession with no empirically justified methodological approach for choosing which to count as disorders. The category is therefore totally immaterial and arbitrary; its a matter of political and professional expediency; for instance homosexuality was a considered a psychological disorder, and then they took a vote and decided not to call it that anymore, without any evidence or facts changing (they did the same with egodystonic homosexuality later, which, frankly, seems to meet every traditional criteria for a disorder).

For the record, the psychiatric community believe that over eating, and drug and nicotine dependence are also "mental disorders", so even by their unscientific standard your position is inconsistent.


Lets face it, the real reason is that a poor diet and smoking are demographically neutral self-destructive behaviors, they aren't overwhelmingly in girls and young women, and anything effecting women primarily evokes patronizing and condescending interventions at the expense of personal autonomy.



i understand the need of anorexic people to have their own support group but those pro-anorexia websites are giving the impression that people with anorexia can remain that way without serious risk.

Its perfectly possible to have a physique meeting the clinical definition of anorexia and remain without serious adverse physical effect indefinitely. Its just a myth that its inherently physically dangerous (similarly you can remain clinically overweight for your whole life without experiencing any weight related health problems).


if someone looks as if he/she just came out of Auschwitz and still thinks he/she looks like a whale sounds to me like that person is not psychologically healthy.

First of all, the vast majority of people diagnosed as anorexic, people who self identify that way, and people who are defacto in that social group, are in no way close to looking like they came out of Aushwitz. Anorexic body weights in the clinical definition are 17.5 or less, more like a female long distance runner or average model than a concentration camp survivor. Concentration camp body types are far more extreme than whats typical in any eating disorder ward.

Secondly, they don't think they look like whales; not even psychiatrists who support the concept think they're psychotic. They don't think they're fat, rather they feel that they're heavier than they want to be at weights that such feelings are judged unacceptable to whomever thinks their opinion of someone elses bodies are more important than their own.

Also, in the vast majority of cases they have ideal weights like everyone else who diets, they don't want to lose weight indefinitely. (i say the vast majority as in probably 99.99% only because since these are not coherent 'illnesses' as in real medicine, the etyologies may differ and there could be a handful of people who are doing it for non-typical reasons.)