User: oddprofessor Date: 2007-11-01 18:22 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

I'm conflicted here. I actually like the Onslaught video (not this mashup, I mean the real one). I haven't followed the links to their "Self-Esteem Programmes" and I have no idea how self-serving and hypocritical they are. (OK, they have to be self-serving; this is a business, not a humanitarian organization after all.)

Unilever's ads for Slim-Fast (at least around here) show women dancing happily to "The Hippy Hippy Shake" and they are NOT model-thin. These are women with curves. I'll go on record as saying that this is a good thing. Extreme overweight is a health-hazard (as is extreme underweight); I have no problem with promoting healthy weight. I wish I could find the commercial online; I can't, but some of the actors in it are featured on the splash page (pictured here) at http://www.slim-fast.com/. I think those are "after" pictures, not "before." Everyone looks too happy to be "before."

I've never seen the ads for skin-whiteners; clearly that's a different demographic. It looks to be aimed at Asian and Indian markets. But I ask which came first, the desire for lighter skin, or marketing creating a hitherto-absent desire for lighter skin?

And, OK, the AXE commercials? No excuse.

User: lauredhel Date: 2007-11-02 01:06 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

Slim-fast aren't promoting "healthy weight". They're promoting an unsustainable diet, focussed purely on size loss, and based around unhealthy foods and disordered eating behaviours. Only very, very recently have they even "allowed" fruit and vegetables during the day on their "diet plan".

I know I'm not elaborating much on where I'm coming from here, but check out a few of kateharding.net's posts on HAES for a deeper look.