Next ad banned for 'unhealthily thin' model

[Bamboozled5]

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/feb/12/next-ad-banned-over-unhealthily-thin-model-in-digitally-altered-leggings?CMP=ShareiOSAppp_Other

Unfortunately I can't paste the photo so hope you can read it!

Is this model really so very thin that this ad should be banned? While she evidently has no excess fat, I'm not sure she is 'unhealthily' thin. I think we have normalised being overweight and obese which are at least as unhealthy.

I'm the same height as this model with BMI 22 and have much more padding. So I would say her BMI is probably below 20 which is technically underweight. I just found this ban interesting as to me she doesn't look extremely thin.

I'm not sure why you've posted lots of things about how all bodies shapes should be celebrated but then also posted more than once about what body types should be wearing these jeans and they wouldn't suit people who are larger

They are advertised as dark blue skinny jeans. The staple of many a millennial wardrobe regardless of size for many years

I haven't said anybody shouldn't wear them, but I imagine most people dress to suit their body shape so it makes sense that companies will use a model of the build that the particular clothes would be suited to. There are many styles of clothes that would not look good at all on someone with my build so I wouldn't expect to see them modelled by someone similar to me, as I wouldn't be the obvious target customer. There'd be nothing to prevent me choosing to buy and wear them, anybody can wear what they like obviously, but most people choose things to wear based on their body shape and what is flattering for it.

I think some African women are that tiny framed- certainly when you see any distance runners.

But I question whether you would want someone like that, lovely as she is, as a model for high street fashion which is going to be worn by mostly women/girls who are size 6-18 and would not get a reliable impression of what you might look like in those jeans from that photo.

The investigation findings stated that her body shape has not been altered in that photo. They banned it because they didn't like that the camera angle and pose "accentuated her being tall and slim" because in their view this made her "look unhealthy", even though they admit that she clearly isn't unhealthy because she does not have protruding bones, a gaunt complexion, etc.

They are effectively saying it's unacceptable to be tall and slim or for clothes to accentuate this, and that her natural body is unacceptable when viewed from certain angles. That's the problem. They are claiming to want to prevent body image issues while body shaming this woman themselves.

My legs are more in the vein of Lauren James (probably with bigger calf muscles) and I have worn skinny jeans, ten years ago when that was all you could get anywhere. Fucking low rise as well-aargh. Though I'm much happier in boot cut and high rise.

Exactly this.

No wonder women have unrealistic ideals when photos of already thin women are doctored to make them look even thinner!

It's terrible and I'm glad it's being banned.

It's good that there seems to be much more choice available now. As you say, it used to be that whatever was in fashion at the time was pretty much all you could buy. Not helpful!!

I don't think that's coming across the way you think it is. The idea that people should be dressing "flattering" which I'm assuming means to look slimmer.

Who decideds what "wouldn't look good" or "suited" on someone? Next is selling these up to an 18 so clearly not next. Do you want to come through my wardrobe and tell me what clothes have been decided as OK for "my body shape"? A larger person in this context being a 10? 12?14?

" I can't imagine someone large would want to wear this style of jeans"

"This particular garment obviously would not suit a larger woman"

If you're point is body positivity surely that shouldn't be claiming some clothes are only for certain sizes?

No. You are projecting extra things into my words that I haven't said. I meant exactly what I said. Flattering means "enhancing someone's appearance". Why would you take this to mean "makes them look slimmer"?

My entire point is that one body shape is not better than another and all should be celebrated provided they are healthy. I presume most people dress in things that accentuate what is beautiful about their own particular body shape so that they feel confident. I even specifically stated that some clothes would look awful on someone with my build.

Humans come in lots of different builds and sizes and I don't see why it's acceptable to make negative comments about certain women's builds which people wouldn't dream of doing to anybody else. Think what that article and the ASA's comments would be like to read for an insecure young woman with a build similar to the model in the photo. And, indeed, many of the comments on this thread.

Okay what was it that you felt would mean that skinny jeans "obviously" wouldn't ""suit" "flatter" "enhance" a bigger body than that of the models?

You wouldn't have posted multiple times that a certain frame was the demographic if you didn't feel strongly that these were for one type of person

Who decideds what "wouldn't look good" or "suited" on someone?

There are endless threads about what styles of clothes tend to suit certain body types and accentuate their best features. Are you saying that this is body shaming? Nobody is telling anybody what they can or can't wear if they disagree and prefer to wear something else.

The issue here is about the ASA saying that this woman's body itself is unacceptable, that she "looks unhealthy". They are not criticising her choice of clothes but her body itself and that images of it from certain angles are, in their view, so unacceptable that they should be banned.

That is absolutely not ok^^ and not remotely the same as someone giving a personal opinion on what types of clothes suit different builds/ body shapes.

They stretched and photoshopped the legs too much, especially the left one/on my right. Look at the difference in the thighs? It's just a real hack job by an editor.
The top half of her looks normal for a model. She's clearly tall and skinny but not anorexic looking. The legs are atrocious though and not natural looking at all!

Yes-her face isn't angular or gaunt, she looks fine.
I wonder how she's feeling, with all of this?

If the photo has been digitally 'enchnaced' to accentuate the 'skinny' aspect of the jeans then that's one thing and shouldn't be acceptable IMO, but the model herself looks fine. She's a kibbe dramatic bodytype, she doesn't look underweight to me.
FWIW I am slightly overweight and I am often called 'skinny' by other people-I am far from it, I am just quite slim and toned from working out a lot. We have totally normalised having excess fat.

The image isn't photoshopped though, according to the ASA's investigation. Her body shape has not been changed. The thigh nearer the camera is pressing down on the block she is sitting on so obviously looks wider than the other one that is not, with muscle tensed due to her pose, and the perspective effect of being further away.

Looking at this picture it really doesn't look fake in terms of her proportions and the investigation established that it isn't. The only alteration they made was to make the actual jeans look longer (presumably too short for her long legs), not to change her body.

The other photos a PP posted are clearly badly doctored so they would have been a good reason to demand the ad is removed, aside from them looking totally weird! But the ASA state they banned the ad due to this specific photo of her sitting on the wooden block in which they state her body shape hasn't been altered and their reasoning is that - while they admit she isn't unhealthily thin and this is just her build - they find it unacceptable that the photo accentuates her tall and slim build because this "makes her look unhealthy" in their opinion.

That is their reasoning, quoted in the article: that they think her body is unacceptable and, though healthy, they think she "looks unhealthy" due to being tall and slim so photos of her from certain angles shouldn't be allowed to be used in advertising. That's disgraceful.

This is starting to come across as a little bit aggressive towards this particular poster now.

Safe to say, any thread about weight ends up getting heated and a little personal and this has gone the same way.

It's a shame that women have been pitted against each other in this way for no other reason than corporate greed. High St companies use slender models because it's still seen as aspirational and sells products - probably more so for millenials and older generations, and that's Next's target audience, even if on average they are a size 14-16. It's selling an image or a 'dream', in the way that using Cover Girl in the 90s didn't make girls look like Cindy Crawford, bit still attracted them.

That's ridiculous she looks good not too skinny

I wonder how she's feeling, with all of this?

Exactly. And many others like her.

'Next admitted it had digitally altered the image of the leggings to make them look longer to “maintain focus on the product while avoiding any exaggeration of her body shape”.

How can anyone possibly know what an item they buy online is going to be like when companies are digitally altering them to make them look different/better?

I also can't tell if they've digitally lengthened the leggings so they fit her legs or if they've lengthened her legs as well as the leggings?

I have a BMI under 18.5 and i would certainly think she does too, it's normal for me and might be normal for her too. But I'm not sure it's responsible to be putting such thin bodies on advertising and really accentuating their thinness.

Apologies if comes across as a agressive

Just frustrated that on a post that meant to be talking about the ethics of doctoring photos, or about beauty stands there are multiple posts talking about how its ok because these clothes aren't aimed at larger ladies because "people want to wear things that flatter them"

You must be kidding if you think no one criticises the larger models sizes - they are regularly mocked on social media. The idea that it’s ok to be fat now is laughable - I’ve been both and I know which one i got more abuse from and it wasn’t being slim.

Personally I'd like to see more models who are kind of built like this (like me) wearing the clothes to give me more idea of what I'm going to look like in them.

Getting my legs into trousers at all is sometimes interesting!

I completely agree
A range of bodies doesn't necessarily mean just different weights but also different frames

It's part of the annoying thing about the photoshopping, odd posing, clipping clothes with pegs type thing that happens. How am I meant to know what it looks like, fits like if you are digitally altering it. If you are tall, it must be frustrating to see clothes made to look longer than they are, equally as a short lady there are some clothes I'd skip because they look the right length on the model who is much taller than me.

Just show me the clothes that will arrive at my house!

I think people's perception of images on screens and in photos is warped and I say the same about plastic surgery, and I think if you saw someone who actually looked like this irl (which even the model doesn't) you'd think they looked very ill.

The photo looks very much distorted to me and I am slim (small frame as well, feet size 3) and my whole immediate family is thin/slim and willowy, so I definitely don’t think it’s an example of normalisation of obesity. It’s an example of a photoshop disaster.

If you have size 3 feet then you're very unlikely to be anywhere near as tall as this model so, while slim, will have very different proportions.

I agree. I have a friend with that body type, and is certainly perfectly healthy - energy to glide through a full time job, 2 primary aged kids, always entertaining (and eating!), can run very far. (I on the other hand am obese but even if I got super skinny, I would never ever be 5ft8 and a size 4-6 like my pal. People have different body shapes, news flash!)