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.

(because it is damaging for society as a whole, and for young people who are developing their self image, to be bombarded with an unhealthy body shape put forward as something to emulate

And this ^^

Who said anybody should emulate it?

There are thousands of other photos on that website, of models with a whole range of body shapes.

There will be young people with a natural body shape similar to this model. Who are you (or the ASA) to tell them that their body shape is "unhealthy"? The ASA have explicitly stated that this model does NOT show any signs of being unhealthy at all.

Should models with small feet modelling shoes be banned because then young women with larger feet might bind their feet? Should models with larger breasts be banned from modelling bras because young women may then get breast implants?

This is utterly ridiculous, to shame a healthy, tall, naturally slim model and publicise articles telling anybody with a natural build like her that their body shape is unhealthy and they look ill and it should not be allowed to be shown unless photographed from an angle that others deem suitably disguises these characteristics so as not to hurt their feelings because their body might be different. FAR more damaging for the ASA to have done this and publicised it and threads like this to exist, than for them to have just left the advert alone.

The hypocrisy of the whole thing and the inability of many posters here to see the logical inconsistency in their position, that somehow they will protect women from harmful damage to their body image by denigrating the natural body shape of other women, is quite astonishing and depressing.

It's still on international next sites. I'd argue the later ones are worse!

Yeah, something just looks “off” about these images. It’s not about the model being slim, but the lack of depth in the jeans in an effort to advertise them? Like I would expect there to be more creases around the hips/crotch in the photo sat down. The jeans simultaneously look tight and loose? Just something isn’t realistic as they have seemingly edited out depth, altered lighting to be more flat etc.

Reminds me of The Sims characters!

All of this has been covered in the thread already.

Perspective of photo. Her body shape has not been digitally altered, as the independent investigation concluded.

Some people have disproportionately long legs. It is physically impossible for me to touch my toes even if I bent in half as flat as a piece of paper.

Her left thigh is further away from the camera, and is tensed whereas the other is taking a substantial proportion of her weight and pressed down on the block due to her pose, so obviously it looks substantially bigger!

This thread is like swimming through treacle. People repeating the same nonsense again and again that's set out in the original article AND already discussed in the thread. And other people who don't seem to be capable of comprehending the logical inconsistency between the things they're saying about this photo/ the model and the position they are attempting to defend.

@Glowingworms those images were discussed earlier in the thread and I think everyone agreed they appear doctored and very weird! If they'd been the reason for removal that would make sense, but they weren't. Again, as was discussed earlier in the thread per the article the OP posted the advert was removed because the ASA objected to the one specific image in the article of the model sitting on a wooden block in which its investigation concluded that her body shape had not been altered at all.

It is sim like!
I find it so frustrating when the clothes in the picture aren't the clothes available. It makes me wonder how many times I've discounted something because it looked like it was too long for me, when the longness might have been photoshopped. I wonder if this lady could even wear the trousers she is modelling

Even if it's not photoshopped, and just not photographed accurately. It would be the same if they used studio lighting to make something look like a different colour etc

It is possible that you are reading too much into this?

I haven't read anything into it. I have been talking about the direct quotes from the ASA stating their rationale for banning it.

But evidently this woman is naturally tall and thin, which isn't a crime.

@AsLivingArrows sadly many posters here seem to think that - while they haven't yet been able to criminalise it - it makes someone a legitimate target for insults about their appearance.