Are we sending out mixed messages to our children?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.telegraph....-Spears-pictures.html

/// Lynne Featherstone, the Equalities Minister, said: “Young people are being set an impossible standard by the images they are confronted with on a daily basis from the media and advertising and there is evidence to suggest this has a negative impact on self esteem.///

/// “I want children to recognise from an early age that their value is worth so much more than just their physical appearance.” ///

Are they not now constantly told that they need to take more exercise,and not to eat junk food because they are becoming obese?

/// It comes after a Government-commissioned review called for action to keep sexualised material away from children, which could see explicit music videos given 18-rated labels and the covers of lads’ mags hidden in newsagents. ///

I don't think it is only the 'lad's mags' that need to be hidden, but the contents of girl's celebrity mags need to be looked into, after all isn't it where girls (mainly) get these airbrushed images from?

[pa___ul3]

agree with on the last bit, I think 'celeb' mags are the worst, as you know on your links I've occasionally had a nose at the the she-mail thing down the side and they tear celebs to bit for having a tiny bit of celulite or flab! They're all the same and they're terrible.
The concern around junk food, exercise and obesity is, I'm sure, more health related.
The fact that programmes like Big Brother this year have gone for nothing other than a group of very attractive young glamourous folk, this following the success of The Only Way Is Essex and the like, is not exactly pointing kids in the right direction!

[Mattk]

So much gets made of 'perfection' but hasn't it always been the same?
Technology just makes it easier to manipulate the image.

Caprice made a good point on Daybreak that they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If celebs go out looking less than what is expected they get slaughtered in the press.

[Ankou]

indeed paul. how dare kim cattrell go out looking like this.

http://www.dailymail....-dreaded-dimples.html

[boxtops]

Brilliant ankou, a normal photo!

there's a vast difference between trying to get people/youngsters to eat sensibly and exercise, than the sexualising of them with impossible role models and clothes that are suggestive.

[fliptheswitch]

I saw this on the television this morning, AOG.
I think the whole thing with children being told they should eat more healthily and exercise, has more to do with keeping them healthy. Diabetes is at an all-time high, and I think it's right that our children are made aware of these facts and encouraged to lead a more healthy and active lifestyle.

I do agree with the last part of your post, especially the comment regarding girls's and teenagers magazines. Young girls see these airbrushed "celebs", and I think it puts a huge amount of pressure on them, with regards to how they have to look, or what size they should be. Sadly, I don't think this will ever change.
I think just making children more aware of the whole "airbrushing" thing is important, but I don't see how hiding lads mags away in the newsagents will help.

As you say, these images are freely available in any teenage or celebrity gossip magazine.

[fliptheswitch]

And as for the Kim cattrell picture... ridiculous! She's 55 For Funks Sake, and has a figure most women half her age would be envious of!

[sp1814]

fliptheswitch

Not quite right...the magazines you refer to don't Photoshop - on the contrary, magazines such as Heat go the other way...their bread and butter is made up of paparazzi photos of stars NOT looking their best.

Outside that, they have editorial content, but again, if you look at a picture of (say) Kelly Osbourne in Heat, and compare that photo to one that would be published in Vogue, Harpers & Queen or Vanity Fair, you'd see that our magazines are very reticent about using Photoshop.

The real villains of the piece are advertizers.