Should pro-anorexia sites be banned?

Perhaps no one should be surprised that there are Web sites that appear to encourage those who have anorexia and bulimia and even give supposedly helpful tips on how to pursue those conditions.

Now the U.K.'s Royal College of Psychiatrists has called for urgent governmental action to halt the proliferation of such sites.

"Pro-ana and pro-mia websites advocate anorexia nervosa or bulimia nervosa as a lifestyle choice, rather than as serious mental disorders," said professor Ulrike Schmidt, chair of the college's eating disorders section. "Research shows that, even for healthy young women, viewing such websites induces low mood, low self-esteem and increased body dissatisfaction."

One study, from IT security company Optenet, reported that pro-ana and pro-mia sites increased fivefold from 2006 to 2008.

And yet there doesn't seem to be sufficient direction given by governments that might give Internet service providers the incentive to take down such sites.

Earlier this month, ISPs in Ireland said, according to the Irish Herald, that they needed specific governmental guidance before being able to remove questionable sites. But not always. Paul Durrant, general manager of the Irish Internet Service Providers Association, told the Herald that an ISP could act if the site was hosted in Ireland and it was causing "undue stress".

Some blame catwalks for encouraging excessive thinness.

(Credit: Cc Naughty Architect/Flickr)

A brief perusal of pro-ana and pro-mia Web sites suggests that while some clearly present themselves as trying to help those with anorexia and bulimia, others appear to lend credence to the notion of these behaviors as a "lifestyle choice."

The community called Proanorexia, for example, says it exists to offer positive support and declares that "95% (if not more) of [pro-anorexia] sites need to be shut down for one simple fact- THEY KILL!" And yet one wonders why Proanorexia doesn't at least change its name to reflect this stance.

And what is one to make of a site called Pretty Thin? It claims: "This site is taking on a new direction. For over a year now, this site has been about thinspiration, and a location for those choosing to take the Ana lifestyle upon themselves."

So what is Pretty Thin's new purpose in life? The site, which features an interesting Pic of the Week page, declares: "Pretty Thin is going to be about beauty."

Then there's Pro Bulimia Tips and Tricks, a site that says it offers guidelines "for people who have bulimia nervosa and have already read about how bad it is but who aren't changing."

The tips and tricks aren't pretty. For example: "If you use laxatives, make very sure to be well-hydrated beforehand. Drink extra water and take potassium. It really helps against cramping, pain, and dizziness." Or: "Use more than one finger, and wiggle them a little to 'tickle' the gag reflex. I personally use three...makes me feel like i am choking and everything comes up."

Perhaps effecting a change is simply a matter of public pressure. Perhaps. Some would defend these sites on the basis of that slippery notion called freedom of speech. But do many of these sites actively encourage the young and vulnerable to harm themselves?

[EthanLeduc]

They should absolutely be banned.

As an atheist, the closest I come to worshiping anything is my obsession with butts and boobs; therefore anorexia advocacy - a blunt attack on these beautiful things which I hold in reverence above all others - must be punished with extreme prejudice.

Oh yes, and **** high fashion, runways are stupid.

[stepyourgameup]

There are no atheists in foxholes.

[tipoo_]

@stepyourgameup

Uhh, your right, i guess? I live in a house, not a fox hole.

[Michichael]

All information should be without censhorship. Let society do it's own censorship - evolution at work. Those interested in it or for it or practice it will breed themselves out eventually.

[kenstech_com]

Geez leave it up to the Brits to come up with something this lame.

I swear, you'd think the Nazis had actually won the freakin' war to see the way they carry on.

And no, I don't support bulima or anorexia, but as bad as those ailments are, there are far worse ailments to worry about.

For eample: The tendency of neurotic control freaks to worry themselves sick over the thought that someone, somewhere isn't conforming to the group.

Ken
www.kenStech.com

[libertyforall1776]

Should your column be banned for posting such uninteresting articles like this?

[4score20]

These pro-ana sites are already somewhat underground (Oprah tried getting them banned a few years ago) so if you ban them you'll just push them further underground. And, quite frankly, young people will still have no trouble finding them. In fact, banning them will give these sites more credibility in their eyes. Nothing like perceived persecution to give you a sense of community and righteousness. Teach your daughters to love the bodies they have and help them to develop confidence and soon adverts featuring bone-thin women will seem ridiculous to them.

[biffhenerson]

Do whatever you want in your country. In the United States of America, we practice and protect free speech. Anorexia is not nearly the problem that obesity is. Perhaps the ban should be on all pro food related sites.

[man_w_balls]

I second this. I also reject the idea that thin equals pretty, contrary to anorexic and such people. Freedom of speech and personal choice in general should be universal rights.
In reference to the skinny girls: no thanks - I like huge breasts more than a bony figure. ******* FTW!!

[jaguar717]

Well, except California which has gotten around that pesky 1st Amendment by inventing terms like "hate speech", "commercial speech", "political speech", and "artistic speech", then applying various restrictions and permissions to each.

I hope you have the intellectual honesty to fight government intrusion even when it only seems to oppress something you find offensive...

[jfiney]

I think you should understand the first amendment before you talk about it. The terms "hate speech" or "political speech" are not invented terms made up to restrict our freedom of speech, they are necessary restrictions due to the fact that you should not be able to say whatever you want to whoever you want. For example, you should not be able to go up to someone's front door and start yelling hateful things at them and cause them personal distress, fear, and paranoia or make them fear for their lives and have to alter their lifestyle. That would be a "true threat" and therefore not allowed. Doesn't that sound like a good idea? And "political speech" is not an invented term, it's a definition with the purpose of actually giving one MORE freedom of speech, not less. These sites are completely protected under the first amendment, however, and should not be banned

[jaguar717]

If someone is on your doorstep saying things you consider "hate speech", your solution is to tell them to leave your property. If they're on their own property, you have no right to use government to silence them.

You have a right to invite who you choose onto your property, and to stay away from those you disagree with. You don't have a "right" not to be offended.

If someone is actually threatening you, then that's already covered. They're threatening you with force, which would be a violation of your rights. No "hate speech" (speech you don't like) needs censoring there. The same goes for fraud. "Personal distress" when you aren't actually being threatened is not carte blanche to silence those you disagree with.

And making up terms like "political speech" grants you no freedoms. You have the right to be free from government censorship whatever your speech. Fracturing that right and establishing a bunch of various control doesn't gain you anything (trying contributing to an ad campaign you support and you'll find yourself slapped with criminal charges).

[yummysecrets]

The reason the Proanorexia LiveJournal community does not change its name is simple: not everyone in Pro-Ana fits the debased, ignorant, predatory image the media has painted of us. We are trying to take the name back.

As you can see from many other's comments, people are still of the opinion that anorexia is caused by a person's weak intellect, by their personality flaws. The only thing that can fight ignorance is communication and knowledge. So why would it be acceptable to shut these sites down?

I run a Pro-Ana website, and I will absolutely fight for my right to have it.

[tlcfromTexas]

These sites need to be taken down and considered illegal. They are enabling them to be sick, and it is a sickness that needs to be medically treated. These girls are killing themselves and we are just accepting this and keep on giving them places to go to tell them how to do this, be thin, nothing but thin. Take them down, and save some lives!!!!

[asfd9]

There are still amy pro-pedophilia sites out there. And that is already highly illegal. So a so called ban on these sites will do absolutely nothing to stop these sites.

It is just another play by some "advocacy" groups and politicians to grab headlines and raise money. And what better way to get kids to view these sites than to say they are BANNED.

[Antikapitalista]

Well, perhaps they could be banned. After all, they may be harmful.
However, I believe that then a lot of other sites, activities and advertisements should be banned first.

Regarding anorexia as one extreme, I could pehaps safely say that obesity is the other extreme. I really don't know how prevalent anorexia really is and what degree of danger to the people of the society in general represents, but i guess that is is much lower than, say, obesity.

While I am not from the U.S., I believe that as many as 1/3 of its adult citizens are obese, when adding also the overweight ones, the figure doubles to 2/3.
The medical complications caused by the abovementioned conditions are undeniable. And the health problems caused by them are not only serious, but also much more prevalent.

So... then pehaps all fast food restaurant advertisements should be banned first?after all, it doesn't seem they actually help anyone from famine or starving. :-)

To shut down pro-anorexia sites, or to promote them to the obese?that is the question...