To: Rep. Tammy Baldwin
December 10th, 2009
Dear Representative Baldwin:
My name is Sapir Sasson and I am a student at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. As an Honors Project for one of my psychology classes, I chose to investigate the use of pro-anorexia websites by individuals with eating disorders and the effects that these websites have on viewers. Pro-anorexia websites (commonly referred to as pro-ana sites) are sites created by individuals suffering from eating disorders. These sites advocate eating disorders as a ‘lifestyle of choice’ and encourage individuals to continue with unhealthy eating patterns; these sites often include information about tips and tricks on how to lose weight the fastest, advice on how to purge food, and ways to punish oneself if the anorexic eats more than her self-determined caloric limit (which is often extremely low). These sites also offer forums in which individuals can exchange ideas and encourage each other to lose more weight.
While these sites present themselves as ‘support networks,’ they are far from it. Studies have shown that even site visitors who do not have eating disorders prior to visiting these sites suffer reduced self-esteem, more distorted body images, and an increased desire to lose weight after a single visit to these sites (this was regardless of the individual being of normal body weight). For a review of these studies, I encourage you to visit the blog I created, documenting my findings: http://antiproed.blogspot.com/
I am well aware of the restrictions regarding Internet censorship. I understand that it is against the First Amendment to censor any form of free speech. The prolonged and unsuccessful debates regarding the Child Online Protection Act, struck down for the third time in 2008, and the Communications Decency Act, struck down in 1996, are very discouraging. These Acts were meant to protect minors from harmful contents of the Internet simply by ensuring that minors would not have the ability to view these sites without parental supervision. Both were denied on grounds of violation of the First Amendment.
While I know that an amendment to the First Amendment is not ideal, nor is it likely, I urge you to find a loophole through which access to these websites can be restricted. Regarding COPA, the Supreme Court said there was a “potential for extraordinary harm and a serious chill upon protected speech had the law gone into effect.” However, in my view, there is just as great a potential for harm if nothing is done about this issue. From a purely economical standpoint, eating disorders cost our nation over $3.8 million each year on treatment alone. Individuals who visit these websites while in treatment are prolonging their disorder and reducing their chances for a successful recovery, and those who are exposed to these websites following treatment are bound to relapse quickly.
It is quite impossible for me to adequately convey the potential harm for those who view these websites through a single letter. But at the same time, not doing anything is neglectful of individuals who cannot make better judgments for their own health. Just as we would not want suicidal individuals to looks up ‘tips and tricks’ on the best ways to commit suicide, we do not want individuals with eating disorders to find ways of sustaining their disorders.
This issue is personally relevant to me. My cousin has been suffering from Anorexia Nervosa for the past six years. She has enrolled and un-enrolled at a university three times within the past two years. Her health insurance recently cut her off because she was not improving, so she is not sitting at home, with no insurance or a means to afford needed treatment. She spends hours each day on pro-ana websites, which serve as her only support system. While she cannot see herself surviving without these websites, I know that they are inadvertently prolonging her disorder and preventing her from getting better and moving on with her life.
If there is anything at all that can be done about these websites, I beg you to take this issue into consideration. The purpose of the First Amendment is to protect our rights as human beings, but I think it crosses the line when it endangers the lives of others.
Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. I know you are extremely busy, but I would love to hear your thoughts on this issue.
Sincerely,
Sapir Sasson
Madison, WI
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Monday, December 7, 2009
12/7
I am no expert in this matter. I am not familiar with all the rules and regulations beyond the First Amendment that prevent censorship laws from being passed, nor am I familiar with those that may enable the passing of such laws. I’m half in my mind to refrain from saying what I’m about to say, but I strongly believe that it is a very reasonable suggestion.
Maybe, just maybe, we are being too rigid? Perhaps strict enforcement of the First Amendment, or any other law passed by the Founding Fathers for that matter, is no longer warranted? Maybe we are meant to have exceptions! After all, the creators of our Constitution did not anticipate the invention of the Internet. They did not, while initially constructing these laws, think “Hmm…We should make the First Amendment such that it pertains to ALL forms of speech, no matter what harm they cause…pornography, terrorism, eating disorders…Who cares? We believe in freedom of speech, and that’s that!” Seems ridiculous, right? They had no way of predicting the circumstances with which we are faced today. And just as they made amendments to the Constitution to include items which every human being rightfully deserves (i.e. Bill of Rights), we need to make amendments to items that no longer fit society’s needs.
Yes, this is a complicated process. It will not be easy to determine clear-cut boundaries between what is considered harmful material and borderline, but acceptable, material. Nevertheless, we already have clear-cut definitions for other, unrelated issues. We have very clear, very precise definitions of what constitutes sexual assault and what constitutes consensual sex. We even distinguish between homicide and accidental murder, even though both result in the death of another human being.
So why can’t we distinguish between educational websites about eating disorders and those advocating disordered eating? Such as task seems, to me, conveniently simple compared to the aforementioned distinctions we have already accomplished.
It IS possible to create change. It IS feasible to decide that the First Amendment no longer applies to ALL speech and that it may be restricted in some cases; after all, the Courts made such an exception for broadcast media! They gave clear explanations of why an exception was needed and passed the bill without regard for the public’s approval or disapproval. Claiming that nothing can be done about pro-ana websites would be, quite simply, making excuses for our own lack of initiative in the matter.
Prior to the termination of this Honors project, I will write a letter to Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin. I will post the content of the letter once I have it drafted, but it most likely include much of the information I have already posted on here: All the reasons why pro-ana sites should be banned, and every reason why not banning them is quite simply neglect of individuals who cannot make healthy judgments for their own good.
Just as we would not want a suicidal individual to look up ‘tips and tricks’ on how to end his/her life, we do not want those with eating disorders looking up ways to sustain their disorders! Approximately 17.6 million individuals in the US suffer from depression; of those, 265,000 commit suicide each year. An estimated 8 million Americans have an eating disorder; twenty percent of individuals with anorexia will die prematurely due to complications related to their eating disorder, including suicide and heart problems (South Carolina Department of Mental Health, 2006).
While viewing pro-ana websites does not directly cause death, it no doubt sustains disordered eating—and that certainly does increase risk of death. We must take preventative measures while we can, not just for the sake of those with eating disorders, but for the sake of anyone who has a pre-existing condition that makes him/her vulnerable to harmful contents of the Internet—be it pornography, tips on how to commit suicide, self-mutilation methods, or means of maintaining a body mass 15% below the individual’s normal weight.
Ban Pro-ED Websites!
Maybe, just maybe, we are being too rigid? Perhaps strict enforcement of the First Amendment, or any other law passed by the Founding Fathers for that matter, is no longer warranted? Maybe we are meant to have exceptions! After all, the creators of our Constitution did not anticipate the invention of the Internet. They did not, while initially constructing these laws, think “Hmm…We should make the First Amendment such that it pertains to ALL forms of speech, no matter what harm they cause…pornography, terrorism, eating disorders…Who cares? We believe in freedom of speech, and that’s that!” Seems ridiculous, right? They had no way of predicting the circumstances with which we are faced today. And just as they made amendments to the Constitution to include items which every human being rightfully deserves (i.e. Bill of Rights), we need to make amendments to items that no longer fit society’s needs.
Yes, this is a complicated process. It will not be easy to determine clear-cut boundaries between what is considered harmful material and borderline, but acceptable, material. Nevertheless, we already have clear-cut definitions for other, unrelated issues. We have very clear, very precise definitions of what constitutes sexual assault and what constitutes consensual sex. We even distinguish between homicide and accidental murder, even though both result in the death of another human being.
So why can’t we distinguish between educational websites about eating disorders and those advocating disordered eating? Such as task seems, to me, conveniently simple compared to the aforementioned distinctions we have already accomplished.
It IS possible to create change. It IS feasible to decide that the First Amendment no longer applies to ALL speech and that it may be restricted in some cases; after all, the Courts made such an exception for broadcast media! They gave clear explanations of why an exception was needed and passed the bill without regard for the public’s approval or disapproval. Claiming that nothing can be done about pro-ana websites would be, quite simply, making excuses for our own lack of initiative in the matter.
Prior to the termination of this Honors project, I will write a letter to Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin. I will post the content of the letter once I have it drafted, but it most likely include much of the information I have already posted on here: All the reasons why pro-ana sites should be banned, and every reason why not banning them is quite simply neglect of individuals who cannot make healthy judgments for their own good.
Just as we would not want a suicidal individual to look up ‘tips and tricks’ on how to end his/her life, we do not want those with eating disorders looking up ways to sustain their disorders! Approximately 17.6 million individuals in the US suffer from depression; of those, 265,000 commit suicide each year. An estimated 8 million Americans have an eating disorder; twenty percent of individuals with anorexia will die prematurely due to complications related to their eating disorder, including suicide and heart problems (South Carolina Department of Mental Health, 2006).
While viewing pro-ana websites does not directly cause death, it no doubt sustains disordered eating—and that certainly does increase risk of death. We must take preventative measures while we can, not just for the sake of those with eating disorders, but for the sake of anyone who has a pre-existing condition that makes him/her vulnerable to harmful contents of the Internet—be it pornography, tips on how to commit suicide, self-mutilation methods, or means of maintaining a body mass 15% below the individual’s normal weight.
Ban Pro-ED Websites!
12/6
While United States’ efforts are not comforting, other countries are actively taking appropriate action to ban pro-ana sites. Australia has announced its intention to enact a compulsory internet censorship to control access to anorexia- and bulimia-related sites. Facebook and MySpace are also among the list of 2,000 sites to be banned. The reasons for including these social networking sites in the are extreme and not related to eating disorders, and thus are beyond the scope of this discussion (Just as a side note…imagine the reactions of US citizens if the government ever proposed such a ban!)
Other countries, such as China, Cuba, Iran, and North Korea, which have known and experienced Internet censorship, know firsthand the effects that lack of knowledge can have on a population. Most likely, they would strongly oppose this movement. The problem with Australia’s proposal is, perhaps, its extremity. Not all websites that have unconventional content need to be banned—they need to restrict their censorship solely to websites that harm minors or unprotected individuals, and only then could they have the chance of receiving positive feedback regarding their chosen course of action.
With the case of eating disorders, the purpose of banning pro-ana websites would be to protect anorexics from themselves. Let me call your attention to a Supreme Court quote regarding COPA: “there is potential for extraordinary harm and a serious chill upon protected speech had the law gone into effect.”
Now, let me pose this question: Isn’t there potential for extraordinary harm and a serious chill upon the well-being of eating-disordered individuals if the NO law goes into effect? Yes-it is arguable whether pro-ana sites directly cause harm to their visitors. Yes-most who visit these sites already have eating disorders. Correct-these websites most likely do not directly cause eating disorders in individuals. But aren’t we doing a disservice to these individuals by enabling them to engage in this risky ritual of connecting with others over dysfunctional and harmful behaviors? If we have the power to do so, shouldn’t we stop them from further harming themselves? Why aren’t we do so?
It would be regrettable if the only way to prove this point as to conduct an ethical study where cause and effect of these sites would be determined. Is making individuals browse these sites continuously and (potentially) causing an eating disorder in individuals the only way to convince the government that censorship must be enforced on these sites? Do we really have to resort to this?
Clearly, this would never happen. The IRB would never agree to such a preposterous idea—nor would (I hope) any experimenters wish to cause significant harm to their participants. But what exactly are we supposed to do? Sit back and hope that individuals with eating disorders will no longer find these websites appealing? Hope that the administrators of these websites will independently decide to shut down their website (quite an unrealistic hope, more so than the one aforementioned, since those who created these websites often suffer from severe eating disorders themselves).
Other countries, such as China, Cuba, Iran, and North Korea, which have known and experienced Internet censorship, know firsthand the effects that lack of knowledge can have on a population. Most likely, they would strongly oppose this movement. The problem with Australia’s proposal is, perhaps, its extremity. Not all websites that have unconventional content need to be banned—they need to restrict their censorship solely to websites that harm minors or unprotected individuals, and only then could they have the chance of receiving positive feedback regarding their chosen course of action.
With the case of eating disorders, the purpose of banning pro-ana websites would be to protect anorexics from themselves. Let me call your attention to a Supreme Court quote regarding COPA: “there is potential for extraordinary harm and a serious chill upon protected speech had the law gone into effect.”
Now, let me pose this question: Isn’t there potential for extraordinary harm and a serious chill upon the well-being of eating-disordered individuals if the NO law goes into effect? Yes-it is arguable whether pro-ana sites directly cause harm to their visitors. Yes-most who visit these sites already have eating disorders. Correct-these websites most likely do not directly cause eating disorders in individuals. But aren’t we doing a disservice to these individuals by enabling them to engage in this risky ritual of connecting with others over dysfunctional and harmful behaviors? If we have the power to do so, shouldn’t we stop them from further harming themselves? Why aren’t we do so?
It would be regrettable if the only way to prove this point as to conduct an ethical study where cause and effect of these sites would be determined. Is making individuals browse these sites continuously and (potentially) causing an eating disorder in individuals the only way to convince the government that censorship must be enforced on these sites? Do we really have to resort to this?
Clearly, this would never happen. The IRB would never agree to such a preposterous idea—nor would (I hope) any experimenters wish to cause significant harm to their participants. But what exactly are we supposed to do? Sit back and hope that individuals with eating disorders will no longer find these websites appealing? Hope that the administrators of these websites will independently decide to shut down their website (quite an unrealistic hope, more so than the one aforementioned, since those who created these websites often suffer from severe eating disorders themselves).
12/5
A second federal law, the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), which was more narrowly focused on commercial purposes of the Internet, aimed to fix the constitutional defects of the CDA by requiring commercial Web publishers (rather than the Internet as a whole) to ensure that minors do not access harmful material directly concerned with commercial purposes on their website. COPA was enacted in October 1998 and was issued a temporary restraining order one month later. In 1999, an injunction was issued against the enforcement of this law, also on First Amendment grounds. In 2000, the Court of Appeals upheld the injunction and determined that COPA was more likely than not to be found unconstitutional by attempting to impose civil and criminal penalties against commercial website operators that publish harmful material.
Under COPA, a three-part test would have determined whether material was harmful to minors: (1) average person would consider material as harmful to minors (2) material represents offensive material to minors by means of depicting an actual or simulated sexual act or contact or exhibition of genitals or post-pubescent female breast (3) materials lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.
Please note that while the main purpose of COPA was to address exhibition of sexually inappropriate content, “harmful material” was purposefully stated in a vague manner so as to include other harmful content (i.e. pro-ana websites…cough cough)
COPA also provided Web publishers with affirmative defenses such as age-verification systems by use of credit of debit card, adult access codes, adult personal identification numbers, digital certificate that verifies age, or any other reasonable measure under available technology. Had a minor gained access to restricted material despite these measures, no liability would attach to the Web publisher.
While COPA was initially passed by the Supreme Court after the Court struck down the CDA, the 2008 Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision that COPA violated the First Amendment was the third time in nearly 10 years of litigation over the law’s constitutionality that the injunction against the law’s enforcement was upheld. The first and second decisions to uphold the injunction were issued in May of 2002 and March of 2003, respectively.
Critics of COPA said that the law did not make clear how to distinguish between sexually explicit internet content and educational web sites, such as those showing young women how to perform self-examinations for breast cancer. While this distinction may be clear-cut to the average person, this was clearly not the case in the eyes of the Supreme Court.
Many campaigns are advocating the protection of online free speech, such as the Blue Ribbon Campaign. It seems that these campaigns are more effective than those working against Internet free speech, because on January 21, 2009, the US Supreme Court refused to hear appeals over the law’s injunction, thereby killing the bill and any chance it had to pass. The Court stated that “there is potential for extraordinary harm and a serious chill upon protected speech had the law gone into effect.”
Under COPA, a three-part test would have determined whether material was harmful to minors: (1) average person would consider material as harmful to minors (2) material represents offensive material to minors by means of depicting an actual or simulated sexual act or contact or exhibition of genitals or post-pubescent female breast (3) materials lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.
Please note that while the main purpose of COPA was to address exhibition of sexually inappropriate content, “harmful material” was purposefully stated in a vague manner so as to include other harmful content (i.e. pro-ana websites…cough cough)
COPA also provided Web publishers with affirmative defenses such as age-verification systems by use of credit of debit card, adult access codes, adult personal identification numbers, digital certificate that verifies age, or any other reasonable measure under available technology. Had a minor gained access to restricted material despite these measures, no liability would attach to the Web publisher.
While COPA was initially passed by the Supreme Court after the Court struck down the CDA, the 2008 Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision that COPA violated the First Amendment was the third time in nearly 10 years of litigation over the law’s constitutionality that the injunction against the law’s enforcement was upheld. The first and second decisions to uphold the injunction were issued in May of 2002 and March of 2003, respectively.
Critics of COPA said that the law did not make clear how to distinguish between sexually explicit internet content and educational web sites, such as those showing young women how to perform self-examinations for breast cancer. While this distinction may be clear-cut to the average person, this was clearly not the case in the eyes of the Supreme Court.
Many campaigns are advocating the protection of online free speech, such as the Blue Ribbon Campaign. It seems that these campaigns are more effective than those working against Internet free speech, because on January 21, 2009, the US Supreme Court refused to hear appeals over the law’s injunction, thereby killing the bill and any chance it had to pass. The Court stated that “there is potential for extraordinary harm and a serious chill upon protected speech had the law gone into effect.”
12/3
There are hundreds of studies that support the idea that pro-ana sites maintain the individual’s disorder and may even cause further harm by providing additional dysfunctional ideas or cognitions. While it would be informative if I summarized each of them on here, it is not actually addressing the problem. I am well-aware of the implications of these websites. What I am currently struggling with is finding a possible course of action. After extensive research, it seems that current anti-censorship laws, specifically ones concerning internet use, are very extensive and all-inclusive. I could not find any loopholes through which banning pro-ana websites would be legal.
The First Amendment to the US Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
This is a very specific, well-defined amendment, and it is consequently very difficult to create censorship laws that do not violate it.
The US Government has attempted to enact two federal laws intended to censor online content. As of 2002, neither of these laws are in practice. The Communications Decency Act (CDA), which prohibited publishing materials that would be offensive or harmful to minors, stated that sites were to use some sort of an age-verification system or another effort to restrict access by minors. The Supreme Court struck down this law on First Amendment grounds. One of the main problems with the CDA was that it was very vague and did not limit itself to commercial speech, but was rather open-ended in its prohibitions. The Court also explained that judgments regarding potential harm to minors were to be judged by the community to which the sites apply, and thus could not be generalized to the entire US population. Since 1996, during which the initial restraining order was issued against the enforcement of this law, four US states have passed Internet censorship legislation that restricted online distribution of harmful material. These laws have all been struck down on Constitutional grounds.
Some have argued that Internet regulation would be similar to telephone, radio, or TV regulation; thus, since supervision of the media is allowed, so should the supervision of Internet publications. However, the censorship enforced on these other media communications is far less than the one initially proposed by the CDA.
Oddly enough, government involvement in radio and television is based on the fact that censorship is justified by government’s role in assigning broadcast frequencies. The Supreme held that indecent language cannot be completely banned from telephone, radio, or television; current regulations allow indecent speech on broadcast media after 10pm. This was the main rationale for allowing partial censorship of broadcast media—the fact that speech was not banned entirely, but rather channeled to a time where children cannot normally access it (late hours).
Even more ironic is the fact that the US Congress passed the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) in 2000, requiring schools and public libraries to install blocking software on their computers to censor material deemed inappropriate for school settings.
Another the main rationale of the CDA was that censorship impermissible for printed words was appropriate for electronic word, and that word protected on paper were subject to censorship on a computer screen. Even by means of common sense, this argument has none. As the Supreme Court ruled, there was no justification for treating printed and electronic word differently. Since Internet did not exist at the time of the enactment of the First Amendment, it is doubtful that the Founding Fathers would have decided to make Internet censorship the exception to the Amendment. Simply put, the CDA approached their goal from an illogical and non-sensible manner.
The First Amendment to the US Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
This is a very specific, well-defined amendment, and it is consequently very difficult to create censorship laws that do not violate it.
The US Government has attempted to enact two federal laws intended to censor online content. As of 2002, neither of these laws are in practice. The Communications Decency Act (CDA), which prohibited publishing materials that would be offensive or harmful to minors, stated that sites were to use some sort of an age-verification system or another effort to restrict access by minors. The Supreme Court struck down this law on First Amendment grounds. One of the main problems with the CDA was that it was very vague and did not limit itself to commercial speech, but was rather open-ended in its prohibitions. The Court also explained that judgments regarding potential harm to minors were to be judged by the community to which the sites apply, and thus could not be generalized to the entire US population. Since 1996, during which the initial restraining order was issued against the enforcement of this law, four US states have passed Internet censorship legislation that restricted online distribution of harmful material. These laws have all been struck down on Constitutional grounds.
Some have argued that Internet regulation would be similar to telephone, radio, or TV regulation; thus, since supervision of the media is allowed, so should the supervision of Internet publications. However, the censorship enforced on these other media communications is far less than the one initially proposed by the CDA.
Oddly enough, government involvement in radio and television is based on the fact that censorship is justified by government’s role in assigning broadcast frequencies. The Supreme held that indecent language cannot be completely banned from telephone, radio, or television; current regulations allow indecent speech on broadcast media after 10pm. This was the main rationale for allowing partial censorship of broadcast media—the fact that speech was not banned entirely, but rather channeled to a time where children cannot normally access it (late hours).
Even more ironic is the fact that the US Congress passed the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) in 2000, requiring schools and public libraries to install blocking software on their computers to censor material deemed inappropriate for school settings.
Another the main rationale of the CDA was that censorship impermissible for printed words was appropriate for electronic word, and that word protected on paper were subject to censorship on a computer screen. Even by means of common sense, this argument has none. As the Supreme Court ruled, there was no justification for treating printed and electronic word differently. Since Internet did not exist at the time of the enactment of the First Amendment, it is doubtful that the Founding Fathers would have decided to make Internet censorship the exception to the Amendment. Simply put, the CDA approached their goal from an illogical and non-sensible manner.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
11/28
Kempt (2002) has said that pro-ana websites may cause individuals in the early stages of anorexia to believe that anorexia is an acceptable lifestyle; in other words, they create an illusion of normalcy (this is often seen in many prevention efforts, i.e. when schools talk about suicide as if it is a normal response to stress; this leads individuals to accept suicide as an acceptable cop-out. The important thing to note is that pro-ana websites are not in the least attempting prevention of eating disorders, which highlights the dysfunctional cognitions of individuals who interact with these sites and believe anorexia is a lifestyle. They believe so because of disordered thinking and not because of backfired prevention efforts).
In 2001, the National Association of Anorexia Nervosa and Associated Eating Disorders and the National Eating Disorders Association requested that Yahoo shut down these websites. Yahoo complied, and MSN followed soon after. While this forced sites to move to different servers, these sites still exist today—they are merely underground.
Pro-eating disorder, as previously mentioned, implies a willingness to accept the eating disordered behavior without encouraging treatment and, in most cases, implies an aim to motivate continuation of disordered eating. Those who want to “adopt” the eating disordered so-called lifestyle seem to think that they can adopt and discard it at their will; however, once they become overly engrossed in their disorders, their disorder takes charge and they are no longer able to control their behaviors as they once thought they would be able to. Philosopher Kant once stated that “in order to be free, humans must transcend the domain of natural causation to which appetite belongs” (1981). While Kant simply meant acting from pure reasons alone, individuals with eating disorders seem to have taken his viewpoint quite literally.
One very ironic aspect about pro-ana websites is that they give advice on how to practice anorexia “safely,” almost as if it is a routine to go through. While anorexics identify themselves as being “ana,” they do not associate their behaviors with the disorder anorexia nervosa. Almost seems cult-like. And yet, when individuals post comments such as “I want to lose 40 pounds in two months. Help me,” they are bombarded with comments such as “We do not endorse 'wannarexics'. Go somewhere else.” Seems contradictory? It is.
In the present study, 150 participants (147 female), mainly the United Kingdom and the United States (ages 13-49) completed the EAT-26, a self-report measure disordered eating. One hundred and twenty seven reported an eating disorder (29% anorexia nervosa, 22% bulimia nervosa, 26% ED-NOS, 15% combination of AN and BN, 3% binge eating disorder, and 7% unspecific eating problems). Given the option, only 9 participants visited the pro-ana website once. Forty-one percent visited the site several times a day, and 16% visited the site at least once a day. Majority of participants found the site through internet searches and others through the media or word of mouth.
Twenty-nine percent felt the websites were harmful to them. Seventeen percent reported websites as helpful in maintaining disordered eating and 43% reported receiving emotional support from these sites.
Correlational studies found that visiting the websites frequently was correlated with subjective but not objective self-esteem improvement (r = .306, p < .005).
Those who were active site participants believed they had more in common with other visitors and felt better after visiting the sites. They were also more likely than passive participants (those who did not visit sites often) to report sites as encouraging treatment. Both actives and passives reported sites as helping them maintain their disordered eating.
The term ‘lifestyle’ can be interpreted in two ways. First, it could imply a chosen manner of living one’s life and embracing certain attitudes and behaviors that characterize or promote the lifestyle. However, it could also imply a ‘way of life’ that intrudes on every aspect of an individual’s thoughts, perceptions, and actions, without regarding personal choice in the matte.
While 54% believed anorexia and bulimia to be disorders, they also reported using them as a lifestyle that pervaded every aspect of their life; they did not, however, feel as though they were choosing this lifestyle.
While these findings suggest that these websites do offer social support, whether because of counteracting the sense of isolation that anorexics often feel or because increasing sense of relatedness among visitors, participants also reported visiting these sites to obtain information on food and exercise, thinspiration, and tips/tricks. They admitted that these websites helped maintain their disordered behaviors and that showed an overall trend of worsened body image.
Active participants reported more positive effects of the sites than did passive participants, but negative effects were equal for both; these sites were harmful regardless of frequency of visits.
While it is possible that participants were not completely honest in their responses, it is unlikely; participants freely reported that these sites enabled them to sustain their disordered behaviors. Moreover, the fact that these findings were of self-reported nature should heighten alarm around these issues—the harm that these websites are associated with is not simply an assumption of experimenters, but rather the opinion of eating disordered individuals. Assuming participants reported their true opinions, this should increase the construct validity of this study. While these data are correlational in nature and do not infer causation, the perceived impact of these sites on the well-being of individuals must be taken into consideration.
These sites will continue to appear unless a unified movement to abolish them is adopted. Shutting down one or two extremely harmful websites is not going to stop others from being created or available to individuals. Clinicians must acknowledge the effects of these sites, be aware that their patients may be visiting them often, and address these effects in treatments of patients. As clinicians begin to address these issues, society at large must work to find a loophole in the anti-censorship internet laws and demand for these sites’ removal. While this may cause patients to initially be upset due to a loss of an “important” support system, this is the only way to prevent society from dwindling into a never-ending pattern of disordered eating. This is not meant to sound overly dramatic, but simply to state the facts as they are. This is something that cannot, and should not, be ignored.
Csipke, E. & Horne, O. (2007). Pro-eating disorder websites: User’s opinions. European Eating Disorders Review, 15, 196-206.
In 2001, the National Association of Anorexia Nervosa and Associated Eating Disorders and the National Eating Disorders Association requested that Yahoo shut down these websites. Yahoo complied, and MSN followed soon after. While this forced sites to move to different servers, these sites still exist today—they are merely underground.
Pro-eating disorder, as previously mentioned, implies a willingness to accept the eating disordered behavior without encouraging treatment and, in most cases, implies an aim to motivate continuation of disordered eating. Those who want to “adopt” the eating disordered so-called lifestyle seem to think that they can adopt and discard it at their will; however, once they become overly engrossed in their disorders, their disorder takes charge and they are no longer able to control their behaviors as they once thought they would be able to. Philosopher Kant once stated that “in order to be free, humans must transcend the domain of natural causation to which appetite belongs” (1981). While Kant simply meant acting from pure reasons alone, individuals with eating disorders seem to have taken his viewpoint quite literally.
One very ironic aspect about pro-ana websites is that they give advice on how to practice anorexia “safely,” almost as if it is a routine to go through. While anorexics identify themselves as being “ana,” they do not associate their behaviors with the disorder anorexia nervosa. Almost seems cult-like. And yet, when individuals post comments such as “I want to lose 40 pounds in two months. Help me,” they are bombarded with comments such as “We do not endorse 'wannarexics'. Go somewhere else.” Seems contradictory? It is.
In the present study, 150 participants (147 female), mainly the United Kingdom and the United States (ages 13-49) completed the EAT-26, a self-report measure disordered eating. One hundred and twenty seven reported an eating disorder (29% anorexia nervosa, 22% bulimia nervosa, 26% ED-NOS, 15% combination of AN and BN, 3% binge eating disorder, and 7% unspecific eating problems). Given the option, only 9 participants visited the pro-ana website once. Forty-one percent visited the site several times a day, and 16% visited the site at least once a day. Majority of participants found the site through internet searches and others through the media or word of mouth.
Twenty-nine percent felt the websites were harmful to them. Seventeen percent reported websites as helpful in maintaining disordered eating and 43% reported receiving emotional support from these sites.
Correlational studies found that visiting the websites frequently was correlated with subjective but not objective self-esteem improvement (r = .306, p < .005).
Those who were active site participants believed they had more in common with other visitors and felt better after visiting the sites. They were also more likely than passive participants (those who did not visit sites often) to report sites as encouraging treatment. Both actives and passives reported sites as helping them maintain their disordered eating.
The term ‘lifestyle’ can be interpreted in two ways. First, it could imply a chosen manner of living one’s life and embracing certain attitudes and behaviors that characterize or promote the lifestyle. However, it could also imply a ‘way of life’ that intrudes on every aspect of an individual’s thoughts, perceptions, and actions, without regarding personal choice in the matte.
While 54% believed anorexia and bulimia to be disorders, they also reported using them as a lifestyle that pervaded every aspect of their life; they did not, however, feel as though they were choosing this lifestyle.
While these findings suggest that these websites do offer social support, whether because of counteracting the sense of isolation that anorexics often feel or because increasing sense of relatedness among visitors, participants also reported visiting these sites to obtain information on food and exercise, thinspiration, and tips/tricks. They admitted that these websites helped maintain their disordered behaviors and that showed an overall trend of worsened body image.
Active participants reported more positive effects of the sites than did passive participants, but negative effects were equal for both; these sites were harmful regardless of frequency of visits.
While it is possible that participants were not completely honest in their responses, it is unlikely; participants freely reported that these sites enabled them to sustain their disordered behaviors. Moreover, the fact that these findings were of self-reported nature should heighten alarm around these issues—the harm that these websites are associated with is not simply an assumption of experimenters, but rather the opinion of eating disordered individuals. Assuming participants reported their true opinions, this should increase the construct validity of this study. While these data are correlational in nature and do not infer causation, the perceived impact of these sites on the well-being of individuals must be taken into consideration.
These sites will continue to appear unless a unified movement to abolish them is adopted. Shutting down one or two extremely harmful websites is not going to stop others from being created or available to individuals. Clinicians must acknowledge the effects of these sites, be aware that their patients may be visiting them often, and address these effects in treatments of patients. As clinicians begin to address these issues, society at large must work to find a loophole in the anti-censorship internet laws and demand for these sites’ removal. While this may cause patients to initially be upset due to a loss of an “important” support system, this is the only way to prevent society from dwindling into a never-ending pattern of disordered eating. This is not meant to sound overly dramatic, but simply to state the facts as they are. This is something that cannot, and should not, be ignored.
Csipke, E. & Horne, O. (2007). Pro-eating disorder websites: User’s opinions. European Eating Disorders Review, 15, 196-206.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
11/23
Correlational studies have shown that frequent readers of fashion magazines were more likely to diet in order to lose weight because of magazine articles and pictures. While one cannot establish cause and effect from correlational studies, these findings cannot be ignored. The social comparison theory offers an explanation for the body-dissatisfaction caused by media communication of the “ideal” thinness. Individuals are motivated to self-evaluate, usually by comparison to similar others. However, those who compare themselves to individuals who are superior to them tend to strive for improvement and use those superior individuals as models for excellence. If the individual perceives thinness as excellence of perfection, social comparison theory suggests that they will strive to achieve that thinness by devoting extreme amounts of time to exercise and diets. Thus, low self-evaluation about one’s own attractiveness is a likely result.
In an experimental study, 24 female participants in an introductory psychology course, ages 18-20, were randomly assigned to view a pro-anorexia website, a comparison website focused on female fashion, and a neutral comparison website. Participants completed a pre- and post-website questionnaire. The PANAS, the State Self Esteem Scale, and the Self Efficacy Scale were used to assess positive and negative affect, self esteem, and self efficacy, respectively. Perceived weight status and perceived attractiveness to opposite sex were also assessed. A prototypic website was designed by the authors to include the typical information most commonly seen in pro-ana websites.
Results suggested that negative affect increased at the post-website assessment only among women who viewed the pro-anorexia website, while positive affect decreased or remained the same in women who viewed the other websites. Only women who viewed the pro-anorexia website demonstrated decreased self-esteem and appearance self-efficacy. Women who viewed the pro-anorexia website also reported an increase in perceived weigh status (felt more overweight) and a decrease in how attractive they felt.
It is worth mentioning that these effects emerged after a single episode of viewing this website. It is scary to think of the detrimental effects that frequent and prolonged viewing of such websites can have on individuals.
Meta-analyses have proposed that negative effects of thin media messages are stronger for those with elevated body dissatisfaction because thin images activate a thinness schema among those who evaluate themselves in terms of weight/shape. This is in line with prior findings that body image concerns or eating disorders increase susceptibility to media images.
However, since other studies have found that these effects apply to individuals with no preexisting body image or self esteem struggles, it is imperative that we find a way to stop these websites from being available to the public.
In an experimental study, 24 female participants in an introductory psychology course, ages 18-20, were randomly assigned to view a pro-anorexia website, a comparison website focused on female fashion, and a neutral comparison website. Participants completed a pre- and post-website questionnaire. The PANAS, the State Self Esteem Scale, and the Self Efficacy Scale were used to assess positive and negative affect, self esteem, and self efficacy, respectively. Perceived weight status and perceived attractiveness to opposite sex were also assessed. A prototypic website was designed by the authors to include the typical information most commonly seen in pro-ana websites.
Results suggested that negative affect increased at the post-website assessment only among women who viewed the pro-anorexia website, while positive affect decreased or remained the same in women who viewed the other websites. Only women who viewed the pro-anorexia website demonstrated decreased self-esteem and appearance self-efficacy. Women who viewed the pro-anorexia website also reported an increase in perceived weigh status (felt more overweight) and a decrease in how attractive they felt.
It is worth mentioning that these effects emerged after a single episode of viewing this website. It is scary to think of the detrimental effects that frequent and prolonged viewing of such websites can have on individuals.
Meta-analyses have proposed that negative effects of thin media messages are stronger for those with elevated body dissatisfaction because thin images activate a thinness schema among those who evaluate themselves in terms of weight/shape. This is in line with prior findings that body image concerns or eating disorders increase susceptibility to media images.
However, since other studies have found that these effects apply to individuals with no preexisting body image or self esteem struggles, it is imperative that we find a way to stop these websites from being available to the public.
Friday, November 27, 2009
11/16
Tierney (2008) effectively compares social capital, the idea that membership in a group and sharing of common values are beneficial, with the prospect of membership in communities such as that of the virtual pro-ana community. For each possible “benefit” that could be argued in favor of these websites, Tierney provides a likely harmful consequence.
Positive: Pro-ana websites provide an outlet for those who feel isolated from society
Negative: promote dysfunctional behaviors that often jeopardize the well-being of individuals
Positive: sense of information-sharing can be empowering
Negative: questions/comments posted could be ignored exacerbating feelings of loneliness and despair; advice may be inaccurate
Positive: individuals are allowed to regard their condition as “normal” without being stigmatized and can focus on emotional aspects in addition to the physiological symptoms normally addressed by clinicians.
Negative: individuals may further isolate themselves from mainstream society and may become unable to acknowledge that their behavior is life-threatening; individuals may not seek necessary outside support because they are so immersed in their community.
Positive: pro-ana websites may be avenues for social support
Negative: drive to be the thinnest can make face-to-face group treatments problematic as individuals feel the need to compete with others.
Positive: emotional support can be given through websites with the physical appearance of other users remaining unknown
Negative: users frequently post photographs of themselves, which are often triggering for their competitors
Positive: a sense of trust may be generated as result of bonds formed through pro-ana websites
Negative: those with anorexia are sometimes suspicious about external offers for help, fearing that others are simply trying to make them fat.
Positive: Pro-ana websites provide an outlet for those who feel isolated from society
Negative: promote dysfunctional behaviors that often jeopardize the well-being of individuals
Positive: sense of information-sharing can be empowering
Negative: questions/comments posted could be ignored exacerbating feelings of loneliness and despair; advice may be inaccurate
Positive: individuals are allowed to regard their condition as “normal” without being stigmatized and can focus on emotional aspects in addition to the physiological symptoms normally addressed by clinicians.
Negative: individuals may further isolate themselves from mainstream society and may become unable to acknowledge that their behavior is life-threatening; individuals may not seek necessary outside support because they are so immersed in their community.
Positive: pro-ana websites may be avenues for social support
Negative: drive to be the thinnest can make face-to-face group treatments problematic as individuals feel the need to compete with others.
Positive: emotional support can be given through websites with the physical appearance of other users remaining unknown
Negative: users frequently post photographs of themselves, which are often triggering for their competitors
Positive: a sense of trust may be generated as result of bonds formed through pro-ana websites
Negative: those with anorexia are sometimes suspicious about external offers for help, fearing that others are simply trying to make them fat.
Monday, November 9, 2009
11/9
Jennifer Davis, a clinician at Huntercombe Hospital in Edinburgh, UK, asserts that Pro-Ana websites do not by themselves cause Anorexia. According to Davis, people who are looking at these websites already suffer from Anorexia; if they did not have Anorexia, they would not be looking at the website in the first place. That is her clinical opinion, influenced by statements that her patients gave. This may have been the case for her patients; however, I challenge her claim with a statement from a different individual suffering from Anorexia Nervosa. As I was browsing through one of the pro-Ana websites, I came across a post made by a 17 year old female who happened to list her stats in that post (as do most of girls). According to this female, her highest weight was 180 pounds; at the height of 5’7, this put her at a BMI of 28.2. This female was clearly not anorexic to begin with—she, in fact, overweight and only 1.7 BMI units from being considered obese. Her current weight, after being a member of this community for 7 months, is 110 pounds—with a BMI of 17.2. What if this young woman is not an exception? What if thousands of other eating disorders develop in this way? I am aware that I cannot make this causal inference; this is not a case study, nor an experimental design. However, overlooking the fact that this is a possibility would be, in my opinion, complete ignorance and neglect.
11/5
Frampton (2008) suggests that it is fruitless to make an attempt at preventing the publishing of pro-ed websites; instead, he suggests, we need to focus on equipping therapists with the tools to deal with the effects of these websites on patients. Although I agree that we must begin to analyze the effects of these websites on patients’ cognitions, I think that simply taking a passive stance defeats the purpose of primary prevention; if we dealt with other issues in the same manner, ignoring their roots and simply worrying about treatment post-exposure, we would be living an a very chaotic world. For example, consider today’s rape culture. A rape culture is defined as a society that accepts rape as inevitable and, although acknowledges that rape is “wrong,” believes that it is pointless to take action against it because it is bound to happen anyway. We should be very thankful that we have organizations such as Rape Crisis Centers and other advocacy organizations that promote awareness for these issues and engage in primary prevention through education and activism. Without these organizations, we would be a defeated society. Thus, in the same way, we cannot ignore the core issues of pro-Ana websites. Just like we cannot battle depression by merely treating its symptoms, we cannot battle eating disorders by simply treating the aftereffects of harmful websites.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
10/25
Not only do these websites advocate that people can choose to have an eating disorder, but they also perpetuate the myth that this type of illness is not a problem, but rather a weight loss solution. For individuals with a relatively stable body image and average self-esteem, these websites may look ridiculous; why would anyone want to engage in eating-disordered behavior? Why would anyone want to deprive themselves from the joys of food, induce hair loss, isolate themselves socially, and risk contracting one of the many dangerous health problems associated with eating disorders, all for the purpose of losing weight? The answer to these questions may be beyond you. But if you are someone with low self-esteem, who struggles with body image issues, who has been belittled or criticized for your weight, you are very likely to crave these exact results and would actively engage in trying to achieve the aforementioned outcomes. You would go to any length to lose weight, even if that means starving yourself for weeks on end and punishing yourself whenever you do not achieve a weight loss goal. In a sense, this vicious cycle of self-harm can be explained by behavioral psychologists as following Mowrer’s two-factor model of avoidance learning. According to Mowrer, individuals are motivated to escape fear; in this case, the fear is gaining weight or not losing weight. Thus, individuals will engage in a series of classical conditioning behaviors whereby they begin to associate gaining weight and food (unconditioned stimulus) with disgust and guilt (unconditioned response). Soon enough, food alone (conditioned stimulus) will become associated with disgust and guilt (conditioned response), and they will no longer desire eating. These behaviors are maintained by operant conditioning, in which their behavior (food deprivation) is paired with a desired outcome, i.e. losing weight. This cycle perseverates via negative reinforcement (taking away the guilt) or positive reinforcement (weight loss).
10/22
Freedom of speech is considered a basic human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (“The Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” 2009). Reporters without Borders, a non-governmental organization that advocates freedom of press, has listed several countries on the “internet enemy list” for engaging in internet censorship; this countries include, but are not limited to, China, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, North Korea, and Vietnam. Interestingly, France is not one of the countries listed.
The French government recently approved a bill that would impose a penalty of up to 3 years in jail and heavy fines against those advocating pro-anorexia websites and publications. Health Minister Roselyne Bachelot claimed that “giving young girls advice about how to lie to their doctors…and encouraging them to torture themselves whenever they take any kind of food is not part of liberty of expression” (Yoo, 2008).
Pro-Anorexic websites, known as pro-Ana sites by their fans, encourage the “anorexic lifestyle” and are focused on maintaining the illness rather than advocating recovery. Viewers exchange tips on how to reduce caloric intake, increase exercise, hide weight loss, and methods of punishment to use on themselves when they have eaten “forbidden” foods (Henry, 2007). Research shows that, even for healthy young women, viewing such websites induces depressed mood, low self-esteem, and increased body dissatisfaction (“Call to Ban Pro-Anorexia Websites”, 2009). Social networking sites such as Facebook and Myspace, who are allowed to censor information, have previously shut down groups that were deemed dangerous or were advocating dangerous behaviors; however, they claim that many groups relate to controversial topics and that this alone is not a reason to disable a group. Thus, instead of censoring these groups, they are collaborating with organizations like B-eat to promote ads advocating recovery on these groups so that members are seeing positive messages as well ("Pro-Anorexia Site Clampdown Urged,” 2008).
The French government recently approved a bill that would impose a penalty of up to 3 years in jail and heavy fines against those advocating pro-anorexia websites and publications. Health Minister Roselyne Bachelot claimed that “giving young girls advice about how to lie to their doctors…and encouraging them to torture themselves whenever they take any kind of food is not part of liberty of expression” (Yoo, 2008).
Pro-Anorexic websites, known as pro-Ana sites by their fans, encourage the “anorexic lifestyle” and are focused on maintaining the illness rather than advocating recovery. Viewers exchange tips on how to reduce caloric intake, increase exercise, hide weight loss, and methods of punishment to use on themselves when they have eaten “forbidden” foods (Henry, 2007). Research shows that, even for healthy young women, viewing such websites induces depressed mood, low self-esteem, and increased body dissatisfaction (“Call to Ban Pro-Anorexia Websites”, 2009). Social networking sites such as Facebook and Myspace, who are allowed to censor information, have previously shut down groups that were deemed dangerous or were advocating dangerous behaviors; however, they claim that many groups relate to controversial topics and that this alone is not a reason to disable a group. Thus, instead of censoring these groups, they are collaborating with organizations like B-eat to promote ads advocating recovery on these groups so that members are seeing positive messages as well ("Pro-Anorexia Site Clampdown Urged,” 2008).
10/17 : Introduction
Currently, there are over 500 websites advocating pro-anorexic or pro-bulimic behaviors ("Pro-Anorexia Site Clampdown Urged," 2008). Governments are strictly forbidden from interfering with any such distribution of information, as broadly encompassed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Is this a healthcare issue? Should we be concerned because a growing number of young females are developing eating disorders and insurances are paying millions of dollars for the treatment of these disorders? If we can help prevent some individuals from needing these services, why aren’t we doing so?
Is this a human rights issue? Should all individuals have the right to share any information without censorship, regardless of the psychological damage it causes to others?
Or is this a social issue? Do we have the responsibility, as fellow humans, to protect a vulnerable population (such as individuals with eating disorders) from inadvertently harming themselves?
How do we begin to address such a broad topic when both a fundamental human right and a fundamental human responsibility lie at the core of the issue? That is exactly what I intend to investigate.
Letter To Ana
Dear Ana:
I offer you my soul, my heart and my bodily functions. I give you all my earthly possessions.
I seek your wisdom, your faith and your feather weight. I pledge to obtain the ability to float, to lower my weight to the single digits, I pledge to stare into space, to fear food, and to see obese images in the mirror. I will worship you and pledge to be a faithful servant until death does us part.
If I cheat on you and procreate with Ronald McDonald, Dave Thomas, the colonel or that cute little dog. I will kneel over my toilet and thrust my fingers deep in my throat and pray for your forgiveness.
Please Ana, don't give up on me. I'm so weak, I know, but only you with your strength inside me will I become a woman worthy of love and respect. I'm begging for you not to give up, I'm pleading with my shallow breathes and my pale skin. I bleed for you, suffer leg pains, headaches and fainting spells. My love for you makes me dizzy and confused I don't know whether I'm coming or going. Men run when they see the love I have for you and never return. But they aren't important to me all that's important is that you love me.
If you stay with me, I will worship you daily, I will run miles a day, come rain, snow, bitter cold or searing heat I will run from the pain and in fright. I will do 1,000 sit ups a day and lie to my family about what I eat and how I feel. I will stop weeping when I feel your warm arms embrace my shivering body. I will numb the hunger pains with razor blades and your strength.
Today, I renew our friendship and resolve to be faithful to you year long, life long. I begin each year with a 3 day fast in honor of you. If you give me the strength to fade away I will love you and worship you forever.
When I'm finally faded to nothing, when you've given me the gift of ending this torturous life. I will float on to the next world and be thin and beautiful payment for my undying love for you in this world.
I ask only one more thing you, please Ana, remove me from this hell, from this world ASAP. Please take away this hatred for my pain and allow me to be free and light.
I offer you my soul, my heart and my bodily functions. I give you all my earthly possessions.
I seek your wisdom, your faith and your feather weight. I pledge to obtain the ability to float, to lower my weight to the single digits, I pledge to stare into space, to fear food, and to see obese images in the mirror. I will worship you and pledge to be a faithful servant until death does us part.
If I cheat on you and procreate with Ronald McDonald, Dave Thomas, the colonel or that cute little dog. I will kneel over my toilet and thrust my fingers deep in my throat and pray for your forgiveness.
Please Ana, don't give up on me. I'm so weak, I know, but only you with your strength inside me will I become a woman worthy of love and respect. I'm begging for you not to give up, I'm pleading with my shallow breathes and my pale skin. I bleed for you, suffer leg pains, headaches and fainting spells. My love for you makes me dizzy and confused I don't know whether I'm coming or going. Men run when they see the love I have for you and never return. But they aren't important to me all that's important is that you love me.
If you stay with me, I will worship you daily, I will run miles a day, come rain, snow, bitter cold or searing heat I will run from the pain and in fright. I will do 1,000 sit ups a day and lie to my family about what I eat and how I feel. I will stop weeping when I feel your warm arms embrace my shivering body. I will numb the hunger pains with razor blades and your strength.
Today, I renew our friendship and resolve to be faithful to you year long, life long. I begin each year with a 3 day fast in honor of you. If you give me the strength to fade away I will love you and worship you forever.
When I'm finally faded to nothing, when you've given me the gift of ending this torturous life. I will float on to the next world and be thin and beautiful payment for my undying love for you in this world.
I ask only one more thing you, please Ana, remove me from this hell, from this world ASAP. Please take away this hatred for my pain and allow me to be free and light.
Ana Commandments
1. If you aren't thin you aren't attractive.
2. Being thin is more important than being healthy.
3. You must buy clothes, style your hair, take laxatives, starve yourself, do anything to make yourself look thinner.
4. Thou shall not eat without feeling guilty.
5. Thou shall not eat fattening food without punishing oneself afterwards.
6. Thou shall count calories and restrict intake accordingly.
7. What the scale says is the most important thing.
8. Losing weight is good/gaining weight is bad.
9. You can never be too thin.
10. Being thin and not eating are signs of true will power and success.
2. Being thin is more important than being healthy.
3. You must buy clothes, style your hair, take laxatives, starve yourself, do anything to make yourself look thinner.
4. Thou shall not eat without feeling guilty.
5. Thou shall not eat fattening food without punishing oneself afterwards.
6. Thou shall count calories and restrict intake accordingly.
7. What the scale says is the most important thing.
8. Losing weight is good/gaining weight is bad.
9. You can never be too thin.
10. Being thin and not eating are signs of true will power and success.
Ana Recipe
Recipe: Anorexia
Servings: One
Note: The recipe you are about to make is an acquired taste.
Ingredients:
1 cup low self-esteem
2 cup self-control
3/4 cup determination
1 1/2 strength
2/3 cup solitude
2 Tbsp routine
3 Tbsp secrecy and lies
2 tsp jealousy
3 tsp guilt
a dash of anger
and 1/2 cup tears (optional)
Directions:
Combine all ingredients and mix in a fragile soul.
Beat until all feeling is gone.
Place in a shallow bowl and serve with a tall glass of Diet coke.
Dish is ready to enjoy - guaranteed to disappear right before your eyes!!
Servings: One
Note: The recipe you are about to make is an acquired taste.
Ingredients:
1 cup low self-esteem
2 cup self-control
3/4 cup determination
1 1/2 strength
2/3 cup solitude
2 Tbsp routine
3 Tbsp secrecy and lies
2 tsp jealousy
3 tsp guilt
a dash of anger
and 1/2 cup tears (optional)
Directions:
Combine all ingredients and mix in a fragile soul.
Beat until all feeling is gone.
Place in a shallow bowl and serve with a tall glass of Diet coke.
Dish is ready to enjoy - guaranteed to disappear right before your eyes!!
Ana Creed
I believe in Control, the only force mighty enough to bring order to the chaos that is my world.
I believe that I am the most vile, worthless and useless person ever to have existed on this planet, and that I am totally unworthy of anyone's time and attention.
I believe that other people who tell me differently must be idiots. If they could see how I really am, then they would hate me almost as much as I do.
I believe in oughts, musts and shoulds as unbreakable laws to determine my daily behavior.
I believe in perfection and strive to attain it.
I believe in salvation through trying just a bit harder than I did yesterday.
I believe in calorie counters as the inspired word of god, and memorize them accordingly.
I believe in bathroom scales as an indicator of my daily successes and failures
I believe in hell, because I sometimes think that I'm living in it.
I believe in a wholly black and white world, the losing of weight, recrimination for sins, the abnegation of the body and a life ever fasting.
I believe that I am the most vile, worthless and useless person ever to have existed on this planet, and that I am totally unworthy of anyone's time and attention.
I believe that other people who tell me differently must be idiots. If they could see how I really am, then they would hate me almost as much as I do.
I believe in oughts, musts and shoulds as unbreakable laws to determine my daily behavior.
I believe in perfection and strive to attain it.
I believe in salvation through trying just a bit harder than I did yesterday.
I believe in calorie counters as the inspired word of god, and memorize them accordingly.
I believe in bathroom scales as an indicator of my daily successes and failures
I believe in hell, because I sometimes think that I'm living in it.
I believe in a wholly black and white world, the losing of weight, recrimination for sins, the abnegation of the body and a life ever fasting.
Letter from Ana found on many pro-ana websites
Allow me to introduce myself. My name, or as I am called by so called "doctors," is Anorexia. Anorexia Nervosa is my full name, but you may call me Ana. Hopefully we can become great partners. In the coming time, I will invest a lot of time in you, and I expect the same from you.
In the past you have heard all of your teachers and parents talk about you. You are "so mature," "intelligent," "14 going on 45," and "you possess so much potential." Where has that gotten you, may I ask? Absolutely nowhere! You are not perfect, you do not try hard enough, and you furthermore waste your time on thinking and talking with friends and drawing! Such acts of indulgence shall not be allowed in the future.
Your friends do not understand you. They are not truthful. In the past, when the insecurity has quietly gnawed away at your mind, and you asked them, "Do I look . . . fat?" and they answered "Oh no, of course not," you knew they were lying! Only I tell the truth. Your parents, let's not even go there! You know that they love you, and care for you, but part of that is just that they are your parents and are obligated to do so. I shall tell you a secret now: Deep down inside themselves, they are disappointed with you. Their daughter, the one with so much potential, has turned into a fat, lazy, and undeserving girl.
But I am about to change all that. I will expect you to drop your calorie intake and up your exercise. I will push you to the limit. You must take it because you cannot defy me! I am beginning to embed myself into you. Pretty soon, I am with you always. I am there when you wake up in the morning and run to the scale. The numbers become both friend and enemy, and the frenzied thoughts pray for them to be lower than yesterday, last night, etc. You look into the mirror with dismay. You prod and poke at the fat that is there, and smile when you come across bone. I am there when you figure out the plan for the day: 400 calories, two hours exercise. I am the one figuring this out, because by now my thoughts and your thoughts are blurred together as one. I follow you throughout the day. In school, when your mind wanders I give you something to think about. Recount the calories for the day. It's too much. I fill your mind with thoughts of food, weight, calories, and things that are safe to think about. Because now, I am already inside of you. I am in your head, your heart, and your soul. The hunger pains you pretend not to feel is me, inside of you.
Pretty soon I am telling you not only what to do with food, but what to do ALL of the time. Smile and nod. Present yourself well. Suck in that fat stomach, dammit! God, you are such a fat cow!!!! When mealtimes come around I tell you what to do. I make a plate of lettuce seem like a feast fit for a king. Push the food around. Make it look like you've eaten something. No piece of anything . . . if you eat, all the control will be broken . . . do you WANT that?? To revert back to the fat COW you once were?? I force you to stare at magazine models. Those perfect-skinned, white-teethed, waifish models of perfection staring out at you from those glossy pages. I make you realize that you could never be them. You will always be fat and never will you be as beautiful as they are. When you look in the mirror, I will distort the image. I will show you obesity and hideousness. I will show you a sumo wrestler where in reality there is a starving child. But you must not know this, because if you knew the truth, you might start to eat again and our relationship would come crashing down.
Sometimes you will rebel. Hopefully not often though. You will recognize the small rebellious fiber left in your body and will venture down to the dark kitchen. The cupboard door will slowly open, creaking softly. Your eyes will move over the food that I have kept at a safe distance from you. You will find your hands reaching out, lethargically, like a nightmare, through the darkness to the box of crackers. You shove them in, mechanically, not really tasting but simply relishing in the fact that you are going against me. You reach for another box, then another, then another. Your stomach will become bloated and grotesque, but you will not stop yet. And all the time I am screaming at you to stop, you fat cow, you really have no self-control, you are going to get fat.
When it is over you will cling to me again, ask me for advice because you really do not want to get fat. You broke a cardinal rule and ate, and now you want me back. I'll force you into the bathroom, onto your knees, staring into the void of the toilet bowl. Your fingers will be inserted into your throat, and, not without a great deal of pain, your food binge will come up. Over and over this is to be repeated, until you spit up blood and water and you know it is all gone. When you stand up, you will feel dizzy. Don't pass out. Stand up right now. You fat cow, you deserve to be in pain! Maybe the choice of getting rid of the guilt is different. Maybe I chose to make you take laxatives, where you sit on the toilet until the wee hours of the morning, feeling your insides cringe. Or perhaps I just make you hurt yourself, bang your head into the wall until you receive a throbbing headache. Cutting is also effective. I want you to see your blood, to see it fall down your arm, and in that split second you will realize you deserve whatever pain I give you. You are depressed, obsessed, in pain, hurting, reaching out, but no one will listen. Who cares?!?!! You are deserving; you brought this upon yourself.
Oh, is this harsh? Do you not want this to happen to you? Am I unfair? I do do things that will help you. I make it possible for you to stop thinking of emotions that cause you stress. Thoughts of anger, sadness, desperation, and loneliness can cease because I take them away and fill your head with the methodical calorie counting. I take away your struggle to fit in with kids your age, the struggle of trying to please everyone as well. Because now, I am your only friend, and I am the only one you need to please.
I have a weak spot. But we must not tell anyone. If you decide to fight back, to reach out to someone and tell them about how I make you live, all hell will break lose. No one must find out, no one can crack this shell that I have covered you with. I have created you, this thin, perfect, achieving child. You are mine and mine alone. Without me, you are nothing. So do not fight back. When others comment, ignore them. Take it into stride, forget about them, forget about everyone who tries to take me away. I am your greatest asset, and I intend to keep it that way.
Sincerely,
Ana
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)