A Therapist's Opinion on TV Show "To The Bone"

[Mole]

Sylvia Plath had a point of view. It's most apparent in her poem Lady Lazarus, where she compares doctors to nazis. I'm not sure how well people pick up on that but it is incredibly apparent to me because of similar experiences leading me to a similar point of view. She could be accused of idealizing mental illness. She could be accused of frightening people away from mental health services by referring to doctors as nazis. And obviously she could be accused of inappropriately referencing the Holocaust. But it was her art and it was her and it was sincere and true to her experiences. So how could it be wrong?

Some feminists have valorised Sylvia Plath and demonised her husband, Ted Hughes.

The facts are that Sylvia was psychotic well before she met Ted and had already made a serious suicide attempt.

The psychology of their relationship is interesting: Ted was a successful and balanced poet because he was deeply in touch with his unconscious, while Sylvia wanted to be a poet but was out of touch with her toxic unconscious.

Sylvia married Ted in the hope of becoming a poet like Ted. Ted sought to help her become a poet by getting her in touch with her unconscious. And he was successful: he succeeded in getting Sylvia in touch with her toxic unconscious, enabling her to write poetry, and also enabling her suicide.

 

[Mole]

[MENTION=3325]Mole[/MENTION]
Isn't it only comparable to drug promotion if people are making a disorder appealing and encouraging the behavior? Hopefully this show, and certainly others, are trying to increase awareness so that people don't exacerbate the problem of eating disorders by making statements like "well that's natural selection if they get triggered" implying that people deserve to get sick or die if they have a mental illness, the root of which results from powerful environmental and chemical influences.

I do appreciate the foundational point that [MENTION=22178]magpie[/MENTION] is making when she states that people with mental illnesses and emotional issues deserve to speak out and tell their story and to not be hushed by society because what they say isn't pretty and doesn't work on an inspirational poster. I have a lot to say artistically about emotional trauma and pain, but absolutely feel that stifling effect. I feel concern that people will misunderstand it as promotion, or that employers could even fire me to talking about such horrible things in my art. Instead society makes us all feel like all we can say is stuff like "think positive and you'll get everything you want'. Or "Hang in their baby, you'll be fine." There is a tremendous amount of dismissal, and yes, it is complicated because people interpret information all different ways. There are people that copy behaviors without thinking about consequences, so it is possible to make a stand against a destructive behavior and have people hear you, but then start doing it instead of understanding the warning.

This is because a lot of human beings have self-destructive issues, but that also makes it more important to talk about these self-destructive issues and figure out how they start, how they get triggered, and how to stop them. They are incredibly powerful and the case of anorexia is especially powerful because it can distort perceptions and it can result in death. Someone needs to talk about it and not just put expensive clothes on it and have it walk down the catwalk as some kind of unobtainable cultural ideal.

As a reaction to the Western Enlightenment of evidence and reason in the 18th century, Romanticism rose against the Enlightenment. And in particular, we Romanticised mental illness, we told ourselves the spectacular lie that mental illness and genius were only separated by a hair, that mental illness and genius were two sides of the same coin, that we can't tell the difference between mental illness and genius.

But every study shows that mental illness is inimical to creativity.

 

[Merced]

Claim #1: It is never healthy for anyone with a history of anorexia to attempt to lose weight.

Well, that's fucking stupid. Someone who has obtained the skills to overcome their disorder would clearly have an understanding of restraint. To use the alcoholism example they used, that ex-alcoholic got the help they needed and is now able to go to a bar and order one drink. To say she can't be active in her body image because she was chasing an extreme at one point in time is like saying "She shouldn't do this cause she fucked it up once and she'll fuck it up again." Super disrespectful to the progress she's made.

Claim #2: Media shouldn't depict eating disorder behaviours because it might encourage someone with an eating disorder. It's best to just pretend it doesn't exist.

Your summary of this claim is a misrepresentation. They are arguing that someone would watch the show and figure out ways to replicate it. They aren't saying to pretend it doesn't exist, they are saying to depict it less graphically.

This is where I think personal responsibility comes into play. Many argue that this show needs a detailed trigger warning beforehand, but I think it should be put in place at the creator's discretion. There's no question that the subject material could be triggering to some, but what a lot of people misunderstand about triggers is that if you acknowledge something as a trigger, you are developing ways to handle the stress it brings on. Some people having less coping skills than others should not result in censorship. Besides, it's not like this show will be in the kids section. People will know good and well what they are diving into. A brief warning beforehand would be understandable as long as it isn't intrusive.

The American ratings system needs to be revamped more than anything. Those are supposed to exist so trigger warning debates don't have to.

Claim #3: It is detrimental to cast someone in the part of a character with an eating disorder unless they can represent all affected populations at once. Otherwise, people might become confused that they have an eating disorder while someone different than them on TV has an eating disorder.

This claim is baseless because the show isn't fucking out yet. If anyone is stereotyping victims of eating disorders, it's the author of these claims.

Claim #4: It isn't right to cast a thin person as an anorexic character because it doesn't represent fuller figured people who have binge eating disorder or bulimia. (The diagnostic criteria for anorexia is an underweight BMI.)

My Claim #3 thoughts are still in place for this one. But ignoring that, let's say that the main character is an overweight person suffering from an eating disorder. Now we have thin people being underrepresented and the entire narrative being shifted. It's amazing how people forget that above all else, this is art and not an agenda. It's the story of someone with an eating disorder, not an educational pamphlet.

What do you think of her claims?

Misguided SJW bullshit that probably got surfaced on purpose to ride off of the 13 Reasons Why controversy. Huffington Post has been lazier and lazier about hiding their cash grab, Buzzfeed tier clickbait articles and I'm not surprised to see this from them. I will operate under the assumption that the therapist they are ripping this information from is well intentioned, as her credentials back it up, but skimming through this therapist's blog and I see no indication that she herself has suffered through this disorder. I'd like to think she has, sense she is so invested in this subject, but maybe these poor arguments are founded from an over abundance of sympathy and not enough of contextual empathy.

I also can't find mention of To the Bone on the therapist's blog.

EDIT: The article itself is written by her so no excuses there.

 

[Tilt]

She sounds absolutist with her claims and a bit too idealistic.

People with an history of anorexia can lose weight but they should work more closely with medical staff and a good support system.

The media should portray eating disorders to educate others because it can be yet another tool to counteract the pro-ana/pro-mia websites that people already frequent to perpetuate their own eating disorders.

Just because someone has had a history of anorexia doesn't mean that they need to be sheltered away from being exposed to things. People can be surprisingly resilient in resolving their issues so it doesn't necessarily affect them negatively. In fact, they may be able to portray the characters more realistically and help better inform the public.

Basically ANYONE can have anorexia so I don't understand her logic about how one character is supposed to represent the full spectrum.

 

[Smilephantomhive]

Okay so I watched it, and it was alright. Not the best not the worst. I loved the rain dance scene in it though.

But they did show someone with anorexia or bulimia that was fat, but they were a side character. One of the people struggling with the disorder was black, and there was even a male character struggling with it. So that claim 3 is disproved.

 

[Sil]

It seems strange to me that people must see their physical selves represented in a story in order to relate to a character.