You doth protest too much, Melinda. When I came to Australia 22 years ago, I was amazed at how much flesh was flashed, yet now it is more the norm, it is less of an issue for most.

http://movies.indiatimes.com/photo.cms?msid=1981536

Sigh...

Sheesh, Melinda focus on some real issues.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/thomas100806.htm

"The predators who control the sexual trafficking in children are well organized. They have thugs who snatch and break the resistance of children; banks who account the empire's profits without asking questions; ships that convey the hapless children from one continent to another and private planes that transport them to clients around the world.

Yet there is little or no cohesive and sustained war against this terrible evil. The United States and Britain try to stamp on the trafficking within its own borders. But as yet there is no universal challenge to the ever-growing sexual trafficking in children."

If a size 14 woman wants to get her kit off, where is the problem?

As most of these body "issues" are in women's magazines that are seldom read by men, and have arisen after the feminist movement, I would suggest that this ideal image is what women consider to be beautiful not men. The women appearing in men's mags would definitely not meet the slender requirements for women's mags.

This article is against women of all sizes trying to look "sexy" which I feel is driven less by feminism and more by "daddy issues".

great article melinda!

shadow minister, what men and/or women find beautiful is heavily influenced by environment. when bombarded by images of only thinness associated with sex and desire, eventually the majority of the population is going to find only thinness attractive.

thin is not universally upheld as the only way to look beautiful.

and please read the research melinda cited about the harms of sexualisation.

there is a big difference between wanting to be sexy vs being pressured to 'get your kit off' just to make a name for yourself. like that boom-boom-chk girl claire what's-her-name stripping for ralph magazine

'there is a big difference between wanting to be sexy vs being pressured to 'get your kit off' just to make a name for yourself like that boom-boom-chk girl claire'

LOL. Yes it's much better to give false accounts of a shooting to the media while using racist labels to 'make a name for yourself'. She sounds like she wouldn't need much pressure, unless you count the dazzling dollar signs as pressure. That an opportunist is milkin' it for all its worth, well, she's hardly a victim of pressure. Every woman's a victim...

'when bombarded by images of only thinness associated with sex and desire, eventually the majority of the population is going to find only thinness attractive. '

Well, seeing as though people still seem to be finding each other attractive, and bonking happily, and when you look at the obesity of the women (and men) seen all around us with this obesity epidemic, I think your fears are unfounded. It is harder to obtain thinness in our glutinous society, so thinness is used by women, via their magazines, as a competitive ideal. As men compete via fancy cars, share portfolios and growth hormones. Actually, it's easier to starve yourself and buy fake tits than to become filthy rich, have broad shoulders, a square jaw and a six pack. Women should count their blessings.

Regardless, sane people relate to the world around them, and see the fantasy in the media for what it is. Most of the men in the world are fantasising about the cute chick in the office with the nice smile and wiggle in her walk rather than some bland porcelain image in a magazine. That women don't get this, and then blame men for dictating they be stick thin models, is one of the many curiosities of society.

MTR,

>'Model facial features'.

What, you mean, pretty faces? Oh, that's right, we should have ugly people in beauty magazines. As I've said before, how far do we widen the definition of 'conventional beauty' until it includes ugly people?

>'doesn’t change the main goal of the advertising and fashion industries - presenting women as sexually alluring. '

Um, I would have thought that the main goal of these industries was to make money. Women often use clothes and cosmetics for sexual allure, so... putting two and two together... where does this problem originate again..? 'These clothes will make you look ugly! Get 'em now while they're hot!'

>'As for disclosing digital enhancement, the message still sent is that women are not good enough on their own - they all need “work” done, they all need to be altered in some way.'

As does every postcard, every food photo, every real estate photo, every damn photo. Every photo is a 'representation' of reality. There is no right and wrong in digital post processing, and it is based on aesthetics. EVERY photo is manipulated from start to finish, it's not some conspiracy against women.

>'a modeling contract - in what could be read as a reference to female dogs competing for the prize, whatever it takes.'

What, like that Donald Trump show, or any other reality TV show. It's the format people seem to like, you can apply it to anything. People like to see bitchiness and smugly get on their high horse and think they're better than that. Bitchiness from camp guys is especially popular with women for some reason.

>'It doesn’t want to use real and natural women who might have moles, freckles, blotchy skin and pimples.'

As if any travel brochures show the rubbish in the water around Circular Quay, on a cloudy day, with homeless people begging for change. So, basically you want them to not allow clothes and cosmetics to be advertised at all, or to advertise them by deliberately making them look unattractive, showing up all flaws as best as possible. What planet are you from?