The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Pin-up children > Comments

Pin-up children : Comments

By Melinda Tankard Reist, published 29/7/2008

Something should be done to rein in the behaviour of advertisers who see children as a gold mine to be plundered.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Australian politicians are only interested in their own survival at the next election; they need money to fight elections, and they are not going to upset sections of the community who will probably put money into their war chests.

The Advertising Standards Board is a quango which, as the author says, is “…not all that fond of complainants.”

I remember some time ago a person of my acquaintance being virtually insulted by the Board when she made a complaint and going to her local MP, then a Minister in the Federal Government. The Minister was also told what the complainant was told – that the complaint was ‘trivial’.

Australians can no longer feel that our society is protected by our elected representatives, nor by the misnamed “authorities” who either have no authority, or who are interested only in hanging onto their well-paid sinecures without putting any effort in.

The added complication, of course, is the parents who are breaking their necks to get their kids into advertising and other adult areas just for the money.

The alleged response to complaints by one ASB member should lead to severe sanction. But, we all know that he /she would get off scot-free because of another bunch of useless dopes on another board.

We may as well go back to self-regulation of everything, and save the money we are paying people who are doing absolutely nothing for a good laugh.

The author’s demolition of the silly cop out of this committee of dead heads about no complaints against “Dolly” is right on the mark. The magazine’s readers wouldn’t know any better because they have never been taught right from wrong, good taste from bad, and they will never learn while we have total idiots on boards and committees.

And that brings us back to idiot parents who should, when all said and done, be providing guidance for the children, not relying on do-nothing boards made up of people we don’t even know.
Posted by Mr. Right, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 12:43:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'The increasing number of sexist advertisements shown, compounded with the small number ever withdrawn, works to give the impression that sexist advertising is tolerable.”
'

How do they know it's not tolerable? Oh, that's right, the whinging minority that knows what's best for the rest of the community says it's not tolerable. They are the purveyors of good taste.

Somehow I still cant imagine why authors of books titled as 'Sex in Public: Women, outdoor advertising and public policy' only ever see sexism as a problem for women. Maybe it is. I know I only ever see the double standard in feminist bleaters and have fun imagining the uproar if ads demeaning men's sexuality or body image were applied to women. But no men seem to complain about these ads. And the feminists don't either, so it makes me think they are not actually against sexism per-se, just sexism where it may affect women.

I don't remember any of these wowsers complaining about advertising like the beer advert where a woman mutilates phallic symbols on the beach, or where a guy only lasts long enough in bed for an instant soup to cook in the microwave, or the variety of ads where men are somehow terrified of feminine hygene products, or of the fat guy at the pool having six women laughing together at his beer gut.

So, maybe it's just women who mind. Or maybe it only matters if women's body image is threatened. Or is it just a few hyper-sensitive do-gooders? I think of the large female audiences who can laugh at the footy show, and the women I know who laugh at advertising with sexual themes and inuendo. Oh, that's right, they know not how they are victimised.

Or is it just a 'think of the children' hysteria? If so, why are boys in no danger of being 'sexualised'? Is their sexuality and body image just not as precious as girls? Or if men are immune to the effects of advertising and body image problems, why is this so?
Posted by Usual Suspect, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 1:07:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“At last, we thought, our elected representatives think this issue warrants serious attention.”

As with the many other serious social issues besetting the Australian polity, the sexualisation of children in this country is driven by a powerful unified set of ideas, notions and accompanying values, that together form the everyday worldview of those who own or control (manage) the profit-driven corporate media giants and their advertising and marketing offshoots. Many of the latter firms are foreign owned.

Moreover, like the issues of rising un(der)employment, the casualisation of labour, homelessness, mortgage stress, credit card debt, white-collar crime, neglect of the elderly, and the increasing impoverishment of families of Australians with dependent disabilities, the sexualisation of children issue can also be observed in many other parts of the world including, in particular, all of the so-called ‘advanced’, Capitalist, Christian democracies.

A central value and tenet of democracy is that of ‘freedom’, a notion that also underpins the neo-liberal economic ideology dominating so many lives world-wide, including the worldviews, values and priorities of our senior ‘people’s representatives’ and ‘executive’ public servants.

Under a Free Market system, every thing and every body – including, today, even body parts – becomes a commodity to be bought and sold. Indoctrinated by the dominant worldviews and values of corporate and academic ‘players’ worldwide, Australian governments of all political shades have de-regulated (‘freed up’), privatised and re-structured huge numbers of public assets and services, giving their new owners virtual ‘carte blanche’ (a free hand) to do as they wish, in their endless quest for ‘increased market share’ … of profits. Advertising and marketing ‘gurus’ continue to inform the politically naive that … ‘sex sells’!

With ‘wealth creation’ a predominant value of the ‘key players’ among Australian business, political, academic and religious leaders, the “failure of the Senate inquiry into the sexualisation of children” (and thereby shape a better society) ought surely come as no surprise.
Posted by Sowat, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 1:52:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The 'Nandos' advertisement which has so offended Ms Reist, showed that a woman who happens to be a stripper, also has a healthy family life and cooks wholesome meals.

Is it the fact she chooses to be a stripper, or the fact that the advertisement shows 'normal' people can do this which has Melinda so upset?
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 2:10:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ding...... What have I been saying all this time before this article was published?

Tankard reist is exactly as i described and the intentions are exactly as i described.
Posted by Steel, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 3:03:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“Does Dolly tell dear reader that she can refuse such demands? No”

Oh please Melinda, surely you are not suggesting that any girl doesn’t realise that she has the right to refuse requests or even strong demands from her boyfriend. No girl is going to think that she has to be a sex slave to her partner or has to do what she is told.

“They just give a clinical description of each, with no advice at all apart from using ‘protection’ “

And what’s wrong with that? A neutral presentation without advice as to whether a girl should or shouldn’t do it sounds perfectly sensible to me.

This sort of thing pervades the whole article. That is; an air of overprotection or of the need for authorities or magazines or companies or advertising agencies to guide girls in the right direction, specifically being the direction of nil expression of sexuality or anything remotely risqué.

Quite frankly, I haven’t seen anything inappropriate regarding the mooted sexualisation of kids. There probably is some inappropriate stuff out there, but gee, how much of a concern is it really?

Yes I think we need to develop comprehensive legal parameters for what is appropriate and what isn’t. But I’d put those parameters on the more lenient side rather than the more restrictive side to anything that I have seen.

We need to free up on this sort of thing…NOT tighten up.
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 3:10:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Turnrightthenleft......perhaps you should be asking the over 200 people who complained about the nandos ad. For my part, it is not wanting to see a naked woman waggling her naked ass in a man's face while waiting to see a movie with my children.
Posted by Elka, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 3:36:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Oh please Melinda, surely you are not suggesting that any girl doesn’t realise that she has the right to refuse requests or even strong demands from her boyfriend. No girl is going to think that she has to be a sex slave to her partner or has to do what she is told"

Those that work with young people are well aware of the pressure young women feel to submit to their partners increasingly bizarre requests. A statement to the effect of "you don't have to participate" or "someone who respects you wouldn't pressure you" is appropriate considering the age of the audience they are trying to speak to about anal sex!
Posted by Elka, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 3:39:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Elka, how many thousands or millions of Australians DID NOT COMPLAIN? That is the real question and you seem to not care about their opinions.

I would complain at the presence of a priest next to a child, but would you listen to my complaint? No. If you have personal hangups then those are your own problem. Some people are offended by all nudity, all pornography including many other things. Some by religion. Some by two men kissing on a tv screen in front of children. Are you listening to those people and going to ban it all, including homosexuality to Protect the Children?

Also I have one last point. Elka do you support legalised murder of unborn children? People generally refer to it as abortion.
Posted by Steel, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 4:03:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Melinda's totally correct.

Who with a brain doubts that its the advertsing boys who have corrupted a whole society with their promiscuity?

Take them out of play and the rape, sex molester, paedophile levels would drop hugely.

Dont get put off by some of the critics here Melinda.
OLO is well known for a small circle of pagans and antichrists who delve in sexual immorality frequently.
Posted by Gibo, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 4:17:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gibo,

You're comments are unjustified on this thread. They are also slanderous.

I have a go at a lot of the rubbish you post so that forum members know that not all Christians are crackpots like you, but I never slander you. Have a look at the comments you have made about me, and also many others. I take it all because I give it. This time you have overstepped the mark, and I've recommended you're post for deletion.

There is no such thing as a Nudist Colony, and as you have never attended a nudist club I would suggest that you have no idea what happens there. I have attended churches that teach a lot of the rubbish you believe, and I have been hurt by it, and believe me Gibo, one of these days you will too when you find out that you are the one that is in fact deceived by Satan.
Posted by Steel Mann, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 4:59:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If you want to be sexually immoral Steel Mann you will become sexually immoral. The Holy Bible sets the standard and you reject it.
Your behaviour here is unscriptural encouraging nakedness and attacking me when I was trying to help others.
I just pointed out your sin.
Christ didnt die for your sins that you could wander around without clothes on.
Was He naked on the Cross?
No!...and if not...why do you take your clothes off and wander around naked?
Maybe The Lord will turn you over to satan to make it clear.
Posted by Gibo, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 5:55:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gibo, was Christ slandering others on the cross? If not, why do you slander others? What's in your heart is surely more important to Christ than what you're wearing, and as far as I can see you're not a Christian by the standards that Jesus set
Posted by Veronika, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 6:35:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello, Gibo’s comments on Steel Mann’s nudist pursuits have been deleted.

This has left Steel Mann looking half loopy by responding to now non-existent comments (:>|

^^^^

“A statement to the effect of 'you don't have to participate' or 'someone who respects you wouldn't pressure you' is appropriate…”

Fair enough Elka. But not mandatory. Surely voluntary on the part of the magazine’s editor. Neutrality is surely quite ok. It is not the role of the editor or the author of an article to be parent or school teacher, is it?

I find it interesting that you picked up on this point in my last post but did not comment on my conclusion:

“We need to free up on this sort of thing…NOT tighten up.”
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 8:27:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Elka's comment:

"perhaps you should be asking the over 200 people who complained about the nandos ad. For my part, it is not wanting to see a naked woman waggling her naked ass in a man's face while waiting to see a movie with my children."

Although I disagree with most censorship and don't have a problem with the aforementioned ass-waggling, Elka does have a point. There are undoubtedly quite a number of people who do have a problem with this, though we're faced with a situation where there are two competing demands - those who have a problem and want it off their screens, and those who would vehemently oppose such an action.

Seems to me the solution is to have a channel that's tuned to these delicate sensibilities, separate to other channels, to satisfy both avenues.
Granted, the programming would probably be banal and I suspect there would be a large amount of Christian-themed offerings, but at least it would be something for those who are concerned about such things.

Perhaps if digital TV finally takes hold in Australia, there will be more channel options. Until then, I guess it's majority rules, and I really don't think the majority takes these issues as seriously as other, well... more serious issues.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 9:13:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I was going to make a sensible comment about this rather muddle-headed article, but after reading Gibo's posts I can't keep a straight keyboard.

<< OLO is well known for a small circle of pagans and antichrists who delve in sexual immorality frequently >>

Too funny folks - we're famous! I just can't work out whether I'm a pagan or an antichrist, or both.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 10:00:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ who's been hanging around outside your bedroom window counting how often that you are sexually immoral ;) You need better blinds my friend and maybe a guard dog. Glad for you that it's frequently.

I'm all for some control over advertising. Those annoying messages on the large boards ouside a lot of churches should go - better still have a right of reply board on a neighbouring property. That could be fun working out creative responses to the silly messages.

On topic does anybody have a copy of that issue of Dolly to check the focus of the mentioned article. If Melinda's claim is correct and there is no mention that saying no is an option it does seems irresponsible given the target audience.

I would hope that most kids have learnt that they can say no but when I consider some of the attitudes to sex education I've read on OLO I have to assume that some kids have been isolated from the information they might need. Maybe that includes the idea that there are options, that they can say no even when things have already gone further than planned.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 10:21:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TUS asks "...is it just a 'think of the children' hysteria? If so, why are boys in no danger of being 'sexualised'? Is their sexuality and body image just not as precious as girls?"

Important point and one that the author doesn't address. Why are boys not sexualised as girls are? Because their sexuality and body image are actually more precious than girls, that's why. If boys appeared the way girls do in advertising or music clips, they would be assumed to be gay (which of course would be terrible). Imagine boys posing the way girls do in advertisements and music clips and you should get the picture.

Under a free market system, sex does indeed sell as does sexism. However, there are limits. I don't think gay magazines will be advertised on the 3-4pm time slot on most commercial stations anytime soon.
Posted by DavidJS, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 11:16:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gibo,
You are wrong about me being sexually immoral. The nudist movement is sexually nothing. Anyone exhibiting any type of sexual behaviour at a nudist club will be asked to leave.
You say that you've never met a Christian Nudist, well neither had I until I got involved in the movement. The fact is that for me and all my Christian nudist friends, Christ comes first in our lives.
Nowhere in the Bible in nudity condemned. If you think it is, please provide me with the chapter and verse, and I will respond. Believe me, we Christian Nudists have heard all the arguments against us before and know how to respond.
Your attack on me, that has now been deleted was unjustified as I had not even posted anything on this thread at the time of your post. Your are entitled to express your opinion, but if you want to attack my views (like I do with you) make sure it is justified, and in context with the discussion. I haven't always attacked you. Sometimes I have actually agreed with some of your comments although I provided alternative ideas.

For those who didn't see Gibo's original post, he was suggesting that I liked to expose myself to young innocent girls, and was suggesting that I was a paedophile.

I see Gibo as a very miserable, angry man who has had all the happiness sucked out of his life. He shows no love whatsoever towards his fellow man and he is caught up in a very legalistic brand of Christianity.

By the way Gibo, Christ was crucified naked. That was standard Roman proceedure of crucifixion. Most Bible Scholars will agree.
Posted by Steel Mann, Wednesday, 30 July 2008 8:32:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ok, here it is Melinda Tankard Reist:

-=-=--=-=--=-=-=-=-=
"Why was it not mentioned that Melinda Tankard Reist is a prominent member of the Right to Life, and was an adviser to the former Senator Brian Harridane? She is approaching this topic on the basis of the Catholic church's opposition to any sex outside of marriage. It is dishonest journalism not to declare where panelists are coming from."
-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Brian.................Harradine..............the most staunchly repugnant Catholic and rabidly anti-pornography, pro-censorship senator I can think of to have ever been in government recently.

So Melinda Tankard Reist is Catholic (or has connections and shared interests with them) Right-to-Life "feminist", chairing a:

"Women's forum", as described in Melinda Tankard Reist's profile. However none of this is disclosed by her here on OLO. And that my friends is deliberate concealment and private agendas the success of which is extreme considering this author's connections or prior connections to Brian Harradine (which I have not checked, but i checked the Right-to-Life connection) and his influence in politics.

Everything I have said about feminism and religion is correct and can be seen at play here. Now lets read Melinda Tankard Reist's profile here:

=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=
Melinda Tankard Reist is a Canberra-based writer and researcher with a special interest in women’s health, new reproductive technologies and medical abuses of women. She is author of Giving Sorrow Words: Women's Stories of Grief after Abortion and Defiant Birth: Women Who Resist Medical Eugenics (Spinifex Press). Melinda Tankard Reist is a director of Women’s Forum Australia and editor of Faking It which can be obtained from
-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=

Sounds 'nice' doesn't it? She has deliberately concealed in her description the information that is extremely important.
Posted by Steel, Wednesday, 30 July 2008 3:31:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
More of Melinda’s hysteria.

Parents are those in charge of arbitrating and administering what they feel is appropriate and in the best interests of their children, not “Child development experts, educators and women and girls’ advocacy groups,”

Parents can choose to ignore the pay-for-service advise of experts and the tax–for-service aspirations of bureaucratic know-alls.

A few years ago one of my daughters teachers complained about her reading Dolly, my response was, better Dolly than nothing at all.

If the way my daughter has turned out is any guide, there was no harm attributable from that magazine.

Better the government worked to support the parents of children than listen to a bunch of raving loons who get hysterical about everything and see sexualisation and sexual exploitation in everything

We will all suffer more from the dead hand of pointless government regulation, designed to arbitrarily control public taste (= stifling creativity and individual discretion), just like the Henson fiasco,

than being exposed to the “subjective” excesses of a few advertisers, the output of which can be readily quarantined through parents exercising their existing discretion.

US, wise observations to the double standard of Melinda Wowser & Co
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 31 July 2008 12:11:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Melinda

As a parent, educationalist and feminist who shares your same concerns at the damaging effects of advertising, both on young girls and more broadly, thank you again for having your finger on the pulse on this issue and for keeping us informed.

Col Rouge

"A few years ago one of my daughters teachers complained about her reading Dolly, my response was, better Dolly than nothing at all."

I presume that would have been your same response had she been reading The Manifesto or The Quoran?

Having being charged with your child's education, the teacher had every right to be concerned if he/she observed the shallow content of the likes of Dolly, as I have, elbowing out the reading of more meaningful and challenging material. Any teacher making such a complaint would have been acting out of justifiable concern and genuine interest in your daughter's education. For you to dismiss such advice so flippantly is typical of your arrogance.

"We will all suffer more from the dead hand of pointless government regulation ... than being exposed to the 'subjective' excesses of a few advertisers, the output of which can be readily quarantined through parents exercising their existing discretion."

How exactly are parents to 'quarantine' the advertising 'excesses of a few advertisers'? Do you envisage they monitor their children's exposure to advertising around the clock and step in when it seems excessive? Or do they prevent their children from reading magazines, watching television, attending movies, using the internet, listening to the radio, reading billboards and strolling through shopping malls? Get real, Col. How exactly can parents 'readily quarantine' advertising excesses? It's a total absurdity to suggest that marketeers should have free reign to advertise as they please, and that it's up to parents to somehow protect their children when advertisers overstep the mark. It's not the 'excesses of a few' that are at issue anyway, as much as it is the relentless insidious onslaught of the majority.
Posted by Bronwyn, Friday, 1 August 2008 12:05:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bronwyn “Having being charged with your child's education, the teacher had every right to be concerned if he/she observed the shallow content of the likes of Dolly,”

Reading Dolly, as I said previously, is better than reading nothing, Bronwyn.

The practical art of reading is an acquired skill, not a natural one.

Anyway, Dolly or no Dolly, reading it got her into practice for reading house and mortgage contracts. She is about to buy her first investment property (already owns her own home (from age 21) and a bunch of share investments) and has the world at her feet.

“It's a total absurdity to suggest that marketeers should have free reign to advertise as they please”

So another bunch of wanna-be despots and public expense bureaucrats curbing the expression of once free folk into the straight-jacket of government prescribed and endorsed thinking.

No different to Hitlers treatment of Klimpt.

The dangers of "marketers having free-reign to advertise as they please"
offer far fewer 'dangers'

compared to the “morality, thinking and aesthetics police” you are proposing.

Actually the more recent parallel are the zealots of the Taliban and Iranians who made women cover themselves and destroyed the historic images of Buddha in Afghanistan, because such things offended their Muslim principles.

You are in good company Bronwyn.

“Get real, Col. How exactly can parents 'readily quarantine' advertising excesses?”

I found talking with my children always helped, making the advert the topic of critical analysis and discussing how we each felt about it.

Try it sometime, you might get to understand, yours is not the only view and ‘freedom of expression’ is only ever tested when we are required to tolerate other peoples (or “relentless insidious onslaught of the majority.”) equal right of ‘freedom of expression’ when we may personally disagree with it.
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 2 August 2008 1:22:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You quarantine them with private education and wisdom Bronwyn, as between parent and child. This is something that is no doubt an alien concept to you as a feminist who demands and expects state control.

I find it a little disappointing that knowing about Melinda's hidden agenda and deceit here on OLO and elsewhere has not altered your position -instead it seems to have strengthened it as you show no signs of disturbance or acknowledgement at her position within the heart of the feminist movement in Australia, unless perhaps you knew already, you did not read my comment above or you're simpy putting your head in the sand, repeating the thought, "At Any Price" to yourself.
Posted by Steel, Monday, 4 August 2008 3:18:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I was going to respond to Bronwyn, but Col stepped in and said everything I wanted to say:-(
Posted by Usual Suspect, Monday, 4 August 2008 3:39:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy