Just one teeny nitpick ... I don't agree with the comment about Henson. If he were the one taking the video, I suspect his supporters would consider it great art and therefore above the law.

However, having said that. This is a fantastic essay. Yet again, Nina has shown that many young women today have not been fooled. That old gender double standard has not gone away - it's just been updated for modern consumption.

What a shame the ensuing commentary will grossly distort her essay's message into just another supposed feminist's attempt to supposedly hit men when they're suposedly down.

Now, let’s see … how does the script go again ...?

A few halfway decent comments might slip through before JamesH throws in one of his totally and completely 'relevant' links to some article written by some guy overseas somewhere (quite possibly funded by the Heritage Foundation)… about how some feminist entered a lift full of men, then farted, then ran out again before pressing the ‘Close Door’ button, leaving them trapped and gagging.

Then R0bert will write one of his tut-tut responses about how feminists should be very concerned that some extremists in their movement are resorting to this kind of behavior and is it any wonder that men are becoming too frightened to trust women.

And then Antiseptic, Seeker or one their MRM clones will write some comments about how feminists farting at men in lifts is typical of how dishonest women are – especially if the fart was loud as well.

And some feminists posters will try to suggest that, yes, some feminists might fart in lifts, but feminism shouldn’t be judged only on what a few extremists like this might do.

And some feminists might ask what on earth has this got to do with Nina’s point about double standards and mixed messages in Australian government advertising, but they will then be shouted down for being aggressive towards men, and dismissive of all the problems that afflict men these days, now that women have never had it so good.

Meanwhile, 200 posts later ...

I'm really not sure I understand the point here, but that may simply be because I am male, and of significantly more advanced years than the writer.

For a start, picking on a government advertisement for depicting illegal behaviour seems odd. There's one in NSW that shows a bloke coming out of a pub, getting into his car and eventually getting nicked. Seems - on the face of it - to be a perfectly normal approach: depict the behaviour, depict the consequences. The fact that the activity is illegal is actually a key component of the message.

The advert that concerns Ms. Funnell is one of a series, all working along identical lines. In one, some folk are in a pub, drink is consumed, a bit of jostling occurs, a punch is thrown, and a bystander is hurt. In another, some kids pick up some booze, wander along a road, one gets struck by a car. Cause, booze; effect, injury.

In this particular one, girls are seen drinking, then one gets herself into a situation that, the clip suggests, she might just possibly regret later. Cause, booze; effect, potential embarrassment

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

But apparently...

"the ad shames “loose” women, and utterly fails to reprimand or even comment upon the criminal actions of potential sexual perpetrators. It's hardly appropriate, it's simple slut-bashing"

I am thoroughly ashamed to say that I read absolutely nothing of this into the advertisement, which I have seen on a number of occasions. To me, old fossil that I am, it merely warns people that drink can impair your judgment. A situation with which I am all too familiar, but which might need a little more reinforcement with teenagers.

A silly question, I know, bit wouldn't it be closer to "slut-bashing" if the young lady in question were manifestly sober?

A very accurate prediction I'm sure SJF.

I think this is Nina's best article yet. It actually has some valid points. I'm sure it will get derailed though. I noticed the Men's health topic only accumulated 10 posts or so, so if any guys want to have a moan about women/feminists being 'dismissive of all the problems that afflict men these days', I pre-emptively suggest you have a visit.

Back to the topic. Some nitpics..

'New South Wales introduced laws explicitly stating that if a person of any age is grossly intoxicated (as indicated in the advertisement) then they may not have the capacity to give consent, meaning any ensuing sexual behaviour might be prosecuted as a sexual assault.'

I think this law is just plain wrong on many levels. It's motive is based on a double standard about women's responsiblity when drunk and as far as I'm concerned propogates many of the stereotypes about women and their sexuality that Nina finds offensive in the article.

'Three party revellers stand by, laughing at the couple. One of them captures the event on digital camera.'

I think one was a girl, but that could have been a PC addition to keep the Ninas of the world off the scent.

'After all, why is it only the young girl who is depicted as having regrets?'
As I recall, it doesn't depict any regrets. I thought it cut after the laughing and photo being taken. Is the double standard in the authors mind? I accept my memory might have failed me.

'The other problem with the Australian binge drinking ad is that it presupposes that young women ought to feel shame and regrets over public displays of sexuality.'

As above. Also just maybe it is in the author's mind that the male involved in the sex is/shouldn't feel humuliated also. If it is assumed he isn't, it's also a denegration of men to portray that men place no importance on the sanctity of the sexual act.

'it is the young woman who has committed the shameful, irresponsible act, not the bloke with the camera.'

Well, I think if one guy exposes himself in public, and one films it, it's the exposer that would generally carry more shame. Maybe you could adequately compare the two people being filmed rather than the filmer and the naked subject, but as I say above from my memory of the advert that's not clear cut either.

Interestingly when half naked children were dancing in a fountain, a guy who took the photograph was very shamed and arrested. I believe it's evidence of a sick society when you cant photograph people in a public place. If the kids mothers were happy enough for people to see them in that state of undress then the photographer has done nothing wrong. As with the couple having sex in public in the advert. If two people decide to do that in public, they have forgone any assumption of privacy.

'legally, there is no difference between a party-goer photographing a drunken girl having public sex, and an elderly pedophile photographing a child performing a sex act in a seedy motel room.'

No, but there definately should be! Though I still see the point about confusing and inconsistent messages from the government.

Thanks for the article Nina, I fully expect that the Federal Government must pull that ad. NSW should prosecute the film makers and TV stations for distributing child pornography after all didn't a NSW judge uphold a conviction for peadophilia when the individual sent his friends a link to a cartoon of Homer Simpson having sex with Bart Simpson.

While we are picking on the ambiguities of the moral majority can I ask that Mrs Rudd employ and listen to a wardrobe coordinator and go on a diet.

Pericles

‘I'm really not sure I understand the point here, but that may simply be because I am male …’

That’s all right, Pericles. In this society, being male excuses a great deal ... (Make that ANY society.)

Houellebecq

‘… think this [NSW sex/intoxication] law is just plain wrong on many levels. It's motive is based on a double standard about women's responsiblity when drunk …’

Excuse me? So if a man gets drunk and goes and rapes a woman, he’s a victim of a double standard? Try again, mate. You can do better than that.

‘I think one was a girl …’

So …? Traditionally, some of the most enthusiastic slut-bashers have always been women.

‘I thought [the ad] cut after the laughing and photo being taken. Is the double standard in the authors mind?’

The ad was clearly from the girl’s perspective. Don’t split hairs.

‘… maybe it is in the author's mind that the male involved in the sex is/shouldn't feel humuliated also. If it is assumed he isn't, it's also a denegration of men to portray that men place no importance on the sanctity of the sexual act.’

Men have been ‘degenerated’ in this way by patriarchal society for about 6,000 years. All good little patriarchs know that guys are supposed to be always on the make. Where have you been?