I AGREE!! What a shocking thing to put outside of a Boy's School. Just another example of profit and advertising going before keeping our children safe. What sort of society is THAT!?

The fact of the matter is that showing these things in public reflects an image of "who gives a crap" about the dignity of women and respect for women, which behind closed doors may be a rule which is bendeda little with consent and freedom to do so, but blatantly preying on human sexuality and disrespecting a common code of decency spoils it for everyone and leaves nothing to the imagination. If people get used to this then they will just want more, and more and more.

I was happy with the sexual liberation where women could show a little knee, marilyn monroe had just enough to still be sexy, but so many of today's kids are just after boobs and ass and are forgetting the root of appreciation of "naughty things" that nobody admits to in public. The fact that nobody shows it in public is part of the reason that its a decent thing that remains decent.

Apart from this idea that I'm sure many prudes won't admit to, it reflects our culture. It's not just about protecting kids, its about trying to maintain the illusion that the people who can afford to mould the public space, the successful and the entreprenears and even the government, maintain an ideal that having taste is a good thing, rather than folding to the lowest common denomenator of Australian scum.

If we represented ourselves based on our lowest common denominators as a nation, this would be normal. Is we represented ourselves as our lowest common denomenators as individuals, we would walk around naked and drunk and swearing and racist, something which everyone does sometimes out of human nature but you can't just represent that as the norm.

As someone who was born to a mother of 42 years I have learned to appreciate what "The good old days" were and am lucky to have been mothered by a real woman rather than some of the trash getting around these days, I would like to see the ideal maintained rather than sunk lower and lower like this, as somebody who condones sexuality.

Wendy - I completely agree and I'm absolutely horrified that such a billboard exsists near a school. Clean up public space! G rated billboards is a fabulous idea.

great article - and about time advertisers started thinking about their impact on all people that see they advertising rather than how much money they can make.

It never ceases to amaze me what the advertising and marketing industries will do for money. I am shocked but not surprised that there is such a smutty billboard near the boys' school. As parents of young children, we shouldn't have to be constantly on-guard whilst driving 'in case' there is an offensive billboard. I know billboards are 'public space', but driving in my car is private - and I don't want the eye pollution or subliminal messages entering my private space, or that of my children. This is a fantastic campaign and one that is needed to maintain the ethical and family-oriented standards that seem to be slipping so readily away from our society.

I totally agree with Wendy. Her article surely represents the overwhelming majority of ordinary Australians who are rapidly becoming highly disenchanted with our increasing disenfranchisement in this area. The ASB is a joke - as are most self-regulatory bodies - talk about a conflict of interest! May I just say that you don't have to be a wowser or a prude to have decent morals and want our children's rights to be protected from so-called adult entertainment themes. I am absolutely disgusted with the billboard advertisers and with the ASB for supporting the placement of such a billboard outside a boys' school.

You have my support, Wendy.

While I agree that the 'Two Naughty Bars' billboard seems inappropriate for a school, surely it's within the power of the school to have it removed from their fence?

I'm wondering if Wendy Francis approved of the censoring of the Atheist Foundation's recent attempts to display some quite innocuous messages on buses.

Also, I can't help but notice the rash of first-time posters responding to this article. I smell another godbotherer-orchestrated spam campaign...

I must admit, I am surprised by the outrage expressed in this thread on the scanty information provided. What is a "naughty bar" and Wendy Francis's version of highly sexualized imagery (given her background) could be as innocuous as Cosmo. Also high school boys of 12-18 are unlikely to be the wide eyed innocents that will be scarred by the image of a "sexy woman".

As there are already strict guidelines for advertising this sounds like a fabricated storm in a D cup.

totaly agree with this article if i could tell you how many young apprentices i have had contact with from cooking... many of them have found themselves debating what is morally right/wrong to do in a particular situation, or in general what does society deam as apropriate behaviour with the influences around them from a very young age they often end up with the problems outlines here in this article, such as im not skinny enough, i dont have longer lasting sex is there something wrong with me? i need to look like him/her etc. etc. upon asking them why they feel this way often alot of them will say well thats is what is always around them... you cannot walk down a street without something shouting at you.... those shouts are well and truely the advertising material on billboards, magasines etc... the only thing is it is the persons choice wether to purchase a magasine it is not a choice to see a billboard, hence why they are called billboards... the stare you right in the face. i agree they should be "g" rated

Wow - Wendy - that's some juicy revelation, remember, you heard it here first guys.
Troy Buswell was having an affair with a Greens Senator - presumably at the same time as his affair with Adele Carles, MLA (Fremantle), a Greens member of the lower house of the Western Australian state parliament.
Ooh, let's speculate on who it could be. Surely it would have to be a senator from WA.
So, it has to be either Rachel Siewert or Scott Ludlum...? hum...
Poor basic fact checking!
Ok, I guess I've had enough fun with that one, but I don't really think it was the affair that 'done him in'. I think it was more a combination of the fact that it was a parliamentary member of another party and his previous behaviour.
Are you suggesting that because there are suggestive billboards (and Troy Buswells) around means that fathers working late can not be trusted?
I do, however, agree that outdoor advertising ought be G-rated. Just as I think that magazine displays in shops ought be g-rated and r-rated video covers in video stores ought be in an area not readily visible by minors. I'm not saying the material shouldn't be available, just that it shouldn't be on display to juveniles.

Go Wendy - I love your style and I am 100% behind you. We nee to make a stand and not back down. Parents are sik and tired of the sexulisation of children. It seems they are not given the space to be children without the bombardment of other people's ideas. We have a right to protect our children from greedy predators. Thanks for your efforts. They will not go unrewarded.

Dizee, chef mjp,

There is a thread on "is spelling still important" you might find relevant.

DebM I am interested in how you can be shocked but not surprised. (unless you are in a permanent state of amazement)

bast "their impact on all people that see they advertising" que?

Toots Logan: "May I just say that you don't have to be a wowser or a prude to have decent morals" - but it helps to broadcast.

Now I can see where Wendy gets her support.

Great work Wendy! Regardless of what we may think about advertising standards in general, CHILDREN NEED NOT BE EXPOSED TO ADULT MATERIAL.

I worked in advertising for about a decade and saw billboards disallowed for far more 'minor offences'.

Keep up the great work Wendy.

CJ

Right on the mark as usual.

Wow! Wendy! Is very popular!

Look at all her friends:

Be A Fun Mum
rjenman
Flutterbon
Debm
Toots Logan
Dizee
Lisa Cox

All first time posters today. Congratulations. Where the eff are you when the going gets really tough? There are a few male posters you REALLY should meet.

As for topic.

Haven't seen the billboard in question, so can't really say whether it is "porn" or not. However, as CJ Morgan is a prolific poster I very much respect I'll take his word that it is NOT exactly a centrefold spread from Open Gash Monthly.

If any of Wendy's friends would take the time to read my posting history they would be aware that I am very vocal in supporting the right of women to be treated with respect and courtesy and that neither gender is a mere object for the exploitation of others. I do agree that more women than men are objectified, however a faux article with faux support is not the way to go.

Wendy how about an article on the exploitation of children used to produce hard-core pornography?

I'd like to see that.

You've really got to wonder at the simple-mindedness of people who think that moving a billboard out of sight will make teenage boys think of sex less frequently.

Well-spotted, CJ, and yes, Severin, the cheer squad are a bit like those relatives who show up at wakes: they say something polite but uninformed, and then as soon as the teacake runs out, they disappear until the next funeral.

The other frequent user of this methodology is Warwick Marsh, who enlists his chorus via his online newsletter: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9402#150620 (note the link to Marsh's Dads4fibs website on Wendy Francis' links page: http://wendy4senate.com/176/ ).

At least Francis enlists her cheer squad publicly, on her Facebook page, and leaves them to make their own minds up about what to say: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=271592584210&v=wall&ref=search

Personally I think she's chosen a good nag to ride in the Senate race – her best chance of rounding up enough nutters to get her over the line. After all, she can't rely on the Labor Party making the kind of preference deals that got Steve Fielding in. Hearing her heckled as Senator Billboard would compensate a little, should she make it into the Senate.

Wendy,

CJ Morgan is just the latest sockpuppet of a serial troll at OLO whose previous incarnations include "Pathetic", "NoAnswers" and "Hater".

Intolerance of what he calls "godbotherers" (ie anybody who defends decency) is just one facet of his bigotry.
It's unfortunate that this sort of forum seems to attract his kind.
Most posters at OLO recommend ignoring his incoherent rants.

I, however, am with you all the way.
I wish there were more people like you.

Proxy/KMB/HermanYutic etc: << CJ Morgan is just the latest sockpuppet of a serial troll at OLO whose previous incarnations include "Pathetic", "NoAnswers" and "Hater". >>

That's just an obvious lie that anybody can check by clicking on the Users button. There's no users with the names that this troll claims for me, but the posting histories of "KMB" and "HermanYutic" are certainly there for anybody to see (if they want to read precisely the same kind of drivel that the latest incarnation posts).

Not only an obvious sockpuppet troll, but a bald-faced liar to boot.

I'm sure Wendy and her fan club are delighted to have such support.

woulfe - yes, the parallels with Marsh are clear. Thanks for the heads-up about Francis's Facebook site and Senate aspirations. "Senator Billboard" certainly has possibilities :)

CJ Morgan,
You previously stated on this forum that you were going to ignore me.
Yet you've broken this commitment by calling me a bald-faced liar.
This clearly makes you a bald-faced liar.
Welcome to the club.
You're in good company.

Wendy,
I meant what I said.
Keep up the good work.

It’s a shame that the opinions of first-time posters are not considered by some to be as valid as those of regular online opinionists. Perhaps many of us are so busy just working (offline) and raising our families we don’t have time to sit and share our many opinions with the world at large UNTIL there’s an issue we find important enough (in our opinion) to warrant a special effort (simply because we would like it known there are people who hold to such opinions). Since our society seems to be run according to the most vociferous opinions, rather than any stable absolute values of worth, I’d like to announce it is my opinion that all billboards should definitely be G rated, for the reasons Wendy mentions so coherently, and that it is a great pity that this self-evident principle does not seem to be clear without a barrage of complaints and a co-ordinated campaign to force the standard.

There's little point in criticizing a couple of adverts you don't like whilst leaving untouched the plague of other parasitic adverts cluttering our computers, TV's newspapers and outdoor environment.

Look for once at the adverts cluttering this page. You didn't ask for them, you probably won't read them, you're not likely to respond to them even if you do read them, but you pay for them anyway. You pay for an Internet connection account, then clog up something like half of the bandwidth you've paid for transporting to your screen adverts you don't want! As if that's not enough, you also pay indirectly for advertising whenever you buy something from a company that advertises in an intrusive way.

There is a place for advertising, useful-to-the-consumer type advertising, often known as classified advertising. Usually, people reading classified adverts do so because they want to and choose to.

We could blame our governments (all of them) for allowing greed and free market forces to pollute our environment with intrusive advertising. But governments have demonstrated often enough that they they will shirk regulating business for the benefit of everyone, so blaming the government is unlikely to achieve much.

I could also ask you to join me in boycotting all companies that advertise in intrusive ways. But I know more Australians are less interested in such matters than they are in their beer and football, so I'm doubtful of success with this either.

As a mother who is working at home taking care of my children, I am insulted by these sex filled billboards containing either image or wording. A 7 year old can read and I do not feel it is fair for a parent to have to explain to their children what it is all about.

For young 12 -15 boys being exposed to this material on their way to school, it is an insult. Why must we bombard these young boys' curiosity, to unleash their sexual appetite before they are mature enough to deal with this. A boy with raging testosterone going through puberty does not need this rammed in his face as he enters or leaves the school. As a society we are responsible for keeping the public arena clean. We don't know how our children will be affected by this material, what spark of curiosity that may lead to a future problem.

The greed of the mighty dollar is dictating what goes up on our public billboards, not a sense of morality.

As to the companies who would not host Wendy's billboard, they need to be named and shamed.

It is about time we had people like Wendy in our Senate making decisions on behalf of Australian families not the deadwood who are are sitting in protected seats who are not allowed to be challenged at preselected in both the Labor and Libernal National parties. Lets face it women like Wendy Francis would be pre-selected into a winnable seats in one of these parties if only they would stop protecting the incumbant, even though so many of them have done nothing to protect our children.

If they were so great why are we facing the oversexualization of our girls? Time for a change in the federal senate. Go for it Wendy you are the first one in years to have actually have a platform to get elected into parliament instead of being a party hack who just gets there by default.

R Kiely,
The source of the original disparaging comment on first-time posters rejects the possibility of "stable absolute values of worth".
To him there are no self-evident principles, only relativism.
He is limited to criticising from the sidelines without having anything constructive to offer himself.
Needless to say, he was never a first-time poster himself.

Why does the article pick specifically on sex, of all evils?

All advertising is offensive, and in the case of doing it outdoors, it constitutes an involuntary attack on passers-by (including minors) who gave no consent to be exposed to such images, in an attempt to tempt them (including young minds) into purchasing mostly junk and in-any-case, items which they would not have considered buying otherwise. Besides that, outdoor advertising distracts drivers and increases anxiety levels.

Removing a sexual ad. would only make space for another, probably not less harmful advertisement. It is imperative that ALL outdoor advertising be banned, leaving people with untempered and peaceful views of trees and clear skies.

I couldn't agree with you more. That is a great article. I am so tired of driving past these disgusting billboards and having no say as to what my children are looking at. At home I can turn off the television; driving in my car they have no alternative but to look at these images unless I drive out of my way to find an alternative route, which is not always possible.

We are living in a sick and twisted world where "that which is wrong is called right and that which is right is called wrong".

Thank you for taking a stand on behalf of our children.

To take such offense at such a trivial slight on public morals is usually driven by the blue rinse dowager brigade. Female retirees who are routinely offended by the world moving on from the puritanical double standards they used to pretend to live by.

While I think that used to be the case, SM, having looked at Wendy Francis's Facebook page it's pretty clear that this confected controversy is part and parcel of a Fundies First Senate aspirant's tilt at the next election.

Ms Francis is of course entitled to promote herself and her prudish ideas, but it would be a far better look if she and her supporters were slightly honest about what they're up to.

I’m sure CJ Morgan has made his posts so as to carry out his usual name-calling and abuse of other posters, this time labeling them “godbothers”, and then calling others “fundies” and "prudish" etc.

How he was once a teacher is quite frightening to think about, although there are many teachers like him currently in the system. They try to hide their inability to teach and put forward a good arguement by name calling and abuse of the students or their parents.

I would welcome new posters.

Looking at the record of the ABS, they approve just about anything,
http://www.adstandards.com.au/pages/casestudy_a.asp

However, ultimately the advertising company that developes an ad should be made to display their name on the advertisement.

Displaying the name of the advertising company that created the ad, as well as displaying the product name would let the public see who not to contact in the future.

Mum of 4,
<<We are living in a sick and twisted world where "that which is wrong is called right and that which is right is called wrong".>>
Spot on.
The CJ's of the world describe this as progress.

I await Wendy's flunkies participation in other topics on OLO concerning sexual exploitation. There is an interesting thread just started concerning the mutilation of female genitalia.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3632

Ironically this topic was started by Proxy. For reasons that are clear to anyone astute reader.

Perhaps these concerned ladies could acquaint themselves with many of the attitudes towards women on Foxy's thread:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3592

While I deplore the use of sex to sell anything from beer to cars, I don't see this billboard as the font of all evils, while women and children are sold as sex-slaves. Or denied access to education or other rights that are regarded as an entitlement here in Australia.

Interesting to note that Wendy et al are not concerned at the possible reaction of young girls to the sight of the 'sexual' billboards.

Nice to see I'm getting up the noses of the sockpuppet trolls. Keep it up, boys - with vocal supporters like you Wendy's disingenuous campaign is heading right where it belongs.

We seem to be entering a new era of anti-censhorship frenzy at all costs. As though commenting on a ill-placed billboard is the first step toward Communist China.

Putting a billboard like this outside a school is just simply wrong and ill-thought out.

We are better than this people, lets just not give lip service to the rights of children and the importance of how we raise them, lets actually walk the talk.

The pursuit of profit should come with some responsibility, in fact we as consumers can retailiate by not buying the advertised goods. I don't think plain commonsense is working so the only option is to vote with your wallets.

PS: I should add I don't know the author or the litany of new posters who write in her support and I am not a member of any political party or fundamentalist group.

Thought I should clear that up in case I am lumped in with some political movement. :)

Pelican

Your posting history is exemplary and speaks for itself. No indication of 'sock puppetry' as Wendy's campaign has demonstrated.

I agree with you that we can simply vote with our wallets regarding any offensive advertising. Although I don't think my years of avoidance of certain fast food outlets have made much difference. However, I an angered by such as Wendy starting disingenuous campaigns such as this while there is so much more of greater import.

CJ Morgan

You have most definitely struck a nerve - keep on keeping on.

I'm just reading this thread and I'm shocked by the unfriendly tone of many of our regular posters. OLO isn't some private club that any of us owns. It's here to facilitate political debate. Wendy undoubtedly has a barrow to push - so do most of you. That doesn't make her comments illegitimate, it makes them just the sort of thing we are trying to attract and promote.

She has also obviously enlisted friends to come along and support her. Again, nothing wrong with this. I hope they do stick around and comment on other threads, but I wouldn't blame them if they didn't after the welcome they have received. I can't see any reason to call them "sock puppets" either. I've just scanned their email addresses etc. and nothing suggests they are just one person.

I am going to rule anything out of order in the rest of this thread that questions the bonafides of these posters. If you think you've spotted a genuine sock puppet then email me. I've got tools to make a better guess than you.

OLO has a lot of potential as a site for discussion. Discouraging new people because you happen to disagree with their point of view is a threat to its viability. Competition is pretty tough out there from other sites run by the MSM. If you want to give them a free-kick then keep on with your unfriendliness.

Rather than carry-on about someone new using the site and bringing their friends along, why don't you look at doing the same thing?

And for those who think advertising on this site is an unwarranted impost, perhaps we should start a thread about making it a subscription one?

Pelican,

Having spent time traveling around the world on business, I can confidently state that Australia has the strictest censorship regulations in any of the OECD countries, and is only exceeded by the muslim countries, and by the authoritarian regimes.

To add to this already stifling priggishness, there are legions of fuddy duddies clamoring to inflict their versions of "appropriateness" on all and sundry, to protect those that neither need nor want their protection.

Here comes some more new blood.. someone who thinks this issue is a simple place to start a discussion of a pervasive issue.. if someone doesnt say something and make some comments about the degeneration of our society where will we end up??
Im sure Wendy is very concerned and distressed about the mutilation of female genitalia..and many other things as well.
Once again, a simple place to start a discussion and gain concencess(how do u spell concencuss??lol) shame such programs dont have a spell checker lol.. It is glaringly obvious that this is such a simple issue to gain huge concencis (LOL) on..simply because it is public and all time zones.
In other forums i have seen an owner(at this stage one only that i know of)of a strip club agree with this campaign.. choice is the question here..Ps cant wait to see what i'll be classified as by the detractors/hecklers..lol..

Graham

Fair comment.

I think I am correct in stating that there are more male than female contributors to OLO.

Therefore, I look forward to Wendy and her supporters making significant contributions on OLO - as you would've noted I have left a couple of links for them to consider. All of which means that I have assisted in more readers viewing your relevant and tasteful advertising.

Cheers

Oh thank you so much Graham.

This is one of the failings of OLO I have pointed out many times. The exclusive 'established' users club.

BTW: It's nice to see Severin calling for the new female posters to support her 'when the going gets tough' with male posters, and simultaneously cheering on CJ insulting them

I don't think CJ Morgan should be allowed to continue to insult anyone.

Good work Graham. I'd suggest that a perusal of recent threads will also show the same users attempting to stifle threads by calling for others to refuse to participate. As you say, that does not further the aims of OLO.

Back to the topic; I'm in favour of better regulation of outdoor advertising, but the particular example doesn't really worry me too much. The infamous longer sex boards are more the sort of thing that I'm concerned with. Firstly, they prompt age-inappropriate questioning by children. Secondly, they promote an unreasonable and unrealistic view of sexual performance and thirdly, they're basically dishonest.

Beside that sort of thing a few scantily-clad women extolling the virtues of a titty-bar seems pretty tame to me.

While I'm not surprised that Graham's interested in increasing traffic to OLO, I think that puff pieces like this from endorsed candidates for the forthcoming Federal election should clearly identify themselves as such. As for Francis's 'fan club' of followers, I haven't suggested that they are sockpuppets.

The 'sockpuppet trolls' to whom I've referred are "vanna" and "Proxy", both of whom have had several previous user identities at OLO, that they change regularly. However, since they use them consecutively it's probably not strictly against the rules, although dishonest.

I note that nobody has responded to my previous point that the 'Two Naughty Bars' billboard that apparently upsets Ms Francis and her fans so much is actually attached to the fence of a religious private school. Why don't they (or even better, parents of the boys who attend it) just approach the school with their concerns, rather than engaging in this thinly disguised political grandstanding?

I spoke with Brisbane Boys Grammar School very early on in this campaign and their parents and teachers are disgusted with the billboard advertising which is just outside their school. They have the same rights as any to complain about billboard advertising and the self-regulated ASB will let us all know what they decide. However the top 3 complaints from last year were dismissed. This is not the worst example of billboard advertising by far, but there are thousands of us who are sick of being bombarded with sexually explicit images when we just want to enjoy being outdoors and we want the right to protect our young kids innocence for as long as possible.

Severin
I thought I should add that caveat - probably not necessary in hindsight.

The reason was a knee jerk expectation that some posters detract from the point sometimes (we are all guilty) by pointing out affiliations as though somehow if one is affiliated with a particular group anything they may have to say loses merit - even if it has merit.

While I fail at times, I do try to take the point or message at face value. People's religious or political affiliations don't concern me unless the issue is about religion or politics. Heck I have even defended Mr Abbott at times. :)

Graham Y thanks for the reminder.

Graham
No-one is saying advertising should not be on OLO - that is your income and that is understood. This article is about inappropriate advertising not advertising as a rule.

Hi Pelican, Forkes (definitely) and Yuyutsu (probably) both seemed to have problems with advertising on OLO. BTW, it's income to the site, but it is not my income. I haven't derived one cent directly from On Line Opinion, in fact the reverse. It does go to keep the site running however.

I'm also wondering where this sign is. I've been past Brisbane Grammar (which isn't a religious school CJ) twice today and I can't see the offending billboard at all. I assumed it was the one onthe Railway land, but that was advertising a movie when I went past. The other sign was for Interflora Florists.

Perhaps Wendy has had her win on this one....

Wendy4senate,

Just looking through the papers I found the signs that so out raged your sensibilities:

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/queensland/sexpo-billboard-too-close-to-school/2008/02/11/1202578664878.html

If I am right there are no semi naked women, and only the words sexpo and 1/2 price adult shop differentiate these signs from any other. Those advertising for resorts are more racy.

Moreover your website calls for ALL billboard advertising to be G rated, not just those near schools. This and other priggish calls from the religious right wing are too silly to be taken seriously.

Extrapolating this would make discussion of sex taboo, and lead to the sexual frustrations and unwanted pregnancies of the 1950s.

Ignorance is not bliss.

Just happens that the same people who criticize Wendy are the very ones that defend 'artists'(pornographers) asking young girls to strip so they can be photographed nude and displayed for every pervert to view. They critise Wendy for having some decency because it exposes their own inner corruption which they seem unwilling to deal with. Keep up the good work Wendy. Unfortunately these loud voices seem to get the most press especially with our National Broacasters. No doubt they are broken hearted that one of their high priestess's Deveny has had who rotten wings clipped.

GrahamY,

I was previously unaware of any advertising on OLO, so just because you mentioned it I searched and was surprised to see those little pics on the top-left margin, which were obviously not protruding. My brain is obviously trained by now to automatically ignore such things. I quickly blocked all images from this site, as I am here only for the text anyway. My firewall is quite successful at blocking most ads - I wouldn't be here otherwise (or on any other website).

I do believe however that advertising on web-pages is legitimate because it is a matter of choice and nobody is forced to navigate there against their will, or just because they need to get from point A to point B in the real world. Same for advertising in the media or in cinemas, etc.: I don't like it, but it is OK because nobody is obliged to go there. I simply don't watch TV and only listen to ABC radio.

Outdoor advertising is different because it hurts innocent and non-consenting passers-by.

I’m not doubting the sincerity of the first-timers, nor am I arguing that seasoned contributors to this forum are better than the newcomers. However if you ask the people who’ve been contributing for a long time, they will tell you that it is most unusual for OLO authors to sweep in with an entourage, as appears to be the case here.

Nine, possibly ten identities have signed up to OLO in order to post to this discussion. Given the diversity of views above, the fact that these posters (a) arrive en masse and (b) form a solid block of support for Francis’ article raises a well-founded suspicion that an attempt is being made to manipulate the discussion.

Yes, it's good to see new people joining this space, and if the newcomers hang around and contribute more than some cheering for Wendy, then OLO will be the better for it. However if the rent-a-crowd that blew in with Warwick Marsh last September (and hasn't been heard from since) is any indication, there won't be much benefit to this Forum in return for providing them with a spruiking space:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=56159
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=56164
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=56165
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=56169
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=56172
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=56179
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=56183
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=56187
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=56203
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=56208
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=56210
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=56213
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=56216
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=56263

Two more posters, one a Marsh supporter, one a detractor, apparently signed up long before Marsh's article was published, but likewise, haven't been heard from since:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=25798
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=50324

So, GrahamY, I reject the view that pointing all this out is adopting an “unfriendly tone”. Mine’s simply an observation, and the available evidence supports it. Anyone who wants to dispute it on the facts is welcome to. Meanwhile, I believe it's helpful to the discussion to know what we're dealing with.

To get back to the article ...

>> we want the right to protect our young kids innocence for as long as possible

In my opinion (and this is Online Opinion, not Online-Please-Root-for-Wendy), telling kids fairy tales about sex and marriage in order to ‘protect their innocence’ is far more damaging than the sight of a billboard advertising longer lasting sex.

Shadow Minister,
<<Ignorance is not bliss>>
Are you speaking from personal bitter experience?

Thanks for a very lucid article and long overdue campaign to make outdoor advertising G rated. It's time to take back our outdoor spaces.
Why is our society so obsessed with sex that it has to be in our face wherever we go? Promotion of infidelity, in particular (as in the billboard mentioned) has become such a feature of advertising for products and television programmes that an outside observer could be surprised to find any intact families. Is that the sort of society we want? where the majority of children grow up in fractured families?
It's time to turn this around - starting with outdoor advertising and moving on to day time, prime time and sports advertising. Why can't a family watch the Olympics, tennis or football without having inappropriate advertising thrust in their faces, even during the broadcast?
A healthy view of sexuality allows us to treat each other with dignity as a person and not as an object for our gratification.

"Natural Family", you are trying to eat the cake and have it too, because:

It is unnatural to watch TV.
It is unnatural to raise children in crowded cities (where advertisements are usually found).
Watching sport is not a natural activity - not to mention the amounts of artificial and willful efforts invested in the Olympics.
Society as we know it today ("is that the sort of society we want?"), on such a scale, is unnatural. It is in fact natural for humans to congregate in groups of a few dozens.

It was scientifically established that:
1. When population is sparse, it is natural for one man to have many women - this for example occurs when discovering and exploring new lands or after natural disasters.
2. When population is dense, it is natural for one woman to have many men - this for example occurs in low-class slums; in China today; and generally where prostitution helps to reduce the number of children in an already overcrowded world.
3. The "father-mother-children" model of family is natural only within a society that is in a state of equilibrium, where population is neither sparse nor crowded. This equilbrium can typically be found in agricultural villages, not in cities.

It is in fact unnatural to "treat each other with dignity" while there are so many of us around. Nature dictates that in this situation we must wage wars against each other, so to reduce population numbers.

It is of course unnatural to make children grow without being aware of the sexual aspects of life around them.

In summary, the type of society and family that you aspire to have is not at all a "Natural Family". It is fine if you (and others) wish to promote different life-style(s) that is/are other than natural, but please give nature its rightful due.

Woulfe

Appreciate all the work you put into your last post. I agree, we have seen this before; a sudden influx of new posters in support of whatever, then they are never to be heard from again.

I have invited the newcomers to contribute to other topics which may be of concern to them given their outrage of a relatively (if Shadow Minister's link is correct) mild poster advertising Sexpo. I found the images amusing as a quick glance would indicate that Sexpo is only for women - given the row of smiling female faces.

I have no problem in supporting those who are sincerely concerned at the sexualisation of children in our media. However, these articles, such as Wendy's, which emanate from the religious right, have a rent-a-crowd of one-off supporters, deserve the criticism they get.

I hope they are pleased with themselves on the effect they have had on artists like Bill Henson, because they have had no impact on hard-core pornography or the continued sexual objectification of women and children.

Marieke Hardy writes:

"He (Bill Henson) remains an exceptional talent. Yes, yes. But he is cowed. Surely we can’t demand that he spring back from the shame and scorn the country lavished upon him without any bruising. We did this, we made this once pioneering artistic maverick grow uncertain and shy in his work. It’s a disgrace. As a nation we have a lot to answer for."

http://www.abc.net.au/arts/stories/s2893550.htm

Proxy,

Only from talking to the religious right wing that use "morals" to justify oppression and bigotry.

Three words wolfe: Get a life.

'an attempt is being made to manipulate the discussion.'
So the average OLO user is so easily malleable to an 'artificial' group consensus?

What is the real fear? Are the OLO residents really that scared of anything other than the current homogeneous bible-hating liberal-leftist majority opposed by a token few recalcitrant right-wing bible bashers who serve as people to castigate?

You sound like a homophobe offended at a few gay people entering the village. What's a matter, scared they'll turn you?

What has OLO got to to lose from more people joining in for whatever motives? And from whatever world view.

BTW: Perhaps if the Marsh groupies were made to feel little bit more welcome they'd have stayed around. You'd then have more fundys to fight, enhancing the enjoyment of even yourself on OLO.

Thanks for sharing, welbek.

If I can make a suggestion for next time, maybe a little less heat, a little more light.

wendy4senate: << I spoke with Brisbane Boys Grammar School very early on in this campaign and their parents and teachers are disgusted with the billboard advertising which is just outside their school. >>

From the article: << On the fence-line of one of Brisbane’s most prestigious boy’s schools there is a billboard advertising for “Two Naughty Bars” featuring highly sexual imagery of women. >>

So the offending billboard is (or was) actually outside the school, rather than "on the fence-line"? Just political poetic licence for effect, I guess.

woulfe - thanks for going to that effort to demonstrate what appears to be a well-rehearsed tactic by some fundamentalist Christian groups to skew debates at OLO in their favour. Perhaps it's a form of fundy "entryism"?

This tactic strikes me as akin to stacking a public meeting - it's not an honest attempt to debate the issues, rather it's a clumsy and transparent device to push a very partisan view. Anyway, we'll see if any of these latest new users responds to Severin's invitation to participate in other debates, rather than just cheer on their hero in this thread.

woulfe also makes a good point about parents who wish to shield their children from sexuality. Where I live, there are many more billboards promoting Christian messages and signs nailed to trees saying stuff like "The Lord's Return is Near" than there are that display sexual content. When my kids and grandkids have asked me about these strange messages, that engenders a discussion about the diversity of religious belief, which is probably a healthy thing. Similarly, billboards that prompt questions about sex and sexuality ought to be opportunities for parents to discuss these matters with their kids.

Howler - do you have anything at all to say about the article? Have you actually read it?

It would be nice to see some of the newer posters post to other topics if nothing more than to increase the OLO gene pool which may also help toward diluting some of the historical tensions.

I don't like the analogy that by criticising these billboards assumes some sort of fairy story telling about sex, by those same parents.

Why does one assume that those who would prefer billboards to be less overt given they are in public spaces, are also unwilling to be truthful with their children about sex? It is making assumptions about people we don't even know personally.

It is not like the internet - it cannot be filtered and there is no parental supervision.

Or are advocates of these billboards, going to argue that parents should be responsible and avoid these areas and pull their children out of those schools in which these billboards are erected. As some sort of geographical filter. It is too impractical for obvious reasons.

pelican,

It's in the article

'to avoid moments such as your six-year-old asking "What is Sexpo?" or "Why do you have to be sexy to drink Sprite?"'

CJ,

'do you have anything at all to say about the article? Have you actually read it?'

Unsurprising as it is that you are so interested in my incisive opinions, it's obvious that you're in deeper need of reassurance that your opinions are shared by myself so as you wont be swayed by the opinions of the intruders.

I'll put your mind at rest and assure you I think it's a load of bollocks. As you would no doubt know being such a close follower of my work, and seeing my tireless stand against pelican in issues like this. In fact it's the only thing I disagree with pelican about.

Of course in my response I ignore your obvious hypocrisy in sniping at my lack of attention to the actual article given the bulk of your own efforts here, and the obvious mark I hit with my last post which brought about your response.

I totally support & agree with Wendy's comments. I find sexually suggestive billboards make me feel uncomfortable, so it must be especially difficult for youths to be confronted by gigantic sized visual imagery. What we see makes a mark on our mind. To grow a responsible, caring adult male, what marks the minds of young men must be positive. Why encourage our men to grow up to be anything but great citizens? Let's see billboards encouraging them to do something for someone else in need instead. If money is the motivator, let it be for them to buy something worthwhile! Keep up the good fight folks. Our kids need us!

Houlley
I wondered when you would be coming along on this one. :)

Look, what one person might think is OTT others won't. I am really talking about the overt stuff (from my perspective). The sexy to drink sprite stuff I can live with and the comments about dad working home late is a bit of an over reaction again IMO.

It is a public space hence if it is inappropriate to put certain content on TV before a certain time why is is appropriate on a billboard which is 24/7. That is the important crux for me of this article.

CJ you raise a good point.

Christian billboards are offensive to some, and thus should also be removed, just as the atheist posters were blocked.

I agree with Wendy. I have an 18 month old son who sits in our car looking out the windows viewing images he should not see. If someone sat down next to him and showed him these images in a magazine it would be a crime. But corporations can show him the same images on HUGE billboards. It's disgusting. Our children should be protected from this sort of thing. Billboards should be "G" rated.

A billboard that medicalises a common condition for men is close to the Brisbane Boys College, but apparently that has escaped attention. Why so, because arguably it probably has a worse negative effect on the attitudes of adolescents and men than the advertisements complained about outside Grammar?

In a way it is probably to the good of students that some are located near schools, offering teachers to raise such advertising in class. Doubtless students discuss with messages with one another and that is a healthy thing, much better than when sex was hidden away in the Fifties and more vulnerable young people had no-one to turn to for independent, reassuring advice. Such signs adorn many major roads and children see them anyway.

A concern I have about complaints to remove 'offensive' signs is that this can easily extend into demands to withdraw planning approval for shops and businesses that some people can similarly take offence from, notwithstanding the legal business they conduct. For instance, the moral few might complain about liquor licences being approved within sight of schools. There have been cases around Australia where attempts have been made to embarrass unfortunate councillors and councils into over-turning their own decisions and guidelines. Mob rule is easier with modern communication channels.

I would very much like to see all billboards go, but for different reasons - they are distracting for drivers and are a blight on the scenery. Similarly, night-lit advertising should not be approved unless the business is operating during those hours.

I'm not sure about the G rating or location of advertising but I sure found it irritating that I had to traverse mini-billboards to read your interesting commentary - one of the problems of a free market is that regardless of content advertising is all pervasive - as well demonstrated in the text at hand! I would have liked to read this piece unencumbered by g rated advertising and maybe would have focused on the issue trather thn my irritaiton at being force fed products...

I'm not sure about the G rating or location of advertising but I sure found it irritating that I had to traverse mini-billboards to read your interesting commentary - one of the problems of a free market is that regardless of content advertising is all pervasive - as was well demonstrated in the text at hand! I would have liked to read this piece unencumbered by g rated advertising and maybe would have focused on the issue rather than my irritation at being force fed products...
However - I agree that we should review the wider role of product placement and that certainly from a semiotic perspective it was no accident that young men are being sought out as future consumers of the targeted bar market. One strategy is to educate critical readers of advertising.

I think what you are doing is great Wendy. We shouldn't be so willing to sit back and let our society become more and more sexualised without saying anything. I join with you in your effort.

OMG Wendy I agree with you 100%. As a mother of 5 children 4 of which are boys, I am astounded and disgusted with the way I'm having to try and avoid certain areas because of non G rated billboards. The mere fact that I'm assaulted by the views as a woman alone is offensive to my senses and I'm an adult. I'm only too aware of the fact that this is molding my innocent sons (who battle with everyday life as a male and developing young teens) it's a battle enough alone without the added offensive material we are being bombarded by in the streets. I am astonished like many others that in a society where we stand against the abuse of women that here it is blatently on the public streets in our faces - abuse of the female gender. Not only is it debasing it's setting up our young innocents to believe it's completely acceptable. REALLY do you want our young men to grow up and bash your daughters? Something to think about isn't it. These very men/women on the ASB who allow this material into our streets will be the very ones at the front line screaming in 5 to 15yrs (less in some cases) to lock up these very same men who by their own standards have done the very thing they have allowed. By all accounts it is the ASB who should be strung up, not just locked up. I've had enough of these so called double standards of people who think it's okay for these billboards but not okay to bash or rape their own daughters. If it's not okay for a male to dominate your daughter in one form or another it's certainly NOT OKAY for you to bring this abusive and offensive material into our streets to assault our young boys. GET IT OFF OUR STREETS.

OMG Graham Young

Have you noticed the continual numbers of new posters to this topic who have yet to contribute, on similar topics, elsewhere on OLO?

Is this a record of one-hit-wonders?