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.