What concerns me is that the few, in this case a moral minority, can easily force censorship for the many.

This is a return to post-WW2 when censorship was usual and the excuse of sex (alleged 'pornography') was a convenient way of pulling down the curtains on anything the ruling elite didn't want the public to know. It also offered politicians like Joh Bjelke Peterson a blunt weapon to castigate and attack the credibility of all who opposed them, even if it was a rather naive but well-intentioned remark by a Miss Australia entrant who happened to notice the poor treatment of Aboriginals at the time.

The Reverend Fred Nile must stand in awe at the ease with which MTR and others can wield the pink cosh - faux gender wars to secure further losses of freedom affecting all citizens.

Make no mistake, this fight is about preserving our freedom and should we blink it will cost us dearly.

'The Board considered that whilst the act depicted could be consensual, the overall impact and most likely takeout is that the scene is suggestive of violence and rape.'

Where is the suggestion of violence? IN the minds of those who see group sex as something no woman would voluntarily partake in. This illustrates an age old prejudice against women. Women are sexual beings and can enjoy group sex.

If you reversed the genders in the picture would it still depict violence and rape? No, it would no doubt be put up as an example of objectification of women.

So why isn't this objectification of men. The woman is 'using' 3 men as sexual objects for her own 'gratification'. Where is MTR on all this?

'Our desires and even our very sense of what is erotic have been formed, not merely affected, by the way in which Klein has pushed his envelope. '

Speak for yourself! My desire for group sex pre-dates Klein!

It's almost as if all these feminist commentators think there would be no such thing as group sex or anything other than missionary position lights off sex if advertising or porn never 'corrupted' us. Bollocks!

Suze,

'Don't try to tell me that a billboard like that one would appeal to women as much as it does to men?
In your dreams! :)'

There's 3 half naked men to 1 half naked woman. Many many women like to look at half naked men. And I'm still shocked anyone genuinely sees rape in that picture. Did a quick poll around the office, words like 'he's lush' were the result.

pelican,

You see rape? really? I'm worried about you.

It's like the many video clips from 'edgy' female pop stars with lots of half naked men lusting after them. There is desire and lust on the women and men's face. But, for people who somehow think no women would want group sex...

Nice girls don't? Blah!

I think some women think it's impossible for a woman to be in control of a situation like this. But that is based on the premise that the situation is manufactured by a man somehow. If you open your minds and saw women can and do desire the lust and attention of multiple men, and even hold power with the desire they cause you just aren't living in the real world.

Which comes down to the rejection of fantasy. I don't think that's a valid stance when we're looking at the imagery of desire.

IF one of these three blokes decided to do something out of the woman's control here, without consent, yes, there is little she would be able to do about it. But to read that as the default position is basically saying 'all men are rapists by default' and 'even in fantasy, women never want multiple partners'.

Perhaps the fantasy is safe for the woman, why should we sabotage safe fantasies women can have with multiple male partners with zero risk? Because that would wrongly project men as innocent or harmless?

Are we upset about women even fantasising about a situation where in real life men are behaving ethically in a position of power? Or is that just unfathomable in the first place?

To get in the spirit of things, here is a banned (UK) Levis jeans advertisement,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSG807d3P-U

Of course young women want to look hot in their iconic jeans.

The advertising for boiler suits, flannel shirts and Redback steel toed boots is markedly different, check the Target junk mail in the letterbox.

There is nothing wrong with the sexuality of young women and it should not be censored. That is what the complaints about the Calvin Klein advertisement are really about, telling young women what they can and cannot do Fifties style, it has nothing to do with men.

Thanks Helen. Appreciated.

I perceive a real problem though with this self-regulation business. From the website:

< As a voluntary system self regulation relies very much on the good will, good sense, and commitment of advertisers… >

But, advertisers of the CK ilk are constantly trying to push the envelope or take their ads right up there into that precarious territory where some people are going to be offended in order to be noticed and be effective, without getting them banned.

That’s just the sort of stuff that I would have thought should NOT be left in the realms of self-regulation but should have to seek approval up front.

Corny, aren’t the Poms a bunch of old stodges for banning an ad like that!

Pfff!