briar rose,

Class does play a role in determining such things.

The class that writes the commentary usually has the last word.

If we think of Victorian England, we think of prudery - yet for the poor industrialised working-class of the time, the reality was often gin-soaked debauchery.
In fact, the Factory Acts were put into place just as much as an antidote to the moral turpitude which accompanied the population shift to the towns as it was a protection against physical torment.

Regarding the semi-nakedness in Vogue compared with that of a working-class girl. Aren't magazines the art of the masses in the modern world? Look at religious art through the ages that has glorified the human body.
It seems that the artistic representation of the naked human figure is acceptable - it's the "baseness" of reality that humans find troubling.

Oh I never find "baseness" troubling. It's humanity at it's most honest. People magazine's 'home girls' is fine art.

'The semi naked woman in Vogue is more acceptable than the semi naked girl from the working classes?'

Same with attitudes to drugs. People want their kids going to private schools so they are snorting quality coke off designer coffee tables or naked models rather than doing weed and crystal meth and crack. Middle class parents with a full stocked wine cellar look down their noses at the 'alcoholic' bogan who buys a case of VB a month...

On the whole it's a storm in a D-cup all this fretting about 'sexualisation'. People are sexual, and sex is the greatest thing ever invented. Adults brought up without saturation soft porn advertising just don't understand that all areas of life these day are opened up. Coyness, privacy, modesty, all past their used-by date for the younger generations. There's good and bad results but it's just the way things are. The genie is out of the bottle and kids like flashing their bits at each other on their 3G phones.

The world is smaller, there is more information and kids will grow up faster and can dissect complex story lines and themes and nuance in advertising so much better than your average 60 year old. They find amusement at advertising because it is so honestly exploitative and they are ok with that, and they are in the game exploiting back for free stuff.

I don't see a problem with a world being blaze about nudity and privacy. I'm happy with our descent into a Huxlian Utopia. Bring on the Feelies and the Orgy Porgy. I'm all for hedonism. It beats the self flagellation of the guilt-ridden boomers.

pelican,

'there was a natural sense of social responsibility. I don't know what happened to it '

'User Pays'. Our governments have discouraged any kind of community. Divide and conquer!

Yes but benk you seem to think that drink spiking is not a problemm whether you know the person or whether it is a precursor to rape. There is no point denying that these things don't happen, and always referring to the 'fun' side of it (if there is one to be had) - avoiding problems does not solve them.

Jennifer
You are probably right about the deluge of information. The media has a strong influence on culture and norms, no longer content just to report news.

I too have no problem with cleavage and dress codes in the sense of what is norm for the culture and that evolves over time - maybe that is what is happening now and 'raunch' culture is part this process. Nudity could be the norm, covering up from head to toe can be the norm any display of flesh to be marked as fair game (ie. the meat analogy). While you and I have no problem with cleavage, what about the freedom of exposure versus the idea of 'taking responsibility'. Can we have it both ways? Will society allow it in the broader sense? The two seem diametrically opposed. In theory men and women should all be ABLE to get drunk and not be assaulted (men and women) but that is not the reality.

It is a dichotomy? Freedoms of dress, freedom to drink versus taking responsibility ie. placing oneself in an ambiguous situation.

I talk mainly in terms of the effects on raising kids, we don't just live in a world of adults all making their own choices. Kids are like sponges and I reckon we should give them the best chance possible to make their choices as their maturity level dictates. As I said if we all worked on the premise of respectful transactions we would not even be having these conversations.

Respectful transactions: I'll view your advertising in return for a bit of titillation and free music, movies, books, news, the list goes on.

I reckon the kids know what side their bread's buttered on. Why not embrace such a giving master as the MSM.

The old find advertising an annoyance, noise and an invasion of their privacy. They young find it a seamless, evolving, involving, rewarding presence in their lives.

Who is wrong?

Pelican, I think the freedom to dress how we choose and the freedom to drink ourselves senseless are two different freedoms.

If you argue that a woman makes herself vulnerable because she shows flesh, I can't agree with that. The understanding we have of rape is that women can be wearing anything, there's no particular dress style that lures rapists.

If you argue that a woman makes herself vulnerable when she's too legless to take care of herself, I agree with that.

There's different types of offenders - the man who has sex with a woman too drunk to give consent can think that isn't sexual assault, and that he isn't a rapist, but the law says otherwise.

The unknown rapist predator is another type. The man who's known to the victim is yet another.

I don't think that how the woman is dressed is a significant factor for any of those varieties.

I think Houellebecq is right - what one generation sees as "sexualising" younger ones are perfectly comfortable with - it's nothing more than conditioning, I'd even argue that's pretty much what morality is, if I wanted to get into even more trouble than I'm already in.

Or I think it was Nietzsche who argued that the morality of an issue is decided by emotions - if it disturbs me it its immoral, and so on, to put it crudely

Squeers,
Regards university lectures and teachers and alcohol and drugs.

Try as I might, I can’t actually see a connection between capitalism and having a mandatory 0.0 blood alcohol content for university lecturers and teachers (so as to set a good example for the students).

But gee, I’m at a loss.

- There seems to be no interest in Government regulating a lower alcohol content in purchased drinks.

- There seems to be no interest in researchers trying to discover a drink that women would actually like (and not complain about), and won’t get them drunk or harm the fetus if they are pregnant.

- And there seems to be no interest in 0.0 blood alcohol content for lecturers and teachers so as to set a good example for the students.

Not much interest in any of the above, so I give up, and it will have to be left to some other male to solve this problem for women.

Briar rose,
If you want to reduce the chances of sexual assault or rape, then you have a safety issue.

There is a government standard to address all safety issues, and that standard comes under risk management legislation, and believe it or not, there is no other legislation in this country that over-rides risk management legislation.

http://sydney.edu.au/ohs/ohs_manual/legislation.shtml

If you want to reduce the risk of rape or sexual assault, it would be best to look carefully at the hierarchical list of control measures for reducing risk.

A simplified risk control system is below.

http://www.deir.qld.gov.au/workplace/subjects/riskman/fivesteps/controls/index.htm

In your article, you have said that education doesn’t work, and you will notice it is second from the bottom in the hierarchy for reducing risk (eg education is “administrative arrangements” or some systems call it "administrative control measures")

There seems to be an emphasis within feminism on the necessity for “education” (or brainwashing).

It is regarded as one of the least effective ways of reducing risk, but I have never known a feminist to get anything right.

Not once.