<< Ludwig, I don’t know what qualifies you to speak on behalf of “the vast majority of people”. >>

Dan, why would you assume that I’m speaking on behalf of anyone? I am presenting my views, end of story.

<< As you say, sexually provocative poses may work great for the buyer who’s looking to buy a girly magazine >>

Yes, and for the retailer who might pick up extra sales from guys who didn’t intend to buy any such thing but saw them on display as they walked in and decided to indulge. A smart tactic by the business owner to put this sort of thing where it can achieve that sort of result, I would say.

<< It doesn’t work so great for a guy who comes to the shop to buy some petrol or an ice-cream. >>

It probably does for some. And for those it doesn’t work for, it doesn’t present anything negative, distasteful or offensive either. It is neutral to most people who are not interested in it.

<< Women I know who might sun bake would probably cover up and slip something over their bikini when they walk down the street or enter a milk bar to buy an ice-cream. >>

Really? I don’t know where you live but there are plenty of bikini-clad lovelies walking along roadsides and into shops near the beach in north Queensland! Lots today here at Mission Beach! ( :>)

continued

Ok, so the very sight of a magazine cover with spunky young scantily clad woman on the cover is a bit much for some people. So then, what about the content of some of these magazines?

I was amazed to discover that People, Picture and Penthouse magazines, which all have full frontal nudity, are unrestricted! They are recommended for readers over the age of 15 but can presumably be bought legally by any child. I started a general thread on this subject: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5230

Now, you can see women in bikinis at many beaches all around the country. Children of all ages and men of all shapes and sizes mix it with bikini babes with no problems. So what on earth would be wrong with magazines with scantily clad women on the cover on prominent display just boggles my mind.

However, public nudity is a very restricted activity, which is highly illegal in most places. How then can there be several popular magazines that can freely display it and be unrestricted to anyone who wants to buy or peruse them? It doesn’t add up!

>>Therefore, it really is about the po!<<

The word expo - on which Sexpo is based - is short for exposition. I think there's a case to be made here for changing the name of the event to Sexposition.

It certainly clears up Pericles' problem: it's not about the sex - it's about the position.

Cheers,

Tony

Ludwig,
Your view is that "the vast majority of people" think overt displays on the covers of girly magazines are benign and inoffensive. This is your experience gained from living near Mission Beach, Nth Queensland.

After having consulted all these people, would you say they're mostly okay with other unwanted sexual advances as they go about their daily activities? Are they mostly okay with other attempts from strangers to sexualise their children?

If they are mostly okay, I suppose they consider it worthy for the noble cause of connecting those needy magazine sellers with more hungry buyers. 

The article argues that the pornography debate shifts when porn is framed as commercial expression.

It does not champion McKee's research. It points out that his research misrepresents the claims made by other studies into the effects of porn, and it points to the limitations of his analysis; he doesn't consider that the relationships between porn and its consumers must change if watching porn is watching people working, not having fun. sure, the two aren't mutually exclusive, but they aren't the same thing, either.

This doesn't make people who like porn scumbags. The choices they make are much like the ones we all make in consumer culture. Watching Stefania Mafra may be no more or no less moral than buying an iPad that was made under working conditions that amount to forced labour.

But nor are those who worry about porn to be condemned as 'wowsers'. Research on pornography shows a range of social influences, where pornography works in different ways, for different people, in different contexts. When it comes to depictions of sexuality and gender relations, there probably are other media genres that send out more troubling messages-the literature argues so-but the solution to this is to consider how questions about porn fit within a wider discussion about how media cultures limit the social imaginations of its audiences by telling them the same stories, over and over again. That's why porn is about so much more than porn.

<< This is your experience gained from living near Mission Beach, Nth Queensland. >>

Dan, you are asserting something about which you completely don’t know the veracity of. You can’t do that. You can’t assert something unless you absolutely know it is true!

Of course it is not true. I am expressing my views based on my experiences of living and travelling all over this country over several decades. What I observe in Mission Beach applies on the coast all over the country. North Queensland coastal communities are not significantly less prudish than the beaches of The Gold Coast, Sydney or Perth.

And the manner in which girly mags and the like are displayed also seems to be much the same right across the country.

Now, you’ve lost me with the tenet of your post. What’s the connection between supposed sexual advances and the display of girly mags? Are you suggesting that if this material was hidden away, young women would suffer less unwanted sexual advances and children wouldn’t be as sexualised as they now are??

I thought you would have jumped to agreement with me regarding the inappropriateness of magazines with blatant nudity and very strongly sexual written material being unrestricted to minors.