', where your ice cream will melt.'

LMAO.

Dan S de Merengue,

Wow. I cant wait to go to the Servo now! The marvels of technology, making magazines that can make sexual advances...

I'm reminded of this classic Beavis and Butthead.

http://www.snogglenews.com/shows/beavis-butthead/s05e47

Good Post Andy,

however,

'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.'

You can apply that to anything. Womens magazines for a start, and on a tangent, google type predictive searching tools and targeted marketing ideas in general. The fact people concentrate on porn rather than the plethora of other genres is because they're wowsers.

I really believe it's impossible to not come to the conclusion that people rallying against porn are more than likely either rad fems or churchies. Still, it's fun scratching the surface to find out which one.

Ah, scratch and sniff. Remember those stickers

Ludwig,
I can understand you possibly misconstruing what I was saying, as I was trying to be succinct and use as few words as possible. Yet since you’ve questioned me again, I’ll try to be clear.

Generally, I wrote in to support of what Killarney was saying. After that, I wrote a comment in support of the Shell service station I recently visited, which has chosen (perhaps for commercial reasons?) to put some of the more ‘girly’ magazines out of site of the bulk of customers and into the part of the shop where only the people who are looking for them will find them.

I thought what the Shell did was a move in the right direction, countering what Killarney was describing as the “increasing pornification of our public spaces.” It is a public offense to force yourself sexually, even visually, onto an unwary or unwilling recipient. For a different example, I remember, going to an international cricket match where certain spectators held up a banner that read, “Show us your tits”. I thought that was offensive. So did the police who immediately confiscated the banner.

I find the overt display of sexually provocative images in public places such as milk bars, supermarkets and cafés offensive. The justification that the use of attractive girls in provocative poses spins money and is good for print circulation doesn’t make it more acceptable to me. That only speaks of exploitation. They are an unwelcome intrusion into our public space. If they are meant, according to some body or other, to be suitable only for over 15 year olds, why are they foisted upon everybody, even those younger than that? Therefore, the unwanted sexual advances I was referring to above were those of these magazine publishers. And yes, moving the images away would be a small step towards unpolluting our environment and moving society towards a more realistic and healthier sexual mindset.

I do agree, and am surprised along with you, about those magazines with blatant nudity being unrestricted to minors, if that is your contention.

' out of site of the bulk of customers and into the part of the shop where only the people who are looking for them will find them.'

Interesting. I don't really like the Royal family, can I request magazines with pictures of the Royals to be put in part of the shop where only the people who are looking for them will find them.

What about gun magazines, or contact sport magazines, or gossip magazines, or contraceptives, or political material in newspapers. What is it about the human body that is so offensive, that it maintains this stigma. Even if you reject that it's just nudity, and propose that it's sex, what is to be so hidden about sex?

I propose the magazines that sell most widely can make claim to be the magazines with most popular interest, and should hold pride of place in the most easily accessible place.

Gossip is not considered virtuous, but we have walls of magazines devoted to it and nobody raises an eyebrow. If privacy is something to be valued, and sex is considered a private thing, why does the intrusion of people's privacy for profit not get a mention.

It seems social voyeurism is ok, but not sexual.

We live in a the most voyeuristic society ever, with grief porn and reality TV, gossip magazines, yet it's only the sex part people get upset about.

Why is sex and sexuality to be either

a) Hidden
b) Censored to include only themes decided upon by 'society'

Sex isn't a fringe activity. Being aroused is not a danger. Appreciating beauty, and sexual desire are not deviant. Why are they to be hidden and considered 'fringe'.

'moving society towards a more realistic and healthier sexual mindset.'
According to who? What is 'healthy' sex and who gets to define it? You I suppose.

'I find the overt display of sexually provocative images in public places such as milk bars, supermarkets and cafés offensive'

I don't.

Thanks Dan for the clarification.

But I think Houellie has put it very well.

There are lots of things I find distasteful that are out there in the public arena and in your face all the time. Even if some people do consider sexual imagery to be one of these, why should it be singled out?

The other side of the coin to putting this stuff away in the back corner is to realise that we are very sexual beings and that we shouldn’t be ashamed of it. Indeed we should roll with it. The public display of magazines of the likes of People and Picture, and even topless babes sometimes on the cover of Penthouse, should not be a problem to anyone.

It could be a whole lot more overt. On a scale of one to ten, I reckon what we have now in newsagencies, servos and the like is well and truly on the mild side of the midpoint, say, about a three at most.

Perhaps that’s worth thinking about: the midpoint between no display of anything with any sexual connotations and the display of full-on X-rated pornographic imagery would I think be considerably on the stronger side of what we now have. And maybe it is this point of balance that we should be trying to strike.

Shell might have moved their filthy magazines to the back of the store but any kid can still get a municipal library card and borrow a copy of Lady Chatterley's Lover. Disgusting.

Cheers,

Tony

Ah yes, I remember that incident.

>>...an international cricket match where certain spectators held up a banner that read, “Show us your tits”<<

Shortly after that Shane Warne went on a diet.