Australian politicians are only interested in their own survival at the next election; they need money to fight elections, and they are not going to upset sections of the community who will probably put money into their war chests.

The Advertising Standards Board is a quango which, as the author says, is “…not all that fond of complainants.”

I remember some time ago a person of my acquaintance being virtually insulted by the Board when she made a complaint and going to her local MP, then a Minister in the Federal Government. The Minister was also told what the complainant was told – that the complaint was ‘trivial’.

Australians can no longer feel that our society is protected by our elected representatives, nor by the misnamed “authorities” who either have no authority, or who are interested only in hanging onto their well-paid sinecures without putting any effort in.

The added complication, of course, is the parents who are breaking their necks to get their kids into advertising and other adult areas just for the money.

The alleged response to complaints by one ASB member should lead to severe sanction. But, we all know that he /she would get off scot-free because of another bunch of useless dopes on another board.

We may as well go back to self-regulation of everything, and save the money we are paying people who are doing absolutely nothing for a good laugh.

The author’s demolition of the silly cop out of this committee of dead heads about no complaints against “Dolly” is right on the mark. The magazine’s readers wouldn’t know any better because they have never been taught right from wrong, good taste from bad, and they will never learn while we have total idiots on boards and committees.

And that brings us back to idiot parents who should, when all said and done, be providing guidance for the children, not relying on do-nothing boards made up of people we don’t even know.

'The increasing number of sexist advertisements shown, compounded with the small number ever withdrawn, works to give the impression that sexist advertising is tolerable.”
'

How do they know it's not tolerable? Oh, that's right, the whinging minority that knows what's best for the rest of the community says it's not tolerable. They are the purveyors of good taste.

Somehow I still cant imagine why authors of books titled as 'Sex in Public: Women, outdoor advertising and public policy' only ever see sexism as a problem for women. Maybe it is. I know I only ever see the double standard in feminist bleaters and have fun imagining the uproar if ads demeaning men's sexuality or body image were applied to women. But no men seem to complain about these ads. And the feminists don't either, so it makes me think they are not actually against sexism per-se, just sexism where it may affect women.

I don't remember any of these wowsers complaining about advertising like the beer advert where a woman mutilates phallic symbols on the beach, or where a guy only lasts long enough in bed for an instant soup to cook in the microwave, or the variety of ads where men are somehow terrified of feminine hygene products, or of the fat guy at the pool having six women laughing together at his beer gut.

So, maybe it's just women who mind. Or maybe it only matters if women's body image is threatened. Or is it just a few hyper-sensitive do-gooders? I think of the large female audiences who can laugh at the footy show, and the women I know who laugh at advertising with sexual themes and inuendo. Oh, that's right, they know not how they are victimised.

Or is it just a 'think of the children' hysteria? If so, why are boys in no danger of being 'sexualised'? Is their sexuality and body image just not as precious as girls? Or if men are immune to the effects of advertising and body image problems, why is this so?

“At last, we thought, our elected representatives think this issue warrants serious attention.”

As with the many other serious social issues besetting the Australian polity, the sexualisation of children in this country is driven by a powerful unified set of ideas, notions and accompanying values, that together form the everyday worldview of those who own or control (manage) the profit-driven corporate media giants and their advertising and marketing offshoots. Many of the latter firms are foreign owned.

Moreover, like the issues of rising un(der)employment, the casualisation of labour, homelessness, mortgage stress, credit card debt, white-collar crime, neglect of the elderly, and the increasing impoverishment of families of Australians with dependent disabilities, the sexualisation of children issue can also be observed in many other parts of the world including, in particular, all of the so-called ‘advanced’, Capitalist, Christian democracies.

A central value and tenet of democracy is that of ‘freedom’, a notion that also underpins the neo-liberal economic ideology dominating so many lives world-wide, including the worldviews, values and priorities of our senior ‘people’s representatives’ and ‘executive’ public servants.

Under a Free Market system, every thing and every body – including, today, even body parts – becomes a commodity to be bought and sold. Indoctrinated by the dominant worldviews and values of corporate and academic ‘players’ worldwide, Australian governments of all political shades have de-regulated (‘freed up’), privatised and re-structured huge numbers of public assets and services, giving their new owners virtual ‘carte blanche’ (a free hand) to do as they wish, in their endless quest for ‘increased market share’ … of profits. Advertising and marketing ‘gurus’ continue to inform the politically naive that … ‘sex sells’!

With ‘wealth creation’ a predominant value of the ‘key players’ among Australian business, political, academic and religious leaders, the “failure of the Senate inquiry into the sexualisation of children” (and thereby shape a better society) ought surely come as no surprise.

The 'Nandos' advertisement which has so offended Ms Reist, showed that a woman who happens to be a stripper, also has a healthy family life and cooks wholesome meals.

Is it the fact she chooses to be a stripper, or the fact that the advertisement shows 'normal' people can do this which has Melinda so upset?

Ding...... What have I been saying all this time before this article was published?

Tankard reist is exactly as i described and the intentions are exactly as i described.

“Does Dolly tell dear reader that she can refuse such demands? No”

Oh please Melinda, surely you are not suggesting that any girl doesn’t realise that she has the right to refuse requests or even strong demands from her boyfriend. No girl is going to think that she has to be a sex slave to her partner or has to do what she is told.

“They just give a clinical description of each, with no advice at all apart from using ‘protection’ “

And what’s wrong with that? A neutral presentation without advice as to whether a girl should or shouldn’t do it sounds perfectly sensible to me.

This sort of thing pervades the whole article. That is; an air of overprotection or of the need for authorities or magazines or companies or advertising agencies to guide girls in the right direction, specifically being the direction of nil expression of sexuality or anything remotely risqué.

Quite frankly, I haven’t seen anything inappropriate regarding the mooted sexualisation of kids. There probably is some inappropriate stuff out there, but gee, how much of a concern is it really?

Yes I think we need to develop comprehensive legal parameters for what is appropriate and what isn’t. But I’d put those parameters on the more lenient side rather than the more restrictive side to anything that I have seen.

We need to free up on this sort of thing…NOT tighten up.