The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Advertising regrettable acts > Comments

Advertising regrettable acts : Comments

By Nina Funnell, published 28/1/2009

If the government wants to encourage sensible behaviour in teens, it might want to consider the appropriateness of its campaigns.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Just one teeny nitpick ... I don't agree with the comment about Henson. If he were the one taking the video, I suspect his supporters would consider it great art and therefore above the law.

However, having said that. This is a fantastic essay. Yet again, Nina has shown that many young women today have not been fooled. That old gender double standard has not gone away - it's just been updated for modern consumption.

What a shame the ensuing commentary will grossly distort her essay's message into just another supposed feminist's attempt to supposedly hit men when they're suposedly down.

Now, let’s see … how does the script go again ...?

A few halfway decent comments might slip through before JamesH throws in one of his totally and completely 'relevant' links to some article written by some guy overseas somewhere (quite possibly funded by the Heritage Foundation)… about how some feminist entered a lift full of men, then farted, then ran out again before pressing the ‘Close Door’ button, leaving them trapped and gagging.

Then R0bert will write one of his tut-tut responses about how feminists should be very concerned that some extremists in their movement are resorting to this kind of behavior and is it any wonder that men are becoming too frightened to trust women.

And then Antiseptic, Seeker or one their MRM clones will write some comments about how feminists farting at men in lifts is typical of how dishonest women are – especially if the fart was loud as well.

And some feminists posters will try to suggest that, yes, some feminists might fart in lifts, but feminism shouldn’t be judged only on what a few extremists like this might do.

And some feminists might ask what on earth has this got to do with Nina’s point about double standards and mixed messages in Australian government advertising, but they will then be shouted down for being aggressive towards men, and dismissive of all the problems that afflict men these days, now that women have never had it so good.

Meanwhile, 200 posts later ...
Posted by SJF, Wednesday, 28 January 2009 10:29:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm really not sure I understand the point here, but that may simply be because I am male, and of significantly more advanced years than the writer.

For a start, picking on a government advertisement for depicting illegal behaviour seems odd. There's one in NSW that shows a bloke coming out of a pub, getting into his car and eventually getting nicked. Seems - on the face of it - to be a perfectly normal approach: depict the behaviour, depict the consequences. The fact that the activity is illegal is actually a key component of the message.

The advert that concerns Ms. Funnell is one of a series, all working along identical lines. In one, some folk are in a pub, drink is consumed, a bit of jostling occurs, a punch is thrown, and a bystander is hurt. In another, some kids pick up some booze, wander along a road, one gets struck by a car. Cause, booze; effect, injury.

In this particular one, girls are seen drinking, then one gets herself into a situation that, the clip suggests, she might just possibly regret later. Cause, booze; effect, potential embarrassment

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

But apparently...

"the ad shames “loose” women, and utterly fails to reprimand or even comment upon the criminal actions of potential sexual perpetrators. It's hardly appropriate, it's simple slut-bashing"

I am thoroughly ashamed to say that I read absolutely nothing of this into the advertisement, which I have seen on a number of occasions. To me, old fossil that I am, it merely warns people that drink can impair your judgment. A situation with which I am all too familiar, but which might need a little more reinforcement with teenagers.

A silly question, I know, bit wouldn't it be closer to "slut-bashing" if the young lady in question were manifestly sober?
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 28 January 2009 11:16:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A very accurate prediction I'm sure SJF.

I think this is Nina's best article yet. It actually has some valid points. I'm sure it will get derailed though. I noticed the Men's health topic only accumulated 10 posts or so, so if any guys want to have a moan about women/feminists being 'dismissive of all the problems that afflict men these days', I pre-emptively suggest you have a visit.

Back to the topic. Some nitpics..

'New South Wales introduced laws explicitly stating that if a person of any age is grossly intoxicated (as indicated in the advertisement) then they may not have the capacity to give consent, meaning any ensuing sexual behaviour might be prosecuted as a sexual assault.'

I think this law is just plain wrong on many levels. It's motive is based on a double standard about women's responsiblity when drunk and as far as I'm concerned propogates many of the stereotypes about women and their sexuality that Nina finds offensive in the article.

'Three party revellers stand by, laughing at the couple. One of them captures the event on digital camera.'

I think one was a girl, but that could have been a PC addition to keep the Ninas of the world off the scent.

'After all, why is it only the young girl who is depicted as having regrets?'
As I recall, it doesn't depict any regrets. I thought it cut after the laughing and photo being taken. Is the double standard in the authors mind? I accept my memory might have failed me.

'The other problem with the Australian binge drinking ad is that it presupposes that young women ought to feel shame and regrets over public displays of sexuality.'

As above. Also just maybe it is in the author's mind that the male involved in the sex is/shouldn't feel humuliated also. If it is assumed he isn't, it's also a denegration of men to portray that men place no importance on the sanctity of the sexual act.
Posted by Houellebecq, Wednesday, 28 January 2009 11:25:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'it is the young woman who has committed the shameful, irresponsible act, not the bloke with the camera.'

Well, I think if one guy exposes himself in public, and one films it, it's the exposer that would generally carry more shame. Maybe you could adequately compare the two people being filmed rather than the filmer and the naked subject, but as I say above from my memory of the advert that's not clear cut either.

Interestingly when half naked children were dancing in a fountain, a guy who took the photograph was very shamed and arrested. I believe it's evidence of a sick society when you cant photograph people in a public place. If the kids mothers were happy enough for people to see them in that state of undress then the photographer has done nothing wrong. As with the couple having sex in public in the advert. If two people decide to do that in public, they have forgone any assumption of privacy.

'legally, there is no difference between a party-goer photographing a drunken girl having public sex, and an elderly pedophile photographing a child performing a sex act in a seedy motel room.'

No, but there definately should be! Though I still see the point about confusing and inconsistent messages from the government.
Posted by Houellebecq, Wednesday, 28 January 2009 11:32:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for the article Nina, I fully expect that the Federal Government must pull that ad. NSW should prosecute the film makers and TV stations for distributing child pornography after all didn't a NSW judge uphold a conviction for peadophilia when the individual sent his friends a link to a cartoon of Homer Simpson having sex with Bart Simpson.

While we are picking on the ambiguities of the moral majority can I ask that Mrs Rudd employ and listen to a wardrobe coordinator and go on a diet.
Posted by billie, Wednesday, 28 January 2009 11:50:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles

‘I'm really not sure I understand the point here, but that may simply be because I am male …’

That’s all right, Pericles. In this society, being male excuses a great deal ... (Make that ANY society.)

Houellebecq

‘… think this [NSW sex/intoxication] law is just plain wrong on many levels. It's motive is based on a double standard about women's responsiblity when drunk …’

Excuse me? So if a man gets drunk and goes and rapes a woman, he’s a victim of a double standard? Try again, mate. You can do better than that.

‘I think one was a girl …’

So …? Traditionally, some of the most enthusiastic slut-bashers have always been women.

‘I thought [the ad] cut after the laughing and photo being taken. Is the double standard in the authors mind?’

The ad was clearly from the girl’s perspective. Don’t split hairs.

‘… maybe it is in the author's mind that the male involved in the sex is/shouldn't feel humuliated also. If it is assumed he isn't, it's also a denegration of men to portray that men place no importance on the sanctity of the sexual act.’

Men have been ‘degenerated’ in this way by patriarchal society for about 6,000 years. All good little patriarchs know that guys are supposed to be always on the make. Where have you been?
Posted by SJF, Wednesday, 28 January 2009 12:20:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The moral undertones in the advertising are clear to a discerning viewer. Perhaps a thinly veiled sop to the lunatic religious right.
Posted by Inner-Sydney based transsexual, indigent outcast progeny of merchant family, Wednesday, 28 January 2009 1:36:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I guess you consider that your attempt at a patronizing brush-off lets you off the hook from actually addressing the points I made, SJF.

>>That’s all right, Pericles. In this society, being male excuses a great deal ... (Make that ANY society.)<<

I can only assume that the article was not aimed at my demographic, since it did not make its point with any clarity. My self-deprecation was an attempt to get this point across diplomatically. Serves me right I suppose.

So rather than sit back smugly with a "gotcha" sneer, tell me SJF, which part of my observations did not make sense to you?

- that the depiction of illegal acts is not unusual in government finger-wagging advertisements

- that the message "drink excessively and consequences follow" is a reasonable tag-line for such nannying?

- that far from "slut-bashing", the message was "beware of situations of diminished self-control"

Given that - one presumes - the intention was to warn teenagers of the impact of alcohol on their capability for rational thought, where exactly does it fail? Apart of course from the obvious, that telling teenagers to avoid drinking is a complete and utter waste of our money.

Building a scenario that turns a perfectly simple anti-alcohol message into rampant sexism seems just a little precious. Smacks of a "to a hammer, everything looks like a nail" knee-jerk.

If it is important to you, please, let me know what it is that I clearly don't "get".

But don't bother with the cheap shots, they don't hurt.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 28 January 2009 2:48:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles:

Awareness campaigns (or "social engineering" depending on your ideology) do not exist in a vaccum, and it seems as if you are being intellectually dishonest by ommitting the context in which these messages are crafted. Alcohol, sexuality and morality are strongly intertwined and it seems important to consider that the message intended may not always be the message received.

The problem as I see it is that the guys with the camera are presented as being a consequence of the girl's alcohol-induced promsicuity rather than miscreants (who are most likely drunk as well) who are committing a blatantly illegal act.

This may not mean that the ad fails at "shocking" teenagers, as it is indeed a regrettable situation that the protaganist finds herself in. The problem lies in the consistency of messages that the NSW Government finds itself advocating, ignoring or condeming hot-button societal issues. Perhaps it's too much to expect that one hand of the State knows what the other is doing, but it is definitely worth raising these issues in the public sphere to find more consistent and effective messages.
Posted by Dr Fresh, Wednesday, 28 January 2009 3:29:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SJF, whilst you might find it useful to try and undermine those with different views to yourself before they have made any comment on the topic it add's nothing of value to the discussion.

Serious contributers
I got the impression that while Nina rejects some gender stereotypes she seemed to base her arguments around her own gender assumptions and ignored alternatives.

"Never mind the fact if that person is below the age of consent then not only is that sexual act considered a crime, but the act of filming it would constitute production of child pornography."

Perhaps the male was underage and the girl depicted will be regretting raping him (an alternative to the scenario Nina suggests).

"And in 2007, New South Wales introduced laws explicitly stating that if a person of any age is grossly intoxicated (as indicated in the advertisement) then they may not have the capacity to give consent, meaning any ensuing sexual behaviour might be prosecuted as a sexual assault." The article seemed to imply that it would be the female who was being assaulted. Can that be supported based on what's in the add other than by resorting to gender stereotypes? Again perhaps the female might regret her part in the sexual assault.

Whilst I think that the stereotypes and assumptions the author relies on may be widely held I don't think it works to rely on them as the basis for argument on the one hand whilst complaining about them on the other.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 28 January 2009 3:47:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RObert I find I disagree with you, on most points really, (the section of the ad in question is unarguably directed at the young woman, as it is filmed from her perspective and focuses on her taking off her underwear at a young mans urging, suggesting she is allowing him ‘access’ to her body and that it is this she will later regret), but likewise on the subject of SJF’s initial post. The post does add something to the discussion – it adds humour, and that is something that is sorely needed amongst the sometimes misogynist, sometimes chauvinist, but almost always gender-obtuse posts that occur in this forum.
Posted by AguneB, Wednesday, 28 January 2009 4:16:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SJF’s comments are not humorous they are sarcastic and sarcasm is the refuge of someone who cannot articulate a good argument. If posters ridicule the author of the original article would that also be considered humour?

I think some people look at advertisements and see what they want to see. “The implication is that the young promiscuous woman will regret the drunken incident.” Whose implication? It says one in two Australians not one in two women. Cannot a man regret having sex? If the woman gets pregnant and has a child and takes him to the cleaners for child support would he not regret the consequences of his drinking?

The American example as described presumes nothing. If the girl says “no” and that is the end of it then she has hardly done anything regrettable. If it fades to black then there are hundreds of possible scenarios for both parties that could follow and could lead to deep regret. Marijuana does lower your inhibitions and sometimes inhibitions are there to protect us from danger. The add is not trying to say anymore than ‘be careful.’

As for the photography part is it only the woman who could be deeply embarrassed by such a video becoming public?

The writers of the advertisement are not saying anything about the morality or legality of photographing people having sex. They are neither condoning it nor criticizing it. They are simply trying to show that one of the consequences of drunkenness is that you may behave in a way that you regret for a number of reasons including the fact that a private act may be put on the internet for the whole world to see.

I think the article is clutching at straws in a desperate attempt to promote some other agenda.
Posted by phanto, Wednesday, 28 January 2009 9:42:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I too felt the Ad strongly portrayed the woman/girl as being the one targetted for later regrets. But isn't the point really that we still do live in a society that views female sexuality as different to male sexuality in the context of this Ad.

While it is indeed unfair, the 'stud' vs 'slut' image is still very much alive even amongst the younger generations. Despite society having evolved somewhat since the 50s the old stigmas, by and large do remain.

Does the Ad contribute to reinforcing this stereotype or is it just an Ad to warn against binge drinking? The thing with advertising is that it is the stereotypes that are exploited to make a point otherwise the Ad would have no impact.

Just as it is women actors who will talk up furniture polish, floor cleaners and dishwashing liquid, or the male actor talking about car cleaners, energy drinks or retreads. Stereotypes are rife in advertising with a few clever exceptions.

In real life the male may indeed have regrets should the girl in question fall pregnant and he is justly required by law to pay child support.

To me the Ad is simply about regretting one's behaviour while under the influence of alcohol. Yes there are questions about whether the act is consensual while one or both members are drunk or whether it is illegal to film a public sex act but the point is in real life this happens illegal or not. I don't think the government is encouraging people to break the law only suggesting that this situation is possible in a binge drinking scenario.
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 29 January 2009 8:05:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh please!
The ad is about what stupid things can happen if you get drunk. Not about the law. In fact, if anything it warns young women that there are sexual perbs out there that will take advantage of them and film it and whatever else disgusting people do!
The whole series is giving the viewer a perspective from a young drunks eyes and is just saying if you don't want stupid stuff like this to happen to you, don't drink! The commercials would have to go for a hell of a lot longer if it we're to address all the legal implications as well!
I think they're fantastic ads. I'm in my early 20's and it puts me off drinking! Perhaps the fact that I have witnessed all of these scenario's in real life helps too. I've seen young and old do ridiculous things whilst under the influence of alcohol.
I'm a mother and I would want my daughter to see these commercials when she's old enough so she know's what can happen. Obviously there's nothing like actually experiencing being drunk and realising you have no control. But these commercials get pretty close.
Obviously the lady that wrote this artice has some sort of female rights issues or something. I honestly don't think we live in a terrible male dominated society now days. I think when girls like this one make stories about women being degraded out of something that has nothing to do with that is when problems are caused. If it's not the intention to degrade women and everyone knows it's not the intention, then that small handful of people that take offence need to find better things to do with their time.
If people blatantly insult you, get upset. If you're having to extract something offence that isn't really there then you're wasting everyone's time.
Posted by dphotography, Thursday, 29 January 2009 11:48:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SJF,

'So if a man gets drunk and goes and rapes a woman, he’s a victim of a double standard? '
Such diversionary hysterics. I never said anything about rape or men being victims. I will 'try again' to
explain my position further, but I fear it will make no difference to how you decide to interpret my words.

The laws were made to protect women, with the assumption being that men ARE responsible for their actions when drunk (and so they should be). But the other assumption they make is that men should be responsible for a woman’s ability to consent when she has gotten herself drunk. It patronises women.

They don't make women responsible for saying no if they don't want sex, they make men (who are likely also drunk) responsible for ascertaining whether the woman is in a fit state to make a responsible decision she wont later regret.

If two drunk people have sex (and lets face it our culture of romance doesn't make cold clinical discussions interrupting the alcohol induced lust of two people realistic) and the woman doesn't say no, that's not rape in my book. Obviously the law disagrees, and isn't worded in gender terms, but what I'm talking about is the motivation behind the law.

As I said, the motives behind the law also propogate many of the stereotypes about women and their sexuality that Nina finds offensive in the article. It seems for Nina, it's good to have laws that are based on the assumption that a woman partaking in drunken sex really isn't of her right mind and is likely the victim of a 'predatory' male, but then in the next breath get upset about 'young women are still being shamed, humiliated and punished for exploring their sexuality and partaking in The Sex.'
Posted by Houellebecq, Thursday, 29 January 2009 12:26:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,

'Building a scenario that turns a perfectly simple anti-alcohol message into rampant sexism seems just a little precious.'

A little, but I must say that American advert sounds disgusting if it actually depicts rape (the woman says no), and blames the woman because she was high. Add in the anti-speeding advert when the government reduces a mans worth to the size of his penis, and I just cant believe that governments (supposedly bastions of PC thought) are always happy to throw those principles out the window for expediency when it comes to young people. That's why I liked the article. Young people have good reason to feel that the messages are mixed and patronising.

I think on balance that's what these adverts do. They play on young peoples fears, but in the process they reinforce the validity of these fears. The ends justifies the means as far as the government is concerned and they're not worried about being hypocritical. Control by the threat of sexual humiliation. Quite offensive really.

Although, as you say
"the ad shames “loose” women, and utterly fails to reprimand or even comment upon the criminal actions of potential sexual perpetrators."

does smell of "to a hammer, everything looks like a nail". And 'Potential sexual perpertrators'? Smells like 'all men are potential rapists', regardless of the child porn laws it may be referring to. It didn't look to me like the guy (and girl) laughing and videoing were about to rape the girl.

Dr Fresh,

Well Said.
Posted by Houellebecq, Thursday, 29 January 2009 12:40:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
dphotography: You seem to be under a peculiar myopia whereby you cannot see the forest from the trees nor the patriarchy for the drunkenness. The point is that whether you or anyone else likes to admit it, the advertisement IS degrading women through applying a double standard of sexual expectation and repercussion.

As for your dismissal of the author as someone with "female rights issues", that is eye-rollingly asinine. Just because you are happy with your lot in life doesn't mean that it is wrong of others to criticise the fact that despite immense social progress, young women are still being raised to be fearful and ashamed of their sexuality, with smaller boundaries and greater insecurities than men.

Yes, the ad might "shock", it may be received by teens with positive results, but this is no reason to cease questioning the mixed messages and subtle hypocrisies being nurtured in our nations youth.
Posted by Dr Fresh, Thursday, 29 January 2009 1:26:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dphotography.

"I think they're fantastic ads. I'm in my early 20's and it puts me off drinking!
I'm a mother and I would want my daughter to see these commercials when she's old enough so she know's what can happen. "

Sweet cheeks, we all hope you encourage your child to watch these ads so she doesn't go out get drunk, have unprotected sex, fall pregnant and perpetuate the cycle of women having children far too young in life, as her mother has.

Based on your claim that women have achieved equality and that problems only occur when women go and complain about inequality I'm going to hazard a guess that you're not particularly progressive in thinking or politics. Even more concerning is that you're probably part of middle-Australia- one of Howard's battlers who is stupid enough to be convinced by government campaigns which are clearly designed as superficial flashy responses to whatever the most recent moral panic is.

Well good for you love- why don't you go don a couple of pairs of socks and get back to the kitchen. I'm sure you find the 1950's rewarding.
Posted by impersonator, Thursday, 29 January 2009 1:29:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If I ever have a daughter I hope she thinks that getting filmed whilst having sex at a party in front of on-lookers is a regrettable act.

Is it a double standard to not feel a similar level of concern for the male participating in such an act? Yes it is, it's one of many, and they don't all go the males way. Apparently it's worse for males to hit females than vice versa, or males hitting males, I can't see the logic in that. And don't tell me about self-defence, people shouldn't have to defend themselves from illegal assaults. Crimes shouldn't be judged by the victims ability to 'self police', it's the violation of rights that matters.

The double standards are everywhere, males and females are yet to be considered equals in our society. Some only take issue with them though when their own agendas are served.
Posted by HarryC, Thursday, 29 January 2009 1:48:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It sounds to me that those who are the champions of a promiscuous society seem to be crying the loudest. They want their sex at any cost and no consequences with it. They seem to deny the reality. Some girls would not want to admit that the boy she had sex with is likely to be boasting to his mates the next day about another scalp. I do however suspect these ads will have no effect as the behaviour of kids who have been brainwashed from a young age that anything goes (as long as you shove a condom on). The amount of std'd going around confirm that the champions of promiscuity have brought more degradation and harm to the young than freedom. No wonder few can hold a relationship together. Congratulations all you 'sex educators' of the last 40 years!
Posted by runner, Thursday, 29 January 2009 2:22:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner:
Not sure who you assume to be the 'champions of a promiscuous society' for a start. The sexual health educators?
Just a few things I'd like to respond to:
-Condoms = safe sex = one element of positive sex education.
-Not all people who have an STD are promiscuous.
-STD's are resultant of unsafe sex. Not promiscuity per se.
-Perhaps it is the champions of ignorance that brings more 'degradation and harm'
Posted by Clem, Thursday, 29 January 2009 4:17:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A few legal problems with Ms. Funnell's article.

About mobile phone filming of sex: can you expect privacy at a house-party. Like real estate, location, location location . . . have sex in a place where there is no expectation of privacy and you can be filmed and photographed as much as someone else likes.

Also problematic is saying it's rape because she’s drunk. Ms. Funnell leaps over something important in this. Proving a lack of voluntariness in making a physical movement means showing an action of your body that - like, pulling triggers in reflex or being pushed –though activated by muscles, is not directed by the mind.

Beyond clear situations of someone who can't stand up, and who therefore can't will much, how can an acceptable state of mind of another person be converted into a legally binding independent assessment of their otherwise apparently willed physical and verbal actions?

The law is NOT that a girl can get very drunk then do a whole range of decisions and actions that suggest willed and voluntary movements and then say 'rape'. When the law speaks about incapacity to say yes or no what IS meant is a level of drunkenness (we’ve all seen it at some point) that takes away the very ability to consent. So, someone who can barely operate a key in a door, let alone a . . . well, you get the image.

If the law meant anything else it would be absurdly passing a self-induced standard of lower capacity but still willed and voluntary behaviour onto someone else. Surely that’s not what Ms. Funnell advocates?

If she is then this is just another dose of moral intimidation by feminist legal hyperbole. What would make this the more objectionable is that these messages are unhinged from a position reflecting broader community sentiment or the right to deliver censure at all. Is Ms. Funnell a judge? Is she a bishop? Is she an elected official?

If we’re talking about having no legs to stand on then it’s not just the kids in the ad who are legless.
Posted by young male lawyer in Sydney, Thursday, 29 January 2009 7:52:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As usual, Nina and her fellow bandwagon-riders simply cannot accept the possibility that women may have to take responsibility for their own actions. All of the complaints are about the fact that young women are shown as risking becoming more vulnerable to sexual predation and other outcomes they may regret if they consume mind-altering substances in the company of young men.

Does anyone really disagree with that message
Posted by Antiseptic, Tuesday, 3 February 2009 7:55:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hmm, somehow lost the remainder of that post.

What the ads try to do, ISTM, is to show that the potential for problems starts when the decision is made to take the substance. That is clearly a decision only the girl can make unless it is forcibly or surreptitiosly administered and I suspect that is at the root of the objections from the usual would-be victims here.

It is about time that these types of campaigns started to address some of the aspects of female personal responsibility that used to be taken for granted.
Posted by Antiseptic, Tuesday, 3 February 2009 12:05:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy