The moral undertones in the advertising are clear to a discerning viewer. Perhaps a thinly veiled sop to the lunatic religious right.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.