Shadow Minister

<< The change advertising and sexuality of youngsters is largely an unwanted symptom of how society has changed, and to reverse this would require the reversing of many of the progressive changes of the last decades. >>

The change in advertising, and its move towards driving the sexualisation of ever younger girls, is much more than the natural result of progress that you describe. It's a deliberate strategy on the part of advertisers and it's been lead by them all the way. Yes, I know it can be argued that they're only responding to community demand and operating within the parameters set by community consensus, but this is not the reality. It's advertisers that set the trends. They're the ones that cross the boundaries. They're the ones that saturate the market with images that become the new norm.

Your assertion that reversing this "would require the reversing of many of the progressive changes of the last decades" is I suggest a cop out. Guidelines are framed all the time to achieve the best standards in labelling and use of imagery in advertising and marketing. Only a community of non thinking wimps would hand over unfettered power to a bunch of free marketeer advertising executives, and give them free reign to shape the words and images we're all assaulted with on a continual basis. Limiting an advertiser's freedom to exploit is a perfectly legitimate community right and one that can be easily exercised without curtailing freedom more generally.

TBC

Bronwyn,

"Limiting an advertiser's freedom to exploit is a perfectly legitimate community right and one that can be easily exercised without curtailing freedom more generally"

Australia's advertising laws are probably the most puritanical outside the muslim world, and yet the "sexualisation" occurs well within these boundaries. To control this we would have to make up legislation that not only dealt with content but IMPLIED content, and would have to ban most advertising or film material TV shows produced externally. (such as next top model, glee, gossip girl etc)

Advertisers are not trying to set standards, they are trying to sell products. They do this by setting the product in a setting that catches the eye of the target audience and makes it look good. Young girls and boys know what is hot and what is not and for the teen audience older models (than 20) or "normal body shape" (muffin top models' is the term my daughter uses) are going to sell nothing.

Considering that much of what they see or read comes over the internet, the new thought police will do for "made in Australia" what Germany did for Poland.

While I believe your intentions are good, most of the harpies from the vocal "moral" minority, have no clue as to the consequenses of what they ask and are "outraged" again when intelligent politicians ignore them.

SM

I understood your point the first time I just don't believe your political dogma.

It's based unprovable assertions that to control the excesses of Advertising we need to adopt the moral mores of the fifties.
It is akin to claiming that banning full human clones necessitates our return to pre medicine morality.

Neither is it necessarily the fault of advanced knowledge. Just because I know how to stop blood flow doesn't license me to use that knowledge to harm.

Psychology has its positive uses but to then justify it's abuses in advertising to ensure profit is sheer nonsense.

Where is your proof ? Mine is in the the purpose and techniques of marketing/advertising

Around the 50's Ads/marketing stopped informing the public in favour of manipulating them to consume by selling the sizzle not the steak. e.g. emotions rather than substance.

Everything today is expensively advertised, marketed in snazzy packaging designs (which add to the price). To protect the investment inconvenient information is hidden by complicated codes and mis-information i.e. New Xxx with 'Z' power when what they mean is chlorine.
10 profitable products replace 3 non profitable ones that do the job equally well. How does the average shopper know what is true and what is BS?

To ensure a legacy market they target children as consumers.
Everything from lollies at child reach at the the check out.
To working on the 'nag' factor, moving the buying motivation away from parents (rational) to the child's emotions .
To plain ordinary targeting (manipulation) of children.

Bra-lets and sexy clothes (fashions) for *little* girls.
And for the older ones e.g. ad selling young women's panties covered in ants with an echidna (the connotations are subtle but there) brilliantly clever but blatant sexualisation.
Selling cars with booby girls rolling over the product.
Cars aren't means of transport their cool symbols, sex symbols.
Let's not mention unrealistic body shapes, role models.

Ask yourself what is the point of all this manipulation? To sustain a fanciful economics system based on the oxymoron concept of endless growth.
BTW I advocate responsibility, truth not puritanism.

Every time I visit the Smithfield, Cairns campus of James Cook university I am struck by the hypersexualised attire of a substantial proportion of the female students. They are there to gain degrees, to lead on to a professional career, yet choose to dress like Britney Spears. They don't need to grab a man as a breadwinner as their grandmothers' generation did, but despite the legal and economic near-parity of women's status in contemporary society, the asymmetric sexual dynamics between young men and young women persist. Specifically with respect to physical appearance, men are still the desirers, women the desired. Looking back, the 1960s and 1970s, when some men also dressed in sexually provocative ways now looks like a brief aberration. Although the women's provocative attire strikes me as inappropriate and distracting in an institution of higher education, it is just an issue of visual appearance. The underlying power balance between the sexes seems robust and equal in the great majority of cases.

This is off topic.

It is time to be afraid, very afraid.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/boys-face-compulsory-feminism-programs-in-state-schools-across-victoria/story-e6frf7jo-1225803918910

It wouldn't be so bad if it was balanced and dealt with all forms of violence, but gender advocacy will only alienate boys, and I expect the suicide rate will skyrocket for teenage males, with the negative sterotyping of the male gender.

JamesH,

I see your point.
Personally I believe that there is far to much focus on gender in general. To me a crime is a crime and unacceptable,the gender is irrelevant, it is a crime against people.
Last time I checked both genders are people. The law should be uni-sex.

I see little useful purpose in feeding a war between the genders.
Likewise 'sex' per se or 'sex appeal' should not be used to sell products.

NB this doesn't mean the differentiation should be denied just be relevant.

Notwithstanding the crimes are real and should be addressed.