Stop making sex objects of women and kids

Ah, so you’re the dolt behind all these misandrist, “perverts under the bed” campaigns? I do hope this collective therapy is helping whoever it’s supped to help.

You do realise that it’s you, Collective Shout, not us the great unwashed, that’s objectifying these females?

That it’s you, Collective Shout, that is creating a strange climate of victim mentality?

You do realise that if you’re achieving anything, it’s to confirm the “Third Person Effect”

Why do you not actually put your apparent skills towards actually exposing those women who truly are being exploited – in people trafficking, sex slavery, child abuse, etc. You know, the stuff which really fucks lives up. Not a few posters and ads which make you (and trust me, you alone) feel a bit funny, so they should be banned.

Could you explain who you’re protecting from what / whom?

And since your crusade appears based in a logic somewhere between astrology and witchcraft, could you explain how you measure your practical success?

You should be aware that evasive, fallacious or moronic responses will be swiftly and likely sarcastically despatched.

Great work Collective Shout. These are important campaigns. Adgrunt I agree that there are worthwhile things to advocate against such as trafficing etc. However I totally disagree with the sentiment of what you are saying- that the objectification of women/ girls is trivial, and Collective Shout and associated supporters are misguided and neurotic. How can you say that? The fact is that you are missing a huge point. Objectification/ sexualisation of females affects their self worth, mental health, sexual relationships- society at large. Just because you cant actually see or clearly measure the magnitude of these things doesnt mean they arent there.

What a load of cock. Do something useful with your time Melinda.

Fantastic work to you all at Collective Shout. Increasing research informs us that these sorts of images and messages are impacting on kids – particularly those in the public domain where there is involuntary exposure….not to mention the impact on women – and attitudes growing girls and boys form about women. There is a groundswell of people from diverse sectors of the community who have had enough of sexualised and sexist advertising and marketing – and it’s great to see more and more groups appearing who are willing to hold industry accountable for their actions.
Well done!!

Intelligent and erudite as always Melinda Tankard Reist. I’m glad to see that AdGrunt can concede that ‘sexpolitation’ fucks up lives… now if we could just get AdGrunt to see that the sexualisation of public spaces normalises the attitude that female bodies are a tradeable commodity, and sets women on a backwards treadmill of viewing their own sexuality as a mere reflection of male desire.

I am tired of seeing advertisers and retailers using women’s bodies and pornographic themes to sell (completely unrelated) products, and then patting themselves on the back for their cleverness and creativity. Typically they refuse to engage legitimate customer concerns, as anyone who complains is considered an old prude.

I am in my twenties and I am not a prude. I applaud Collective Shout for their excellent work . It’s about time someone stood up to soulless corporations.

Let’s not pretend that frequent use of sexualised and porn-style images of women in mainstream media and products are unrelated to the status of women and other very real issues of subordination of women like sex slavery and violence against women.

Despite what AdGrunt says it’s clear that Melinda and Collective Shout aren’t alone in recognising that ads/products like the ones in the article do objectify women. They are offensive and it’s great to see people join together to be heard by the companies that produce them.

Continuing to bombard the children/teens with advertising like this is harmful to both girls and boys, teaching them that women are nothing more than sex objects for male pleasure.

I certainly won’t be shopping at any of these stores.

I am passionate about the issues of sex trafficking and child abuse, and it’s well known that the oversexualisation of our societies and the ready availability of porn, the common acceptance of this, that fuels the want and need of the people that exploit children all over the world. It’s also well known that people utilizing the child sex trade graduate like drug users, seeking the next thrill by upping the bar – from soft porn, to explicit porn then rough stuff and on to young girls. It’s all inter-related and the sooner people are educated the better.

Well done to Collective Shout, and to Melinda Tankard Reist. We will look back on the neanderthal, sexist, objectification of women one day and shake our heads in horror.

Good on you Melinda and the people at Collective Shout for speaking out. I too am very concerned about the blatant sexual objectification we are seeing of women and young girls in today’s media. Not only that women have become a commodity in that they are being used as objects to sell products.

During the last decade there has been a noticeable shift towards raunch culture in the media, women are often being portrayed as hyper sexual, readily available and submissive to men’s desires. As a consequence of this phenomenon I believe that our conventional attitudes, our norms and beliefs surrounding women in general are increasingly being focused upon the sexual aspect of a woman’s body rather than her status as a person. This is placing undue pressure on women and young girls to conform to an often unrealistic and idealised norm that requires them to look both beautiful and sexually desirable. This undermines a woman’s autonomy and on a societal level reinforces gender inequality and sexism. So long as the media present women as sexual exhibitionists performing for the benefit of the male gaze, women will continue to believe that they are always on display.

The reality is that frequent exposure to sexualised imagery has been shown in numerous studies to impact negatively upon women and girls in terms of body dissatisfaction, depression, eating disorders, low self esteem and the like. Our children are growing up in a cultural landscape where women are predominantly represented as sexual objects. This influences how young girls see themselves and their worth as people and teaches young boys to see girls as ‘hot’ rather than as equals.

We must speak out about this AND the advertising standards authority must take some action!!! Those who resort to name calling or simplistic blaming – the male objectifier and the female victim, the objectified are not helping matters, they are just creating a distraction!! This is a complex issue that affects all members of our society. The momentum for change is growing. This phenomenon needs to be address and I thank people like Melinda and those at Collective Shout who despite the ignorant backlash continue to speak and be heard!

Thanks Melinda and Collective Shout for all your fantastic work.

I will be boycotting all of these stores, and encouraging my friends to do the same. (Thank you social networking sites!!)

I fail to see how someone like Melinda (who is trying to preserve the innocence of childhood by regulating what children are unwittingly exposed to in a public space) is cause for mockery.

As a teacher, I have seen first-hand how very young girls are under increasing pressure to be pretty, thin & sexy in order to ‘fit in’ amongst peers.

I have no qualms in saying that I believe some advertisements out there do make young girls feel very inadequate. It’s sad to see girls aspiring to an often unachievable & very narrow ideal of beauty because of some of the things they see in magazines, on TV & on billboards.

Well done, Melinda. Love your work

So, thanks for the copy and paste support from the CS claque. I see the religions are strong in you all.

Any chance some of that “measure of your success” stuff I mentioned will be forthcoming?

Any explanation as to how you (and I), as “victims” like apparently all of us are to such imagery, have managed to escape the inexorable force-field you claim, to not become sex slaves, porn stars, gang rapists and the like?

Any chance of real evidence? You know, causality stuff rather than extraordinary post hoc assertion? Any consideration of the Third Person Effect? Seriously, you are like a living, breathing case study. It’s amazing.

Consideration of role of the parent? Role of existing censorship laws? Demonstration of effectiveness (usually not) of censorship?

No? Bit hard when you’re rallying at the town gates with your mob of disenfranchised bints, holding pitchforks and all, to step back and say “This is crap – I’m projecting my own unsupported fears, doubts and inadequacies on others, without a thought for the moronic consequences”

Nowhere do you explain how children should become educated in the world. There is some magic point of revelation where children apparently become all wise to the evils of the world. Or is it a progressive role of parents, teachers and society? You know, like how they learn to cross the road, stranger danger, sex education, etc.

Congratulations to Ally!
My prize for slippery-slope-fallacy-made-with-a-straight-face goes to Ally, who says, without a hint of irony, that “It’s also well known that people utilizing (sic) the child sex trade graduate like drug users, seeking the next thrill by upping the bar – from soft porn, to explicit porn then rough stuff and on to young girls.” You couldn’t make that up. Oh, you did.

Well done Melinda and everyone who has signed your petitions. You have 100% support from me.

This situation cuts both ways.

I’m tired of men – especially fathers – as being portrayed as ‘society’s idiot’, unable to complete even the simplest of tasks without the ever knowledgeable and wise ‘mother’/woman saving the day.

Some ads do overtly sexualise women, but equally some ads overtly sexualise men – but I’m not hearing any debate or argument about that? Maybe it’s because blokes don’t care, because we know it ultimately doesn’t matter very much. By world (especially European) standards the images highlighted above, and those generally seen in Australia are incredibly tame.

Along the merits of Melinda’s argument I’d also just question why it’s only sexual exploitation of woman she’s arguing with and not the ‘exploitation’ of stereotyping for things like household products which nearly uniformly show women either stuggling horribly, or succeedingly majestically at household taks such as doing the washing, dusting, and cleaning dishes – I can’t remember the last time an ad for a domestic product even had a man in it, let alone doing the tasks.

Melinda, fantastic work, I shall be looking up Collective Shout to see how I can support them!

AdGrunt = FAIL

I’ve never seen so many women commenting in a Mumbrella thread before. And while AdGrunt may not be completely on board, at least he responded… the silence from all the other men is deafening!!
Melinda, keep up the good (but probably disheartening at times) work!

These retailers need to be exposed for the socially irresponsible corporates they are and we as the public need to recognise the extent to which we are being “Sold” a very frightening cultural shift.

Well said Melinda, you are a hero of our time. Keep it up!

Can we add airlines who promote the looks of their cabin crew to this list?
I find it completely odd to promote a service based on the chance to perve at staff.
And don’t get me started on news outlets who cover airlines’ new unifroms as if it was news …

Hey Adgrunt,
How about we stick to the issue at hand instead of arguing against the people who have commented here. No religion here. I am though currently writing a paper on this subject so I have reams and reams of studies etc that I can call upon. I do have quite a lot of academic articles on hand here but you would need to be able to log in to access them. You may however find these of interest, not to argue irrelevant points but to try and get your head around how this phenomenon is impacting upon others. Personally I don’t see anyone as a victim, but I certainly do see a problem that needs attention. Actively engaging in the debate is important and it is great to hear all sides. But please do so respectfully.

http://loveyourbody.nowfoundat.....Beauty.pdf
http://scienceblogs.com/notroc.....glance.php
http://www.apa.org/pi/women/pr.....eport.aspx
http://www.shapingyouth.org/?p=309
http://www.thefamilyfactor.com.....paper.html
http://www.achilleseffect.com/.....oung-boys/
http://fap.sagepub.com/content/18/1/35.short

I support Melinda’s cause and say ‘good for her’ for putting her hand up. We know that doing so in here can be a magnet to the likes of @AdGrunt showing off with bitter, nasty, although, crafty copy (childish name-calling and put downs – I really mean… verbal abuse).

As much as I can pretty much say that I have never agreed with anything @AdGrunt has ever said, and definitely not his choice of tone and language, I do think he is onto something with the second post here. Not at all his entire argument but just the part that refers to the need for evidence.

The fact that evidence hasn’t been raised here in this article doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist although I do feel it solves any arguments. I’d love someone to add what they know here if they can…Thanks to @Sabrina for the hands on anecdotal support.

The other thing I’ll add is that often research and results only become available because people have noticed a trend or a problem and the evidence is later gathered to prove it either way. It all starts with experts putting their hand up and saying that there is a trend here that needs to be considered. So, the opinion of trusted professionals should be considered regardless.

Malcolm Gladwell in ‘Blink’ talks about the ability of an expert to know in a moment the results when it is something they are highly experienced. In this case I’m supporting Melissa as a suitable expert and @AdGrunt who has no credentials or even identity here to be discredited as an invalid source of credibility. Of course if he could reveal himself and his credentials we may be able to have some meaningful work in finding the appropriate ground to draw the line on this topic.

Good one @Kate – just what is needed.

Regardless of the side you choose in any related argument, I’m afraid AdGrunt is the only one offering a logical one here. Critical thinking, people, critical thinking.

Oh and Ally, wow. Surely you can’t be serious. Won’t somebody please (apply the scientific method and) think of the children?!

As amusing and well-presented as AdGrunts arguments are, I have to agree with Melinda on this. (Although @Anon 8:44am, I was going to add exactly the same additional note about not sexualising guys either – less dangerous but let’s still have a mutual standard).

I often look at society and think we’re living in a far flung parody of real life – encouraging young teen girls to behave like prostitutes or porn starts, having celebrity marriages which last a few weeks, performers beating their girlfriends and going on to continue their successful career, bankers getting away with financial murder – and the material which we think is acceptable in advertising forms part of this. What have we come to? I feel old for saying that, and I’m yet to reach my 30th birthday.

AdGrunt, here’s a great – if lengthy – quote I found on porn… see if you can guess who said it.

“In the beginning it fuels this kind of thought process. Then at a certain time, it’s instrumental in what I would say crystallizing it … At that point … I was on the verge of acting out these kinds of thoughts … and it happened in stages … my experience with pornography that deals on a violent level with sexuality is that once you become addicted … I would keep looking for more explicit, more graphic kinds of materials … until you reach the point where the pornography only goes so far. You reach that jumping-off point where you begin to wonder if maybe actually doing it will give you that which is beyond just reading about it or looking at it. …”

“The influence of violent pornography-which is an indispensable link in the chain of behavior … the assaults, the murders and what have you … I know that I could not control it … that these barriers that I had learned as a child were not enough to hold me back with respect to seeking out and harming somebody.”

“I think people need to recognize that those of us who have been influenced by … pornographic violence-are not some kind of inherent monsters. We are your sons and we are your husbands. … Any pornography can reach out and snatch a kid out of any house to-day.”

“I’ve lived in prison for a long time … and I’ve met a lot of men who were motivated to commit violence just like me. And without exception every one of them was deeply involved in pornography — deeply influenced by an addiction. There is no question about it. The FBI’s own study shows that the most common interest among serial killers is pornography.”

Those are the words of Ted Bundy prior to his execution. Sure, most people won’t go that far – but the idea that it is a ‘slippery slope’ that started with pornography for pretty much all those that do should be a worrying concept. It’s like the sales funnel – more conversions starts with more exposures. We’re opening the funnel up nice and wide to get an increasing number of conversions to this sort of abhorrent behaviour.

Please don’t feed the troll.

OtherAndrew. You’re seriously using Ted Bundy as a post hoc justification?

Learn some logic, son.

I agree there are many aspects of popular culture that present innapropriate sexual images to children and adults. However one needs to distinguish between images that aimed at the youth audience and are viewed through the filter of current youth culture and those that are intended for adult gratification. Most of the examples above fit the former category. Of the list presented I certainly agree that porn should not be sold on public view in a servo’s. As for the rest I think the PC ploice need to take a chill pill and move onto something more important.

Gezza the sad reality, as I see it, is that soft porn has infultrated main stream culture to such an extent that parents are struggling to maintain that distinction between public/private spaces.. Whilst they can and do have the power to turn off the television or the radio etc in their own homes once they leave the house…. In my opinion there are far too many examples of sexualised and objectifying imagery in public spaces eg, billboards, in store advertising including music video clips.

I don’t think telling people to take a chill pill is constructive considering that the effects of such imagery upon women and children has been found over and over again to be negative. I also believe that this phenomenon impacts negatively on men, as far as I am concerned advertisers exploit men by playing up to their desires. And in terms of sexism, some men and boys do believe that women are merely sex objects and so it’s okay to treat them as such. And if girls and women are seen in the media as being predominantly sexual beings, or as a series of body parts rather than as people with interests, talents and identities, well it is little wonder that they have difficulty relating to women/girls on any level other than sexual. How is this not a problem?

You say move on to something more important, as a mother of a young son, and aunty to a couple of teenage girls, believe me I think this is very important. And yes I engage in activism about other issues too, but I wont stop caring and speaking out about this one.

Adrian, you may want to take note of this excerpt from Paul Wilson, former Research Director at the Australian Institute of Criminology from his book “Dealing with Pornography: The Case Against Censorship”;

“In Ted Bundy’s case, no serious social scientist or law enforcement officer takes the explanation that ‘pornography made me do it’ seriously. Well before Bundy turned the pages of a sexually explicit magazine or watched an adult video he was exhibiting bizarre behaviour. Dr Dorothy Lewis, who conducted multiple interviews with the killer just after his arrest, reported that Bundy was a highly disturbed child at the age of three. When Bundy was first arrested in 1978, early interviews with police and psychiatrists reveal that the killer referred to popular sexually explicit magazines as ‘normal healthy sexual stimuli’. It was only in the 1980s, when a court refused to certify him insane and to save him from the electric chair, that Bundy became a born-again Christian and reiterated the party line on pornography.”

(Edited by Mumbrella for legal reasons)

“the silence from all the other men is deafening!!”

That’s the sound of people not caring.

I have signed petitions on “Collective Shout” (re Diva stores and Playboy products) but I can also side with some of AdGrunt’s opinions – and not just because I’m male.
The problem I see is the extremes of both arguments.
As we all know there is much bigger picture that drives the “justification” of this form of marketing.
Many retailers/marketers will tell you that you don’t understand their target market, your views are not shared by their customers and this may well be true given that there are a frightening number of young women for whom the likes of Paris Hilton & Kim Kardashian are aspirational. But this doesn’t excuse poor judgement or cheap PR in the pursuit of sale.
As a father of three girls under ten I am very sensitive to sexploitation but when confronted with these images we often find the best approach is discussion and explanation not militancy and indignation.
We should all absolutely speak up for what we perceive to be wrong but we should also be mindful of painting everything as black or white.

BTW I am not so naive as to miss the connection between making women/girls feel inferior, anxious etc about their looks. Beauty, Weightloss, Hair Removal, Wrinkle creams, Fashion etc etc etc are huge industries that rely on women feeling bad about their physical appearances… by promoting an often unrealistic, idealised norm of beauty – not cheap either – advertisers have found a compelling means of motivating the average consumer to go out and buy, consume, buy, consume products that promise to deliver ‘solutions’ to these ‘problems’.

AdGrunt I’m wondering which of the criticised ads is yours, son?

Im also wondering if someone asked you to delineate your top five extremely concrete rules of logic could you do this, post hoc?

And while wondering all of this, I wondered how stressful it would be to have some one with your approach to discussion as a boss?

And then I thought, maybe he just needs a little help 🙂

The Psychopath Test:
A Journey Through the Madness Industry
By Jon Ronson
Riverhead; 288 pp; $25.95

The very first thing to know about psychopaths, at least according to Jon Ronson, is that they’re very charming. They’re also usually smart, easily bored, and ruthless power mongers who watch suffering with interest, have an inflated sense of self-worth, lie compulsively, and rarely take blame for their mistakes. For those reasons and others they tend to congregate in places such as London and New York. And a relatively high percentage end up running big companies.

I must say I agree with the censure of Diva and Supre, stores that focus on tweens and early teens- those campaigns are obviously wrong and deserve to be stopped.

However things such as the “boycott” of 7-eleven are another example of people who should learn to set boundarys and take responsibility for their own actions- they are places that are general purpose, not specifically for kids, and all the magazines have grey fronted covers so there are not any offending images on display.

If your undiscipled little shits get their hands on these magazines it is one persons fault- yours for being a shithouse parent. Same with kids veiwing bad tv shows, watching porn ect ect. Take responsibility yourself.

Sometimes I like wearing a shirt, or watching an online campaign with an 18+ warning on it like the nandos ad, that is a little racy. Im an adult.

My god… who invited the fun police to Mumbrella? I hear Iran is lovely this time of year and this article might find an audience that agrees wholeheartedly with its message.

Oh Dear so you are saying that the sexual objectification of women and early sexualisation of children perpetuated by the media is not a problem… it is just something that the ‘fun’ police are banging on about?

Gees people, how about some reasoned arguments pro the objectification of women instead of just having a go at the people commenting on here.

And Matt, what is your point? You’ve taken the time to get on here, you’ve had a go at a couple of people. Now how about the issue at hand, got anything worth saying?

I’m all for debating this issue…. As far as I’m concerned it is a no brainer, and it’s got nothing to do with man hating or victimising anyone…

Matthew. Thank you for the illumination. I was aware of MTR’s political leanings being somewhere East of Genghis Khan, but felt the argument being presented was so weak it didn’t need highlighting that she’s a conservative god-botherer.

North Freo. Top five concrete logic rules? Stop trolling and add to the discussion.

For reference, you’ve just led with an Ad Hominem (aiming the discussion at me, instead of the points) then followed it up with a delightful Post Hoc (presenting one unrelated “fact” as proving or demonstrating another) – classic trolling. Classic religious nutters.

The rest is just drivel, but Jon Ronson’s books are a favourite of mine, it’s true.

For the rest of the claque, could you start bringing some support to your wild assertions, rather than vague claims. It’s just you come off sounding more like lunatic disciples than intelligent humans capable of independent thought.

Oh and I’m still really excited about how you’re measuring the success of this misguided crusade.

Come on Ad grunt have a go at my posts then I’m listening, ready, not religious at all, been studying philosophy ethics for a long time now, think I’ve got an idea of how critical thinking and logic work, bring it on 🙂

Can everyone just relax for a second? I think everyone is missing an important point, the reality here is that hot chicks are awesome and people like looking at them.

@AdGrunt.

I have three daughters now aged between 16 and 21. I have seen first hand the pressures on them and their peers and associates mentioned by many comments here and Melinda’s article.

It’s called first hand experience and the best support Melinda’s article needs.

But your opposing arguement FAILS on so many levels, not the least being your usual reliance on cheap shots, personal attacks and mockery to hide your own shortcomings and failings.

Why don’t you tell us about your own personal experience with your daughters and their peers in context of Melinda’s article. Now that would be worth reading.

It is apparent that AdGrunt is a bully.

And quite a detestable one at that.

(He’ll come back with some ‘smart’ response now to prove that’s he’s not…go on then…)

Adgrunt it’s a more than a bit rich for you criticise someone else for playing the man not the ball when you when your opening gambit is “You should be aware that evasive, fallacious or moronic responses will be swiftly and likely sarcastically despatched”.

The problem with ‘i’m the smartest guy in the room” strategy is that you’ve actually GOT TO BE the smartest guy in the room. (NB: in appropriate capitalisation of impressive latin phrases works against this perception)

any worthwhile points you may have are lost in the fiery blaze of your arrogance, leaving the reader no choice but to assume one of the nominated ads is your work

pluribum cum laude, as Snoopy once said

Wonder why girl’s binge drinking is such a problem now days? Guess you have to lose your inhibitions if you’re going to live up to your Supre and Diva promise.

While recently flying home from Melbourne, sitting next to me was a young black African who sat quietly viewing inflight music videos. When he spoke it was clear from his accent he was not Afro American. Yet most of the content he was viewing contained young black Afro American women stripped to g-string while males postured aggressively to camera and would not have been seen as general viewing under broadcast regulation in the 80’s due to the sexually explicit and violent nature of the content. This situation made me wonder: if this young person is newly arrived as a refugee from violence perhaps, what impact would viewing these behaviour models have on him? I then hoped for the best and went back to reading. Honestly in response to the idea proposed, asking the general population to boycott stores and brands seems to miss the point that we live in a world were everything is available all the time and the only place worth investing real time is the protection of our own children and fortunately for me it didn’t take much explaining to present why it wold not be a good idea to accept an invitation to poll dancing 16th birthday party- however at least 30 other parents- mothers and fathers- had no problem at all with this- and even permitted the party to be videoed. Call me a lunatic disciple, but I find this sad.

Kate, I’m assuming you mean me and not MattP. What’s my point? Well it’s the fact that Tankard Reist never discloses her past. She hides it. That is the crux of the issue; she’s using the sexualisation of women and children (and I may point out that there is no evidence this is occurring in society) as an excuse to censor material she doesn’t like or to bully companies into dropping products. What exactly is the difference between her and people like Mary Whitehouse and Fred Nile? (Edited by Mumbrella for legal reasons)

There seems to be an emphasis that porn is the culprit, when in fact in almost all of the examples the porn industry has absolutely nothing to do with any of the products or advertisements she highlights. There seems to be a deliberate conflation between expressions of sexuality and depictions of women as sexual beings and pornography. The two are not the same. Conflating both is dangerous in my opinion. It seems to suggest that women should not be sexual. That’s the major problem I have with Melinda’s argument. The other major problem is that banning products is completely superficial. It doesn’t change people’s attitudes. It doesn’t stop women being abused. Melinda is obsessed with pop culture depictions of sex. She has more common with Mary Whitehouse than she does with Germaine Greer.

If this is not the case, then could Melinda or her supporters please give an example of what would be an acceptable way for a woman to express her sexuality in the media.

Not everyone who would like to see less sexual exploitation of women and girls (and indeed men and young boys) is a Christian, or religious. I’m neither but I feel pretty strongly about this issue.

I would dearly love to see the brands/corporations listed in this article just stop with the raunch/rape BS and get on with the business of being creative and imaginative in their marketing. You know, the stuff that makes you think and gives the consumers some credit for having intelligence, rather than just thinking that a base response to their ‘sexy’ imagery will be enough to sell a product. That is so old school, boring and yes exploitative.

Anyway, all power to the MTR’s and Kate’s of the world. At least they are devoting their lives to a cause they believe in as opposed to spending their lives trawling the net looking for people to argue with……just saying…

My 6 (yes, six) year old was being taught pole dancing from my ex husband’s girlfriend. It seems they had one installed in their home.

To my daughter it seemed totally normal as she writhed and rocked and spun herself around that pole – with all the appropriate sexy facial expressions to go with it. If anyone has seen such a thing you’ll know why I was appalled. Even at 16 it would have an impact and surely even @AdGrunt couldn’t possibly be happy watching this happening with one of his daughters?

So, let me ask then, if media hasn’t created an environment that allowed this to happen – what did?

MattP – Sorry you feel unable to equip your daughters with the mental, cognitive and emotional skills to understand and comprehend the world around them.

Now if you could make some kind of point explaining how this crusade actually makes a difference to an actual, demonstrable problem that would be great. I’d like you to focus on why censorship is a weak and often counter-productive force.

Serge – If you could actually contribute to the discourse, instead of trying to dissect an alter-ego, that would stop you getting all confused and not making a point.

I’ll assign you the task of exploring the “Third Person Effect” and noting how it seems particularly strong amongst those who are “religious” – do get back to us soon.

Jen C – Grow up and stop making your own story around binge-drinking and slut-shaming. Get some self-esteem.

Kate – define porn, and where the lines between art, soft and hard porn are and we can chat. I’ll be challenging you around the fact in our simplest form, as regularly shown in religous art, naked. Cherubs, priests, abstinence and biblical hypocrisy are likely to come into it later, just so you know. As are self-image and the influence of parents.

While you’re at it, you can put your philosophy research skills to use and find some support (real causal or at least statistically significant support, not the misandrist tripe) then that would be great. Do come back with anything on “Third Person Effect” too as I don’t think Serge is really up to the job, so help him out.

North Freo – Stop making stuff up. Aside from your strangely racist assumption that any “African” (read “darkie”) who doesn’t sound like a Sep, is some clueless savage who hasn’t seen Beyonce! Why didn’t you engage this passenger, instead of making everything up to fit your clueless agenda.

But you didn’t ask, so instead you’re making my brother’s story up to fit your agenda. So your task is to explain why you’re projecting your own guilt, emotional confusion (and latent racism) onto daily situations, your kids, their friends and parents. Also, stop looking at other people’s screens on a plane you wierdo.

Next!

Matt thanks for the reply. I smoked a bit of dope in my 20’s, seems like a life time ago now, but does that make any opinion I have today invalid? And so what of Melinda’s prior associations or current beliefs, this issue is about the sexual objectification of women and early sexualisation of children in the media today.

You say there is no evidence of this having a negative impact, you obviously have done absolutely no research prior to making this statement so I’m not even going to bother to argue it with you other than to say that it does and it has been well documented.

With regard to women expressing their own sexuality, totally don’t have a problem with it myself and I’m fairly sure that if it was women’s own desires that were being played out we’d be seeing a very different picture!!! Let me just say that if women were in any way empowered by this phenomenon we would be seeing a much greater diversity of women in the media today instead of the cookie cutter type representations of young, thin, hairless, sexual, readily available and often photoshopped women that we are seeing today.

Simone – I think you’re being unkind about MTR – whilst she does clearly use the internet to inflame and promote her agenda, saying she trawls it may be a little strong. Though I do see your point.

Anne – those six year old girls thought it was fun to do, because it is. They’re six. They don’t have the hang-ups, guilt, or even vaguest understandign of a what a stripper is or does. To them, it’s like a funny maypole. The rest is in your, apparently well-experienced, head.

As for the media – you’re getting special homework to Google “Third Person Effect” until your keyboard breaks. Then explore if kids were sexualised before the media. Actually, anything to support your argument would be great.

Woweee,

This is definitely the most heated debate I have ever seen on this site.

Personally I think this rallying against raunchy advertising could easily compared to bashing your head against the wall. The fact is that young people aren’t growing up in the same world we did. The culture now is massively different to when I was growing up and I’m only 25. I think that the biggest influence is simply that by having access to all the information available through the internet young people are more worldly. And while I wouldn’t want to go so far as to call the previous comments prudish, there is certainly a lack of understanding of the mindset of today’s teenagers.

I’m currently having a long distance relationship with a younger lady who is definitely the epitome of the girls these campaigns are portraying. And far from being inhibited by the sexual image of women she fully embraces it. In doing so she is one of the most mature, empowered and intelligent people I have met. Sexuality is biological and is not something that is going away. If people were simply open about the their sexual desires to a greater extent then perhaps the objectification of sex in the media wouldn’t be such a problem. The problem is we’ve been shying away from human sexuality for hundreds of years and it’s still in the process of discovering how to live with it out in the open. I certainly don’t see how trying to hide from the reality of the world we live in, and shelter people from it, is going to improve anything for anyone.

why can’t we stop objectifying persons of all sexes? Men are either made out to be un-obtainably fantastic bodies, or complete oafs…
And if any of you have young daughters and sons you will see the sexualisation of boys and girls happening and making it socially acceptable to dress like bombos and bimboys at a younger and younger age…
As well as women… its about people, people!

OMG @ AdGrunt…. Are you retired? I don’t know how you have all this time today to write all this stuff without getting paid for it! I would suggest that Melinda Tankard Reist was remunerated for efforts at least…

Firstly – thank you Melinda for such an interesting and relevant post.

I’m always shocked at the amount of negativity that articles seeking to highlight inequality receive. Why the backlash? It’s a good thing to weed out inequality and address it!

There are always a few standard comments:
1. Fun police! I just want to look at some boobs – why would you stop me? It’s not demeaning to women, lighten up!
And I would agree that no one is trying to stop your love of boobs. What people are against is the use of breasts to sell cleaning products / shoes / books / ANYTHING. For sure, enjoy them as much as you like. But why do so in an irrelevant context while, at the same time, showing a false sense of beauty? Objecting to the normalisation of violence against women / sexualisation of children isn’t meant to stop anyone’s fun – it’s meant to stop violence.
2. Men are objectified too!
Yes they are. And this is also bad. It does not mean that people shouldn’t try to stop the objectification of women. Why not tackle the bigger problem first? You really can’t argue with the claimthat women’s bodies are objectified in the media more than men’s. So, let’s go against objectifying anyone – and understand that there will be more focus on the section of society that this happens to most.
3. Get over it – sexism ended when women got the vote.
The fact that we still have to argue about using women’s bodies to sell unrelated products shows this hasn’t happened. Yes, things have got better – a whole lot better. But not equal. ‘Better’ doesn’t mean we have to stop thinking about these issues and striving for more.

Melinda – keep on speaking up for what you believe. Yes, there will always be angry people who don’t want or understand change. But soon it will be clear how out-dated their views are.

Adgrunt on second thoughts I’m not going to waste my time debating with you. I fear Freo North hit the nail right on the head with regard to you. I once had an unfortunate and intimate encounter with a narcissist. It wasn’t pleasant. But you know that experience taught me what to look out for. Do you folk all refer to the same book? I say that because I feel that your responses are almost formulaic. Weird! They say the worst you can do to a narcissist is ignore them…

It’s hard to believe that there are people out there who would actually stand up and say this is NOT a problem … I am a bloke by the way. Whilst idolising the female figure is every man’s freedom (it is simply an aesthetic), we should draw the line somewhere and stop imposing this on teenage girls and boys. There’s not much innocent left in the world. Childhood is something that we should really care for.

I am constantly intrigued by the extent to which Australia can be so highly regulated in every day personal life (speeding fines, taxes, drinking rules etc etc) but when it comes to most industries, regulators quake in their boots. On Insight – night before last, someone was forced to admit they ‘didn’t care’ where money came from for their charity – even though it was evident much of it came from club money, derived from problem gamblers. I was staggered.

The ‘she’ll be right’ attitude to all manner of social concerns from problem gambling, live animal export, sexualisation of women, racism, environmental damage (the list goes on) is a symptom of greed and negligence. A sophisticated and very very wealthy country like Australia should be man-enough to deal with these issues. It’s not cool to assume that everyone thinks like oneself. There are a lot of unhappy people out there and I take my hat off to groups like Collective Shout, GetUp and others, who are showing that there are far more people who disagree with the likes of AdGrunt than there are who agree.

Notwithstanding this … anyone in business in Australia who doesn’t pay attention to these social happenings is going to end up in difficulty. So even if you don’t believe change is needed, it’s coming anyway – you’ll just have to live with the fact you might just be outnumbered.

; )

When Gene Rodenberry created the Star Trek series in the mid 1960’s, he brought to life many memorable characters.

“Bones” McCoy, the cantankerous Chief Medical Officer who hardly ever saw eye-to-eye with Captain Kirk.

The aforementioned Kirk, whose sole aim seemed to be to sleep with as many green and purple alien women as possible, and fight as many alien men as he could.

Gruff “Scotty”, the engineer with the heart of gold.

Sulu, who was really just there as kind of the Asian dude.

But of all the many memorable characters aboard the Starship Enterprise, the frighteningly logical half-human, half-Vulcan Dr. Spock was probably his most notable.

AdGrunt reminds me quite a bit of Dr. Spock.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulcan_(Star_Trek)

Adgrunt – “Bit hard when you’re rallying at the town gates with your mob of disenfranchised bints” –

Disenfranchised bints?? Really?

From the urban dictionary:

thesaurus for bint:
bitch whore slag cunt slut slapper tart ho stupid hoe female gash women cheap essex girl fuck girl minger pussy sex more…

And we take it that you’ve got a balanced perspective on women?

Me thinks otherwise.

@Anne Miles, the easy answer would be the irresponsible parental figure’s who physically created the environment with the pole, allowed a child into it and then taught her?

@AdGrunt – let’s be clear about the real reason that a 6 year old pole dancing is a problem. It certainly isn’t what she thought she was doing, as anything sexual was far from her mind. It doesn’t mean it wasn’t evident in her behaviour and would be interpreted as such by an inappropriately behaved adult – and put her in a vulnerable position.

You’ve just revealed what is really driving this conversation – your ignorance. I feel for your daughters in that case.

My concern for my daughter was that if there were two small girls in spitting distance from a pedophile then who are they going to choose? The innocent one that does the somersaults and star jumps or the one that is writhing in full-on sexual behaviour taunting him (albeit unwittingly)?

If the girl that is wearing the revealing and sexual clothing is next to a sensibly or age appropriate dressed girl then who is the rapist going to choose?

We all need to be accountable for how we present ourselves and the response we get. Putting our children in this position is where the problem really lies and considering it simply our own projections is quite bizarre.

I think @Kate is onto something. I’m done here too.

Has anyone here shown a causal link between the advertising/advertisers mentioned in this piece and child abuse? Sorry, I drifted off with all these diversions and time-wasting.

@Joel – very good point. I agree – but where did he get the idea that it was a ‘mainstream’ enough concept to allow a 6 year old to do it?

can someone pls tell the recently outed misogynist Adgrunt that he is misusing third person effect, just as he misunderstood ad hominem?

in the comments thread of another Mumbrella story he has recently been exposed as a fraud in matters relating to research – now its in relation to persuasion and logic

“If the girl that is wearing the revealing and sexual clothing is next to a sensibly or age appropriate dressed girl then who is the rapist going to choose?” – Seriously Anne Mills… wow. Would you also subscribe to the view that Indian women not wear jeans so as to not attract rapists

Kate, I thought we were discussing sexualisation, not drug law reform. I’m unsure what exactly how you smoking weed has anything to do with the subject at hand. (Edited by Mumbrella for legal reasons)

I’m sorry, but there is absolutely no evidence that anything in the media is having some sort of devastating effect on children. In particular the “Sexualised goods aimed at children: a report to the Scottish Parliament Equal Opportunities Committee” found that in research groups made up of children and teenagers of both sexes that they viewed material like the Playboy stuff that Diva was selling as tacky. The report also found that they’re very critical of the media and quite savvy in terms deconstructing advertiser’s spin. Children and women are not mindless automations who need saving and people shouldn’t treat them as such. And I’ll nick this bit from wiki as I’m a bit lazy; “[The Scottish report] considers the drawbacks of the [American Psychological Association report (2007)] and [the Australia Institute’s “Corporate Paedophilia”] reviews. “[T]here is no indication [in the APA report] that the media might contain any positive images about human relationships, or that children might critically evaluate what they see.”

“The Scottish review also notes that “[s]uch accounts often present the sexualisation of children as a relatively recent development, but it is by no means a new issue … While the public visibility of the issue, and the terms in which it is defined, may have changed, sexualised representations of children cannot be seen merely as a consequence of contemporary consumerism.” It also notes that previous coverage “rests on moral assumptions … that are not adequately explained or justified.”

Currently there are no actual studies showing that either children or women are effected by portrayals of sexuality in the media. There is no evidence there is any problem in society, nor is there any data to show a like between sexualised media and social problems. In fact there are no studies at all which prove any link with any media and any social problem. Period. I suggest you look up “Ten things wrong with the effects model” by David Gauntlett. For me personally, I view the whole sexualisation of children and women debate as a moral panic. I’ve been through moral panics such as the PMRC’s “Filthy Fifteen”, satanic panic and rainbow parties. It was all a load of hogwash. All of it. Why in hell should I believe this nonsense that’s being peddled now?

“With regard to women expressing their own sexuality, totally don’t have a problem with it myself and I’m fairly sure that if it was women’s own desires that were being played out we’d be seeing a very different picture!!!”

Are you suggesting that women’s desires aren’t being represented in the media? That’s nonsense.

“Let me just say that if women were in any way empowered by this phenomenon we would be seeing a much greater diversity of women in the media today instead of the cookie cutter type representations of young, thin, hairless, sexual, readily available and often photoshopped women that we are seeing today”.

Funny, I am not seeing this in the media. I see women like Kari Byron, Adalita, Myf Warhurst, Judith Lucy, Toni Collette, Polly Harvey, Amanda Palmer, Bertie Blackman, Megan Washington etc. These women don’t fit the stereotype. You can find women with substance in the media. You just have to look. Do you really think any woman looks at Kim Kardashian as some sort of role model? Please, give me strength.

Matthew. I concur.

This article has certainly provoked a lot of comments. It’s an excellent article, which simply points out that an advertising industry, which despite a code of practice is effectively self regulated, and persists in using sex, sex, sex to market products and services. In the process, it contributes to the objectification of both men and women. (But much more often, women, and increasingly children.)

“Do you really think any woman looks at Kim Kardashian as some sort of role model? Please, give me strength.” was posted by Matthew.

Unfortunately Matthew – some do. As evidenced by the ridiculous media frenzy today – it didn’t seem to matter what I looked at there was some reference to the Kardashians. There was a brief segment on Ten’s “The Project” this evening (albeit to poke some fun), of a hysterical older teen, who had just spoken to the Kardashian sisters……she was completely incoherent. A massive case of the Cult of Celebrity.

And you know, I suspect you might be living on a different planet to the rest of us, if you’re not seeing predominantly “young, thin, hairless, sexual, readily available and often photoshopped women” portrayed more often in advertising (which is what the article is actually primarily about) than real women.

I have significant concerns about the portrayal of both women and men in the media – women are more often objectified, however this is increasingly happening to men as well.

The Australian Psychological Association says “Mental health professionals are increasingly concerned about the prevalence of sexualised images of children and early adolescents in the media. These images appear to be widely used in advertising, and represent children, including pre-pubertal children, in ways more congruent with adult sexuality. The values implicit in the images are that physical appearance and beauty are intrinsic to self-esteem and social worth, and that sexual attractiveness is a part of childhood experience. Research has shown that the exploitation of children, particularly girls, as sexual objects has a detrimental effect on adolescent development, increasing the risk of depression, eating disorders and low self-esteem. The unrealistic depiction of children in a sexualized manner is not only harmful to girls and women, but has wider consequences in the community.”
http://www.psychology.org.au/c.....alisation/

And here’s another link to the American Psychological Association and its taskforce report http://www.apa.org/pi/women/pr.....eport.aspx. This talks about the issues of sexualisation of women and girls, and doesn’t hesitate to point out that more research needs to be done – but primarily on the issues relating to girls. The evidence already shows that sexualisation and objectification of women is harmful.

Melinda – it’s not the advertisers fault that women demean themselves by posing in sexual poses.

You see sportswomen do it, look at any mag and there’s a girl in sexually suggestive position.

women show off our breasts in low cut tops and then get shirty when men look at them.

You don’t see business men wearing pants cut out to show off their butt cleavage, but senior business woman show off their breasts often.

Woman are far more sexualised than men, but its women who are getting into these positions.

You’ll never see a male athlete in a photospread of revealing clothes giving come hither looks at the camera which you do from time to time with female athletes, even very rich ones.

If woman don’t want to be sexualised, then stop willingly getting in these positions.

In terms of objectification of woman, well that has been the case since the year dot.

AdGrunt’s comments are always enjoyable to read. I personally think he is too smart for this mostly stupid industry. I’d love to know what he does/where he works…

Leonie,

“There was a brief segment on Ten’s “The Project” this evening (albeit to poke some fun), of a hysterical older teen, who had just spoken to the Kardashian sisters……she was completely incoherent. A massive case of the Cult of Celebrity.”

Just because girls are fans or follow the continuing adventures of Kardashians doesn’t mean that they are role models for them or wish to base their life on them.

“And you know, I suspect you might be living on a different planet to the rest of us, if you’re not seeing predominantly “young, thin, hairless, sexual, readily available and often photoshopped women” portrayed more often in advertising (which is what the article is actually primarily about) than real women”.

No they exist. However they are most definitely not the only women portrayed in pop culture. The suggestion was that they were. Then again I avoid most mainstream media like the plague. However I have never been assaulted by the images Tankard Reist says exists on billboards and in shopping centres as per her article. You have to do a pretty extensive search to find that stuff. The major problem I have is what gives Melinda Tankard Reist or anyone else the right to say what imagery should be effectively banned? Why does society have to adhere to her morals and standards? Because you know her views aren’t actually evidence based.

As for the American Psychological Association and its taskforce report, as I said before that was criticised by the Scottish Report, and they actually talked to children and teenagers for their views, unlike any other report on the subject.

“The evidence already shows that sexualisation and objectification of women is harmful”

Again, what evidence? Where? There is no peer reviewed evidence that anything in the media has a detrimental effect on society. No such report exists. No data exists. The Media Effects Model has been proven time and time again to be a load of nonsense.

@Matthew, you are simply incorrect, and naive, to state “there is absolutely no evidence that anything in the media is having some sort of devastating effect on children”.

@Leonie. I concur.

Hysterical rant is hysterical. Inspirred by porn? Hahahaha. I notice you don’t care about sexualized men in the media do you? Equality is a bitch, eh? The fact that so many women contribute, like and aspire to these images must really annoy you when it destroys your argument. And all those mums who put their kids in pageant shows. Don’t forget to picket the lingerie sections at Myer and DJs while you’re at it. All those kids seeing frilly knickers. Freedom… What a pain. Perhaps moving to Saudi would help? By the way, if men and women weren’t sexual objects, the species wouldn’t survive.

@Sam… you need to stop right now. Your argument is completely misguided and actually makes me feel a bit sick. As for the rest of you who want to argue the case in point…. enjoy the company you keep!

MattP, if I’m “simply incorrect, and naive, to state ‘there is absolutely no evidence that anything in the media is having some sort of devastating effect on children”, then please provide peer reviewed evidence that shows I’m wrong. Society seems to be functioning well and has been for many centuries. Please point out the horrible social disaster that is the sole cause of sexualised images in the media.

I recall creative from the ‘Three Wise Women’ agency for SunBeam. Three ads depicting three men infuriating and exasperating the spunky women in their lives with their bumbling, idiotic or primitive behaviour.

Which is more damaging to society? Teenage girls in ridiculously short skirts or the boy in the classroom bombarded with messages telling him he’s not as capable as the girl next to him?

It’s a question worth asking.

Ah a worthy discussion it is indeed and a complex one too.

Matthew, do us a favour, please take the time to look at the studies that Leonie and I have provided. In particular the APA ones – from both Australia and America.

There is no doubt that many women in society are objectifying themselves – but that’s not to say that women are freely choosing to do this.

You may have noticed earlier that I argued that the sexual objectification of women in the media undermines a woman’s autonomy. I think that this is a really important point. Historically and sadly still today women are socially conditioned to believe that their worth as people is intertwined with their physical appearance.

This needn’t be the case and I would certainly argue that the media are perpetuating this phenomenon by explicitly focusing upon the sexual aspect of a woman’s body – using her as a sex object to sell and thus denying her subjectivity and autonomy – rather than depicting her as a person with interests, talents hey even perhaps an identity. Ooh there I said it. Women are people too you know 🙂

Sam, this article about choice feminism may be of interest to you ? http://www.xojane.com/entertai.....t-a-choice

Honestly, for those of you who seem intent on trying to shut down the debate by reducing this argument to an issue of blame (be that man hating, woman hating, whatever) or silencing people who speak out by resorting to personal attacks, you may want to actually inform yourselves a little better. Because you’re kind of coming across as being really ignorant. Just saying …

Absolutely Shane – totally agree with you there. Advertisers really ought to consider very carefully the messages they are pumping out. Social responsibility should be foremost in their minds.

I remember Todd Sampson from Gruen once saying that advertisers spend more on psychological studies than the psychs themselves. Don’t know how true that is, perhaps he was just joking. But I would imagine considering the amounts of $$$ spent, advertisers are not oblivious to the influence that they have in their attempts to shape or access the market.

Kate, I’ve said before, the both the APA studies were criticised by the Scottish Review. Unlike the Scottish Review NEITHER interviewed children and teenagers and asked them what they thought about the subject. The Scottish Review concluded that children and teenagers where pretty savvy about the media and where critical of things like the Playboy stuff Diva was selling. Both APA studies says there needs to more study done on the subject. None of these reports showed a connection between sexualised portals in the media of women and any social or mental problems or changes in attitudes. NONE. I will state again that to use these reports as basis to sanitise depictions of female sexuality is absurd.

“There is no doubt that many women in society are objectifying themselves – but that’s not to say that women are freely choosing to do this.”

For the most part I think this is nonsense. Is anyone holding a gun to the models head’s? And as I said before who determines who is objectified? What is sexualised? For example would models who pose for the Suicide Girls website be objectifying themselves? I’m sure none of them think they are and would be offended if you suggested that. Tankard Reist is purposely confusing exploitation with expressions of sexuality. That’s the problem. It gets to a point where women are treated like children because they are “objectifying themselves” and they aren’t “freely choosing to do this”. To me I feel that’s really insulting to the models which appear in these adverts. You’re judging their ability to make decisions and making assumptions about them. Has anyone asked them how they feel, why they do it etc? Nope.

“You may have noticed earlier that I argued that the sexual objectification of women in the media undermines a woman’s autonomy. I think that this is a really important point. Historically and sadly still today women are socially conditioned to believe that their worth as people is intertwined with their physical appearance.”

When the Queen visited Australia last month, she was greeted by a female governor general, female prime minster and a female chief minister. I really don’t think Quentin Bryce, Julia Gillard or Katy Gallagher got to where they are today because society judged by their physical appearance. I think also applies to almost every other successful woman in society today.

“This needn’t be the case and I would certainly argue that the media are perpetuating this phenomenon by explicitly focusing upon the sexual aspect of a woman’s body – using her as a sex object to sell and thus denying her subjectivity and autonomy – rather than depicting her as a person with interests, talents hey even perhaps an identity. Ooh there I said it. Women are people too you know”

But this doesn’t pan out in the real world, does it? Society doesn’t value women on looks alone. The problem for me with Tankard Reist’s method of “ban, ban, ban!” is that is essentially saying that it is wrong for women to express their sexuality. I think this is far more dangerous and backward looking than any coverage on Kim Kardashian or the obscure Lynx adverts or t-shirts Melinda finds. It also tries to blame the media for society’s social problems. This is also rather dangerous as the focus is taken off the real causes such an inadequate or unaffordable mental health services or poor education etc.

Guess what, you’re in advertising. No matter how many big words you use or how much social justice you wish to promote, you’re still in an industry of soulless, self-interested BS artists and incestuous agency pundits. As Bill Hicks says, just kill yourself.

Matthew. You’ve done a far better job than I could hope to. Hiding a prohibitionist, slut-shaming agenda under the guise of “children” and “wimmin” is deplorable.

Do carry on. I’ll be over here wth the popcorn, taking the piss out of Serge and Beni.

Serge. Stop making ad hominems and make a salient point in the conversation.

Beni. Urban dictionary? Really? Try some more adult sources – my reference was to a Monty Python film – start around that area.

Never been 81 before!

Matt, I’m not trying to blame the media for societies social ills, but I would most definately argue that they, through the types of advertising we are discussing here, are complicit in terms of women’s self objectification, issues surrounding eating disorders, depression, low self esteem and body dissatisfaction just to name a few. Absolutley!!

Advertising is all about shaping people’s behaviours, yes? That is what they do and they make a LOT of money doing it. Advertising plays on peoples emotions, desires, behaviours and so on. Advertisers now days are selling more than just products, they are selling a way of life – its called lifestyle branding Matt. Now have to admit I’m no expert on this at all but I have done a little reading. In much of today’s advertising the focus is often not on the product at all, often there are no product details or descriptions instead they are selling us an idea, an identity, a set of values eg success. These ideas are then reinforceed through the media in other ways, television shows, product placement, music videos, celebrity endorsements and so on. Matt to say that advertising does not influence peoples behaviours would be a ridiculous argument? Yes?

Ok, no, I do not think anyone is holding a gun to anyone’s head to make them choose to take part in this kind of advertising. Rather I imagine the people involved are well rewarded financially. Check out the link that I posted just before Matt, go on, please 🙂 Just so you can get a little understanding from where I am coming from.

Finally Matt, if we aren’t willing to move beyond the bounds of our own prejudices and values we will never gain an understanding of how this phenomenon impacts upon individual people. I just ask that you give that some thought. This isn’t just about Melinda’s view, Melinda’s background, Melinda’s personal values, this is a societal issue and there are a lot of people, Matt, a lot of men and women who are starting to speak out. It is not a fad, it is something that people are truly concerned about. Man you could dismiss any study I provide for you so I’m not going to bother, that said we ARE seeing the effects of this phenomenon within our schools, our friends, our families.

I think this debate is really important and that’s why I’m still here. I think we need to find some common ground so that we can actually unpack the issue, it is complex, I don’t think we achieve anything by arguing in circles. I’m not talking about Julia Guillard and the like, I’m talking about the phenomenon of the sexual objectification of women in main stream media. Can we stick with that??

I’ll just add here that from a social psychology perspective IMHO what we often mistake as someone’s ‘choice’ actually comes from a lack of understanding or some kind of conditioning that is external for the person to believe that the ‘choice’ is sound.

So, simply saying that a woman has made a choice and that she has an argument to say that she is in control of her own decisions isn’t completely sound. The influences and the context that helped them form those decisions needs to be taken into account.

As much as the influences from our upbringing sets a kind of ‘default’ that determines our beliefs and values and therefore our decisions, the influences from the wider society does the same. My issue with research is that it is often with a direct question asked of the respondents, or is only centred around specific questions or topics that are in context of an environment that many now see as ‘normal’ even if it is not necessarily in their best interest, and this is not the same as a subconscious response or without any influence.

Interviewing the children and teens would have a questionable response I feel because their ‘default’ is influencing the outcome of the results and self perpetuating that the environment they’re in is OK. It’s s circular formula if executed this way and is not a sound approach to resolving this in my opinion.

The answer – not quite sure to be honest. I wonder if media is not actually driving the trend but reflecting the trend. No one in media will make something that isn’t going to sell in some way – so media/advertising only produces content that people want. So, the question then is where to draw the line so that a balance is achieved.

Wow, you all have a lot of time on your hands to comment this much.

The only ad I’ve felt like complaining to the ASB is the current outdoor for Ansell Condoms with the copy line Zero or Nothing.

Do I care about the images of naked people with body paint, no. I care about the bullshit marketers that think it’s cool to infer that it’s better to have unprotected sex than wear our product.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/a.....uses-upset

On topic however, Girls like looking at girls, guys like looking at girls, guys don’t like looking at guys.

That is a scientific fact.

Kate, first up, changing adverting is not going to help people with eating disorders or depression or low self esteem or any other mental health issue. Psychologists, psychiatrists, GPs, therapists and other mental health care workers can and do help. If you get these issues due to watching any commercial media, then you need help. Censoring and dubbing down the media doesn’t help anyone. Tankard Reist doesn’t mention this does she? Does she ever ask her band of followers to write to their local MPs to increase the amount of mental health services in the community? Nope. Ever try to see a psychologist? Takes between two and six weeks to get an appointment. Medicare will only (partly) cover six visits per year with GP referral. Used to be 12, but the government cut it back. Make you wonder why the media gives Tankard Reist airtime where there are more important issues to help women that the government could easily solve.

“Advertising is all about shaping people’s behaviours, yes? That is what they do and they make a LOT of money doing it. Advertising plays on peoples emotions, desires, behaviours and so on. Advertisers now days are selling more than just products, they are selling a way of life – its called lifestyle branding Matt […] Matt to say that advertising does not influence peoples behaviours would be a ridiculous argument? Yes?”

It influences me to choose to buy vacuum cleaner from Godfreys when my old one dies. It influences me to buy a certain brand of pasta sauce etc. It doesn’t influence me to think differently about women or to live a certain way. What you seem to be suggesting is that people are more influenced by advertising and the media rather than their parents, their peer groups and friends and society. That is not true. Advertising does generally work, but to a only a very limited number of people compared to the audience that is exposed to it. Attitudes in society change because of changes within society. This comes back the Media Effects Model, which is broken model with no evidence to back it up.

“Rather I imagine the people involved are well rewarded financially.”

Um, why should people have to work for free? You work to get paid. That’s what employment is all about. Models should be paid. Can you explain why they shouldn’t be?

“Check out the link that I posted just before Matt, go on, please Just so you can get a little understanding from where I am coming from”

That link just encapsulates “anti-choice” feminism perfectly. In other words, “you women are too stupid to make decisions for yourself, so I will take choices away from you because I don’t like what you are doing”. How utterly condescending and patronising. And what, the only choices for women is use your body (which is apparently the easy way out) or face the big bad world (the more difficult and hard but correct choice)? How woefully simplistic. Well where I work three quarters of the staff are female. Everyone from my supervisors boss up to the assistant secretary of the department is female. None of them wear little bikinis and feed people grapes.

“if we aren’t willing to move beyond the bounds of our own prejudices and values we will never gain an understanding of how this phenomenon impacts upon individual people.”

There is no evidence that people are being affected by the media in an adverse manner. No data, nothing. Why do we having to do something about a “phenomenon” which no one has any data on? There’s no links to any problems in society which can be traced back to media being the sole cause. We should have evidence based policy.

“This isn’t just about Melinda’s view, Melinda’s background, Melinda’s personal values, this is a societal issue”

No it’s not, it’s Melinda’s religion, her church, her beliefs. There is no science, no evidence to back up any of her claims.

“Man you could dismiss any study I provide for you so I’m not going to bother”

I didn’t have to do that, the report from the Scottish Parliament did that for me.

“that said we ARE seeing the effects of this phenomenon within our schools, our friends, our families.”

How come you can see this, yet social researchers can’t get any data on this or write up a peer reviewed study on it? If there is evidence, why isn’t it being documented?

“ I’m not talking about Julia Guillard and the like, I’m talking about the phenomenon of the sexual objectification of women in main stream media. Can we stick with that??”

Julia Gillard isn’t a woman? Answer me this; there are images of “sexual objectification of women in mainstream media”, yet the vast majority of women grow up health and have successful lives. Why?

*** Paging Julie Gale ***

When is this debate going to trickle over to the Lynx thread?

Do Melinda and her band of moral outrage associates go after the child beauty pageant sect or just ads they deem – and therefore so should the rest of the world – inappropriate. Do they go after the reprehensible Kim Kardashian’s and Paris Hilton’s of the world that have far more negative influence on young women than any ad campaign? Do they go after Disney where you have to marry a Prince to be happy ever after? Do they set up centres for young women who are blind drunk at 3 in the morning and talk to them about how that is not appropriate behaviour? Or is it just ads because it’s an easy to rally outrage target. I for one am sick to death of people sitting on their moral high-horse ramming their opinions down my throat with the ‘I’m always right and if you don’t agree you’re wrong’ attitude. Talk about narcissistic.

Hey Hmmmm… 3 Nov 11 4:36 pm
It is Mr Spock.
Mr Spock was a full fledge Vulcan/Human half cast with blue blood and two hearts.
Dr Spock wrote a book advocating the spanking of children in his book
Live Long and Prosper.

@ Just wondering. Good comment.

Reading all this I’m thinking…what does “objectify” mean exactly? Where does Michelangelo stand. How about all the fountains in Rome? And our Archibald fountain? Don’t they portray naked people as objects of beauty, but objects none the less. All those life drawing artists down at ARThouse on Wednesday night. Aren’t they treating the human form as an object, like an apple in a still-life table? Why is art allowed to objectify men and women in the name of beauty, might be the question I’m looking for an answer to.

@ #74 Alison

Alison, Alison, Alison, it’s time we woman started taking responsiblity for our own actions.

You let down the image of women when you get the vapors at a different arguments to yours and say you feel sick.

Quick Fetch me my smelling salts !

@ # 80

Shame on you. Most of the comments here have been talking about the ‘harm’ that comes to women from being sex objects etc etc – most of it allegeldy pysch harm

And then you tell people to go kill themselves – that is disgusting and shameful.

You must be hold a lot of very nasty and unhappy thoughts in you.

Yes advertising is not rocket science or making the world better like drs, nurses etc.

But then neither are most jobs. Shame on you again.

@ # 80

Shame on you. Most of the comments here have been talking about the ‘harm’ that comes to women from being sex objects etc etc – most of it allegeldy pysch harm

And then you tell people to go kill themselves – that is disgusting and shameful.

You must be hold a lot of very nasty and unhappy thoughts in you.

Yes advertising is not rocket science or making the world better like drs, nurses etc.

But then neither are most jobs. Shame on you again.

Ah, I see Mumbrella has come under spam attack from (Edited by Mumbrella for legal reasons)

Gale and MTR are very adapt at marshalling their small band of merry followers to swamp websites with inane comments, all in furious agreement.

@Sam / 93 – Clearly you are unfamiliar with the work of Bill Hicks. Either that or you are in denial like most ad people, in a vacuum of self-interest devoid of intelligence or benevolance.

We are talking about ‘harm’ that comes to women from advertising. A simple concept.

I’d also like to point out that rocket science also does little for the world as does your baseless moralising. You are part of a predominantly amoral industry and all your boo-hooing does little other than reinforce Bill’s arguments which you’d do well to acquaint yourself with. Ad plebeians such as yourself are in no a position to tarnish his insights, so please do as he intructs.

@ 95 whatever again

Shame on you again. Urging people to commit suicide whilst ranting about the alleged harm to women. And then you have the gall to call others amoral. I have seen the Bill Hicks video you mention, but so what.

As to rocket science, one could argue it has prevented further world wars.

But getting back to women being sex objects – of course they are – men are programmed by nature to find women attractive – it’s been happening since the year dot. If we stopped advertising tomorrow, women would still be regarded as sex objects. That doesn’t mean they don’t have other qualities, but sex is a core need and there’s nothing wrong with it.

I agree with you that some advertising with nude women etc is not ideal, but like the Supre ad, women keep going there so it mustn’t bother most of them

And seriously why do you think so little of yourself that you need to put others down to boost yourself – “ad plebians” .

I have to agree with Adgrunt, it does seem the wowser police have come to this site.

And shame on you for urging people to commit suicide – that is just so nasty, I am shocked.

Shame on you again.

oops, the previous post is directed @ whatever again who is #97

Peter Rush touched on artists like Michaelangelo and objectification in their work. Personally, I wouldn’t compare the art with mainstream advertising. One is a great talent creating something beautiful. The other uses women’s bodies and sexuality to sell ANYTHING. It requires no talent, skill or creativity. It’s just lazy and unoriginal. Women are not just admired for their beauty, but often as a porn inspired fantasy (COUGHLynx…)

I have just been reading over the comments here again and I think it’s fair to say that there are many, many people who are seriously concerned about this issue. For everyone one person that came on here to voice their concerns, how many others are there who think it, feel it, but haven’t articulated it in this space? From my limited associations, thousands and thousands!!

And as usual there are those people who seemingly either just don’t care or perhaps just don’t understand how this phenomenon actually impacts upon real people. And then of course there are those who have commented here who are just up for abusing, poking fun and amusing themselves – arguing for the sake of it.

I suspect that it is hard for some men to understand how sexual objectification can make you feel. I don’t know how to get it across, which is immensly frustrating! My long term partner says he would love to be sexually objectified! 🙂 But I think if he had experienced it from his early teens into his forties – and at times when he wanted to be doing, thinking, feeling, his own thing and not have that kind of distraction, well, he may well think differently. Comes a time when it’s not ego boosting at all, if anything it just makes you feel self conscioius, always on display, dehumanised. Not really so good for the self esteem after all. That’s my experience anyway as a thin, big breasted woman.

I think the sexual objectification of women in the media encourages women on the whole to feel as though they are either on display as sexual beings, or as ugly, not pretty or sexy enough, deficient. (Hence the rise in cosmetic surgery, beauty therapies, weightloss, psych problems and so on…) I think it encourages men to see women as sexual beings first, people second – if at all.

I have just been reading through a uk report that highlights many of the areas involved in this debate. As I have said before, I really do think this is a complex issue. Here is the link for anyone who may be interested. http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform.....f81574.pdf

Finally one of the key principles and policy calls in relation to media and advertising from this report states:

* Encourage media providers and regulators to consider the implications of sexualised messages and images and how they might limit children’s exposure to those which are the most potentially damaging.

Now that is essentially what I am asking for. I am concerned and I am speaking out. I want advertisers not only to consider the damaging effects, but to act in a responsible manner.

There is so much research going on at the moment with regard to the harms caused by the sexual objectification of women in the media and the early sexualisation of children. Why? Because our society is changing. There is no doubt that our cultural landscape has become more sexualised. You just can’t argue against that. And on a anecdotal level we are seeing, hearing, witnessing the effects of this. Whilst we await conclusive findings, I believe that as a society we are suffering. It took a long time for scientists to provide conclusive evidence re smoking and health risks, yes?

Why not act now? Self regulation in advertising in relation to this issue is dubious at best. Surely anyone in the industry knows (I no longer am) that advertisers will use shock tactics to create publicity. But at what cost?

I don’t think I’m going to comment again because I truly find some of the responses here disheartening. I am thankful that I had the opportunity to speak out.

look up anything in the urban dictionary and some peoples lexicographer has polluted the meaning.
try and buy clothing for a nine year old . . it’s all slut wear.
anything that raises the tone back to a decent level is in my book . . . good

@ Kate – “I want advertisers not only to consider the damaging effects, but to act in a responsible manner.”

I totally agree Kate. Unfortunately, I suspect social responsibility cuts into revenue.

I see the impact of advertising, as well as peep pressure, on my daughter (8), and while I do not agree with the advertising steroetypes, I do see it as my responsibility to raise awareness of media techniques.

The same applies to what I see as my responsibility to my son, with respect to balancing out the many hopelessly incompetent male role models in the media.

I thought feminisim was about searching for equailty, not advantage, and certainly not about putting the other gender down. The day I see people like Melinda Tankard Reist arguing that men should not be objectified, and that this is a whole of society problem – not just “women are victims” then I will see some value in it.

Out of curiosity, all these women hating objectifiers, do you think they had mothers?

so I have read through the majority of these comments but there is one that really sticks out, one that highlights the danger of campaigns like these.

That is the comment from Anne Miles about her ex-husband’s girlfriend teaching her six-year-old daughter to pole dance.

It worries me that your instant thought was to latch onto this campaign and say “yes, it must have been the objectification of women in the media that made them think it was ok to do this”

Instead of blaming the media, advertisers, porn, our consumeristic society and anything else you can dream up has it ever thought to you that the blame is really with the dumb-witted father of your child?!?!?!

Yes I hear you arguing that its porn that made him think that that’s ok behaviour, but that is absolute cr**. You had a child with a douche, stop finding other excuses for the problem.

@Dave – the two are not mutually exclusive. Of course the first place to look at this is with the father. Of course. I’m horrified at the thought of not putting responsibility and accountability where it is due. Equally with the girlfriend – what was she thinking?!

The issue is very complex and to suggest that one comment here says that’s the complete picture is incredibly naive. I’m no prude either in all this, and feel that whatever adults want to do in their own time is just fine by me if they’re consenting. Cut loose.

The issue or question over media’s part in this and other issues, is not complete either and nor should it be shut down like you and others are. Blaming one person is easy to do, believe me. But what ever made someone think that it was OK? Look at the posts above and there was one lady who had her teenage children invited to a pole dancing birthday party – where does that come from? Where does the trend for something like this start? I’m reading “The Tipping Point” by Malcolm Gladwell and it is obviously more complex than media’s part alone. My point is that the media is one part in a tipping point and if the media didn’t do its part in it then the tipping point may not happen, it tips back the other way.

To be clear – I didn’t actually say it was porn that made my ex think it was OK to allow pole dancing for his 6 year old – they were your words. That’s not what I think actually – I”m happy for it to stay as porn, for the porn market, for adults. Go for it. Where my issue really is is where porn slips into mainstream and it starts to become a new norm of sorts.

We should be open enough to ask good questions and to explore this subject fully in all areas of influence, of which the media is one part, so we can be clear on where the boundaries are on a subject like this. What this forum is suggesting is that the current boundary or set of rules isn’t working for many. If there isn’t robust discussion then that boundary isn’t re-visited – wherever that ends up. Shutting it down and limiting it to such a simplistic single faceted problem as many are here on this post is just ignorance – some may be well meaning even. Some are well researched and I know we can also interpret what we read the way we want to see the results too. Two people reading the same report can see different things. In the end proper research only happens when the right questions are asked and this right now suggests that a new set of questions could be necessary to resolve it.

So many advertising people complain about the research process being mostly to answer direct questions and it is missing the true mark – so let’s take some of the current research with a grain of salt too.

We do agree on one thing. The definition of ‘douche’ ;o)

(Edited by Mumbrella for legal reasons)
If Melinda did indeed want to help womankind perhaps she could find away to provide birth control to women in the developing world.

Clearly self regulation has failed again… in keeping Melinda Tankard Reist quiet!

Making claims that the advertising industry is making sex objects out of kids is absolute nonsense.

Both men and women are sexualised in film, television, magazines… and yes, advertising. Why? Because people like it. Simple.

It amazes me that people like Tankard Reist seem never to complain about how people getting their brains blown out on television or film has become normal place, but arcs up like all the Christians over a perfectly natural, human act such as sex.

Sexual admiration of the opposite sex (or same sex if that’s the way you’re inclined) is perfectly natural and healthy. The models in these ads are paid well and enjoy what they do.

The prudish whining societies (aka Collective Shout, Australian Christian Lobby) should pull their heads out of the sand and accept that this is the way society is, they’re never going to change it. Often the excuse that these groups use is that it ‘damages’ innocent children. It’s the same argument that the far-right uses when promoting ‘abstinence’ instead of proper sexual education. These people need to accept kids WILL be exposed to sexual images, in public, through television, film and the Internet. It is proven that when kids are provided with adequate sexual education from a young age, they grow up with a sensible approach to sex and body image, despite being surrounded by an over sexualised society.

If the likes of Tankard Reist focussed their efforts on better sexual education for kids, they may actually do some good in this world.

Aghhh!!!! I can’t help myself :-/

Really Robin? After all the debate here, that is your question?? Why can’t she do something for women in another country? That is ridiculous. It seems quite obvious that your interest in this debate is nil so why even bother commenting?

If she were doing something to help women in another country you’d probably get on here and bang on about her not helping women in Australia!! Give her a break and why do her religious leanings matter in this instance? You can research her and find out her stance on the sexualisation of children and sexual objectification of women in the media. That is the issue here. It’s got nothing to do with religion but a whole lot to do with reinforcing gender inequality, consumerism, making big bucks. Very little to do with values obviously – advertisers seem to care very little when it comes to our greater society. A buck is a buck yes ? and it seems that any one who wants to question how that buck is being made is vilified.

The attempts to shut down debate, create distractions and harrass others in this space are just appalling.

Oh Robin you funny thing you…fancy trotting out the usual and typical tripe thrown at someone who’s doing good work ….. evangelical chrisitian movement…phooey….. try getting your info from a reliable source.
But maybe you have a bit of a point to run with…how about we all blame Melinda
because we dont have world peace yet…
and for the starving children
and for thunder making little doggies scared
and for fox hunting
and for climate change…
yeah – if she really wanted to help womankind she could find a way to fix all the problems in the developed world as well.

Kate, if you can’t see the irony in a woman who (Edited by Mumbrella for legal reasons) leading a fight against the exploitation of women in advertising, then I truly do feel for you.
Leslie, where is the blame here? Melinda’s chosen this particular area to focus on, and I’m questioning why this is where she has put her energy into.

It is surprising and disheartening to see any comments at all arguing that the media should continue to be allowed to sexualise children and women. The argument seems to run three ways: Well, it’s happening, live with it. Or, well it happens to men too, so tough. Or, it isn’t happening, you’ve just got the vapours. Obviously, it is most definitely happening, I am not prepared to live with it and neither are many like me, and we can deal with the male issue too – but that is not the issue being discussed here.

For the record, I am an atheist, an active member of the Richard Dawkins website and detest evangelical xians. But I can still see why it is completely unacceptable for the advertising industry to decide to sexualise women and children to sell their tacky products. Perhaps the reason Melinda does not mention her religious inclinations is to avoid irrelevant discussions on the topic – women from all walks of life, and men too, are very concerned about the irrefutable damage the hyper sexualisation happening in today’s society is doing to females.

Let’s concentrate on fixing one thing we can, at a time. Regulate the media, force them to treat women and children as people, and not sex objects. Then, perhaps we can move on to other things.

Kate and Leslie, how exactly does lobbying for removal of reproductive choice (abortion and surrogacy in particular) actually help women? How does advocating censorship of just about anything to do with women and sexuality actually help society? This is what Tankard Reist does. And yes, it has to do her religion. Not everyone is of the Christian faith (or a Baptist like Melinda), so the question remains as to why society has to conform to her narrow world view. Censoring the world of sexist imagery won’t fix the social problems we currently have, it won’t fix issues surrounding gender equality. It ignores the real causes of these problems. Her views are the real distraction in this debate. She’s pointing at the symptoms rather than the cause.

Matthew – looks like you are getting your information from an unreliable source. From my investigations Melinda Tankard Reist is not and has never been a baptist. A Melbourne ‘ethicist’ hosts a page full of misinformation and myths about Ms Tankard Reist and has circulated these untruths widely. Not particularly ethical behaviour. Melindas personal beliefs – whatever they may be, should not be used as a distraction to the issue being discussed.

Okay, just for the record I am not religious. Nor am I a man hater – currently in a long term relationship with a man and have a young son. I am not a prude. Not even a moral crusader. And I am most definately NOT a person who follows the leader.

I have been concerned and speaking about this issue for a long while now, well before I ever became aware of Melinda. So what do you suggest? I stop doing my own research, stop caring about my sons future relations and how they might be affected by this phenomenon, stop writing my own papers. Basically you want me to stop arguing for change because Melinda Tankard Reist and I share an opinion about this issue.

As unreasonable as it might seem to an outside observer, to me even, it has slowly dawned on me that in this space, my independent views on this subject will be disregarded, and I will be shut down on all accounts because Melinda has a religious view.

Gee people thanks for clearing that up.

(Edited by Mumbrella for legal reasons)

Kate, yes you should be concerned about what effects your sons, but perhaps you should be focused on real threats, not moral panic like this. There still isn’t any peer reviewed research which shows a link between the media and social problems. None. Zip. Zilch. Until some sort of research becomes available (and I truly doubt it will) then people should continue to treat it like the moral panic it is.

http://video.news.com.au/21651.....U.facebook

I’m over all these (Edited by Mumbrella for legal reasons) hairy legged fundamentalist feminists here

Go away – this is getting boring – this is an industry site for advertising and marketing discussion – usually between people who work in the industry or at least have a clue about it.

(Edited by Mumbrella for legal reasons)

I’m over it…

@ the defence rests #117 – good video and good idea and no I don’t care they are using fine specimens like the men in that video.

I look nowhere near as good as those guys – but who gives a toss.

Stop worrying so much ladies. We don’t expect you to look like a supermodel.

It is not that strange to understand where these pro-porn and pro-female/child exploitation come from as porn has highly hijacked pop-culture.
It is evidence enough that major brands use porn-tactics for promotion as this is such a fast growing industry.

Unfortunately if it was “only” pictures that was the harm it would still be bad enough, but we are now looking at the industry of trafficking in human beings being the largest growing organised crime.
Why?
Because there will never be enough women willing to sell their bodies or risk their lives in doing this.
BUT there is a demand, and the demand is growing fast.
Currently there are over 1.39 million victims of commercial sexual servitude worldwide and the number is growing fast.
Yes this is a staggering number, but think about the ONE person, your mother/daughter/sister?! And you realize we need to change something.

This campaign is trying to do their part by speaking up to the media in raising awareness that degrading a female or a child is not okey. And even if that person might not suffer from being enslaved, another individual might.

If we are naive enough to believe that a poster – which will never be just “one” poster as they are placed all over our towns or “one commercial” (Shown over and over in homes accross our countries) does not affect the trafficking industry, we are the ones being “morons” achieving nothing by applauding sexual exploitation in the media…

It is not about the third person – It’s about the ONE Person, a human being, just like you and me, regardless of gender…

You’re really linking posters with women or children on them, to sex trafficking? You call that porn? You clearly don’t know how to use the internet.

You’re utterly fucking bonkers. You’re the pervert degrading these women and children in your bizarrely twisted mind, not us, you freak.

I presume, aside from your deluded worldview, that you have some evidence to support this sky-is-green-grass-is-blue belief?

Amen to that Betty (jokes!)

It would be utterly fantastic if mUmbrella could do a bit of back-end work to ensure content is provided by the community it intends to be. Giving space to a columnist who labels herself as something other than what she is, is not the right direction (in my humble opinion).

Collective Shout comes across as an apolitical, benign organisation (which enjoys tax-free status haha!), but I think from what we can see here, it is anything but that. Hopefully this is the last we hear of this mob in this domain.

Says it all ‘Betty’ and ‘Adgrunt’ – your comments are very revealing and one would like to assume, not representative of most people in the industry. Name calling and vitriol are never intelligent arguments.

James, bonkersness is what this is all about. Swears could’ve been avoided, but you have to understand the insanity behind this all. I myself have first hand knowledge of this as the OB who delivered me was shot by a nutter with an ak47 rifle in the early 90s after being influenced by the anti-abortion movement…all in the name of family values…

Pornography and methods used in advertising have no relation to each other. Pornography and sex trafficking have no relation to each other. Expressions of sexuality in the general mainstream media and pornography have no relation to each other. How you managed to conflate advertising and sex trafficking is beyond me.

You’re going have to explain how “porn has highly hijacked pop-culture”, because X18+ films are banned from sale and rent in every single state in Australia and have been so since 1984. You will have to show evidence or at least some examples “that major brands use porn-tactics (whatever they are) for promotion” and it is “a fast growing industry”. Note that a woman in a bikini advertising something is not a “porn-tactic”. It’s just a woman in a bikini. Yes it’s crappy and sexist form of advertising, but it’s got nothing to do with porn. I think conflating images of women with porn is dangerous. Essentially it says that women should not be able to express themselves sexually. How is that healthy for society?

Changing how women are depicted in advertising will do nothing to help those who are caught up in sex trafficking. Only police work can help and remove that. I think it’s really obscene to use those who have been sexuality exploited and trafficked again their own will to remove or restrict types of advertising you don’t particularly like. Anyway the statistics on sex trafficking are highly are highly inflated; http://the-myth-of-sex-trafficking.weebly.com/

Tell me that the media has nothing to do with this:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com......5864266203

My question is – without the media (not specifically advertising) would this be happening so readily? So, yes it may likely happen but the thing is that it is unlikely to be mimicked because the news wouldn’t travel so far and wide, nor would it be ‘promoted’ like this.

This is about the media being a part of something becoming contagious.

How sad that the film makers are not just documenting an existing activity to educate and deter the problem, but there seems to be active promotion to make someone ‘famous’. What a sad state of affairs this is.

If we start to see branded content in there … geez…

I would still like to think that many of the comments here are not representative of the majority of the industry – if they are – then there needs to be an education program implemented. Clearly there needs to be a shift away from the way women are generally portrayed (and more frequently than people here want to admit). Many comments on this post are just personal attack and not relevant to the issues commented on in the article. I think there is little argument that women are often portrayed in sexualized ways – or like objects. Sometimes men are portrayed this way but not very often. Tankard Reist has valid points worth consideration by the industry.

Anne Miles, that’s a one off (and 18 months old at that). It’s a project specifically designed to bait crappy tabloid like the Daily Terror into promoting their film and creating faux rage and angst and it worked. Is it distasteful? Yes, but so what? What is the point of bringing this stupid film up? Can you please tell me where the film makers are “documenting an existing activity”, because I know of no place that auctions off virgins, before or after this daft “news story” broke. The outcome of the whole episode was it provided the religious right and readers of the Daily Terror about 10 minutes of hand wringing and then was promptly forgotten by everyone.

Who cares what Melinda Tankard Reist’s personal or religious beliefs are? The issue here is Outdoor Advertising depicting women merely as sex objects. Being able to recognise this does not require a religious background.

Matthew – Whether it’s got anything to do with this post or not… it’s not as ‘one off’ as you think. Check today’s news:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ne.....6189683311

It’s not about the religious right it’s an issue of human rights – which segues back into the way women are frequented portrayed in advertising…..sexualised, objectified, dehumanised …..it all feeds the machine.

How, in the name of all that is sane, can you link that tripe, to advertising?

That is hilarious.

You’re just merrily joining dots all over the place.

Do carry on. I’ve got my popcorn and comfy chair now.

Is David Icke going to make a guest appearance?

Leslie, you have to dig really deep for this stuff. It’s not at all like the previous story. No one is auctioning off anyone’s virginity and there’s no documentary. Plus can you tell me why it’s a “issue of human rights”? Why don’t you cough up the money she needs if you’re so worried for her? She’s 19, an adult. She has the legal right to do this. There’s no evidence she’s even a virgin. There’s no evidence she is a sex slave (Edited by Mumbrella for legal reasons) It’s yet another tabloid creating moral panic and faux outrage for it’s simple minded readers. It has nothing to do with how women are portrayed in the media or advertising. It would still occur even if we removed all images of women from the media. There is no link. Just because prostitution exists and “sexualised” images in the media of women exist, it doesn’t mean the two influence each other. The claim that men use the services of sex workers because there are “sexualised” images in the media of women is absurd.

My religious leaders, at the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, have long recognised the inarguable link between the number of pirates in the world and the rise in global temperatures. The link is inarguable, as the number of pirates have declined, global temperatures have gone up. We even have a nice graph to explain it.
I must draw their attention to the clear and established link between women in advertising and everything bad that has ever happened to women and children. Obviously we, in the FSM Church have missed this, but now that it has been explained so clearly and logically in this thread, I have no doubt it will be added to our core religious tenets.
Ramen

(Edited by Mumbrella for legal reasons) The fact that people from diverse sectors of the community are concerned about how women are treated (be that advertising or elsewhere) doesn’t mean they are ‘mates’.

(Edited by Mumbrella for legal reasons)

@Leslie, you should have learnt by now that common sense and logic has no place in any discussion with Matthew or AdGrunt. If they want your opinion, they will give it to you.

They much prefer being dismissive and derogatory (or illiterate by using swearing) and demanding scientific evidence. As if science is always right.

Reality is the article written by Melinda raises many valuable points and has a lot of supporters in the community, particularly those who have daughters of their own.

MattP, you’re deemed lliterate by swearing??

You work in advertising right?

MattP – You couldn’t bring the logic that we’re missing to bear, could you? It’s just you seemed to be using the highly subjective “sample of one” and a lot of Post Hoc fallacy.

I suggested you explain how this crusade actually makes a difference to an actual, demonstrable problem. Did you discover why censorship is a weak and often counter-productive force.

I swear to emphasise. I’m glad it hit the mark.

Saying “As if science is always right” doesn’t mark you out as a critical thinker. Which area of marketing do you work in?

MattP, I have a young daughter, and I was initially interested in Collective Shout, until I dug a bit and found out who was behind it.
How can one not question Melinda’s motives when she so clearly has spent the bulk of her time campaigning against giving women the right to choose whether to have a child or not?
Hopefully my daughter will never have to make that choice, but I would never think of throwing my support behind anyone trying to take that away from her or any woman.
Yes, there are some inflammatory words on this thread, and some misogynists, too, but I think some healthy skepticism needs to be applied to Melinda and her organisation.

MattP, you’re going to have to explain where I’ve been derogatory or swore at anyone in this thread. I thought I was using common sense and logic by demanding scientific evidence, rather than panicking and mindlessly asking for everything to censored. So far there are only papers theorising what might happen. The evidence is pretty scant. I’ll remind everyone of the Satanic Panic of the 1980’s and 1990’s. People were caught up in the legal system for years and went to gaol for the fantasies of parents and others that had absolutely no basis in reality. What exactly is wrong with asking for evidence? The public has been duped before.

Somebody needs to explain what exactly has changed within society that is so terrible and how the media caused this. Some bogan letting a child pole dance or some black guy on plane watching a rap video is hardly the end of the world. What exactly will happen if we don’t reign in the ‘orrible images of women? Armageddon? I mean what exactly? What will happen to society exactly? How does removing images of scantily clad women stop poverty for example? Or abuse or neglect of children? What does exactly do except make you less anxious about a nonexistent problem?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/medi.....-ad-banned

There is, in the committee’s opinion, no definitive evidence proving that there is an agent in tobacco which causes cancer of the lung. Furthermore, the statistical evidence indicates that it is unlikely that the increase in the incidence of lung cancer is entirely due to increases in smoking. In fact, the differences in incidence between urban and rural areas and between different towns suggest that other factors, such as atmospheric pollution and occupational risks, may be operating.

If Smoking Ceased-

No immediate dramatic fall in death rates could be expected if smoking ceased, the committee says, since the development of lung cancer may be the result of factors operating over many years. Nor can any reliable quantitative estimates be made on the effect of smoking on the incidence of cancer of the lung, but it would appear that the risk increases with the amount smoked. This applies particularly to cigarettes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/1.....thearchive

Give me a break Matthew – just because someone is invited to present a topic to a group – whoever they are – does not mean they share all the opinions of that group. That’s just absurd.
Presumably Tankard Reist presents the issue to a wide ranging audience – your assumption is that she ‘only’ presents to religious groups. Where’e your evidence for that? And what would be wrong with presenting the issue to a religious group or church anyway???

Robin – I too have looked into Collective Shout out of interest in their work – tho i am not involved at this point. I found there to be a diverse group of people – amongst them were academics, eating disorder specialists, psychologists, teachers and many others who I would imagine bring their own areas of expertise and opinions to the table.

Kate, what was the point of that? In the first link the ad was banned because it was deemed “offensive”. It’s no different from the spamming Collective Shout does to get ads banned. Plus as you can clearly see “Streisand Effect” has taken place and a lot more people have seen the ad now than what was originally intended. The second quote is an article originally published in 1954 about smoking. I don’t quite understand the link (offensive adverts cause cancer?). I think there’s been a few other studies on smoking done since then.

(Edited by Mumbrella for legal reasons) Melinda has been successful in pulling the wool over people’s eyes and appears on programmes like Sunrise.

Let me spell it out for you then Matt .

Whilst you (and this is directed at you) are willing to admit that women are portrayed in the media in a sexual fashion…. you then claim that this kind of sexual objection is not problematic BECAUSE (and this is the only reason you have put forward (Edited by Mumbrella for legal reasons)) there aren’t any studies (yet I might add) that show a conclusive link to the harms that have been debated here.

Sorry I mean Matthew 🙂

I am pretty sure he knew exactly the comparison who were drawing Kate. I think you are wasting your breath. The fact is that it doesn’t matter a damn what Tankard Reist’s religious convictions are – as he is conveniently ignoring I, and many like me are atheists, agnostics or middle of the road religious and we know she is right on this. What one or two people on this thread are arguing so hysterically against is simply that the advertising industry should not be allowed to continue to self regulate. It beggars belief.

I am willing to stand beside her, despite our massively differing opinions on so many other things, as are so many like me, who are absolutely not evangelical xians, but agree with hers stance on this. Collective Shout is a very diverse group indeed, not one of the people I have spoken to in Aus in Collective Shout is an evangelical anything, just people – male and female – who want to help, protect and give equality to women and children.

Fortunately, Collective Shout has managed to win quite a few battles lately, and will continue to do so. Having such a diverse group of people, beliefs and backgrounds helps us to be very persuasive. I don’t get behind everything that Collective Shout campaigns against, and when I do it is because I know they are right, not because anybody tells me what to think.

Either the trolls are simply unable to understand the realities of how damaging the continual objectification and sexualisation of women and children is to us and to society, or they absolutely know what you are saying is correct but are choosing to keep needling you because they just like arguing, or because they want the objectification and hyper sexualisation of women and little girls to continue for whatever reason. Whichever it is, it is simply not worth one more minute of your precious time arguing with them.

Kate, yes there are no studies which show any link. What “harm” exactly it’s supposed to do hasn’t really been articulated either. There just seems to be that some people feel an unease about certain imagery, yet no one can seem to articulate what the harm is in viewing it. Indeed those who say it’s harmful and needs to censored seem to be unharmed by the imagery (though a little hysterical).

There’s also the question why it’s apparently harmful now, yet portrayals of women in the media have been far more sexist and certainly more stereotyped in the past. There’s a wider range of women portrayed in the media than there were 20 years ago. Sexist material doesn’t exist inside a vacuum and isn’t created inside a vacuum. There are positive portrayals of women in the media and society. Can you explain why people would only take notice of the sexualised imagery only and not pay attention to the more positive imagery? It’s not realistic to believe that people would only take in these negative or sexual imagery of women and ignore others. That just doesn’t happen.

The main problem is who determines what should be censored? What’s sexualised? There’s no definition. What this debate does is divert attention away from solving real social problems. It also sends a message to women that that should not be sexual beings and that they should hide their sexuality. This is not helpful to them or society

“It also sends a message to women that that should not be sexual beings and that they should hide their sexuality.”

No it does not it sends a message that in order to be sexy women should look like this and this and this and not this nor this nor this. It creates stereotypes or ‘norms’ if you like that are narrow, often unatural, hard to achieve and so on.

I have engaged in debate with you – and not with Adgrunt – because I thought you had a level of intelligence and were willing to actively debate the issue. Obvioiusly I was wrong because you keep moving the goal posts.

If you need to remind yourself of the harms that we (concerned parents, members of society – who I might add are not all religious nor blind followers, who are able to think for themselves) are concerned about…. how about you have another look at the APA studies supplied earlier in the debate at your request …. oh that’s right they’re not worth the paper they are written on because they don’t show a conclusive link….

@amd I know and agree with you. I have tried to walk away from this debate a couple of times now. I keep getting email updates that draw me back in. So I’ve watched it progress and I have been really frustrated at times – to put it mildly. I have tried to restain myself, but obviously I’ve failed 🙂

Immanuel Kant was so wrong. He thought that given we humans had the capacity for reason we could be moral. Indeed he challenged people to think for themselves!! Little did he know that people would find reasons and justifications for this kind of crap. BTW he wrote about the sexual objectification of women in his Lectures on Ethics back in 1774, long before any kind of human rights declaration.

@amd #149

I’m sorry you lose all credibility when you start thinly veiling accusations that people who disagree with you must be doing so” because they want the objectification and hyper sexualisation of women and little girls to continue for whatever reason.”

Essentially you are hinting they are getting their jollies or are pedophiles or nasty women hating mysygonist men.

It seems to me that you would have been hollering that people be burnt at the stake as witches back in Salem in the olden days –

and you’d be screaming that anyone who says you are talking crap e must want witchcraft to continue for whatever reason and must be witches themselves!

Quick get the dunking stool – add some more wood to the pyre and let’s have a good ol’ witch burning..

Crazy ladies on this site – pls go back to the ACL, AFA, or MTR fan club. This really is getting dull

And you Betty will be calling us crazy ladies…

“No it does not it sends a message that in order to be sexy women should look like this and this and this and not this nor this nor this. It creates stereotypes or ‘norms’ if you like that are narrow, often unatural, hard to achieve and so on.”

Did all other depictions of women in the media and society just up and disappear? You’re acting as if these are the ONLY depictions of women in the media and that’s just not true. You’re actually pointing to the ads and saying women “should look like this and this and this and not this nor this nor this” yourself. You’re the one stating women shouldn’t look a certain way. What gives you the right or anyone else to say what women should or shouldn’t be or who they should aspire to? Not everyone can be Heather Ridout or whoever.

You have done very well and kept your temper well Kate. I just don’t like to see you being trolled when you obviously have done your research and care a great deal about the issue 🙂

Thanks amd. What’s that saying? ‘Don’t argue with idiots because they bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience.’ 🙂
Cheers

Lordy lordy, amd and Kate – you too still patting each other on the back and telling each other how wonderful you are.. after all this time…

I’d be very interested to see the referrer logs for this page. I’d bet my porn collection/Supre catalogues that they 99% are from the CS page and almost all are first time visitors and/or commenters on mumbrella.

What is wrong with the people today?? If I was a visitor to this planet I would just see a whole heap of people behaving like animals on heat!! STOP BEING BRAINWASHED INTO A HEDONISTIC SELFISH CULT SOCIETY!! WAKE UP!!! THIS IS EMBARRASSING TOTHE HUMAN RACE..OR WHAT IS LEFT OF IT!!

Can’t even watch a good dance anymore..it is just two people mimicking sex on stage!! I used to think that sex would become so publisized that it wouldn’t mean anything anymore except ones own self gratification..well..that’s just about where it is now. What used to be something special between two people who loved each other is now just ‘something to do’…and the women don’t have to be ‘chased’ anymore as sex is so freely available, The result of that??..women doing anything just to get noticed more than the other women around them.. just going that one step further in advertising/dance/dress so that they might get noticed over the woman next to them..as there is really nothing more to give if women are giving it all already. The decay of moral standards..yet some still try and add morals to that which is immoral!! The irony of it all!!

And those out there that may be religious…’Sure, Mary Magdelene was forgiven..but was told..’Go and ‘SIN’ no more’.

@161 Sharon Lordy Shazza – DON”T YELL AT US USING CAPS OK?!?!!?!

This is a marketing/media/edvertising industry site – pls go back to

godbotherers.com

or

Idon’tgiveatoss.com

thank you

Dear Melinda, thanks for the article. Agree wholeheartedly but its really out of control and cant be stopped.

Like that old frog in boiling water adage, its happened so subtly over the last 10 years that to go back and see what life was like before is quite astounding.

The internet has made available, at the press of a button, material which previously couldnt even be obtained in a brown paper bag at your local newsagent. Movies and TV shows display gratutitous violence and sexually explicit material that was once considered offensive to the public. Advertisers show no shame in using sex to sell just about anything, anywhere. The media control children’s buying habits, and parents are essentially locked out by the law from having any real say in their children’s upbringing if it means restricting their personal freedom to consume in any way.

The genie is out of the bottle, and cant be put back without Godly intervention (or a nuclear holocaust). Sounds alarmist but true. And the people who have really benefited from all this are the paedophiles and sexual abusers who get this stuff pushed in their face every day – essentially saying to them, hey its OK, come and get it. We have gotten the world we deserve.

OH..just as I thought..one tiny comment about religion and it is jumped on.. Bet you don’t believe betty..and are you ‘for’ the sexual advertising?? ..the two, more often than not, go together. Noticed you didn’t even comment on the rest of my comment…hid behind the ‘religious’ comment huh?? I did say that that comment was for those who believe (know)..not for those who don’t!! So keep your ridicule for someone who is interested!!

1.GuitarmanWA
Nice comment!!

Good on you Sharon. Yes the Genie is out of the bottle, but that doesn’t mean we should sit back and let it reek havoc.

I have just come from Facebook where I have been reporting pages where young people are encouraged to post nude photos of themselves. This is child pornography.

I wonder where they got the idea that that sort of thing was okay.

Gee do you think it had anything to do with the normalisation of this kind of thing through the pornification of today’s mainstream society via media. Yes, yes I think so.

Don’t sit back and let it happen, fight for change!!

Yes, “normalisation” is a good word to describe all of this. But its more than about religion, women’s rights, prudish vs liberated attitudes or any of this stuff. What it is really all about is society (men and women) drawing a line in the sand and saying, this is acceptable and this is not acceptable. This is right and this is not right. We just dont seem to be able to do this anymore, or maybe we dont want to. What are our social norms? Where are our institutions? Is anything sacred? What beliefs and behaviours should we expose our children to? Geez I sound like a prophet of doom, but I am just an observer of life and this is what I see. I see children acting or trying to act like adults way before their time, and a society that seems to be encouraging this in every possible way (advertising, movies, internet). So dont be shocked when you see children being sexually explicit, wearing revealing clothing, engaging in mindless violence, swearing at thier parents and teachers, and generally respecting nothing or nobody.We are really a nation that has lost its way, and I think we will pay for it in the future.

.. and so on to a brave new world …
http://www.perthnow.com.au/lif.....6203087412

Women are beautiful and we want to see them without any clothes on. And it works. Simple as that.

(moderated by Mumbrella)?

Yes Guitarman – that article sums up what I have been focusing upon the past few days and putting my energy into – getting thut shut down. It also highlights the fact that we can change things if we are willing to put some energy into it.

The sad thing is that whilst we acknowledge that there is a problem – people like some of the folk here at mumbrella attack us – call us prudes and ugly and man haters and god botherer’s and so on and on instead of actually taking a moment to reflect upon the issue. This is especially disheartening here in this space. The media are very powerful and could play a role in seeing this phenomenon change. Instead they are complicit by shrugging us who care off, by abusing us for caring and by choosing to do nothing.

We could and we can change the world. It just requires some thought, action and energy. If we don’t do anything about this particular problem our children will grow up in a society with far too few values. We ought to show them how to care by caring for them.

As members of a society I feel we ALL have a responsibility to look after that society. Not to be greedy, opportunists who only care about the buck$$

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCMy6kq5ZA0

OMG… haven’t you guys noticed the empty silence in this thread by now? You’re talking to yourselves… since apparently, all us media folk are out busy making the big buck$$. Whatever.

Meanwhile the Daily Telegraph is promoting ‘lingerie football’ – http://www.dailytelegraph.com......6199575027
How very aspirational of the Tele to do so.

Nice point @Kate. It is disappointing that often the loudest and most effective voices come from the most ignorant who shut down reasonable due diligence. Just because they are the most vocal or aggressive, and other people shut down or sit down to avoid the conflict doesn’t make it the right path. These louder voices count on the rest of us sitting back and giving in because they have had success with this strategy (and yes, it is a communication strategy).

We can’t give in though, and to call any issue a ‘runaway train’ is a cop out. ANY issue can be turned around if we apply the action in the right place. Starting here in this discussion is one small step to getting the issue addressed, so good on Melinda for writing the article and Mumbrella for posting it.

Name calling and abuse is a weak way to get a point across. Opinions are all valid and robust discussion of any kind will all play a part in the right result coming out at the end.

Even facts are not definitive because they are only collected and measured under certain circumstances and not always are they mutually exclusive of another particular result either. What we can hope for is an understanding where the flaws are and what studies need to be done next to prove specific points here either way.

What I can say is that name calling is just simply irrelevant and those of us that have been called these names also have a role to play in making sure we don’t let the names make us sit down and shut up when we know we have a valid point of view.
So, like @Kate says – all be responsible and do our bit. For creatives and agencies that means every day when the brief is in the door, for producers to stand up when something doesn’t seem right (I’ve been a producer and called ‘The Nun’ before for standing up), and for clients who approve the content to question it and stand up.

I think a great place to contribute to discussion here is the specific ways that each of us can contribute.

BTW: We can still make money without having to exploit others.

Do you know how long the minds of the people have been manipulated??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nD7dbkkBIA&feature=channel_video_title

And just look at who/what are involved…JFK was going to expose these ‘groups’ but was killed not long after!! This vid. will expose, towards the end, the SHOCKING activities of some of the world officials!! I will send just one more to show you the actual ‘mind control and puppetry’ of the people that will be introduced.

One thing I’ve always wonder but was too polite to ask –

Why is there a correlation between not being attractive and whining about the people who are?

From my perspective, this whole collective shout movement appears to be a therapy group for ugly people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1oDL58nfvs&feature=channel_video_title

Here is a verse that may have more meaning to some now!! REV> ‘Do NOT TAKE THE MARK of the beast in the back of the hand or the forehead..you cannot BUY OR SELL without this mark…those who do not take it will be killed..’ (sounds like a martial law situation).

Now make up your OWN mind!!

Funny…here is an Australian ad ALREADY preparing the people’s mind’s for a cashless society..making the one paying cash look like the odd one out. Even funnier..look at the nane on the video channel…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3xStKYjQKc

Phant…there is no such thing as ‘an ugly person’.. just the ugliness that calls someone that!!

And just look at who/what are involved…JFK was going to expose these ‘groups’ but was killed not long after!! This vid. will expose, towards the end, the SHOCKING activities of some of the world officials!! I will send just one more to show you the actual ‘mind control and puppetry’ of the people that will be introduced.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaH-lGafwtE&feature=channel_video_title

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a9Syi12RJo&feature=channel_video_title

Well, this one is all from me..whether you watch what I have sent or not, is your ‘own choice’. Whether you believe it or not is also your ‘own choice’…at least you will be that little more aware..

I’ll leave you with something God Himself commanded us to do…’Stay Awake’!!

https://www.youtube.com/user/sharons813?feature=mhee#p/f/52/CVbElk75rsY

Sharon, there’s the door, pls go through it and don’t let it hit you on the way out..

There are sites for this sort of conversation – us megabuck$ industry insiders are over it…

How dare you try and suppress my freedom of speech!! There may be others here that may be interested, but you have just displayed the dis-info tactics that these people use..ie ridicule, suppression..ect.

‘us megabuck$ industry insiders ‘?? LOLOLOL!! Sounds like a bit of a ‘wanabee’. Oh, how terribly cool of you. LOLOLOL!!

Can’t you see how the media (which is run by these societies) are concentrating only on ‘who’s who’ and ‘what you wear’ and ‘how it is ok to fornicate as much as makes you happy”? Are you happy?? There is so much information on how this is all to do with ‘keeping the people dumbed down’ so that everything else is not looked into to. Have any of you here even heard of the new world order?? It was being put into place sooo many years ago and yet some of you have not even heard of it. Why??because ‘they’ are keeping you entertained with the ‘movie stars’ and the ‘subliminal shows’ on how we are ‘supposed’ to act and think. Who cares who angela jolie is seeing??!! you?? WHY?? Because you have been caught in the media brainwashing. Why are plain old actors being worshipped as some sort of gods or royalty..because it keeps you involved…and you don’t think of anything higher. Then when you leave that subliminal world, they have you caught up in the financial woes of the economy. I saw an interview once of an X illuminati chief who spoke, in MAY, of the financial crash that was PLANNED for Sept. of that year. Well, it happened..just as he said it was PLANNED to. If you think that these things ‘Just happen’ and that all these sexual adverts are not without purpose, then you reallly need to research some more…and not let people like betty try and keep you quiet!!

Sharon, you may or may not be aware that you are actually harming the case against promoting the sexualising of women and children and minimising what Tankard Reist said. In fact, I have to wonder if you are actually one of the pro-sexualisation minority because I have never met, or even talked to anyone who sounds like you before.

…and you have just confirmed what I have said..this is all over the net..there are resistance groups already forming..and JFK spoke of these ‘secret groups in his speach..the actual president spoke of their existance..and yet you have heard nothing about this..you have heard no one speak of this before..then ask yourself why you haven’t.

(Then maybe listen to what JFK was telling the world before he was assasinated..it is right there in the vid. I posted).

What would possibly make you wonder if I was one of the pro-sexualisation minority??

***speech.

Friends, time to step back and take a deep breath. It is good that people can engage in rigourous debate on matters they are deeply pasionate about. But when comments become personal, it just kills the mood .Ciao.

Sharon, I appreciate your passion. I feel passionately about this subject too, and if you read my earlier comments you will see that. But you were, frankly, coming across as right wing, xian, conspiracy theorist. I do not mean to offend you by this. All I wish to convey is that it is best to stick to the facts, that regardless of religion and other beliefs, it is not acceptable to marginalise and deliberately sexualise women and children in society and it is best to stick to that when debating with people who simply do not care.

I did not mean to offend you. However, I thought you might have been a person from the pro sexualisation camp because your beliefs were coming across as extreme enough to put people off – it is not enough to know we are right, we have to also explain to others why we are right, without putting anyone off.

Clearly, this is simply my own take on what you were saying. Clearly, you are entitled to your own opinion and views. I wish you well.

‘However, I thought you might have been a person from the pro sexualisation camp because – it is not enough to know we are right, we have to also explain to others why we are right, without putting anyone off.’

I believe that is what I was doing..putting my point across with more information on ‘why’ this is happening. The comment you have made is very passive aggressive and, to me, a little patronising. The whole thing is trying to suppress the little information that I put up by suggesting that I am ‘putting everyone off” and that I should only ‘stick to the facts’. What, do you think that what I have sent is NOT fact?? The president that spoke of these ‘elite few’ that are controlling the media..ie..what can go out to the public and what cannot?? Do you think this sexulisation is just done for no reason. There are MANY people speaking up about their dislike for this type of advertising..yet why isn’t it stopped?? Where is the censorship if so many people are against this advertising?? It won’t be stopped because it is all for a purpose..and I have just put forward some of those purposes.

There is another cause that I am involved with and there are many officials and goverment/millitary employees that have come forward with evidence in documentation and yet I received an email from the whitehouse recently to say that the 12 thousand or so signatures is not enough to have the topic looked at..we now need over 25 thousand for the president to even look at. So do you think it would even make an impact with only a handful of people like us complaining of the media sexulisation..do you think it would make an impact?? This subject has been brought up so many times in the past..it was brought up when the first full nude scene was shown on australian show ‘the box’ and yet still it goes on, even worse!! The people are being slowly ‘head fed’ this sort of uncensored material so as to not even notice then, when the subject is brought up, a large amount just say..’so what’s the problem’??

Yes amd, I am very passionate..might even call me a conspiracy theorist, but more and more of the conspiracies are becoming FACT..and more and more of the people are ‘waking up’ to the facts…and more and more prominent menmbers of society are coming forward with the things that they have been ‘told’ to keep from the public…and if that helps even one person then it is not in vain.

I am going to go off topic here just for one moment. Did you know that it was hitler that added fluoride to the water..as it affects the body so much that it was to ‘dumb down the Jews’. (absolutely no offence to any Jewish people out there)

Just check this next vid. I am sending and see how much it differs from what you have been told to believe…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UYYeVXsA3U&feature=channel_video_title

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25j2SwqUBwk

Did you know that in america, the warnings on the toothpaste tube say that if a child eats the bulk of toothpast from a tube that they are to ring poisons information as the dose of fluoride can kill a small child??

That’s all from me.. Nice talking with you all..and hope you just don’t shrug it off and go turn the TV on…too comfortable to face it!!

@Kate and @Sharon, I’m trained in linguistics and an advanced life coach amongst other things and one of the things in that training is a clear distinction of what language connects with people and what puts people off. I do think @Kate is correct in that the language that @Sharon has been choosing here and the off-topic evangelistic conversation is polarising. The best we can do if we are to convince others is to connect with them on some level first and then move the crowd at a pace they are ready for if we are to have the most positive impact. We need to take away reasons for people to discredit these important discussions and keep the conversation open in a connected way. There’s no point waving fingers and telling people they MUST or SHOULD or that they are WRONG. It is clear that you mean well @Sharon, but I suggest that @Kate’s care, concern and bravery to speak up is worth taking heed of.

‘the off-topic evangelistic conversation’

The evangelistic conversation’?? I spoke of many things and posted numerous vids. but the fact that I showed, in such a VERY small way, (hardly mentioned it ) that I believe in God, turns it into an ‘evangelistic conversation’??

Oh dear, I have the right to speak my opinion..yet my spoken belief was only a small part..and if I was to make an opinion based fully on ‘religion’, then that is my right to do so also..in fact, I could make ‘religion’ (or lack of) one of the main reasons why the perverted sexualization is occurring. Was this sexualization around 50 years ago when most people believed in God?? (maybe in the wardrobes) but publicly..NO.

Here then, let me add a ‘religious’ point of view…

It is written that there will be an antiChrist..one spirit that will turn people from God and will be ‘in charge of the ways of the world’..one that will gather an army of people that will hate those that believe. Can’t you feel that happeneing now..the suppression..the ‘other gods’ rising up in different religions and stopping believers from even saying a prayer in the schools??

Who is the anti Christ and his army??

It all boils down to..’you are either Pro-Christ or you are anti-Christ’..simple as that!!

That shows the ‘bigger picture’ that is being suppressed also..’they’ don’t want you to see.

Thankyou Anne Miles..the fact that I even got an author to comment on my comments shows that I have made impact enough to get people’s attention..even though you say it is not the right way…it worked.

Bye all!!

I’d read all the posts, except I don’t have the time. Since I decided to leave my partner because he’d only give me money for groceries to feed the children if I slept with him, I have very little time. I earn one third less then men for the same work because the work I perform is classified differently, if I get raped what appears to be crucial is the kinds of clothes I was wearing, and I have no real means of controlling my reproductive function, because I am subject to the violence of men and the condoning of that violence by the State.
Y’all getting distracted by what’s on a damn t-shirt? I cannot afford t-shirts because I don’t get child support and I lack social mobility.
Austereo makes how many millions through advertising revenue for hundreds of companies through a radio broadcast that referred to a woman as a “fat slag”. Please, the sexualisation of women in advertising isn’t a chicken or egg argument. The sexualisation of women in advertising is mere reflection of women in society.

@Rebecca, I am sure I speak for many here and thank you for your honesty and openness. Your experience is a real reflection on how many are seeing the world out there and I hope that it really sheds some light on the issue Melinda has raised.

The only thing I would add to this is that there is more available to you than being treated this way whether you see it currently or not, and I trust you’re seeking support to help you get past this.

If you would like an offline discussion to direct you to the right places please feel free to contact me, I’m happy to help you. I can’t let this go without being sure you are finding support. The first place to go is the local social worker via your council and if necessary the domestic violence hotline 1800 671 442.

Anyone else starting to think something needs to be done with this issue now?

@Rebecca 9.22am…. I’m sorry, but I don’t believe that the life story you have chosen to share is truthfully yours. It is clearly a composite of many women’s stories that you have decided to stitch together to make your point. I am a woman and I don’t need you speaking for me.
@Anne…. I really don’t think you should encourage these people, but your intentions are clearly compassionate.

Good on you Anne. Must admit I also took it to be a made up story highlighting the issues at play here.

Hello..me again..I think I have said ‘bye’ numerous times but i keep getting the emails sent to me and they are very interesting to read.

There are just a couple of things I would like to mention..Is it just me or do other people think also that people wanting to constantly see/watch things with sexual content have something wrong with the? I remember when I was younger (not THAT long ago LOL) , if a man was caught looking into a womans window trying to get a glimpse of her undressing he was labelled a pervert and was arrested for it…and back then, that was probably the only ‘glimpse’ they would get as it wasn’t plastered all over the place then…but for people who want to watch two OTHER people having sex, isn’t that just off?? I know they call it today..’sexual therapy’ or some social trendy phrase like that, but aren’t they just allowing perversion to go under the cover of ‘natural’?? I mean, is it REALLY natural to want to watch this??

Another topic in this area is the ‘sexual slave trading’ area. WHY do these people stay active?? Other people know about it..why isn’t it reported?? Are people too scared or are they scared of being called ‘a dobba’ or is it that they just don’t want to get involved? What? Is it that the police are corrupt also? What? Why don’t people report these illegal things?

Another thing…which is worse?..a man taking a photo of his young daughter in her underwear to the pub and showing all his mates OR having her pose in her underwear in a catalogue and dropping it in EVERY man’s letter box in the neighbourhood. The two are different you say? How?

I believe that the more society lets the sexual advertising to continue (which it will), the more these other areas won’t sound so horrific because the ‘shock factor’ won’t be as prominent. It used to be that it was a beautiful natural INNOCENT thing to see a little girl or boy in their little underwear BUT now with all the ‘p’s’ out there..it has been tainted. Although you could ask yourself which come first..the chicken or the egg??

@Alison, since I’ve lived a lifetime being told who and what I am by men, I am not about to allow a complete stranger to denigrate and ignore me. Believe me or not, I really don’t care. I have greater things of concern than whether someone I will never meet believes my own personal narrative. I never claimed to be speaking for anyone but myself.
@Anne, I have been trying to get assistance from various places since I left. I would be interested in an offline discussion, just because I find that I am the least well positioned to find the information I need, and in the most need of it. Seeking help is one thing, finding it is another entirely.

Rebecca, just wanted to say I’m sorry that I did not understand nor appreciate your initial post. I hope that you are able to get the help that you need/want.

Wish you all the best.

@Rebecca… Look, I guess I do owe you an apology if your life is as you described it. I am clearly so over this comments thread, topic and commenters that it is beginning to show in my frustrated responses. All the best in the future. That’s it for me!

Rebecca, if your story is true, then I hope you find the help you need as indicated. Rape inside or outside marriage has no place in normal society.

Anne, rape is has occured since time eternal, so it seems extremely improbable, almost manipulative lies, to draw any link between rape and the tripe outlined in the original article. I hope this whole commenting process has provided the cathartic therapy you appear to need to get over the anger and blame you feel from your failed relationship, but don’t cheapen someone else’s traumatic experience with your indefensible piffle.

Sharon, you are simply making it up as you go along. Your points have no substance, support or merit. This has been demonstrated at numerous points within this thread. I hope you receive the help that you need.

I hope all three of you recognise the hoax that is being played on your emotions by the religious and self-esteem motivations of MTR.

See? It is that arrogance and condecending ‘know it all’ type attitude that keeps society going in the direction that it is going.

I did not make those videos that I posted..I did not tell the president to speak of the ‘behind the scenes mainipulation of the media and press’..I did not write the ‘religious’ prophecies that are backing up these things also…and I take offence to any comment that implies a person would need ‘help’ just because they have a belief in God!! I posted those to back up what I was saying. If you don’t believe it, then that is your choice..but don’t insult others because they do!! If you want answers, you have to seek them..but if you take out all the avenues just because you might think it is ‘uncool’, then you are not only puppeted and brainwashed by society, but you are also very unwise!!

Those that know me by now will know that my commentary is only ever focused on purposeful matters, and so will continue that way now.

I’m happy to have an offline discussion to be of help where it is clearly needed. @Rebecca, simply click on my name where it is blue and I’ll see if I can direct you to the right places.

I trust I don’t need to say that my help is pro-bono.

Well done Anne Miles

Being slim means being successful … right? right? Madmen couldnt be wrong on that one
http://www.watoday.com.au/life.....1nyym.html