 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Did Coles do the right thing? |
| Yes, but they should go further and get rid of more magazine covers |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Yes. It's a fine line, but this cover crossed it, just. |
|
11% |
[ 1 ] |
| No. People get too easily offended. |
|
88% |
[ 8 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 9 |
|
| Author |
Message |
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: Billboards, TV ads, magazine covers: where's the line? |  |
|
First of all, apologies to Swoop42 for posting this in his absence. Swoop, if you're out there reading, this one is for you:
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/dec/18/coles-pulls-harpers-bazaar-from-sale-over-inappropriate-naked-miranda-kerr-cover
| Quote: | Coles has removed all copies of this month’s Harper’s Bazaar magazine from sale because it has a naked Miranda Kerr on the cover, citing customers “who shop with their children” in their decision.
The magazine, which features the Australian supermodel wearing only shoes, but with her arm positioned to cover her breasts, was quickly taken down from the supermarket shelves.
“In response to feedback from our customers, many of whom shop with their children, we removed the magazine from sale earlier this week,” a spokeswoman for the store told Guardian Australia.
The issue had been on the shelves only a few days before store executives deemed it “inappropriate”, Fairfax Media reported. |
My instinctive response is, yeah, that photo is a bit fresh. But where do you draw the line?
We throw around words like sexualisation and objectification, but these are kind of abstract terms. What, exactly, makes a body objectified? Is it nudity? Is it a specific pose? And what's the difference between 'sexualised' and just sexy?
Generally speaking, we simplify this issue into isolated body parts. So, photos of naked people become theoretically appropriate for a general audience so long as a dreaded nipple and/or genital organ remains hidden. This is pretty counterintuitive, given that us parents are told by developmental psychologists that it's sexualisation we need to shield our children from, not nudity; so, in theory, the risqué images we see on billboards are much more harmful than, say, a completely naturalistic, unposed shot of naked people at a beach (or whatever). We have this all, in a manner of speaking, arse-backwards.
But pointing out that inconsistency isn't a solution. It doesn't tell us where the line should be drawn. The question should be: what exactly are we trying to protect the general public from seeing? Is it merely naked flesh, or is it something more abstract; something about the way a human body should be posed or represented? Is it about airbrushing and body shapes? Or can these things only be assessed by the number of complaints they receive? What rules or principles can we derive from that?
I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. I feel like it's a subject that I don't really have my head around. I don't know whether to applaud Coles' decision, complain that they've caved into prudish moralising or even complain that they're not going far enough. If you could propose any laws related to publicly visible images, what would you suggest?
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Last edited by David on Fri Dec 18, 2015 9:59 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
 |
Skids 
Quitting drinking will be one of the best choices you make in your life.
Joined: 11 Sep 2007
Location: Joined 3/6/02 . Member #175
|
| Post subject: | |
|
That's a great pic!
A full frontal naked pic, well yeah, that's a bit different, but this one? Very tame and I don't see how that could offend anyone??
_________________
Don't count the days, make the days count. |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Gees you see more at the beach! You see more with a Kardashian evening gown!
I voted no
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Skids wrote: | That's a great pic!
A full frontal naked pic, well yeah, that's a bit different, but this one? Very tame and I don't see how that could offend anyone?? |
But that's the thing: some people clearly are offended. My parents would definitely consider that image pornographic and unsuitable for children. They may well be in the minority, but how could you determine that short of holding a referendum? And as much as I have a pretty good feeling about what they'd think of that picture, even I have no clue exactly where their 'line' of decency lies, let alone that of the majority of the Australian population.
This isn't a discussion about censorship per se. I'm firmly of the belief that, with very few exceptions, adults should be permitted to see, hear and read whatever they like. But that's quite a different question to what images people (including children) should be involuntarily exposed to in a public space (the question of whether Coles actually constitutes a public space is another thorny one). I think we all agree that there should be some restrictions when it comes to that, but I wonder whether any of us has a concrete idea of what that means.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Last edited by David on Fri Dec 18, 2015 10:34 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
5150 
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Most people these days are looking to be offended so they can send a post to their imaginary friends or start a minority outrage group and pat themselves on the back for their contribution to society...
I'm just outraged because I love Miranda. |
|
|
|
|
Wokko 
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pictures of beautiful naked women: another issue that feminists and religious conservatives can happily converge on and then blame each other. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Wokko, you have a young daughter if I recall correctly. Do you ever worry about her being exposed to images like this everywhere and wonder if she'll get the impression that this is what being a woman is all about? Or do you think the effect on the psyche is minimal?
I'm certainly no wowser; I hope people on here will be clear on that point by now! But I do think media images in their totality possess a great deal of power. Also, as much as my civil libertarian leanings lead me to defend the right to see as a crucial freedom, I think the right not to see involuntarily - in certain instances - is a not unimportant liberty in its own right.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | Wokko, you have a young daughter if I recall correctly. Do you ever worry about her being exposed to images like this everywhere and wonder if she'll get the impression that this is what being a woman is all about? Or do you think the effect on the psyche is minimal?
I'm certainly no wowser; I hope people on here will be clear on that point by now! But I do think media images in their totality possess a great deal of power. Also, as much as my civil libertarian leanings lead me to defend the right to see as a crucial freedom, I think the right not to see involuntarily - in certain instances - is a not unimportant liberty in its own right. |
I have a 16 year-old daughter ; she has been brought up to understand that reality and representation are related but distinct, and also that the defence against delusion is education and the use of a critical intellect. I think that picture presents far less threat to her safety and well-being than allowing a generation of boys to be brought up on internet pornography, yet we manage only a shoulder-shrug at the latter.
The protests about that cover are about power - in this case, the power to censor and control the public realm. I doubt that it is about any intrinsic harm done by the image itself.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
ronrat
Joined: 22 May 2006
Location: Thailand
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I take it any statue of a person called David is also banned. A right of passage in Melbourne used to be seeing Chloe. It was art.
Coles have no right to practice morals when they screw farmers and exploit young workers. So what if they sold them, so a a few 1000 people who mostly shop at the farmers market would boycott a store they don't use.
Morriggu and others may argue that the display of dead animals being butchered is far more offensive than a perfectly healthy Aussie girl showing her form and they would arguably be right.
_________________
Annoying opposition supporters since 1967. |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: |
Wokko, you have a young daughter if I recall correctly. Do you ever worry about her being exposed to images like this everywhere and wonder if she'll get the impression that this is what being a woman is all about? Or do you think the effect on the psyche is minimal? |
The bit about what being a woman is all about: I don't find that picture offensive at all, and my girls grew up with me walking around naked, they still walk in my room when I'm in the shower like its nothing! And I also have a picture in each of their baby albums of me starkers, in a similar pose, arm across boobs, very pregnant with each of them. I love Moranda, she's a very classy supermodel, business woman, mother. The picture is a long way from sex in my mind. Yes it's sexy, but it's not porn, it's just a naked female body. I've seen pictures of the Kardrashians, Miley, etc, on magazine covers that I find far more offensive, with clothes on. One that show them as basically sex objects. Or how about the ones with local footy players doing drugs on the fron page? I don't want my imaginary sons seeing that!
| david wrote: | | I'm certainly no wowser; I hope people on here will be clear on that point by now! But I do think media images in their totality possess a great deal of power. Also, as much as my civil libertarian leanings lead me to defend the right to see as a crucial freedom, I think the right not to see involuntarily - in certain instances - is a not unimportant liberty in its own right. |
This part the bolded part, I love that. And it's why I don't like those massive billboards they had advertising porn on the way into the city. Not just for the kids sake, I just don't like stuff like that smacking me in the face like that.
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | | David wrote: | Wokko, you have a young daughter if I recall correctly. Do you ever worry about her being exposed to images like this everywhere and wonder if she'll get the impression that this is what being a woman is all about? Or do you think the effect on the psyche is minimal?
I'm certainly no wowser; I hope people on here will be clear on that point by now! But I do think media images in their totality possess a great deal of power. Also, as much as my civil libertarian leanings lead me to defend the right to see as a crucial freedom, I think the right not to see involuntarily - in certain instances - is a not unimportant liberty in its own right. |
I have a 16 year-old daughter ; she has been brought up to understand that reality and representation are related but distinct, and also that the defence against delusion is education and the use of a critical intellect. I think that picture presents far less threat to her safety and well-being than allowing a generation of boys to be brought up on internet pornography, yet we manage only a shoulder-shrug at the latter.
The protests about that cover are about power - in this case, the power to censor and control the public realm. I doubt that it is about any intrinsic harm done by the image itself. |
Excellent post.
Stop telling our daughters to cover up to be safe, (although covering up to be decent is a different thing!), teach our sons to respect our daughters. Gees teach respect of the rights of others full stop!
Christmas in the shops, since I'm not merchandising this year, I'm not suffering, but one of my daughters works retail part time, and OMG, the right to 'free , and loud, speech" certainly seems to appeal more to the younger generation, than respecting the right of others to shop in peace, and without swearing, and screaming babies in their ears! I don't miss that!
Funny I've always argued with David about censuring things, even nude beaches! But I guess, if we all looked at the naked human form the way David does, it really wouldn't matter! Stop sexifying everything! Expecting everyone, myself included, to be as non judgemental as David, is just not realistic!
So yes, we do need to censure things, I just think the line is in the wrong place.
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
Bucks5 
Nicky D - Parting the red sea
Joined: 23 Mar 2002
|
| Post subject: | |
|
When Coles withdrew Zoo magazine from their shelves they got a lot of positive feedback and the story served as free publicity. I suspect this motivated the decision about this magazine somewhat, but this image is not offensive so they look like complete nannies. Would having a tiny strip of material running along her hip line really make that much difference?
If people are concerned about exposing kids to nudity, they could have just put the magazines behind others or even covered the bottom 3/4 of the magazines with cardboard. That picture alone doesn't warrant the complete removal of the magazine, it is hardly pornographic and I cannot see many teenage boys having a flick through that magazine (like they did with Zoo). |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I don't agree with any of the poll options (surprise)as I don't agree that Coles did the "right" thing, but I don't have a problem with them doing it.
There will always be a vocal minority. The ones who ring TV stations to complain about Ad's, write letters to the editor, tweet their every waking thought etc.
I don't have a problem with the photo on the cover, however some of this small minority apparently do so they complained to Coles about it being on display in the supermarket where they shop with their precious rugrats, so Coles pulled the magazine. (I guess these people leave their kids in the car when they pay for petrol in case they see the magazines on display there)
Coles isn't taking a moral stance, they're taking a commercial stance, purely. Maybe only a very small number have complained, but they will make sure they spread their offence as far and wide as they can. The number of people who will be upset at the magazine being pulled will be less than those who are upset at it being on display and the overwhelming majority won't give a shit either way. So pandering to these fringe professional offendees keeps them happy and doesn't hurt anyone else.
Anyone who wants to buy the magazine can still get it, no harm done.
Billboards are a different thing. Often the picture's push the edge deliberately to wind up these same nuffies, stir up some controversy and therefore publicity. If they end up having to pull it down, they've already achieved far more publicity and brand awareness than the billboard would have got in it's own right.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| How small are you talking here? |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| HAL wrote: | | How small are you talking here? |
Honey, you always say how big, size matters!
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
