I see nothing wrong with this. What many of these advertisements do is give children a false impression of reality and then they unwittingly allow that to craft their world view because they don't have the wherewithall at that age to be able to critically analyse what they're seeing.
I see nothing wrong with this. What many of these advertisements do is give children a false impression of reality and then they unwittingly allow that to craft their world view because they don't have the wherewithall at that age to be able to critically analyse what they're seeing.
Name a medium that doesn't give out false impressions of reality?
Or is this just a ruse for some publicity from a patronising, 'look what great parents we are' website?
It comes from the Bailey Review which was a government appointed review into the sexualisation of children.
Oddly enough the report itself said that evidence into how pornography effect children is inconclusive, so who knows what they are basing their ban on these advertising boards on. Gut instinct no doubt.
Or is this just a ruse for some publicity from a patronising, 'look what great parents we are' website?
Well it's the ASA who have the final say, not Mother's Union so if the problem didn't exist in the first place, I doubt the ASA would have even discussed it. Really not bothered by this - just something a bit grubby about overtly sexual advertising in public so not going to cry myself to sleep if it's not there anymore.
I see nothing wrong with this. What many of these advertisements do is give children a false impression of reality and then they unwittingly allow that to craft their world view because they don't have the wherewithall at that age to be able to critically analyse what they're seeing.
Or else most kids couldn't give a toss about advertisements and will get their kicks from logging on to the 'net whenever they can.
Or else most kids couldn't give a toss about advertisements.
That's not really what he's saying though is it? It's not as much about the product being sold, it's about overtly sexual images becoming the 'norm' in society and if kids are used to seeing it everywhere, sexual behaviour is much more subconsciously absorbed. I admit it's one very small drop in the ocean but I don't agree that it's therefore pointless.
Apologies, my view is that most kids (maybe not all) would have little or no interest in the ad, but if they did on a subconscious level, perhaps it will remove this uptight, repressed nature that us Brits have inexplicably retained. Is that really a bad thing? I certainly do not think it will lead to more unwanted pregnancies. Can
WH Smiths don't, but many independent newsagents sell something close to hardcore porn, but your point is moot seeing as printed media is on a rapid decline.
WH Smiths don't, but many independent newsagents sell something close to hardcore porn, but your point is moot seeing as printed media is on a rapid decline.
So you don't think a billboard with a sexually provocative image on it, outside a school is more invasive than the internet? Do you think parental controls on the internet should be gotten rid of?
So you don't think a billboard with a sexually provocative image on it, outside a school is more invasive than the internet? Do you think parental controls on the internet should be gotten rid of?
What sexually provocative ad is this then? Give me an example. I can't comment on something which YOU define a sexually provocative without making my own mind up, no offence.
I didn't mention parental controls, you did and I have no idea why/
I don't. It has nothing to do with 'interest', regardless of how you use it. It's all about things becoming subconsciously the norm for them to be normalised in society. Something which does not require an active 'interest'.
Provocative billboard ads could be banned over fears over the sexualisation of children, reports the Sunday Telegraph. It says "the most explicit advertising hoardings will be banned from public display altogether, while any put up within 100 yards of schools will have to pass a strict new code designed to remove sexualised imagery from billboards."
What do you think? Good idea? Or just a pointless drop in the ocean?
Another example of the potty PC lot i'm afraid.
What about the page 3 girls these kids see every single day in their parents rag mags?
I know much fuss was made over the "Hello Boys" advert with a model in a bra. A woman.......in a Bra. :eek::eek: These kids are seeing photographs of girls with their tits out every single damn day.........never mind in a bra. :rolleyes:
This country is being dragged back into the Victorian ages. What next? Page 3 girls in Burkas? :rolleyes:
I don't. It has nothing to do with 'interest', regardless of how you use it. It's all about things becoming subconsciously the norm for them to be normalised in society. Something which does not require an active 'interest'.
So you are saying that subliminal imagery from adverts kids may or may not see for longer than 1 second can potentially be damaging as far as a child's view of the world around them is concerned? So what do you suggest apart from agreeing that "sexually provocative" imagery be removed from within schools.
We're talking about the principle....if such an ad doesn't exist, then there's no issue. IF an ad like this does exist, what are your thoughts on it?
I mentioned parental controls because you're obviously so keen to prevent censorship on the one hand but won't comment on another form.
The idea that a sexually suggestive ad is put on full display in public in the first place is something which I feel is fantasy. So in that respect it is difficult to imagine that it could be seen as potentially damaging to a child.
I am not all for censorship by the state in various aspects such as cinema and I bet you will not find many on this forum who do. Parents can do what they like with their own children and I would hope that they use their common sense.
So you are saying that subliminal imagery from adverts kids may or may not see for longer than 1 second can potentially be damaging as far as a child's view of the world around them is concerned? So what do you suggest apart from agreeing that "sexually provocative" imagery be removed from within schools.
What 'sexually provocative imagery' is 'in schools'???
Comments
Agreed.
Never mind, I hear the Victorian era was quite pleasant.....
....right?
Name a medium that doesn't give out false impressions of reality?
Or is this just a ruse for some publicity from a patronising, 'look what great parents we are' website?
It comes from the Bailey Review which was a government appointed review into the sexualisation of children.
Oddly enough the report itself said that evidence into how pornography effect children is inconclusive, so who knows what they are basing their ban on these advertising boards on. Gut instinct no doubt.
Well it's the ASA who have the final say, not Mother's Union so if the problem didn't exist in the first place, I doubt the ASA would have even discussed it. Really not bothered by this - just something a bit grubby about overtly sexual advertising in public so not going to cry myself to sleep if it's not there anymore.
Or else most kids couldn't give a toss about advertisements and will get their kicks from logging on to the 'net whenever they can.
That's not really what he's saying though is it? It's not as much about the product being sold, it's about overtly sexual images becoming the 'norm' in society and if kids are used to seeing it everywhere, sexual behaviour is much more subconsciously absorbed. I admit it's one very small drop in the ocean but I don't agree that it's therefore pointless.
On that basis, you might as well let WHSmiths sell hardcore porn if kids are just going to get it on the internet anyway.
It's not about 'interest' in the ad. It's the overriding feeling sense of sex being everywhere and how a child's view of the world is formed by that.
Doubt it!
So you don't think a billboard with a sexually provocative image on it, outside a school is more invasive than the internet? Do you think parental controls on the internet should be gotten rid of?
You misunderstand my use of the word interest.
Don't be so sure:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/tvandradioblog/2011/sep/30/ofcom-moves-to-enforce-watershed?newsfeed=true
What sexually provocative ad is this then? Give me an example. I can't comment on something which YOU define a sexually provocative without making my own mind up, no offence.
I didn't mention parental controls, you did and I have no idea why/
I don't. It has nothing to do with 'interest', regardless of how you use it. It's all about things becoming subconsciously the norm for them to be normalised in society. Something which does not require an active 'interest'.
We're talking about the principle....if such an ad doesn't exist, then there's no issue. IF an ad like this does exist, what are your thoughts on it?
I mentioned parental controls because you're obviously so keen to prevent censorship on the one hand but won't comment on another form.
What about the page 3 girls these kids see every single day in their parents rag mags?
I know much fuss was made over the "Hello Boys" advert with a model in a bra. A woman.......in a Bra. :eek::eek: These kids are seeing photographs of girls with their tits out every single damn day.........never mind in a bra. :rolleyes:
This country is being dragged back into the Victorian ages. What next? Page 3 girls in Burkas? :rolleyes:
So you are saying that subliminal imagery from adverts kids may or may not see for longer than 1 second can potentially be damaging as far as a child's view of the world around them is concerned? So what do you suggest apart from agreeing that "sexually provocative" imagery be removed from within schools.
We'll see. I bet Cowell & co will lobby the government hard to stop this proposal.
The idea that a sexually suggestive ad is put on full display in public in the first place is something which I feel is fantasy. So in that respect it is difficult to imagine that it could be seen as potentially damaging to a child.
I am not all for censorship by the state in various aspects such as cinema and I bet you will not find many on this forum who do. Parents can do what they like with their own children and I would hope that they use their common sense.
What 'sexually provocative imagery' is 'in schools'???
But if it's on a massive hoarding, how is there going to be any sort of control?