Nude baby ads inquiry

[simonsebs]

Nude baby ads inquiry (http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23752827-5005941,00.html)

Sometimes I just don't know about people. I honestly never thought this kind of thing would ever happen. I'm sure there intentions are noble, but this is taking it too far. By these people's logic we should ban shoe ads, because some people get turned on by feet.

[justnude]

This is beyond belief! I simply do not know what to say. Perhaps they should ban commercials showing women doing their lips-I just want to jump through the screen and kiss them (NOT!)

[Stu2630]

The solution is simple: keep nudity out of adverts. It isn't necessary and will inevitably lead to complaints.

There are plenty of ways products can be advertised without showing nakedness. A complete ban on nudity in advertising would mean an end to complaints from people who were offended, alarmed or annoyed by it and everyone would be happy.

Stu

[Joontiki]

Nude baby ads inquiry (http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23752827-5005941,00.html)

Sometimes I just don't know about people. I honestly never thought this kind of thing would ever happen. I'm sure there intentions are noble, but this is taking it too far. By these people's logic we should ban shoe ads, because some people get turned on by feet.
Oh. My. God. I couldn't even finish reading the article after i read "The nappy advertisements top the complaints in the category about sexualisation of children.'' How on EARTH is a naked baby sexual?? I mean really! I swear some people are so sexually repressed, that they see it in everything! Yikes!

And yes, Simon. With that mentality, then shoe ads should be banned as well. Or really, ANY ads that contain ANYthing because EVERYthing can be construed as sexual by SOMEone! Geez!

*big cleansing sigh* Everyone has the right to their own opinion though. But how will humanity ever progress, with so many repressed, angry. mis-guided people in it?

And that of course, is but MY opinion. *another cleansing sigh*

[nimrod]

Even though I do not understand why someone would be upset by the images, I am not surprized by the complaints. I see the bluring of the butts of babies on TV now. It is just absurd the way some react to simple nudity.

[Boreas]

The solution is simple: keep nudity out of adverts. It isn't necessary and will inevitably lead to complaints.

There are plenty of ways products can be advertised without showing nakedness. A complete ban on nudity in advertising would mean an end to complaints from people who were offended, alarmed or annoyed by it and everyone would be happy.

Stu

Good grief. That is as bad as the original story.

I have seen the "nappy" ads, and have NEVER seen one where the child was sexualized. Ever.

The next thing we know, babies will have to be dressed in baby burkhas or something in order to not offend. Sheesh.

Oh, heck, why don't we all just wrap ourselves in bulky blankets so as to not offend.:rolleyes:

[Stu2630]

Boreas

I have seen the "nappy" ads, and have NEVER seen one where the child was sexualized. Ever.

Neither have I. I have not seen any nappy advert which offended me, but they do offend some people. It's perfectly easy to make adverts that don't offend anyone, so why don't they do that?

I can accept some latitude with regard to TV programmes where there can be a warning as to content, but you can't have warnings with adverts, so they should be 100% innocuous to virtually any audience.

Stu

[nakedIOWAman]

Stu, it is impossible to please everyone in this large world! OBVIOUSLY!

[shaneone]

People need to seriously relax, take a step back and realize babies are bare bottomed when you change a diaper! Its just how it is.
We are all naked at some point in the day as well, we shower right!!!
Not sexual and not obscene!
What next......

Oh, the Arby's commercials get me, whats that big thing sticking out of everyones head?! :)

[Bob S.]

The only issue I have with the diaper commercials is when they show a female hand tracing the curve of the baby's butt. That is just odd to me.

But for anyone to be so offended at a diaper ad that they would write complaint letters astounds me. And these people actually worry about the nudity sexualizing babies? I'm sure a select few would actually find babies in diapers sexual, but the vast majority of people are going to see them as fine.

And then these people actually think that seeing clothed babies will help. When it comes to sexualizing children in the mind, pedophiles do not care if the child is dressed or naked. The mere fact that she is a child is enough.

Stu:" The solution is simple: keep nudity out of adverts."

No, the solution is to keep sexual imagery out of adverts. The solution is for society to stop looking at everything through the lens of a pedophile. Actively looking at things through the eyes of a pedophile destroys the child's innocence. They are not allowed to do things based on fear of what will happen to them, even if they don't completely understand it. While trying to keep a child innocent of sexual matters, this kind of society actually hinders a child's innocence and makes them think about things well before they should.

One last thing and a bit off topic: in the US, the term nappy used by the wrong person can lead to racial issues. Nappy generally describes the hair of African-American girls and women. I recall one white teacher who read a book called "Nappy Hair" and had parents protest her due to her "insensitivity."

Bob S.

[Naturist Mark]

Anyone who thinks 'baby nappy ads' are sexual needs to be put under psychiatric observation and probably added to Megan's list ...

[Arnabas]

Well, it's like when they changed the little girl on Coppertone bottles to remove her (lacking a better word, forgive me) butt crack. Now it's just a smooth, round bump on her backside.

I used to work in a bookstore and we had a book in the photography section called "Naked Babies". Didn't last too long before it was pulled from the shelves.

My son turned 5 years old in April and he is still quite comfortable being nude (aided I am sure by my fairly-regular nudity and my wife's occasional nudity). I do have worries about bringing him to nudist venues, even though I know they are probably MUCH safer than normal beaches, but ultimately, I feel it is better to let him be free and unashamed than to pass on the paranoia that is running rampant these days. I keep him close, keep my eye on him at all times. I know that there's a better chance of him encountering a pedophile at a regular beach.

Yes, obviously, we need to protect our children, but I don't think we are doing them any favours by smothering them and killing their innocence just because we are afraid of what someone else might be thinking.

[Boreas]

No, the solution is to keep sexual imagery out of adverts. The solution is for society to stop looking at everything through the lens of a pedophile. Actively looking at things through the eyes of a pedophile destroys the child's innocence. They are not allowed to do things based on fear of what will happen to them, even if they don't completely understand it. While trying to keep a child innocent of sexual matters, this kind of society actually hinders a child's innocence and makes them think about things well before they should.

:applause::hippy:

Right to the point. Beauty! :applause:Well said.

[Stu2630]

Iowaman

No, you can't please everyone, but if you know a certain type of content in an advert is likely to offend a significant number of people, why not avoid that content?

BobS

No, the solution is to keep sexual imagery out of adverts.

I think there's a place for moderate sexual imagery in some adverts. It would be hard to imagine an advert for, say, Chanel perfume not to be a bit sexy because the woman who buys it wants to make herself sexy. I do draw a distinction between the appropriate use of glamour, which you would find in a perfume or cosmetics commercial, or even a car commercial, and sexiness which verges on the obscene. Adverts should be suitable for all audiences, including children, religious people, old-fashioned people and prudish people.

I do agree with the point which Bob and others here have made that we live in a society fixated with the evils of paedophilia. I don't welcome this at all and it is pleasing that other people agree that this has gone to extremes but people object to nudity for reasons other than child-sex connotations. It is very easy indeed to exclude nakedness from adverts and still make those adverts relevant and appealing, and that's what advertisers should do. If they know in advance that nudity is a go-go area for advertisers, they won't use it. That way they won't risk offending people and there won't be complaints made to the respective regulatory bodies. Problem solved.

One last thing and a bit off topic: in the US, the term nappy used by the wrong person can lead to racial issues.

I didn't know that, Bob. Here in the UK, if you asked for a pack of diapers in a supermarket, the staff would probably not have a clue what you were talking about. Here, they're called nappies and there's no other term for them. The different meanings attached to words can cause problems to English-speaking transatlantic migrants. A British child would be very likely to walk into a US store and ask, in a loud and confident voice, for a pack of rubbers. He's not intending to have under-age sex - what he wants is a pack of erasers for use in drawing. We call these rubbers.

Stu

[naturush]

I noticed years ago that a naked babys' butt sells almost anything. Now I'm not going in depth hear, but do you need a naked baby to sell arthritis cream, or soap or... I don't necessarily think it's wrong, just stick to diapers, wipes, "baby" shampoo, you know-things a naked baby should sell.
Naturush.

[Pete Knight]

The only issue I have with the diaper commercials is when they show a female hand tracing the curve of the baby's butt. That is just odd to me.Doesn't seem at all odd to me, the message usually attached to that is that 'you too could have skin as soft as a babies bottom if you use this product' and nothing sinister at all.

It surprises me that despite you American naturists being aghast at the paranoia shown, you still display some of your own, perhaps you too are socially conditioned, BoB s above for example and this;
I noticed years ago that a naked babys' butt sells almost anything. Now I'm not going in depth hear, but do you need a naked baby to sell arthritis cream, or soap or... I don't necessarily think it's wrong, just stick to diapers, wipes, "baby" shampoo, you know-things a naked baby should sell.
Naturush.

Why is it that society has to go too far in 'Protecting' the weak and vulnerable to the point that they are then disadvantaged, if you applied the current style of 'Child Protection' paranoia to any other area of risk there would be far more outcry, e.g.

More children are injured or die in car accidents each year than are harmed by pedophiles, so should we ban children traveling in cars 'For Their Protection' then?

The biggest problem is not the problem itself, the biggest problem is the solution, or more to the point, the knee jerk, un-thought out solution.

Pete Knight

[Arnabas]

Here in the UK, if you asked for a pack of diapers in a supermarket, the staff would probably not have a clue what you were talking about. Here, they're called nappies and there's no other term for them. The different meanings attached to words can cause problems to English-speaking transatlantic migrants. A British child would be very likely to walk into a US store and ask, in a loud and confident voice, for a pack of rubbers. He's not intending to have under-age sex - what he wants is a pack of erasers for use in drawing. We call these rubbers.

Stu

Off topic slightly, but I find this amusing. It reminds me of a time a customer came into my store and asked a clerk for "preservatives". My clerk took him to the food section, thinking he wanted to make jam or something. The customer got annoyed because he was looking for condoms...

[Boreas]

The biggest problem is not the problem itself, the biggest problem is the solution, or more to the point, the knee jerk, un-thought out solution.

Very true.

[Joontiki]

Doesn't seem at all odd to me, the message usually attached to that is that 'you too could have skin as soft as a babies bottom if you use this product' and nothing sinister at all. *clip*

Why is it that society has to go too far in 'Protecting' the weak and vulnerable to the point that they are then disadvantaged, if you applied the current style of 'Child Protection' paranoia to any other area of risk there would be far more outcry, e.g.

More children are injured or die in car accidents each year than are harmed by pedophiles, so should we ban children traveling in cars 'For Their Protection' then?

The biggest problem is not the problem itself, the biggest problem is the solution, or more to the point, the knee jerk, un-thought out solution.
A woman's hand caressing a baby's bare bottom, to me as well, is not odd at all. It makes me feel happy, remembering the soft skin of my own children! And i think it's perfectly acceptable to be in an advert as well. Because it brings the viewer happy memories (or whatever), and that sells products. If one feels that's sexual, then ... well ... i don't even need to say it.

And i couldn't agree more with the Over protection of children! Hehe. Yes! We should ban children from travelling in cars! My god, so many children die in those killing machines! :-P I mean really! Knee jerk reactions/solutions? Absolutely! They are the bane of society!

[Agde]

The solution is for society to stop looking at everything through the lens of a pedophile. ...this kind of society actually hinders a child's innocence...
This has got to be the ultimate in confusing nudity with sexuality. As Bob suggests, what needs to be protected and nurtured is innocence, including in adults. We are all a layered mix of child and adult. It is finding a happy harmonious balance, with awareness of distinctions between sexual and other kinds of behavior, that allows us to grow up to be socially civilized.

I suppose we have Freud to thank for looking at everything through the lens of sexual desire, but even Freud would be appalled by hysterical trauma-driven regulation based on the extreme assumption of pervasive uncontrolled libido, without considering all the other balancing counter-forces in the Freudian model. Pedophiles, in Freudian terms, are in any case prime candidates for secure institutionalized therapy, not merely a popular social aberration to be constrained by media policy.

There is every reason, even if one accepts Freud's polymorphous perversity theories (which I don't), to encourage and protect innocence -- including innocent nudity -- with the same social and legal vigour as we treat and regulate sexual neuroses. What could be a more joyous, even poetic, symbol of the miracle of life than a baby's bottom?

[Bob S.]

I tried to reply here yesterday but was not able to.

Pete:"Doesn't seem at all odd to me, the message usually attached to that is that 'you too could have skin as soft as a babies bottom if you use this product' and nothing sinister at all."

Let me just say that I don't find it in any way sinister. I just wonder why anyone would want to rub their hand over the baby's butt. I don't care if they have the wipe with them or show the butt to show how something can be "soft as a baby's butt." That phrase, though, is strange anyway. I would imagine a baby's belly would be softer than its butt, especially when the baby gets diaper rash (or whatever it is called in the UK).

Stu:"people object to nudity for reasons other than child-sex connotations."

In this case, it seems we have a lot of potential psychiatric cases in Australia according to Mark. According to the article:

"The nappy advertisements top the complaints in the category about sexualisation of children,'' she said.

"Members of the community are concerned that those images will encourage pedophiles.''

It actually isn't child-sex connections rather than their own connections to nudity=sex. Just to be specific, this isn't actually pedophilia but rather nepiphilia which is attraction to babies. However, most people I know would not consider baby butt advertisements to be in any way sexual or wrong. I wonder how many of those who complained have taken pictures of their babies naked? I saw a show about how nude baby photography for Hollywood stars' children is becoming popular. I think this started with Anne Geddes' artistic baby pictures.

Stu:"It is very easy indeed to exclude nakedness from adverts and still make those adverts relevant and appealing, and that's what advertisers should do."

The point of the nudity in these advertisements is obvious. The nudity that is used is basically agreed-upon innocent nudity. Those who are complaining are the ones who are looking at it the wrong way, and as a result, are becoming perverted in their thinking. That is what the pedophile society does. It forces people to think the way the pervs (pedophiles) do and thus think pervertedly. They become the very thing they hate.

Agde:"There is every reason, even if one accepts Freud's polymorphous perversity theories (which I don't), to encourage and protect innocence -- including innocent nudity -- with the same social and legal vigour as we treat and regulate sexual neuroses."

Freud did not have a problem with innocent nudity between parent and child. I doubt he would have a problem with nudism (children seeing other adults naked) either. Only the neo-Freudians think that Freud preached against family nudity. They, however, forget that family nudity was required for the children to get past the phallic stage. The Oedipal and Electra complexes are about a child getting over their crush on their opposite sex parent and associating with the same sex parent. Boys are described as having castration anxiety which is the fear of losing their penis as they mature. Girls are described as having penis envy which is the want of a penis. The only way the children can have these issues is if they are raised in a nudity-friendly family. The boys would begin to associate with their dad because he has a penis, not a vagina like his mom. The girls would be just the reverse and that would necessitate the entire family not being modest around each other.

Freud would see modest families as a deterrent to getting through the phallic stage. And according to Freud, one has issues if he or she does not pass through the different stages fully. In this case, sexual issues could evolve in the adult if, as a child, they did not pass fully through the phallic stage. After the phallic stage is the latency stage when sexual feelings are repressed. In that stage, nudity is fine since the children do not think of sexual issues.

Stu:"A British child would be very likely to walk into a US store and ask, in a loud and confident voice, for a pack of rubbers. He's not intending to have under-age sex - what he wants is a pack of erasers for use in drawing. We call these rubbers."

I would love to see that happen! A young British boy goes into an American drug store and asks a clerk "Where can I find the rubbers?"
After the clerk goes white and nearly faints, he manages to ask, "What do you need them for?"
"What do you think?" the boys replies. "I need them in case I get do something wrong!"

Bob S.

[Two Metre Man]

I find it interesting that one complainant was apparently able to actually read the minds of all those whom she (?) deems so utterly depraved. To wit, "...'I am disturbed when I think of the thrill a pedophile would get from this image,'' the complainant added...." There was (still is?) a "moral crusader" in the UK, named Mary Whitehouse (quite appropriate), who used to find the filthiest things in the most innocuous places.

Makes me wonder where the "dirty mind" actually lies.....