Getting Real
Page 19
The term ‘moral panic’ is tiresome, lazy and predictable (see Bray, this volume). It’s used as a put-down to people with differing views and is an excuse not to engage in the real issues. I find it amusing that this assumption has often been made of me. Along the way I’ve been called a ‘crusader’ and a ‘self-appointed moral guardian.’ According to one critic, I’ve ‘let loose a kind of hysteria in Australian society’ with ‘something between gusto and zealotry.’ Apparently I’m also a ‘booster of populist politicians’ and have ‘entirely predictable tut-tutting’ (Fine, 2008). Hilarious!
Growing up in a small country town in the 1970s meant I experienced how a ‘community’ works, where people tend to care about each other and their environment. I’ve also lived in the city for over twenty years, and see how that sense of ‘community’ is lost. That’s one way the marketing and advertising machine gets its power. In the city we don’t seem to have a sense of ownership about our surroundings. We pass a giant billboard depicting a sexually objectified woman, or words like ‘Want Longer Lasting Sex?’ and we keep driving. We mightn’t like it, but we shrug our shoulders and think ‘well, what can I do about it?’
* * *
2 Advertising Standards Board. Case report complaint reference number 20/07: ‘Overall the greater good served by such a message should prevail over the discomfort felt by a very small minority who are uncomfortable discussing the subject of sex with their children.’ http://www.advertisingstandardsbureau.com.au/pages/index.asp
* * *
The Advertising Standards Board (ASB) relies on people making complaints. Most people don’t realise that billboards are not screened or vetted before they go out into the public arena, and action will only take place if complaints are received (see Rosewarne, this volume).
Speaking up and making complaints has helped to instigate a lot of change since forming KF2BK, and the issue has received extensive media exposure:
• The Senate Inquiry into the Sexualisation of Children in the contemporary media environment (June 2008) and changes to the advertising codes for children (April 16, 2008) have been positive steps forward (http://www.aana.com.au/documents/CodeChildren.pdf);
• Holeproof and Target withdrew sexualised underwear aimed at young girls (http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/eca_ctte/sexualisation_of_children/responses/target1.pdf) (Critchley, 2007a and b; Danaher, 2007);
• Bras N things reconsidered how they were displaying ‘adult-only’ products in their outlets (http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/eca_ctte/sexualisation_of_children/responses/brasnthings.pdf);
• The ASB determined that the Advanced Medical Institute (AMI) had breached section 2 of the advertisers code of ethics. AMI subsequently removed its ‘Want Longer Lasting Sex?’ billboards (http://www.adstandards.com.au/pages/index.asp (Complaint Ref 278/08 August 2008)3 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/26/2346336.htm);4
* * *
3 The AMI still don’t get it though. The latest attempts at wooing men with erection problems to purchase their products have been billboards stating: ‘Men “DO IT” longer and Bonk Longer.’ ‘Shonk’ longer more like it—the ‘Doctor’ who owns the company is not registered in Australia and none of AMI’s products are registered with the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).
* * *
• Girlfriend magazine stopped advertising Playboy products after I told them they were effectively grooming young girls to wear the major brand of the pornography industry. The marketing manager I spoke with didn’t seem to understand the problem. She sighed and told me that there was ‘no logo on the T-shirt.’ So I said ‘Mmm, the text says Playboy is a collection of clothing and swimwear for the trendy savvy fashionable girl. Cute and Innocent—cool and tough all at the same time. Playboy is one brand you should include in your wardrobe—and you’re telling me that you are giving away free Playboy T-shirts that don’t have the logo on it? Now that’s very curious.’ She then admitted that she hadn’t actually seen them. I didn’t hear back from her and only found out about the outcome when I read Girlfriend’s response in submissions to the Senate Inquiry (2008, p. 5.) (http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/eca_ctte/sexualisation_of_children/submissions/sub130.pdf);
• Dolly and Girlfriend magazines have stopped advertising mobile phone wallpapers which say, for example, ‘I’m a good girl dressed in the body of a slut.’ Or: ‘Sex when it’s good it’s really good, when it’s bad it’s still pretty good,’ ‘Save a virgin, do me instead’ and ‘Free Sex Just Ask.’ Magazines for young girls are not regulated, so it is very important to know what our daughters are reading;
• Jay Jay’s removed its ‘Little Losers’ range of T-shirts after community outcry. The logos read ‘Mr Asshole,’ ‘Mr Agro,’ ‘Mr Drunk,’ ‘Mr Pimp,’ ‘Mr Well-Hung,’ ‘Miss Bitch,’ ‘Miss Floozy,’ and ‘Miss Wasted.’ Given Jay Jay’s supports Reachout which provides assistance to kids and young teens dealing with issues such as mental health and body image, sex, drugs and alcohol abuse, perhaps it recognised the contradiction (Brooks, 2008; Kohler, 2008);
* * *
4 In February 2009, the UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ordered the AMI ‘Want Longer Lasting Sex?’ advertisement down because it breached the Responsible Advertising and Decency codes. It also concluded that the AMI had indirectly advertised an unlicensed medicine and also breached the medicines code http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_45797.htm
* * *
• The ‘What’s New’ chain in family shopping malls sold blow-Z up sex dolls alongside Wiggles merchandise. So I decided to email the Wiggles corporation to ask if they were comfortable selling their Dorothy-the-dinosaur mugs on a shelf opposite a ‘Granny I’d like to F*ck’ blow-up doll. They withdrew their merchandise the same day from all ‘What’s New’ stores (author e-mail correspondence, June 11, 2008);
• Smiggle withdrew its Voodoo Doll pencil case—which was sold with a photo slot and real pins—when KF2BK and child development professionals spoke out about the potential for bullying. An article appeared in The Herald Sun (Critchley, 2009), and I was contacted by many parents. One mother had already attempted to get a response from the company after explaining that her thirteen-year-old daughter had been bullied using the voodoo doll with her face on it (see Tankard Reist, 2009);
• BP, Shell-Coles Express and Mobil withdrew all Category 1 pornographic magazines from their company-owned stores nationwide (author correspondence with Coles and BP, November 2008, and telephone conversation with Mobil, December 2008);
• In May 2009, moments before submitting this chapter, documents obtained by KF2BK under Freedom of Information laws confirmed that retailer David Jones used advertisements intending to sexualise children as young as ten. The documents from the New South Wales Office of the Children’s Guardian revealed information indicating that young girls aged ten to twelve years be posed ‘slightly more adult and sexy.’
Although not made known through the FOI documents, according to the Daily Telegraph (Fife-Jeomans, 2009), a freelance photographer working for advertising agency Saatchi & Saatchi told the Children’s Guardian the campaign was meant to be a bit provocative. ‘The age is from ten to twelve years so slightly more adult and sexy,’ the photographer said, according to the report.
KF2BK called on David Jones to issue apologies to the children, their parents and the Australia Institute (see Rush, this volume, whose original allegations against David Jones are now vindicated; KF2BK, 2009; Black, 2009 and Hamilton, 2009).
But of course the battle against irresponsible corporations continues. I have also been involved in a campaign against Unilever. In response to letters from KF2BK and the Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood in the United States, Unilever issued a global statement acknowledging the contradiction between its highly sexualised Lynx/Axe advertising and the Dove self-esteem programs for young girls. Unilever owns both companies. Predictably though, their statement was full of the ‘humorous’ and �
�target market’ spiel. More work needs to be done to address the extraordinary hypocrisy of this company and others like it.
I believe that the Dove self-esteem programs are cynical marketing ploys to get product placement into young girls’ lives as early as possible. If Unilever cared at all about women and girls, they wouldn’t be teaching young males that women are sexual predators and sexually available anytime; they wouldn’t be co-marketing with Playboy; and they certainly wouldn’t be selling the message to Indian and Asian women that to get ahead in life and love you need to whiten your skin. Fair and lovely is a skin whitening cream and in India, Unilever has set up the Fair and Lovely Foundation. Hypocritically, their mission statement is ‘Empowering women in India to change their destinies through education, career guidance and skills training.’ Woops, they forgot to say ‘but girls, you’d better whiten up first!’ The Dove ‘Real Women’ campaign?—oh puhlease!5
* * *
5 An article in The New Yorker in May 2008 contained the interesting admission by the world’s most famous airbrush artist Pascal Dangin, that he touched up the images of the ‘real women’ in the Dove ‘Real Beauty’ campaign. Journalist Lauren Collins writes: ‘I mentioned the Dove ad campaign that proudly featured lumpier-than-usual “real women” in their undergarments. It turned out it was a Dangin job. “Do you know how much retouching was on that?” he asked. “But it was great to do, a challenge, to keep everyone’s skin and faces showing the mileage but not looking unattractive”’ (Collins, 2008).
* * *
I have an ongoing issue with stores in family shopping centres that sell ostensibly to children, but display R-rated merchandise within children’s easy access and view.
In the Senate Inquiry, I presented examples of merchandise, including blow-up sex dolls, sold in the ‘What’s New’ chain and was asked to make an official complaint to the police. Unfortunately, the complaint could not be processed because there are currently no laws protecting children from this involuntary exposure. I spoke with centre management at the Chadstone Shopping Centre in Melbourne, and the response was ‘well don’t go into the shop if you’re offended by it.’ I explained that the issue isn’t whether I (or any adult) am offended; the issue is the impact on children. No action was taken and ‘What’s New’ has ignored correspondence from KF2BK.
In ‘What’s New,’ children can view a game called ‘Let’s F*CK’ or flick through ‘Triple X Vouchers’ complete with images of a ‘Tit-F*cking Session,’ a ‘Blow Job’ and a mutual ‘Masturbation Session.’ The text on the box of a blow-up doll says ‘3 Love holes for your pleasure—Oral, Vaginal or Anal.’ Not quite what you’d expect in a store that sells Beanie kids, fairies and teddies! Commendations to the Wiggles for getting their products out of these stores. It’s not rocket science to work out that children’s and ‘adult-only’ merchandise do not belong on the same premises.
In late 2008, I was in a milk bar buying an ice-cream with my ten-year-old son. On the same shelf as the daily newspapers and women’s magazines was a porn magazine titled ‘Live Young Girls— Tender Teenage Twat.’ The top third of the magazine was visible and displayed a young looking female wearing pigtails. I thought ‘how can this possibly be legal?’ I decided to investigate further and found that teen porn magazines are very common in convenience stores, newsagents, milk bars and petrol stations. I bought a selection so I could photograph the titles and check the content.
The magazines were classified Category 1. This means they are not allowed to depict anyone who is under eighteen or who ‘appears’ to be under eighteen. They are also not permitted to depict graphic sex acts. Category 1 classified magazines are allowed to be sold in the public arena if they are sealed.
I looked up the classification guidelines and, surprisingly, discovered that almost 100 per cent of the magazines I had purchased were illegal. An audit by the Australian Classification Board validated my findings (author correspondence with Donald McDonald, Director, Classification Board, December 16, 2008; Davies, 2009).
Much of the text in these magazines implies sex with minors. The images are full of young looking girls wearing school uniforms, pink headbands, pigtails and braces on their teeth. They are often posed surrounded by soft toys. Most would be given an RC—that is a ‘refused classification’—by the Classification Board because they breach the guidelines. This means they should not even be sold in an adult-only venue. Many distributors are flouting the law by sealing illegal magazines with official Category 1 labels and selling them to retailers.
The following are examples of highly visible text on front covers of teen porn magazines which are frequently on shelves next to ‘teen’ magazines like Dolly and Girlfriend.
Cum on my Braces—Virgin Babe
Petite—Young Girls Eager for Anal
F*ckable Flatties Special
Slumber Party Sluts—Our filthiest issue ever. 12 Tight Twats
Back To School Special
Pigtailed School Girl—‘My first 3-way’
Spunky Teen Sluts
Cum Hungry Virgins Inside
Awkward Teen Sluts—Amateurs
Young Girls Getting Laid
Teen Porn Star Collectors Issue
We already face the problem that Internet porn provides easy access and anonymity to those who want it. But allowing pornography that incites sex with minors to be sold in the public arena is openly validating abhorrent behaviour. I talked about the issue on radio and it was also raised in Senate Estimates hearings in October 2008 and May 2009 (Hansard, 2008, pp. 111–113, 120; Hansard, 2009, pp. 57–66).
One way of getting action throughout the KF2BK campaign has been to photograph inappropriate merchandise, advertising or content in publications and email it to executives and CEOs. It’s important they know what their companies are selling!
That’s how we got BP, Shell-Coles Express and Mobil to withdraw all Category 1 pornographic magazines from their company-owned stores nationwide (author correspondence with Coles and BP, November 2008, and telephone conversation with Mobil, December 2008).
7-Eleven chose to ignore the information. A representative told me she was sure their ‘family friendly’ stores would not stock such magazines. They do, and I provided the evidence—but still no action (author emails and phone contact with 7-Eleven, December 2008). Others, such as Caltex/Safeway abdicated all responsibility to their franchisees (author telephone contact, December 2008). United Petroleum and McDonalds, which co-brand with Fuelzone, have ignored all correspondence (e-mails and telephone contact, December 2008). It was difficult to get media coverage about this issue as, ironically, the magazine titles (which are on public display) are deemed inappropriate to print or show on TV! New South Wales Labor MP Greg Donnelly made a speech about the magazines in parliament and was told by Opposition Leader Barry O’Farrell that he had ‘gone well beyond the bounds of good taste and common sense’ for reading out the titles. A Daily Telegraph report described Mr Donnelly’s actions as bizarre (in Benson, 2009). If it’s bad taste to read them out in parliament, then why should the rest of the community, particularly children, be subjected to them?
I sent 28 teen porn magazines to the Classification Board and asserted they were illegal. Director Donald McDonald agreed that all 28 magazines failed to comply with Category 1 guidelines. Eleven were refused classification (RC),6 thirteen were unclassified,7 and four were Category 2, which should have been limited to adult-only venues. None of the distributors complied with the Board’s ‘please explain’ notices and law enforcements were notified (author correspondence with Donald McDonald, Director, Classification Board, December 16, 2008).8
Julie-Anne Davies wrote a piece in The Australian detailing the teen porn magazine issue and the failure of the Classification Board to do its job (Davies, 2009). Classification Board Deputy Director, Olya Booyar, said ‘enforcement of current laws was heavily reliant on public complaints. The public is not as forthcoming as it could be and we cannot be everywhere.’ U
ntil I read this statement I had no idea that our classification system relied on public complaints. I assumed that the state and territory police enforced the Guidelines. They are supposed to! It took one persistent voice to get this issue raised—imagine the change we could create if more of us acted. This is about illegal magazines that incite sex with minors being sold in the public arena. A classification system that allows this is an utter failure.
* * *
6 Publications which fall within the criteria for ‘RC’ cannot be legally imported or sold in Australia (Australian Classification Board Guidelines for the Classification of Publications 2005, p. 14).
7 Publications which have not been presented to the board for classification are deemed ‘Unclassified.’
8 EROS, which represents the sex industry in Australia, claims to care about child protection. Yet its secretary, David Watt, imports some of the worst teen porn magazines mentioned in this piece. Watt is named variously as General Manager of Namda (the company name under which applications to the Classification Board were made) and Windsor Wholesale. The titles imported by Namda/Windsor are in milk bars, supermarkets and petrol stations (see Tankard Reist, 2008).
* * *
I have been asked to give presentations on many occasions, both in Australia and overseas. A particular highlight was being invited by The Hon. Alistair Nicholson, former Chief Justice of the Family Court, to speak at an international conference on Child Labour and Child Exploitation in Cairns in August 2008. I saw this as a powerful acknowledgement of the shift that has occurred since I started the campaign. The sexualisation of children is beginning to be recognised in the context it deserves: child exploitation.