PC gone mad

[Dreadful Scathe]

Yes, Political Correctness time again.

Just saw this article.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) claims a new catalogue shows children in sexually suggestive poses. The catalogue company said it did not see any sexual references and found the suggestion "shocking and upsetting".

um..surely when people look at pictures of children and see sexual positions, it is THEM that have the problem. Its not the pictures at fault here, its someones very weird interpretation of them.

Discuss

[LMC]

Surely that should be PC experiencing mental health difficulties?

I would say that it depends on the pictures. If the kids are dressed in tight/revealing clothing with adult expressions (pouts, "moody" eyes, come-hither smiles) and/or lots of make up then I would say that this is inappropriate sexualisation of children. Of course that does not negate the fact that it is wrong of anyone to be turned on (shudders, revolted and angered at the very thought). Sadly, a (fortunately very limited) minority of sick people will be.

As I said on the Baby Ballroom thread, seeing children made up, dressed and behaving like mini adults is deeply uncomfortable, worrying and saddening.

[David Bailey]

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) claims a new catalogue shows children in sexually suggestive poses. The catalogue company said it did not see any sexual references and found the suggestion "shocking and upsetting".

The complaints upheld were showing part of a boys bottom, showing a heavily made-up girl on all fours with the caption "A gentleman should never keep a lady waiting", and showing a girl lying on a back seat of a car with a caption saying "Not to be violated".

I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that these images could be misinterpreted, especially considering the accompanying text.

And surely by now, anyone taking photos of children anywhere should know that you need to be extremely cautious in how those pictures are presented?

[LMC]

In that case, I'm with the ASA.

What were the parents, agents, photographers thinking?

[David Bailey]

In that case, I'm with the ASA.

What were the parents, agents, photographers thinking?

From the ASA's Adjudication page, the defence was that

"No added sugar said they were a relatively new company that produced edgy baby and childrens wear of a high quality and they were recognised for their bold, fashionable and unique approach to childrens clothing."

(In other words, they got too arty for their own good - hardly a shock to find that some art photographers are less-than-endowed in the common sense department... )

And to be fair, 3 out of the 6 complaints were not upheld.

I suspect that, if they'd just thought a little about the meaning of their captions accompanying the photos, they'd have been OK.

[Dreadful Scathe]

The complaints upheld were showing part of a boys bottom, showing a heavily made-up girl on all fours with the caption "A gentleman should never keep a lady waiting", and showing a girl lying on a back seat of a car with a caption saying "Not to be violated".

For the first one - so what, I would take it be a "builders bum reference" rather than anything sexual. For the second one, I can't see where it says the girl was "heavily made up", (i can now - see here) but girls will copy their mums and put on makeup, so what. Children will climb on furniture. Dads, the Gentlemen, will have to get them off the bleedin furniture as soon as we can. Anything sexual in that? no. And for the last one, its a reasonable assumption that a child who is taking up the back seat is happy there and will be most upset if moved. Though with the paranoia surrounding children these days, you do have to wonder why the writer of the caption didn't think twice about it. "violated" is a particularly dangerous word to use. Still the assumption should be, "look , cute children"!

The danger here is by automatically assuming something is sexual you highlight it and discourage anything that might remotely be misconstrued. Leading to a sexually paranoid country (like America)

I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that these images could be misinterpreted, especially considering the accompanying text.

Oh its an easy stretch to see how it can be misinterpreted thats whats worrying. Why does our society take this leap of "it must be sexual".

And surely by now, anyone taking photos of children anywhere should know that you need to be extremely cautious in how those pictures are presented?

Its the "by now" thats worrying, years of paedophilia hysteria are accountable for this. 20 years ago, perhaps everyone looking at a little girl on a chest of drawers wearing make up would say "aww how cute!".

Of course perhaps we should return to Victorian values - all flesh covered at all times, even for adults . Children should be seen but not heard , etc.. it was simpler without those freedoms.

[Dreadful Scathe]

And to be fair, 3 out of the 6 complaints were not upheld.

I suspect that, if they'd just thought a little about the meaning of their captions accompanying the photos, they'd have been OK.

True but for it to be withdrawn because of 3 complaints when it had a distribution of 14,000 seems a bit harsh and will cause the rapid downfall of civilisation in this country.

[Barry Shnikov]

And for the last one, its a reasonable assumption that a child who is taking up the back seat is happy there and will be most upset if moved. Though with the paranoia surrounding children these days, you do have to wonder why the writer of the caption didn't think twice about it. "violated" is a particularly dangerous word to use. Still the assumption should be, "look , cute children"!

Not quite with you here, DS. "Not to be violated" is a lo-o-ong way from 'Do not disturb'. The word 'violated' is often used of a woman who has been sexually assaulted; the french for rape is 'violer'. It would appear that someone somewhere was quite clearly making sexual references in the copy - maybe 20 years ago that would not have been offensive but it clearly is now.

[LMC]

Cute kids, fine. Made up kids - also fine as long as it *looks* self-applied "little girl in mother's make up box" rather than scarily professional (remember JonBenet Ramsey?). Natural physical poses fine - having read the article, if the pic of the little boy matches the article's description, then agree that this one might have been OTT paranoia.

Provocative kids - even if the provocation was more in the captions than the pictures: not fine.

[Dreadful Scathe]

Not quite with you here, DS. "Not to be violated" is a lo-o-ong way from 'Do not disturb'. The word 'violated' is often used of a woman who has been sexually assaulted; the french for rape is 'violer'. It would appear that someone somewhere was quite clearly making sexual references in the copy - maybe 20 years ago that would not have been offensive but it clearly is now.

ok Im perhaps taking the "outraged from essex" a bit far, can't really find much to defend for that one either. However, the default response should be "strange choice of words, they must mean violating her space" not "ban ban ban" I think most agree - as DJ said only 3 complaints out of 6 were upheld. Most sensible adults ignore this sort of provocative language and get on with their lives, so it still seems strange to highlight it by banning it.

[Dreadful Scathe]

Provocative kids - even if the provocation was more in the captions than the pictures: not fine.

Whilst i think its a lot of fuss over nothing Id agree that if the kids are being taken advantage of, its a step too far - not sure if that applies in this case though.

[StokeBloke]

um..surely when people look at pictures of children and see sexual positions, it is THEM that have the problem.

This reminds me of the psychiatrist who sees a guy in his surgery. He shows him a Rorschach inkblot card and asks him what he sees. The patient says
"a naked woman"
The doctor raises his eyebrow and shows him another
"Oh big boobies"
And another
"a couple having sex".

The doctor strokes his chin and says "I think you're a classic case of a sex maniac". The patient replies "ME! It's you who has all the dirty pictures!"

[Jhutch]

From the ASA's Adjudication page, the defence was that

"No added sugar said they were a relatively new company that produced edgy baby and childrens wear of a high quality and they were recognised for their bold, fashionable and unique approach to childrens clothing."

(In other words, they got too arty for their own good - hardly a shock to find that some art photographers are less-than-endowed in the common sense department... )

So do they get fined or is it all free advertising?

(although i'm not convinced by the saying 'all publicity is good publicity')

[Dreadful Scathe]

So do they get fined or is it all free advertising?

(although i'm not convinced by the saying 'all publicity is good publicity')

Don't think the ASA can fine people, they just look into complaints about advertisements. Don't know if people can refuse to abide by the rulings. Any advertising bods want to answer that ?

[David Bailey]

So do they get fined or is it all free advertising?

Judging from the ASA information page,

Once the Council has made a decision, the advertisers must make sure that the ruling has been followed, whether that means changing an ad or withdrawing it. Our Compliance team will ensure that Council’s rulings are acted on.

So I think it's got some stautory teeth. Obviously, it's not a legal body, but presumably failure to comply carries some pretty stiff penalties.

(although i'm not convinced by the saying 'all publicity is good publicity')

Indeed. Myra Hindley's pretty famous. And the jury's still out on whether Jade Goody will benefit or lose from her, ahem, publicity...