Sexpo billboard pulled down | QLD News | Breaking News in Queensland

Yep i will be going fo sure hear that people of ipswich ha ha ha ..if people want to go so be it and for the billboard its in good taste there is nothing wrong with it and im only guessing that they wont be taking it down now

I'm from closer to Brisbane, on the east side. My better half and I attended Sexpo a few years ago and we did enjoy it.

Personally I don't think it's all about prudeness when someone has issues with this type of advertising. Heard a comment on the TV this morning likening it to a lingerie catalogue...yeah sure but then you wouldn't give a lingerie catalogue to a 5yo. The ladies pose is too risque for a public billboard.
There is some decorum still required by society.

They said on the news that there had been no complaints about the bilboard in Ipswich but about other ones around brisbane so it typical old Pisale being a media tarting, bandstanding wowser again. Surprise, surprise.

Don't a better sex lives make people happier and more productive. We all have sex. Get over it.

Great billboard...And I've been to sexpo once before donkies ago...

But taking the misses this year so should be good :)

Can't wait!

I don't see the problem. Children are too innocent to see the provocative nature of the pictures, so I guess once again the sexually repressed pious minority are dictating morality to the rest of us

Why do so many people think that to object to a billboard is about being prudish, or pious, or a minority dictating morality? Even the claim that Ipswich residents are the second highest in numbers to attend the show is not evidence that all these people would necessarily agree to an ad of this nature. As one of the comments suggest, they will be attending but they object to the public billboard. It is not just about sex, as the same could apply to alcohol and tobacco, i.e., allowing the products to be sold but banning billboard advertising to prevent exposure to minors.

If you want to attend the show no-one is stopping you, but this is quite a different matter to objecting to a billboard, esp as the provocative images are not suitable for children. To claim, as emdeejay has done, that children are too innocent to see the provocative nature of the pictures is naive. To what age are you referring? Do you include teenagers under 18? Is this true of all children regardless of education or socio-economic background? What has innocence to do with being influenced by advertising? Can you cite studies to show your claim to be warranted? If what you say were really true then I suggest that we cease rating movies and let all children view whatever they like. But why stop there, perhaps a family outing to the porn shop - after all they are innocent and would not understand what all the gadgets were for!

Children are impressionable and begin questioning at a very early age, and without guidance they make sense of their world on their own. What this means is that billboards will impact on children's thinking and the way they view the world. Parenting is difficulty enough as it is to be burdened with the additional concern of ubiquitous billboards of a highly provocative sexual nature. It isn't about the nudity or amount of skin, it is how the woman is depicted, her sexual posture, and how she is positioned in the middle of two males, one topless and the other complete with phallic motorbike. This is no accident on the part of the advertisers - it is intended to arouse!

Dr. Gilbert Burgh
Lecturer in Moral and Political Philosophy
The University of Queensland

Thank-you Dr Burgh, that's an even better script of exactly what I was trying to say.

Dr Burgh,

There is a fairly obvious distinction between a provocative static image and hardcore video pornography featuring explicit nudity and sexual acts. I'm unsure other than exaggeration what point you're trying to make there.

Clearly, the acceptability of media falls on a spectrum. You seem to be arguing for zero tolerance of sexualised advertising with nothing but "think of the children!" to back it up. Perhaps you would care to cite a study which highlights the negative effects on childrens behaviour that imagery such as this creates?

Issues like this can only be reasonably decided by consensus. My feeling is that unless the existing advertising code of conduct has been violated, they have every right to display their sign and that responsibility falls to the naysayers to lobby for change if the existing code is deemed inappropriate, rather than ballyhooing about specific instances.

Emdeejay - No researcher, in their right mind or of sound ethical practice, would subject children to such imagery in order to quantify what can be gauged from victim impact reports of children who have been groomed (through exposure to various forms of objectionable media) by predators.

Section 2: 2.2 of the ASB Code of Ethics could be considered breached by this billboard. It may be easier to swallow if the board were only visible during the hours that adult content television programs are deemed suitable to air. This still leaves the control out of each parent's hands (who can easily monitor television viewing but not reach over to shield their children's eyes whilst driving). It still remains intrusive as one can't decide not to look until it’s too late. Do we create child-friendly driving routes and R18 busways?

Besides - the board clearly directs viewers to a website containing a plethora of objectionable images (and one isn't even warned of the content before entering the site, there is just a very small R18 icon at the bottom of the page).

You beauty the sign has been removed. About time.

If it helps prevent at least one case of AIDS from spreading then that is a miracle.

The event itself needs to be stopped or the dreaded diseases will spread no doubt about it.

These people who are running the sexpo arn't silly..put up a controversial billboard for a few bucks,and then sit back and get all this free advertising by everyone complaining how they are so shocked , and they know the newspapers and the television will jump on board, hence the show is all in the papers and all over the tv.....and it only cost them a few bucks. see they arn't stupid..

I didn't find the billboard offensive or morally inappropriate. No breasts, bottoms, other bits exposed. The ad appeared open to interpretation re content. My interpretation of the photo was that the model was lowering herself onto a male partner- I don't wish to be more explicit than this. I can see, however, that some could interpret her as being in a submissive sexual position. For those who interpret her in this way, they would need to concede that she has her legs together.
If this advertisement was deemed to be unsuitable for public consumption (on the basis that it violated obscenity codes) then a full scale censorship onslaught ought to be applied to advertising across the country. Why? Because the likes of Jennifer Hawkins and Miranda Kerr appear in very skimpy bathers and lingerie, are photographed in extremely provocative and sexual poses. David Jones and Myer advertisements? Should go. Coles and Wooworths catalogues? Get rid of them. The innocent looking little girl, with a small part of her bottom exposed by a puppy pulling on her knickers, advertising sunscreen? Scrap it (this image inadvertently turned on paedophiles). Where would the cencorship end? Where should it end?
Perhaps after careful examination of the issue, one might want to argue that all advertising of this nature - anything involving nudity, near-nudity, sexual imagery - ought to be banned. If so, fair enough. But I think it reeks of hypocricy to outlaw this particular billboard and allow the likes of Jen and Miranda to publicly display sexualised areas of their bodies and be photographed in ways, the aim of which is to sexually arouse and stimulate. At least the model in the Sexpo ad appeared to be of normal BMI - unlike Jen and Miranda.
Was the billboard aesthetically offensive? Well that's another matter. One could argue that it was an ugly display, an eyesore, hence required removal. But again, we'd need to rip down billboards all over the country. Many ads are irritating or silly. I don't see that the Sexpo ad was any more visually aesthetically bothersome that many others that have remained in place.
A complicated issue...and, although I disagree with him, I appreciate Gil's comments.
Dr Patricia Petersen

This has been the best free advertising for the SEXPO event ever. There is nothing wrong with the billboard and nothing wrong with Sexpo. If you don't wish to go then don't. It's that simple! But don't try to tell others what to do. The event is only open to adults. Children can't get in the venue.

Try explaining that billboard to your 8 year old. Regardless of the merits and enjoyment of sex, he can retain his innocence a little longer before getting bombarded with soft porn that he can't avoid.

What a bunch of wowsers we now have in Queensland. This is just a few narrow minded people getting their way when the majority really dont mind it. The problem is that its about sex and no we cant have that can we? We cant talk about sex or even advertise anything to do with it. Kids see worse than this billboard in tv shows, magazines, at the beach, pool etc! Leave the kids out of it they are not stupid and wouldnt ynderstand what it is for unless a older person tells them. I get more offended at seeing the but cracks on the guys working on the side of the road!

Try explaining it to an 8 year old? A girl in a bikini, and topless guy and a motorbike rider? Doesn't sound too hard.

Seems to me it's not the 'children' you want to protect, but the supposed grownups who blush uncontrollably when a child says "Mum, what's sex?"

Here's some advice: think about how you'll answer those questions ahead of time so you don't stutter and blush like a dill when the time finally comes.

Unlike some, I don't wish for my son to grow up objectifying women as some personal fiefdom for his semen, and double entendres like that pointed out by the professor clearly don't help.

Some of us want our sons to grow up to cherish women and to treat them with the dignity and respect they deserve. Their impressionable brains don't need preliminary encouragement to jam them doggy-style with excess horsepower. Get a grip.

How fortunate for you then Matabele that you now have an example to show your son as the way *not* to behave.

The road to enlightenment is to realise that it is *your* responsibility to instill the values you cherish in your children.

It's most definitely *not* the responsibility of everyone else to adapt their behaviour to suit your particular parenting biases.

This is civil society 101 stuff. It's shocking that so many people have learned nothing from histories cruel harsh lessons.

emdeejay, I don't get your point! With rights comes social responsibilities. I have no objection to what consenting adults do in private or to nudity. If people want to go to Sexpo then pay the money and go, simple as that. But clearly people are objecting to what they see as the objectification of women which (1) is their right to do in a polyarchy like Australia, and (2) is considering social responsibility.

Re studies:

Emma Rush & Andrea La Nauze

1. Corporate paedophilia: sexualisation of children in the media, Australia Institute, Discussion Paper 90, October 2006.

2. Letting children be children: stopping the sexualisation of children in Australia, Discussion Paper 93, December 2006.

Also recent reports from the American Psychological Association:

www.apa.org/releases/sexualization.html

The consensus is that "repeated exposure to highly sexualized messages and images (which suggest that someone's value comes only from their sexual appeal or behavior) can harm the self-image and healthy development of young girls, teens, and women. These sexualized images can also decrease self-esteem, self-confidence, and lead to shame, anxiety, depression, and eating disorders."

We can deny these reports but social responsibility starts with a concern for the well-being of society, which affects us all in terms of crime, abuse, exploitation and violence. Dr Patricia Petersen claims (QT 8/2) a concern over the "the exploitation of and violence towards women and children". These studies demonstrate a direct link between exposure to sexualised material and behaviour. She should therefore be concerned by this rather than recommend we must "lighten up".

I wish to qualify that my concern is not over one billboard but of many ubiquitous campaigns in magazines, television and other media. What Philip Adams and others call corporate pedophilia is a serious matter.

I agree with Dr Petersen on two points: (1) it is a complex issue - which requires an understanding of child development, the impact of negative images on behaviour, education, and the role of the law in a democracy (or polyarchy), and (2) that if we are concerned about one billboard with sexualised content then other advertising and images need to be reviewed.

So emdeejay, get over it, the billboard has been taken down, Sexpo organisers are satisifed and will get a capacity crowd, the advertisers have listened to some sectional interest groups as part of the polyarchical process (and don't say anything about minorities as you don't have evidence of this!!!), and go exercise your rights and visit the Sexpo. I am not stopping you nor do I have any wish to do so.

Dr Gilbert Burgh
Lecturer in Moral and Political Philosophy
The University of Queensland