Page 1740 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 18 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
to agree that the sight of women in Picture magazine, bare-breasted and slathered in cream, accompanied by the picture of another woman taken from the rear in a bent over position, debases women generally - and here I am referring to the cover.
Inside this magazine, which I am using as an illustration, there are even more images which, I consider, demean the participants, and women in general. They do not portray women realistically. The language that accompanies the pictures is vile and degrades both those who use the language and its subject, the women depicted. Sexual intercourse is described variously as bonking, shagging and rooting. Women are called sheilas, spunks and girls - never women. I find it bewildering that the next most popular topic in Picture and People magazines appears to be animals. I admit that my research in this area is minimal, but that appears to be borne out by the few publications I have seen. What this says about the readers of these magazines I will leave to the psychologists.
The magazine which contained the vile language and depraved images I have talked about is for sale along with newspapers at a city newsagency. I find this somewhat surprising, as the Office of the Chief Censor has only recently issued new guidelines for the display of such material. In the unrestricted category it says, of covers and advertising posters:
Photographs must be suitable for display in public. They may depict discreet nudity if it is not overtly sexually suggestive or if it does not imply sexual activity. Depictions of genitals, pubic hair, fetishes or implications of fetishes are not permitted.
Language on magazine covers should not be assaultative or sexually suggestive. Some lower level coarse language is acceptable, but sexually suggestive combinations of words or colloquialisms for sexual acts or genitals are not permitted.
The magazine I have been quoting from is the 5 August edition of Picture, and I suggest, Madam Speaker, that it contravenes current voluntary guidelines. On the issue of contents the guidelines say:
Photographs of discreet male and female nudity are acceptable but not if sexual excitement is apparent.
Depictions of sexual activity between consenting adults are acceptable only where they are discreetly implied or simulated.
Illustrations, paintings, statues etc which are considered bona fide erotic artworks and depict explicit sexual activity or nudity may be acceptable in Unrestricted categories when set in a historical or cultural context.
Written descriptions of sexual activity between adults are acceptable in mainstream works of literature and in publications not overwhelmingly dedicated to sexual matters.
I find it difficult to understand the stipulation in the guidelines that apparent sexual excitement is not acceptable. The question needs to be asked: How is it determined? Male sexual excitement is fairly obvious in depiction, but are the women depicted in this issue of Picture sexually excited? I would be of the opinion that this is the intention of the editors and publishers of this magazine.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .