In your own skin

Olympic gold medalist swimmer Amanda Beard had to launch her naked, anti-fur campaign poster outside the Athletes' Village on Wednesday after Chinese authorities cancelled a planned unveiling, citing safety concerns.In a poster for the animal rights group PETA, the reigning 200-meter breaststroke champion appears naked in front of the U.S. flag and the slogan "Be comfortable in your own skin. Don't wear fur."

Source: Chigago Tribune

A host of other celebrities have protested on behalf of PETA, including Alicia Silverstone. While the motives behind such protests are noble, one has to wonder about the means.

Nudity obviously attracts attention, but does it do anything to convey the message? Are people who view nude images of people like Beard and Silverstone swayed? Are they any less likely to wear fur or eat meat? I would say not. They are much more likely to simply view the images as voyeurs. There is always a large market for celebrity nudes and these images just add to the ever increasing stock available. While any publicity might be good publicity, there might be more effective ways of getting the message across.

Are they becoming meat to protest the eating of meat? Most of the audience these images reach will enjoy looking at them and continue eating their big macs and wearing their fur lined caps. Using nudity to convey this message tends to put these women on the same level of the animals they seek to protect.

Beijing: the naked olympics

The image above shows Guangdong TV news presenter Ou Zhihang performing pushups naked in front of several China’s landmarks. One wonders how many people in China can view these images. China's intternet is quite likely to be like Ned Flanders' cable TV; 99 channels and all blocked except for the weather.

Under international pressure, China has now allowed unrestricted internet access for foreign journalists covering the games. The internet remains restricted for the rest of the country. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has admitted it was aware of China's plan not to unblock the internet, although journalists were lead to believe otherwise. Some Olympics commentators have made comments like "Can't we just forget this and concentrate on the positive aspects of the games?" China's record on human rights is perhaps another aspect we should just forget so we can sit back and enjoy the fun.

The IOC was of course well aware of the extent of China's human rights abuses when choosing the games host country. The booming Chinese economy and potential for making large amounts of money was probably a much more important consideration.

Perhaps some positives will come out of the games. International pressure may encourage China to curb its excessive pollution and destruction of the environment and may even improve its approach to human rights, but don't hold your breath. China's repressive regime may one day find that repression works against it in the long term. Over censorship of the internet only increases curiosity about that which is blocked. The most positive outcome would be the undermining of China's government.

I'm sure this site is blocked in China...

Elave: Nothing to Hide?

"elave commissioned this risqué eye-catching method of communicating the serious message that elave has no worrying chemicals in its formulations and therefore ‘nothing to hide’.
Nudity has been used as a device within the ads to highlight the elave product range’s comprehensive ‘free from’ chemical list and the fact that the elave brand lists its ingredients openly on its packaging. A growing number of consumers are starting to request chemical safe skincare and it is hoped that this campaign will bring these issues into the public domain and ignite the debate, particularly amongst chemical concerned consumers and sufferers of sensitive skin conditions."

Source: http://www.elave.co.uk/nothing-to-hide

This commercial was shown briefly on 'The Gruen Transfer', an interesting ABC series which analyses advertising. Click here to read the critique The CEO of the company actually appears in the ad.

Perhaps Elave actually does have something to hide: while purporting to "bring these issues into the public domain and ignite the debate..." all they are really doing is practicing the tried and true strategy "sex sells".

Vodafone's folding girlfriend

In a recent Vodafone ad shown on Australian TV, a guy going on a trip decides he wants to take his wall map with him so he neatly folds it and puts it in his pocket. He then decides to take his computer, his TV and then his CD collection (including a large cabinet). He neatly folds them up one by one and puts them in his pocket. Just as he's almost out the door he looks at his sleeping girlfriend, then comes back, folds her up and puts her in his pocket too. Vodafone uses the slogan 'Take your world with you' for this ad.

Is this commercial not just the slightest bit insulting to women? Firstly, he takes his girlfriend last, almost as an after thought. She is perhaps the least important of his essential accessories? Secondly, is that all she is? An accessory? An object on a par with a computer or a TV? Vodafone might not have meant to be sexist and offensive but they have ceratinly managed it. It may provide an insight into the subconscious of the guys that create ads like this. The CGI are impressive and the concept is clever, but the bottom line leaves a lot to be desired.

Watch the full commercial here:

The war on drugs

"Marijuana potency increased last year to the highest level in more than 30 years, posing greater health risks to people who may view the drug as harmless, a new US report says.

The latest analysis from the University of Mississippi's Potency Monitoring Project tracked the average amount of THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, in samples seized by law enforcement agencies from 1975 to 2007. It found that the average amount of THC reached 9.6 per cent last year, compared with 8.75 per cent in 2006".

Source: http://www.smh.com.au/news/science/drug-potency-doubles/2008/06/12/1212863811747.html

The rise in THC levels is hardly surprising. For years police have been targeting marijuana plantations, of both the backyard and commercial variety. This kind of bust has always been a soft target due to the high visibility of crops and improvements in aerial surveillance. It has forced growers to abandon outdoor crops in favour of indoor, hydroponics. Under controlled indoor conditions, marijuana can develop much higher potency. Higher potency levels can contribute to psychological, cognitive and respiratory problems. The problem seems to lie more with the law than with the use of marijuana itself.

Just what is the so called ‘war on drugs’ about? Every year, countless billions of tax payers money is spent on drug enforcement. Countless people end up in prison or worse in some countries for choosing to ingest prohibited substances. Is this expense justified? Why are crimes involving drugs given a higher priority than most others when this is essentially a victimless crime?

Governments and law enforcement agencies might warn that if the prohibited substances in question were legalised social disorder would quickly ensue. They worry they would lose control over large sections of the community, and being in control is always of prime concern.

However, the fact that recreational drugs is illegal does little to discourage their use and somehow society does not come crashing down around our heads. They might argue that if drugs were legal, people would be constantly off their heads and unable to be productive members of society. It is possible to sit down in the gutter with a bottle of scotch but the fact is, most people just don’t. Of course, any drug can be abused, but there have always been a much higher incidence of health problems related to legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco than illegal drugs. Persecuting those who insist on taking drugs has done nothing to solve the problem; in fact it only makes things worse.

Tenaciously targeting soft targets like marijuana does make it difficult to buy, and this increases it’s price. This is very welcome to organised criminals dealing drugs. It makes marijuana sales ever more lucrative and makes buyers with less money much more likely to try cheaper alternatives like heroin. The addictive nature of heroin and narcotics means customers are all the more likely to keep coming back for more; again the dealers profit. The deadly nature of heroin is caused by varying levels of imputy; it might be cut with sugar one week and cement the next. No one knows what they are getting when they buy on the street and addicts frequently die. Another argument often cited is that relaxation of drug laws could make drugs more available to children; but couldn’t age restrictions be applied more easily if the drugs weren’t illegal? As things are there are no restrictions.

Farmers are now being encouraged by many governments to grow non drug producing marijuana. This plant produces the strongest known natural fibre and has an incredibly high yield. It also has other health related benefits and has been used to treat conditions like glaucoma. Perhaps such things are signals that the laws need to be rethought.

The ‘war on drugs’ has been described by some as a modern day version of prohibition. Prohibition failed dramatically and did little more than lead to a rise in organised crime. The war on drugs is little different. Criminals get rich and users suffer. It is more a war on freedom than anything else.

Roberta's Underbelly

she devil Roberta Williams

Roberta Williams, former wife of crime baron Carl has posed for men's magazine Zoo Weekly in a bikini. Carl and Roberta have practically become household names since featuring as key characters in the hit TV series Underbelly. The shoot has also been covered by A Current Affair. The press has commented that Roberta has sunken to a new low by posing for a tacky magazine. How can this woman who for years benefited from the proceeds of drug dealing and murder be allowed to profit from her notoreity? How deplorable? How sordid? Really?

Has Roberta really sunken to a new low by posing for a few photographs in a bikini? If Underbelly is anything to go by, she was well aware of most of her husband's illegal activities. How else did he come by such a huge fortune when he had no job or other means of income? After initially complaining about her portrayal in the TV series, Roberta is now reaping the benefits of her new found celebrity. Scandal mongers like A Current Affair and Zoo Weekly are very happy to cash in on her fame, and large numbers of consumers are just as happy to lap it up. After living association with drug dealing and murder, posing in a bikini hardly seems 'a new low'. Descriptions of Roberta as 'a tragic figure' seem a bit melodramatic. Her bank account is likely to be anything but tragic. Perhaps we should just be grateful she spared us doing the photo shoot nude.

It's interesting that as soon as a woman comes into the public eye; almost the first thing she's asked to do is take her clothes off for the camera. I doubt Carl will be asked to pose for a photo shoot in his speedos if he ever gets out of prison. Women are always sex objects first and people second (if at all).

Benefiting from the proceeds of crime; sordid, tacky, deplorable: maybe. Surprising? No.

Beowulf's Femme Fatale

Ray Winstone as Beowulf and Angelina Jolie as Grendel's Mother

When I saw this ad on a billboard for the movie 'Beowulf', (directed by Robert Zemeckis 2007) I just had to see it. This film was created with digital animation and the whole thing has the look of a video game. I enjoyed it; no great work of art but it's kind of fun. Ray Winstone must have found it very flattering to have his short, stocky physique transformed into a buff nordic god.

However, the Beowulf story is evidence that the devouring female versus passive victim dichotomy is not confined to classical mythology alone. (This was discussed in an earlier post 'The Rock of Doom') .

Angelina Jolie appears nude as Grendel's mother in Beowulf

In Beowulf, Angelina Jolie plays the monster Grendel's mother. She appears nude except for a thin coating of liquid gold. She has a tail and sexy high heels (I didn't know you could get shoes like that in 6th century Denmark!). She is the archetypal femme fatale; half alluring woman, half devouring beast. She proves to be the nemesis of King Hrothgar (Anthony Hopkins) and then to Beowulf himself. The 'woman as victim' is Queen Wealthow, played by Robin Wright Penn. She endures a loveless marriage with a much older man (King Hrothgar) and then endures marriage to a husband (Beowulf) with a younger and publicly acknowledged mistress Ursula (Alison Lohman).

Again; the female charaters are relegated to stereotypes; victim and monster. The fact that the monster has a certain number of hybrid beast attributes is certainly a metaphor for a dangerous sexuality. Sure, you're attracted to the femme fatale but the quiet, passive girl is the one you'd take home to mother. Only the male characters in the story; Beowulf, Hrothgar, Unferth (John Malkovich) have any true individuality or personality.

So if this flick is just bit of harmeless fun, why is such sexual stereotyping a problem? It is a problem because this view of women as secondary entities continues to pervade our conscious and subconscious minds. These ideas are deeply entrenched in myth, history and conditioning and need a huge amount of rethinking and re-interpretation before women have any hope of equality.

Norse god: monster slayer Beowulf

The real Ray Winstone: a bit of a monster