Pavement photos not ok
Chief censor, Bill Hastings has conceded that Pavement magazine has a “prima facie case” to answer over its use of young models in its latest issue.
Rachel Thompson, the mum of the eleven-year old who appears in the latest issue of Pavement says there is nothing wrong with the photos. Paula Ryan, style guru agrees as does Amanda Betts of modeling agency Red Eleven.
"Have you seen a Bratz doll? They wear lots of eye makeup and eye liner. Jessica has been playing with makeup from an early age. It's never been a sexual thing - it's only ever been a little girl's thing. Children should be able to express themselves, without it being deemed as something sick."
Rachel Thompson
"pretty harmless, and the controversy seemed something of an over-reaction. Since time began, pre- teenage girls have been taking an interest in makeup. There's nothing sexual about it."
Paula Ryan
"You can't stop little girls from playing with their mothers' lipstick and eye shadow. I honestly think this situation has been misread."
Amanda Betts
But ladies, here is the problem, and here is why the child protection group ECPAT have complained about pavement, the photos on their own are fine – IF the photos of this eleven-year old were in a Farmers catalogue, or a Warehouse kids clothing catalogue – but they weren’t. They were in an issue of a magazine that was focusing on the concept of ‘lost youth’ – the point at which a girl becomes a sexual teenager is the specific time that Pavement is looking at. It features amongst other things pre-teen and teenage models, some in various stages of undress. A girl photographed lying topless on her bed, surrounded by soft toys, talks about her first “feelings of lust” – now within THAT context, it seems almost deluded to argue that the inclusion of these photos of this eleven-year old was ‘okay’. And even if we are to give Pavement the benefit of the doubt that their interest is purely artistic, it’s a magazine that has always done this, and you are uncomfortably left asking if Pavement’s gaze is a bit too obsessive.
posted by Bomber @ 8:33 am
8 comments
8 Comments:
The problem is not that hard to isolate..We are bringing our kids up in an increasingly sexualised society, (ie the "Bratz Dollz" picture this: A 5yr olds birthday where ALL the little girls are wearing mini-skirts, crop tops and makeup..this happened!) we are saying to our little girls, sexy/pretty/lusted after is OK..it is a form of achievement for them almost. And pornography is touted as freedom of expression, when in fact it is more opressive, more violent and more anti-women than ever..Pavement have broken one of the last remaining bastions of childhood innocence, by exploiting young girls, which is after all, the latest fashion...
I agree Bomber, and I think you'd find that the conduct of some of the Pavement shoots is quite problematic too.
Don't care if his sheets stink as long as no-one is being used and abused and no laws are broken.
However corruption should be exposed as should abuse.
Many people believe that using women in porn is totally acceptable - we shall have to disagree on that one.
Sadly many NZ women are not respected even by themselves.
Corruption and abuse know few, if any, party boundaries and lawyers and their friends have no interest in truth or justice, in fact the greatest sneering contempt is reserved for those with such unsophisticated ideals.
The working classes are held in their oppression by the lies their mothers tell them – stilly things like telling the truth, work hard, don’t steal, care about others – stupid crap like that.
As for abusing me you aren’t in their league, you will have to do better than that if you want to join the in-crowd.
Porn is degrading to everyone, those who produce it, those who support and defend it, those who appear in it, those why buy it.
The worst of all are those who do not acknowledge what porn is.
I will give a specific example - NZ has at least one MP who says that explicit pictures of women giving each other oral sex (that is one of the tamer examples) is 'NOT REALLY PORNOGRAPHY' that is a direct quote.
He goes on to abuse, sneer at and destroy anyone who objects to its use in government workplaces.
What sort people are running that filthy country ??????
I bought a copy of the latest Pavement to see for myself what all the fuss is about. I can't see what all the fuss is about. ECPAT have lost perspective and Bill Hastings has lost the plot.
As for pornography - it's great! I'm sure I'd miss it if I was in prison.
NZ the pornographers and rapists paradise.
Few places on the planet where women are more despised by 'men', and nowhere on the planet where they are more hated by other 'women'.
NZ has never had a women PM.
Pavement has done nothing illegal and should not be censored. End of story.
No images should be illegal, unless they depict criminal acts, in which case people should be charged as accessories if they do not report them to the police. Trying to define a photograph as immoral or pornographic is ridiculous, because you are essentially policing someone's imagination. A perfectly innocent image for one man may send another into lustful fits.
What Pavement is guilty of is incredible bad taste, but then what else is new? Does anybody other than hairdressers and Grey Lynn socialites actually buy it? And don't they realise the vacant, emaciated, bored look for models went out sometime around 1998?
Post a Comment
<< Home