The way that cellphone-selling meerkat jives around, strutting its ass in a provocative way kind of reminds me of the dancing baby from Ally McBeal — and if I find 14 other people to agree with me and lodge a petition then we can sink the bastard.
A similar logic plagued a verdict by the Advertising Standards Authority last week. A billboard portraying a kid in denim-print nappies serving tea to its teddy bear with the tag line “work it baby” was banned.
The argument for the banning, helmed by 15 angry people, is in the context of South Africa’s high level of baby rape. Portraying a baby as adult like this is deemed grossly insensitive. And who is going to argue with baby rape? The shocking mention knots up any conversation. It is a grotesque tragedy that continues to escalate. If binning a nappies advert offers a slim chance of minimising baby rape then what self-respecting person will disagree?
Because banning this advert is the same as saying Bugs Bunny dressed as a girl bunny is going to play into the milieu of bestiality.
What about Miss Piggy in the freaking Muppet Babies? This was an animated show where the muppet characters were portrayed as babies going on adventures. Miss Piggy tried to kiss Kermit in every episode. What about when they dressed up those kids in the Dairy Milk adverts? There was sexual tension there.
If you think I’m being flippant about baby rape now, you were probably one of those 15 people.
This censorship, ironically, plays into basic advertising techniques. First, swapping one association for another. You like this giant clown, therefore you should like McDonald’s. You like this Huggies advert? You probably want to buy nappies. There’s a fear tactic in justifying censorship that tethers an easy argument for a complicated one. Here an easy stance is being against rape, but that isn’t the same as being against a kid portrayed as an adult for humour or commercial gain. It’s a discussion on the sexualising of babies and if this has any influences on the crime. By linking anything to baby rape you could have it tossed out. There is no evidence but fear that ties this advert to sex.
This follows a fear of exclusion. Advertisers prey on people not wanting to be left out. Huggies pointed out that most people joined the protest once they discovered a social anger, not from seeing the advert. Take a skittish insecure person and you can sell them a viewpoint or a new toothpaste. Can’t you SEE how sexual these new clothes are emperor?
Here we have an example of an advert offending people because of they have imagined that it will cause harm. And by choosing a harm so great, it’s not worth taking the risk of allowing it. Would you prefer a picture of a baby drooling? Can you guarantee that your baby rapist isn’t going to find a standard baby shot salacious?
I don’t understand the mind of the baby rapist and neither do these 15 people who protested or the board who decreed it unsuitable. The line in the sand is shifting and it is understandable as an irrationally fearful response to the climate. We are stabbing in the dark and a huge billboard is a pretty easy target to hit.
I understand the “greater context” but if we enter that realm you could ban everything. We are powerful at associating. Take the Rorschach test: most splodges are a couple of degrees from symbolising something horrific.
The travesty here is not that a conservative attitude prevailed, but that the basest of thought processes won. The verdict will create a false sense of accomplishment to the cause against baby rape and give a poor copy writer at Ogilvy a major headache.
A ‘false sense of accomplishment’ says it best. Aside from even further diluting the link between social action against baby rape and billboard advertising, this kind of passive activism makes no difference to the statistics. The only ones who benefit are those call in the controversy to begin with.
Funny story about Lauren Beukes: she once banned a poster of Mr Bean in a wig from her office because it was ‘offensive to women’. QED
There was a story in The Sun about an Asda bakery employee who refused to print a mother’s baby photos on her son’s 21st cake — according to store policy (apparently there’s a child pornogrpahy clause at the Asda bakery). After much deliberation, the mother was offered to either have the photo cropped, the offensive bits pixelated or a big ribbon photoshopped on top.
Hi Paul,
Thanks for your thoughtful and witty take on all this. I suspect that worse than encouraging girls to kiss boys, that deviant Miss Piggy may have encouraged an unhealthy lust for bacon!
I get the idea you’re responding to the Sunday Times piece and a very vague summary of my original blog which lead to the complaint.
For your interest, you can check out why I objected to the ad here: http://laurenbeukes.book.co.za/blog/2009/04/17/the-problem-with-slutty-waitress-baby/
I don’t believe for a second that this would cause someone to go out and rape a baby. I do think it normalises depictions of little girls as sexy – which is a crazy part of our culture (even MORE warped than the Vodacom Meerkat who surely has caused more than one child to rip their skin right off in imitation of the first ad)
And I’d like to point out that one of the complainants, Helen Moffett who comments on the blog, actually IS actually an expert on baby rape, having developed materials for Rape Crisis on how depictions like this can lead to a rape culture.
There were many, many more than 15 people who were upset about the ad. Those 15 were only the ones who felt strongly enough to go through the laborious complaint form on the ASA site.
Of course there were plenty of other people who thought it was overblown. Fair play.
And to Anton Dec. If you’re going to attack me on a public forum, please at least have the conviction to do it under your real name.
The picture in question was actually a very creepy photoshop composite of a naked chick with Mr Beans head. It wasn’t about it being ‘offensive to women’ but being very, very disturbing. Aphex Twin meets the amateur porn channel. Just ick.
Lauren Beukes has more comments on her blog, and it seems that every single one of them agrees with her.
The Huggies ad was banned not because 15 people complained. It was banned because it broke the rules of the ASA’s code of conduct. Sexualising children is simply not allowed. As simple as that. The verdict was considered and fair, and the banning was justified.
Comparisons to Miss Piggy, therefore, are both facetious and pointless.
My problem with misdirected concern, regardless of how well intentioned, actually causes more harm than good. Too often zero tolerance is endorsed with zero logic, making an issue which should be serious, seem silly and trivial.
The copy writer deserved a headache and a fat klap to go with it. That was pathetic advertising and displayed absolutely NO concept of the “big picture” in South Africa. Next time I hope they give someone else’s idea a chance.
Cute? I don’t think so. Sick? No, not really. Just unnecessary, tawdry and mediocre. The complainants did us a favour and FWIW I agree with them. You can have my vote for the meerkat too, if that will do any good, which I doubt.
We should also maybe be asking questions about a country where some babies wear “denim style nappies” while others die of preventable illness including diarrhoea from unclean water and food.
Next time you drive down any road in just about any town in SA, take a compassionate look at the numerous girls waiting to “work it, baby” with some saddo. They were someone’s baby, once. And today, we buried a raped seven year old here in the W. Cape.
Like we actually NEED Huggies doing our heads in.
Sarah.
It’s clear you misunderstand the argument at hand. No one, not even McNally I dare say, would disagree with the sexualisation of children. The issue at hand is *where* the ASA draws it’s line in the sand with respect to what constitutes the ‘sexualisation’ of children. In this case, the ASA, using it’s own set of criteria, decided that this particular ad is guilty of dong so. Some people agree, some don’t. Fair enough.
The real argument is that these decisions are subjective and lie on a slipperly slope. Who decides? On what grounds is one way of photographing a baby more sexual than another? There are fine lines here.
At the far end of the spectrum, no one would disagree- baby rape is unequivocally out of the question and no one would ever want to encourage it in any way- however the diffuclty arises on the border cases. Lines in the sand need to be drawn, but care should be taken that perspective is maintained when doing so.
To you the verdict was “fair and the banning justified”. This verdict was judged on a set subjective criteria with which -in this case- you agree. However in the same breath you assert that McNally’s opinion is both “facetious and pointless”. To me the irony is that both you and McNally stand on the same soap box -you just haven’t noticed yet.
McNally,
I love your take on this one. Last week, after reading through Sara’s blog about this child rape thing, I actually went out of my way and went to read Lauren’s blog (Just because Sara refered to it).
I was stunned, shocked and horrified. These women were up in arms against what I call, well, child rape. It makes perfect sense to shoot with both barrels. Considering that I have a daughter myself, I quickly drove my car to have a sight of these “offensive” bill board.
Gat! I’ve seen the this bill board before and I really did not find it too catchy, let alone, whether it could send connotations to some child rape activist.
Now that a child wearing make up and all that can cause child rapist some kind of “arousal”. I think we need to look at the OMO advert where a little girl practises ballerina and falls on the mud etc. The potential problem (if you like) is when the child is wearing make up and turning around like the real balle dancers is more like an “adult” thing and should be “banned”.
I now plead with everyone of those 15 and more to take my case to ASA. That silly avert needs to be taken a bit seriously.
Lets get this thing going.
Levity aside, I’d like to respond to some of the assumptions implicit in this column. (Which reminds me of that great Samuel L Jackson’s line in The Long Kiss Tonight).
The ASA is not a tame lap dog that goes Cujo on the ad industry whenever a hysterical member of the public screeches about moral decay.
It’s an independent organisation that carefully and rigorously examines every complaint based on the merits of the case and a precedent set by previous and similar cases.
Sure, they’re drawing a line, but so does every judicial process. Our system of law works the same way. And sometimes the line moves based on new cases, new evidence, new circumstances.
You can read the ASA’s five page ruling on Huggies and judge for yourself if it was a reasonable, just and fair process. http://www.asasa.org.za/ResultDetail.aspx?Ruling=4724.
The ASA recently dismissed (in the nicest possible way) a complaint of “child porn” against an ad for The One & Only featuring a beautiful naked young woman in a hanging basket seat, because, simply, it wasn’t.
They have to deal with frothing-at-the-mouth crazies all the time and I think they’ve learned how to handle them.
I can’t speak for all the complainants, because some of them are strangers who responded to my column (which featured a photograph of the ad and urged people to make up their own mind)… (contd)
I can’t speak for all the complainants, but those I know personally are the antithesis of nanny-state conservatives.
They’re fiercely smart, liberal, outspoken, media-savvy, pro-sex AND pro-freedom of speech.
Michelle Matthews used to be the sex columnist for FHM and is married to one of this country’s fiercest opponents to DRM. Colleen Higgs is a maverick indie publisher responsible for a harrowing novel about prostitution on the Sunday Times Fiction Prize shortlist.
(Dr) Helen Moffett has done extensive research on rape and sexual violence, especially in how it affects children in particular as well as what factors contribute to a culture of rape, which includes the way women and children are portrayed in the media.
Heck, my dystoptian novel is ABOUT surveillance society and government repression, control and censorship. Other supporters (who comment on the blog) include several major South African novelists and crime writers.
We know what we’re talking about and why we’re complaining.
This wasn’t a victory for conservatism. It was a victory for democracy and our ability to engage with popular culture and media. In answer to who determines the line? We do. If you disagree with the ruling, you have every right. Speak out.
Meanwhile, the REAL work fighting sexual violence against children is being done by the people on the ground. Donate your money or time:
http://www.rapecrisis.org.za
http://www.saartjiebaartmancentre.org.za/
http://www.childlinesa.org.za
http://www.rapcan.org.za/
Lauren.
You have your own blog, no? You’ve made your case. Some people agree with you, some don’t. I have no doubt the ASA is more than capable of dealing with “frothing at the mouth crazies”. You on the other hand seem less comfortable in this regard, and find the need to screetch in unison with them in the hope of bolstering your position through virtue of numbers, or even worse: through an appeal to authority.
A normative judgement on whether or not banning this ad on the basis of it inciting child-rape (or whatever it was meant to be doing, demeaning women or being creepy or something) is exactly that: normative. A value judgement. Unquantifiable. These decisions are based on precedent, perspective, debate. And like you said: “sometimes the line moves based on new cases, new evidence, new circumstances”.
That’s exactly what is going on here. The warning is: Beware of yourselves. Hopefully, dogmatic defence of our middle-class sensibilities won’t skew our perspective. I know mine already have.
A line needs to be drawn at some point, where exactly should that be, if they had banned an ad with two babies having sex would that be ok? We need some form of censorship and an independent body to decide, which it appears we have. Unfortunately it just seems that people are squabbling over where the line should be drawn and all believe that their individual view on the topic is what should count. We have a board which censors once in a blue moon, and has so far not limited any of our fundamental rights. I do not believe that this would turn any innocent person into a baby rapist nor do i feel it endorses baby rape at all but it does belittle the effect of a pretty sick side of society.
Mr McNally: The real question is why, if you consider the issue of the advert banning so trivial, are you mentioning fears of “censorship”? And what do you have to gain from the advert staying up? If this is indeed what you call a “false sense of achievement” is that not better than no achievement at all? Interestingly, I’m not one of “those 15 people” yet somehow I’m with Lauren on this one.
“Communism has never concealed the fact that it rejects all absolute concepts of morality. It scoffs at any consideration of “good” and “evil” as indisputable categories. Communism considers morality to relative, to be a class matter. Depending upon circumstances and the political situation, any act, including murder, even the killing of hundreds of thousands, could be good or could be bad. It all depends upon class ideology. And who defines this ideology? The whole class cannot get together to pass judgment. A handful of people determine what is good and what is bad. But I must say that in this very respect Communism has been most successful. I has infected the whole world with the belief in the relativity of good and evil. Today, many people apart from the communists are carried away by this idea. Among progressive people, it is considered rather awkward to use seriously such words as “good” and “evil.” Communism has managed to persuade all of us that these concepts are old-fashioned and laughable. But if we are to be deprived of the concepts of good and evil, what will be left? Nothing but the manipulation of one another. We will sink to the status of animals.
Alexandr Solzhenitsyn
If you look at that Meerkat and think baby rape, you are more sick and twisted than the people who rape babies. You are the one who needs help.
Frankly it’s demeaning to claim that our population isn’t capable of differentiating between a dancing, animated meerkat and baby rape. If that’s your line of argument, then our population won’t be fit to stand trial for their own actions either.
Do try to pay attention. It’s the Huggies ad that, according to some people, is offensive because it presents a female infant in an unambiguously sexy role.
There is no link being made between baby rape and the Vodacom Meerkat. Mr McNally is simply inviting the people he clearly regards as some kind of Moral Majority brigade to ban the Meerkat as well. No takers as yet.
I agree that the link between children in advertising and infant rape is a fine one. As far as my understanding goes, the perpetrators of these crimes do so because they think sex with a virgin will somehow heal them of their afflictions. A billboard in Kloof Street seems very removed from this scenario.
On the other side of the scale, the hardened child pornographers that download the most depraved of material will hardly be swayed by a child in a nappy.
This whole exercise seems rather silly. Who are you rallying against? It seems the advertising agencies mostly. I dressed up as a child as I’m sure many other women did. Do we deem each picture of a child in costume as innapropiate? The billboard in question seemed hardly like a sexualisation of a little girl when thinking back to my own childhood days playing dress up.
Most of the complainants were authors. I know many writers, and from experience know that they will do anything rather than sit down and write. I hope this was not the case here.