The marketing business has always used sex to sell, and as sex and nudity are so closely associated in the public mindset we get dragged down by the undertow. Advertising is a hard, blunt instrument that has to time or space for the nuanced differences. Occasionally we see nakedness used sort of wholesomely - a car breakdown service TV advert a few years back (UK) featured an engineer being called out to a naturist beach, the whole thing being treated matter-of-factly even though camera angles were suitably discreet for “family viewing”.
Usually, of course, the implied nudity is presented with sexual overtones - supermodels emerging from the bath, that sort of thing. Interestingly, though, the ad industry has drawn lines round the body as to what is nude and what isn’t - male and female groins and female breasts are nude so must be covered, but bare buttocks are allowed, so obviously are not considered nudity.
I don't know how it is in other parts of the world, but in my country beautiful girls are often used in advertisements. Sexy girls advertise coffee, mobile operators, banks, etc. Yes, these girls are dressed, some in bikinis or other revealing clothes. But it has long been proven that lustful dirty thoughts are caused not by a completely naked body, but covered with sexy rags. Excites not open, but closed. So the parents of the chicken ads need to close the eyes of the children on the textile beach.
I had contemplated making an official complaint regarding the KFC ad, however, on reflection, I'm thinking a more effective approach would be to bring the ad to the attention of the Mental Health Foundation, pointing out the areas of concern you've raised in this piece. A complaint from the MHF would carry far more weight that one from me.
My understanding concerning NZ is that it appears the law is being tested [ several recent cases ] and so far results have favoured the defendant. I visit every year and visit many beaches, some are secluded and some are more public/textile and never had a problem. What freedom.
Occasionally there are cases here, although I am not aware of many. Usually the law comes down on the side of the naturist, so long as their behaviour isn’t lewd or offensive. People hiking or riding bikes or simply being naked in more remote places are likely to win, but running naked through a shopping mall might get a different response. It is not illegal to simply be naked in public in NZ, so long as you are not behaving in an offensive way. That may be defined by the level of offence taken by the observer, but thankfully our courts seem to be on the right page. It is important that laws are tested, and the more cases that support simple nudity, the stronger the precedents for future cases.
Jan 12, 2023·edited Jan 12, 2023Liked by BOPBadger
Just to clarify - in NZ law (according to the Solicitor General's Guidelines - "Decision to Prosecute") a successful prosecution can only be obtained by police if the offender undeniably caused another person actual harassment, alarm or distress (as opposed to considering the likelihood of this or the complainant finding it personally distasteful or offensive). In other words, the level of personal offence taken by the observer is irrelevant.
Indeed, I live in Los Angeles and the acceptance level here is fragmented at the best. In San Francisco its more widely accepted. The laws are not in our favour compared to NZ. It depends on city By-laws not statute law. A the best some cities have a level of tolerance eg San Diego has Blacks Beach.
Although this has nothing to do with the topic you presented, I’d like to offer a way to avoid unwanted annoying commercial messages on TV. This method is 100% effective. It is easy to do and it’s quite simple. Just do as I did about 15 years ago, GET RID OF YOUR TV. I gave mine to one of my stepdaughters. I’ve been much happier ever since. The amount of misinformation that I have avoided is truly remarkable.
Thanks for your suggestion Bill. While I would no longer be annoyed by ads on TV, they are still online and in other media. Also, my not watching them won't stop them from being made or shown to others. There are lots of reasons to get rid of the TV, I am not sure this is the most compelling.
Hi, thank you for the very well written article. I must add that covering the human body with clothing has a lot of connotations [ if thats the right word ] and the naturists among us are slowly changing public acceptance. NZ is a good example of moving in the right direction with their naturist friendly laws.
Thanks Harvey. It is definitely a lot easier to be a naturist in NZ than in many other countries, but we still have a long way to go before we achieve acceptance, or even just tolerance.
The marketing business has always used sex to sell, and as sex and nudity are so closely associated in the public mindset we get dragged down by the undertow. Advertising is a hard, blunt instrument that has to time or space for the nuanced differences. Occasionally we see nakedness used sort of wholesomely - a car breakdown service TV advert a few years back (UK) featured an engineer being called out to a naturist beach, the whole thing being treated matter-of-factly even though camera angles were suitably discreet for “family viewing”.
Usually, of course, the implied nudity is presented with sexual overtones - supermodels emerging from the bath, that sort of thing. Interestingly, though, the ad industry has drawn lines round the body as to what is nude and what isn’t - male and female groins and female breasts are nude so must be covered, but bare buttocks are allowed, so obviously are not considered nudity.
You are right. Advertising has limited time to get its message across. I like your phrase that "we get dragged down by the undertow", very apt.
Yet another reason not too watch free-to-air TV
I don't know how it is in other parts of the world, but in my country beautiful girls are often used in advertisements. Sexy girls advertise coffee, mobile operators, banks, etc. Yes, these girls are dressed, some in bikinis or other revealing clothes. But it has long been proven that lustful dirty thoughts are caused not by a completely naked body, but covered with sexy rags. Excites not open, but closed. So the parents of the chicken ads need to close the eyes of the children on the textile beach.
I had contemplated making an official complaint regarding the KFC ad, however, on reflection, I'm thinking a more effective approach would be to bring the ad to the attention of the Mental Health Foundation, pointing out the areas of concern you've raised in this piece. A complaint from the MHF would carry far more weight that one from me.
That sounds like a better approach.
My understanding concerning NZ is that it appears the law is being tested [ several recent cases ] and so far results have favoured the defendant. I visit every year and visit many beaches, some are secluded and some are more public/textile and never had a problem. What freedom.
Occasionally there are cases here, although I am not aware of many. Usually the law comes down on the side of the naturist, so long as their behaviour isn’t lewd or offensive. People hiking or riding bikes or simply being naked in more remote places are likely to win, but running naked through a shopping mall might get a different response. It is not illegal to simply be naked in public in NZ, so long as you are not behaving in an offensive way. That may be defined by the level of offence taken by the observer, but thankfully our courts seem to be on the right page. It is important that laws are tested, and the more cases that support simple nudity, the stronger the precedents for future cases.
Just to clarify - in NZ law (according to the Solicitor General's Guidelines - "Decision to Prosecute") a successful prosecution can only be obtained by police if the offender undeniably caused another person actual harassment, alarm or distress (as opposed to considering the likelihood of this or the complainant finding it personally distasteful or offensive). In other words, the level of personal offence taken by the observer is irrelevant.
Thanks for the clarification
Indeed, I live in Los Angeles and the acceptance level here is fragmented at the best. In San Francisco its more widely accepted. The laws are not in our favour compared to NZ. It depends on city By-laws not statute law. A the best some cities have a level of tolerance eg San Diego has Blacks Beach.
Although this has nothing to do with the topic you presented, I’d like to offer a way to avoid unwanted annoying commercial messages on TV. This method is 100% effective. It is easy to do and it’s quite simple. Just do as I did about 15 years ago, GET RID OF YOUR TV. I gave mine to one of my stepdaughters. I’ve been much happier ever since. The amount of misinformation that I have avoided is truly remarkable.
Thanks for your suggestion Bill. While I would no longer be annoyed by ads on TV, they are still online and in other media. Also, my not watching them won't stop them from being made or shown to others. There are lots of reasons to get rid of the TV, I am not sure this is the most compelling.
This was not high on my list of reasons to get rid of my TV, just a beneficial side-effect.
Hi, thank you for the very well written article. I must add that covering the human body with clothing has a lot of connotations [ if thats the right word ] and the naturists among us are slowly changing public acceptance. NZ is a good example of moving in the right direction with their naturist friendly laws.
Thanks Harvey. It is definitely a lot easier to be a naturist in NZ than in many other countries, but we still have a long way to go before we achieve acceptance, or even just tolerance.