Recently, a local bar in Hamilton advertised a P-Party to students which enticed them to dress up and drink at their establishment.
Happens all the time. Only this bar used the image of a naked, smoking, pregnant woman to advertise this event.
I think the association of drinking and smoking with pregnancy as an advertising ploy is abhorrent and severly undermines the interests of children.
Perhaps other people find it attracive enough to entice them to go drinking at the establishment.
What do others think.
It was probably done as a joke, but I feel the same way as you, it’s not nice to think about women smoking and drinking while pregnant.
The Lord did not create women with the gift to bear children to have that wonder put on display while portraying a filthy habit for some commercial purpose. I do hope you can do something about this.
I think given the amount of money thrown at students for their education you must trust Clare that they can take a bloody joke.
Sorry, Sue. Your post just looked like the sort of Mummy State we get from Clare.
A P-Party?
It’s satire and it only works because the target audience has got the message that smoking and drinking in pregnancy and anything to do with ‘P’ is very, very bad.
If you let us in on many more insights like this one then maybe you’ll become the object of satirical attention yourself. Some of us will probably find it very funny . . . but it would divert attention from everything that you got into politics to say and do. And that would be unfortunate.
Think of all those small , cold babies who have to be warmed up after they are born…ridiculous and bad taste.
I think if you don’t like it, don’t go.
However the fact it is raised on this blog raises the fear that Labour is back to nanny state ways of wanting to censor humour it doesn’t approve of.
It’s this sort of finger wagging that turns people off any politicians. Nobody is suggesting women should drink alcohol or smoke while pregnant, but I don’t notice anyone suggesting it be banned either, or is that approved of?
I recall in the late 70’s the outrage the RSA generation expressed over the shock images used to promote the domestic puck scene (which was, ironically, mostly comprised of middleclass art-school liberals).
The more things change…
Shane and Huggin, a P-party isn’t anything to do with meth, it’s just a party where you come dressed as something beginning with the letter P.
It is in pretty poor taste, but Ms Curran I’d be interested to know what your reaction to it was. Did it occur to you that it would be a good idea to ban this sort of advertising?
If that is the case I would be worried. If you are thinking along those lines it suggests bad taste is a reason for censorship, which troubles me. That would rule out not just a lot of commercial advertising, but also a lot of art and literature.
Ms Curran, would you have a similar reaction to, for example, a commercial billboard that might feature a nun as a prostitute, which many Christians might find offensive?
I do apologise, that last post was directed as Ms Moroney, not Ms Curran.
Being offensive is part of the fun! I don’t object to offensive parties, it’s just a personal taste thing for me that I don’t like that particular image.
Not sure if you were wanting me to respond, but I will anyway. For me the test would be not whether I personally found it offensive, but whether it breached the law, or a wider community standard.
What I find offensive, or “off” many others may not. In fact I find that within my own caucus, as within any group of people.
If the pub was in my electorate I’d go and talk to them about it. But I doubt I’d make a big deal out of it. I do get satire, don’t always find it funny though.
@Cactus did I upset you when I said I didn’t visit your blog often
The job description of students usually includes “be provocatively obnoxious”. Only young once etc. The real worry though is pubs profiting from these can’t fail dodgy promotions. “Wifebeater Wednesday” or “catch” a cray anyone?
I am torn on this issue.
1. It’s parodic – it takes as a given that being pregnant and smoking is bad to be able to take the joke. So in that sense it’s not bad at all.. possibly even good in that regard.
2. It diminishes the significance of the issue.
3. Was it for the Outback? I think the context is important in that case!
@Tiger, Catch a Cray has made me boycott two of my favourite bars. Fortunately one of them got rid of it; meaning I can go and spend my student allowance having a good time, and notably not being “provocatively obnoxious”.
Hmmmm, interesting responses. I still don’t get what is funny about harming children though, but maybe Cactus that is because I am a mum and this demonstrates why it is important to have mums in Parliament – a concept you don’t seem to agree with ( or were you being satirical?).
@ Zaahk I am reluctant to name the pub because this gives them the further publicity they are after by using these tactics and I don’t understand what context it might offer to the debate.
A piece of interesting context though, is that the publication in question has publicly apologised for printing jokes about sex with infants.
How do you feel about that one? Is that satire? Is joking about harming children ok? Or is it only ok in order to sell alcohol?
I am interested in where the line is drawn.
Hi Sue – put in a formal complaint – the industry claims to be responsible and have set their own advertising standards…
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU0910/S00028.htm
Ms Moroney your comment about being a mother aside (Ms Clark would have taken objection to that debating point), where do you think the line should be drawn? Do you think such advertising should be banned?
@Sue – “publicly apologised for printing jokes about sex with infants.” – That deeply sickens me.
@Tiger Mountain – Catch a Cray is an appalling practice and I would also boycott any establishment that would have this.
Tim advertising is banned all the time. Its classed as ‘commercial speech’ so doesnt have the normal freedoms as other forms of speech , even in the same media. Like it has to be true and not totally offensive and there are many restrictions on alcohol and tobacco relating to the format and wording.
Yes, that particular incident shows a concerning lack of insight and oversight on the part of the editor of that particular publication. In a publication of a similar format I was offended and opposed to an “ironic” issue about porn.. Which seems to be relevant to the issue here.
I think in all of these cases it boils down to trivializing serious and prevalent issues that we all have a stake in. Notably in regards to the exploitation of women and children in particular.
Note also that the editors in all three cases across the two publications are male..
Re: Outback.. It was a joke. Unlike the one in question; the context actually does make this one funny =P
Reply to Libertyscott who says “Labour is back to nanny state ways”.
The comment about nanny state is an outworn cliche and was only glib political speak at the time when the Labour-led government legislated for matters of social responsibilty that the tories took notional exception to.
If you are to use this term then just about any law or policy can be accused of this. For instance the drive/drinking limit, speed limits, working for families (continued by a tory government), child support, public hospital care, free education, universal superannuation – what is nanny state and what isn’t?
Short of it is that such advertising is repungnant and if it is deemed to be damaging or sending a harmful message the state has, whether it likes it or not, a responsibility to act. This type of advertising is sending a harmful message and therefore in any civilised society a responsible government must deal with it.
The challenge to parliament is to take a step in that direction when it considers the Law Commissions report on “Alcohol in our Lives” in the New year.
Aargh, the Law Commission, “Alcohol in our Lives.”
I wish they would help the alkies and the trouble makers, but butt out of the drinking of normal people.
hows the hangover spud? All better now?
Agreed re leave the average joe blog and their drinking habits alone – on the note of the P-party – I don’t approve either, but people can choose to vote with their feet – as in – not go, and there are opportunities to complain. It was a stupid publicity stunt, and kudos to them – it worked. We may not like it, but there will always be smart alecs out there that try to pull off stunts like this – distasteful sure – but it happens all the time and the more we go on about it, the more we validate these forms of publicity – better to put formal complaints in.
@Paul LOL
The hangover is better and I’m clean and sober today. I agree with you about the formal complaints being more effective. 