Not sexually suggestive, but is sexually suggestive. Just two women posing in their underwear, but also two women in sexy lingerie expressing their sexuality.  

Republished with permission from University of South Australia

The shame is not with young women’s sexuality but with a culture that teaches them that is their only value

Yesterday I took two of my children into town for ice cream. This is what they were exposed to on a busy Perth street.

General Pants has a long history of using sexist and sexually objectifying advertising to sell its merchandise. Their latest ad campaign, in store windows across the country, shows that nothing much has changed.

Three years ago we reported on the extreme amount of hypersexualised imagery on display at Chadstone Shopping Centre. A popular hangout for teens after school, it was hard to walk from one end of the centre to the other without being exposed to the harmful ads. 

"A form of pornography" 

In previous years, sex shop Honey Birdette Christmas shopfront ad campaigns have typically featured Santa Claus. One depicted the beloved children’s icon on his back being straddled by a lingerie-clad model, another with him tugging at a model’s underwear, and another BDSM-themed scenario shows Santa bound and gagged alongside a model in red lingerie.

It’s safe to say that our expectations for 2018 were low.

Collective Shout campaigns manager Caitlin Roper spoke with Dave Pellowe this week about our campaign against Honey Birdette and how the sexual exploitation of women by companies like Honey Birdette has real-world consequences for women and girls.

Collective Shout quoted in 10 Daily article

10 daily forwarded several photographs of Australian Instagram models aged between nine and 15 to Collective Shout. It's a grassroots campaigns movement against the objectification of women and the sexualisation of girls.

“I searched for a couple of images and found them on porn sites. It’s likely the majority of them are on porn sites and others are in a chat room with inappropriate sexual comments about a primary school aged girl,” campaigns manager Caitlin Roper said.

10 daily has viewed and can confirm that these images were shared on a porn site and other chat rooms.

But who should be held accountable for where these pictures are ending up?

Michael Murchie was the man behind the camera for at least one of the child photos Roper found a porn site. He told 10 daily all clothing in his shoots belong to the models.

When questioned about the age-appropriateness of the photos of teen and pre-teen girls such as the images above, Murchie said:

“I never take revealing photos of minors. I merely take the photos requested of me by the clients, their parents."

But Roper doesn't buy it.

“Is that an excuse? If a parent wants to exploit their kids then its OK from a photographer to make money from it?”

Girls and women's advocate Roper said modelling decision being made by parents could be damaging to their children in years to come.

Do they not understand the implications for their child or do they not care? Is it about fame ahead of their child’s rights and safety?” 

Read the full article at 10 Daily