This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/15/freedom-doesnt-mean-let-it-all-hang-out

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Freedom doesn't simply mean letting it all hang out Freedom doesn't simply mean letting it all hang out
(7 months later)
The camera glides down David Beckham's torso from muscled shoulder and stubbled chin, to linger on quivering pectorals. Pecs, I gather, are in and biceps out. The lens then fondles the elastic strip of the Armani briefs before clamping the eye on the bulge of concealed genitals and depilated zone. It then skims the tanned thigh before running out of steam somewhere down the calf. The lights change, and the bus moves on.The camera glides down David Beckham's torso from muscled shoulder and stubbled chin, to linger on quivering pectorals. Pecs, I gather, are in and biceps out. The lens then fondles the elastic strip of the Armani briefs before clamping the eye on the bulge of concealed genitals and depilated zone. It then skims the tanned thigh before running out of steam somewhere down the calf. The lights change, and the bus moves on.
Was the ad portraying Beckham, or men generally, as sex objects, and ditto for Megan Fox in the female ads? I would say yes. Was I personally "exploited" or demeaned thereby? Not at all. Was my allegiance shifted in the great boxers versus briefs war? Hardly. But how did I truly react to this startling intrusion on the public space?Was the ad portraying Beckham, or men generally, as sex objects, and ditto for Megan Fox in the female ads? I would say yes. Was I personally "exploited" or demeaned thereby? Not at all. Was my allegiance shifted in the great boxers versus briefs war? Hardly. But how did I truly react to this startling intrusion on the public space?
I felt mild admiration for the bodies displayed but chiefly I felt discomfited. I was gazing not at a Donatello in Florence but at a Routemaster in Piccadilly. Beckham looked very cold and incongruous. The whole bus was ridiculous. I once saw a girl trying to do a striptease in Trafalgar Square. The sensation among passersby was not erotic but of concern. We wondered whether to call a doctor or the police. As for Beckham, he seemed in need of a new agent.I felt mild admiration for the bodies displayed but chiefly I felt discomfited. I was gazing not at a Donatello in Florence but at a Routemaster in Piccadilly. Beckham looked very cold and incongruous. The whole bus was ridiculous. I once saw a girl trying to do a striptease in Trafalgar Square. The sensation among passersby was not erotic but of concern. We wondered whether to call a doctor or the police. As for Beckham, he seemed in need of a new agent.
When the Sun newspaper introduced large breasts and bad puns to Page 3 in 1970, feminists wanted them banned. To most people they were either harmless fun – Botticelli for the working class – or a cheap stunt that would soon grow tired. They led to a surge in circulation but not, as far as I am aware, a surge in molestation or rape. Anyway the Sun was not compulsory reading.When the Sun newspaper introduced large breasts and bad puns to Page 3 in 1970, feminists wanted them banned. To most people they were either harmless fun – Botticelli for the working class – or a cheap stunt that would soon grow tired. They led to a surge in circulation but not, as far as I am aware, a surge in molestation or rape. Anyway the Sun was not compulsory reading.
London buses are near compulsory reading. They are ubiquitous in the city. When in 1994 they displayed the model Eva Herzigová gazing seductively into her uplifted cleavage, saying "Hello Boys", there was a furious outcry. Such exposure of unclothed flesh in public was novel. Women howled dissent. Distracted car drivers allegedly crashed.London buses are near compulsory reading. They are ubiquitous in the city. When in 1994 they displayed the model Eva Herzigová gazing seductively into her uplifted cleavage, saying "Hello Boys", there was a furious outcry. Such exposure of unclothed flesh in public was novel. Women howled dissent. Distracted car drivers allegedly crashed.
The cars have calmed down, if not the women. Taste has moved on. But I remember thinking the ad was pushing the limit of public taste. Now Rupert Murdoch appears to be considering the fate of the Sun's Page 3. Perhaps "fashionistas" would do as "a halfway house". I expect the third-wave feministas to get down to Wapping and raise hell about nice working-class "models" made redundant in favour of trumped-up celebrities.The cars have calmed down, if not the women. Taste has moved on. But I remember thinking the ad was pushing the limit of public taste. Now Rupert Murdoch appears to be considering the fate of the Sun's Page 3. Perhaps "fashionistas" would do as "a halfway house". I expect the third-wave feministas to get down to Wapping and raise hell about nice working-class "models" made redundant in favour of trumped-up celebrities.
What is laughable is the idea that this represents a victory for taste. The end of Page 3 ranks with the closure of the Windmill revue and its "tableaux vivants" in 1964. It "never closed" during the Blitz, any more than did Page 3 during the Wapping riots. But time is an unforgiving censor.What is laughable is the idea that this represents a victory for taste. The end of Page 3 ranks with the closure of the Windmill revue and its "tableaux vivants" in 1964. It "never closed" during the Blitz, any more than did Page 3 during the Wapping riots. But time is an unforgiving censor.
Every year people challenge public taste, whether for art or money – and they are always in pushing at "the boundaries". They defy others who want them stopped, who want to mitigate offence to others and defend some aesthetic red line.Every year people challenge public taste, whether for art or money – and they are always in pushing at "the boundaries". They defy others who want them stopped, who want to mitigate offence to others and defend some aesthetic red line.
There is no denying the boundaries are moving. The Sun's Page 3 is almost quaint against the "up-skirt" shots that now adorn papers like Sunday Sport. Blurry glimpses of celebrity knickers ill-concealing genitalia are beyond crude, and mystify foreigners. But they are nothing alongside the newsagents' "top shelf" magazines of otherwise naked men and women with their hands down their pants. Liberty is fine, but do people really want no inhibition in public? Already London operas hardly dare stage a production without simulated sex. Why bother with simulation?There is no denying the boundaries are moving. The Sun's Page 3 is almost quaint against the "up-skirt" shots that now adorn papers like Sunday Sport. Blurry glimpses of celebrity knickers ill-concealing genitalia are beyond crude, and mystify foreigners. But they are nothing alongside the newsagents' "top shelf" magazines of otherwise naked men and women with their hands down their pants. Liberty is fine, but do people really want no inhibition in public? Already London operas hardly dare stage a production without simulated sex. Why bother with simulation?
London has become a city that could, in 2006, brazenly rip down Howard Hodgkin's wonderful mural round the Imax cinema at Waterloo and replace it with trashy advertisements. The mayor has ended the ban on ads along the Thames, allowing the National Theatre to deface itself with a garish LED advertising its sponsors. The royal parks are now farmed out for commercial use, in defiance of their statute.London has become a city that could, in 2006, brazenly rip down Howard Hodgkin's wonderful mural round the Imax cinema at Waterloo and replace it with trashy advertisements. The mayor has ended the ban on ads along the Thames, allowing the National Theatre to deface itself with a garish LED advertising its sponsors. The royal parks are now farmed out for commercial use, in defiance of their statute.
The macho response is that dynamic societies let "anything go". From anarchy comes progress. If so, we can hardly complain about Page 3 or sick videos or "shock ads" about animals and children. If we must privatise or suppress our sense of taste, we must accept public squalor as the price of freedom. Such ideals as dignity, decency and propriety in the public realm are ridiculed. They have no traction without a rate of return.The macho response is that dynamic societies let "anything go". From anarchy comes progress. If so, we can hardly complain about Page 3 or sick videos or "shock ads" about animals and children. If we must privatise or suppress our sense of taste, we must accept public squalor as the price of freedom. Such ideals as dignity, decency and propriety in the public realm are ridiculed. They have no traction without a rate of return.
People are entitled to feel outraged – and be allowed to express it – by what bombards them from lurid court cases, sex-obsessed newspapers, hideous buildings and garish ads. The right to take offence and say so is civilisation. If those who cause offence to others exercise no self-control, a more draconian regime will come to pass, as the press has found over intrusion into privacy.People are entitled to feel outraged – and be allowed to express it – by what bombards them from lurid court cases, sex-obsessed newspapers, hideous buildings and garish ads. The right to take offence and say so is civilisation. If those who cause offence to others exercise no self-control, a more draconian regime will come to pass, as the press has found over intrusion into privacy.
There has to be some distinction between degrees of privacy and publicity, in what is depicted as in what is said. One of the many hazards of social networking is the electronic eliding of the private realm into public. Likewise obscenity in a private or semi-private place is or was not tolerated in public. From this to the ugly, inappropriate and tasteless is a far harder line to discern. That cannot mean we give up.There has to be some distinction between degrees of privacy and publicity, in what is depicted as in what is said. One of the many hazards of social networking is the electronic eliding of the private realm into public. Likewise obscenity in a private or semi-private place is or was not tolerated in public. From this to the ugly, inappropriate and tasteless is a far harder line to discern. That cannot mean we give up.
I welcome a society in which offence can be caused without authority crushing the offender. That is no reason for not pleading for self-restraint. When London buses become one vast crotch shot (like London phoneboxes), when the Thames is lined with ads, and when Hyde Park is one industrial estate, something surely is lost.I welcome a society in which offence can be caused without authority crushing the offender. That is no reason for not pleading for self-restraint. When London buses become one vast crotch shot (like London phoneboxes), when the Thames is lined with ads, and when Hyde Park is one industrial estate, something surely is lost.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.