Ipswich Sexpo billboard too sexual | Ipswich News | Local News in Ipswich

the sign? who cares ? Im more worried about the welfare of the motorbike rider, and where he might end up! Gulp|!

Unlike some I reckon We can cope.

ummm its a woman in a bikini bending over and a topless guy and a motorbike?? im sorry i find nothing offensive in this ad..
Councillor Trevor Nardi have you never been to a beach? you see the exact same thing there on a daily basis..and guess what chuckles...its real...not a picture...i think ya need to get over yourself just a little bit there

Its fine...if people find that offensive then maybe we should go down the coast and ask all the 3/4's naked ppl to cover up....seriously ppl grow up!

Um, colnna, the sign is on a BUSY ROAD, not the beach, and THAT is the problem!! If the sign had been installed on a BEACH, then there wouldn't be the potential issue of people driving past it and CRASHING thir cars. So, perhaps you need to think just a little bit harder about the objection to WHERE the sign is... you and BN420. The issue is LESS about the skanky nature of the content, and MORE about the dangerous location! ....seriously ppl WAKE up!

If she were topless and he were bottomless I think that there might be cause for concern. They are fully clothed. Summer billboard ads for Myer and David Jones display more skin than this. If this ad is deemed offensive, and on this basis requires removal, so do a myriad of other posters in numerous other locations. I don't find this ad offensive and I think it important to focus on serious acts of offense - such as sexual violence towards women and children.
Dr Patricia Petersen

It just goes to show that most Australian moral radars have slipped. I have 2 small young girls and it is hard enough to explain what they are exposed to on TV in their afternoon programming, let alone driving down the street and seeing a sign that has a half naked women. Fantastic if you are one of those people who enjoy seeing it, it doesn't bother me as a women, but as a mother I need to make sure that my girls are not growing up thinking this is what is normal...

To thinkB4U comment,
You are right in claiming that an issue is whether the billboard ad, particularly one with is so "catchy", should be so close to traffic. However, with all due respect, that's why all billboards as placed close to traffic - so that the maximum number of commuters see them. Otherwise, what would be the point? If you argue that this billboard needs to come down on the basis that it distracts traffic, then all billboards need to be ripped down pronto.
Re responding to colnna...he/she was addressing this comment:
“I don’t think it’s appropriate and I don’t think many people in the community would find it in good taste.”
The reason this billboard is being discussed is because there is a fellow with his shirt off, a woman in a bikini an some find that offensive. Again, I don't. And as for distracting traffic - it won't distract any more than any other well-designed, eye-catching ads.
Dr Patricia Petersen

half naked my butt she has a bikini on and it also has a man with no shirt on are you going to call that half naked as well gee get ovet it there is nothing wrong with that poster . weather we like it or not its a part of growing up we all do our best to protect our kids but again its only a poster there is nothing wrong with it

Without a doubt, this billboard is offensive.

Do we really want young girls thinking that sex involves bottle blond hair, a bucket of make-up and the adoption of a submissive, commodified pose?

Do we want our sons viewing women in such an objectified way?

It's clearly tacky, trashy and socially irresponsible - even for Ipswich.

Dear Cosmopolitan,
I note that you are from St Lucia (a middle-class, university centred suburb) and your comment implied that Ipswich is "tacky, trashy and socially irresponsible".
Having grown up in Ipswich (one of the most socially responsible and charitable areas in Australia) and in contrast had the sad experience of skulking up and down the halls of higher learning at The University of Queensland, St Lucia, and other universities in Australia and elsewhere around the world, and having had to deal with nasty, bitchy, so-called feminist academics, I know where I'd like to be.
As for wanting young girls thinking that sex involves bottle blond hair, a bucket of make-up and the adoption of a submissive pose? Why not? I'd like my girls to grow up thinking that they can dye their hair whatever colour they like, wear as much or as little make up as they like and have sex in whatever way makes them feel good and sexually satisfied. Not all women want to look like, be like, or have sex like the brunette from Sex in the City.
Dr Patricia Petersen

gawd coley -- its not that moral radars have slipped its just that too many people have been brainwashed too much and now take the high moral ground -- your two daughters will one day grow up and young women --- and one day they might shock you with what they get up to as young women ---- but they- and you -- will survive

Dr Patricia Petersen, you keep giving yourself this title, - what are you a 'doctor' of?

not disagreeing with your arguments, just curious as to your need to qualify them

I think that everyone has a right to an opinion, what you expose you children too is completely up to you. I just don't want this to be in my childrens and my face, when I don't agree with it. Keep it in your own home, you don't have to bring it into everyone elses. By the way this ISN'T something that is part of growing up for very small children and nor should it be.

Funny, I am pretty sure I was a teenager at some point in my life... Hmmm.. But I am not worried about teenagers they are young adults who have been guided to hopefully make good choices, what I am commenting about though is young children. I certainly wasn't exposed to this when I was a young child and maybe this could be part of the reason why children are doing offensive acts now at school, because of people that just don't care what is around them!

Hi newsblog 2,
Have a doctorate in Philosophy (politics, including politics of the body), hence the Dr title. Hope this helps!
Patricia :)

queenslander need to grow up ! Its not that its offensive . we see half of our young teenagers walk around like that ,. .. its just not in the right stop for advesting , To many wallys out there that would stop just for the look .

Not a particularly offensive image in itself - despite clearly being soft porn as an aid in the promotion of a hard core porn event - the "sexpo". Hardly "family" friendly.

A ludicrous, inappropriate, provocative location - a fact well known to the promoters, no doubt.

They should be liable for every single accident that it causes on that roundabout.

In reply to Dr Petersen: "As for wanting young girls thinking [sic] that sex involves bottle blond hair, a bucket of make-up and the adoption of a submissive pose? Why not?"

Hmm, because it invites subscription to promiscuity; STDs; teenage pregnancies; self-esteem issues and associated relationship violence, eating disorders etc.

Yes, if we were to have the 'good, learned doctor's' way - we should raze the universities, burn books on a funeral pyre and hang, draw and quarter all of those interfering, feminist academics – all the while chanting ‘Viva la Ipswich’! :o)

No matter how sexually liberated you wish your daughters to be – soft porn on billboards is inexcusable and objectionable.

Oh my you people need to get with the times...this is 2010. Trevor Nardi calls it provocative it's a bikini duh. have a look at the billboard that stands next to the car park at the ipswich railway station. It's called advertising and I really don't think children are going to be offended...they probably could tell you a few things. Maybe cause it has the word sexpo on it. If it would have been an advertisement for sunscreen with the same photo it would not have caused such a commotion. If you teach your kids the right thing they are not going to be veered in the wrong direction.

This sign is highly innappropriate. The event it is promoting is highly innappropriate also.
The only thing this sort of thing does is spreads AIDS.

Having done a little research, I feel that those who support this billboard's placement should consider the following:

1) The billboard directs viewers to a website.
2) The website contains R18 material but does not have an initial pop-up asking whether the site visitor is 18 years or older.
3) The website contains sexually explicit themes and images that are unsuitable for children.
4) The location of the billboard contravenes 2.2 of section 2 of the Advertising Standards Bureau's Code of Ethics: "Advertising or Marketing communications shall treat sex, sexuality and nudity with sensitivity to the relevant audience and, where appropriate, the relevant programme time zone."

Clearly the general public who commute on a public road are not the relevant audience.

I'd bet that any female maintaining the same pose as Miss Mayhem on a public beach would find themselves cautioned for lewd behaviour.

Ipswich Lover :o)

These people who have commented on this site that they believe this billboard is offensive to their childrens eyes are pathetic.
I also have two young girls and unless you are showing more to your children than you should they will not look at this and see what you see. Are you forgetting the innocense of children? They don't comprehend the billboard the same way you do, and unless you bring it to their attention that YOU think it's tacky or trashy children will only notice the nice colours the pretty woman & a man falling off his motorbike.
How do I know? I showed my girls aged 10 & 5 and asked them what they saw......
So it is your mind that peverts things not theirs.
As for GoBigOne's comment about the spread of AIDS have you ever been to Sexpo? They promote the use of condoms everywhere you really need to get out more & stop worrying about what others are thinking. Really people you see more skin at the beach then on this billboard.

You people should listen to yourselves .. talk about funny. Funniest comment so far is Cosmopolitan who has brilliaintly linked this billboard to "promiscuity; STD's; teenage pregnancies; self-esteem issues and associated relationship violence, eating disorders etc."

Well done [claps].

I echo Shannie2009's sentiments. You sum this issue up perfectly Shannie2009 - "If it would have been an advertisement for sunscreen with the same photo it would not have caused such a commotion".
Dr Patricia Petersen

hmmm... sexpo and crusty on the same poster....

The advertisement not only sexualises women, but also men and you do not hear any of us complaining that we feel objectified. Deal with it.

Oh and before you make another comment about Ipswich, I would like to advise you that my suburb, Newstead, has a much higher median income, house price and quality of life then St Lucia.

GobigOne "This sign is highly innappropriate. The event it is promoting is highly innappropriate also.
The only thing this sort of thing does is spreads AIDS."

Seriously you need to do a bit of research before you make broad sweeping statements like that.

I'm 99% sure you don't even know what Sexpo is lol

Cosmopolitan from St Lucia South the poster is no way offensive. you need to grow up and get a life i would say your just jealous you dont look half as good so who ever you are get over it

Wow! I'm sorry to those of you who are offended by my pic. Yes, it's a provocative shot, but so are Victoria's Secret Ads. And this is just a bikini, not even lingerie.

I'm saddened that some of you think of the porn industry as dirty, when in reality, we are providing a service to the community, making lonely people happy, and helping couples spice up their relationships. This is what Sexpo is all about, its supposed to be fun, educational and open minded, don't put all pornstars in the category of dirty/skanky and std ridden. That's a complete misconception.

If you read my book 'Absolute Mayhem - confessions of an Aussie pornstar', maybe you'll think twice about the way you feel. (think what you will, shameless self promotion, but the book really will help you see things from a different perspective, and that's all I care about).

I understand as far as not wanting kids to see this, but they're not really advertising sex. And the pictures aren't explicit, any kid could see the cover of Maxim in a store and its pretty much the same style.

If you don't like sex and anything to do with sex, i'm sorry, but please don't ruin it for those who do. I know, your entitled to your own opinion and I accept that. But It's bad enough that the Australian government is so conservative to the point where hardcore porn is illegal! I mean really, who has the right to tell any consenting adult, what they can and cannot watch!

i dont find that billboard in any shape size or width wrong with it so what.......! get a life, grow up, then get on with it

please remove this

Every year the promoters of Sexpo come up with some new "controversial" angle to promote an event that most people don't even attend, yet keeps it in the news. It's pretty simple, if you think the billboard or the event is offensive, then don't look at the billboard and don't go to the event. However, let other people make their own minds up.

Last year Sexpo put up a similar billboard on the Gateway Motorway and a young man crossed the median strip right opposite the sign, lost control of his vehicle and collided with another car, killing the pregnant female occupant and her unborn child. Whether you think these types of billboards are morally right or wrong, the fact is they are dangerous. Or doesn't "just one accident" count enough for justifying them to be pulled down. Also, it genuinely astounds me there are people in our society who have thrown in the towel when it comes to protecting their children.. comments like "they'd get to see that at the beach anyway" and so on. Shame on us adults, we who seemingly don't mind eyeing a bitta soft porn on the way to work.. stuff the kids.. I wanna look at it and too bad for them... I like it. Oh grow up people of Brisbane.

a roadside advertisement spreads aids???? who is having sex with this billboard?? and does mr Board inform his sex partners ? Call in the police!~

I believe everyone is entitled to an opinion - but stupidity in any debate lowers the quality of the debate, and a suggstion that the sign spread aids, is an open invitation to derision ..

I'm waiting for someone to suggest its entirely sexist because it FEATURES the woman, rather than the man,.... c'mon ladies, surely you want to see more male skin???? cmon throw your opinion in and demand the man be given the prominence!

Im still worried about where the bloke on the motorbike ( and the motorbike for that matter)will end up

half baked porn star - the bloke?? dont know if he is half naked because we only see thetop half o fhis body

the shiella?? wearing a swim suit - funny that - we see more :naughty bits" on the beaches of the sunshine coast eveyday -

why is Ipswich trying to out do the religious right on the coast? dont they know we are the homeo f the prude?

In appropriate? - well isn't this how we should portray ALL women, simply objects for pleasure.

Of course it's inappropriate, you stupid people!

If you suggest that this type of unsolicited marketing is OK then this would clearly indicate that your ability to make decisions based on other peoples welfare is grossly inhibited as you are self interested.

However, in reality you would see less clothes on such misguide women at the beach, however at the beach you hardly see women or young girls is such provocatively sexual positions 'ready for action'. The point is that it's once again not the individual elements that are offensive but the intention of the advertisment.

The bottom line is this:
1) A billboard is placed to reach it's maximum targeted audience.
2) The sexpo's target audience, deviant as I might find them, are consenting adults (more like over 18) for obvious reasons;
3) This advertisement sits on a road that is accessed by parents taking their children to school. On average, for every adult in a car there is 1.5 children. On roads that convey children to school, this would be more like 2.5.

Therefore, this advertising has been intentionally positioned and designed to reach a lower age of audience than otherwise legal, also evidenced by the crusty demons inclusion on the billboard.

As such, much like the laws that ceased ALL advertising campaigns of cigarette companies who were "inadvertently" advertising to - or inappropriately attracting children under 18 to their cohort, so this billboard is also inappropriate.

This billboard is offensive as it's effectively advertising SEX to children, and although many of the blogger here don't see this, that is part of the social problem.

While the sign is not offensive, it definitely is inappropriate in location.A simple complaint to the appropriate authority, in this case the ASB should do something about the sign.

The concern over what children are exposed to in our society these days is also a concern and i doubt any parent should dismiss the content or what is perceived. Whether children do or don't understand the content of the media they being subjected too, in essence, their ability to know what is right and wrong, their morals, are being degraded.

So in the future we can expect, full porn on free to air TV, news casts showing people being hacked to death in street brawls by machete wielding thugs, car accidents where you see the crushed to death driver.

Think it wont happen??

I believe we need to be a little wary of what our kids are exposed to, not wrap them cotton wool but just be conscious of where we want our society to be in 20 years.

I have been to sexpo and it is very informative and a good show.

As a parent the innocence of our children is no longer our choice! I have a 6 year grade 1 daughter that is starting to read, and these are not the sort of words especially coupled with such raunchy images I am comfortable with her comprehending. It is wrong and not something our children should be exposed to involuntarily at such a tender age. No wonder we have so many problems with our youths these days.

To Miss Mayhem :

1) You admit it is a ‘provocative shot’ – too provocative for under 18s? Are you comfortable with children dressing in a bikini and striking such a pose, considering it is ‘normalised’ in a public place and children do learn through mimicking/modelling their behaviour on that of adults’?

2) The porn industry is a ‘community service’? I’m afraid I can’t find the ‘warm fuzzies’ with that statement – portraying sex out of context of true relationships is an inaccurate myth that leaves many couples disappointed (especially women, since porn has historically been predisposed with male pleasure as the ultimate objective).

3) If you send a free copy of your book, I shall read it – but be prepared that I may not be converted. If you insist I pay to read your story, then slap on the wrist for you for shameless self-promotion. (Did you intend the pun?)

4) When you say: ‘I understand as far as not wanting kids to see this, but they're not really advertising sex.’ Hang on, you must realise ‘Sexpo’ is advertising the topic of sex and according to their website: “Sexpo is not just about SEX, it is about sexuality and adult lifestyles.” If they are not advertising sex, what ARE they advertising?

5) Just because people oppose the advertising of sex to a general audience, this does not make them frigid, party-poopers. On the contrary, they probably have healthy, well-adjusted sex lives that do not require gimmicks, voyeurism and so on.

6) Lastly, thank goodness that our laws do not allow for hardcore porn – you know all too well how many cowboys operate in your industry and that their methods and choice of topic can be downright sadistic and vile. The reason why consenting adults have societal limitations placed on them by way of legislation is that hundreds of years of moral development have told us time and again – some behaviours are unacceptable (especially when those ‘lonely people’ you claim to help, find that they are socially inept and consequently target children for relationships).

7) Now for my bombshell: As having dabbled in your industry when I was younger and been the partner of a one-time entertainment editor for Hustler, I can with the most immovable conviction say, that I know what I am talking about when I criticise your profession as I have seen it from both sides.

Great post, Cosmopolitan. Nice going all up. Here, here.

I'm only in my 70"s and I can't see a problem.

Please be a bit more tolerant in your judgement and consideration of others.

The world does not revolve around your bigotry and narrow mindedness.

This comment applies to others of the same ilk.

I thought your grandma taught you better

You have got to be kidding.
I have seen more skin on schoolkids at Riverlink on a Thursday night and chances they are probably the offspring of some of the wowsers complaining about the billboard.
Get out of Ipswich and see the world, people. At least the Sexpo encourages safe sex etc. Skin was given to us at birth and believe it or not sex is part of nature too!!!
If you are questioned by your children, answer them honestly and positively...that's if you can, and aren't too embarrassed.

As others have said - you see more on the beach . . and if the truth be considered - you see more than this when you walk through any shopping centre - including those in Ipswich! If the location of the billboard offends you, tough! Look the other way, or find another route while the billboard is displayed!

I don't know why so many people are accusing those who find the billboard inappropriate as necessarily being prudes or wowsers! If you read many of the comments carefully you will see that many, if not most, of the objections are not about the amount of nudity but about what they see as displaying women as submissive or as being objectified. In other words, it is not about nudity per se but rather they way in which the woman is being depicted regardless of the amount of attire being worn.

The puzzling thing is that those people who are stereotyping those who have this kind of objection as prudes or wowsers are making the claim that there is no problem with the billboard solely on the basis that the woman is clothed, and in support of their claim compare the woman on the billboard with the scantily clad women on the beach and other adds where models are wearing much less. I can only infer from this that what they are trying to say is that the amount of clothing makes that difference, and that were the woman, for example, full nude then they might consider that the billboard would warrant being called inappropriate.

If like me, you see no problem with nudity, even on billboards, but object to negative images of women even if they are fully clothed (e.g. in submissive poses or imagery alluding to sexual objectification) then this, I think, is hardly what you would label as being a prude or wowser (if what you mean by these terms are someone who finds nudity or semi-nudity offensive).

This is a complex issue which requires a balance between freedom and censorship, the rights of adults to choose and the influences of exposure of adult themes to children who have not yet developed the capacity to make informed choices, and individual liberty and social responsibility. To see it as only nudity is to simplify the matter and to not understand what others are saying with regard to the effects of negative depictions of women. Moreover, if the degree of nudity were the only measure for deeming appropriate or offensive then would it not be the case that the bearer of such beliefs would more aptly fit the labels 'prude' or ' 'wowser'?

Dr Gilbert Burgh
Lecturer in ethics and political philosophy
The University of Queensland