Hard News: Sunday's Perfect Storm
57 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
Shortland Street had an interesting plot-line on the modelling business last week, which might be worth a mention (bullying of underlings, the hedonism of 'the talent' etc).
Did anyone read the front page story about 'TV ads ARE louder!' in the Weekend Herald? My thoughts, as I scanned through the remainder of the newspaper, was that it was doing a fair amount of advertising shouting too, with page after page of full-page ads, with editorial content squeezed in there somewhere.
-
"...but some PAS readers want to 'bash' the parents of one prospective panelist before the show has even been aired..."
The question I really wonder about I suppose is if it points to a deeper malaise in the collective sexual pysche of our society. We are increasingly terrified of sexuality yet increasingly addicted to the commodification of sex. As a society, it seems the serious business of selling your sexuality is seen as a more legitimate expression of youngs persons sexuality than the process of learning about a fun and natural part of life.
-
Interesting. Russell wants a panel discussion on the sexualisation of teenagers in the media, but some PAS readers want to 'bash' the parents of one prospective panelist before the show has even been aired
Fuck off, Nick. I have enormous respect for Francis and Denise --they've managed to build a successful business in a very tough industry making clothes that aren't obviously commercial --, but it's sad they're caught up in the same old fashion industry bullshit where (some) designers are allowed to look like their customers, but models never are. And how many Kiwi women who buy fashion magazines by the truckload look anything like the stick insects in the editorial and advertising? Not many, if any. (And I'd say the same about the model in your average homoerotic GQ spread, while we're on the subject.)
Sorry, but I just don't get people who find the likes of Kate Moss attractive -- because she looks like a child, and a damn sick one at that. What the hell kind of pathology is at work there, and why is pandering to it a multi-billion dollar industry?
-
Sing it sister. I have a little diatribe I like to to which runs along these exact same lines. I get it, Craig.
-
Even though I apparently am unable to use the preview button.
-
It would be nice if the panel discussion paid some notice to the gendered aspect of the whole magazine shoot thing. It seems as if every moral panic over what teenagers get up to ends up being on what teenage girls get up to.
I think there's a lot more freedom for teenage boys to legitimately express themselves in this arena - when girls do it, they have to deal with moralists judging them on one hand, and a crowd of slavering guys defending their right to ogle hot young things on the other. Not much attention paid to their own right to privacy.
That Australian teacher who got sacked for the Cleo photo shoot - her partner was also a teacher, and did not.
-
it's sad they're caught up in the same old fashion industry bullshit
Eh ... are we talking about the same people? I've only been to a few of their fashion shows over the years, but I do recall over the last 20 years they pioneered (in NZ) the use of non-standard models ie 'uglies', drag queens, and black african models.
Whatever issues you, Jackie, and others have with the Global Fashion Complex lets not visit them upon Francis and Denise just because Russell said he was putting their daughter on one of his panel discussions ...
-
Sorry, but I just don't get people who find the likes of Kate Moss attractive -- because she looks like a child, and a damn sick one at that.
Hey, let's not be hatin' on Kate. She's 34, well into yummy mummy territory, and I like that she's clearly not ordered around by anyone.
Whatever the problem is, I don't think it's Kate Moss.
If you really want to shock yourself, get a copy of Girlfriend magazine, NZ readership 181,000, and check out some of the "advice" they're giving to under 16 year-olds ...
-
Eh ... are we talking about the same people? I've only been to a few of their fashion shows over the years, but I do recall over the last 20 years they pioneered (in NZ) the use of non-standard models ie 'uglies', drag queens, and black african models.
I think you're right about that, whilst still wondering where the hell Francis's head was at with the 'Future Porn Star' t-shirt. It wasn't funny and it wasn't clever.
-
get a copy of Girlfriend
Again with the girls! Lots of under 16 year old boys are accessing significantly worse "educational" magazine material. Not always legally, but even the general lads mags are pretty awful.
-
Bratz dolls.
Lynx and Burger King ads. -
Speaking of Kate Moss, she's about six months older than me. When she posed for the topless photos, aged 15, in The Face in 1989, I was an impressionable Face-reading 14-year-old but this did not lead me to think that getting my tits out was rad, fly or dope.
And over the years, while Miss Moss has been all skinny and druggy and yet still fabulous, this has not caused me to accumulate and eating disorder or drug habit in an attempt to emulate her.
Because I'm smart, I know that what makes Kate Moss Kate Moss is more than the sum of her parts.
And I like to think that the teenage girls of today are just as smart.
-
To echo Kracklite from the hoodie thread, eating disorders and drug habits may be signs of mental illness.
Heck my GrandDad had an eating disorder. He was too busy drinking to eat.
-
Hey, let's not be hatin' on Kate. She's 34, well into yummy mummy territory, and I like that she's clearly not ordered around by anyone.
Oh, please... I'm not "hating on Kate", but putting some serious hate on a thoroughly fucked up fashion-industrial complex. I'm quite happy to recast that sentence in the past tense, and wish her nothing but long life and happiness. But, fairly or not, Kate Moss and 'heroin chic' are always going to go together. And that's nothing to be proud of.
Robyn does have a point -- the sight of a Calvin Klein ad doesn't have me jamming my fingers down my throat in an orgy of self-loathing. But I am glad that there are young gay men out who have the idea in their heads that if you don't look like a couture-clad porn star you're still a worthwhile human being.
Eh ... are we talking about the same people? I've only been to a few of their fashion shows over the years, but I do recall over the last 20 years they pioneered (in NZ) the use of non-standard models ie 'uglies', drag queens, and black african models.
Nick: I'll give credit where credit's due, but I'm just not seeing Buckwheat or Alek Wek here. The funny thing is that fashion labels are entirely pragmatic -- they know they're not going to turn a profit on lines made up entirely of size zero clothes. The overwhelming majority of people just don't look like that. So why are designers and fashion media so damn scared of breaking the funhouse mirror? And does the imagery they put out there have to be so Lolita-ish? Could be because their profits also depend on making their customers (male and female) perpetually unhappy with their bodies, and in pursuit of a totally unrealistic ideal.
-
Am I the only one who wonders, whenever Rita Croskery is quoted, if she's been so thoroughly manipulated by McVicar that she actually doesn't understand what she's saying?
I understand her grief, but some of the things she comes out with are far to the right of loony. For starters "her" idea of abolishing parole entirely and then having prisoners subjected to "supervised release" when they've done the full length of their sentence. Talk about missing the point!
-
The overwhelming majority of people just don't look like that. So why are designers and fashion media so damn scared of breaking the funhouse mirror?
Chickens and eggs really. Because a big fashion label that breaks that mirror, is going to find themselves not sitting at the cool table, and not making so much news in the big magazines, less awards, and not getting so much attention in the public.
That doesn't mean that they shouldn't do it, but there'd be a big price to pay, and it would only make a small dent in the problem.
For starters "her" idea of abolishing parole entirely and then having prisoners subjected to "supervised release" when they've done the full length of their sentence. Talk about missing the point!
Also illegal. You can't supervise people beyond the length of their sentence. Once the X years that the judge ordered them to serve is up, they're free to go, unrestrained and supervised by the state. That's why parole kicks in earlier, you can't start it after the 15 years are up.
-
Also illegal. You can't supervise people beyond the length of their sentence. Once the X years that the judge ordered them to serve is up, they're free to go, unrestrained and supervised by the state. That's why parole kicks in earlier, you can't start it after the 15 years are up.
Exactly. Not that the legality matters to SST. A sentence is x days/weeks/months/years, as set by a member of the judiciary. Parole isn't their sentence ending, which seems to be the belief of some people, a belief that the MSM is apparently quite happy to reinforce.
Also, following that through, how would it work for people on PD or life sentences, which are effectively open-ended? The high-profile cases like Burton and Bell to the contrary, most people doing a life sentence have the standard 10-year non-parole that's set in the law and they don't reoffend in any meaningful way once released. To take her stance would mean that those people will be locked up forever because their sentence has no end and they're now not allowed out until their sentence is completed.Either she completely lacks any ability for analysis and long-term perspective, or McVicar may as well have his hand up a fundamental orifice and be using her as a ventriloquist's, well, dummy.
-
For starters "her" idea of abolishing parole entirely and then having prisoners subjected to "supervised release" when they've done the full length of their sentence. Talk about missing the point!
I'm pretty sure the supervised release thing is from National's no-parole gimmick policy at the last election.
-
Also illegal. You can't supervise people beyond the length of their sentence. Once the X years that the judge ordered them to serve is up, they're free to go, unrestrained and supervised by the state. That's why parole kicks in earlier, you can't start it after the 15 years are up.
Actually - no.
The standard parole conditions apply for a minimum of six months from release - even for those released at the absolute end of their sentence.
Also, extended supervision orders (up to 10 years) are available against certain categories of offender (sex offenders mostly/entirely) which can also extend well beyond any finite sentence (which might be a 7 year maximum for indecent assualt, for example).
But I understand the point you're making. I'm not a fan of "truth in sentencing" as it has thus far been advanced in NZ, but I do think we should adopt American-style (or at least American TV-style) sentences.
Call 6 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years "3 to 6 years' imprisonment", and then we can have the real debate of sentencing.
-
The standard parole conditions apply for a minimum of six months from release - even for those released at the absolute end of their sentence.
Also, extended supervision orders (up to 10 years) are available against certain categories of offender (sex offenders mostly/entirely) which can also extend well beyond any finite sentence (which might be a 7 year maximum for indecent assualt, for example).
Ah yes. I actually knew about the second, but not the first. How strange.
-
The standard parole conditions apply for a minimum of six months from release - even for those released at the absolute end of their sentence.
And if they break them...? "You're a very naughty boy, you drank alcohol after serving all 10 years of your 10-year sentence." I'm actually rather disturbed by that, in all honesty, because that's further punishment of a person who's served their time. If you're actually paroled, in the usual sense of the term, then impose conditions by all means. But a person who's done all their time shouldn't then be subjected to further impositions on their legal activities (which is usually what parole conditions entail), such as having a drink or travelling wherever and whenever you desire.
Supervision of sex offenders judged at risk of reoffending makes sense, and I understand the reasons behind it, but it still makes me a little uneasy.I do think we should adopt American-style (or at least American TV-style) sentences.
I want to ditch this nonsense of concurrent time for sentences other than open-ended ones. That a person can be convicted of 20 representative charges of burglary then be eligible for parole in two-and-a-half-years-divided-by-two is a complete farce. Even if they only get nine months for each charge that's 15 years served consecutively, out in eight if they behave and get parole at half time.
-
Sorry, but I just don't get people who find the likes of Kate Moss attractive -- because she looks like a child, and a damn sick one at that. What the hell kind of pathology is at work there, and why is pandering to it a multi-billion dollar industry?
Kate Moss was a junkie, and at the height of her career and she looked like a junkie. That junkie look is far more disturbing than her size. Kate Moss is a veritable moose next to Burma's Aung San Suu Kyi or fashion icon Audrey Hepburn.
If you actually look at Kate Moss's size and stats (size 4 US 34 1/2-26-34) she is not very thin compared to fashion icons of the past. Kate Moss's waist at 26 inches is 5 inches bigger than Katherine Hepburn's was, 6 inches bigger than Audrey Hepburn's. Her measurements are bigger than most actresses and models of previous generations.
-
Kate Moss was a junkie, and at the height of her career and she looked like a junkie. That junkie look is far more disturbing than her size.
I'm not sure she actually was a heroin addict, although she has certainly had more than her share of the party drugs. And the look was more the fault of male stylists and photographers like Vincent Gallo -- and of course, Calvin Klein.
If you actually look at Kate Moss's size and stats (size 4 US 34 1/2-26-34) she is not very thin compared to fashion icons of the past. Kate Moss's waist at 26 inches is 5 inches bigger than Katherine Hepburn's was, 6 inches bigger than Audrey Hepburn's. Her measurements are bigger than most actresses and models of previous generations.
More to the point, she's more natural-looking than many current Hollywood and prime-time TV stars. They're the ones who freak me out.
-
Re: female models. Humans view other adults as competition, and sexually attractive ones don't sell well to people of the competing demographic. Fortunately for the sellers, our brains are hardwired to accept certain body features as being childish. Skinny-ass models with diminutive facial features appear immature, and thus non-competitive.
Female models that are supposed to sell to men are instead rather comically sexualised.
People with low self-esteem can get into trouble facing either style all the time, or with no help at all, as it's not generally a healthy thing.
Male models fall into several categories too, the "bloke" as a non-threatening potential friend for the heterosexual male audience (often with a signature unattractive feature), the hairless six-packed Fabio for the ladies (speaking of comically sexualised), and the father-figure who's supposed to look the age our own father was when we where impressionable youths (old fashioned hairdo, wrinkles, and all).
-----
BKJ? No way is a 12 year responsible for doing what he's told by a bunch of much older kids when he is effectively in their care. He should never have faced more than an extensive CYFS case and counseling. Crappy lawyer no doubt, being a young Maori boy not helping his chances with the typical judge and jury.
-
Her measurements are bigger than most actresses and models of previous generations.
I think our childhood nutrition has a lot to do with that. We're practically Amazonian compared with women who grew up during the Depression and WWII rationing.
Although, also: Jayne Mansfield. Marilyn Monroe. Mae West. Jane Russell. 'Twasn't all Audreys and Kate Hepburns either, back in the day.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.