On the other hand, I see no real contradiction in restricting the presence of skin in the public sphere (through campaigns against the objectification of women and for the elimination of gender stereotypes from advertising), criminalising the purchase prostitution and ill-advised campaigns against alcohol use among youth on the one side and having a basically liberal climate on what people do in their bedrooms on the other side.
Fuck for forest, or FFF, is an environmental organisation founded in Norway by Leona Johansson and Tommy Hol Ellingsen, which raises money for rescuing the world's rainforests by producing pornographic material or having sex in public. In their first six months of existence the group received seed funding from the government of Norway. The group gained notoriety when two of its members had intercourse on stage during a Quart Festival concert featuring Norwegian singer Kristopher Schau and his band, The Cumshots, after delivering a brief talk on the impact humans have on natural forests. Fleeing from the legal troubles that stemmed from the act (including a fine imposed on the group after its male member dropped his pants in a Kristiansand, Norway courtroom) the organisation moved its headquarters to Berlin, Germany.
The group gained notoriety when two of its members had intercourse on stage during a Quart Festival concert featuring Norwegian singer Kristopher Schau and his band, The Cumshots, after delivering a brief talk on the impact humans have on natural forests. Fleeing from the legal troubles that stemmed from the act (including a fine imposed on the group after its male member dropped his pants in a Kristiansand, Norway courtroom) the organisation moved its headquarters to Berlin, Germany.
Fortunately, it's so far just about what goes on in the public sphere. There's reasonably general acceptance of the principle that what goes on privately between consenting adults isn't anybody else's business.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
On the other hand, I see no real contradiction in restricting the presence of skin in the public sphere (through campaigns against the objectification of women and for the elimination of gender stereotypes from advertising)
The legislation here is focused on the use of others skin for commercial gain. An illuminating point is that in the 90'ies a computer company focused on laptops had ads with a woman with lots of cleavage and a laptop. The ads where reported to the ethical marketing board, but where freed on the basis of the woman actually being the owner of the company.
At the same time as tougher rules on gender stereotypes in ads is proposed - and as a part of the same general feminist movement - we also have stuff like this:
Topfreedom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A protest movement called "Bara Bröst" appeared in Sweden in September 2007 to promote women's right to be topless in places where men could also be topless. Several events were staged in public swimbaths in September and October.[8] While toplessness is not illegal, several private or public establishments in Sweden have a dress code which demand that everyone wear tops: topless individuals can be denied access or thrown out.
I think they won the discrimination suits they filed after being denied access to some of the public swimbaths.
Public nudity for personal purposes is more accepted then for commercial purposes, though I agree with Jake that on that note society has moved in a more puritanical direction since the 60ies. But since nudity in summer for sauna and bath is traditional it is the cities that are more prude, and the countryside that is more nude. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
