When it comes to homoerotic imagery, what is offensive and what is not, where are the boundaries, what is innocuous and what is too much? What is injurious to the public good and what is supportive of the public good? The situation Whitcoulls, Jack magazine, and the NZ AIDS Foundation found themselves in last week is a little odd in a society which is increasingly saturated with images whose blatant eroticism would have our grandparents reaching for the smelling salts and our dear mums downing a medicinal Pims. In the gay community in particular we have for years been supersaturated with erotic imagery. Barely an Out! magazine has been published over the past decades without being graced by nude pouting buff studs. The most recent edition of GayNZ.com's new venue publication Update includes a luscious bare butt and a hint of dangling dong. And remember the buck-naked mounted cowboy on the Hero Festival poster years before Brokeback Mountain? These days a bit of published nudity, even with a flash of genitalia, is hardly controversial. How many penises have you seen after 9.30pm on free to air television recently? Even comedian Billy Connolly gave us a flash of his bits in his most recent series. But what led Jack issue#5 into tricky territory was that the condomed penis displayed in a safe sex ad placed by the NZ AIDS Foundation was proudly, enticingly, erect. The NZAF says the image is quite appropriate when viewed by the market they are trying to reach. "In the context of health promotion to an audience of gay and bisexual men, the image is neither obscene nor provocative," says NZAF Gay Men's Health Team Coordinator Douglas Jenkin. Quite the opposite in fact: "We understand men and the way they think. Most are easily enticed by sexually appealing imagery. This campaign [Horny As] speaks to men directly about their sexual health and well-being. The images used literally model the behaviour required to prevent the transmission of HIV between two men... it is unreasonable when talking to an audience of sexually active men about a sexually transmitted disease, to be expected to only use images that are non-sexual." Way before the presses rolled Jack and the NZAF checked in with the Office of Film and Literature Classification. "We advised them that magazines legally do not have to be submitted for classification before being offered to the public, and therefore Jack did not have to be submitted for classification," says Chief Censor Bill Hastings."We therefore had no power to require Jack be wrapped." Advertiser and publisher were advised that if they were sufficiently concerned, "they could either submit the magazine for classification, or voluntarily wrap it themselves.”They opted for the latter.Like the cock on its second to last page, Jack was wrapped. Additionally, a brightly colour sticker warned, or perhaps advertised, "Caution. Contains nudity!" The word 'gay' might not appear on Jack's cover, but any vaguely astute buyer would surely have realised immediately what they were in for: male nudity. But just a couple of days after Jack hit Whitcoulls' shelves it was quickly removed and a huddle ensued in the magazines department at the chain's head office. Magazines boss Warren Hunter says he was surprised by the appearance of the visibly aroused chap on page 81. After days of consultations and consideration, and, it has to be said, the odd media enquiry, Whitcoulls returned Jack to its distributor to be additionally stickered R18, its own in-house classification. "A retailer is entitled to require that a magazine have some sort of label on it as long as it does not look like a label issued by the Classification Office" says Hastings. Interestingly, the law says a publication depicting "matters such as sex" can be restricted or banned if its availability is likely to be injurious to the public good. Arguably the inspiring sight of a condomed penis as an inducement to stop the spread of HIV is supportive of the public good. But Whitcoulls is not your corner adult entertainment store or gay venue. It has a more mainstream, even family, image typified by its close involvement in the Books in Homes project, the brainchild of vigorously homophobic author Allan Duff... but that's probably another story. Whitcoulls is within its rights to slap on its own R18 restriction, but if this storm in a condom had been officially brought before the censor, would the law have been so prim? Possibly not, according to Hastings. "I understand that the NZAF advertisement is part of a campaign to make condom use "hot," which necessitates the use of aroused men.The wide dissemination of such advertisements amongst sexually active men, far from injuring the public good, actively promotes the public good and supports a public health initiative designed to save lives and millions of taxpayer dollars in health care. This is a significant factor we would have to consider if we were ever called upon to classify the advertisement or the magazine." How does Jack feel about being withdrawn by its main retail outlet, stickered, and eventually reinserted almost three weeks later, effectively delaying the appearance of its first non-free issue? Publisher Julian Haldane is a little coy, merely saying that he is glad that Whitcoulls has returned Jack to its shelves. Ditto the NZAF, which says it is "pleased to hear that Whitcoulls has reconsidered its decision to pull Jack magazine... we would hope that booksellers treat publications targeted at gay and bisexual men the same way they would treat other publications with regards to censorship." In this age of soaring HIV infection rates has the Jack controversy stiffened the NZAF's resolve to reach out through magazine retailers to men who are having sex with men, increasingly unsafely, with the explicit "sexually appealing imagery" of the Horny As campaign? "There are no plans to." Jay Bennie - 11th May 2006