Tribunal Ruling Is ‘topsy-turvy’ (Press, 24 May 1988)

On 24 May 1988, the Wellington Women Against Pornography (W.A.P.) expressed dissatisfaction with recent classifications made by the Indecent Publications Tribunal, labelling them as topsy-turvy. The tribunal classified several publications, including “Jock,” “Uncut,” “Cavalier” (published in March 1987), “Cheri,” “The Best of Cheri,” “Stallion,” “Stallion’s 50 Best,” and “Blueboy” (published in November 1986), as unconditionally indecent. W.A.P. spokesperson Trish Mullins welcomed the decision to ban “Cavalier” and “Cheri,” stating that these magazines demeaned women and incited hatred and violence against them. "Cavalier," targeted at heterosexual readers, featured themes of violence in the context of female wrestling and included ads promoting spanking and wrestling scenes, which the tribunal deemed harmful to the public good. Meanwhile, “Cheri” and “Best of Cheri” displayed single female nudes but also illustrated multiple female models in intimate scenarios. However, W.A.P. raised concerns over the tribunal's decision to classify “Jock,” “Uncut,” and “Blueboy” as indecent solely due to their portrayal of sexual intimacy between men. Mullins argued that the existing legal framework was flawed, stating that the focus should not be merely on sexual explicitness or nudity, but rather on whether the content involved the sexual subordination of individuals. The tribunal also noted that “Stallion” and its associated publications depicted excessive sexual intimacy among male models performing homosexual acts. The magazines aimed at male homosexuals, such as “Jock” and “Uncut,” featured sexual imagery that breached the tribunal's guidelines as well. Mullins concluded that publications that represent women as mere sex objects, advocating for harm or degradation, should be the ones banned, rather than materials featuring nudity or those depicting same-sex relationships. The controversy arose after customs officials in Auckland seized these publications the previous year, intensifying discussions about censorship and the criteria used to determine what constitutes indecency in printed material.

The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact

The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand