So Apple Bans Girls In Bikinis, But A Shirtless, Wet, Gay Dude Is OK?

Apple has banned sexy apps. But apps from Playboy and Sports Illustrated remain. Why does Apple care what turns me on?

If you need another example of why the iTunes App Store’s walled garden is flawed, Apple has been only too happy to oblige, capriciously and arbitrarily removing an unknown number of “sexy” apps without warning. All that’s missing to complete the metaphor is a flaming sword.

Some of those apps were certainly garbage, but it seems most were simply slideshows of women in various states of undress.

Jenna Wortham, writing for The Times, quotes Apple’s Phil Schiller: “It came to the point where we were getting customer complaints from women who found the content getting too degrading and objectionable, as well as parents who were upset with what their kids were able to see.”

By Apple’s own count, there are over 130,000 apps in the App Store. With a selection that varied, I’m sure there’s something to offend everyone.

How about an app that discusses abortion and birth control law? Maybe an app that helps you hook up with gay guys? How about an app that teaches you how to evangelise the fundamentalist Christian religion?

Think about that last one for second and the furore that would erupt if Apple made a sweeping ban of religious apps from the App Store. I am not a Christian. I would be concerned if my child were discovering religion before I’d gotten a chance to talk to them about it. (Especially since that would mean I had given birth to a baby without a mother, completing – if adventitiously – my dream to be the Male Madonna.)

Yet I wouldn’t blame Apple for letting the app be sold, just like I wouldn’t complain that I found it morally offensive, its existence alone threatening and insulting. And to be clear, I’ve got absolutely no problem with the “Grindr” app pictured here being on the app store. Smoke ‘em if you’ve got ‘em. It’s simply a great example to highlight how subjective Apple’s ban has been. That image is right there on its App Store page.

Look, we know censorship is wrong. We’ve been having this conversation as a society for a couple hundred years, and if you haven’t learned by now that freedom of speech negates freedom from offence, there’s nothing I can do to convince you except renew your subscription to Hustler.

The issue at hand is that Apple doesn’t have to abide by the laws we’ve put in place in our society because the App Store is part of its business. Often I feel like that’s a good thing – or at least fair dinkum. They built it, they get to run it.

With a closed ecosystem comes a lot of responsibility. Apple has taken on the heavy mantle of arbiter, ostensibly to manage quality. I can forgive them for that, even if I don’t like it. But the only reason to ban blue apps is taste. And if these apps were a matter of taste, why were they approved in the first place? What will the next set of apps be that Apple decides are inappropriate long after people have spent hundreds of hours creating and marketing them? Ban apps because they’re poorly designed – not because they’re simply sexual.

Apple is making a moral judgment, declaring that nudity and titillation is something that should be made hidden and shameful. It’s disappointing that a company so publicly supportive of progressive sexual rights would react so orthodoxly.

Actually, it’s worse than that. Apple is trying to take the easy way out, talking about degradation of women and the innocence of children, but allowing content from established brands – brands that exhibit sexual material meant to arouse – simply because they’re well known and thus “safe”. Apple is aping the sexual posturing of conservative American society, defining what expressions of sexuality are acceptable to even acknowledge.

Sure, there’s still plenty of smut out there on the internet, readily accessible through the iPhone’s Safari web browser. That’s not the point.

Apple has made a declaration: that sex and sexuality are shameful, even for adults. But only sometimes. And only when people complain.

Unfortunately, they’ve accomplished the opposite. The only thing I’m ashamed of is Apple.

Discuss

(5 Comments)
  • [–]

    ij

    Wednesday, February 24, 2010 at 8:16 AM

    Some people seriously need to grow up.
    You are ashamed because Apple are removing some of the silliest apps on the store? If you want porn so badly on the iPhone, use Safari. No one is stopping you.

    Apple should go much further, and get rid of all the crappy, useless apps.

    • [–]

      ThePengwin

      Wednesday, February 24, 2010 at 9:45 AM

      The problem is these apps were given the green light, and some have made quite a bit of cash. Apple do not have a clear cut method of whats good or not when it comes to the eyes of the consumer.

      Sure there are trash apps there, but there are also apps that are silly, but are made well and good for a giggle, whats wrong with a little stupid every now and then?

    • [–]

      Travis New

      Wednesday, February 24, 2010 at 10:49 AM

      The ‘sexy apps’ were just a current example. clearly you missed the point of the article. Indicating that by removing 1 type of app for being offensive you should remove all others if they offend ANYONE. It’s basically trying to try that Apple is slowly going along a path of censorship and will be contradicting itself no doubt which will cause confusion and unnessacry delays in all sorts of apps, both education and entertaining.

  • [–]

    Bernie

    Wednesday, February 24, 2010 at 10:54 AM

    I’m in two minds.

    I don’t care for this crap and I’m quite happy to see it dissappear. I have a 10 year old son who got an iPod Touch for XMas and can see all this rubbish as he searchs the app store. Perhaps they need ratings and levels of access for these different apps that can be controlled.

    On the other hand, I think it is really stupid for Apple to change the landscape. A set of rules and guidelines should be should be fair, balanced and CONSTANT. They should not change the rules all the time when it suits them. I know it’s their product, but they should be consistent.

  • [–]

    Penny Faulkner

    Wednesday, February 24, 2010 at 2:16 PM

    This isn’t a discussion about Apple, this is a clear example of how complacenecy against and fixation for the newest trend is clouding the mind’s of usually quite rational people. C’mon, Berni, a ten year old with an Ipod touch! Get a sense of proportion. It shouldn’t be what the child, and I’m talking about a ten year old child, is seeing on the ipod touch, it’s what the hell is society doing to us!
    As for Joel Johnson’s article. Yeah, right on. Let’s not have any watchdogs. To hell with censureship! Let the world go into advertising overdrive. Let’s get 4 year old girls in bikinis, posing provocatively, saying “C’mon daddy, buy me an Ipod Touch!!” Or 5 year old boys in tight swimmers, advertising the latest playdate for all the swingin’ maybe I’m gay boys in the street.
    Sound disgusting? Then look around.
    The world outside the ipod screen has been exploiting the female form for years.
    Ipod are just lost in the sheep mentality, just like the poor stick figures flopping out their silicones for a wage.
    What can you do. I don’t know about you, but I draw the line in the sand. I don’t support mass marketing to children, sexualised clothing for minors, and the inate need to buy the latest gadget so I can accessorize with my latest frou frou hairdo and bling bling baubles. Get a life. Move on, enjoy life without the ipod told you!!

Join The Discussion