Sex shop given free rein to broadcast sexist and demeaning portrayals of female athletes
We have been calling out the many failings of ad industry self-regulation for more than a decade. Under the current system, sex shops like Honey Birdette are free to display porn-themed portrayals of women to an all-ages audience, including BDSM-themed content and depictions of orgies. This content is only investigated if a member of the community makes a complaint, and the process of deliberation and subsequent ruling by Ad Standards typically takes weeks or months, which means that even if a complaint is upheld, the offending advertisement has already been replaced with something equally sexist and degrading. Even if the ad was still being used, Ad Standards has no authority to enforce its rulings, and there are no penalties for non-compliance from advertisers.
So despite claims of a code of ethics, and advertising ‘standards’, advertisers really are free to do whatever they like – and some, like sex store Honey Birdette, clearly do just that.
We’ve written about Honey Birdette’s latest ad campaign sexualising female athletes. Below is a series of complaints made to ad “watchdog” Ad Standards.
Remember, the ads have already been displayed for weeks, and they will remain in place for weeks or months while Ad Standards processes the complaints.
Ad #1
These images depict a woman in sheer lingerie, and with legs spread, both of which constitute 'overtly sexualised advertising' under the amendments to the AANA code. Given the lingerie is both extremely brief and sheer, the woman is almost completely naked. Hypersexualised images of women and women's bodies plastered around public shopping centres function as a sexist backdrop to society, making women's inequality seem normal and unremarkable.
The image also directs passers by to watch an "uncensored" porn-themed video 'Anyone for tennis?' along with a link to Honey Birdette's website. This link can be accessed by any person with access to a smartphone, which includes children.
Both these images and the video being advertised sexualise and demean women in sport. The ads trivialise women's sports and reduces female athletes to a male sexual fantasy. The "sexploitation" of women in sport is a well-documented phenomenon, one that has been found to negatively impact women's sports in a range of ways. It determines the value of female athletes primarily in terms of their body type and attractiveness, and detracts from their sporting abilities. Intentionally sexualising female athletes harms their credibility, reinforces gender stereotyping, excludes women who do not fit the ‘appropriate’ body type, and undermines the credibility of female athletes and women’s sport as a whole. This same sexist and sexualising treatment is not typically extended to male athletes.
This content, including the promo for the uncensored video, is broadcast to an audience that includes children. Exposing children to highly sexualised and porn-themed content is predatory and a form of grooming. Directing an audience that includes children to an uncensored sex shop video is a form of corporate paedophilia, and it should shock the conscience of any person who values children and their rights.
#Ad 2
This advertising appeared unsolicited in my Facebook feed as a sponsored post. I have not 'liked' Honey Birdette on Facebook.
The image sexualises and demeans female athletes. The scenario depicts a female tennis player apparently arguing with a male umpire who is mostly off camera, except the female tennis player is not clothed in tennis apparel, other than a visor, she is wearing lingerie.
The ad trivialises women's sports and reduces female athletes to a male sexual fantasy. The "sexploitation" of women in sport is a well-documented phenomenon, one that has been found to negatively impact women's sports in a range of ways. It determines the value of female athletes primarily in terms of their body type and attractiveness, and detracts from their sporting abilities. Intentionally sexualising female athletes harms their credibility, reinforces gender stereotyping, excludes women who do not fit the ‘appropriate’ body type, and undermines the credibility of female athletes and women’s sport as a whole. This same sexist and sexualising treatment is not typically extended to male athletes.
This ad, and others like it from Honey Birdette's current sexist ad campaign, undermines many years of fighting for women's equality in sport. Sexualising women in sport harms female athletes, and women in general, while also potentially having the impact of discouraging women from participating in sports.
I have attached a screenshot of the sponsored post, in case Eloise Monaghan should falsely claim I am lying, as she has done to complainants in the past.
Please do not pass on my personal details to the advertiser as they have a history of mocking and intimidating women who object to their sexist ads.
#Ad 3
This ad sexualises and objectifies women by focusing on a single sexualised body part, the woman's semi-naked backside. The image depicts upskirting, painting it as sexy or suggestive rather than the crime of sexual violence against women that it is.
The ad also sexualises and demeans female athletes, reducing them to a male sexual fantasy. The "sexploitation" of women in sport is a well-documented phenomenon, one that has been found to negatively impact women's sports in a range of ways. It determines the value of female athletes primarily in terms of their body type and attractiveness, and detracts from their sporting abilities. Intentionally sexualising female athletes harms their credibility, reinforces gender stereotyping, excludes women who do not fit the ‘appropriate’ body type, and undermines the credibility of female athletes and women’s sport as a whole. This same sexist and sexualising treatment is not typically extended to male athletes.
Essentially, sexist and misogynistic Honey Birdette portrayals of female athletes as existing for men's sexual entertainment and use does significant harm to the status of female athletes, as well as women more generally.
We think these complaints make a strong case against these anti-woman ads from Honey Birdette. But even should the harm to women and girls from these sexually objectifying ads be recognised, and the complaints upheld by Ad Standards, the damage has already been done.
For more than ten years, we have campaigned to reclaim public spaces, calling for a new system of advertising regulation. Enough is enough. Women deserve better than everyday sexualisation and objectification by unethical corporates.
See also:
25 Reasons Why Ad Industry Self-Regulation is a Disaster
The sexist ads endorsed by Ad Standards
Upskirting pics of women playing tennis in lingerie: on display at a mall near you
Ad Standards still enabling Honey Birdette sexual objectification while Male Champions remain silent
Add your comment