"the woman’s labia are visible...she has no pubic hair"
How low have standards for our major shopping centres sunk when Ad Standards is evaluating an advertisement based on the visibility of a woman's genitals?
From the determination:
The Panel considered that the cut and lines of the bodysuit in the advertisement would draw the viewer’s eyes towards the woman’s genitals.
The Panel noted that the bodysuit featured a very high-cut brief and that the fabric covering the woman’s genitals was sheer. The Panel considered that shading visible through the sheer fabric gave the appearance that the woman’s labia are visible and that she has no pubic hair. The Panel considered that the visibility of the woman’s nipples and belly button through the fabric added to the impression that the shadowing in this area was indicative of the woman’s vulva being visible. The Panel considered that most people in the community, including those who would view this advertisement, would find it confronting for an advertisement to feature images of genitals in advertising, even when these depictions are obscured by sheer fabric. The Panel noted the advice in the practice note that images of genitalia are not acceptable in advertisements, and considered that the advertisement did not treat the issue of nudity with sensitivity to the relevant audience. On this basis, the Panel determined the advertisement did not treat sex, sexuality and nudity with sensitivity to the relevant audience and did breach Section 2.4 of the Code.
Would centres like Westfield, Lendlease and Vicinity allow men’s scrotums to be put on display like this?
Sign the petition - STOP Honey Birdette using porn-style advertising in your family friendly shopping centres.
Add your comment