Sex store sets new record for ad violations with BDSM-porn themed ads
Honey Birdette is keeping Ad Standards busy. Last month the self-regulated ad industry adjudicator reviewed community complaints against a whopping 12 different BDSM-porn themed ads displayed in the sex store’s shop windows.
Ad Standards upheld complaints against six of the ads, bringing the Playboy-owned sex store’s total number of recorded ad violations to 57.
Image: Honey Birdette is most often found in breach of ad industry Code of Ethics, sections 2.2 and 2.4
We’ve summarised Ad Standards’ Case Reports for the six ads below.
1. ‘George’
From the Case Report:
Description of the advertisement:
Image 1 depicts a woman in a black bra and underpants wearing a collar with a chain. The chain is tight and horizontal but how it is being held up is not shown.
Image 2 depicts a woman in a black bra and underpants wearing a collar with a chain. The chain is relaxed and the woman is holding a crop. There appears to be a person behind her, holding a crop across the first womans upper chest. (sic)
A complainant had this to say:
Women are human beings - not animals. This ad is degrading to and dehumanising of women.
But Ad Standards disagreed, defending its position with a range of statements including:
- the ‘woman was an active participant in the scene’
- ‘there was a ‘strong impression that the woman is holding the chain herself due to her arm being held out parallel to the chain’ (first image)
- ‘the chain is hanging loose’ (second image)
- ‘it does not appear as though the woman is being restrained or used as an object by the second woman’
- ‘focus of the advertisement is not irrelevantly on her body or body parts but rather on the products’
- ‘there is no suggestion that she is being forced to wear a collar or any suggestion that she is in pain or discomfort’
Ad Standards upheld complaints against the ad on the basis that it breached Section 2.4 of advertising Code of Ethics, stating that it considered the ‘combination of the BDSM style lingerie, the collar and other paraphernalia amounted to a strong suggestion of sexual activity which most members of the community would find confronting and inappropriate to be displayed in a shopping centre window’.
2. ‘Kukuro’ - blush
Description: Advertisement on a TV in the front window of a store features a still image of a woman in pink lingerie. She is posed squatting and leaning forward. She is wearing a collar with a chain pulling away from it, out of frame.
From the Case Report:
The majority of the Panel considered that the depiction of the woman wearing a collar, with the suggestion that an attached lead was being pulled by someone else, was a depiction which strongly suggested that the woman is under the control of someone else. The Panel considered that the advertisement contained a suggestion that the woman is being treated as property and this is a depiction of the woman as an object or commodity. The Panel considered that the advertisement does employ sexual appeal in a manner which is exploitative of the woman.
The Panel considered that the advertisement suggested that the woman is an object to be used for the enjoyment of another person and that this suggestion does lower the woman in character or quality. The Panel considered that the advertisement does employ sexual appeal in a manner which is degrading to the woman.
Ad Standards upheld community complaints against this ad, ruling that it was both degrading and exploitative of the woman depicted.
Ad contained ‘sexual element’ but not ‘overtly sexual imagery’
Referring to Section 2.4 of the Code (which addresses sex, sexuality and nudity), Ad Standards continued:
The Panel considered that many people walking past the window would only see a woman in light-coloured lingerie and would not focus on the collar or chain around the woman’s neck.
The Panel considered that the advertisement does not feature overtly sexual imagery.
The Panel determined that the advertisement did not breach Section 2.4 of the Code.
Does Ad Standards read its own reports? A few paragraphs earlier it explicitly stated that the ad was exploitative on the basis that it took 'advantage of the woman's sexual appeal by depicting her as an object or commodity'. Here, it claims the 'exploitative' and 'degrading' sex store ad which depicts a woman in bondage wear as an object or commodity and contains a sexual element doesn't feature overtly sexual imagery. What sort of imagery does Ad Standards think this is - if not 'overtly sexual'? And how does it defend its claim that lots of people wouldn’t even notice the BDSM themes of the ad?
Comparing to a previously upheld ruling against Honey Birdette’s BDSM-choking themed ad, it explains:
- the lingerie worn by the woman is a light pink and the muted colour does not attract attention (Honey Birdette's chokey-choke-the-woman-it’s-so-sexy ad featured a woman in black bondage gear - but we're not buying this claim.)
- the BDSM nature of the scene is not immediately clear (Right, because women frequently sport collars and chains to do lots of different activities. Gardening and paragliding, for example.)
- the advertisement is a still image which would be less likely to attract attention (we’ve called this Ad Standards spin out before - see here)
- the woman is not lying down and the lingerie is pink and not in a strongly BDSM style (see note, dot point 2 above)
We object to Ad Standards using unsubstantiated speculations to defend repeat offender Honey Birdette’s porn style ads which objectify women, and endorsing aspects of the ad as suitable for public display in the process.
3. Two semi-naked women in red latex, one straddles a rabbit-man
From the Case Report:
The Panel noted that the advertisement features topless women, and..a high degree of nudity.
The level of nudity in combination with the use of a collar and lead, lingerie and a man in a fetish outfit crawling between one of the women’s legs creates an overall impression of an overtly sexual image. The Panel considered that the image is overtly sexual and not appropriate for the relevant broad audience which would likely include children.
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.
Ad Standards said all this, but not before it dismissed complainants’ concerns about the ad being degrading and exploitative. It responded:
The Panel considered that overall impression of the advertisement is of a burlesque nature and that the people are performing in a show or participating in a party, and not that any one person is an object or commodity.
A party? We think Ad Standards meant ‘orgy’. And depicting women as willing, eager participants in men's porn-inspired bestiality fetish in publicly displayed advertising is degrading to women. Decades of empirical research demonstrate the harms of sexual objectification of women in advertising. We know that advertising shapes attitudes, which shape behaviours, which shape culture. But Ad Standards has a history of ignoring facts - a practice which serves advertisers’ interests at the expense of community members whom Ad Standards is supposed to protect.
4. Two women in red - one is blindfolded. Blindfold reads ‘Tease me, F*ck me’
Ad Standards ruled that the ad breached three sections of advertising Code: 2.2 (Exploitative or degrading), 2.4 (sex , sexuality and nudity) and 2.5 (Language).
From the Case Report:
(Referring to ad Code Section 2.2)
The Panel considered that the depiction of the women in lingerie, interacting in an intimate way, with one of the women wearing a blindfold with the words “Fuck me” on it, combine to create an image which is overtly sexualised. The Panel considered that the advertisement does feature overtly sexual imagery and the imagery is not appropriate for display in a shop front window.
The Panel considered that the advertisement suggests that the woman is an object to be used for the enjoyment of another person and that this suggestion does lower the blindfolded woman in character or quality. The Panel considered that the advertisement does employ sexual appeal in a manner which is degrading to the blindfolded woman.
(Referring to ad Code Section 2.4)
The Panel considered that the depiction of the women in lingerie, interacting in an intimate way, with one of the women wearing a blindfold with the words “Fuck me” on it, combine to create an image which is overtly sexualised. The Panel considered that the advertisement does feature overtly sexual imagery and the imagery is not appropriate for display in a shop front window.
(Referring to ad Code Section 2.5)
The Panel considered that the word “fuck” in the current advertisement is not appropriate for a broad audience and would be considered strong and obscene language by most members of the community. The Panel noted that in combination with the imagery in the advertisement the language is used in a sexually explicit way and is not appropriate for display in shop front windows.
5. 'George': Woman with riding crop striking bare-buttocked woman in spreader-bar
According to Ad Standards a publicly displayed floor-to-ceiling image of a bare-buttocked woman restrained by a spreader-bar standing in the street getting whacked on the a$$ by another woman with a riding crop is neither exploitative nor degrading of women. Ad Standards defended its position, stating that the ‘two women are posing in a playful way for the camera and are equally participating in the behaviour’.
(Psssst - hey advertisers: Want to get away with degrading women in advertising? Make it look like they’re having fun.)
Later in its Case Report, Ad Standards made this statement regarding ad Code section 2.4:
The Panel noted that the advertisement features both a riding crop and spreader bar being used, and that most members of the community would consider the depiction of fetish gear being used in combination with a woman wearing lingerie to be overtly sexual. The Panel considered that the image is overtly sexual and not appropriate for the relevant broad audience which would likely include children.
Ad Standards upheld community complaints on account of the ad’s violation of ad Code section 2.4.
6. ‘Kukuro’ - blush (version 2)
From the Case Report:
The Panel considered that the women are wearing sexualised and revealing lingerie and there is a sexual element to the advertisement.
The Panel noted that the women in the advertisement are depicted in lingerie, and considered that this is a depiction of partial nudity.
The Panel noted that the woman on the right, in the foreground of the image is wearing strappy underpants with most of her buttocks and gluteal cleft visible. The Panel considered that the lingerie is sexualised in design and that there is a more sexualised feel to the advertisement due to the framing of the image and the focus on her buttocks. The Panel considered that there is a high level of nudity in the image and that the image is overtly sexualised. The Panel determined that the image is not appropriate for the relevant broad audience which would likely include children. Section 2.4 Conclusion 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.
Just a few weeks earlier Ad Standards upheld complaints against an almost identical ad featuring a bare-buttocked woman. Since Ad Standards has no ability to enforce rulings, issue penalties or mandate pre-vetting for repeat offenders, Honey Birdette simply ignored the ruling and carried on with its pornification of the public space.
57 complaints upheld by Ad Standards, zero change to Honey Birdette’s ads**
All these Ad Standards rulings and reports mean nothing to repeat offenders like Honey Birdette. The Playboy-owned sex store chain continues to advertise how it likes, when it likes.
Read more about the failures of the self-regulated advertising system here.
Look out for our next blog - we’ll tell you what action you can take to advocate for a stop to Honey Birdette’s porn-themed displays in our communities.
*Update: December 23, 2021
Ad Standards has upheld community complaints against ANOTHER porn-themed Honey Birdette shop window ad. Spotted in the same busy CBD pedestrian mall owned by property group ISPT as the others we told you about, the ad featured a semi naked woman being groped by a pig-man.
Ad Standards stated in its Case Report that ‘the bright colours and use of animal imagery in the advertisement would attract the attention of children. Overall, the Panel considered that the advertisement features overtly sexual imagery which was not appropriate for public display.’
**Ad Standards has now upheld community complaints against 58 separate Honey Birdette ads
Add your comment