Ad Standards endorses sex shop fetish ads for kids

Two Honey Birdette porn themed ads found in breach of ad ethics

*Content warning

It’s March-madness and mixed rulings at Ad Standards, with the self regulator reviewing 5 Honey Birdette porn and bondage themed ads in a month. And these are just the ones we know about.

Rosa: 2 x upheld complaints

In two cases (‘Rosa’), Ad Standards upheld community complaints for ‘high level nudity’ and ‘failure to treat nudity with sensitivity’ to the broad shopping centre audience which includes children.

(Yes, these larger than life images were actually displayed for weeks in Honey Birdette's shop windows for children's viewing in family shopping centres across Australia.)

Jasmin: 2 dismissed complaints

In another two cases, Ad Standards dismissed community complaints about bondage themed ads for ‘Jasmin’. The Panel that reviewed the ads claimed the promoted products – cuffs + dog collars with chains – were not bondage-fetish style, but “lingerie”.

(Looks like Ad Standards could do with a basic dictionary, and a visit to Honey Birdette’s own webpage where these products are labelled..wait for it.. “Bondage”.)

From the case report:

The Panel noted the woman in [second image] is lifting the strap of her bra. The Panel considered that she’s not pulling it down, and the pose is not strongly suggestive of undressing..Overall, the Panel considered that this image was not overtly sexual.

(A pornographer-owned sex shop's porn themed ad for BDSM gear. But sure, Ad Standards, nothing overtly sexual to see here - wink wink.)

Disturbingly, claims that the ads were not overtly sexual, and were images of women modelling lingerie rather than promos for hardcore BDSM gear came after the Panel acknowledged that ‘some members of the community would prefer fetish style products not be advertised where children can view them’. (Uh, yes, Ad Standards, and if you are not part of that group, we have bigger problems than we thought.)

But Ad Standards does not have authority to redefine reality. And using references to "lingerie" to spin euphemisms about bondage, kink and fetish doesn't change the facts. Playboy is a global porn empire. Its sex shop chain Honey Birdette is predatorily positioned in family suburban shopping centres. Its advertisement audience comprises non-consenting members of the public including vulnerable children who actually require protection from the predatory tactics of the porn industry. By responsible adults. Like the ones who make up the Ad Standards Community Panel that reviews these ads.

Ad Standards fails again

Reducing rulings on a pornographer-owned sex shop's porn-themed ads for bdsm-fetish products - broadcast to an audience that includes children - to discussions about 'women modelling lingerie' is abusive, and damaging to the community - especially women and children. It serves to gaslight and silence those who actually care about protecting women and kids, and annihilates all faith in a system community members are forced to depend on; one which is supposed to protect them, but instead harms them, routinely and repeatedly.

Members of the Ad Standards Community Panel

(Hi guys👋🏽)

Violence against women: a community concern

One community member highlighted increasing levels of violence against women while objecting to Honey Birdette’s depictions of women-as-animals for family viewing in the public space: 

With the increasing levels of violence against women it’s horrifying to see a woman in bondage / chains like an animal in shopping centres. Children can see this. It objectifies women as sexual objects, chained up. This is adult content in a public family space with children who are being forced to witness this over sexualization.

Reminding us it has no clue about the wider implications of the sex and porn industries for women, or the coercion used to lead women to participate - smiling and apparently confident - in their own objectification, exploitation and abuse, Ad Standards defended the ads, claiming:

• the women were ‘depicted in a confident manner’
• the depiction ‘was relevant to the promotion of lingerie and the products available for purchase at Honey Birdette'

On these claims, Ad Standards concluded the ad was neither degrading nor exploitative of women.

Never mind the presentation of women as sex objects for men, or women as props for sex and porn industry fetish product placements.  

Regarding ad rules on nudity, ‘no visible nipples or genitals’ was enough for Ad Standards to side with Honey Birdette, effectively endorsing the BDSM-porn themed ads as ‘sensitive to the needs of’ and suitable viewing for children.

Panel Chair blocks review of sex shop's objectifying ad

In its fifth (but unpublished) Honey Birdette ruling for the month, the Ad Standards Community Panel Chair refused to send a complaint about an ad for Tallulah to the wider Panel group for review, claiming it was similar to ads the Panel had previously dismissed complaints about.

How often does this happen? How many other porn and sex industry ads dodge review despite community concerns and objections because an individual Chair was comfortable with the thought of children viewing them? We don't know - because Ad Standards doesn't publish the details of these decisions. This lack of transparency is disturbing.

The system is a sham. Rulings are:

• Arbitrary. Sometimes Honey Birdette’s fetish and bondage porn themed ads are found to breach the Australian Association of National Advertisers (AANA) Code of Ethics and other times they’re not.
• Untimely. These ads were long gone by the time Ad Standards issued its decisions.
• Not enforceable. Even when Ad Standards upholds complaints it has no power to remove the ads.

The self regulated ad complaints handling system favours repeat offenders like Playboy/Honey Birdette and harms community members. With nearly 90 upheld rulings against it, Honey Birdette is proof we need a new system.

Take action!