“When will it stop?”
Concerned community members have spoken out against sex shop Honey Birdette’s porn style ads shown in family shopping centres during recent school holidays, with one highlighting children’s activities going on nearby. From the self regulator Ad Standards’ case report:
There is a sexually explicit large photo in Indooroopilly shopping centre, in an area near children’s holiday entertainment area.
Another community member pointed out loopholes which allow the Playboy-owned sex shop to engage in behaviours which are illegal in other contexts:
It’s illegal to show children pornographic imagery.
It’s illegal to expose an adult to pornographic images without their consent.
This is a workplace. People have the right to work without being forced to view sexualised imagery.
Why does this pornographer have free rein to terrorise our communities with impunity? When - after years of this, and dozens of recorded ad violations (80+) will it stop?
Honey Birdette racks up four more ad violations
The Ad Standards Community Panel upheld complaints against two versions of an ad for ‘Anita’ for violation of AANA Code of Ethics Section 2.4 ‘sexuality and nudity’. The Panel noted 'the gluteal cleft' (more commonly known as 'the butt crack') and 'side of the breast of one woman was visible', and that 'a large amount of the other woman's breast and pubic mound appeared visible'. They concluded that the ‘images contained a high level of nudity and were overtly sexual’.
Women-as-horses ad ruled ‘exploitative’
The Panel also upheld complaints against one version of ‘Pony’. The ad featured ‘two women standing side by side wearing black strappy lingerie’, with one posed in ‘a harness and nipple covers’.
The Panel stated that in its depiction of women in fetish gear including harnesses, combined with the word “pony”, the ad compared women to horses and suggested that women are “objects to be owned.” Accordingly, the ad was ruled in breach of ad code section 2.2 which ‘prohibits the use of sexual appeal in advertising which is exploitative of or degrading to any individual or group of people’.
‘Pony’ was also ruled to be in breach of ad code section 2.4.
"How is this allowed?"
In Ad Standards' Case Report for Honey Birdette's 'Kukuro Red', a mum objected to Playboy's freedom to groom children at a Perth shopping centre:
Why does my 11 yo son need to be exposed to a pornographer's sex shop ad depicting a woman as a dog, on a visit to the local shops on school holidays, or any other day? I'm working hard to teach him that women are human and equal to men - not animals to be restrained and choked. This company has no right to groom children. How is this allowed?
Small wins signal progress
Many of our supporters spoke out on these harmful pornified displays in their local family shopping centres after we called them to action. And we are encouraged, because we are being heard. Here are a few examples:
Landlord introduces measures to rein in repeat offender Honey Birdette
The GPT Group owns four shopping centres and manages three others which lease to Honey Birdette and house its pornified shop window displays. After our calls to stop allowing Honey Birdette’s porn style ads in its shopping centres, GPT took the following actions to rein Honey Birdette in:
- Worked with Ad Standards to set up an “early warning system” whereby upon receiving a complaint about a Honey Birdette ad in any GPT owned or operated centre, Ad Standards will notify GPT immediately so they can investigate and take action.
- When we alerted GPT to Honey Birdette’s recent porn and fetish themed ads featuring naked women in horse restraints and other bondage gear, they responded to say they had contacted their sex shop tenant and asked for the immediate removal of the ads. (*At our last communication, Honey Birdette had not responded to GPT’s attempts to contact them.)
Children’s Commissioner alerted
We also alerted the Western Australian Children’s Commissioner, Jacqueline McGowan-Jones, to the ads and highlighted some of the harms caused by exposure to this type of imagery. We said we thought the Commissioner would agree these are harms the children of Western Australia should be protected from.
We referred the Commissioner to recommendations made in the Commissioner for Children and Young People’s 2013 report on the Sexualisation of Children and urged her to act on these to protect children and young people from the predatory grooming activities of companies like Playboy/Honey Birdette.
We received a response advising that the Commissioner or someone from her office will be in contact as soon as possible.
A quicker turnaround?
For reasons unclear, Ad Standards notified community members about these rulings more quickly than normal – around 10 days after our own campaigners lodged complaints. (We normally wait 3-5 weeks for their rulings.) Even more unusual is the timeframe from complaint to decision: The Case Report upholding complaints for ‘Anita’ is dated just two days after complaints were lodged. We have repeatedly called for expedited rulings on Honey Birdette's porn themed shop window ads to minimise harm to community members including children.
We are pleased to know Ad Standards has the capacity to issue fast decisions and have sought clarification to understand why this happened this time around. Still, it’s meaningless when thousands of children across the country were exposed to these harmful displays during recent school holidays, and when there’s nothing to stop Honey Birdette from displaying identical ads in the future.
[*Update* As it turns out, what appeared to be a quicker turn around time actually was not - Ad Standards had simply received a complaint about the same ad earlier from another concerned community member.)
Family shopping centres hosting fetish ads exposed
- Who gave Playboy permission to come into our neighbourhoods and groom our children?
- Who has repeatedly aided and defended Playboy’s sex shop and its “right” to pornify the public space?
- Who harbours Honey Birdette as they exhibit exploitative and degrading depictions of women in a way they would not be permitted to on high street, contributing to a culture of acceptance of violence against women and girls?
- Who fails to provide a safe space for shopping centre employees and other non consenting community members who are forced to view graphic, sexualised, BDSM and fetish themed imagery against their will in Honey Birdette shop windows?
- Who invites children to participate in holiday activities next to the sex shop’s porn themed window displays featuring women’s bare, exposed genitals; women neck-bound by chokers and dog leads and horse restraints; orgies; and women enjoying the deadly practice of sexual strangulation?
The answer is: Honey Birdette's shopping centre landlords – vested interests who reap profit from Playboy via rental income (and other specifics laid out in their lease agreements) in 45 family shopping centres across the country.
Ad Standards named four shopping centres in relation to the violating fetish and BDSM themed ads:
- Indooroopilly Shopping Centre – Owners: Dexus, Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation
- Westfield Burwood – Owner: Scentre Group
- Westfield Tea Tree Plaza – Owner: Scentre Group
- Lakeside Joondalup – Owner: Lendlease; Centre Manager: Vicinity Centres
Top left: Tony Lombardo, CEO Lendlease; top right: Peter Huddle, Vicinity Centres; Middle: Elliott Rusanow, CEO Scentre Group; bottom left: Ross Du Vernet, CEO Dexus; bottom right: Damian Hill, CEO Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation
Take action!
Hold the shopping centre heads to account – click here to sign and share the petition calling on them to stop Honey Birdette’s porn themed ads in their family shopping centres.
Add your comment