Not sexually suggestive, but is sexually suggestive. Just two women posing in their underwear, but also two women in sexy lingerie expressing their sexuality.  

“…the woman’s nipples were partially obscured by the black lace detailing….the woman’s genitals were not visible...women’s nipples and full breasts were obscured”

"The slogan has obvious sexual innuendo attached to it."

The panel considered that the relevant audience for this advertisement would be broad and include children. 

However, the best interests of children were disregarded because the sex trade has a right to promote its business, sexually objectifying and exploiting women.

Sexualised Beatles lyrics printed on Wicked Camper

"Images are inappropriate for viewing by children"

During the coverage of the Australian Open this year, viewers were forced to sit through a series of monotonous and tiresome advertisements that ranged from banking adverts to whitewashed Australian television drama. Though tedious and boring, for the most part I was unfazed by them. There was one commercial, however, that I found not only irritating, but highly offensive and infuriating. It came from Ultra Tune.

In this advertisement (seen here), we see two women driving a car, and as they approach a set of traffic lights, the muffler detaches from their vehicle and falls to the road before catching fire. The two women scream and jump out of the car. One of them uses their phone to contact Ultra Tune, and the other fumbles with a fire extinguisher. Both the women then feel it would be a great idea to use using the fire extinguisher on each other, and we get close-up shots of their breasts and bottoms. The footage slows down to focus on these body parts, and the women start screaming again and run from the car as it explodes, spraying oil all over them.

If you are looking for legal services in the Brisbane area you may want to give Logan Law a miss. Their sexist advertising has lead to complaints to the Advertising Standards Board, who have subsequently dismissed the complaints. (Probably because there is nothing in the code of ethics to address sexism) 

One of their advertisements is a Faceboook post for legal services offered by Logan Law using innuendos relating to having a vehicle hit another vehicle from behind with hashtags such as "#steveo #hollyweed #loganlaw #smashedhardfrombehind #coppedoneinthebumper #beenrearendedlately #penetratingbrisbane #takenoneinthetailpipe".

The complainant said: 

The majority of Logan Law's advertising has extreme sexual connotations and this is not limited to their Facebook posts, this also includes billboards seen around Brisbane which are promoted in an incredibly unprofessional manner. I find their advertising highly inappropriate.

The Board noted the advertised product is clothing and considered that it was not exploitative to use a woman wearing the advertised product. The Board noted that the woman is shown to lift her top up and expose her stomach. The Board noted the complainant’s concern that by showing a woman in the act of undressing the advertisement presents the woman as a sexual object.

The Board noted that the tagline, which features across each image and covers the woman’s torso, says “Everything 50-70% off” and considered that the woman’s partial removal of her clothing is a physical demonstration of this rather than a suggestion that the woman is a stripper.

The Board acknowledged that some members of the community would prefer that female models were not used to advertise clothing in this manner but considered that in the context of a clothing sale the images of the woman lifting her top to reveal a naked stomach and back were not exploitative and/or degrading of this, or any other, woman.

Advertising code of ethics must change!

Sign the petition to change advertising standards here. 

The Board noted that in order to be in breach of this section of the Code the image would need to use sexual appeal in a manner that is both exploitative and degrading.

The Board noted the advertised product is lingerie and considered that the pose of the woman is not necessary to promote the product and in the Board’s view this depiction of a woman bending slightly to look in a mirror so that her bottom is towards the viewer is exploitative.

The Board noted that the woman in the advertisement is viewed from behind as she leans in towards a mirror on a dressing table and considered that while only the bottom half of her head is visible in the Board’s view the focus is on the lingerie and the overall image is not degrading to this, or any other, woman.