And ignores the global research in the process

The latest case reports from the ad industry's self regulatory body, Ad Standards, have been published and for the third month in a row Honey Birdette's porn themed ads have been given the green light for display in family friendly shopping centres. 

The case report states:

"This poster image features the caption "Cage Bust out!" Image features a woman sitting on a chair with her legs apart leaning forward, and another woman leaning on the back of the chair behind her. Both women are wearing black strappy lingerie."

A sample of comments which the complainant/s made regarding this advertisement included the following:

"The ads were on display in high traffic areas of the malls. In one centre, the ads formed the backdrop for a children’s Santa parade. The ads are highly sexualised and indistinguishable from an ad for the sex industry (eg strip venue) and unsuitable for display in general public space, let alone places where children are specifically invited to participate in activities. Moreover, people are working in these spaces- people who have a right to work without being exposed to sexualised imagery. The space does not belong to the advertiser and the advertiser has no right to impose its porn-themed ads onto an all-age, non-consenting audience who are not its customers."

The Ad Standards Community Panel noted the complainants’ concerns that the advertisement:

• are highly sexualised
• resembles images that would be seen in porn publications
• is inappropriate to be seen in full view of children

The Panel considered that the woman on the left was bending over the chair and pushing her bottom out and that this was a sexualised pose. The Panel considered that the other woman was seated with her legs open and that this could also be considered a sexualised pose. The Panel determined that the advertisement did contain sexuality.

The Panel noted that the lingerie worn in the advertisement is available for purchase at Honey Birdette, however considered that products must still be advertised in a manner that is suitable for advertising on the front window of a store that is located in a shopping centre. The Panel determined that the advertisement did contain nudity.

The Panel considered that most members of the community would not find the level of nudity or sexuality in the advertisement confronting or inappropriate for a broad audience which would include children.

However the Ad Standards Community Panel fail to recognise the global research on sexually objectifying portrayals of women in advertising. This meta-analysis from 1995-2015 describes the harms:

The findings provided consistent evidence that both laboratory exposure and regular, everyday exposure to this content are directly associated with a range of consequences, including higher levels of body dissatisfaction, greater self-objectification, greater support of sexist beliefs and of adversarial sexual beliefs, and greater tolerance of sexual violence toward women. Moreover, experimental exposure to this content leads both women and men to have a diminished view of women’s competence, morality, and humanity.

It is clear that the current model of self regulation within the Advertising Industry is grossly inadequate. Collective Shout will continue to campaign for change and advocate for a world free of sexploitation. 

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.