Ad Standards will no longer consider complaints against depictions of women in sheer lingerie.

In response to a complaint regarding a Bras N Things shopfront advertisement featuring a woman in a see-through bra, Ad Standards told the community member who objected that the ad would not be reviewed by the Panel.

Earlier this month we exposed Calendar Club, a retail pop-up store selling a range of porn-themed calendars including sexualised pin-ups depicting women as sexual playthings for male entertainment. You don’t even have to walk into a store to see them – they are right out in the open in busy shopping centre thoroughfares, and in full view of children.

Collective Shout supporters have contacted the retailer and received dismissive cut and paste responses (see below).

Here's our response to these weak justifications for flogging these sexist and degrading products:

What's the point of an ad regulator that can randomly refuse to review ads?

When a sponsored Typo post advertising Christmas ornaments in the shape of a penis and a sex toy showed up in Collective Shout supporter Susan’s Facebook feed, she made a complaint to Ad Standards.

Typo's penis-shaped Christmas ornaments 

But Ad Standards did not consider Susan’s complaint against the unsolicited penis ornament ad. She received an email notifying her that the Chair of the Ad Standards Community Panel had refused to forward the complaint to the panel for review. 

*Update - WIN! Revolution Beauty quietly deletes images from social media platforms*

UK-based cosmetics company Revolution Beauty has been slammed on social media for its porn-themed advertising.

A social media post shared yesterday includes close-up images of a woman’s open mouth, a tube of lip gloss between her lips and thick liquid gloss dripping from her lips, apparently referencing semen.

Ad Standards upholds complaints against sexist ads

If you thought that by the year 2024 we would have moved past using women’s objectified bodies to sell unrelated products, you would be mistaken!

We were recently alerted to a Victorian hot sauce brand, Pickle My Chili, doing just that.

Days after we exposed sex store Honey Birdette’s 74^th advertising ethics violation, our campaign on the failures of ad industry self-regulation has attracted national media attention.

Media Release

Shopping centre sex stores Honey Birdette hits 74th advertising violation

Playboy-owned sex shop Honey Birdette has been found in breach of the Australian Association of National Advertisers code of ethics for the 74th time. The latest Ad Standards rulings related to three p*rn themed window displays. 

Since 2010, Ad Standards has investigated over 160 complaints about Honey Birdette promotions, upholding complaints against 74* – three in the last month alone. Two separate ads were deemed to have a “high level of nudity” and found in breach of Section 2.4 of the Code.

1. The entire system relies on members of the public making complaints. There is no pre-vetting

This means advertisers can do whatever they want, and their ad will only be reviewed if and when a member of the public makes an official complaint. If nobody complains, the ad will not be investigated. Industry self-regulation takes the onus off the advertisers and instead places responsibility for regulating the advertising industry on individual community members.

This lack of pre-vetting has enabled companies to display billboards depicting gangrape and bestiality, school buses to advertise sex industry trade show Sexpo and the URL for live-streamed porn and prostitution, and Honey Birdette videos of sexual ‘choking’ to be broadcast in Westfield and other shopping centres – along with countless other examples.

Playboy-owned sex shop Honey Birdette has received its 70th ruling for being in violation of Australian Association of National Advertisers code of ethics. The rulings relate to the company’s porn-themed window displays in shopping centres.

Since 2010, Ad Standards has investigated close to 160 complaints about Honey Birdette promotions, upholding complaints against 70. The latest ruling was announced 13 March, with two separate ads deemed to have a “high level of nudity” and found in breach of Section 2.4 of the Code.