We are very pleased to report that we have successfully defended our movement against legal threats from Sexpo, with the Federal Court in Brisbane dismissing an application  brought against Collective Shout by Sexpo Limited. Sexpo Limited was also ordered to pay Collective Shout’s costs.

It was in May 2017 that we were alerted to public buses servicing school routes in Perth that featured advertisements for Sexpo. The ads included the web address for one of their sponsors, a broadcaster of live streamed sex shows.

Ad Standards dismissed complaints and rejected our request for a review. Case Manager Nikki Paterson claimed that advertising live sex shows on the side of a bus was not a breach of the code. Our petition to prevent similar ads on Brisbane buses, due out the following month, attracted over 5000 signatures.

Brisbane Sexpo ads running on school buses, billboards- News.com.au

Sexpo’s lawyers threatened to sue Collective Shout for damages for “misleading and deceptive behaviour” under consumer law, citing social media posts by two staff members.

Sexpo claimed that Collective Shout was misleading because the bus ads promoting MyFreeCams.com did not share a url, and only included the words ‘My Free Cams’ with no .com to follow. They also denied that the image existed on a bus or any other physical medium. Take a look at a range of photographic evidence that proves otherwise:

In the weeks following the release of our petition, the ‘.com’ from the following billboard was blacked out:

Last month, The Honourable Justice Reeves dismissed Sexpo’s application against Collective Shout, concluding:

I do not consider Sexpo has established that it held a reasonable belief that it had suffered any harm to its commercial reputation as a consequence of Collective Shout’s alleged representations such that it may have a right to obtain relief in a claim against it. Sexpo’s application under r 7.23 must therefore be dismissed. I will order accordingly.

Justice Reeves also noted that Sexpo provided more than 500 pages of affidavit material in connection with their application, yet only three paragraphs were directly devoted to the existence of Sexpo’s belief about its right to obtain relief from Collective Shout, an argument ultimately rejected by the judge. Real the full judgment here.

The ruling against Sexpo is a significant victory- not just for Collective Shout and our supporters, but for all those who support the rights of children to live free from pornography. The sex industry in Australia has been permitted to target children with advertising for pornography and prostitution in public spaces for too long, and we are more committed than ever to stand up for the rights of children.

See also:

Sexpo organisers take on prominent feminists in Federal Court- Courier Mail 

Brisbane Sexpo ads running on school buses, billboards-News.com.au

Sexpo loses federal court bid against anti-sexualisation organisation- Brisbane Times

Corporate Paedophilia: Ad Standards Board justifies promoting porn sites to children

Last year, father of three Kenneth Thor started a petition calling on Westfield to stop Honey Birdette’s consistent sexist and porn-inspired imagery in shopping centres across the country.

The following is a complaint to Ad Standards we received from a supporter. The complaint was made in response to a Bras N Things advertisement featuring a woman wearing nothing but lacy panties and in bold red font, the words “THE TAKE IT ALL OFF SALE.”

A Melbourne based shoe designer has attracted complaints over a sexually objectifying image on their Facebook page depicting a series of semi-naked, headless women wearing their shoes.

Facebook users weighed in on Preston Zly Design’s photo, with a series of witty and insightful comments:

“But why does the model have to take her pants off to sell shoes?”

“Hi, can you please clarify, will I be able to wear these shoes if I have a head attached to my body? Also I put clothes on prior to my shoes, will these shoes still work with my dressing style?”

“Can we expect similar ads for men’s footwear with headless men missing their clothing also, or is it just sexual exploitation of women that sells shoes?”

“I don’t need nudes to sell me shoes.”

“Women are not inanimate objects and selling to us by exploiting us isn’t edgy.”

“Oh look, headless bodies of young, thin, conventionally attractive white women being used to sell a product. How artistic! So revolutionary and challenging! It’s almost like this outdated and sexist practice hasn’t gone on for decades!”

Designer Johanna Preston responded,

“We are not clothing designers- it’s all about the shoes here” – as if featuring clothed female models is a skill limited to clothing designers.

Preston continued,

“The images aren’t exploitative- but if you choose to think they are that’s your prerogative.

“I understand that the use of the female body offends you but we are proud of our work and stand behind our beautiful shoot.”

But the use of women’s bodies as props, the depiction of women without faces, the treatment of women as interchangeable and the use of women’s near naked bodies to sell a product is objectification- whether it is acknowledged or not, whether it offends or not.

There is a wealth of research on the harms of objectifying women- decades of it- finding that this sexist treatment leads both men and women to have a diminished view of women’s competence, morality and humanity. In short, treating women like things is bad for women.

It’s hard to understand how in 2018, in the wake of the #MeToo movement and with a growing awareness of the scourge of men’s violence against women, companies can continue to exploit women’s bodies to sell a product.

Car parts and services chain Ultra Tune have a long history of sexually exploitative advertising. From rubber-clad dominatrix women brandishing whips and feigning arousal at the sight of tyres, to countless ads perpetuating sexist stereotypes of women as ‘dumb blondes’ who can’t operate their vehicles and who accidentally drive off of cliffs, Ultra Tune has attracted a massive amount of complaints, from men and women.

It was in 2013 that women’s surf brand Roxy was slammed for their sexist “all sex no surf” Pro Biarritz trailer. The video, a promotion for the upcoming women’s surf competition, featured a faceless and half-naked woman writhing around on a bed, stripping off and entering the shower and catching zero waves.

Three time women’s world longboard champion Cori Schumacher started a petition that attracted over 22,000 signatures, calling on the brand to stop sexualising women in their marketing and advertising:

Recently, Roxy released a trailer for the 2013 Roxy Biarritz Pro contest that showcases a style of marketing women’s surfing that is not conducive to a healthy, empowered vision of women. Instead of women surfers being presented as an alternative to the sexualisation and objectification of women in the culture-at-large, this campaign succumbs to the lazy marketing that is already so prevalent.

As the most visible and well-known women’s surf brand, Roxy has a unique opportunity to truly make a difference in how women and girls are represented in the world.

We ask that you stop the sexualisation of women in your marketing and advertising and instead, help to present women surfers in a light that women can be proud to be associated with and young girls can truly admire.

Read more about sexploitation of women in sport.

Five years later, Roxy have launched a new global campaign, entitled ‘Make Wave, Move Mountains’ to “promote a message of strength and support to young women of any age, sport, or dream.” 

Roxy is not the only brand making major changes. In 2016 Unilever, the company that owns Lynx, a brand of men’s deodorant with a long history of sexist advertising, released the following statement from Chief Marketing Officer Keith Weed:

“The time is right for us as an industry to challenge and change how we portray gender in our advertising. Our industry spends billions of dollars annually shaping perceptions and we have a responsibility to use this power in a positive manner.”

Photo: A compilation of sexist Lynx ads over the years.

Just last year, burger joint Carl’s Jr, with a reputation for sexually exploiting women in their porn-inspired commercials, claimed they were changing their ways, ditching the sexualisation of women and instead focusing on ingredients and taste.

This change of direction in advertising from a range of brands is evidence of a greater cultural shift that is underway, one in which sexism and the exploitation of women to sell products and services is no longer tolerated. Corporates are starting to recognise that sexual exploitation does not necessarily sell.

Research finds sex doesn’t actually sell- it either hurts or has no impact

These changes are in large part because of those of us who have consistently challenged the sexualisation and objectification of women and girls in media, advertising and popular culture. As always, thank you for your ongoing support and let’s continue keeping up the pressure!

"Breaking Bad" crystal meth reference stylised to look like Dr Seuss Cartoon

Here’s how to make a complaint.

We’ve received feedback from various supporters regarding Channel 7 broadcasting the trailer for MA rated film Fifty Shades Freed, during the Winter Olympics and at times children are likely to be watching.

The trailer included highly sexualised content, featuring a bondage-themed scene in which a woman in lingerie was blindfolded and tied up.

We’ve heard from parents whose children as young as six were exposed to this content while watching the Winter Olympics during the day- one even at 10.30 am.

There are restrictions placed on what content can be shown on TV, and when. Free TV Australia’s Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice lists several codes that apply here:

2.2.3 MA15+ Classification zone. Subject to subclause 2.3.2(b), material that has been classified MA15+ may only be broadcast between 8.30 pm and 5.00 am on any day.

2.4.2 During Sports Programs and Films classified G or PG which commence before 8.30 pm and continue after 8.30 pm, all non-Program material must be no higher than a PG classification.

2.4.4 A Program Promotion for a Program classified M or MA15+ must not be broadcast during any Program classified G: a) which is principally directed to Children; and b) broadcast between 5.00 am and 8.30 pm.

It is worth noting also that commercials for sexual services are only permitted after 11pm and before 5 am, suggesting a recognition that highly sexualised or adult content should not be broadcast during hours when children might see them.

Make a complaint

You can make a complaint via an electronic form on Free TV Australia’s website. Complaints must contain the date, time, channel and location as well as a brief description of the material. Licensees (TV stations) are required to respond to complaints within 30 days.

Have you made a complaint? Let us know in the comments.

Kenneth Thor, the father behind the petition calling for an end to porn-style Honey Birdette advertisements in Westfield shopping centres, is continuing to keep up the pressure on Scentre Group.

A Collective Shout supporter has been offered a $200 voucher from Ultra Tune after making a complaint to their Head Office. 

In what appears to be a cut and paste form letter, Ultra Tune National Customer Service Manager Tania Plumpton utilises a range of justifications for the company’s routine sexism.

“We are sorry that you hate our advertisements sexist toward women” (sic)

Ms Plumpton assures the complainant that Ultra Tune’s Executive Chairman, Sean Buckley “stands by” the ads (what a relief). Sean Buckley has previously insisted that the ads are funny, despite overwhelming feedback from the public that they are sexist and juvenile.

“Only 300 complaints were made”

According to Ms Plumpton, only 300 people complained about their latest “Unexpected Situations” ad (only 300!) which amounts to “0.006% of the audience”- with the implication being those who objected to the ad were a tiny minority.

It doesn’t work like that. In fact, research on customer complaints suggests that 96% of unhappy customers don’t complain (although 91% of these will not return), or that for every 26 unhappy customers, only one will lodge a formal complaint. Ultra Tune received 300.

Those of us who have ever made a formal complaint about an advertisement to the ASB know how difficult this process can be. The fact that more complaints are not being made is not an indication of community acceptance, but rather, a difficult and ineffective complaints process.

As advertising is not pre-vetted, it is up to members of the community to find the time to make a formal complaint for offending ads to be investigated in the first place. Many people are not aware that they can even make a complaint, or who they might complain to. Complainants must be able to describe the ad, including the channel it was on and at what time. Many others may be dissuaded from making a complaint given the process has consistently failed to lead to any successful outcome, leaving complainants to believe that making complaints is a waste of time and deterring them from bothering in the future.

This is not evidence of a successful advertising regulation system, it’s just the opposite.

Convicted rapist Mike Tyson went through a “dark period”

Ultra Tune’s latest ad went a step further, featuring convicted rapist Mike Tyson. The former boxer who bragged about beating his wife and described his enthusiasm for enacting sexual torture on women has “deep regret and remorse” for the “dark period in his life”, presumably, the time when he raped a woman and bashed his wife. Ultra Tune defends their decision to feature a convicted rapist in their ad because Tyson has appeared in other movies.

Sean Buckley gives money to sports

The letter goes on to boast about Sean Buckley’s “generous support” of local combat sports that would “simply cease to exist”, with athletes who “would not be able to realise their dreams within this sporting arena”. It is unclear what any of this has to do with complaints about Ultra Tune’s consistently sexually exploitative advertising.

Sexism sells so Ultra Tune will continue to profit from sexploitation

Ms Plumpton then argues the sexist advertising is effective, resulting in a steady growth in sales. Evidently ethics and corporate social responsibility have little weight so long as Ultra Tune can profit from the exploitation of women.

 The letter concludes as follows:

“We take all of our complaints very seriously and whilst we disagree with your thoughts on our advertisement, we would like to extend to you a $200 voucher that you (or your family) can use in the next 12 months at any of our Ultra Tune centres throughout Australia.”

Ultra Tune believes that they can convince consumers to overlook their sexist advertising with a mere $200.

TAKE ACTION:

Have you made a complaint to Ultra Tune? Contact their Head Office today and ask for your $200 voucher: ultraho@ultratune.com.au

Sign and share Brianna Louwen’s petition to Ultra Tune Head Office

Men respond to Ultra Tune sexism- Collective Shout

Watch Mike Tyson’s awkward interview on Sunrise