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 following ads were all given the green light by the Advertising Standards Board. Collective Shout is calling for an advertising industry overhaul. Sign the petition here. 

Earlier this month Melanie and her daughter were shopping in Ringwood when they passed by a hyper-sexualised poster in the front window of a snow boarding store. 

Our motto here at Collective Shout is "Silence is the language of complicity, speaking out is the language of change". And speaking out is exactly what Melanie did. 

We exposed Shade Sunscreen for using sexually objectifying women to advertise their products. Shade Sunscreen’s social media was dominated by sexualised images of women’s bodies and body parts. Following a single complaint, all of their Australian social media sites were suddenly taken down. 

        An ad campaign for Naja lingerie is a great example of advertising that is free from objectification.

The objectification of women is so unremarkable in advertising and popular culture that it’s sometimes hard to envisage what an alternative might look like. Is it possible to advertise lingerie or swimwear without objectifying women, we are asked? Is objectification in the amount of flesh revealed, or is it more than that? Where is the line between women being merely attractive and objectified?

The recent decision of White Ribbon to distance themselves from retailer General Pants could be viewed as a watershed moment for the clothing giant, after many years of contradicting themselves and their ‘empowerment’ of women through vulgar, sexualised and offensive advertising. 

I was recently scrolling through social media when a disturbing sponsored ad showed up in my feed. It instantly didn't sit right with me. Women's body parts were featured coming out of holes in the wall, hands, feet, arms and legs with accessories and clothing dangling off them. There were no heads, no faces, just limbs. 

A UK gym has been called out for sexist billboard advertisements depicting a woman's backside alongside the slogan "There's better things to be stuck behind than the car in front."

Campaigns Manager Caitlin Roper was quoted in the Huffington Post:

“The Board noted the images featuring a topless model next to an elephant. . . . and considered that the model’s nipples are not visible and while there is no need for the model to be topless this is not of itself a breach of the Code.”

The final decision came down to whether a finger hooked in the side of a g-string was “part of the woman’s pose” or intended to look like she's pulling them down