With no enforcement laws in place, South Australians can expect to see this van again

We CAN change this - sign the petition here!

Wicked Camper Van with South Australian registration S 388 BSU with the words “if you want to toughen up grow a vagina - those things can really take a pounding” on the rear of the vehicle.

But with no laws to enforce the ruling, South Australians can expect to see this van again

We can change this - Sign the petition today!

Slogan includes "I GOT A DIG BICK / YOU THAT READ WRONG / YOU READ THAT WRONG TOO." On the side of the van is a picture of a rooster and the words "MASSIVE COCK."

"We're a target;" Sex shop boss says she will ignore Ad Standards 

Exact examples of these poster advertisements cannot be found. For more info about the long history of Honey Birdette's highly sexualised, porn themed shop front windows click here.

Honey Birdette is a serial sexploitation offender. The sex shop, located in shopping centres around the country, has attracted hundreds of complaints for its sexist advertising. Ad Standards has investigated complaints over almost thirty separate advertisements, upholding half, but Honey Birdette continues to sexually objectify women.

Last year, father and Collective Shout supporter Kenneth Thor launched a petition calling on Westfield shopping centres to stop Honey Birdette’s porn-themed advertising, but to date Westfield has failed to take any action. Enough is enough- Westfield must act on Honey Birdette sexual exploitation of women.

In this blog, we’ve compiled responses to some of the more common defences of Honey Birdette sexism.

1. "You see more flesh at the beach"

In response to Kenneth Thor's petition to Westfield, Honey Birdette founder Eloise Monaghan claimed, “You see more flesh at Bondi at 10 am.” Monaghan has clearly missed the point.

The presence of female flesh alone does not constitute sexual objectification. The inclusion of attractive women in an ad campaign does not constitute sexual objectification.

Sexual objectification occurs when a person, often a woman, is treated as a body, or series of body parts for others’ use and consumption, when her physical attributes and sexual capabilities are regarded as representative of her whole self or seen as determining her worth.

Commenting on Honey Birdette advertising, Australian researcher Dr. Meagan Tyler said:

"These are not just images of women's breasts, they are sexually objectified and commodified images of women's breasts in public space. These representations of women, that reduce us to consumable body parts, reduce our recognition of women's full humanity and make it more difficult for women to participate in public life."

As Dr Linda Papadopolous stated in Sexualisation of Young People Review:

“Although sexual objectification is but one form of gender oppression, it is one that factors into- and perhaps enables- a host of other oppressions women face, ranging from employment discrimination and sexual violence to the trivialisation of women’s work and accomplishments.”

Honey Birdette routinely promotes the sexual objectification of women in their floor to ceiling porn-themed advertising, featuring hyper-sexualised depictions of women’s bodies or even just parts of their bodies. The women in Honey Birdette advertising are portrayed as though they are for men’s pleasure, defined only by their sexual appeal and availability. The message is that women exist for men’s enjoyment and entertainment.

Objection to the sexual objectification of women is not an objection to women, nor is it an objection to women’s bodies. It is an opposition to sexism, to corporates who profit from the sexual exploitation of women and have the audacity to claim they are empowering women in the process.

2. "It's just women expressing their sexuality"

If Honey Birdette advertising is an expression of female sexuality, “for women, by women”, then why is it indistinguishable from the content in men’s softcore porn magazines?

Honey Birdette promotes a very narrow view of female sexuality, one in which youthful, slender, and typically white-skinned women are depicted as passive objects of male desire. Female sexuality as represented by Honey Birdette entails women being sexually appealing to men, exposing their bodies and mimicking porn-inspired poses and acts. How does this differ from the sexually objectifying depictions of women for a male audience? Essentially, it doesn’t.

In her TED talk about growing up in a ‘porn culture’, Professor Gail Dines encouraged the audience to critically analyse porn-inspired depictions of women in media and advertising. Pointing to a hyper-sexualised image of a female model, she said:

“Look at her clothes, look at her face, look at her posture, and look at her gaze...who is she speaking to? Because the notion is that every image has a reader in mind. Before you answer, do you think she’s speaking to her mother, saying, ‘Let’s go for a cup of coffee after the photo shoot?’ So who is she talking to? Who is she speaking to? Men. And what is she saying? ‘F*ck me’.”

Who is the ‘reader’ or the intended audience in Honey Birdette ads? And what is being communicated to them?        

Note the differing treatment of men and women in Honey Birdette ad campaigns. Lingerie clad women are posed alongside fully clothed men. What does this unequal treatment represent? Naomi Wolf, author of The Beauty Myth said, “Cross-culturally, unequal nakedness almost always expresses power relations.” 

It is in Honey Birdette’s interest to reframe their commodification of female bodies and sexuality as ‘female sexuality’ or ‘empowerment’. “For women, by women” may be a great marketing hook, but the promotion of sexist stereotypes and sexually objectifying imagery of women does not become an ‘expression of female sexuality’ simply because a company with vested financial interests says so.

3. "You're just easily offended"

This is not an issue of offence or personal taste. Our opposition to Honey Birdette’s constant sexually exploitative depictions of women is not on the basis of offence, but documented evidence of harm.

Representations of women that reduce women to mere sexual objects, as sexually available and existing for men’s use are problematic not because some people might be offended but because they cause harm, primarily to women and children.

Researcher Rebecca Whisnant distinguishes between offence and harm. Offence is “something that happens in one’s head”, whereas harm is “an objective condition, not a way of feeling; to be harmed is to have one’s interests set back, to be made worse off, to have one’s circumstances made worse than they were...Whether a person is harmed does not depend on how she feels.”

The harms of sexually objectifying portrayals of women are well established. A review of twenty years of research, from 109 publications containing 135 studies found:

“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.”

Honey Birdette’s attempts to paint those who object to their routine sexual exploitation of women as easily offended, prudish or even religious fundamentalists is a deliberate tactic to silence those who might threaten their profits, and to avoid engaging in meaningful discussions about the harms to women and children from the very sexual objectification they promote.

4. "It has no impact on kids"

Some people believe that children are unaffected by floor to ceiling soft-porn advertising in public spaces, such as Honey Birdette shopfront advertising. This view is not supported by the international research into the sexualisation of children and its corresponding harms.

Sexualisation of children refers to the imposition of adult models of sexual behaviour and sexuality on to children and adolescents at developmentally inappropriate stages and in opposition to the healthy development of sexuality. It encompasses sexual objectification and representation of children in adult sexual ways and in ways that imply the child’s value is dependent on conforming to a particular appearance, sexual display or behaviours. Children may also experience secondary sexualisation through exposure to sexualised advertising material and products aimed at adult consumers- like Honey Birdette shopping centre advertising. 

Pic credit MTR/Caters Media

The harms of sexualisation are extensive. In its 2007 Task Force into the sexualisation of girls the American Psychological Association concluded there was “ample evidence to show that sexualisation has negative effects in a variety of domains including: cognitive functioning, physical and mental health, sexuality and beliefs”.

Harms from exposure to sexualised content

There is a “growing body of evidence” of the harms to children from exposure to adult sexual content. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists noted that premature exposure to adult sexual images and values has a negative impact on the psychological development of children, in terms of self-esteem, body image and understanding of sexuality and relationships.

The objectification of women in media and advertising puts pressure on girls and women to conform to stereotypical sexualised beauty ideals. According to RANZCP, exposure to sexualising messages contributes to girls defining their self-worth in terms of sexual attractiveness, and the “excessive focus on appearance and narrow definition of attractiveness” contributes to the development of abnormal eating patterns and lack of positive body image.

Links between sexist advertising and violence against women

The NSW Government acknowledged the links between media and advertising reinforcing sexist and stereotypical gender roles and men’s violence against women in their 2016 report on sexualisation:

“The exposure to media representation of genders...can provide templates for what it means to be a boy/man (equated with sexual conquest and entitlement to access women’s bodies) and girl/woman (sexually available).”

“The NSW Government further maintains, in line with the National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and their Children 2010-2022, that such stereotyping contributes to attitudes that support or justify violence against women and girls.”

Honey Birdette targets kids

So far, complaints have been made against 28 Honey Birdette advertisements, with rulings against the retailer on 13 occasions. Children around the country are exposed to Honey Birdette advertising every day. Honey Birdette is well aware of parents' concerns for their children, as outlined in frequent complaints, but it is clear the wellbeing of children is not a priority for them.

In addition to their standard sexually objectifying advertising material, Honey Birdette have gone out of their way to attract the attention of children in their advertising in public spaces. Several Christmas ad campaigns have included imagery of beloved children’s figure Santa alongside lingerie clad women, in various BDSM themed scenarios. One advertisement even addressed children directly, with the slogan ‘Sorry Kids! We gave Santa the night off.’ Honey Birdette founder Eloise Monaghan dismissed complaints about the “fun” Santa campaign, commenting, “You can’t please everyone.” 

The retailer continued to put profits before the rights of children, refusing to take down the ad even after Ad Standards had found it was in breach. “Nobody tells Honey B’s when to take down her signage”, the brand posted on their Facebook page. 

The harms of sexualisation of children are well established and significant. We know that sexualisation presents a threat to the health and wellbeing of children, yet Honey Birdette arrogantly and repeatedly breaches the AANA code of ethics, showing a complete disregard for the most vulnerable members of our society.

SONY has blocked the Western release of an 'adult role-playing game' that saw the player undress schoolgirls and fondle their breasts while on a quest for the holy grail.

The Video Standards Council (VSC) objected to its "setting within a 'school' environment”, saying it "clearly promotes the sexualisation of children via the sexual interaction between the game player and the female characters."

Collective Shout has campaigned for the end of the sexualisation of girls in pop culture, the media and mainstream marketing over the past decade. For instance, in 2016,6 Amazon was marketing a ‘Sexy Nurse Toddler T-Shirt', where the shirt had drawn in a fake cleavage, available in sizes for 2-6-year-old girls. Just recently, Collective Shout helped to remove child sex dolls from Amazon’s website. For a long time, Amazon has contributed to a culture of sexual abuse by allowing the sale of novels that normalises paedophilia. The sale of such dolls and similar material has earned Amazon a spot on the NCOSE's Dirty Dozen List for the past two years.

Content warning: This post contains content that may be distressing. 

Yesterday we exposed budget shopping app Wish selling a range of child sex dolls. We were pleased when the company responded quickly, promising to remove the child sex dolls and take action against the sellers. But then we learned more.

How long have Wish known about child sex dolls?

The response from Wish on our Facebook page suggested they were not aware of the items that had “made it onto [their] platform” and that they were committed to removing such items “when [they] find them”.

But what about products they have verified for quality, like this sex doll complete with a blue tick? Did they know about them?

Yesterday we learned Wish has been selling inappropriate products for some time. One woman recounted deleting the app after being confronted with plastic vaginas for sale, one of which was a ‘child’ model. Another woman commenting on our Facebook page described how her twelve-year-old son using the app was confronted by ads for sex toys, despite providing his age upon sign up.

Child sex dolls were only the beginning

Since releasing yesterday’s blog post, we have discovered a substantial array of disturbing products available for purchase on Wish. In addition to child sex dolls, we have found realistic silicone replica vaginas, female torsos and backsides, replica female mouths and throats, disembodied child sex doll legs, feet, and heads for sale, all for men’s sexual use.

Activist Melinda Liszewski documented the chilling range of lifelike replica body parts for sale on a Twitter thread, noting the rave reviews from male consumers. View the images here- Warning, graphic content.

We have also discovered hidden spy cams for purchase alongside imagery depicting a man secretly filming a woman as she undresses. This criminal violation of women’s privacy is now a popular genre of pornography.

Wish is a major international company, with over 30 million followers on Facebook alone. The app is rated 12+, appropriate for users aged twelve and up. How could a major company be so negligent? And what are they doing about it?

It's not enough to simply remove child sex dolls from sale. All of the replica body parts modelled on the bodies of women and children for men's sexual use must go, and Wish needs to implement a policy to prevent this happening ever again.

Call to Action

Delete your Wish account.

Contact Wish on Facebook, Twitter, or via Customer Support (if you have the app).

Report individual items at report-abuse@wish.com 

Got an iPhone? Hop on the App Store and leave a review, or contact the App Store on Twitter. 

If you have an Android phone, visit Google Play to leave a review or report the app, and contact them on Twitter.

Update: Wish promises to remove child sex dolls from sale, but what about other replica body parts meant for men's sexual use?

Wish has responded in the comment thread on our Facebook post as follows: 

*  *  *

Content warning: This post contains content that may be distressing. 

Budget shopping app Wish is selling a range of child sex dolls for men to simulate sexual abuse.

The dolls, which are designed to look like pre-teen girls, are often between 100 and 130 cm tall, with emphasis on their “flat chest”. They are deliberately posed in such a way as to emphasise their youth and innocence, shyly looking away from the camera and tilting their heads in a childlike way. Their vulnerability is accentuated in images of them sitting cross-legged on a bed in their knickers, or naked in the bath. There is a suggestion of sexuality, with singlet straps falling off shoulders, fingers lingering over mouths, or shorts pulled down to reveal themselves. 

Product descriptions of the dolls emphasise how “real” they feel:

“Buying a sex doll can be a daunting task at first, but understanding the various types and benefits of each will make your decision easier. Sex dolls are made with natural, safe, real silicone so that each gorgeous girl feels real.”

Even sex dolls with large, porn-inspired out of proportion breasts still appear very childlike. One wears a cropped Pikachu t-shirt, from the cartoon Pokemon.

These items exist to aid users in their fantasies of raping children. The very sale of these dolls is an endorsement of paedophilia. Why is Wish promoting crimes of violence against children?

Wish is not an obscure website. Its Facebook page alone has almost 30 million followers. A major shopping app recommended for users aged 12 and above is profiting from the sale of child sex dolls. We cannot accept this.

Call to Action

Delete your Wish account.

Contact Wish on Facebook, Twitter, or via Customer Support (if you have the app).

Got an iPhone? Hop on the App Store and leave a review, or contact the App Store on Twitter.

If you have an Android phone, visit Google Play to leave a review or report the app, and contact them on Twitter.

Sexualised Beatles lyrics printed on Wicked Camper

A group of young female high school students have called out Frank Body over the skincare company’s product, “Send Nudes” lip and cheek tint.

The Year 9 and 10 girls shared their concerns in a post on Fusion Morning Peninsula’s Facebook page:

Dear Frank Body,

I am speaking on behalf of a group of 15 girls aged 14 to 16 from a Secondary School located on the Mornington Peninsula. We would like to enquire about your 'Send Nudes' lip and cheek tint, and specifically why you would ever see it appropriate to name a product 'send nudes'.

We all love your products, but sadly, this one is just a reminder of the undesired sexualisation that has become so 'normalised' by people and companies like yourself. And no, this name is not just 'banta' (sic) it's not a joke, and we believe it is time for you to take initiative in valuing your consumers. You stated in your marketing description that 'Unlike most men, you know how to listen'. That is quite a brave statement to make for a company who's product campaign reflects the objectifying and disempowerment of girls. If you care about your customers, about encouraging teenage girls to be more than sexualised objects, then you will act by changing the name of this product.

Sincerely, a group of year 9 & 10 girls from the Mornington Peninsula

The brand has a long history of sharing sleazy and sexist imagery and content on its social media. Sexualised images of young women covered in dirt, or just parts of their bodies are frequently shared alongside double entendres such as “Whipped for your convenience”, “Party in your birthday suit”, “Guess what? You’ll be naked in one minute” and “There’s a party in my package”.

But there is a growing groundswell for change, made of women and girls who will no longer tolerate sexual exploitation and objectification from companies trying to flog their products.

It’s so heartening to see young girls speaking out, calling out the companies who sexualise and objectify them. We hope Frank Body gets the message.

The Child Rescue Coalition has warned parents about the risks of posting intimate photos of their children, as well as using certain hashtags that can be accessed and misused by predators. It is a reminder to parents to take great care when posting images of their children on social media, to consider their privacy settings and possible risks to their children.

#ToddlerBikini and the ‘adultification’ of children

Psychologists, health professionals and child advocates have spoken out about the harmful impacts of sexualisation and ‘adultification’ of children. Adultification occurs when children are deliberately posed and styled to appear much older than they are, as high fashion ‘mini-me adults’ in adult attire. There is substantial research to suggest that premature sexualisation or adultification negatively impacts children’s natural development and puts girls at risk of exploitation and abuse.

Given evidence of the harmful impacts of sexualising and adultifying children, the practice by some parents of posting pictures of their female toddlers in skimpy bikinis alongside the hashtag #ToddlerBikini is troubling.

Dr Emma Rush, co-author of the report Corporate Paedophilia, told ABC: 

“Children are not a reflection of the adult’s personal style...they’re not a miniature adult, they’re not a fashion accessory, they’re a developing human being and they need the cultural space to be just that.”

Photo sharing and risks to children

Once the image has been shared publicly, the owner no longer has control over it. A study by Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) revealed that 88% of sexual or suggestive images and videos posted by young people on social media sites are being stolen by ‘parasite’ porn sites. Of the 12,224 images and videos monitored on 68 different websites, 10,776 were later found on parasite websites. Parents need to be aware that once posted online, they may no longer retain control of where their child’s image ends up or how it might be used.

The sharing of sexualised images of girls puts them at risk from paedophiles. In 2015 we published a piece by dance teacher and writer Jemma Nicoll, who exposed the exploitation of girls in the dance industry. Nicoll followed the Instagram account of a prominent US dancewear company, California Kisses, which featured highly sexualised images of young girls, as young as 5-7, sometimes alongside suggestive slogans.

(Note: ‘Pop that’ refers to the ‘popping’ of a girl’s cherry or the taking of her virginity. It is a popular porn genre.)

The company’s recklessness didn’t end there, with California Kisses failing to moderate frequent sexual and predatory comments from adult men directed towards female children, including requests for sexual acts.

The devastating emotional impact on children

Just this week, a woman has won her fight to get nude photos taken of her as a child removed from several prominent New Zealand art galleries. The victim claimed the photos, taken by her artist mother, were “child pornography masquerading as art”, calling on the Government to protect children from exploitation.

In her submission to the Film and Literature Board, the victim indicated the photographs represented her in a way that was harmful, and that as a naked child model she was subject to a power imbalance and unable to render consent.

The woman, who was also a victim of child sexual abuse, told the board that if the images were to outlive her they “will continue to remind her of that time of her life, oppressing and humiliating her.”

The Board banned two photos. The first picture suggested “sexual availability and experience”, with the victim “made up to look older than her years”, found the board. The second banned photograph was taken when the victim was 10.

Board President Rachel Schmidt-McCleave stated:

“The image seeks to make a statement about sexual availability and power that ought not to be made in the case of a child or young person. There is no doubt that depiction of a child in this way... is injurious.”

“The board is of the view that depicting young persons being older than they are and being sexually available normalises the sexualisation of young women and forms part of a continuous desensitising of the public to the sexualisation of children and young people and is therefore harmful to those children and injurious to the public good.”

See also:

Australia’s #NextTopPredator: Reality TV Show soliciting sexy selfies from girls

Witchery adultifies children in latest kidswear catalogue: Child experts and advocates say ‘Let children be children’