Your Daily Outrage

 Latest banned, blamed or outraged



  ASA uses its scissors...

PC censor bans Femfresh bikini line shaving advert


Link Here 12th July 2017

femfesh advert video A Video on Demand (VOD) ad for Femfresh bikini line shaving products, seen on ITV Player and 4oD in March and April 2017, featured several women, who were wearing briefs and swimwear, dancing. It included multiple close-up shots of the women's crotches.

Seventeen complainants, who believed that the ad objectified women and portrayed them in an overly sexualised way, objected that it was offensive and socially irresponsible.

ASA Assessment: Complaints upheld

The ASA noted that Church & Dwight had received advice from Clearcast, which set out Clearcast's view that the ad was OK for VOD. However, we noted that the advertiser had primary responsibility for ensuring that VOD ads complied with the CAP Code.

The ad promoted products for shaving the bikini line, and given their intended use, it was relevant for the ad to focus on that area of the body and show women wearing swimwear and fitness wear that exposed it. We also noted that many of the dance moves used in the routine reflected those that might be seen in some exercise classes. However, overall we considered that the dance sequence was highly sexualised, in the style of a music video, and featured many thrusting dance moves. The ad focused to a large extent on the women's crotches, with relatively few shots of their faces, and some of them wore high-cut swimsuits that were more exposing than many swimsuits. Even taking into account the nature of the product, we considered that it had been presented in an overly-sexualised way that objectified women. We concluded that the ad was likely to cause serious or widespread offence and therefore breached the Code.

The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Church & Dwight Ltd not to use advertising that objectified women and which was likely to cause serious or widespread offence to promote their products.

 

  Naked extremism...

PC censors object to trivial nudity in an advert for bathroom installers


Link Here 23rd June 2017

hds virtual tour advertTwo website ads for HDS Builders:

  • a. A virtual tour link for a bathroom installation on www.hdsbuilders.co.uk, seen on 21 March 2017, featured an image of a naked woman showering.

  • b. A still image from the virtual tour, showing the naked woman, with the option to click on the tour, was seen on the home page of www.wetroomswales.co.uk on 15 May 2017.

A complainant challenged whether the image of the naked woman in ads (a) and (b) was offensive and unsuitable for display in an untargeted medium.

HDS Builders said people did not shower wearing clothing and therefore the image of the naked woman showering was appropriate for a virtual tour of a bathroom installation. They appreciated that some people might not find the image acceptable, but no intimate body parts were visible and they did not believe it was indecent.

ASA Assessment: Complaint upheld

The ASA acknowledged that someone using a shower would be naked, but considered that it was not essential to use such an image in order to explain how a shower worked or to highlight a bathroom installation. Although the image had some relevancy to a bathroom and shower, we nonetheless considered it was likely to be seen as sexist and to demean women by using their physical features for no other reason than to draw attention to the advertising.

The woman was fully nude, shown full length side on, with her bottom sticking out, her back arched and with some of her breast visible under her folded arms. In light of the nudity, we considered the pose was provocative and could be seen to be sexually suggestive with the tone further enhanced in the virtual tour in ad (a) because it was possible to freeze the image, zoom in and out and change the angle.

We considered that, because the websites were for a builder, consumers would not expect to see a naked woman either on the home page of ad (b) or at the start of the virtual tour in ads (a) and (b), and the image had the potential to be seen by many people who were likely to find it offensive.

We therefore concluded that the ads were inappropriately targeted and, because of the amount of nudity and the woman's sexually provocative pose, the image was likely to cause serious offence.

The ads must not appear again in their current form. We told HDS Builders not to use similar images in its advertising in future.

 

 Offsite Article: Enough with this ghettoisation of culture...


Link Here 5th June 2017
Magpie Murders The cultural appropriation panic is ugly, censorious and divisive. By Andrew Doyle

See article from spiked-online.com