Download 0178/15 - Advertising Standards Bureau

Case Report
1
2
3
4
5
6
Case Number
Advertiser
Product
Type of Advertisement / media
Date of Determination
DETERMINATION
0178/15
Centrefold Lounge/Men's Gallery
Sex Industry
Billboard
10/06/2015
Dismissed
ISSUES RAISED
2.1 - Discrimination or Vilification Gender
2.2 - Objectification Exploitative and degrading - women
2.4 - Sex/sexuality/nudity S/S/N - general
DESCRIPTION OF THE ADVERTISEMENT
This outdoor billboard on Brunton Avenue and Punt Road corner features an image of two
women dressed in show-girl style costumes under the title "Men's Gallery - pure pleasure".
The women are wearing feathered/jewelled headdresses and sparkly costumes and are visible
from their mid-torsos upwards.
THE COMPLAINT
A sample of comments which the complainant/s made regarding this advertisement included
the following:
I have two concerns with this particular advertisement.
1. The impression from the advertisement, especially given the location of the text, is that the
women in the picture are there for men's pleasure only. By extrapolation it reads women are
there for men's pleasure - and by the provocative poses, as sexual objects for men's pleasure.
This would seem to contravene Australia's Human Rights Agreement with the United Nations
that men and women be treated equally. Were the text to state "Men and Women's Gallery"
the equity issue may be alleviated though the representation of women as sexual objects for
pleasure would not.
2. The advertisement is highly prominent for anyone standing on Platform 10 at Richmond
Station including hundreds of children on their way to school (eg Melbourne Girls' College,
St Kevin's Boys College, Xavier Boys). The high visibility in such a public space suggests that
the idea of "women being available for men's pleasure" alone is acceptable in our society.
Both young women and men are growing up with this subversive view of our community
rather than the equal society that everyone is working so hard to create.
THE ADVERTISER’S RESPONSE
Comments which the advertiser made in response to the complainant/s regarding this
advertisement include the following:
In relation to the complaint regarding the billboard please note that:
• The billboard has been advertising The Men’s Gallery for 20 years now, with only two
previous complaints to our knowledge. The last complaint was 7 years ago in 2008 and was
satisfactorily resolved – a record should be on your files.
• The images shown on the billboard are not out of line with community standards or family
offensive. In fact many billboards advertising lingerie, shoes and other products are far more
revealing and sexually suggestive.
• This isolated complaint mounts an irrational argument based on the statement the Billboard
says “pure viewing pleasure” and argues men are the only “viewers” the only ones allowed
to derive “pleasure”
• Our billboard does not use the word “viewing” Rather it says “Pure Pleasure” that
pleasure can be experienced by the entertainers as depicted by the powerful showgirls in the
picture who are clearly happy.
• The general population, including children are constantly exposed to far more revealing
and suggestive images everyday on television, the internet etc. Most would not give our
billboards a second glance. Like all advertising it is pitched only at our potential customers
who are both male and female.
• The billboard does not promote any form of sexual services. In fact the venue does not offer
sexual services, just another form of upmarket nightclub entertainment for an adult male and
female clientele.
• As you would well be aware, a small minority of people with conservative religious beliefs
attempt to force their views on the majority. However, there is plenty of evidence to suggest
that a repressive censorship regime result in a great deal of social harm.
I trust that this response provides your bureau with sufficient information to be able to
dismiss this isolated complaint.
THE DETERMINATION
The Advertising Standards Board (“Board”) considered whether this advertisement breaches
Section 2 of the Advertiser Code of Ethics (the “Code”).
The Board noted the complainant’s concerns that the advertisement features inappropriate
images of women and suggests that women are objects for the pleasure of men.
The Board viewed the advertisement and noted the advertiser’s response.
The Board considered whether the advertisement complied with Section 2.1 of the Code
which requires that 'advertisements shall not portray or depict material in a way which
discriminates against or vilifies a person or section of the community on account of race,
ethnicity, nationality, gender, age, sexual preference, religion, disability, mental illness or
political belief.'
The Board noted this billboard advertisement features two women in elaborate cabaret
costume. The costumes include fancy head dress with feathers and sparkles. The women are
seen smiling and waving and the text around the image reads “The Men’s Gallery Pure
Pleasure.”
The Board noted that it had recently considered images on a vehicle (0230/15) that included
images of women in bikinis and in that case considered that …”although the women are
scantily clad, they are not portrayed in a way that discriminates or vilifies a person or section
of the community on account of their gender…”
Similar to the decision above, the Board noted that the women in this advertisement are
dressed in a manner consistent with performance costume and elaborate outfits for dance. The
Board considered the use of the term “pure pleasure” and agreed that the proximity of the
words close to the image does not amount to a suggestion that the woman are there only for
the pleasure of men and does not amount to a portrayal that discriminates or vilifies a person
or section of the community on account of their gender.
The Board determined that the advertisement did not breach Section 2.1 of the Code.
The Board considered whether the advertisement was in breach of Section 2.2 of the Code.
Section 2.2 of the Code states: “Advertising or marketing communications should not employ
sexual appeal in a manner which is exploitative and degrading of any individual or group of
people.”
The Board noted that in order to be in breach this section of the Code the image would need
to use sexual appeal in a manner that is both exploitative and degrading.
The Board noted that the women are portrayed as dancers or entertainers and that they are
clearly covered by their clothing and fancy headdress. The Board noted the image is
consistent with adult entertainment advertising and that it is not unreasonable for advertisers
to use attractive models in promotions of their venue. The Board considered that although the
models are surrounded by text with details of the Gentlemen’s Club, the use of women in
advertising for such a venue does not necessarily amount to a depiction that is exploitative or
degrading and in this case considered that the overall tone is one of entertainment and fun and
does not amount to a depiction that is exploitative and degrading and does not breach Section
2.2 of the Code.
The Board determined that the advertisement did not breach Section 2.2 of the Code.
The Board then considered whether the advertisement was in breach of Section 2.4 of the
Code. Section 2.4 of the Code states: “Advertising or Marketing Communications shall treat
sex, sexuality and nudity with sensitivity to the relevant audience”.
The Board noted the location of the billboard above a building in a non-residential area was
not inappropriate. The Board noted the complainants concerns that the billboard could be
viewed by commuters, including children using the nearby train station. The Board
considered that the placement of the billboard near a public train station was not
inappropriate and noted that as the women are fully dressed, and not posed in a sexual way.
The Board considered that the advertisement did treat the issue of sex, sexuality and nudity
with sensitivity to the relevant audience and did not breach Section 2.4 of the Code.
Finding that the advertisement did not breach the Code on other grounds, the Board
dismissed the complaint.