Lingerie Ad That is ‘Sexually Suggestive’ Banned for Objectifying Women


    An advertisement for a lingerie shop has been banned by the advertising watchdog because of objectifying women.

    Apparently, a complaint was made to the Advertising Standards Authority regarding an outdoor poster that promoted Silks, a lingerie firm. The ad featured a picture of a woman in her lingerie who was “leaning forward to emphasise her bust.” The photo was accompanied by a text that says “Tease the Season.”

    The poster was seen last December 2017. It showed only the body of the woman and her head and face was not shown.

    The ASA stated: “The purpose of the ad was to advertise a collection of lingerie and therefore we considered it was reasonable to feature a woman in limited amounts of clothing. The ad did not show the model’s face, and focused only on her body which was posed leaning over in a way that emphasised her chest.”

    The agency said that it considered that the pose of the model and the image that was combined with the text saying “Tease the season,” was sexually suggestive, and also determined that “by focusing entirely on the model’s body without showing her head, and in the context of a sexually suggestive pose and byline, the image invited viewers to view the woman’s body as a sexual object.”

    The ASA continued: “For those reasons, we considered that the ad objectified women and we, therefore, considered that it was likely to cause serious or widespread offence.”

    It added: “The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Silks not to use ads that objectified women and that were therefore likely to cause serious or widespread offence.”

    The advertisement has also been referred to the compliance team who was in charge of the implementation of the UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising and Direct & Promotional Marketing. The team was known as the CAP Code.

    Silks is a business that is based in Glasgow. It did not answer to inquiries, and the regulator said that it was “concerned by Silk’s lack of response and apparent disregard for the (advertising) code.”