Advertising Standards Bureau - Review of Operations 2013 | Page 40

display in a public place where the broad audience
could include children. The Board determined
the advertisement did not treat sex, sexuality and
nudity with sensitivity to the relevant audience
and upheld complaints in this instance.
Images of children modelling clothing were
considered in advertisements for Kotton Kandy
(0138/13), Mambo (0424/13) and Witchery
(0340/13). Complaints received concerned the
sexualisation of children with particular note of
the poses, clothing choice and make-up worn by
children. The Board determined that these images
were not sexualised or inappropriate, but noted
that advertisers should take care when using
images of children in advertising.

Depictions of babies in advertising also raised
community concern in 2013 with complaints
for Citroen Automobiles (0298/13 & 0308/13),
Vodafone Network (0338/13) and Bayer Australia
(0233/13). The Citroen Automobiles campaign
featured a baby riding a horse and was considered
unrealistic and fantastical by the Board. The
advertisement for Vodafone featured three women
with superimposed faces of babies dancing down
a street. The Board found this imagery was not
sexualised or inappropriate. Finally, the Bayer
Australia advertisement which featured a baby’s
nappy being changed was not inappropriate as the
image was fleeting and a certain level of nudity in
relation to young babies was considered acceptable
by the community. In these cases, the Board found
the advertisements did not breach Section 2.4 of
the Code as they treated sex, sexuality and nudity
with sensitivity to the relevant audience.

Animal themes
The Board dismissed four cases in 2013 relating
to sexualised imagery with animal themes. A
Burger Urge (0036/13) internet advertisement
featured a woman licking the face of a cow, with
the tagline get intimate with our new premium
beef. Although the Board agreed that the
advertisement could be considered distasteful,
the Board considered that most members of
the community would recognise the image
was digitally manufactured and was not overly
provocative and dismissed complaints.
Several complaints raised concern over a Chrysler

38

campaign (0165/13 & 0166/13) where a dog
humps a man’s leg. Some complaints raised
concern over the sexualised action of dog, however
the Board considered this to be a natural animal
behaviour and not inappropriate to be shown
on television. The Board also considered an
advertisement where a koala is depicted clinging
to a pole and implies it is pole dancing (WIRES
– 0088/13). In this instance, the Board considered
that the focus is on the koala and the need to care
for koalas rather than the pole dancing aspect and
that the overall sexual tone of the advertisement
is not so sexualised as to be inappropriate for a
PG audience.

Tasteful nudity
Certain levels of nudity can be considered
acceptable by the Board if they are presented in
a tasteful manner and do not expose genitalia
or contain overly sexualised content. Several
advertisements for toiletries products such
as shower gel (Unilever Australia – 0254/13,
Colgate Palmolive – 0273/13), body moisturiser
(Pharmacare Laboratories – 0256/13) and
skincare products (Ella Bache – 0336/13) were
deemed acceptable by the Board due to tasteful
nudity which was not overly sexualised.
Two cases where the use of nudity crossed the
line of acceptability are a poster for Naughty But
Nice (0306/13), and a transport advertisement
for Nude Muse Magazine (0216/13). In the case
of Naughty But Nice, the advertisement featured
a woman’s bottom wearing a g-string. Although
genitals were not exposed, and the pose was not
overly sexualised, the Board’s view was that the
level of nudity used in the advertisement was
not appropriate for a broad audience which may
include children. The Nude Muse Magazine
advertisement featured naked women covering
their private areas with parts of their body, their
hair or the vehicle’s number plate. The Board
noted that the images of the women on the car are
very prominent and considered that the mobile
nature of the advertisement made it very likely
that it would be seen by children, and found this
in breach of Section 2.4 of the Code.
Other cases involving nudity which were deemed
acceptable by the Board include Cupid PLC
(0288/13), FOXTEL Management (0249/13),

Muk Hair (0284/13), Spieglworld Empire
(0208/13), Just Cremations (0422/13) and Live
Nation Australia (0107/13). These discreet
portrayals of nudity and sexuality were found by
the Board to be appropriate within the context
of their medium and