Advertising Standards Bureau Review of Operations 2014 | Page 39

Sex, sexuality and nudity
(Section 2.4, AANA Code
of Ethics)
The use of sex, sexuality and nudity in advertising
generally attracts the most complaints compared
to any other section of the Code. In 2014, this
issue raised only 14.27 per cent of complaints.
Down significantly from previous years when the
issue has been the subject of up to 45 per cent of
complaints (2010).
The Board considers the relevant audience with
Section 2.4 and particularly distinguishing
between acceptability of content within public
domains which children may be exposed to
(such as billboards) as opposed to other forms
of media which may be more restrictive, such as
internet sites and TV advertisements with timing
restrictions. In considering cases under Section
2.4, the Board will also consider the relevance
the sex, sexuality or nudity has to the product or
service being promoted. In general, using these
themes to promote sex shops or lingerie products
will be more understandable as the imagery relates
to what is sold.

Product relevance
The Board’s view about the relevance of images
and concepts used in promoting products and
services remained strict in 2014.
Concerns were raised about the images of women
used by a coffee company (Fresh One - 0213/14)
in the form of posts on the Facebook page of the
advertiser. The Board upheld complaints against
each of the six posts finding them to breach the
Code in relation to Sections 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5 and
2.6. Three images were found to breach the Code
in relation to Section 2.4.
One image featured a woman viewed from
behind, wearing only a g-string with her
thumbs hooked in the sides and appeared to be
in the act of pulling her underwear down. The
accompanying text was, “A Freshy will leave you
feeling pleasured and guilt free after the grind”.
Another image was of a woman kneeling in front
of a man with accompanying text, “Ain’t nothing
like a morning Fresh One. I’ve been waiting to

Review of Operations 2014

explode in your mouth all morning. Let us treat
you to a Fresh One.” In the Board’s view both
posts were sexually suggestive and did not treat
sex with sensitivity to a relevant audience of
Facebook active adults interested in coffee, and
was also overly and clearly sexualised to an extent
that was unacceptable.
The third image found to breach the Code in
relation to Section 2.4 was of a coffee cup with
the Fresh One logo, a cat in a washtub and a
cockerel. The text accompanying the image
read, “What do you get when you mix a cock
and a wet pussy?” The Board view was that the

accompanying language was a direct reference to
colloquial descriptions of both male and female
genitalia and that the combination of images and
text amounted to an overall depiction that was a
strong sexual reference and not appropriate for the
relevant audience of Facebook active adults who
are expecting to see content related to coffee and
coffee beans.
Different images of naked women on a vehicle
advertisement and on a billboard (Enhance Clinic
– vehicle 0029/14 and billboard 0030/14) resulted
in opposing views from the Board. Its view of
an image on the bonnet of the vehicle where the
woman’s breasts were covered by her hands and no
detail of the breasts were visible and on the side
of the vehicle where the image was not clear, was
that neither were overtly sexualised and that the
images were relevant to the advertised product.
However, the Board’s view of the billboard image
was not as positive. The billboard featured an
image of a naked woman with her hand between
her legs. The woman’s hand and genital region
were hidden by a love-heart shaped sticker. The
Board view was that although the love­‑heart is
placed over the woman’s genital region, her hand
is still clearly placed over her genital area which
made it appear as if she was touching herself
intimately rather than covering herself, and
considered that this made the image sexualised.
The Board had previously determined that the
same image without the sticker breached the
Code and considered that the sticker had not
effectively addressed the concerns previously
raised and that the image still had a sexualised
tone that was not relevant to the product.

Highlighting the importance of product relevance
was the view of the Board in an advertisement
where viewers see a bare breasted woman
singing “I touch myself ” (Cancer Council NSW
- 0195/14). Ten Australian female artists, sing
Chrissy Amphlett’s song ‘I Touch Myself ’. The
head and shoulders of the women are seen and
they appear not to be wearing tops. There is no
actual nudity other than in the M rated version
of the advertisement, where a woman is seen
naked to the waist. The woman has undergone
reconstructive surgery following breast cancer.
The Board view was that the aim of the campaign
was to increase community awareness of breast
cancer and the importance of self-examination
and that the advertisement was not sexually
suggestive in any way and considered in the
context of a community awareness campaign
about breast cancer, the level of nudity shown was
not inappropriate.
Breast feeding is a natural activity and the Board
takes a consistent view of scenes depicting women
feeding their children (La Trobe University
- 0290/14 and Nutricia Australasia Pty Ltd 0237/14). Its view in these cases was that in the
context of an image of a woman breastfeeding a
baby the level of nudity in the advertisement was
not inappropriate for a broad audience which
would include children.
Each year the Board consistently receives
complaints regarding the use of sex, sexuality
and nudity in the promotion of lingerie. The
Board continues to note that it is reasonable for
an advertiser to depict its products, particularly
lingerie, being modelled in its advertising.
In 2014, the Board dismissed complaints under
Section 2.4 regarding models in lingerie and
underwear (Pacific Brands Holdings Pty Ltd –
114/14, 0385/14, 514/14, Aussiebum – 0105/14,
Myer Pty Ltd – 0347/14, Target Australia Pty
Ltd – 0108/14 and 0344/14, Capri Body Fashions
– 0109/14, Bras n’ Things – 0130/14 and 0419/14,
Woolworths Supermarkets – 0349/14, Honey
Birdette – 0460/14). In these cases, the Board
considered the imagery of models in lingerie to
be appropriate considering the product sold, the
images were not overly sexualised and that they
did not use inappropriate nudity or exposure.

37