'Masturbating' Lingerie Advertisement Banned

[Lilith]

(submitted by gekkogecko)
Oddly Enough - Reuters to My Yahoo!

LONDON (Reuters) - A magazine advertisement for
lingerie that showed a scantily clad model apparently
masturbating was banned by Britain's Advertising
Standards Authority (ASA) Wednesday for being
offensive.

The ad for model Elle Macpherson's range of lingerie,
which appeared in Vogue fashion magazine, featured a
woman seen through a keyhole with her thumbs inside
her underpants. The woman's face cannot be seen.

"The Authority considered that, because it implied the
woman was masturbating, the advertisement was likely
to cause serious or widespread offence," the ASA said
in a statement after receiving a complaint.

It said the advertisers had been asked not to repeat
the approach. Vogue said it received no complaints
about the ad.

Bendon UK, the company behind Macpherson's lingerie
range, said the advertisement depicted an intimate
moment and that the photograph was "feminine,
luxurious and stylized."

In 2000, the ASA ordered French designer Yves Saint
Laurent to remove billboards for its Opium perfume
that showed alabaster-skinned supermodel Sophie Dahl
reclining in the nude.

[PantyFanatic]

"offensive" ?? :confused:

[jseal]

Lilith,

“The better part of valour is discretion, in the which better part I have saved my life.”
William Shakespeare, ‘King Henry the Fourth, Part I’ (Falstaff, Act V, Scene IV)

The ASA has, by banning a commercial, the showing of which might result in developments similar to what has come to pass here in the States, preserved English freedoms we Americans are in the process of losing. The grossly irresponsible behaviors of Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake have done a disservice to freedom of expression.

Given their recorded talents, it is likely that in 20 years time, the only reference to either will be in legal tomes as footnotes to yet another law encroaching on what had been traditional freedoms.

[dicksbro]

Interesting perspective, jseal.

(BTW, I like the term tomes instead of books. You bring class to the threads! ;))

[PantyFanatic]

YEAH!… Class! ……………(now all we need is some classy readers.:confused: )












;)

[jseal]

dicksbro,

Thank you for your kind words. Alas, as we know, self restrain is not an American forte.

[naughtyangel]

I was gonna add a pic of the ad, but I guess you can't in here?

Anyhow, when I saw it, the thought that she might be masturbating never crossed my mind, to be honest!

[WildIrish]

Where can a guy find a keyhole like that? :D

[way22hot]

Originally posted by jseal
Lilith,

“The better part of valour is discretion, in the which better part I have saved my life.”
William Shakespeare, ‘King Henry the Fourth, Part I’ (Falstaff, Act V, Scene IV)

The ASA has, by banning a commercial, the showing of which might result in developments similar to what has come to pass here in the States, preserved English freedoms we Americans are in the process of losing. The grossly irresponsible behaviors of Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake have done a disservice to freedom of expression.

Given their recorded talents, it is likely that in 20 years time, the only reference to either will be in legal tomes as footnotes to yet another law encroaching on what had been traditional freedoms. I have to differ with your opinion JSeal I don't believe that Janet Jackson did anything wrong . More risque images are on the media everyday .I was watching that program and never realized that that image was in any way offensive till the media took the image and splashed it out of context endlessly
What we have is a media that had a technology that they wanted to use and found a example to shove time delay down our throat .no longer will CNN be able to get a raw story to the public without the scrutony(sp) of the powers that be....

[jseal]

way22hot,

We disagree. Fair enough. Hey, that’s what keeps it interesting!

The covering of Ms. Jackson’s right breast was secured by snaps. Snaps are designed to be used, and reused. Had the inner, red bodice been intended to remain intact, it would have been designed to do so. It was not so designed. I think it is fair to conclude then that Ms. Jackson and Mr. Timberlake knew what was to happen. So much for their truthfulness.

Both of the performers were aware that many millions of people would be watching their performance. Both of the performers were aware that a large fraction of their audience would be young. Indeed, they play to a younger, rather than an older audience. WildIrish posted that he was away from the television during their performance. While anecdotal, this gives credence to this proposition.

Both performers were aware that millions of parents who would allow their children to watch NFL contests also would not allow their children to watch a woman have a man tear off her clothing and expose her breast. These two forced their behavior on millions of people who would otherwise have not watched him do that to her. The only reason those millions of people did watch him do that to her was because they did not anticipate such an event occurring during a professional football game.

In re the time delay technology: I think you are getting the cart before the horse. Companies which want to make money try to keep costs down. Introducing an additional layer of editing, with the required additional costs in equipment and staff is not at all in their interests. To accept your theory (shove time delay down our throat) at face value, I’d have to assume that Ms. Jackson and Mr. Timberlake were in cahoots with “the powers that be”. Sorry, but I find that conspiracy theory extremely unlikely.

Ms. Jackson’s and Mr. Timberlake’s behavior was out of context and inappropriate. While it may be true that more risqué images are on the media everyday, it is most decidedly not true that you can see them at an NFL game. Bare tits are not what one expects to be on display at the Superbowl.

As a result, the wheels of state, which grind exceeding fine, have started moving – and it is your freedoms and my freedoms which will be ground down some more. You are quite correct to worry that “no longer will CNN be able to get a raw story to the public”.

You should worry.

[way22hot]

I have no doubt that Ms. Jackson planned to expose herself on TV for a period measured in seconds.I don't believe that she in anyway expected it to become the endless parade of the image,enlarged 1,000 fold
In noway do I believe that Ms Jackson or any other person involved in the production of that show was involved in a conspiracy. It is more like being at the wrong place at the wrong time .Sooner or later some event would of become the catylast to install time delay

[jseal]

Gentlefolk,

In re American loss versus English management,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3613555.stm

A rose goes to Britain's Advertising Standards Authority.

[denny]

Originally posted by naughtyangel
I was gonna add a pic of the ad, but I guess you can't in here?

Anyhow, when I saw it, the thought that she might be masturbating never crossed my mind, to be honest!

And why can't you add it in here? We have plenty of much more explicit items than that...or were you making a joke... sorry!:) I guess it probably is copyrighted, silly me. I'm going to go to sleep now, goodnight.

[dicksbro]

Originally posted by WildIrish
Where can a guy find a keyhole like that? :D

http://www.ananova.com/entertainment/story/sm_879702.html

(The banned ad)

[jseal]

dicksbro,

Thanks for the details.

While I may be characterized as a knuckle dragging antediluvian Neanderthal, I think the advertisement contains several features that justify the interpretation which brought about the ban.

[way22hot]

can some one tell me what is offensive in that picture ?

[dicksbro]

"Knuckle dragging antediluvian Neanderthal?" Wow!

:D :D

[Lushboy29]

I think it was done in good taste. As for it appearing to have her masturating, both hands are outside her panties, all her fingers are outside her panties, and only her two thumbs are inside her panties. So unless you ladies now how to masturbate using thumbs.......

[jseal]

dicksbro,

Actually, Neanderthal isn’t as bad as one might think. The term was originally a bit of an honor, being given to a lesser light among German composers, Joachim Neander. The valley where he would wander in search of his muse was named Neanderthal. The bones of an early Hominid were discovered there in 1856.

There is a continuing debate as to what amount of, if any, interbreeding occurred between Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens.

Due to early attempts at the reconstruction of Neanderthal skeletons and due to the portrayal of Neanderthals in film, there is a common misconception that Neanderthals were far more primitive and ape like than is currently thought.

[jseal]

Gentlefolk,

The scene is set by looking at an attractive woman’s private moment.

As this is being done by looking through a keyhole, this is an implied invasion of privacy. We all know this is wicked, and delightfully so, as we may indeed learn what goes on behind closed doors.

Now, from DB’s url, “Bendon UK, …, said the advert was inspired by the film ‘Rear Window’.”

For those who are unfamiliar with this film by Alfred Hitchcock, the plot outline of “Rear Window” is of a wheelchair bound photographer who spies on his neighbors from his apartment window and becomes convinced that one of them has committed murder.

So again, this time explicitly, we see that the ad incorporates an invasion of privacy theme.

Examine how the picture is composed, two thirds or so of it functions as background, with a dull undetailed brown. Upon this background is placed three words on the left, and on the right the subject of the ad.

Let us first look at the words. ”Elle Macpherson Intimates” Note that what is being presented is not clothing, but something intimate. What might that be?

Looking to the right of the picture, we see a keyhole. Not just any keyhole, mind you, but a keyhole which, oddly, has an oval shape, a shape unlike that of any keyhole you or I have ever seen, or are likely to. Indeed, the oval shape of the keyhole is not unlike that shape formed when the outer labia of a woman’s vagina are pulled apart, as during periods of sexual activity. While on the subject of the unusual, I have yet to see a door to a lady’s boudoir which is perhaps a third to a half of an inch thick. Have you? This all seems to be a set up presenting the object to be spied upon.

Narrowing our focus further, have you noticed that most of the lingerie is not shown? A large fraction of the bra is not even shown; only the part containing the breasts, although how it fits is probably something a prospective customer may want to see. The area of the picture occupied by the lady’s hands is greater than that of the panties. I’ll admit that I seldom put panties on (and even if I did I wouldn’t admit it), but I doubt that they are put on while sitting down, or by pulling on the front with both hands. And where are the lady’s fingers? Well two or three of them are stroking the material covering her vagina. Not, I grant you, by definition an act of masturbation, but one that is consistent with the activity. And where is this image? It is in the middle of the foreground, where artists commonly place the most important elements of their composition.

Now, I cannot say how a woman could or should masturbate. But I suspect that if you asked, you would find many women who would be able to tell (or even offer to show) you how a woman could masturbate with her thumbs. Perhaps some of the women who post at Pixies-place are adventurous enough to provide directions, if asked (thread opportunity here).

We have it on the best authority (Rod Stewart) that every picture tells a story. I have tried to write a story of what can be seen – not what should be seen. I have tried to provide a plausible interpretation of this picture – not a convincing or compelling one. You and I, my wife, and other members of this group tend to take images of this nature in stride. Now, take the picture off of this web site, where all the members approve of and condone such images, and put it in a magazine purchased by an old biddy in Stoke-on-Trent, or some other “unenlightened” voter.

I have identified two plausible objections, one ancient (indecency) and one modern (invasion of privacy). There may be others I have not seen. Remember, this was a professional job.

What was quite likely to happen in Great Britain is what has already happened here – and the ASA knew it. I have said before, say now, and will in all likelihood say again, is that we are not alone. We are not a majority. Society does enforce norms, be they good or ill, whether society should or not. When the FCC receives hundreds of thousands of complaints, it must act. When it does act, it does so by limiting the range of behavior over which it has authority. Better by far to prevent the advertisement from creating a toxic environment than responding to the complaints after the fact.

[UrGuy]

Some miss the point of the weird Jackson family. The football game is a family Or was a family show and Jackson being a Jackson goes out her way to destroy freedom of speech. I was always told yelling fire in a room full of people when there wasn't one is not freedom of speech. Comparison is a little off maybe, but I think you see the point. The other shows you talk about are there for adults to freely choose if they want to watch not be forced down someones throat. That is where the comparsion comes in, one is freedom of choice and the other is forced and can lead to laws that take away from our freedom of choice and speech. Turkeys like the jackson's and sterns can screw things up for the rest of us. Now if anybody wants to use my soap box you can find it on ebay. Bids will be taken for the next three days.

[skyler_m]

If she's masturbating, she must have some VERY long thumbs... :D