I don't believe that CK is trying to push the envelope and offend. These ads recognise the sexuality and humour of young women. That is why the advertisements appeal to them - the healthy sexual fantasy of being hot and in control. The model is not a victim, quite the opposite and young women know that. Young women do need these moral guardians to control what they see and do, it is all out of the Fifties.

Those who object to or are threatened by young women's sexuality and wish to control them through censorship are not likely to admit that fact.

Levi's ad featuring Jennifer Love Hewitt was innocent too. Walk along, kiss b/f, quite wholesome. See here,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7C3S5L6ccGk&feature=related

Men are not so competitive that they would try to banish advertisements featuring male models with well-turned 'buns' and shoulders, even where the models are being ogled and manhandled by women. Men just have a wry grin at their fantasies (as young women do) and buy the featured product.

Helen,

You make the ASB sound like a knitting circle.

The Advertising Standards Bureau is government organisation that appoints and administers the code through the "voluntary" Advertising Standards Board. This gives the ASB real teeth.

To suggest that a request to remove an advert is a friendly suggestion with no consequences is a bit of a porky.

"If an advertising or marketing communication is found to breach a provision of the Codes and the advertiser/marketer does not modify or discontinue the advertising or marketing communication within the allowed time frame, the Board will:

include the advertiser/marketer’s failure to respond in the case report
forward the case report to media proprietors
post the case report on the ASB’s website, and
if appropriate, the ASB can refer the case report to the appropriate government agency."

Which essentially means the advertiser gets a black mark with the media outlets (making advertising more difficult) and faces scrutiny from the government which in itself is likely to be very expensive (as anyone going through a tax audit will attest to)

Yabby
"So by my definition Pelican, I would have to place you in
the wowser category :)"

Well it won't be the first time. :P

You guys are getting caught up in concepts of sexual fantasy rather than simply asking is this billboard appropriate in the public domain.

What has sexual fantasy got to do with it, do we parade our sexual fantasies in public. Humans are sexual beings and while there is no no shame in that (why should there be), neither should rape fantasy simulation or group sex simulation Ads be displayed for public viewing. The public includes children - the world is not just made up of adults.

Helen and others at least have the courage to raise issues like this in knowledge that she will no doubt be subject to some form of ridicule.

If people were complaining about Ads where a women's bikini or bra showed her cleavage or a man o women's bum in underwear then we would have something to worry about. I do think this Ad falls well outside the 'wowser' category.

*You guys are getting caught up in concepts of sexual fantasy rather than simply asking is this billboard appropriate in the public domain.*

Er Pelican, you are speaking for yourself here. You are the one
jumping to conclusions.

My response was simple and straightforward. No naughty bits
are shown in the ad. The rest is in your imagination and you
are protesting against what you imagine. So who has a dirty mind
here?

I want to know if anybodys brought a pair of Clavin Klien jeans since this artical was put up?

'You guys are getting caught up in concepts of sexual fantasy'

pelican,

You're the one who has read rape into it. If you think it's too explicit, that's one thing, there are laws about that. But it isn't too explicit, there is no 'naughty bits' showing, it is only explicit when you choose to read the themes you want to read into it. These themes are also way above a childs understanding. Should we ban The Simpsons and the sexual innuendo in the Batman TV series? They have stayed safely in public space and it safely flies over kids heads.

I think we have addressed very well the fallacy of reading such themes as you have into this billboard, and the prejudices they demonstrate and perpetuate. When you base your objections on a far fetched theme and not on any explicit depiction you really invite ridicule.

In short, you're stretching.