The Advertising Standards Board has upheld complaints against Calvin Klein for billboards suggestive of sexual violence against a woman. The Board received 50 complaints against the ad.
I first mentioned the billboards in ‘Sexism: alive and well in Australia’, published on ABC The Drum Unleashed September 29. Last week I ran a guest post by sexual assault counsellor Alison Grundy who asked why Calvin Klein thought it acceptable to use sexual violence as a marketing tool.
Collective Shout led the charge against the ads. The issue was then picked up in the Herald Sun today. This afternoon Collective Shout supporter Patrice Daly – who first alerted us to the billboard she’d seen in Kings Cross – received the ruling of the Advertising Standards Board, upholding the complaints. Nine MSN reported the decision here. The Herald Sun updated its original piece here.
This is a significant ruling. I have reprinted it in full (it doesn’t appear to be on the ASB’s site yet). I love the ending.
One more thing: The boycott against Calvin Klein should continue. The company was made to act in this case and they are not exactly known as an objectification-free zone when it comes to their advertising.
3 Responses
ASB in their (male-centric) judgement claimed this ‘The Board considered that whilst the act (oh you mean the one depicting a man in the act of raping a woman do you?) could be consensual (ah yes because as we all know, women just love to be subjected to male sexual aggression and male sexual violence do we not. After all men are the ones who continue to define women’s experiences do they not and rape is just ‘sex’ is it not from the male-centric perspective), the overall impact and most likely takeout is that the scene is suggestive of violence and rape. ‘
But ABS you do not say in what manner the scene is ‘suggestive of violence and rape’ – because do these events just occur out of the blue? Was there any human involved in ‘violence and rape’ because ASB you do not say so I have no idea whether you are referring to animals, humans or even plants.
Then ASB has to ensure that men are not excluded because according to ASB this advertisement also demeans men ‘by implying sexualised violence against women.’ Well done ASB for ensuring yet again that men’s interests and men’s issues are placed central because yes the world would cease to operate if men were to be ignored.
In what way was this image demeaning to men? Was a man being subjected to group rape by other men? No the image did not show that. Were any men being demeaned by being turned into dehumanised sexualised commodities? No they were not – rather the men were depicted as actively engaged in male domination and male control over a woman. Something which is common within malestream media and no it does not demean men but rather reinforces their pseudo right of male domination and male control over women.
The ASB board is clearly incapable of recognising advertising which promotes male sexual violence against women because according to the ASB it is only when advertising is ‘demeaning to men’ does it contravene ‘the standard of treating sex, nudity and sexuality with sensitivity.’ Ah so that explains it then – sex, nudity and sexuality are all gender neutral are they? They just happen and are just reproduced and it is for the viewer to interpret whether or not ‘sex, sexuality and nudity’ is treated with sensitivity.
However given what supposedly passes for ‘sex, sexuality and nudity’ continues to be male-defined and furthermore ensures that males are not routinely shown in full frontal nakedness whereas women of course are not human but men’s sexual service stations – then clearly we have a problem with ‘sex, sexuality and nudity’ because they are not neutral terms but dependent on whether or not the powerful men at the ASB board decide it is acceptable or not.
‘The woman is not struggling and does not appear distressed’!! WHAT?? So now, just by looking at a woman’s facial expression the men can decide whether or not gang rape or group sex is ok? The problem with high exposure to violent sex scenes and porn is that people become less able to interpret/empathise with others, so how would men in these situations even know what real women want anyway? They assume that, like them, women would feel pleasure in this type of situation.
Also, CK are not directing the ad at children, they say. So are we supposed to take our children around with blind folds on then? This is an incredibly naive statement! Obviously made by those without children of their own or having never worked with children at all.
Good on you Collective Shout and everyone for standing up for the rights of women and children!