Think you should over tweet a link to the video. it is international womens day after all.
Lingerie-clad she-devils romp past watchdog
The Advertising Standards Authority has rejected a complaint that an Agent Provocateur video featuring a pack of lingerie-clad she-devils menacing another woman is "disturbing and misogynistic". The vid first appeared on the company's website last November to punt its Soiree 2011-2012 collection. The ASA summarises that it …
-
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
Thursday 8th March 2012 08:40 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Porn
I'm all in favour of pr0n and scantily clad women, but I firmly believe that they have their time & place. I strongly disagree with the casual nature of Page 3, Nuts, Loaded, etc. and I think they should only be on the top shelf and available to 18+. Those newspapers with some up-skirt shot on the front are a disgrace.
I actually complained about the latest Figleaves campaign which featured very large posters of very attractive women in lingerie. I don't believe I'm a puritanical prude, but I simply don't believe that that amount of flesh should be on display all over the place. My complaint was rejected (I was one of four complainants) on the grounds that the adverts weren't within 100m of a school. Does this mean that the ASA thinks children only live within 100m of every school?
If you need to get your rocks off then all manner of filth is but a click away (separate subject). There isn't any need to have it on display everywhere; it simply cheapens and devalues.
-
-
Thursday 8th March 2012 09:34 GMT Anonymous Coward
@Scott 26 - Re: Porn
Half kidding. No I wasn't shocked and yes I was pleased that El Reg helpfully provided me a link. Whether it is porn or not is a matter of taste and sensibilities - it's fairly mild but it's the nearest thing to porn that I've seen for a while. I would not expect to see such an ad before 22:00 on UK television.
It's interesting to note that the single complaint was that it was 'disturbing and mysoginistic', not that it was overly sexual. Given the nature of the complaint I think the ASA got it right.
-
Thursday 8th March 2012 10:01 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Porn
I agree keep the porn itself on the top shelf, 'you must be this high to read it', but nudity & people in
lingerie?, why make a big deal about it?
What's wrong with children seeing someone without clothes or in underwear?
We are all born naked, so why care if your naked or someone else is?
Parents take their sons/daughters in with them to opposite sex changing rooms when they are young without any complaints (well there shouldn't be complaints).
I have two young boys, I wouldn't let them watch porn, but see nudity? no problem with that, it wont scar them, if anything it will make them a more balanced person without unnatural hangups caused by a prudish nation
-
-
Thursday 8th March 2012 14:12 GMT Manu T
Re: Porn
Ehe... what children?
1) these garments aren't for children (there aren't any in the video either)
2) lingerie of that kind is supposed to enhance your... eh... 'relationship' with your (consenting adult) partner which I think works very well
3) the clip is a teaser to delve further into the website and to let ppl know about the products (which according to the feedback it has on a technology-oriented website seems to have worked)
So stop being a little girl.
Instead look closer at the garments. That pink gown with the red lace looks gorgeous. They also have a black see-through high waisted pleated palazo pants in their collection which i also find very sexy. And there are other items. Unfortunately these products are for the more fortunate amongst us (3000 euro for the kimono gown alone).
I'd say to the creator of this clip/site/idea.: mission succeeded! ;-)
-
-
-
-
Thursday 8th March 2012 08:58 GMT h4rm0ny
So for all you guys out there...
If this was a video where a man was at home alone and half a dozen men suddenly appeared in his home (dressed in tight, revealing clothing), chased him down, locked him in a room with them where they simulated gay sex in front of him before finally pinning him to the ground, all leaping on him to kiss him all over before a final scene suggesting he'd been 'converted'.... You'd all like that too, yes?
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Thursday 8th March 2012 09:13 GMT That Awful Puppy
Re: So for all you guys out there...
Some of us would, yes.
I tend to prefer my naked flesh to be of the female variety, but you know, whatever rocks your boat. And I'm quite sure there are a few gay commentards who don't enjoy the sexuality portrayed in this video, as well.
How about you calm down, maybe watch a few ads you enjoy, and try to not be all stoplikingwhatidontlike.jpg?
Coat, for obvious reasons.
-
Thursday 8th March 2012 09:44 GMT h4rm0ny
Re: So for all you guys out there...
Ah yes, the endlessly old "why don't you calm down" comment, suggesting that the person you're talking to (over the Internet) is somehow hysterically wound up. Or alternately, you could just recognize that I'm pointing out that were it a male who was being run down by other males, being forcibly kissed and turned gay, a lot of men would suddenly feel differently about the ad. Nothing wrong with pointing out double-standards, is there? Not all men would dislike the ad that way, but a lot would.
-
Thursday 8th March 2012 10:35 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: So for all you guys out there...
> ... a lot of men would suddenly feel differently about the ad. ... Nothing wrong with pointing out double-standards, is there?
There is a huge difference between not liking an advert and finding it objectionable.
By changing the gender of the participants you would be changing the target audience. I, personally, would no longer find it remotely interesting and would not bother watching it. So I would feel different about it. I would not, however, find it objectionable.
There are no double standards involved and none of the responses to your original post have implied that there are.
-
-
-
Thursday 8th March 2012 14:08 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: So for all you guys out there...
> I assume that Agent Provocateur know their target market and have designed the advert to appeal to them.
Well at least in part they've got that wrong.
Some of their stuff is really gorgeous (and some naff). As an occasional customer I saw this ad when it was first released (OK, I'll happily admit to be a total perv too, I'll just be an anonymous one). I loved the nighty the heroin or victim of the ad is wearing, but I can't see how this would promote the product. I showed the ad to the lovely lady I would have bought it for, she too liked the nighty but found the ad distasteful. So there they go one lost sale.
I can't imagine this was an advert that would have been shown on telly. So anyone who is likely to have seen this advert is watching it deliberately. Personally I find it hard to believe that anyone would go to the AP website if they were likely to be offended by sexual matters. It would be like going to nudest beach and complaining about the lack of clothes being worn. So anyone finding it offensive probably set out with the intention of being offended. Is it distasteful? yes probably, but then so much is, its supposed to be a spoof horror film, so presumably is supposed to be distasteful.
As to complaining that you see flesh in an underwear advert how else and they going to show you what they are trying to sell you? Or show undy adverts be reduced to the total b*&^%cks that inundate the TV advertising feminine hygiene products. "Our product doesn't look appealing so we though we'd show you some total dross about women looking happy instead"
-
Saturday 10th March 2012 11:14 GMT micheal
Re: So for all you guys out there...
see just as much flesh in perfume adverts on telly during daytime hours (think Dior)
Point as stated, dont go to anne summers website and complain about the buzzy toys they have,
dont go to underwear sites to complain about showing underwear.
As for the "target Audience" things, how many perfume ad's sell the sex angle of the fragrance?
All of them, yet perfume isnt as sexy as underwear
-
-
-
Thursday 8th March 2012 09:39 GMT Dr Insanity
Re: So for all you guys out there...
Funny you should ask that... most of the women I know wouldn't want to watch a video full of guys, and not because they're all lesbians.
Most of them are straight and they still all agree that the female figure, especially when scantily clad, is that much more aesthetically pleaseing that the male figure. Something to do with curves being in the right places, and my gender generally being about as shapely as a slab of steak!
You can proffer as much equality as you like, end of the day women are prettier to look at than men!
-
-
-
Thursday 8th March 2012 10:13 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: How to mark International Womens Day
I think that if it was a group of men doing it then it would be cause for a massive complaint..
but if it was women attacking a man, there would be no complaints from either side of the argument, since men don't care, and women can't imagine a man ever saying no....
-
-
Thursday 8th March 2012 12:21 GMT jason 7
Re: Have you seen their prices?
You don't think its actually women that buy that stuff do you?
Nope.
I have offered to buy that sort of stuff fro my Gf many many times. Always she says "That stuff just isn't comfortable or practical to wear for any length of time!"
The fact that she only has to wear it for around 20 minutes maybe is lost on her.
Most purchased AP underwear never gets worn I bet.
-
-
Thursday 8th March 2012 10:52 GMT D@v3
colour me confused
after watching that several times, i still cant understand why the initial complaint came about. I mean, that advert would never have been shown on TV, surely? It's just far too long.......
Not to mention all the bare flesh, breasts and nipples, surely just not going to be shown on TV, right?
So, that leads me to believe that someone has found a (slightly) raunchy video, advertising raunchy underwear, on a website for a manufacturer of raunchy underwear, and has decided to be offended by it. Why where they on said site in the first place?
-
Thursday 8th March 2012 14:28 GMT Manu T
Re: colour me confused
I'll correct that for you:
"So, that leads me to believe that someone sought a (slightly) raunchy video, advertising raunchy underwear, on a website for a manufacturer of raunchy underwear, and has decided to be offended by it...."
The weird thing is that just a single complaint can have this effect while in many circumstances legit complaints have no response at all. It sure looks like double standard to me.
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Thursday 8th March 2012 12:47 GMT Anonymous Coward
I have to wonder...
Is this aimed at women or men ?
Because well, taste differs of course; but when looking at that video I think the woman in the night gown is sexier than all those lingerie clad girls. Some of them wear so much clothing that I'd hardly describe it as lingerie...
Apart from that; I think some people are better of realizing that some companies are hoping that they'll receive complaints. Because that means their product will get mentioned in more media; as such the advertising is working. Think about it; would El Reg have covered this if it wasn't for the complaints?
otoh... given that its El Reg I suppose they might have ;-)
-
Thursday 8th March 2012 12:53 GMT Anonymous Coward
Don't watch ads
Don't tell you all actually sit in your chair watching the adverts. I've got better things to do with my life than watching short bursts of crap video mostly trying to sell something to women. I turn the sound down and carry on reading my book/newspaper until they're over. Then I can get back to what I want the TV for, to be entertained and (alas rarely) educated.
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Thursday 8th March 2012 13:36 GMT Greg J Preece
Ah, the repressed sexual attitudes. God forbid that someone under the age of 18 ever accept their own horrible, nasty, filthy human body, or understand it. That would just corrupt their tiny, fragile minds. The mere mention of sex within 100 metres of an infants school would cause hundreds of deaths, grey matter leaking from tiny innocent noses.
Clearly, mollycoddling is the way to go.