Sexy ads to be banned in EU

No more sexy and hot David Beckham for Armani, no more Eva Mendes for Calvin Klein, no more beauty and sex appeal in ads. At least in EU. At least that’s what EU’s women’s rights committee intends to do. According to DailyMail.co.uk, the new rules on sexism and inequality in advertising come in the committee’s report, which has already been adopted by the European Parliament.

In short, it means that all ads that might seem sexy and raunchy might get banned in Europe simply because they “promote women as sex objects or reinforce gender stereotypes.” So forget about underwear ads and say thank you very much to Swedish MEP Eva-Brit Svensson, who introduced the report to the European Parliament.

“Gender stereotyping in advertising straightjackets women, men, girls and boys by restricting individuals to predetermined and artificial roles that are often degrading, humiliating and dumbed down for both sexes,” the MEP said.

The committee’s provision is not a law, but it anyway may be considered by individual European Parliaments when dealing with advert control and regulations. The provision has already been called “inflexible and impractical.”

One may wonder why this provision was made at all, as Advertising Standards Authority said existing codes already barred ads from being “discriminatory or harmful when depicting men or women.”

If EU individual parliaments do like the idea of banning sexy ads, it might be that lots of models won’t be able to do their job as faces of underwear ad campaigns. The industry will financially degrade. What do you think about it?

DISCUSS IT WITH OTHERS ON MILLIONTALKS!

Follow Us

Become a Fan on Facebook

1. Jack Says:
   September 30th, 2009 at 3:41 pm

   This is so stupid they’re not enforcing stereotypes, they’re just using the most appealing images that will get their products to sell. If it happens to be a woman wearing nothing but strands of hair covering her nipples, then so be it. It’s not like they’re saying, “Hey, all you women out there, you need to walk down the street it nothing but high heels.” This is just an appeal for ugly women in the EU to feel like they aren’t ugly. They have a problem with their own self image because they don’t look like these models, and so they are using their power and abusing the position that they are in to challenge a company’s right to advertise their products in whatever way they choose.

2. Brooke Says:
   October 6th, 2009 at 9:01 pm

   You’re an idiot, just wanted to make sure you knew that.

3. Pam Says:
   October 19th, 2009 at 4:39 pm

   I am a marking student and i find Jack’s point very valid.

4. Jools Says:
   November 14th, 2009 at 7:05 pm

   They aren’t saying ‘hey ladies, walk around with nothing but high heels on’. That isnt the stereotype or the aim, they are deliberately reducing women to an object to be looked at, encouraging men to view women as sexual items to be picked up and enjoyed at will, like the product. All the girls in the ‘sexy ads’ are pretty much nude. They could be wearing all kinds of clothes to be made sexy, alluring, intelligent or charismatic but no. They are naked. Is that supposed to make ugly women feel attractive? The point is that the sexy ads aren’t damaging self confidence, there are plenty of other things that do that such as womens mags, weight loss ads, special k aimed at women, but because the ads are reducing women to a physical shape, and a product. This sustains the dominant male groups values – we like our women naked, vulnerable. To obsess over them reinforces the fact that women are sexual objects, the viewer is encouraged to be obsessed with her naked figure, not her wit or intelligence. Their poses are all submissive too, hows that for a stereotype. Beckham is practically roaring at the camera, and is starting to get up and come towards you, he looks powerful which is admittedly another stereotype of males, but none of the females are powerful looking, and none of the males look feminine. Its saying ‘this is our society, fit in!’

5. Anonymous Says:
   January 21st, 2010 at 3:51 pm

   Well said!!!

6. MariaTenebre Says:
   February 6th, 2010 at 10:25 pm

   Jools your whole post is full of shit. First of all they are not saying that women are to be looked upon as sex objects. They are merely showing sexy and confident women. Your post by it’s nature is the most sexist thing I have ever said because you say that if a woman is sexy attractive and proud of it then she is a sex object deserving of no respect. Plus you don’t seem to be saying that the men in these pics are sex obejcts because they are nude and attractive. Also these same models market alot of clothes not just underwear or nudes. Plus you blatently say that just because the ads are sexy and naked they are not alluring and intelligent. Now is this something a feminist would say? It sounds like someone who blames rape victims would say. it sounds like something practiseing Muslims would say. Next on ugly women, if ugly women wish to make themselves attractive then they should simply make themselves attractive not do as you and other patriarchal sexists do and hate beautiful women. Also these adds says nothing about liking women vulnerable. Plus just because she is naked does not mean she is vulnerable. In fact if anything it shows just how strong she is to be secure in her body. The ads are not reduceing women to a physical shape or a product it just shows sexy people promoting a product and they trendyness of said product and the appealing nature of the product to have such good looking and secure people promoting it. The viewer is not encouraged to be obsessed on her figure over her intelligence. In fact these adds show these people as sexy, liberated, worldy and intelligent people representing a great product. All you are meant to view them as are strong sexy people giving their endorsement to said product and it’s validity. It just shows your sexism alone to think that a woman can not be sexy, naked and hot and be intelligent. When in fact that is what these ads reflect, strong sexy, intelligent, worldy and secure people who are not ashamed of their bodies in advertisement. Their poses are far from submissive as well. The first pic shows a man at a woman’s feet and all show the women as proud dominant and secure. However your next statement tells why you say this. You say that Beckham is roaring which the women are doing as well. Then you say that none of the women look powerful and none of the men look FEMININE. Apparently you think that if a person looks feminine they have no power. This shows that you are not a feminist you are a mysoginist! I suppose if these women wear burkhas then you think they will deserve respect. Thank you for prooveing that the true group that feminists have problems with is not men but WOMEN thank you for showing is the modern feminism and mysoginism really are identical.

7. kathy Says:
   April 21st, 2010 at 5:56 am

   Jools i totally agree with u..im currently studying gender advertisements and it is reflected as sex objects..others r naive and ignorant to think its not..no one need to be naked to show of shoes or watever u dont need to have that..

8. ElBruce Says:
   May 13th, 2010 at 9:19 pm

   Yes ladies, put on these burkas so we can respect you… how feminist.

9. killykilly Says:
   October 16th, 2010 at 3:34 am

   These women are very fit and powerful looking and David Beckham is practically naked and laying on his back. How is this demeaning to women? I for one am more interested in looking at something or someone that is beautiful than something average. And if the beautiful is naked, even better. BTW, I am a middle aged woman 5′ 8″ and 140 pounds. Not exactly above average looking. But I do know that I prefer to see high end products represented by attractive people. It’s human nature. I can look at fully clothed average looking people by going to work every day. We need to quit reading so much into this stuff.