Australian lingerie label Honey Birdette has further slammed moves by the Ad Standards board after it received an exclusive copy of the new guidelines. 

According to the business, the new guidelines around lingerie advertising further restrict advertising in public spaces and places emphasis on female bodies and sexuality. 

"In one example Ad Standards compare an ad featuring a heterosexual couple and a lesbian couple alongside one another.

"The image which depicts a same-sex female couple embracing is called out for being inappropriate, while an image of a ‘husband and wife’ kissing is considered appropriate," Honey Birdette said in a statement. 

The business also states that the guide now considers nipples - fully covered with pasties - also innappropriate, while high-cut bodysuits and G-strings could also be in breach of the guidelines. 

Honey Birdette MD Eloise Monaghan said that the new standards are repugnant. 

"This has to stop! Why are men allowed and women not allowed to show their bodies?

"Why are we teaching young girls and women to be ashamed of their bodies? The female form not a matter of vulgarity or indecency.

"The changes to these guidelines are a frightening development for the modern woman and Ad Standards should be ashamed of themselves.

"These standards are highly archaic and repugnant to all women not just across Australia, but globally.

"I won’t be silenced and let this go. We are here to empower women and we are going to continue to do that," she said. 

Honey Birdette's Red Alert campaign was launched in response to the moves by government to introduce the new standards and alongside the campaign Honey Birdette launched a petition which has garnered 65,660 signatures to date. 

In a recent ruling on a Honey Birdette advertisement on June 12 featuring the 'Fonda' lingerie, the Ad Standards Panel considered a consumer complaint:

"Image is sexualised and resembles porn. It does not belong on public display. It is illegal to display this type imagery in all other avenues of public life (as per the Sex Discrimination Act) because it verifiably causes harm.

"Placing a product name on the image and calling it an ad cannot stop the harm." 

After consideration, the Panel upheld the complaint stating that: "The Panel considered that the women’s genitals were not visible and that the women’s nipples were obscured.

"The Panel considered that there was no overt nudity at a level that most members of the community would find unacceptable.

"The Panel determined the advertisement did not treat sex, sexuality and nudity with sensitivity to the relevant audience and did breach Section 2.4 of the Code." 

comments powered by Disqus