• A higher level of nudity is considered acceptable in mediums which are unlikely to have a young audience .
--
An Instagram advertisement which depicted a woman in revealing lingerie ( Kiss Kill – 0589 / 16 ).
• It is normal to be naked when bathing or showering and advertisements showing people in the shower or bathroom , where there are no breasts or genitals visible , are considered appropriate .
--
A naked man from behind , drying himself with a towel ( Pacific Brands Holdings – 0304 / 16 ).
• The Board has consistently determined that it is not inappropriate to show women breastfeeding in advertisements , and that this is not sexualised and does not constitute inappropriate nudity .
--
Advertisements which feature breastfeeding included Medibank ( 0062 / 16 , 0074 / 16 , 0126 / 16 and 0179 / 16 ) and Trelly ’ s Tackle World ( 0051 / 16 ).
• Advertisements showing people ’ s bodies and bare skin for toiletry products , where the images are not sexualised , will usually be considered appropriate .
--
A body scrub advertisement which showed women ’ s legs in the air covered in dirt and the phrase ‘ get naked and cover yourself in coffee , babe ’ ( Mecca Brands – 0501 / 16 ).
• Advertising which uses nudity in a humorous , not sexualised manner , where people are still covered appropriately will not be seen to breach Section 2.4 of the Code .
--
Use of strategically placed objects to cover two nudists going about daily activities ( Henkel – 0519 / 16 ).
• The Board has also consistently dismissed complaints about women and men in swimwear , where poses are not sexualised , especially in conjunction with beach , pool or fitness activities .
--
Advertisements which featured people in swimwear included : The Beauty Door ( 0504 / 16 ), Jetstar ( 0390 / 16 ), Vitaco Health Australia ( 0223 / 16 ), Coty Australia ( 0120 / 16 ) and Visa International ( 0163 / 16 ).
--
A man cleaning his shower wearing red speedos ( Ozkleen – 0511 / 16 ).
Suggestive phrases and acts
Explicit references to sexual acts are usually viewed negatively by the Board . The Board ’ s view is :
• Highly explicit or sexual content may breach this section of the Code even in a medium which is restricted to older audiences .
--
An Instagram advertisement which featured a t-shirt with the image of a man grabbing the behind of a woman wearing a g-string ( Take Clothe – 0582 / 16 ).
• Highly explicit or sexual content in public places which are likely to be viewed by broad audiences including children , will breach the Code .
--
A cinema advertisement for a perfume which was played before a PG movie , featured a woman in a short black dress rolling around the floor with a perfume bottle ( Coty – 0007 / 16 ).
--
A television advertisement for a movie which was played before 8pm , included scenes with a man stating “ I haven ’ t had sex for 15 years ” while admiring women in bikinis , and white liquid squirted over a female actress ’ s bikini clad cleavage which is later revealed to be sunscreen ( Entertainment One – 0005 / 16 ).
The Board also dismissed a number of complaints about advertisements in this area . The Board ’ s view is :
• Advertising which features couples kissing or embracing , as long as no private parts are visible , and are appropriate for the intended audiences , would not be seen as explicit sexual content .
--
Advertisements which featured couples kissing or embracing , included : Media Dynamics ( 0372 / 16 ), Coca-Cola South Pacific ( 0072 / 16 ).
• Advertising which depicts same-sex couples kissing or embracing often generates complaints , and while some members of the community might be uncomfortable with images of men kissing men , or women kissing women , when the depictions of kissing are very brief and are not sexualised or shown to lead to any further intimacy , would not be seen as explicit sexual content .
--
Advertisements with same-sex couples included : Medibank – ( 0062 / 16 , 0074 / 16 , 0126 / 16 and 0179 / 16 ), Kellogg ( Aust ) Pty Ltd – 0076 / 16 ).
• Advertising which uses factual sexual language to promote an important health or social message will usually be seen to be appropriate when they take into account the sensitivity of the relevant audience .
--
Two young boys talking about STDs ( Queensland Health – 0572 / 16 ).
--
A male in tight underwear and the word ‘ syphilis ’ ( Victorian Aids Council - 0202 / 16 ).
--
An advertisement which referenced preventing STDs and safe sex ( Hero Condoms – 0291 / 16 ).
Sexualisation of children
The Board and the community continue to hold strong concerns over any imagery in advertising which may exploit or sexualise children . All complaints concerning the sexualisation of children are taken seriously and considered thoroughly by the Board .
Advertisers are responsible and cautious in the portrayal of children in advertisements .
There have been very few cases upheld in this area . The Board ’ s view is :
• Advertising which has sexual overtones or connotations relating to a child , even when not intended by an advertiser , will breach this section of the Code .
42 Advertising Standards Bureau