Lynx ‘girl on girl porn’ rugby vid banned by Ad Standards

An online video campaign by Unilever’s Lynx deodorant, in which greased up, scantily clad girls ‘explain’ the rules of rugby, has been banned by the Ad Standards Bureau for objectifying women.

One complaint read: “I believe that this ad has been grossly influenced by the pornography industry and the hidden hype surrounding girl-on-girl pornography.”

The advertiser’s defence was that the video was only posted on YouTube – not on TV – and that it had an age verification function in place to restrict the film to users over 18.

Unilever also pointed out that complaints to the Ad Standards Bureau were largely a result of Melinda Tankard Reist‘s activist group Collective Shout, which encouraged consumers to complain via its Facebook page.

The ASB found that the ad was shot to emphasise physical attributes of the women, “with lingering shots on the women’s breasts, groins and bottoms”, and depicted women as sexual objects.

The ad, which received 1.3m views two weeks after it was posted, was by Soap Creative.

Comments


  1. Matty
    4 Nov 11
    10:16 am

  2. Lighten up people.

  3. CSAllen
    4 Nov 11
    10:39 am

  4. I thought it was very helpful in explaining the rules to be honest

  5. Anonymous
    4 Nov 11
    11:40 am

  6. Lingerie Football League anyone?

  7. Jo
    4 Nov 11
    11:52 am

  8. It is a pretty low effort. It’s not smart at all as a piece of communication. It’s a very tired approach too, not to mention that does objectify women. So they deserve all the flack they get
    .

  9. Matty
    4 Nov 11
    1:05 pm

  10. Should they ban this important health message too?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8Z9evxZwT0

  11. Ummm..
    4 Nov 11
    2:22 pm

  12. Booooo! Did the girls in the Ad mind participating? Did they? Precisely!

  13. Simon
    4 Nov 11
    2:27 pm

  14. “hidden hype surrounding girl-on-girl pornography”

    Hidden hype? Is that even possible?

  15. Andrew
    4 Nov 11
    2:28 pm

  16. Finally someone explained Rugby in a way I could understand!!

  17. Anonymous
    4 Nov 11
    2:32 pm

  18. How was that pornographic?

  19. Louise
    4 Nov 11
    2:37 pm

  20. Where was the Ad Standards Bureau when all of Lynx’s other ads were produced? Could have used a buffer against that crap.

  21. Robbie
    4 Nov 11
    2:39 pm

  22. @ Jo 11:52
    1.3 million views in just two weeks… I’m not sure the Unilever clients would agree with your view of “low effort” “not smart at all” “tired approach”. Our industry constantly looks to reinvent things for the sake of reinventing them. Too often we overcomplicate an issue in the pursuit to be ‘smart’. It’s not for everyone but the audience this was targeted for loved it!

  23. Michaela Aguialr-Davis
    4 Nov 11
    2:39 pm

  24. Honestly, it is wrong. We all know – including men – that the sexualising of women has greatly worked to our disadvantage. This ad is an insult to self respecting women!

  25. Pink Media Boy
    4 Nov 11
    2:40 pm

  26. We love “girl on girl” & “boy on boy”…. We’d like to see more advertisers with ads like this!

  27. Doug
    4 Nov 11
    2:50 pm

  28. I am a little miffed at the add. I mean how stereotypical was that!? It is an abomination on the advertising industry.
    After all, there was no Asian, black, Hispanic, Muslim, Jewish, red head women oiling themselves up. When are you people going to change?

  29. Michaela Aguilar-Davis
    4 Nov 11
    2:55 pm

  30. @ Robbie lol – yes, i can see the ‘audience’ at night in front of the screen. let me guess – guys who have nothing better to do? this is the profile of a guy who busy lynx? any naked girl or guy will attract attention, so does a 3-legged dog.

  31. Parris
    4 Nov 11
    2:58 pm

  32. My main issue with this is that over 18s are not the Lynx target. But of course it’s everyone’s right to objectify women or not. And men.

  33. Beni
    4 Nov 11
    3:01 pm

  34. wtf? What a boring ad. Then again, Lynx as a product truly sucks. Not surprised that their advertising efforts follow suit.

  35. Breathless
    4 Nov 11
    3:07 pm

  36. Mission Accomplished.

  37. Breathless
    4 Nov 11
    3:22 pm

  38. Funnily enough, the age restriction is on the vimeo site, when you try to view it from there, but not via Mumbrella though…. We’re all adult here, after all..

  39. Ummm..
    4 Nov 11
    3:34 pm

  40. Yes, Breathless – but I once heard that …. “the older you get, the wiser you get and the more filthy you become” – I’m simply quoting someone else!!!

  41. Joey
    4 Nov 11
    3:35 pm

  42. Corny, overtly sexist and basically a dumb ad….but probably appealing to 15 year old boys who use Lynx!

  43. rugger fan wot
    4 Nov 11
    3:39 pm

  44. skimpily dressed women and deoderant are both essential elements in young men’s lives. its logical stuff for Lynx

  45. Joe
    4 Nov 11
    3:42 pm

  46. if only Bill McLaren had been alive to do the commentary

  47. Nathan
    4 Nov 11
    3:53 pm

  48. If this ad is a reference to ‘girl on girl porn’, does that make any rugby game a reference to ‘guy on guy porn’? (or would it be guy and guy and guy and guy and guy on girl porn?)

  49. Breathless
    4 Nov 11
    4:01 pm

  50. @Nathan if you ask a handful of gay guys, you might discover, Rugby IS considered ‘guy on guy (on a bunch of other guys) porn”

  51. blc1981
    4 Nov 11
    4:38 pm

  52. For all the hoopla I was really expecting it to be a bit more graphic, it really is no different to most music videos being churned out these days, Rihanna’s S&M anyone??

  53. Glenn Urquhart
    4 Nov 11
    5:01 pm

  54. So it’s okay to objectifity men for a breast cancer ad in the name of humour (and it most certainly is – I think it’s brilliant)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded

    But this Lynx ad can’t? Blimey it wasn’t that crass. Double standards and intensely yawnsome.

  55. Matthew Cheyne
    5 Nov 11
    4:16 am

  56. Melinda Tankard Reist and her cohorts need to get some consistency and get a life. This ad was never on TV nor was it on a billboard or in a magazine. What consenting adults decide to watch on Youtube, Vimeo or any other site on the net is their business only. When was the last time you heard Melinda Tankard Reist come out about the objectification of men by the way? Let me guess…Never. So until she and her cohorts protest the objectification of human beings period – she has no credibility and ought to shut up.

  57. Melinda Tankard Reist
    5 Nov 11
    7:06 pm

  58. I don’t support equal opportunity objectification. Never have. But I wonder if you can give me any examples Matthew, of the kind that we see regularly employed by Lynx and multitudes of other companies? I’ll be fascinated to see what you come up with.

    Mtr.

  59. Jamie
    5 Nov 11
    10:55 pm

  60. Okay, so this is an ad to explain the rules of rugby. Hands up, who was paying attention to the rules, and who was somewhat distracted by the lingering slow motion shots of oiled up girls’ butts and breasts?

    This is nothing new for Lynx, all of there advertising is sexist crap, offensive to any reasonable women respecting man or woman.

    Matthew Cheyne, while objectification of men is also wrong, it is far less common than objectification of women.

  61. Oh Dear
    7 Nov 11
    9:38 am

  62. Hi Melinda,

    Here are some ads that objectify men that you requested to look at. I ask that if you consider that the roles were reversed these would be exactly the kind of ads you would be decrying.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owGykVbfgUE
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....ature=fvst
    http://www.trendhunter.com/sli.....-cluster#5

    I put the last one in because I basically have to get to work and that summarises the extent of the other side of the coin. Don’t tell me that it is biased more toward females. It’s just not true.

    Just lighten up a bit, huh? 99% of the population really don’t care about ‘objectification’. You really are in the minority. We don’t need to be rescued.

  63. Michaela Aguilar-Davis
    7 Nov 11
    10:44 am

  64. Dear Oh Dear :-) Maybe you are ok not to be rescued. There are many women out there (including children) who are sexually exploited. As a woman I am happy to support. I rather be part of the 1% who are respected for their intellect. This conversation is about more than only advertising. It’s a reflection of our society and our value system.

  65. Oh Dear
    7 Nov 11
    11:03 am

  66. Hi Michaela,

    This is my last comment as I actually do have a job and am not going to waste any more time on your blurred crusade.

    Our society and our value system IS reflected by us 99% who don’t care about your puritanical attitudes to life. The value system you are trying to mandate through your shrill attacks on what is just a bit of harmless fun to the rest of us is simply misplaced.

    The piece of work shown here was only able to be accessed by consenting adults through an age-verification process. No-one was sexual exploited. No one was hurt. No minors became heroin-addicts or were sold into child slavery because of it.

    A little perspective, please.

  67. Michaela Aguilar-Davis
    7 Nov 11
    11:15 am

  68. Dear Oh Dear :-) I am happy for you that you have an interesting job and thank you for making the time to reply. Let’s just agree to disagree. Accepting another persons point of view is part of an (adult) conversation. I wish you well. Warm regards.

  69. Breathless
    7 Nov 11
    11:15 am

  70. Careful about where you draw connection and causality, Michaela.

    No one here is for child sexual exploitation, (where did that come from??) which has nothing to do with this ad from Lynx, unless you think some of these women are under 18?

    “Oh Dear” didn’t say 1% of women are respected for their intellect. They said 99% of people don’t care about objectification.

    Try to stay on topic. The discussion is about whether this ad is appropriate or offensive. I can clearly see some are offended by it, but also, some are not, and some of those not offended are female.

    “Objectification” occurs all the time, as a reduction of the complexity of what it is to be human, in order to relay a simple concise message. Glenn Urquhart made a valid point you have not replied to about the relatively permissible use of sexual objectification (which is not exploitation) for relatively inoffensive messages. Have a look at the entertaining video he posted and consider how that objectification was not offensive.

    Some women have no difficulty being sexual beings, being openly sexy, without considering the experience objectification or exploitation. They like expressing that part of their humanity, which should not be repressed. it does not mean they have been diminished, just like your desire to be appreciated for your intelligence should not take away from being appreciated for other characteristics you have.

    As for the value system, to be perfectly honest, the exploited ones here are the poor young men considering the lynx product range thinking it helps get chicks.

  71. Michaela Aguilar-Davis
    7 Nov 11
    12:12 pm

  72. Like I said, let’s agree to disagree! I respect your point of view.

  73. Mike
    7 Nov 11
    12:21 pm

  74. And if the athlete models in this video had been male baring as much flesh, no-one would have said a thing.
    When it comes to sexism allegations, there’s clearly one rule for one sex and another for the other.
    The perceived “offence” usually comes from those who feel inadequate when confronted by those fortunate enough to look like these models do. Such people need to get over themselves, and find a talent that can give them a sense of worth.

    Simply, stop being so jealous and bitter. Stop imposing your miserable, angry “standards” on the rest of the community.
    What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. And whoever complained about this was undoubtedly a “goose”.

  75. goodone
    8 Nov 11
    12:28 pm

  76. Good to see the vocal minority hard at work, and blurring the lines between church and state.
    Last time I checked it was a free country.

  77. MattP
    8 Nov 11
    3:20 pm

  78. @goodone : Vocal minority or silent majority (represented by a few)? It depends on your perspective.

  79. goodone
    8 Nov 11
    3:56 pm

  80. @MattP: Ah…you fool. it’s only those with their nickers in a twist that squeel.

  81. Alex
    9 Nov 11
    8:50 pm

  82. Pretty typical of Lynx with their sexist rubbish. Women in sport obviously exist as the men’s entertainment. Forget about being a female athlete, ladies! Your job is to pose for the real (male) athletes.

  83. Clint
    15 Nov 11
    11:53 am

  84. @Breathless – nailed it you are truly wise.