ASB bans ‘inappropriate’ Honey Birdette burlesque lingerie poster but clears Dita Von Teese Target ad
A poster for lingerie retailer Honey Birdette has been banned by the Ad Standards Board. (Image below possibly NSFW)
The poster – headlined “It’s burlesque baby” appeared in store windows.
One complainant told the ASB: “The graphic is larger than life pornography, overtly sexual in nature and is located in a family focussed shopping centre.”
Honey Birdette responded saying: “We chose this image because she is wearing more clothing than most lingerie models would wear for a photo shoot. The corset covers her stomach, stockings on legs, a bra with the added cover of opaque pasties and we covered the model with a full brief rather than a gstring. This model is in fact a local from a burlesque performance group and we chose her because she is very wholesome, not too thin and is not your standard “heroin chic” style model that we see in most fashion images these days.
“You will also notice that we steer clear of any marketing that is regularly depicted in men’s magazines. Our stores are all about making women feel safe and sophisticated.”
“To market and advertise lingerie, a certain level of skin needs to be exposed, however we do this in a way that empowers woman rather than demeans them.”
The ASB ruled: “The Board noted that the advertisement features a woman wearing red underwear and black stockings and that the advertiser states the woman‟s nipples are covered with ‘opaque pasties’.
The Board noted that the bra does not fully cover the woman‟s breasts and that the coverings placed over the nipples are clearly visible. The Board considered that the combination of the low cut bra and the ‘opaque pasties’ drew the viewer’s attention to the breasts and nipples of the woman in a manner which is not appropriate for a broad audience including children.”
On Valentine’s Day, the company organised a lingerie flashmob to walk through Sydney’s Pitt Street Mall.
The ASB also ruled on a complaint about an ad for Target featuring burlesque model Ditta Von Teese, deciding that she was not “sexually seductive”. The complainant said: “She is a well-known stripper and the pose she strikes is suggestive. I am very concerned about the sexualisation of young girls and these advertisements should be placed in a less obvious part of the store.
However, the ASB ruled: “The Board noted that it was reasonable for an advertiser to depict its products being modelled in its advertising i.e. lingerie. The Board considered that the pose of the model in the image is in keeping with typical lingerie advertising and that the lingerie fully covers Dita’s private areas. The Board considered that the image of the woman is not sexualised and is not sexually seductive.”
Tim Burrowes founded Mumbrella in 2008. He worked on Mumbrella until 2021. At various points he was editor, content director and editor-at-large. He returned to Mumbrella as Publisher in January 2025
Linkedin
Remind me again what children spend the first 6-24 months of their life staring straight at?
User ID not verified.
It’s time the Ad Standards Board revealed the names of these serial complainers, so that we the public can express our disapproval of them.
Advertising that capitalises on or celebrates female beauty cannot by definition be offensive in any way.
If the woman/women featured in it have not complained, then there’s no issue. End of story.
Maybe a savvy advertiser should do an ad featuring one of these miserable misery-guts who sit at home bitterly penning complaints about ads with hot women in them!
User ID not verified.
The ruling on the Honey Birdette case was made on 14th March. I didn’t know about this and made a complaint on the 16th, also sending an email to the store (never heard back) and Westfield Chermside, who were obviously unaware when they sent me the “we think it is ok so it stays” email on the 19th March. A few days later, when I heard of the ruling, I sent a link to them and the reply was that Honey Birdette was arranging to have the signs removed. Guess what – I was in the store on the 30th of March and the sign was still up. When I complained again, I was told they would be changed that night as the new signs had arrived. Strangely enough, Honey Birdette change their signage at the end of the month anyway, so it looks to me as if they have thumbed their noses at the ruling and carried on any way, making no effort. A bit of bluetac and some butchers’ paper could have solved the problem in seconds. Maybe Westfield could have covered it with one of their Kids’ Club posters? The ABS told me that they have no power. They can make a ruling, but they can do nothing to enforce it. There is no incentive for those in breech to fix their signage as there are no penalties and no laws to back it up. This stinks. Labor’s attitude is that the ABS set the standards, but they are not backing it up with anything. BTW my 4 y.o. son noticed the ad before I did and asked me why that “lady is showing her boobies?” How do I teach children about modesty and respect when this is what we encounter on a trip to get some groceries? I don’t mind if Honey Birdette has this ad on display in their store, in their catalogues or in their electronic advertising, but if it was on TV it would be restricted to particular hours. And Mike, if you want to target people making the complaints, perhaps you should put your full name to your comments?
User ID not verified.
Adgrunt on the basis of that logic i guess you’d have no qualms about erect penises featuring heavily in advertising because after all, we were all shot out of one once, weren’t we?
User ID not verified.
So, saying “Because that’s an underwear shop and that’s what ladies wear at home with their boyfriends” would have been a bit complex?
How do you go in the chemist?
User ID not verified.
Should I have said “She is empowering women?” Should I have said “She is showing bits of herself that normally should only be shown in the privacy of her own home with her boyfriend?” Time and place. The point here is that over-sexualised images have a negative effect on children and the way they perceive body images. Even the Australian Medical Association has called for some controls as they are seeing the negative effects it is having on children. As I said, I don’t have a problem with stores using this image for in-store advertising. If I walked into their store, I’d expect to see this kind of image and fair enough. If I’m going to the grocery store, I don’t expect it plastered beside the pram entry. And really, there are other lingerie stores in the vicinity who have posters of women wearing bras and knickers that don’t seem to need to scandalise. The point? Advertising in public spaces should be subject to the same ratings system as advertising in other media. And I’ve never seen an image like that in a chemist. Which one do you go to?
User ID not verified.
Sarah, no – stop making daft strawmen. I made it clear how to deal with this with children in a simple, straight-forward way.
She isn’t showing her nipples, vagina, anus or indeed, for beelzebub’s proclivities, her penis. It’s not like she has her legs akimbo, her “fine china” on display for all.
I’m not sure what terrible catastrophe this image is going to wreak upon your or other’s children, or indeed the wider fabric of decent society. But since you seem to be engaged with Collective Shout, your sense of equivocacy and perspective may be a little off-beam.
Beelzebub – if as a child you were suckled on an erect, ejaculating penis, then that would explain much about your current inability to apply logic.
User ID not verified.
Sarah.. Get over it. The model looks gorgeous. Your kid will see plenty of ‘boobies’ in his time. If you put the time and effort into making complaints about something like that, you clearly have a lot of spare time.
User ID not verified.
Yep, the model is gorgeous. Not the point. (Great to see a real model instead of a stick insect, but it should have been in-store out of the view of my children) Kids see plenty of breasts in contexts of breastfeeding. Also not the point. Children being exposed to hyper sexualised images and being damaged by this is the point, and there is solid research to back this up, unlike the flip opinions of people who will hide behind nicknames such as Adgrunt or are afraid to give their full names. Let me start a list for you: The Australian Medical Association, The Australian Psychological Society, The American Psychological Department, The French Government, The Royal Australian and NewZealand College of Psychiatrists, The Scottish and Irish Parliament, the United Kingdom Home Office, not to mention any number of educational organisations, all with qualified people backing this up. What are your qualifications Adgrunt, that I should take your parenting advice? And you Victoria? Who are you people anyway that you should have a problem with how I parent my children and what people with arguably far more qualifications, experience and research behind them are saying about the damage this is doing to our children?
User ID not verified.
It’s DITA Von Teese.
And yes, posters need to advertise the product being sold, and some people like to wear and buy nice undies.
User ID not verified.
I totally agree with this comment of Sarah’s ‘I don’t mind if Honey Birdette has this ad on display in their store, in their catalogues or in their electronic advertising, but if it was on TV it would be restricted to particular hours.’ For me at least, the big issue is about putting it into the public domain in clear view of me, families & children, including teenagers. After we have seen it, it is too late – the image has been forced upon us, without our consent. Now, I might wear something like this myself in private (except the pasties -eew), but I wouldn’t wander around my house in front of my kids in it. And I wouldn’t take them, or go myself, to a burlesque show to see it, so why should we see it involuntarily at the local shoping centre? It’s not about whether the model is in a suggestive pose or not, or too thin or not, or what the intentions of the advertiser are or are not. The issue for me is about putting ads with people who are not dressed to be out in the shopping centre in front of lots of people, out in the shopping centre in front of lots of people. Simple. There’s a time & a place for everything & our generation seems to think that those standards should no longer apply, and anyone who disagrees is a ‘wowser’. Not true, just don’t force me and my kids to look at people in lingerie – give us the choice. And I will teach tem, and when they are grown they can make those decisions for themselves. By the way, no baby was ever breastfed by a woman with pasties on her nipples.
User ID not verified.
Quote: BANKSY ON ADVERTISING
People are taking the p*** out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small.They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else.
They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate.
They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are “The Advertisers” and they are laughing at you.
You, however, are forbidden to touch them.
Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity.
F*** that.
Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It’s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it.
Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.
You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don’t owe them any courtesy. They owe you.
They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you.
They never asked for your permission, don’t even start asking for theirs.
~ Banksy
User ID not verified.
Oh hello Sarah. Welcome back.
Which fallacy shall I despatch first. My pseudonymity, I think.
I’m sorry if my AdGrunt moniker means you can’t make ad hominem arguments. It’ll help you focus on the points at hand. Imagine I’m Cardinal Pell if it helps.
Next up, “hyper-sexualisation.” What defines it as “hyper” seems unclear, but let’s stay focused. It is, broadly, about the “Lolita” phenomenon. It’s domain is the curious pre-teen beauty pageants and latterly for the French, a cover of French Vogue in 2010. I believe that there’s a big difference between the two, but either way, they’re nothing to do with the image above.
So, um, since this is about a unquestionably mature woman, viewed by a 4 year old boy, in a shopping centre, that diversion is called a strawman. Or in layman’s terms – irrelevant.
Now to your list of sources. Forgive me if I treat it as one, because you seem to have drunk the Collective Shout Kool-Aid a little fast and simply regurgitated it. The groups you cite have expressed concern in varying degrees, for varying reasons and with varying support, about the sexualisation of children. You’ll also note that there is varying actual support for this, though the Australian Psychological Association in particular, advocates an open discourse with your kids. But of course this requires parents with half a clue. Here’s the link: http://www.psychology.org.au/p.....ive_image/
The others broadly say the same thing. So it’s not my view that you should talk rationally and openly to your kids. It’s actually the sources you, yes you, quote.
Notably, they say nothing about sexualisation of young boys by seeing a woman in a lingerie ad. So why you trotted that lot out, I’m unsure. Though I suspect you got a bit of Collective Shout cause-blindness.
So to your final trill. I made a reasonable suggestion that apparently those you cite, who are infinitely more qualified and experienced than me, also agree with. Awkward.
So, what I do have umbrage with, is you feeling the right to inflict your antiquated and moreover unsupportable morality on the rest of society.
User ID not verified.
Thanks Kim. Excellent.
User ID not verified.
You know what I think…..I think it’s not really about the ads, it’s actually about why is a sex shop allowed to be positioned in a shopping centre without all of the other restraints that are usually placed on sex shops?
User ID not verified.
Hi AdGrunt,
I just wondered whether you have read “Big Porn Inc” by Melinda Tankard Rist and Abigail Brail? I ask this in response to your comment to Sarah… “But since you seem to be engaged with Collective Shout, your sense of equivocacy and perspective may be a little off-beam”. I wonder if you might have a greater appreciation for the work of Collective Shout if you read this book? I am more than happy to buy you a copy and send it to you. I offer this with no sarcasm or offense intended. It’s simply that I have great respect for CS and what they are trying to do and also the reason for their efforts. I think this book would help you give you understanding into the reason for their efforts.
Cheers for everyone’s posts – have enjoyed reading people’s perspectives!
User ID not verified.
Yes Gabriella. I have.
That’s precisely why I made the comment.
User ID not verified.