Lauren Tuck

“Designer Vagina” Ad Banned for Promoting Negative Body Image

Lauren Tuck

Wed, May 11, 2016 at 6:30 PM UTC

London Bridge Plastic Surgery clinic‘s advertisement in “Metro” promoting labia reshaping — Five individuals took issue with the fact that London Bridge Plastic Surgery clinic’s ad made references to “a more natural appearance” and “enlarged labia.” The ASA viewed this as “socially irresponsible.” *(Photo @EmmaDixon/Twitter)*

A Gucci model leans against a wall wearing a patterned dress from the luxury label’s Cruise 2016 collection — Gucci might be the current darling of the fashion world, but that doesn’t make it immune from controversy. Two stills and a video featuring models in bright dresses from the Cruise 2016 collection have been taken to task by the United Kingdom’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). The independent watchdog keeps tabs on the appropriateness of campaigns, with do-gooders filing complaints that are subsequently investigated by the organization.
The individual questioned “whether or not models were unhealthily thin” and ASA agreed, declaring that the “ad must not appear again in its current form.” In response, Gucci said that the ad targeted a “sophisticated audience” and noted that the debate at hand “was, to some extent, a subjective issue as to whether a model looked unhealthily thin.” Gucci added that the models’s ““bones” weren’t visible, their makeup was natural rather than heavy (which might have accentuated the impression of thinness), lighting was uniform and warm to ensure there were no hollows caused by shadows and their clothes were not revealing. The visual parts of their bodies appeared toned and slim.”

A Gucci model sits on a couch in a yellow ensemble from Gucci’s Cruise 2016 collection — A complainant insisted that the model appeared unhealthily thin and ASA agreed. Despite the fact that she’s wearing a long dress and barely any skin is showing, the organization said that her “torso and arms were quite slender and appeared to be out of proportion with her head and lower body.” The ASA concluded that the model didn’t appear to be unhealthily thin because “her legs, while slim, appeared to be generally in proportion with the rest of her body which was not excessively slender or underweight.”

Christina Hendricks’s TV commercial for Clairol’s Nice ’N Easy banned for being misleading — Christina Hendricks appears in a commercial for Clairol’s Nice N’ Easy hair dye and magically, without the help of a professional hairstylist, goes from her signature red to blonde in a matter of seconds. "I’ve been the same shade of red for many years. I think it’s time to change it up. Goodbye red, hello golden blonde,” she says in the spot. Two women in the UK complained to the Advertising Standards Authority saying the results could not be achieved by just using the product. Procter & Gamble, Clairol’s parent company, admitted that her hair had been dyed blonde after it had not been colored for about eight weeks and then it was colored the vibrant red. The timing of the footage was rearranged in post-production and done so for hair health reasons. But even though Nice ’N Easy colorists claim only the product was used, the ASA still took issue with it. "Because the visual claim had not been substantiated, and given that the sequence in which the model’s hair was colored leading up to the TV shoots did not match the depiction in the ad, we concluded that it misleadingly exaggerated the capability of the product.” This conclusion led the watchdog to ban the commercial from being broadcast.

Miley Cyrus’s MAC Viva Glam cosmetics campaign does not “draw attention to [her] breasts or buttocks in any way” — In an advertisement for MAC Viva Glam, Miley Cyrus appears lying down with her legs spread up in the air wearing a black leotard with cutouts. For the “Can’t Be Tamed” singer, the image is actually, well, pretty tame. But some didn’t agree, and lodged a complaint calling the image “overtly sexual” and inappropriate for children. While the ASA admitted that the photo was “sexually suggestive” and “seductive,” it noted that the campaign didn’t break any rules and could therefore be displayed in public areas. "The ads did not draw attention to Miley Cyrus’ breasts or buttocks in any way and although her crotch was visible in the mirrors’ reflections, the ads did not draw attention to that part of her body and could not be perceived as being sexual,” a spokesperson for MAC said.

Saint Laurent ad is banned by UK’s aggressive Advertising Standards Authority for featuring an “unhealthily thin” model — Hedi Slimane’s Saint Laurent has consistently captured the dark side of fashion, potraying rock and roll chic through leather and industrial clothing with individuals such as Marilyn Manson and Courtney Love fronting campaigns. Typically celebrated, one of the brand’s recent ads has come under fire but the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) in the United Kingdom for featuring an “unhealthily thin” model.

The independent regulator of advertising across all media received a complaint regarding an ad with 18-year-old model Kiki Willems in an issue of Elle UK. A reader claimed the imagery was “irresponsible” for using a too-thin model and ASA upheld the filing by banning the ad. According to the ruling, the model’s pose and lighting paid “particular focus to the model’s chest, where her rib cage was visible and appeared prominent, and to her legs, where her thighs and knees appeared a similar width, and which looked very thin, particularly in light of her positioning and the contrast between the narrowness of her legs and her platform shoes.” The fashion industry has made strides in recent years to make sure models maintain healthy lifestyles and that, as a collective, the skinny ideal isn’t perpetuated and pushed on consumers. Countries including France, Israel, Italy, and Spain have established Body Mass Index guidelines for catwalkers. *Vogue* magazines around the world collectively agreed to “not knowingly work with models under the age of 16 or who appear to have an eating disorder,” and the Council of Fashion Designers of America (CFDA) instituted similar restrictions for New York Fashion Week and London Fashion Week designers sign a contract with the British Fashion Council vowing to use models who are at least 16.

Mia Goth’s Miu Miu Spring/Summer 2015 ad censured for the model’s “sexually suggestive pose” — Mia Goth might be 22 but, according to a single complaint, she looks much younger than that. It took just one person raising issue with the Steven Meisel-lensed campaign for the ASA to jump in and ban the ad for giving “the impression that [it] presented a child in a sexualized way.” Goth’s splayed on a rumpled bed wearing a ruffled crop top and floral trousers, which the authority said emitted “an air of vulnerability” and a “a voyeuristic feel.“

Hailee Steinfeld for Miu Miu was banned in 2011 for "showing a child in a hazardous or dangerous situation” — At 14, Hailee Steinfeld was tapped to front Miu Miu’s ad campaign. While the teenager’s Miucca Prada-designed outfit was conservative and age-appropriate in a brown knee-length dress, the ASA took issue with the setting. The watchdog ruled in November 2011 that the Bruce Weber-shot image placed Steinfeld “in a potentially hazardous situation sitting on a railway track,” and therefore “concluded the ad was irresponsible and in breach of the code in showing a child in a hazardous or dangerous situation.” Parent company Prada fired back saying that she “was not crying, nor had she been asked to cry or look upset” and since the photos were taken on an abandoned rail track, she wasn’t in danger. Additionally, the company added that the actress was part of “a serious, high-fashion campaign aimed at adult women” and the ad was only featured in adult, not teen-skewing publications.

Rihanna’s ad restricted from being displayed in areas where children could potentially see it — Rihanna wearing next-to-nothing is not only expected it’s become commonplace. But the ASA took issue with a 2014 advertisement which depicted the singer in just her underwear and stilettos. A complaint called the image demeaning to women and inappropriate for young impressionable people to see. “The fact that Rihanna appeared to be naked except for high heels, we concluded that the ad was sexually suggestive and should have been given a placement restriction to reduce the possibility of it being seen by children,” ASA agreed. But Parlux Fragrances took issue with the admonishment, saying the company just trued to capture Rihanna’s provocative persona in its imagery.

American Apparel ad banned for being too provocative — A product shot on American Apparel’s e-commerce site, which featured a thong one-piece suit, was cited in March “because it portrayed a sexualized image of a model who the complainant considered looked under 16 years of age.” Interestingly enough, this allegation came at the same time when newly-appointed American Apparel CEO Paula Schneider had publicly spoken out about how she wanted to revamp the much-maligned retailer’s image. “It doesn’t have to be overtly sexual,” Schneider told Bloomberg Business in February. “There’s a way to tell our story where it’s not offensive. It is an edgy brand. And it will continue to be an edgy brand.”

Dakota Fanning’s Marc Jacobs’ Oh, Lola fragrance deemed deemed “sexually provocative” — At 17, Dakota Fanning was tapped by Marc Jacobs to front the Oh, Lola fragrance, which were released in November 2011. The ads, shot by prolific fashion photographer Juergen Teller, depicted the actress in a pale pink polka dot dress with an oversized bottle between her legs. While pretty innocent, the ASA didn’t agree. We considered that the length of her dress, her leg and position of the perfume bottle drew attention to her sexuality,“ the non-government body said. "Because of that, along with her appearance, we considered the ad could be seen to sexualise a child.” But Fanning and Jacobs just laughed it off. When asked by “Glamour” if she was surprised by the strong reaction, she replied, ““Yeah, I was! If you want to read something into a perfume bottle, then I guess you can. But it’s also like, Why are you making it about that, you creep? I love Marc and trust him, and we just laughed about it.”

Julia Roberts’ Lanc?me ad banned for being misleading — Promoting a foundation called Teint Miracle, the ASA declared the ad breached the advertising standards code for exaggeration and being misleading and banned it from future publication. Shot by Mario Testino in 2011, L'Oreal fired back saying it “accurately illustrated” the effects of the product. The company was “disappointed” by the condemnation, especially considering the makeup went through scientific and consumer tests that showed users were satisfied with their results.

Natalie Portman’s Dior ad rebuked for being overly airbrushed — L'Oreal didn’t believe Natalie Portman’s eyelashes were possible to emulate without the help of a computer so it lodged a complaint against its competitor with the Advertising Standards Authority in 2012. While Dior’s mascara promised “spectacular volume-multiplying effect, lash by lash,” the ASA found it misleading. Dior asserted that Portman wasn’t wearing false lashes but admitted that a “minimal” amount of retouching took place.

Christy Turlington for Maybelline pulled for being overly-airbrushed — Maybelline’s “Eraser” foundation featuring supermodel Christy Turlington even reached the attention of a Member of Parliament. Politician Jo Swinson said in 2011 that using digital manipulation could impact an individuals’ body image. “We should have some honesty in advertising and that’s exactly what the ASA is there to do. I’m delighted they’ve upheld these complaints,” she said. “There’s a big picture here which is half of young women between 16 and 21 say they would consider cosmetic surgery and we’ve seen eating disorders more than double in the last 15 years…There’s a problem out there with body image and confidence. The way excessive retouching has become pervasive in our society is contributing to that problem.”

An advertisement for labia reshaping has been banned for making women feel bad about the appearance of their vaginas. London Bridge Plastic Surgery clinic was cited by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), the U.K.’s industry watchdog, for being irresponsible.

The clinic fought the charge, asserting that the procedure to reduce and reshape the size of the labia minora (inner lips) and labia majora (outer lips) “could be a source of physical discomfort and psychological distress for women and could be caused by pregnancy and childbirth or even some sports or hormonal effects.” Because of this, and the fact that the publication in which it ran found no offense, London Bridge Plastic Surgery didn’t feel it was right to discourage a potentially beneficial advertisement.

And while the ASA claimed to understand, its decision was still upheld. “We considered that it was irresponsible to imply that any part of a person’s body was not natural in appearance, including because it could encourage them to be dissatisfied with their body, regardless of whether or not it encouraged them to undertake cosmetic surgery,” the ruling read.

Newsletter: The Yodel

Trusted news and daily delights, right in your inbox

See for yourself — The Yodel is the go-to source for daily news, entertainment and feel-good stories.

The notorious regulator might be commendable in its actions, it doesn’t technically have the authority to prohibit anything from being printed or posted. Instead, it generally leverages media attention to raise issues, with the commercials continuing their run. Over the past few years, the Brit witch hunters of advertising have cited L'Oreal, Dior, Miu Miu, Marc Jacobs, and more for everything from overly “sexually suggestive poses” to “excessive airbrushing.” Here, some of ASA’s recent citations.

Follow us on Facebook, Instagram, and Pinterest for nonstop inspiration delivered fresh to your feed, every day.

About Our Ads

Solve the daily Crossword

The Daily Crossword was played 11,212 times last week. Can you solve it faster than others?The Daily Crossword was played 11,212 times last week. Can you solve it faster than others?

Crossword

Newsletter: The Yodel

Trusted news and daily delights, right in your inbox

Solve the daily Crossword

Recommended articles