Ad watchdog rules rubber outfits were ‘relevant’ in Ultratune ad
The ad watchdog has dismissed complaints an UltraTune ad, which aired during the first game of the NRL State of Origin, objectifies women, ruling that the women’s attire of rubber suits in the commercial was relevant to the company’s new range of ‘rubber tyres’.
The ad received a number of complaints to the Ad Standards Board (ASB), most of them relating to the objectification of women and the sexual nature of the ad. One complainant wrote:
“The automotive industry is known for a traditional lack of respect for women, the role of the women in the advertisement was purely as objects. The tag line “we’re into rubber” is offensive and it deduces the women in the ad to fetish objects not customers or equals.”
Get a life
Wowser logic for “objectification”
– It might make me / my partner / my child / anyone of “lesser stuff” feel funny “down there”
– Jebus doesn’t let me process my own thoughts.
– BURN THEM!
– THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
– BURN THEM AGAIN!
The claim that this ad objectifies women, makes no sense at all.
The fact remains that some men and women have a fetish for rubber fashion. Often, they enjoy a physical expression of their sexuality by wearing and feeling attractive in rubber (latex) clothing. Even more often, women are, as stated, taking on a dominant role during rubber play and the entire pasttime is by their own choosing!
The ad standards board was right to dismiss this case. It’s the babblings of uptight, uninformed reactionaries.
Sometimes the ASB’s rulings are just as hard to fathom as the complaints they get. It’s impossible to work out why some highly sexual ads get banned while others are A-OK. I would’ve thought the depiction of whips and fetish gear is enough to draw the line, but evidently being “powerful and confident” as you hold your whip means you pass whatever test the ASB is applying. Beats me.
Had the complaints been raised on the basis of lack of creativity and originality I believe the advertiser and their agency would have had a case to answer.
As it stands the greatest creativity shown in this case is in the fanciful justification of the content by the advertiser’s legal team!