‘Gagged’ slave girl ad for men’s clothing store Roger David banned by ad watchdog

Honestly, there are far more offensive ads out there that could do with being pulled first. But I’m more concerned that her arms look like they are not attached to her body!

Typical PC standards people… So pathetic. I think it is a masterstroke in design and concept. Whoever is disgusted with it will obviously be frumpy and unfashionable. I will go buy something from that store today as a sign of disgust at the authorities !!

Gross. i’m glad this ad is banned, i have no idea how young male adults could relate to this image.

If it’s “a comment on youth and the national debt that now rests on their shoulders and as an ironic patriotic comment on capitalist recruitment and identity” then it would have worked just as well with a male model, right? Yeah, right.

Tasteless as an advertisement; but provocative as a piece of political art…
Didn’t know that Roger David had an agenda.

I don’t think is ad is appropriate on any level.

rightly so – I am rarely offended by ads but this is shocking. What the hell were they thinking?

“I think it is a masterstroke in design and concept.” Yeah, right sunshine. Keep dreaming the dream. Meanwhile in the real world, it’s derivative and exploitative.

There’s nothing of a comment on youth and the national debt in it.

It is self serving on the part of the agency or Roger David to say it’s an ironic, patriotic comment.

It’s a young girl who loves being treated like shit for a male audience.

I’d be worried about the type of young male who relates to this image.

Great point Anna. A young guy sees the “New Love Club” t.shirt with a young woman depicted as a sexual slave and thinks: “I really relate to that! I’ll wear it as an ironic patriotic comment on capitalist recruitment and identitiy.” Roger David must think we are all idiots. Collective Shout has been boycotting Roger David for some time now because of it flogging t.shirts for men depicting women naked, bound and gagged. We have no plans to stop.

she looks underage aswell. yuk.

“young men would relate to this image, and would not see it as shocking or exploitative”. That’s the worst part: that our porn- and raunch-fuelled culture has created a cohort of people who find such an image acceptable. They see a gagged girl and think ‘meh’.

I’m glad they banned it – we need to draw a line in the sand somewhere.

“Roger David strongly believes that young men would relate to this image, and would not see it as shocking or exploitative.”
If we are talking about the demo, and the stereotype of the ‘young Australian man’ – methinks we should not rely on them for a moral or societal compass.
Also – when did our patriotism include the Brittish flag – surely a quick cut and paste would have at least made it a little more relevant?

tacky, and considering I do my man’s clothes shopping, incredibly stupid.

Meh. Another attempt at controversy for retweets and clicks. The headline for this article was more attention grabbing. Roger David. Whatevs.

Gasp – imagine being ‘frumpy and unfashionable’. Or imagine being a pretentious misogynist who thinks this sort of exploitative portrayal of a young woman is clever and edgy. Good to see Roger David knows its market.

Totally agree with mmouse!

The only iconic label they possess is the -echeapo retailer that was recognised in the 80’s. They can now add to that as being C grade graphic designers with a concept that was clearly thought up around the board table drinking too much Felton Road. Oh sorry, that’s an expensive red…how bout a Wolfblass.

Poor effort guys, and not worth defending. Shut up already.

“Masterstroke”? Masturbate.

CRAP ADVERTISING

It’s a bit young and hip for Roger David innit?

Bad enough it was used in Britain. The AU marketing team clearly didn’t exercise their best judgement. How anyone could read that load of BS into that ad is beyond me….it deserved to be pulled. #fail Roger David

this is just more of the same from the industry that gave us heroin-chic. you know something is past it’s use by date if boring old roger david is using it. the attempts to be visually shocking by the fashion industry have become such a yawn that they all look the same and it’s a race to the bottom in terms of how they present themselves

First thing wrong is that the 18 year old girl looks more 13, so right there we have major problems. Unless the ad is going to come with an explanation saying she is 18 (doubt it!) then the ad comes off as really sick. Still wrong if she was clearly 18+.

So “New Love” means a provocative, zonked, 13 year old, night-club street urchin? Who’d have thought?! Totally right call. Not good brand association!

never trust a man with two first names

Daggy old Roger David obviously needed a makeover to stay competitive. It has been churning out objectified and sexualised images of women on t-shirts for some time now.Some makeover! The buying team need a big fat education on how to treat women in the 21st century. Men who choose to wear these images become walking billboards. What nobs!
‘Ironic’…. for who? Great news that the image has been banned – it shows that an increasing number of people in the community are making complaints about these images.

There’s nothing attractive about this ad at all. Secretly I bet there’s plenty of people at David Jones that are glad it’s been banned too.

that is a HAWT ad

Young Australian men find Miranda Kerr and her older sister (Megan) attractive.. why weren’t they used in this campaign for DJ’s?

My mistake.

Who knew that there was still a Roger David? Amazing.

best…ad…..ever

I am rarely offended, but that image is wrong on so many levels. trying to defend it on the basis that
“young men would relate to this image” is revolting! What sort of young man? Perhaps one who travels to Thailand for a sex holiday – but that statement is equally offensive to young men,
Gazza – I hope you are just a troll, I won’t take the bait.

I feel like I see this shit every day, everywhere.
whatever

A not cool,- but trying to be brand, produces a not cool,- but trying to be ad.
Pathetic and sad – would be the words that spring to mind.

Silly me, the whole political statement about national debt went right over my head. All I saw was the same themes of gagged and objectified women that Roger David usually put on their t-shirts. Oh wait…maybe there is a political statement there that I’m missing, involving women being gagged, what could it possibly be?

I wouldn’t expect any better of Roger David.

And its sexist as all hell

you’d never see a clothing ad with a young male in such a suggestive pose..

Oh Roger David…or should it be Roger the dodger.

Poor form by the dodgers.

I tried to get them to respond regarding the other disgusting t-shirts they have had for sale, but alas they dodged that. So my mates and I boycott them.

I once asked one of the young sales staff why they had shocking t-shirts for sale and she said ‘the young guys love them and they are our best sellers’.

Is that so.

Also the dodgers are losing more and more kudos by coming up with fancy pants excuses but the reality is that they are trying to be cutting edge, yet cutting good judgement corners. Its plain to all that they are happy to use exploitative images of young women for profit.

Its not the first time, yet their excuse would lead you to believe that it is.

Anyone in the mood for a boycott?

Apparently Calvin Klein’s advertising would be a revelation to most on here.

As noted previously, whilst crass, if this is what the baying (feminist?) mob believe causes sexual crime, then they’re a long way from finding a solution to the problem.

A men’s clothing store needs a picture of a man in the clothing. Not a half naked anorexic sex slave. Truly roger David…..yum

you’re a little late picking up the story mumbrella: http://bit.ly/ndct9F

The guys that wear the sexist, porno clothing churned out by Roger David wouldn’t even know how to spell ‘capitalist recruitment’ let alone ‘relate’ to it. I’d like to be a fly on the wall when these design ideas are thrown around ‘Hey Barry, we need another justification for this gagged chick on a shirt….Capitalism?…really?..can you spell that for me?…thanks…what does it mean?…actually don’t worry, i couldn’t be arsed learning a new thing.’

There are worse adds we need to worry about.

Seriously my daughter is 13 and she looks older than this girl, the fact that she was 18 when the shot was done is irrelevant its that she is posed and chosen to look a whole lot younger. Slave…New Love Club also can refer to “first timers” – distasteful at least.
A political statement my @$$ … it’s simply a bad effort by creatives w@nkers somewhere whose brief was obviously to ‘shake it up a bit – we need a masterstroke to reinvigorate our old tired brand, get them talking about us, any publicity is good publicity’… bad brief by client = bad creative.
Roger David – sadly you have failed miserably in this, if your wishing to make political statements then do exactly that – and for god’s sake if it is going to be relevant to Australian’s, use our flag.

Oh and for those who think this is ok…I rarely am offended, but this is simply really off in its presentation of women/young girls.

This ad is quite frightening!!! Disgusting, really. I’d like to see proof this girl is 18. I’d like to see proof this girl is a model somewhere. I don’t believe it! SHE LOOKS DRUGGED! Her arms look like they’re digitally attached. She appears to actually be lying down when this photo was taken with her arms by her side. This ad is NOT suitable. I’d have the people who created it, used it — investigated for child pornography.

I’ve come to expect nothing better from Roger David. However common they are, though, ads like this still make me boil inside! “Roger David strongly believes that young men … would not see it as shocking or exploitative.” I don’t care if a few young immature men don’t find it shocking or exploitative. With ads like these, if ANYONE feels exploited by it, it’s NOT APPROPRIATE!! I can’t believe so called “professionals” and “experts” can be so filthy and insensitive. Get a grip, Roger David!

I’ll continue not shopping at Roger David.

Hope they got a big fine as well. I will never shop there again

I’d tap it.

What young Australian guy thinks Roger David is cool anyway? No advertising is going to change that.

Just because a target market may like an underaged sex slave doesn’t make the ad acceptable. It is a disgusting slur on the majority of young men who understand that the female of the species deserves respect.

They should be using Roger Moore as their face.

Roger who? Are they still around?

They should continue selling their distasteful “naked chick” tees. It’s like having a forehead tattoo that says ‘I’m a slimy a-hole looking for a quick f*** and I probably have a small d*** and some diseases to boot.’ I appreciate the warning fellas….and I won’t be going there.

I can’t help but notice that it’s the contributors on this column that are objectifying the model.

Far more so than the company, staff and customers. Do you think it might, just might be a problem in *your* head, rather than anyone else’s?

F*ing disgrace. Marketing bullshit demonstrates how misguided and disconnected from any real world some people are. Let alone the lack of any instinct at the company itself. And I am definitely not a wowser or PC or feminist (not even female) or any other label some of these posters have tried to pin on the majority vehemently opposed to such an ad.

Disgusting advertising. No way is that girl 18. This is sending a bad message to men. And no, I’m not a frump nor am I old. There are far more clever ways to advertise….and others have remarked about the market they already have – I thought they were old men so not sure what they are trying to acheive with this trash. How about some positive role modelling?

It must be really exciting to wake up every morning and think to yourself “how can i be offended by something today?”

This is why advertising is boring 99% of the time.Too afraid of some conservative douche bag figuring out a way to construe something as derogatory, exploitative or just “a bit too risque for my liking”.

Everyone needs to relax a little bit. I’m so sick of moral crusading to “protect” people from making up their own minds about something.

/rant. you are all boring people.

@ ICE, Aug 18, 7:15 am

“SHE LOOKS DRUGGED” – calm down you muppet.

Even IF the girl is 18…The word SLAVE bar coded should NOT BE in anybody’s shoulder! : [
http://www.goodtube.org/videos.....promo-4min

Love Slave? More like paedophile material.

The heart symbol is the symbol of the brand. Its also a trend in the UK to make symbols with your hands Like lady GAGA. Look at the brand, “Hype means nothing”

she does have something in her mouth, she is gagged, but its not about sex its about not having a voice. A generation feeling like they are not being heard by their government. Tuition fees being increased 3 fold.

The slave stamp is not a sexual comment. Its a comment on financial slavery and debt. Debt = Slavery not freedom.

You people have issues if you look at this and see sex rater than a provocative comment on an issue affecting a generation that you’re obviously out of touch with.

This is not remotely sexually provocative to a younger generation that has grown up with internet porn on tap.

All you moralising wenches can FO. I love my chicks ready for it, the slave word is just word-play and I love the British flag wherever. RULE BRITTANIA!

@me

You’ll find Australia is filled with vocal religious types.

Like all religious types, they often see things which aren’t actually there.

Does it count as a boycott if you would never shop there anyway?

yeah right Roger David – feed us the “good guy” rationale – but your brand values don’t represent that! What’s evident are your shadow values! Cheap and nasty exploitation of young girls to young males for your commercial benefit while at the same time trying to feed us the BS – of “that’s not what it means!!” low low low.

what a cool brand for inadvertently creating such a debate with its work. Thats what all good subversive artists do. Instead of just dismissing their reasoning as a lie or a clever masterminded publicity stunt, why not look at the issues that have been highlighted by its explanation.

This has no doubt been created by a youth generation for a youth generation.

That company is new and young, i doubt very much that its being run by “dirty old men”

What is portrayed here is immoral whether it refers to adult women or children. This is because it implies they are not persons but rather objects to be used however one desires. Persons cannot be treated with anything but the dignity they deserve by their nature and the sexual and ownership implications here, which are meant to be portrayed, are an evil. I find it interesting that again those who oppose this position, which is the norm for human thought, use a phrase like “Typical PC standards people” effectively twisting around it’s original meaning. The phrase “politically correct” refers to those who call good evil and evil good, as is being done in this picture, and as is contrary to Gazza’s comment. This is why I prefer to interpret the term PC to mean the “Politically Corrupt !”

@me – you are one of few people to take a rational approach to how this should be perceived. Thank you for posting.

I dont see it as sexualised. She’s not wearing make up and thats why you see her as looking too young…!! Hypocrisy

There are much worse images than this one by New Love Club.
Look at French Vogue:

http://lemonsblack.com/far-too-much-far-too-young/

The mouth is much more than a sexual organ people!!!

Slave means sex-slave, why exactly??? The barcode relates more to capitalism, no?

And the hand heart symbol, why is that sexual???

You only see sex because thats what you want from a pic of a woman.

Because this girl has no make up on and appears younger you are actually disgusted by your own sexual objectification of her.

I think next up, after playing into the publicity-hungry hands of fashion non-entity Roger David, we should burn some books and a witch.

Then Roger David can get even more unwarranted publicity for a childishly “edgy” image.

BURN THEM. JESUS LOVES ROGER DAVID AND BURNING WITCHES. AND EDGY PICTURES.

[That’ll get the nutters in a lather.]

I’m sorry but is this model was blonde with a whole lot of clevage you’d be outraged about that. But she is an adult with simple make up and hair and all of a sudden it’s outrageous that she looks undergae?
Oh but wait! There’s something in her mouth! Yes that must mean she’s being gagged, and the word slave has to relate to sex.
Seriously take a moment before you get on your high horse and disregard Roger David’s defense.
I completey agree with ‘XXX’, the people outraged by this photo should take a moment to consider why they straight away saw this as a sexual message. This girl is a model, but she’s also got a brain and obviously so does the photographer. Don’t kill art in advetising.

LOTS of intolerance here from the HATERS who get angry when a woman is depicted in a submissive way. She actually looks ‘happy’ and appears to be smiling slightly. News for you people: Some women WANT to be depicted this way! Look at Lady Gaga, Rihanna, Christina Aguilera, etc. They do videos where they are in bondage (yes even ‘gagged’) and have made public statements about bondage being sexy! They are some of the most beloved women in pop culture. You haters just want to censor anything that doesn’t depict a woman the way you want to see them. That is the bottom line. HATERS.

why hasn’t any one noticed that Roger David thought men would ‘relate’ to a young woman? ‘Relate’ = associate, therefore Roger David thinks their male clientele are girls!

Jeez, some people need to take a chill pill.
well done to @me @adgrunt and @xxx for having a reasoned opinion instead of screaming “won’t someone please think of the children”

in the words of officer Barbrady
“move on people nothing to see here”

LoL – still at the top of the most discussed list, and not just here.

Advertising win.

First things first, this is not art as several people have attempted to argue. This is an advertisment. Paid for by the corporation Roger David. It’s primary purpose is to attract consumers to the brand so that they will buy Roger David’s clothes so that the company can in turn make a profit. That a corporation, that operates in captitalist countries, under a capitalist profit model, which probably exploits cheap asian labour should attempt to justify one of their ads as an anti capitalist political statement is a astonishingly cynical act in its self.

So for anyone half way intelligent its not even a good ad. But then i suppose that provers roger david knows its target audience pretty well then….

It really says something about a fashion label when they won’t even show their clothes in the campaign. Cheap, macho crap.