Advertising Board cites global concern over Epstein case in banning Teazers ad

Women cannot be depicted as a benefit or prop of wealth or power, the Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB) said in banning a Teazers advertisement featuring a chief executive officer (CEO) surrounded by women, stating “the CEO's second boardroom”.

This follows a complaint filed against Teazers’ billboard, which claims the advertisement is “offensive, highly suggestive, giving the wrong message about CEOs, promoting infidelity, giving the message that this is how CEOs behave.” According to the complainant, CEOs - being leaders - have a responsibility to be role models. “In a society where fraud and corruption are rife, this is a further nail in that coffin,” the complaint read.

Teazers, in defending the billboard, pointed out that its advertisement contains no nudity, partial nudity, nor explicit or exploitative imagery. It states that the purpose of the advertisement is to convey sophistication, confidence, and an aspirational lifestyle, which, it says, are themes commonly found in luxury, sport, and fashion advertising.

The advertiser believes that “viewed objectively, the advertisement is not likely to cause serious or widespread offence and therefore does not breach the ARB’s Code of Conduct". According to Teazers, the advertisement portrays neither men nor women in a derogatory or subordinate manner and that the imagery is symbolic rather than literal, representing an aspirational lifestyle, not moral conduct.

It told the ARB that the advertisement does not purport to generalise or comment on the behaviour of CEOs or leaders, but is rather a creative, symbolic concept portraying success and confidence.

“Our patrons are law-abiding adults from diverse backgrounds who choose to attend a licensed entertainment venue...,” it said.

In considering the complaint, the ARB directorate commented that it must distinguish between a degree of moral distaste around the services offered by the advertiser and which aspects of this specific advertisement might be considered offensive.

The directorate noted that the service provided by the advertiser ‒ that of “adult entertainment” ‒ is legal in South Africa, and therefore any associated advertising cannot be judged solely for depicting the services offered.

Therefore, it says, it cannot consider the portion of the complaint that suggests that the advertisement is “suggestive”, as adult entertainment is by its very nature suggestive, which is not in and of itself offensive.

The directorate further did not consider the portion of the complaint that claims that the advertisement promotes infidelity, as there is nothing to suggest that the depicted man is married, or that the promotion of the legal service of adult entertainment encourages infidelity.

However, the directorate found that there are a number of aspects of the advertisement that are concerning, especially in the current sociopolitical climate. It noted that there is global concern around the sexual abuse and rape by American financier Jeffrey Epstein of girls who were not yet at the legal age of consent.

“Against this backdrop in particular, and as a matter of policy generally, there should be no association between professional stature and sex, or between power and the likelihood of attracting (or coercing) women,” the directorate said.

It is against this backdrop that it finds that the advertisement carries implications of sexual harassment, which should not be depicted as desirable in any context.

“Essentially, the directorate asserts that women cannot be depicted as a benefit or prop of wealth or power, as this is clear objectification, and the directorate believes that this is exactly what the advertisement is depicting,” it said in instructing that the advertisement be removed.

Cape Times