Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Only Fans billboards cleared after complaints children could see them

6 replies

IwantToRetire · 25/08/2023 00:48

Billboards showing model Eliza Rose Watson in underwear advertising her OnlyFans account page have been cleared by the regulator following complaints that they were inappropriate for children to see.

All the complainants, who understood that OnlyFans was an internet content subscription service which featured sexual adult content, challenged whether the ad was inappropriate for display where children could see it.

Many believed the ad was overly sexualised and objectified women and complained that it was offensive, harmful and irresponsible.

Watson said the ad adhered to advertising guidelines and reflected leading trends, adding that she tailored it to “avoid offensiveness to mature viewers and intrigue to the younger generation”.

Clearing the ads, the ASA said that although Watson’s clothing was revealing, the image did not feature any nudity, and the pose adopted by her was “no more than mildly sexual”.

The ASA said: “While we acknowledged that the image of Ms Watson and reference to OnlyFans might be distasteful to some, we considered that because the ad was not overtly sexual and did not objectify women, we therefore concluded it was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.

“The ad was shown on several posters throughout London, which was an untargeted medium, and was therefore likely to be seen by a large number of people, including children.

“However, because we considered the ad was not overtly sexual and did not objectify women, we therefore concluded the ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence and had not been placed irresponsibly.”

The ASA ruled no further action was necessary.

https://www.itv.com/news/london/2023-08-23/models-only-fans-billboards-cleared-after-complaints-children-could-see-them

OP posts:
maltravers · 25/08/2023 00:56

I’m guessing the ASA is a committee of men. “Not overtly sexual” and doesn’t objectify women eh? just a shame her tight bra is a bit too small for her chest and her hair a bit tousled…

Stationerygasm · 25/08/2023 01:58

What did they think her photo would be of for an onlyfans page. Honestly some people will complain at anything

She looks great. No more sexual than a Dove Soap advert tho

Gingerkittykat · 25/08/2023 02:37

”.Watson said the ad adhered to advertising guidelines and reflected leading trends, adding that she tailored it to “avoid offensiveness to mature viewers and intrigue to the younger generation

I would definitely think the ad would cause younger viewers, especially teenage boys to be intrigued and want to follow the link to her only fans page.

Would an ad for pornhub be acceptable if it contained a similarly clad woman?

It's about normalising only fans for younger viewers and putting the name out there in the mainstream to get it into people's consciousness.

littleripper · 25/08/2023 02:47

Well now it's a mainstream media and news advert isn't it. Clever marketing there.

NotBadConsidering · 25/08/2023 02:51

OnlyFans:

A porn site that “empowers” women to expose their bodies to gratify men’s sexual needs, so a man can pay himself $1.3 million a day.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/aug/24/onlyfans-owner-leonid-radvinsky-pays-himself-338m-in-dividends

Yeah, really empowering and really something kids should be able to see advertised /sarcasm.

OnlyFans owner pays himself $1.3m a day from UK-based adult content site

Company’s 2022 accounts show pre-tax profits up by 22% to $525m, while Leonid Radvinsky took $338m in dividends

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/aug/24/onlyfans-owner-leonid-radvinsky-pays-himself-338m-in-dividends

IwantToRetire · 25/08/2023 16:21

Some of the comments are a bit wierd.

As far as I know advertising porn is not accepted in news papers, tv, etc..

Why would it be okay to advertised it on the street where young people are made aware that women prostitute their bodies to make money.

And not she doesn't look great. She looks like a blow up doll and highly unnatural.

But worse still it perpetuates in public that what is important about women in their physical attributes.

So of coursed it is objectifying and sexualising.

The fact that it has been allowed shows how the power of the porn industry particularly through the internet is normalising it.

And it of course is about treating women as objects.

No mother would want their son or daughter to think that this is okay.

And have heard arguements that none of this matters because this is a woman taking decisions and running her own business.

But her right to be the madam of her own body is fine, but not if it is hawked like this in public and so erodes other women's rights to walk the streets and no be objectified.

What a really sad state of affairs that in the 21st century this is seen as "advancement".

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page