Longer Lasting Sex billboards sexualise children and are confronting to Australians
August 25, 2008 – 9:27 pm
After 18 months of dismissing complaints against Advanced Medical Institute’s giant yellow ‘Want Longer Lasting Sex?’ billboards, the Advertising Standards Bureau has backflipped and decided that the ad not only sexualises children, but is also confronting to a large section of the community.
I wish I was joking.
There’s two major problems here:
1) The ASB believes that because a large section of the community finds sex confronting (or offensive) it warrants the removal of a text-only, genuinely tame and sober advertisement for a serious medical issue.
2) The ASB believes that the mere mention of the word sex constitutes the sexualisation of children.
Garbage!
If that’s true, billboards and television advertisements for issues like breast cancer are liable to suffer the same fate. There’s no doubt a section of the community would find breasts confronting if they were placed on a 15 metre billboard, and there’s certainly a great deal who find breasts sexual. But does the mere mention of the female breast or even a picture of one sexualise children? Does it mean the ads should be removed because some people find it offensive. Of course not.
As confronting as the concept of sex might be for some Australian’s, no one deserves the right to censor a company effectively marketing it’s services. Especially an ad so blatantly bland and for a disorder important to many man (and women).
Alison Abernethy of the ASB says in a press release that ‘the Board acknowledged that in the time since the original decision, debate in the community about the sexualisation of children has crystallised community concern about the unsolicited exposure of children to advertisements dealing with sexuality.
“The Board also considered the advertiser’s claim that the billboard deals with a medical disorder but determined that the words used were not medical in nature and were a blatant message about a sexual act.
“The increased placements since February 2007, its size, bold colours and blatant message were considered by the Board as making the billboard confronting to a large section of the community,” Ms Abernethy said.
Yet only a few months back, Abernethy said the AMI billboard ‘didn’t contain any graphic images or portrayal of nudity and the word sex isn’t offensive and there wasn’t any strong language.’
At the same time, AMI told SMH that the billboards triggered 1000 calls a day from men seeking help with erectile dysfunction. Inflated figures or not, there’s probably a good portion of the community who found the ad extremely helpful (the product? who knows).
AMI will now replace over 120 billboards Australia wide.
Cheers to Tim and Jon for the tip off.
Update 26/08/08: I’ve contacted the ASB for comment.
22 Responses to “Longer Lasting Sex billboards sexualise children and are confronting to Australians”
The mention of children seems a complete non-sequitur. Can there be any doubt were entering “hysteria” territory?
By Colin on Aug 26, 2008
Definitely.
The word ‘sex’ in public (and on a billboard advertised to adults) does not sexualise children. A billboard with Elmo or Big Bird and sex, that’s a different story.
If sex in public sexualises children, than newspapers and magazines are equally as guilty. Animals having sex at the zoo could be said to sexualise children.
Undoubtedly, the after effects of Hetty’s ranting is starting to happen.
By Mike on Aug 26, 2008
Whats next, if i accidentally mention in conversation anything of a sexual context around the wrong person or god forbid in the presence of a child could I be arrested for public indecency? Or worse still arrested for attempting to sexualise a child?
I would agree with “hysteria” territory.
By Adam on Aug 26, 2008
Same thing isn’t it, Adam. It’s clearly a cop out excuse on behalf of the ASB.
By Mike on Aug 26, 2008
Did you see this quote: “AMI spokesperson George Zaharias said his company would comply with the ASB ruling. He said it was a fair decision, agreeing that the billboard could prompt children to ask questions.”
“…prompt children to ask questions” !! Heaven forbid they do that!! Seriously though, I think people are just so incredibly squeamish about talking to their children about S.E.X. that they’re willing to do anything to prevent it happening, and use any justification they can think of.
By Oscar Blyth on Aug 26, 2008
Hey Oscar,
AMI has crumbled equally as much as the ASB.
Sure, any company (especially one which includes a sex related service/product) is not going to be able to fight the sexualises children claim without some serious repercussions, but stand firm.
Sad turn of events.
By Mike on Aug 26, 2008
Bit of a head scratcher. It really doesn’t make any sense. What kids? Sex is not a medical term? Surely AMI can fight it because it’s so absurd.
I was just thinking about the magazines I see at the supermarket checkouts every morning before I go to work. What about Cosmopolitan and even some of the trashy mags like Who? Certainly the word “Sex” and headlines about sex (especially Cosmopolitan – I’ve never seen a cover with out the word “Sex” on there at least once) are on the covers of these magazines. Obviously the women who read these and the publishers are paedophiles.
By Matthew on Aug 26, 2008
Hey Matt,
Cosmo was the first thing that came to my mind as well. Think of how many newspaper covers could also said to be sexualising children just because their front page stories often involve clergy sex abuse or Stephanie Rice photo controversies.
AMI is honoring the ASB’s decision and is altering the ads. It will interesting to see what they change them to and the reaction they get.
By Mike on Aug 26, 2008
It’s funny how much “sexualized children” and related terms are bandied these days. I think originally it referred to children who had been chronically molested and had come to see the behaviour as normal, who would casually foist sexual advances on their unsuspecting peers and other adults. These days it seems to refer to any child who knows what sex is.
By Oscar Blyth on Aug 26, 2008
I knew what sex was from at least Grade 1 (probably sooner)and it wasn’t because one of my classmates had seen a billboard. Did I have an excessively open upbringing? Just the opposite.
By Mike on Aug 26, 2008
You may find it interesting to refer to the media releases from their website..
http://www.adstandards.com.au/pages/page44.asp
(As you may be aware) I studied a Certificate IV in Small Business Managemnet and one of my tasks was to investigate advertising which at that stage comprised “Most Complained About Ads in 2007″. When I showed the instructor how few decisions had been upheld he noted that “it’s not the board’s job to enforce censorship..”
Even “lip synching broccoli” escaped their wrath (“The ad is clearly tongue-in-cheek and a bit of fun,” said Advertising Standards Bureau Chief Executive Officer, Fiona Jolly.)
..but then in 2008 “Protecting Children” entered the agenda and the number of board members was increased to 20
http://www.adstandards.com.au/pages/images/10-08_New_Board_members_appointed.doc
I suspect the agenda of a conservative incoming government is being felt across the board (no pun intended)…
Bob
By Bob Bain on Aug 26, 2008
I’m guessing it’s the top ones on this page: http://www.adstandards.com.au/pages/page15.asp
Seems they all like spending time with their families.
By Mike on Aug 26, 2008
Glad to see our governments cracking down on vice. It shows how ‘Christian’ we are.
I presume it will still be legal for Australians to peddle illegal wars based on lies to blame the victims for systematic war crimes, such as the collective punishment of an entire civilian population?
By Mr Anticon on Nov 17, 2008
Nothing seems to be easier than seeing someone whom you can help but not helping.
I suggest we start giving it a try. Give love to the ones that need it.
God will appreciate it.
By phathywaitige on Jan 22, 2009
I don’t really have any problem with the advertisement itself, I don’t find it offensive myself.
What I *DO* have a problem with, though, is “Advanced Medical Institute” the company. What a joke! It’s a complete rip-off guys, and I feel anyone buying anything off this company needs an intelligence/reality check.
It’s just a spray-bottle formulation containing amomorphine, which is not very effective at treating these problems. And, even if it WERE effective, you should be getting this from your DOCTOR, at REASONABLE prices! Not some random person who is spending loads on advertising and is charging an arm and a leg for a cheap substance, that doesn’t even work very well!
Educate yourself, people!!!
By Michael Char on Jun 11, 2009
AMI can suck my non-erectile cock.
By Aye Em Ai on Oct 21, 2009