From Gucci’s ‘G-spot’ to an outrageous cow udder & Brooke Shields row… controversial adverts that got everyone talking
LINGERIE brand Bluebella has had a rude awakening overs its latest advert, which has been slammed as “exploitative” and “porny” by fuming sports stars.
The controversial campaign, which aimed to promote ‘body positivity’, shows Team GB Rugby Sevens stars Ellie Boatman, Jasmine Joyce and Celia Quansah in racy lingerie while playing a game.
However, former tennis star Martina Navratilova, ex-swimmer Sharron Davies and former British distance runner Mara Yamauchi have led a wave of critics slamming the advert as “sexist”.
Davies, who won silver at the 1980 Olympics in the 400metre medley, took to social media to say: “What the actual – this is an utterly shameful campaign, whose braindead idea was this?
“Oh yeah let’s get professional female sports women in porn underwear! Extremely regressive… stereotypes yet again.”
Long-distance runner Mara Yamauchi added on her own page: “WT*F?! This is exploitative, demeaning, sexist, regressive rubbish.
“Of course the intended audience is men. Portraying women as sex objects will not encourage teenage girls into sport.”
The ad has divided the public too, with one mum calling it “utterly shocking”, while a fan insisted: “Love the celebration of a greater variety of body types; these women look strong and powerful!”
And it’s not the first time a risque advert has pushed the boundaries with its racy content, leading to a furious backlash.
Here, we have a look at the campaigns that have left fans divided and shocked the world.
Beach body ready
Nine years ago, Protein World launched their infamous ‘Are you beach body ready?’ advert, which promoted their weight loss products.
The clumsy wording was slammed as shaming and outdated, and led to a huge public debate about perceptions and expectations about body image for women.
A petition on change.org calling for the ad to be banned was signed by over 65,000 people in just two weeks in April 2015.
The campaign was banned by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) on April 30 that year.
However, the backlash saw the company make £1million in four days after sales were unintentionally boosted, according to Forbes.
Shortly after it was released in the UK, Sadiq Khan announced plans to ban adverts that demeaned women on the London Underground.
He said: “As the father of two teenage girls, I am extremely concerned about this kind of advertising which can demean people, particularly women, and make them ashamed of their bodies. It is high time it came to an end.
“Nobody should feel pressurised, while they travel on the Tube or bus, into unrealistic expectations surrounding their bodies, and I want to send a clear message to the advertising industry about this.”
Calvin Klein storm
Calvin Klein landed itself in hot water after a campaign which saw them place 15-year-old actress Brooke Shields alongside a suggestive tag line.
In the television version of the adverts, she said the now infamous line: “Do you know what comes between me and my Calvins? Nothing.”
The campaign caused uproar in 1980s America. ABC and CBS both banned the adverts, but there was no apology from Calvin Klein.
Recently, Brooke, 59, insisted that she didn’t see a problem with the ads, and that the whole point of Calvin Klein was being provocative.
“It was a phrase. It wasn’t ‘I’m not wearing underwear’ or ‘come’ wasn’t spelled differently, it was c-o-m-e, I was like, ‘what’s the problem?’” she saidon The Late Show with Steven Colbert.
Brooke previously addressed the ad in an interview with Vogue.
“I didn’t think it was about underwear or sexual in nature,” Shields said. “What was shocking to me was to be berated by ‘Oh, you knew this was happening. This is what you thought. You were thinking these thoughts.'”
History repeating
Calvin Klein clearly hadn’t learnt their lesson from the backlash over Brooke when they produced an advert in 1995 with models who looked very young.
The adverts were put all over TV, billboards, and the side of busses.
Critics slammed it for sexualising people who looked under the age of consent, and children’s welfare groups voiced concerns.
It prompted the US department of Justice to get involved and open an investigation as to if any laws had been violated by the controversial ads, according to Buzzfeed.
However, the inquiry was dropped when Calvin Klein provided proof that all the models were adults.
The company took out a full page ad in The New York Times, claiming they were “taken aback” by the backlash and that their vision had been “misunderstood by some”.
They also said they would be pulling all the ads.
Gucci’s G-spot
In 2003, Gucci made headlines for its provocative Public Enemy campaign.
It featured 24-year-old Carmen Kass pulling her knickers down to show a letter G shaved into her pubic hair.
On his knees in front of her was a man in a provocative position.
It sparked uproar from the Family Education Trust and Mediawatch UK, though only 16 members of the public complained to the ASA.
Daily Mail columnist Bel Mooney condemned the fashion house, calling the creators of the ad “no better than pimps and those who advertise sexual services in phone boxes”.
Gucci argued that the advert was a collaboration with iconic fashion photographer Mario Testino, and had only appeared in four high fashion magazines and was never intended to be offensive.
While it wasn’t banned, it has remained one of the most controversial adverts of all time.
Udder controversy
French luxury cosmetics company Sisley came under fire in 2001 for an edgy advert featuring a cow’s udder.
Model Josie Maran was photographed in a sexually suggestive position drinking milk straight from a cow’s udder.
The campaign feature other photos of models on a farm, but none of the others caused as much controversy.
The pictures, shot by Terry Richardson, were banned because of the sexually suggestive nature.
Eventually, the ad was banned.
Product placement
Tom Ford set pulses racing and caused outrage with their For Men fragrance campaign in 2007.
The shot, photographed by Terry Richardson, saw a bottle of perfume strategically placed between a woman’s legs that were spread.
Another photo from the campaign showed a bottle placed between a woman’s breasts, which were being grasped by her hands with red nail varnish on.
In both images, the woman appears to be oiled up as well.
The “Tom Ford For Men: The First Fragrance for Men from Tom Ford” campaign was banned in Italy and other countries.
In the UK, it wasn’t banned as it was seen to fit with the cutting edge sexual nature of the Tom Ford brand.
Cara backlash
However, the brand found itself in hot water again in 2015 with the Black Orchid perfume campaign.
The lead image featured Cara Delevingne naked in a bath, surrounded by black orchids and holding the perfume.
It saw outrage from the public, who complained to the UK’s ASA asking for it to be banned.
In their ruling, the ASA said that the campaign could stay but couldn’t be placed within 100 metres of a school.
Explaining its decision, the board said: “Whilst they [Tom Ford] accepted the model was nude… they believe neither her pose nor facial expression were sexually suggestive and were classical in nature, and had been depicted in art.”
Baring it all
Yves Saint Laurent is another luxury brand that isn’t afraid to cause a stir with its advertising campaigns.
But many feel it went too far when it showed a model fully naked, including his penis, in promo shots for their M7 male fragrance.
The 2002 advert starring Samuel de Cubber saw hundreds complain to the ASA.
After it went live in France, his parents received mocking photos, while Samuel saw lots of women sending fan mail offering to meet him, according to The New York Times.
The advert was banned in the USA, with a waist up version being used instead.
Then creative director Tom Ford argued in favour of the ad, saying: “Perfume is worn on the skin, so why hide the body?”
YSL had already been in trouble two years earlier for its Opium advert featuring Sophie Dahl fully naked and in a sexual position.
It got 730 complaints, making it one of the most complained about in the ASA’s history.
The watchdog ruled that all the posters should be withdrawn because they were “degrading” to women, “too sexually suggestive”, and offensive.