European Sexy Ad Ban

The free speech portion of the First Amendment is the most powerful of the enumerated rights in the Constitution, largely because a well financed media, and the corporate merchants they serve, have a vested interest in commercial free speech.

Nonetheless, you can count on some fallout from the recent efforts of the European Union to ban sexist ads—it is certainly the kind of thing that fits in nicely with the agenda of a couple of the Democratic Party's coalition— establishment feminists, nanny poos and the general populist enthusiasm for sacking corporations.

This week Swedish MEP Eva-Britt Svensson urged European Union members to use existing equality, sexism and discrimination laws to control advertising.

She wants regulatory bodies set up to monitor ads and introduce a "zero-tolerance" policy against "sexist insults or degrading images".

Ms Svensson said: "Gender stereotyping in advertising straitjackets women, men, girls and boys by restricting individuals to predetermined and artificial roles that are often degrading, humiliating and dumbed down for both sexes.”

A recent French ad for the fruit drink Orangina has created a great deal of European angst:



The French are sick bastards—but is a jungle mambo featuring a pole dancing, bikini clad deer and a grinding octopus sexist?

As one of those shallow girls who has been actively promoting lesbian barnyard chic and increased inclusiveness of girl on girl advertising, I must say I am disappointed:



But more than that, I am sick of all the suggestions that women are such sensitive and ignorant creatures they can't cope with good natured humor and their accurate portrayal as the more attractive half of the human race.

Just as it is legitimate, and good marketing, for an advertiser to hawk his goods against the backdrop of a stunning tropical sunset, adding a magnificently beautiful women in a micro mini can hardly be said to be a slam against the gender:



I understand the idea that this idealistic image of women's physical beauty can set unrealistic expectations for people. But for the love of Pete, we know this is TV—neither the armies of prime time hunks nor the bevy of hot LA lesbians of The L Word, exist in real life.

To be sure there is a problem, and it exists because of the testosterone enriched brain's tendency to transform appreciation into ignorant objectification, and the female reaction of attempting to meet that unattainable image.

But it is not the type of thing that government need concern itself with. I can not imagine Dorothy Gray Salon putting out that ad in 2008--society and culture has changed--it does not play well in the marketplace, in other words, they would be hung by the rafters--and I would be first in line to deliver a swift kick.

However, requiring that all models in advertisements be either butt ugly or gender neutral, is not going to eliminate penishead thinking. Besides, it is demeaning to women to send a message that we must be treated as sexless and uninspired characters.

The big achievement of second wave feminism was that women could wear work boots and claim male territory, or strut in knee high boots and miniskirts. Nowadays, anything goes, including the right to look repulsive if we wish.

So it is pretty sexist to tell the fairer sex that they can no longer enjoy, or use, one of the advantages, as a group, they have over men---we are, in general, just a heck of a lot more attractive. Other than the latent bi tendencies of most women, that is why women's magazines are a softcore porn treat.

The real effort should be to show that female sexiness and brains are not mutually exclusive, and less than supermodel perfection does not exclude sexiness.

If anything, total inclusiveness is the goal. It is wonderful that Ellen DeGeneres, in her soft butch way is generally and correctly perceived as sexy, as is the androgynous Shane of the The L Word—as well as the curvaceous pre-Weight Watchers Queen Latifah:



The last thing we want is government arbiters deciding what type of bodily imagery is acceptable.

That is precisely the type of idea censorship the First Amendment was designed to prevent, and the other reason it is the most powerful and important of our enumerated rights.

It is this sort of thing which separates us from the Taliban.