Badvertising

Religion and other value systems are certainly crucial in defining and sanctioning sex and decency. Moslem countries tend to frown upon all kinds of salacious displays and even indirect sexual references. Similar Christian standards operate in such countries as Ireland, South Africa, Mexico, and the Philippines. Other cultures may be considered rather tolerant in sexual matters (for example, French commercials on public television readily show live semi-nude models) but may prohibit any show of pubic hair (Japan), the promotion of contraceptives (France), or the lewd use of women (Scandinavia and the Netherlands) in advertisements. Values change, however. Thus, the spread of AIDS has reopened the issue of advertising condoms and other contraceptives in a totally different context, which transcends the older concerns about birth control and venereal-disease prevention.

The law usually parallels religious and moral standards.

There are often statutes dealing with public indecency (in Switzerland, Thailand, and the United Kingdom), the moral protection of minors, the restriction of violent displays (including sado-masochistic ones), and discriminatory job advertisements (particularly in Australia, the Netherlands, Norway, the United Kingdom, and the United States). Restrictions on the publication and circulation of "sexy" magazines of the Playbqy variety, with their usually more risque ads, also belong to this category (Argentina, Lebanon, South Africa, and Thailand). Reflecting concerns about "sexist" portrayals, a 1979 amendment to the 1972 Norwegian Marketing Control Law states: An advertiser and anyone who creates advertising matter shall ensure that the advertisement does not conflict with the inherent parity between the sexes, and that it does not imply any derogatory judgment of either sex or portray a woman or a man in an offensive manner."

Similar provisions have been enacted in India, Peru, and Portugal to protect women against indecent or derogatory representations.

Still, the matter of constitutional freedom of speech as applied to advertising has raised serious questions concerning control of sex and decency in advertising. Swedish courts, for example, have not sustained some initiatives of the Consumer Ombudsman in this matter; and the Swedish Parliament stated in 1977 that no law prohibiting ads discriminating against women could be introduced without amending the Freedom of the Press Act. U.S. courts keep struggling with the definition of obscenity in the context of the First Amendment.

The activism of religious and feminist groups clearly affects the stiffening of standards. Several Moslem countries (such as Iran and Saudi Arabia) are strongly resisting the invasion of Western advertising themes and approaches. Besides, a vocal minority of women are increasingly objecting to the deprecation of their sex (in Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, and Sweden). They oppose ads that belittle women, insult their intelligence, depict them in an offending manner, imply sex inequalities, or display violence against them. Some people, including men, oppose commercials about personal-hygiene products (in Canada and the United States).

Media control is crucial whenever a strong clearance system exists (in Mexico and Taiwan), particularly where television and radio networks are government controlled or when general censorship prevails (in Indonesia and Saudi Arabia). In general, TV and radio commercials are more restricted than print and direct-mail ads, which are more selective in their audience-reaching; private networks are often more tolerant than public ones in such countries as Italy. In any case, much depends on the execution of the advertisements as well as on their placement and timing. An ad in Playboy or a commercial shown at midnight will be received differently from those appearing in general-circulation magazines or in prime time. Restraint, grace, and wit may also make a difference.

Besides, the greater number and variety of publications, commercial broadcasting stations, and direct-mail advertisements are eliminating much of the rationing that allowed the media--particularly television and radio--to refuse ads for various controversial products and services simply because there was not enough time and space to accommodate all advertisers. As Colin Shaw, Director of the U.K. Broadcasting Standards Council, remarked (1989): "People buy newspapers largely to confirm their prejudices. I the whole, most people look at television and are constantly having their prejudices affronted." international editions of newspapers and magazines as well as the recent growth of satellite broadcasting are diffusing new types of advertisements about different products to countries unaccustomed to them.

Advertising self-regulation has played some role in curbing excesses in the matter of sex and decency-particularly in Australia, Canada, Germany, the Philippines, and the United Kingdom. These efforts are aimed at preventing further government restrictions and improving advertising's image. Problems are often minimized by corporate policies and by tacit understandings among advertisers not to advertise certain products or use certain media, as well as by their fear of negative reactions on the part of audiences. This kind of self-discipline helps explain the paucity of male-hygiene advertisements in Japan and of contraceptive advertisements in Argentina. Situations change, however, as some advertisers, advertising agencies, and media brave tradition and begin to promote products and services previously left to more discreet treatment.

"Sex and decency" is not a monolithic issue, in any case. The following sections review the problems associated with defining, explaining, and curbing the use of indecent and sex-related advertisements.

DECENCY

Many dictionary definitions of decency could be cited, but all suffer from the use of equally vague synonyms to catch a very elusive subject. In the 1988 IAA survey, decency was defined in terms of conformity to recognized standards of propriety, good taste and modesty"--all imprecise terms, to be sure. Britain's Advertising Standards Authority, its self-regulatory body, has repeatedly tried to develop more precise criteria to be used by its complaint--handling body, such as:

1. Would it offend a majority of the people?

2. is it so deeply offensive to a few that their feelings should override the views of the majority?

3. Does it include the irrelevant use of certain