ASA Banning Ads For Few Complaints -- But Can It Please Everyone? (PHOTOS, POLL)

England has a population of approximately 50 million. That's a heck of a lot people -- and you'd expect that at any given moment, you can't please everyone.

But the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has been trying to do just that.

The latest ad banned by the ASA is a lingerie ad by Marks & Spencer, which features a model wearing a bra and underwear. As the Telegraph reports, the model is sitting on a bed with her knees bent, legs spread apart and her back arched.

Is it sexy? Yes. But does it imply sex? Well, considering there's no one else in the image but the one model, not exactly. And the fact that she's wearing her bra and underwear? Well, you tell us another way to advertise for bras and underwear.

Regardless, the ad, which can currently be found on the sides of British buses, has been officially banned by the ASA after receiving a whopping 15 complaints.

Just add it to the list. Last week, a series of ads for Lynx deodorant caused a (small) stir for their salacious nature, featuring the scantily clad bod of pinup Lucy Pinder. The ASA said it received 10 complaints about one of the images -- and subsequently banned it.

In February, a TV spot for Yves Saint Laurent Belle D'Opium perfume was banned after 13 viewers complained. And one of Hailee Steinfeld's adorable Prada ads was banned after the ASA received, so it seems, just a single complaint.

All of which has us wondering: should an ad be banned if anyone, even just one person, is not happy about it? Is it possible to please everyone... and should that even be a goal?

Check out the banned ads below and let us know what you think.

Quick Poll

Should the ASA ban any ad that receives a complaint?

TOTALLY! Every person counts and no citizen should feel uncomfortable in his/her environment.

NO WAY! You can't please everyone -- ads should only be banned if there's widespread opposition.

Share your vote on Facebook so your friends can take this poll

Comments

[Tara M]

05:44 PM on 12/20/2011

What's next, we're going to make it illegal for models to be pretty because they can be seen as sexually attractive? Or, maybe young girls would want to live up to that image, and we simply CANNOT allow girls to make an effort to appear beautiful,no, because that's sexualizing them. Actually...I think I'll complain about that and get an ad banned instantly!

[tangelan]

10:39 PM on 12/01/2011

I love M&S. But that pic is pretty racy.

[archarabia]

08:35 PM on 12/01/2011

As for all the hypocrites talking about how great the ad looks, one question: would u like to c UR mother publicly portrayed in this manner? UR daughter? UR sister? No, u did not make the decision for this woman to pose this way, but don't fuel the fire by supporting women being portrayed as only having sex to offer, and portraying an impossible airbrushed standard as well.

[Wake Up Call]

01:28 PM on 12/04/2011

NEWSFLASH - You don't OWN your mother, sister, daughter, or anyone else. They have their own minds and can make their own decisions. There's nothing wrong with this ad, except to Puritanical dweebs.

[archarabia]

08:27 PM on 12/01/2011

I'm glad they ban these provocative ads. This isn't like going to the lingerie dept. or website and seeing these pics. These billboards r in your face even if you're not interested. I wouldn't want my children exposed to women portrayed this way.

[Ralph Petersen]

02:30 AM on 02/20/2012

Yah, burka's are so much more to your liking!

[wai guo ren]

09:34 AM on 12/01/2011

Funny that we all jump to defend our right to be advertised to. I understand that a lot of the sentiment about pulling these ads is a desire to defend free speech. Sure, there are ways that concerns about nudity or mention of sex have been a guise for censorship. But what about freedom of thought, or the freedom of women that is hampered from being seen as a sexual object in so many public venues?
Advertising has already well overstepped the bounds of serving customers--it's everywhere. It would be so easy for people to decide they want to buy something and then go look at a magazine or a website dedicated to advertising. Why should everyone have to think about underwear everytime they get on the bus?

I suppose I'm asking a different question than how many people constitute a legitimate complaint. What I'm asking is--why would anyone be negatively affected by removing these ads anyway?

[Fireman69w]

06:06 AM on 12/01/2011

This is ridiculous!!! With all the focus on education...how is it that we are all still stupid???I went thru the adds. I saw nothing offensive or anything that trashes a women as a women. Your complaint on lack of clothing is straight out stupid as you would see more clothing on the beach and/or by the poolside.Are some of you women just jealous and afraid that your husbands might see these adds and wonder why you don't aspire to please him and yourself from time to time.After all...sex is NESSESARY for life to continue!!! And there was no sex in these adds. It's not porno people!!!

[LemmonHerk]

05:43 AM on 12/01/2011

Here's a guaranteed way to put a stop to this: send in a complaint for EVERY AD you see. In your complaint, mention that since ABC ad was removed for one complaint, you expect your sensibilities to be taken no less seriously. If you can, get a few of your friends to do the same. I guarantee you, if they're inundated with such "complaints", they'll stop this silliness.

[Wake Up Call]

01:30 PM on 12/04/2011

They'll find a way to turn it into a criminal offense to make a false report.

[LemmonHerk]

01:56 PM on 12/04/2011

They can't -- all you have to do is say that YOU find it offensive. They can't argue with subjective standards. As a matter of fact, that's also true for current junk mail. I've gotten some excessive junk mail stopped because I told the USPS that I found their mailings to be offensive.

[deluk]

05:39 AM on 12/01/2011

It's BRITAIN which has  population of 60 million people, why has this site got so confused about the UK recently?  Is it because a few Scots complained that the summer riots were in "England" so therefore it was unfair to use the word "Britain" which would have included Scotland too?  That's where it appeared to start.

It's like using the word "Texas" to describe the USA.

[rrpatreilly]

05:32 AM on 12/01/2011

Come on now! Why wouldn't a competitor call and make as many complaints as possible until they had the ad removed. Pure assinine!

[Steve68112]

01:46 AM on 12/01/2011

Wow! I find your breath offensive....You must now STOP BREATHING and go die!

[Julia Spiegel]

01:06 AM on 12/01/2011

i think all ads like that IN PUBLIC are unacceptable. screw pleasing male customers... they're selling to women anyway... i don't really want to see that. and if i had kids, i wouldn't want them to see that either. keep it to porn sights and ads ON lingerie sites.

[lucky13thday]

03:30 AM on 12/01/2011

Do you ever go to the beach or a swimming pool? This model is wearing more than your average bikini.

[Leon Engelun]

12:31 AM on 12/01/2011

I want to make it clear to everyone in the world. I DID NOT COMPLAIN.

[bigprogressivejohn]

12:24 AM on 12/01/2011

I wish the US would do that, I'd start calling about all the lying political ads. I'd be happy if there were only Target ads, they make me laugh out loud.

[luvinit]

11:29 PM on 11/30/2011

Sure glad I wasn't banned after 15 complaints.

[Sandi K H H]

11:29 PM on 11/30/2011

How ridiculous that a country that tolerates 'page 3' crap in a national newspaper is so prissy that they ban an ad a dozen people whine about.