The latest victim? Some tease-y ads for budget airline Ryanair, which feature hot flight attendants wearing only their skivvies and boasting the slogan, "RED HOT FARES & CREW!"
"We also considered that most readers would interpret these images, in conjunction with the text ... and the names of the women, as linking female cabin crew with sexually suggestive behaviour."
"Although we acknowledged that the women in the ads had consented to appear in the calendar, we considered that the ads were likely to cause widespread offence, when displayed in a national newspaper, and therefore concluded that they breached the [advertising] code."
Part of the impetus for the ban was an online petition filed asking Ryanair to ban the ads, which has since gotten over 11,000 signatures. Writes the woman who filed it:
I'm a member of an airline Cabin Crew and what's more I love my job. My work colleagues, many of whom are male, work hard with me to ensure the safety of our passengers. Safety is our number one priority, not the brand of our underwear.
Are the lingerie-themed ads provocative? Sure. Is that worth banning them? We'll let you decide; check out one of them below. (Also below: our slideshow of other recent banned ads.)
Share your vote on Facebook so your friends can take this poll
Loading Slideshow
Ryanair
The ASA <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/15/banned-ryanair-ad_n_1279529.html?1329336365" target="_hplink">banned these Ryanair ads in February 2012</a>, deeming them too "sexually suggestive" to run in newspapers.
Drop Dead clothing line
Banned in November 2011 for<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/10/drop-dead-ads-banned-asa_n_1085903.html" target="_hplink"> showing an "underweight" model</a> and sending an "irresponsible" message.
Marc Jacobs Oh, Lola!
Banned in November 2011 for <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/09/dakota-fanning-perfume-ad-banned-marc-jacobs_n_1083535.html" target="_hplink">its potential to "sexualise a child."</a>
Banned in February 2012, for "misleadingly exaggerated the performance of the product," i.e. smoothing over Rachel Weisz's skin with technology, not makeup.
Marks & Spencer lingerie
Banned in November 2011 for <a href="http://fashion.telegraph.co.uk/news-features/TMG8924873/Marks-and-Spencer-lingerie-advert-banned-for-being-too-sexy.html" target="_hplink">showing ''objectified women''</a> and images that are ''sexually suggestive'' and likely to be seen by children.
Lynx Deodorant
Banned in November 2011 for being <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/26/banned-deodorant-ads-uk-lucy-pinder-lynx_n_1113958.html?1322660080" target="_hplink">"sexually suggestive, indecent, provocative."</a>
Miu Miu Fall 2011
Banned in November 2011 for <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/23/hailee-steinfeld-miu-miu-ad-banned_n_1109948.html" target="_hplink">its setting, on a rail road track, being "irresponsible."</a>
Lancome
Banned in July 2011 for <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/27/julia-roberts-loreal-ad-ban_n_910587.html" target="_hplink">"excessive retouching."</a>
Maybelline's The Eraser
Banned in July 2011 for "excessive retouching."
Yves Saint Laurent's Belle D'Opium fragrance
Banned in February 2011 for suggesting <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/02/ysl-belle-dopium-ad-banne_n_817455.html" target="_hplink">"the injection of opiates into the body."</a>
American Apparel Ads
Some of American Apparel ads (including the one above) were banned by Britain's ASA for gratuitous nudity; a few more were deemed "exploitative" for sexualizing young women.
(American Apparel photo)
Lara Stone for Calvin Klein
In 2012, Lara Stone posed with a group of male models in this Calvin Klein ad. It was <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/21/calvin-klein-billboard-ba_n_771559.html" target="_blank">promptly banned by Australia's Advertising Standards Bureau</a> after they found it to be "suggestive of violence and rape."
Bulgari's Julianne Moore Ad
This ad was pulled in Italy in 2011 after the mayor of Venice found it inappropriate.
Rimmel's Mascara Ad
The British Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/26/why-was-this-georgia-may-_n_788605.html" target="_blank">banned this ad after they declared it misleading</a> because Georgia May Jagger is wearing false eyelashes -- even though there's a small disclaimer at the bottom that says, "show with lash inserts."
Brian Atwood's Madison Avenue Ads
The <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/23/brian-atwood-ads-banned_n_1824162.html" target="_blank">video of this ad was banned from taxis and the print versions were banned</a> from the facade of Atwood's Madison Avenue store after being found to be too racy.
Natalie Portman for Dior
The Advertising Standards Authority<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/23/natalie-portman-dior-ad-banned-mascara_n_2004837.html" target="_blank"> banned this ad </a>because they felt the ad used excessive "post-production retouching" in order to exaggerate the real effects of the mascara being advertised.
Tom Ford's Gucci Campaign
In 2004, this Tom Ford Gucci ad campaign became controversial as women saw the girl's shaved pubic hair as degrading and wrong.
Rachel Weisz for L'Oreal Paris
This ad was banned after a complaint from Liberal Democrat Jo Swinson who claimed the ad was "misleadingly exaggerated" in that is makes Weisz look far younger than she actually is and presents a bad image for women.
American Apparel Sock Ad
Oh American Apparel, how you love to push the envelope. Here's another one that was banned because the ad is supposed to be promoting socks but it seems more to be exploiting the girl instead.
Taylor Swift for CoverGirl
This Taylor Swift mascara ad was <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/20/covergirl-mascara-ad-banned_n_1159957.html" target="_blank">banned by the National Advertising Division of the COuncil of Better Business Bureaus Claims (NAD)</a> after they found the product depiction to be dishonest with it's claims that the mascara will make lashes have "2X more volume" and be "20 percent lighter."
American Apparel Models
Again, American Apparel gets in hot water when they apparently use underage models (girls younger than 16) on their website. Britain's ASA <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/05/american-apparel-sexy-ads-asa-child-models_n_2243360.html#slide=1805970" target="_blank">accused the store of "sexualizing" underage models. </a>
Ryanair, the Irish airline that never ceases to cause controversy, is in hot water again. The airline is being investigated by the Irish Aviation Authority...
at the end of the day....SEX SELLS.....whether you are selling mashed potatoes or dog food/its not about the product in particular...it's about catching your attention so you will stop what you are doing to investigate
janedoe31: at the end of the day....SEX SELLS.....whether you are selling
They're posing for a charity calendar, much like the firefighters who pose in their calendars, or those older women from the movie "Calendar Girls" (based on a true story). As I recall, the ladies from Calendar Girls were getting the thumbs up, but when younger attractive women do it, they are demoralizing women??
SukiTheCat: They're posing for a charity calendar, much like the firefighters
It's certainly a cheap, demeaning marketing ploy (and therefore not in the least a surprising move for a cheap airline that specialises in demeaning travellers), but I'm not sure it merits a ban.
I've seen much more explicit images platered across giant billboards in the UK (Anna Nicole Smith advertising H&M underwear years ago springs to mind).
DocManhattan: It's certainly a cheap, demeaning marketing ploy (and therefore not
No. One British newspaper - the right-wing tabloid 'Sun' - features a daily topless model on page 3. That's it as far as I know (I know one other paper in England that used to do that, but it doesn't exist any more - I haven't lived in the UK since the 90s). It's not uncommon to see things like that in continental Europe, either.
DocManhattan: No. One British newspaper - the right-wing tabloid 'Sun' -
You saved yourself here. Even the underwear ads in the tube and the meteo en France are more racey than this will ever be. Mind you they advertise underwear and this is an airline but travel brochures certainly match and so do go go bars.
piceaglauca: You saved yourself here. Even the underwear ads in the
i think if the ad was selling underware it would be okay, but as an ad for an airline - it's not that it's too hot, it's just really has nothing to do with airlines and promotes something i don't think is offered during the flight from the attendants. If i worked there, don't think I'd appreciate the male passengers looking at me the way this ad is suggesting they should. Can't a woman be employed at an airlines without have this type of ad publicizing her workplace? This isn't 1950.
SuesW: i think if the ad was selling underware it would
It's an ad for something the flight attendants ARE selling - that being the Charity Calendar for 9.95 featuring flight attendants who all willingly posed for it.
Should the firefighter charity calendars be banned because they are not shown in poses breathing toxic fumes?
informedconsent: It's an ad for something the flight attendants ARE selling
I mean, David Beckham appears in dozens of underwear ads that leave nothing to the imagination about his, well, um, Beckhams, while a woman with her thumb conveniently placed in an otherwise modest bottom is banned.
God save the Queen...in fact, maybe that's what this is all about anyway.
JJK: Thank God that the Brits aren't sexist. I mean, David
you're kidding, right? Those pictures were all about the "briefs." Yep. I live in New York and I have title to a very nice bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Good price.
JJK: you're kidding, right? Those pictures were all about the "briefs."
We live in a virtually border-less, transatlantic society where one of the most popular shows on TV is regularly about rape and incest (SVU), where rap "artists" produce lyrics that would revolt a sailor and where Paris Hilton gained fame by having sex for public viewing...and people are worked up over an Ad where a woman exhibits a strategically placed thumb in an otherwise modest outfit?
God Save the Queen and Bless America!
JJK: We live in a virtually border-less, transatlantic society where one
Your statement makes no sense. This ad is for an airline. If she was selling a p0rn video or underware, or something to that effect, then fine. The point is not what she's wearing or how she looks ... it's what she's wearing & how she looks because she's advertising an airline.
SuesW: Your statement makes no sense. This ad is for an
Well geez, why don't they just ban all advertizements with women in them? I don't see one ad that's been banned with a man in it. Seriously, banning an ad with a girl sitting on the railroad tracks? That's only dangerous if you're A) drunk, B) deaf or C) blind. And what, pray tell, is a lingerie company suppose to show if they are selling lingerie? Lamps? And all the dots you have to connect to make that Belle D'Opium commercial about drugs is just ridiculous. The only thing that model is doing is pointing to one of the places you would wear perfume. I swear stupidity isn't just reserved for Americans, it's becoming an global phenomenon. BTW, anyone who sees sex when a young teenager holds a bottle of perfume (with a huge flower on it no less) on her lap, has serious problems that goes way beyond protecting the public from seeing something offensive.
dil123: Well geez, why don't they just ban all advertizements with
they should totally ban that underwear ad with David Beckham and his suspect package for creating unrealistic expectations for males...sarcasm aside, I agree with everything you said
SukiTheCat: they should totally ban that underwear ad with David Beckham
Loading comments… 
The Huffington Post Jessica Misener First Posted: 02/15/2012 1:57 pm Updated: 02/15/2012 2:06 pm