We can be sure of a few things in this decade. The sun will rise in the east, Andrew Blot will be an embarrassing prat, and some clothing/shoe company or chain will publish an ad with a demeaning sexist image which they will swear on their lives is totally not demeaning or sexist, but edgy and artistic!
In this case, the company lost, which was gratifying. But there is still a chorus out there painting any objection as oversensitivity and misinterpretation. Here’s an interesting fact which I came across in a comment by Alex on the blog World.Oyster.Stage.
Here’s the Roger David excuse from the Mumbrella article linked above: “New Love Club produced the image of the woman as a comment on youth and the national debt that now rests on their shoulders and as an ironic patriotic comment on capitalist recruitment and identity.” (Blows raspberry).
Okay, I know that 99% of people are not going to make this connection, but back in the day, British porn distributors used to cover up penetration (and ejaculate, I think) on movie jackets with little Union Jacks (example here *feel free to moderate*). That’s the first place my mind went.
There’s a link to an example in Alex’s comment. (Trigger warning, and NSFW). Roger David, and Roger David’s advertising company, you’re sprung, and furthermore I’m more than a bit squicked that young men working in the advertising industry are still stuck in those reading habits and that mindset.