On webcamsex and cat cover-ups

The Advertising Code Authority (RCC) and the Board of Appeal (CvB) have recently been very strict in cases that turn on good taste and decency. Two examples.

Example 1: a billboard showing TV personality and cuddly porno star Bobbi Eden. Under her picture, in big bold letters: “WEBCAMSEX.NL”. Lots of bleached blonde hair and a rough-and-tumble, mildly sultry look in Bobbi’s eyes the CvB impassively terms “no specific facial expression”. No nudity. No sexuality, no sexually provocative pose. From a purely visual point of view, this could be an ad for a chain of cheap fitness centres or a cheap perfume. But both the RCC and the CvB are of the opinion that the billboard crosses a line when it is located in spots people pass rather slowly. The CvB even bases this opinion solely on the words “webcamsex.nl”.

Example 2: a poster from Radio 538 on a bus shelter. A woman on a sofa, looking rather flushed, has spread her bare legs and is looking seductively at the camera. According to the RCC, it’s all right so far. But there is a cat lying in front of her. A cat! This is where it goes wrong: “(…) the cat, which can also be called a puss or pussy, and the way it is positioned, are what causes this to cross the line. The word pussy is ambiguous and is used in coarse language for the female genitals. (…) By placing the cat precisely in front of her genitals and not showing that she is wearing underwear, thus suggesting that she is not, the focal point is shifted to the woman’s genitals.”

Not in good taste and indecent, says the RCC.

There’s no accounting for tastes. I think it is carrying things too far to write off advertising that is perhaps a bit vulgar, but which is not explicitly sexual, on the basis of taste and decency. But okay, that’s just an opinion.

Daniël Haije