Causing a furore this week in the UK is a titillating advert featuring Pamela Anderson and a hot assistant in a boardroom talking to a group of men. One of the men indulges in a spot of fantasising about Pamela and the hot brunette girl dancing in gold bikinis, covered in cream. This advert which is for a company called crazy domains, has been withdrawn following complaints that it is demeaning to women. The Advertising Standards Agency has not held back in their condemnation “we considered that the ad was likely to cause serious offence to some viewers on the basis that it was sexist and degrading to women”. I find the use of “ad” more offensive in any sort of official statement than a bikini clad Pamela dancing in the middle of a cream factory industrial accident.
Can the ASA be serious? Are men the only ones to think about something else during boring meetings? Are men the only ones who would wonder what Pamela looks like naked if she turned up at your place if work? I think it is demeaning to men actually, they look pale and plump and the women are clearly in charge. The man (his advert name is Adam apparently) is the inadequate looking dope who would never get his hands on the great Ms Anderson in a million years and when faced with something as lovely as her in the flesh he can’t keep his mind on the job. It’s men who come off badly in this scenario.
I think some women should stop being so righteous about sex and fun and nudity and also stop confusing them with gender inequality and misogyny. The reason there aren’t women in boardrooms isn’t because all the men in them can’t stop thinking about us naked, if only it was that straight forward. Along similar lines is the campaign to do away with Nuts, Loaded, Zoo and FHM on the grounds that they are pornographic and that handling them as a shop worker constitutes sexual harassment and sexual discrimination under the Equality Act of 2010. It seems unlikely that this law was devised to protect shop workers from looking at Nuts magazine yet Professor Aileen McColgan of Matrix Chambers (legal chambers of Cherie Booth et al) seems to think so. She is welcome to come to a hospital I used to work in and I can fill her in on what sex discrimination means to me and all the other women I know who have had bigger fish to fry than being offended by Nuts magazine.
And just to show I practice what I preach, check out the video for Blurred Lines, it’s great, the daily mail were remarkably restrained about it, for once. It’s a cracking tune and the girls look lovely, good for them.