Although I wasn't offended by janets boob it brought back a question that came up one night with some friends. My wifes girlfriends run the gamut from ultralib grrrls to superconservative. One thing they ALL agreed on was that they were offended by the Victoria's Secret commercials and the show they had on during prime time.
Now I love women and sex and all the trashy stuff others think is causing the decline of western civilization, but even I thought it was in bad taste to run the constant barrage of commercials. It was an onslaught. It was also EVERYWHERE.
Billboards, all tv stations had adverts for it.even competing stations. It was in magazines and newspapers. there was no where to go.
Now women seem to hate the Vicky secret media for 2 main reasons. Either it is considered vulgar or it is considered derogatory to women and could cause girls to compete with an unrealistic notion of femininity.

Now it IS Victoria's Secrets right to follow this advertising course. It is their First Amendment right, BUT could it also be considered Sexual Harassment.
Now the caveat(??) is that this stuff is almost literally impossible to escape any longer. As I mentioned earlier in the post advertising and images like this are ubiquitous (my ain't I mister 20$ wordman today). You almost have to go into seclusion to escape it these days. Its on vehicles, hanging in stores, even constantly implied on radio.The first Amendment has been judged by the Supreme court to cover just about anything these days.

Would be denying such advertising really be a violation of the first amendment?

Is this type of advertising sexual harassment?

Could a women claim legitimate suffering and mental anguish?

Could it be presented as such in a court case?

Would be denying such advertising really be a violation of the first amendment?

Theoretically, yes. The correct way to get this kind of advertising out of our faces is to stop making it profitable.


Is this type of advertising sexual harassment?

Sexual Harassment: Sexual harassment is a legal concept developed originally to address a particular type of sexual discrimination. Briefly, sexual harassment is unwelcome behavior of a sexual nature that makes someone feel uncomfortable or unwelcome in the workplace by focusing attention on their gender instead of on their professional qualifications. The concept applies now to both women and men, to adults and to children.

I don't think that underwear advertisement makes someone feel unwelcome in the workplace by focusing attention on their gender. Yes it may make some feel uncomfortable, but not in a humiliating kind of way - if you're driving in your car alone and there is a half naked model on a billboard, you may be annoyed, but you aren't humiliated.


Could a women claim legitimate suffering and mental anguish?


You would think that a woman could try to claim that the image of women in the media caused her to spend millions of dollars on weightloss products and such and when those didn't work she tried to kill herself, etc etc. But in that case, you wouldn't be able to single out only one defendant. You can't claim Victoria's Secret causes mental anguish but not Fredricks of Hollywood. That's like overweight people trying to sue fast food in general for not being able to moderate too much of a bad thing. (not that naked models are a bad thing, but if you perceive them that way, you should moderate yourself)


Could it be presented as such in a court case?

I'd like to think so, but that's because I'm training to be a lawyer and I love to argue, so any kind of argument where I could set a new precedent would be a fun challenge for me....
edited: for spelling

Some communities do prohibit the posting of billboards that violate their local decency standards. My hometown, for a while, prohibited a Black Velvet billboard that had a sultry blonde suggestively dressed. But someone sued for the right to put it up, and he (I am assuming) won.



In the sense of perpetuating the sexual objectification of women, yes. Could you imagine a Victoria's Secret outdoor advertisement on a road that leads directly into an Amish settlement?



Possibly, if it was in conjunction with someone saying, "Hey, you look like that model on Victoria's Secret? So what panties are YOU wearing today, hmmmm?"
If it produced undue attention and embarrassment where the woman lives or works, yes.



Yes. But under the circumstance that I mentioned above, the corporation would be a co-defendant, with the person or persons harassing her being the primary defendant(s). But unless the plaintiff could prove that the advertisement actually caused her some form of injury (psychological or physical or affecting her employment or social status), the case would be dismissed.

Not all women. I personally see nothing wrong with the Victoria Secrets add campaign. And NOT because I'm a lesbian. But because I'm just more comfortable with sex and the human form; male or female. I'm probably the minority, but I see art for arts sake and have no problem with using sex to sell products, ESPECIALLY a product that is intended for people to make themselves feel beautiful. How else are you supposed to market lingerie? Again, going back to the obvious sexual repressed mentality of mainstream America.

Would be denying such advertising really be a violation of the first amendment?

Yes, obviously.

Could a women claim legitimate suffering and mental anguish?

Here is my big beef, just like people going crazy and suing Mcdonalds for getting them fat, people now want to sue Victoria's Secrets for making them feel uncomfortable? I don't buy it, if that was the case, sue NFL cheerleaders, Beauty contests, MTV and runway models.

Ok this is mind boggling..

It is ok for Janet Jackson to expose her breast on the Halftime show but it is not ok to run Victoria's Secret ads which feature beautiful women in lingerie?

Well, perspective is the one in training to be a lawyer, and he says 'yes'. But I have to wonder, what if they refused it on grounds claiming that they wouldn't want to be named in any lawsuit stemming from the ad? I agree, turning the ad down is censorship, but is it always illegal? They turned down the MoveOn.org ad on some grounds. Dunno the story there.



I'd say 'yeah'. But it's a slippery slope as it's the act that the women themselves are doing that objectifies women.



Note that I'm a guy. Probably not 'legitimate'. Obviously many women object, but obviously not all women do. Take into count the women in the ad. Sure they were paid to by the company, but obviously those women didn't have a problem with it. And it's not singling out a woman (or a particular group of women aside from 'all') as the object of their objectification. ("object of their objectification"? What the hell am I on?)



I think it'd be ruled in favor of Victoria's Secret by virtually all judges/juries, but to actually make it 'to' court? Heh, I've got no doubt.


And as a total side-note to the Janet Jackson thing? I'm ardently pro-"nudity on non-pay channels".