Speedboats, Stillettos, Swimsuits and Champagne - Sounds good to me

6:57pm Wednesday 1st October 2008

Comments (0)   Have your say »

What do you want to protect those nearest and dearest from. What really worries you? Have you ever seen an advert and thought "That should be banned"? Have you ever subsequently read that people objected but the complaints were thrown out. Being an ageing punk rocker, who sometimes writes rather naughty songs, I am militantly anti censorship. I tend to think that unless an advert is promoting something dangerous, it should be allowed. End of story. So what has got my goat up?

The Advertising Standards Authority has banned a magazine advertisement for Saile and Sabga champagne for linking alcohol with seduction.

The watchdog, which registered its own complaint ( a work creationscheme no doubt), said the image featuring a rather attractive model pouring champagne over a man’s chest could be seen by readers as a metaphor for seduction. You don't say.

The ad, which appeared in Ryanair’s in-flight magazine, showed a woman, dressed in a bikini and stilettos, with her legs spread wide apart while the man, wearing only shorts, lay on his back between the women’s legs while she poured champagne onto his chest. In its assessment, the watchdog concluded because the models were “scantily clad”, seated in a pose normally associated with intimacy and depicted in a “glamorous” environment the ads linked alcohol with seduction.

Well excuse my stupidity, but who were the ASA protecting? Since when has seduction been illegal. We all know that alcohol often plays a big part, so what are they protecting us from.

Are they protecting scantily clad models from thinking they'd pull a millionaire if they bought the bubbly plonk instead of special brew? Were they protecting rich, speedboat owning millionaires from shameless hussies armed with bubbly. I'm sorry but if a seductress wants to get a guy, that's her business and if he falls for her charms it's his. What is wrong with the plonkmaker advertising the tool of the trade.

I don't know about you, but if I won the lottery, I'd quite like to buy a speedboat and have the missus pour champagne over me. It strikes me as a rather pleasant way to spend the day. It is certainly more pleasant than the ads for WKD which encourage young men to behave even more badly than they do already. (I wouldn't ban them as they're quite funny, just in case you wondered).

What really annoys me about this story is that it shows the completely arbitary nature of these self appointed guardians decisions. I don't recall too many ads for booze featuring ugly people, having a rotten time. Most people who drink are't killed by it. When my Mum had cancer in 1970, her surgeon told her to drink as much Guiness as possible. She lived another 38 years, admittedly she cut down from 8 pints a day to 3, in 1984 when he told her she'd taken his advice too literally. For the record, she was the longest surviving patient of the procedure, at the time there was a 100% fatality rate after 5 years. She used to appear at seminars as her Consultant's star patient. Drink isn't always a bad thing!

Every year, more nanny state legislation is passed. More rules are devised to protect us from ourselves. Every year more anti-depressants are prescribed. Our country is being transformed into a joyless prison with no bars. In the last few years, just about everything we enjoy has had campaigns to limit our enjoyment. What right has the ASA got to tell us that bringing around a bottle of very expensive plonk to seduce someone is wrong. In fact pouring half the bottle over your partner is probably a very responsible way to have a bottle. No liver damage for these two!!! If they want to ban something, ban the advertising of all the rubbish which our children are exposed to. They are impressionable and they can be harmed. The obesity rates are testament to that.

By the way, one thing did make me laugh in the report. A separate complaint that the ad showed alcohol being handled irresponsibly was not upheld.