Sex shop poster in central Auckland deemed too saucy

One of five posters in a central Auckland sex shop has been deemed too saucy following complaints to the ASA. Photo/ 123rf

A central Auckland sex shop has had a complaint against one of five window display posters upheld for "breaching community standards".

The complaint against Gigi's sex shop was disputed by the shop's owners, saying their products were unlikely to be recognisable to anyone not already aware of what they were showing without close examination.

One poster, which included images of sex toys and a blindfolded mannequin as part of a window display, was removed by Gigi's and the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) considered the matter settled.

Three other posters advertising inoffensively shaped sex toys and other sexual aides were not deemed to cause widespread offence by the ASA board.

However a fifth poster, featuring a model in lingerie reclining and holding a sex toy, was deemed explicit and sexual.

The poster included the words "Sex & Fun" and "Feel the Fun", which the board agreed helped the poster reach the threshold likely to cause widespread offence, taking into account the wide audience that could view the large poster in a shop window display.

In the complaint, concern was expressed about passersby seeing the posters and finding them offensive, especially school children.

Gigi's argued there were no schools nearby and no foot traffic near their store on Khyber Pass Rd, but the ASA decided there was in fact a secondary school "in reasonable proximity".

Auckland City Council had approved the advertisements, Gigi's said.

"We have lots of residents live around the store and we have listened to community suggestions before we opened the store.

"Most of the products [shape of the toys] on the images people won't know what's that unless they take a close look and read."

With regard to the fifth poster, the ASA agreed the advertisement had not been prepared with a due sense of social responsibility to consumers and to society.

The board also decided it breached rules 4 and 5 of the code of ethics relating to what would generally be deemed indecent or offensive against prevailing community standards.