315
submitted 1 year ago by BrikoX@lemmy.zip to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] MarcoPolpo@lemmy.ml 213 points 1 year ago

I've seen worse ads about perfume

[-] Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com 78 points 1 year ago

On one hand, I find nothing wrong with the photograph.

On the other hand, I’m sick of fucking OnlyFans spam online, it’s disgusting to see more spam in real life.

Also billboards as a whole can get fucked.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] CraigeryTheKid@beehaw.org 41 points 1 year ago

Remember jeans ads from the 90s? Jeans were all they had on!

[-] z500@startrek.website 45 points 1 year ago

In the 2000s women were straight up having orgasms in shampoo commercials.

[-] Mr_Blott@feddit.uk 15 points 1 year ago

French guys 40 upwards were having their first orgasm to shampoo adverts

[-] Mannimarco@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Ertebolle@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Those were the days, B&W pictures of coked-up anorexic Calvin Klein jeans models shot topless from the back with maybe a bit of sideboob depending on where they put their arm.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] average650@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago

My thoughts exactly.

They are overtly sexual.... but not moreso than many other ads.

[-] CaptainEffort@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

But is it about what’s directly on the billboard, or about what it’s advertising?

Like, Pornhub could make a billboard with nothing risqué on it, but the fact that it’s advertising a porn website would be an issue wouldn’t it?

Maybe not, I’m just curious tbh.

[-] TheBat@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

A billboard would have just 'Hub' written in a yellow rectangle and we'd know what it is lmao.

[-] Wookie@artemis.camp 7 points 1 year ago

Netflix has some of the raunchiest posters I’ve ever seen

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Ubermeisters@lemmy.zip 115 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's no different than seeing a Victoria's Secret or Calvin Klein billboard, IMHO.

[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 33 points 1 year ago

It's completely tame. There are far more sexual images in just about any direction. It's only because people know there's actual nakedness being advertised that anyone has a problem with it. And that's just silly.

load more comments (12 replies)
[-] TheBat@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Victoria's Secret

I gotchu

Queen Victoria and her husband (and also her cousin) Prince Albert popularized the custom of Christmas Trees in 1848 when Albert sent decorated trees to schools and army barracks around Windsor.

Prince Albert was apparently hung like a horse.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Fhek@lemm.ee 92 points 1 year ago

Not only did the billboard work, but now that news outlets are posting it, with her @ and all, she’s likely getting so much more attention/subs.

Genius.

[-] AnonTwo@kbin.social 86 points 1 year ago

Is it a good or a bad thing when you're told your onlyfans ad can stay because it's not sexy enough?

[-] HughJanus@lemmy.ml 55 points 1 year ago

It can be sexy without being sexual

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 17 points 1 year ago

It is sexual, but not overtly sexual.

I think she'd be proud she nailed the legally distinct line between selling sex and sex sells.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Fantomas@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

Yeah. Like really good pizza.

[-] huginn@feddit.it 7 points 1 year ago

Really fuckable pizza hnmmnnnnnn 🍕❤️

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] ksynwa@lemmygrad.ml 39 points 1 year ago

Environmental activists Global Witness later took over three of the poster sites and transformed them into ‘OilyFans’ billboards, to comment on the pay package of BP chief executive Bernard Looney, whose earnings went from £4.5 million (€5.2 million) to £10 million (€11.6 million) last year.

Good bit

[-] mercury@lemmy.blahaj.zone 35 points 1 year ago

The only problem with this is the fact that it's an advertisement. At least in the US, you cant drive down a country highway without seeing at least one advertisement for a strip club.

[-] manny_stillwagon@kbin.run 26 points 1 year ago

You can in Vermont and Hawaii, where billboards are illegal.

[-] isVeryLoud@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 year ago

Hey, I did notice that driving down in Vermont, it makes for such clean looking highways and cities! We need to bring this regulation to Quebec.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] TDCN@feddit.dk 33 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Come to Denmark where we have advertising on busses with full on boobs in full show. It's advertiseing for breast implants btw

[-] sndmn@lemmy.ca 23 points 1 year ago

Who are these people that pay for pornography?

[-] lazylion_ca@lemmy.ca 29 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Who are the people who pay for netflix instead of torrenting?

Someone has to.

[-] deus@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Guilty as charged. Netflix has a lot of good content and their app works well so I don't mind paying for it, though I still put on my eyepatch from time to time when I want to watch something they don't have.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ilickfrogs@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago

They consulted Twitch mods and they said it's ok.

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 14 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Billboards erected in London showing model Eliza Rose Watson in underwear advertising her OnlyFans account page have been cleared by the UK regulator following complaints that they were inappropriate for children to see.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) received 30 complaints stating that the posters seen in Harrow, Tottenham, Lambeth and Edgware in June and July featured adult content and were inappropriate.

ASA said that although Watson’s clothing was revealing, the image did not feature any nudity, and the pose adopted by her was “no more than mildly sexual."

“While we acknowledged that the image of Ms Watson and reference to OnlyFans might be distasteful to some, we considered that because the ad was not overtly sexual and did not objectify women, we therefore concluded it was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.”

The ASA continued: “The ad was shown on several posters throughout London, which was an untargeted medium, and was therefore likely to be seen by a large number of people, including children.”

Commenting on the reaction to the billboards, she said: "If people are offended by my ad, I'm assuming they're also complaining about Ann Summers and Jack Daniels ones.


The original article contains 408 words, the summary contains 194 words. Saved 52%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 11 points 1 year ago

Heh heh heh. They said “erected”.

[-] ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org 8 points 1 year ago

Nobody will think of the children if they can't infringe on our rights to privacy and freedom, right?

[-] feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

So it's like, a porn advert? I kind of assumed that wasn't a thing.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2023
315 points (96.5% liked)

World News

32285 readers
866 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS