Watchdog sniffs David Beckham's wedding tackle
Goldenballs in his undies ruled not offside
The Advertising Standards Authority has ruled that a poster campaign featuring David Beckham in his undies and displaying a fine pair of goldenballs is unlikely to traumatise wide-eyed kiddies.
Earlier this year, Becks got most of his kit off for the launch of his "Bodywear" range for H&M. Three concerned citizens took exception to a poster campaign for the snug-fit apparel – which featured three snaps of the LA Galaxy star. The complainants challenged whether it was "offensive" and "irresponsible because it contained material that they said was unsuitable for children to see".
H&M defended the smalls snaps to the ASA, saying that the campaign had centred on "quality, fit, function, comfort and design", and wasn't intended to cause offence.
The company explained that the sites chosen for the poster campaign "were optimised to reach an 18- to 39-year-old adult audience, and were therefore on main arterial routes, to target vehicular traffic".
It added that "all sites were planned away from schools, with the exception of one poster that fell just within 100m of a school, but was included because it indexed so highly against their target audience".
The ASA noted there was "no explicit nudity in the image", and "the poses and facial expressions of David Beckham were mildly sexual at most". It ruled the ad was "unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence" and was therefore not in breach of CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 4.1 (Harm and Offence).
Furthermore, the watchdog declared the ad not in breach of CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.3 (Social responsibility), since it was "not overtly sexual and did not feature explicit nudity", and so "was not unsuitable for children to see". ®
Re: Who are these strange, prudish people?
Most likely the same people that consider all the rape and murdering in the Bible and a viciously vengeful God to be perfectly ok for children. Also, many of them consider physical punishment to be totally cool, to, for their children.
Now everybody remember: a pair of tits is very dangerous for children. That's why we give them guns, so they can defend against it.
Clearly traumatising filth
These stupid tattoos are...
Who are these strange, prudish people?
Why on earth would anybody think that a picture of Mr Beckham in his smalls would upset a child? Why would a child think anything of it at all?
Granted, the odd teenager may think "fwwouar, he's hench*" but it's hardly traumatic for them and isn't going to make any difference to the way they're thinking.
*I think that's the term currently in use to describe someone who's attractive.