Yves Saint Laurent ad banned for featuring 'unhealthily underweight' model | The Independent News Yves Saint Laurent ad banned for featuring 'unhealthily underweight' model The ad featured a black-and-white photo of a woman described by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) as 'unhealthily underweight' Tuesday 2 June 2015 19:31 BST Click to follow Indy Lifestyle Online The Yves Saint Laurent advert which appeared in ‘Elle UK’ magazine; one reader complained that it was ‘irresponsible PA An Yves Saint Laurent ad has been banned for featuring a model with a visible rib cage and knees and thighs of a similar width. The ad, which appeared in Elle UK magazine, featured a black-and-white photo of a woman described by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) as “unhealthily underweight”, wearing a short black dress and high heels and lying on the floor with her eyes closed. A reader complained that the ad was irresponsible for using a model who appeared to be unhealthily thin. The ASA said YSL “indicated that they did not agree with the complainant’s view that the model was unhealthily thin” but did not provide a detailed response.

Elle UK told the watchdog it had no comment. The ASA said the model’s pose and the lighting drew particular focus to her chest, where her rib cage was visible and appeared prominent, and to her legs, where her thighs and knees appeared a similar width. The Most Controversial Fashion Adverts The Most Controversial Fashion Adverts 1/9 YSL, 2000 The infamous Yves Saint Laurent Opium perfume advert featuring a naked Sophie Dahl was removed from billboards as it was deemed "sexually suggestive and unsuitable to be seen by children", although was allowed to run in certain fashion magazines. It is the eighth most complained about advert, receiving 948 complaints. 2/9 Agent Provocateur, 2001 The lingerie ad saw Kylie Minogue writhe on a rodeo bull and was only permitted to be shown in cinemas. The campaign was banned from all UK television channels, except BBC1. 3/9 Wonderbra, 1994 Eva Herzigova's Wonderbra campaign was thought to have caused car accidents, such was its provocative appeal.

4/9 Dolce & Gabbana, 2007 The label's 2007 advert was banned in Spain after it was thought to "glorify rape". Designer Stefano Gabbana stated that the image was intended to show “an erotic dream, a sexual game”. 5/9 Miu Miu, 2011 Miu Miu's campaign starring Hailee Steinfeld, sitting crying on a train track, was banned in Britain, after it was decided that the image depicted a child in an unsafe location. 6/9 Marc Jacobs, 2009 Dakota Fanning was 17 when Juergen Teller shot her for Marc Jacobs. The picture was thought to "sexualise children" and was banned. 7/9 Tom Ford, 2007 A not-so-subtle message from Tom Ford, photographed by Terry Richardson. The campaign was banned in several countries. 8/9 Sisley Shot by the controversial photography Terry Richardson, this advert made a play on the word 'fashion junkie'.

9/9 Calvin Klein, 1995 Calvin Klein are known for a string of controversial campaigns (including a picture of 17-year-old Kate Moss straddling Mark Wahlberg), but this 1995 image shot by Steven Meisel provoked negative response from child welfare authorities and the consequently brand withdrew it. The ruling said: “We therefore considered that the model appeared unhealthily underweight in the image and concluded that the ad was irresponsible.” Read more Should Yves Saint Laurent be using 'malnourished' models? The ASA ruled that the ad must not appear again in its current form, adding: “We told the advertisers to ensure that the images in their ads were prepared responsibly.” YSL declined to comment on the ruling. Earlier this year, a campaign for the YSL perfume Black Opium was cleared by the ASA after complaints that it glamorised drug use. BBC News | TALKING POINT | Should the Opium ad have been banned? Wednesday, 3 January, 2001, 10:33 GMT Should the Opium ad have been banned? A controversial billboard advert showing a naked female model in a suggestive pose has been banned in the UK.

The picture (above), featuring Sophie Dahl for the perfume Opium, received 730 complaints saying it was degrading and offensive to women, making it one of the most complained about. Christopher Graham, director general of the British Advertising Standards Authority, said the poster was sexually suggestive and unsuitable for a public place. Is the picture offensive to women? Should it have been banned? Are the British too prudish or would it have been banned in your country? This debate is now closed. Read a selection of your comments below. Your reaction Anyone, whether they think the ad is offensive or not, will admit that it is sexually suggestive. So, the question is whether or not sexually suggestive messages, in general, are good or bad. Personally, I think it is rather sick for women to rely on sexuality for their success in life. What a poor self image these ads teach women to have. And men are taught an equally sad and degenerate method of thought, valuing women who operate in that sexual mode. Overt public sexuality, whether emulated by one's self or appreciated in another, is a poor substitute for higher, more heroic, more selfless characteristics. Angus H.

McLellan, USA Have many people considered that much of our advertising is unnecessary, and extremely wasteful of: time, energy, and the earth's resources? I remember saying this in a school discussion in the early sixties. The teacher more or less told me I was stupid, I have not changed my view, as I have never seen or heard any logical reason to change my view. I do think much of our advertising has a bad effect upon our population and undermines the values of both parents and teachers. Lots of people seem to worry about freedom but we ought to remember that this freedom requires that we be responsible and should include advertisers. Robert, UK Certainly not! The ad consists of an image of a very beautiful woman. It is no more suggestive than a reclining nude painted by well-respected (dead) artists Jackie Hyden, UK Perhaps the Advertising Standards Authority should be re-named: it should now be called the Advertising Double Standards Authority. Nick, UK Mrs Grundy is alive and well! Brian Binney, UK The most common reason given by those who are happy to see this poster taken down, seems to be the fear that they would have to explain this poster to their children! Mrs Grundy is alive and well!

Brian Binney, UK The human body has always been an art form. Ruben's women were all naked and voluptuous! As for other cultures, in India the caves of Ajanta and Ellora in the south of the country have the most erotic images, again of beautiful, well-formed women. Perfume is a sensual product. Why the fuss if the advert shows the same? Sabina Ahmed, Somerset, UK Has anyone smelt Opium. My grandmother wears it. Therefore it should target her genre. Put a naked old woman with a blue rinse on the next ad. False advertising is the real issue. Ann Parlin, UK This is a celebration of female sensuality for it to be banned only shows how little respect we are really given Hannah Sinclair, Gallifrey This is a celebration of female sensuality for it to be banned only shows how little respect we are really given. Why are we still being oppressed by 19th Century thinking and our gender outlawed, when it is shown in a true light, in the 21st Century? What sort of message does this send to our daughters and granddaughters who could well face this same prejudice tomorrow?

Hannah Sinclair, Gallifrey Surprise, surprise most of the comments praising the ad are from men. Would you be so happy if this was your daughter, wife or sister? This ad is not about the human body, it's about some marketing exec (probably a man) trying to earn as much as possible for his client (probably another man). It saddens me, the lengths some people and organisations will go to so they increase sales and profits. Karen, UK We British are still controlled by ridiculous Victorian morals which damage our ability to relate correctly to one another. This picture should be celebrated as it shows a well-fed woman as a role model not some skinny child-woman. In almost every other country of the world (at least the non-Muslim ones) such images are fully acceptable, yet we in Britain are forced to hold unhealthy Puritanical views by control of the self-styled "champions of the people" (sic), the popular press. Martyn Fribbens, UK The only offensive thing I can see about this ad is that it makes me wish I had a body as good as Sophie's. If I had such a good body I'd be proud to show it off as well!

Tanya Smithson, England It's a serious problem the UK has in relating to sex Pete, Denmark A lot of people seem to have problems explaining this picture to children. Why not just tell them it is a picture of a naked woman? It may save them a few problems later on in life! It's a serious problem the UK has in relating to sex. I think it may be reflected in the outstanding record in teenage pregnancies. Pete, Denmark To me this add is excellent because it calls on the man who looks at it for very differing suggestion depending on whether it is posted vertically or horizontally. To me that's very clever on the part of its designers who I must congratulate for their exceptional result. There is nothing offending into it. Franc Borderi, France Its seems relatively easy to find someone who will be offended by almost anything. Over-concern for such "feelings" is destroying whatever illusion we retain to free expression. George Milton, USA Here in America Bible-toting conservatives are in an unholy alliance with radical feminists to protect us from all hints of human sexuality, and they happily ban or censor anything hinting at nudity. I swear, the UK is becoming more like the US every day!

Peter Nelson, USA This picture is so much more of a celebration of womanhood than the heroin-chic which has previously been proclaimed as photographic art Minty, UK The poster is beautiful. It shows a voluptuous, happy woman who is comfortable within her own body. The art value of the photography elevates it above a fashion shot. I personally (heterosexual female, age 47, size 18 if it matters) would pay to have a framed print. This picture is so much more of a celebration of womanhood than the heroin-chic which has previously been proclaimed as photographic art. Minty, UK There used to be a watershed for watching programmes with unsuitable content whilst younger children were around. Nowadays, it is bad enough the watershed is abused on TV, but at least there is an off button. Here, you can be driving down the road with your young kids, and they are subjected to posters with sexual innuendoes everywhere. There is, unfortunately no off button in the street. What are responsible parents supposed to do these days - blindfold our kids, or discuss sex openly with our 5 and 8 year olds.

It is a sad reflection of society that adults cannot take responsibility for keeping their over-sexed minds off the billboards and keep it in the bedroom where it belongs! Phil, UK What concerns me more is that she is depicted in stiletto shoes Sarah Jefferson, UK The fact the picture of a naked woman is being used to advertise perfume is hardly a surprise, but what concerns me more is that she is depicted in stiletto shoes. These offensive items of footwear cause untold damage to a wearer's spine and posture, and should not be encouraged by being depicted as glamorous. There is nothing glamorous about a spinal injuries ward. Sarah Jefferson, UK A quick poll of women in my office did not reveal one who was offended by the poster. It seems sad that whilst many complain of the portrayal of size 8 'waifs' in the media, when YSL have the courage to use a more 'normally' shaped person, there is an outrage (well 700 outrages) I have three children and do not have any problem with this image. Alun Jenkins, UK It never registered as sexual to me because the imagery is in the form of an over-used advertising language. Risqu� areas are airbrushed/ covered.

Most people exposed to it will be immune. The current ads for H&M featuring Claudia Schiffer are to me more dangerous because the eye contact and the general provocative nature is intended to engage the viewer. David Harrison, UK All the boys think it's fantastic Therasa Jazowy (Aussie expat) It seems that a lot of girls are offended by it and all the boys think it's fantastic. I don't find the picture offensive but it's interesting that there are far more "sexy" pictures of women in advertising than men. Why? Therasa Jazowy (Aussie expat) Thanks for showing the advert - the one near my house has white paint splattered all over it ! The Gill, UK You don't know what prudish is until you have spent some time in the US. After that, the UK looks relaxed and civil. We Americans have a lot to teach the world about how to be repressed and unhappy. M. A. Edwards, USA People have no choice but to view it Ricky Wright, UK The two sides to this argument seem to comprise the liberal "let-it-all-hang-outs" and the more reserved so-called "prudes".

Each has the right to their point of view, and to live in the way that they see fit. What this advert does is deny that right to one section of the population. It is not a case of banning the advert - I am sure it will still appear in magazines - but of removing it from places where it cannot be ignored, and people have no choice but to view it. Those who enjoy sexual imagery have more than enough opportunities to consume it, without insisting that those who are more reserved have to see it too. Ricky Wright, UK Back to corsets and 10 layers of underwear. The notion that the women who appear in this sort of ad are used is ridiculous. They make their money this way and a lot of it. Some women are uptight about being shown in this way, whereas most men are not. Men are being used to sell things with their bodies just as much as women these days. Another advantage of this ad is that it shows a real woman and not a stick insect. Whose doing the most harm, a fully clothed stick insect persuading women to starve themselves or a normal sized woman naked?

Mike, England As a woman, and a redhead at that, I am delighted by such a sensuous image of a beautiful woman. I am, however, dismayed that the few should dictate to the many. Why are we frightened of sexuality and our natural state? We should be celebrating and enjoying it! Emma W, UK Controversy has become just another tool in the seller's armoury Mark Carter, UK Advertising regulation in this country has to be totally rethought in the light of the ASA effectively becoming a marketing tool for this product. Did the people who complained want to see the image taken off the streets only to reappear on the front of most popular British daily papers? No. The ASA, a body funded by the taxpayer, has been used to help sell a commercial product. Controversy has become just another tool in the seller's armoury and we need to rethink our approach to official censorship in the light of this. Mark Carter, UK It is about time ASA acted upon its own code of practice, well done ASA. There is a big difference between art and pornography and if advertisers cannot tell the difference, then they should seek advice. Are products so poor that advertisers have to use sexuality to promote them?

Asif Suleman, UK This advert is thoroughly dangerous and should be banned immediately. Whilst straining my neck to get a better look, I nearly drove into a crowd of men near the poster. They were, no doubt, discussing how morally wrong it was. Send all remaining posters to me and I will destroy them for you, I promise... Giles, UK This advert is not, as some supporters would claim, about Sophie Dahl expressing herself naturally. She was paid to do exactly what a (male) photographer directed her to. Then anything vaguely interesting or human about her body was airbrushed away so that she looked like cross between a corpse and someone on a visit to the gynaecologist... this is a truly unhealthy image of women, I have seen in years, and I am glad it was banned... Jane, France Haven't the advertisers realised that in multicultural Britain today some may find this poster very offensive? Darren Yates, England, UK There is nothing wrong with nakedness at all, but there is a time and place for everything. Haven't the advertisers realised that in multicultural Britain today some may find this poster very offensive? What is wrong with a woman's fully clothed figure leaving the rest to imagination?

Darren Yates, England, UK I live in Munich where, in the summer, office workers go to the English Garden (a large park in the centre of Munich) to eat their lunch together whilst sunbathing in the nude. British prudishness seems very childish when viewed from here. Paul Magson, Germany The real shame is that Sophie Dahl, who used to be a shapely and normal size 16 had to slim down to do the ad. This does not send the right message about shape and beauty to young women Steve Davey, UK It is a sexy poster of a beautiful, realistically proportioned woman Thomas Jordan, Quebec, Canada It is a sexy poster of a beautiful, realistically proportioned woman. I guess that the complaints came in roughly equal proportion from politically correct and reactionary blue-rinses. In Canada attitudes towards sex are much more liberal and this reminds me of how repressed the British still are. Thomas Jordan, Quebec, Canada It is a win-win situation for the marketers and advertisers. Even if the Advertising Standards Authority does not intervene, the very nature of the ad provokes discussion among its audience; if the Advertising Standards Agency does intervene, the media still discuss the controversial ad.

The marketers' objective of stimulating the interest of the consuming public in the product or service they are promoting is achieved. Mohansingh, India Yeah it's great but maybe it's time we saw some naked men in a few ads to kind of even out the balance a bit... Penny, UK Perhaps it is time all product advertising was banned Pete Haines, England UK Sexual morality is not the issue. The unsubtlety and complete lack of imagination of the advertising agency is. By discussing the ad in terms of societies' attitudes to nudity we are playing the advertisers game. Any idiot can pin their product's name to soft pornography and make it a talking point. Perhaps it is time all product advertising was banned - anything worthwhile would then be publicised by word of mouth and we would be protected from crass sensationalist stunts such as this. Pete Haines, England Would there have been as many complaints if it had been a man? If this picture had been hung in the Tate it would have been called art! As for those people who said we should be protecting our children from this imagery, nonsense! The human form should be celebrated and children should not be indoctrinated into thinking that it is wrong to show ourselves in our true nature.

Graham, Sandhurst It is another example of women's bodies used to sell commodities Maureen Buch, England People who defend this ad are missing the point. It is not prudishness that causes women to feel offended by this picture of a beautiful and normally sized naked woman - it is the setting. The ad is in the public domain, not in an art gallery which one can choose to visit or not, nor yet in the dubious pages of the British tabloid press which one can also choose not to read. It is another example of women's bodies used to sell commodities, and thus becoming commodities themselves. Ads of this sort continue to diminish respect for women, reducing us to sexual objects to be used and abused as men wish. There is no precedent for men being abused by women inflamed by images of submissive naked men's bodies - so how easy it is for them to call women who decry these kinds of images of women in the media as prudish. These men have nothing to be scared of - we do. Maureen Buch, England So, presumably, if 800 or so people complain that the picture has been taken down, they'll put it back again? What's the number to ring? Andy G.M.

Wood, UK (London) Not all cultures are so open to nudity Shaz, UK I totally agree with the ad being banned. Seeing nudity on the TV and newspapers is an individual's choice, whereas a billboard is in your face. There needs to be a limit to what can be shown on the billboards and what can't. Not all cultures are so open to nudity and if Britain is to calls itself a multicultural society, it should respect other cultural values who are not respective to this sort of ad campaigns. Shaz, UK Speaking as a Christian, I am VERY grateful to be living in a country that still has some standards, which it is not ashamed to hold to. Marketing executives have tried to erode them in recent years, in order to get our attention. This has nothing to do with changing times, only to do with market share. Tim Stephens, London The issue is not whether the ad is decent it's whether it should be shown in public places - such as on billboards - where people have no choice in what they are exposed to. The ad itself is no worse than much of what's published in magazines aimed at the readers of an adult age. That's where this ad should be - in a place appropriate to its audience.

It's difficult not to be cynical about the ad agency's decision to place the ad on billboards - it seems as if they've tried to maximise the impact of the campaign by deliberately stirring up public opinion. And since they've got away with it, what's to stop other advertisers using the same tactics? If the only punishment is removal of an ad that's already done its job, that isn't punishment at all. Would a fine by more appropriate? Or should billboard ads be more rigorously screened before they're pasted up? Keith, UK I think banning the ad is incredibly hypocritical Matt Hunt, London For a country that has topless 'page 3' girls in most of its daily tabloids, I think banning the ad is incredibly hypocritical. The rest of Europe has no problem with this sort of advertising and I find it hard to believe they are 'less cultured' than the British. Mainland Europe is forging ahead because they are relaxed, mature and flexible while England languishes in the past, desperately holding on to 100 year old 'traditions'. Matt Hunt, London The ad has already done its job by creating a much greater public awareness of the Opium brand.

By creating such a fuss, the public has played into the hands of the advertising industry. I do not find this ad offensive, but can understand why some people do. George Richards, UK This sort of image would not have been seen outside a top shelf magazine 25 or 30 years ago. One wonders what sort of images will be considered acceptable on billboards 15-20 years from now. Jane, Cardiff, Wales, UK I find the image most disturbing because the model is so dehumanised Joanne Smith, UK I find the image most disturbing because the model is so dehumanised. The image has been airbrushed and tinkered with to the extreme - the skin tone and lack of body hair make the image quite revolting. The most worrying thing about it is that children might think that this is how women really look under their clothes! Joanne Smith, UK What about the animal testing that may or may not surround this new fragrance? I personally find most perfume adverts offensive for this reason. As for pictures of naked ladies in suggestive poses, I rather like it.

Dr Elbow, UK The Opium advert ran for some time in France, particularly on the billboards in Paris, and was considered relatively tame compared to some that are quite legitimately posted. No comments, no complaints and no car accidents (at least none caused by the advert). The only comments from the ladies in my office were ones of approval, concerning the use of a shapely woman rather than a stick insect. Whilst I accept that there are cultural differences between us and the French, aren't we being just a little silly over this? Stephen Levette, France Far from being prudish, I think there is a place for everything. An appropriate place for this explicit advert would be in magazines for YSL's intended audience and not on huge billboards around the country. If adverts like this are continually allowed to be placed in the mainstream public domain where is the line ever going to be drawn on what's appropriate and what is not? Miz, London Nobody coerced Sophie Dahl into making the ad Neil, England With the 'Opium' advert being banned for being degrading to women, will adverts such as those for Diet Coke featuring semi-clothed men be banned for being degrading to men? Probably not.

When men are featured in such adverts they're seen as a 'bit of a laugh', which they are and men can take them light-heartedly. However, when women are featured they're seen as exploitative and degrading because many women seem to have no sense of fun. Nobody coerced Sophie Dahl into making the ad and I'm sure she didn't mind the money she received. Neil, England With the exception of the Americans, the British are the most up-tight people in the West. Just come over to Amsterdam for a day and have your eyes opened. Mark, UK/ Netherlands I think the poster is GREAT!! I nearly crashed my car, but it's still brightened up my day! John Gavey, England I think she is a lovely girl and she should express herself whatever way she wants Carrie Anne Connor, Glasgow I'm French and sick of the way women are being exploited for marketing purposes in my country Sylvie Marmorat, UK I'm French and sick of the way women are being exploited for marketing purposes in my country. The English should be very proud of being one of the last countries in Europe to show decency and respect towards women.

I actually was very shocked to see that poster in the shops and I'm delighted that it has been removed. England must keep fighting against vulgarity, in France it's already too late. Sylvie Marmorat, UK Although the ASA have been "moving with the times" in the respect that they are less reactionary to most adverts now, I think that it was the right decision to ban this ad. It was far too explicit for an outdoor site and I am happy enough not to be confronted by a giant naked woman on the way to work when all I want is my cup of coffee! Clare, UK Amazing, finally an advertisement with a woman who is undoubtedly very sexy and attractive AND is NOT as thin as a stick insect (like so many women in adverts today), and the picture gets banned. I was rather hoping it would set a trend that might discourage the practice of young women starving and forcing themselves to be sick in order to look thin, just like the girls in most advertisements. I guess that would be too sensible...

Michael Gahan, Ireland It seems that the UK public is very sheltered from this type of material by stringent media censorship, so it is no wonder that they are unable to accept this nude image larger than life on a public billboard. I don't think it would have caused any more than a minor stir in Australia. Mike, Australia I actually thought it was a poster of a drug taker in pain!! Shows how much attention I pay to adverts! Sonia, UK Can you imagine the same ad with a man lying naked on his back with his legs wide open? Kate, UK It's the only sensible decision the ASA has ever made. Can you imagine the same ad with a man lying naked on his back with his legs wide open? The answer is a resounding NO. Women are never going to gain respect in the boardroom as long as this "porn chic" is allowed on our billboards. It's got nothing to do with British prudishness - it's an issue of decency and self-respect. Kate, UK She looks good but it is a bit too much for billboard posters - keep it for Cosmo!

Jen, Scotland I don't think the poster should have been banned; the ASA seems to think that nudity is something distasteful. They ought to realise that sex does exist and people enjoy it! Colin, Netherlands The fact that the advert was ever released reflects the present low standard of morality. If that sort of thing is allowed to carry on then advertisements will simply degenerate as the limits of acceptability are pushed further back. There will probably come a time when material you find on the top shelf in a newsagent will be blazoned on hoardings. We are evidently well on the road towards that so does anyone want to put the brakes on? Thankfully they do....at present. Vanessa Pinn, UK It betrays a prudish and repressed attitude to sexuality generally Jon Cahalane, London, UK It is really only in countries such as the UK that this kind of complaint is heard, and I find it humiliating because it betrays a prudish and repressed attitude to sexuality generally. I have travelled all over Europe and have seen far more explicit material on general display in every country with none of this moralistic grumbling.

I think the best way people can complain, if they want to, is not to buy the product. There are several adverts I find offensive for very different reasons other than sex, and you can be sure that I am boycotting those products. Jon Cahalane, London, UK Amazing how British people can be so prudish yet incredibly go beyond all decency when on holiday abroad. What about TV programmes like "Greece (or) Ibiza Uncovered"? Maria, Spain It seems that Victorian prudery is alive and well and living in the UK (or is it Disgusted from Tunbridge Wells?). The photo of Sophie Dahl is more artistic than sexual and it is high time that the views of the little old ladies (and men) who choke on their tea at the sight of a nipple (shock horror!) be ignored and consigned to the sepia tinged past where they belong.

Richard Plaistowe, South African living in London I do agree that the advert is lacking in taste and is an affront to women, displaying them as sex objects Florence Akinyi, Kenya When will people realise that the 19th century is long past and that times have changed Phil, UK I think that it's pretty ridiculous that something like this should be banned. If you go to the Tate Modern, you will find far more explicit material, on full view to children (as I witnessed this Saturday); do we ban this too? When will people realise that the 19th century is long past and that times have changed - some people may not like it, but there's no escaping the inevitability for now. Phil, UK I would like to ask any of your correspondents who are in favour of this ad whether they have children, and if so would they like their children to see this on public display? If they do not have children they may not understand the responsibilities of parenting. I do not want my children to see portrayals of sexual behaviour but there is no nine o'clock watershed for a poster in the high street.

Martyn, UK It's a shame how we British always manage to direct our outrage at the most insignificant things. I'm sure the rest of Europe will not have batted an eyelid. Instead of getting upset at a vaguely erotic picture of a naked woman in an advert we should be outraged by the cynical and manipulative methods certain advertisers use to induce "pester power" in children. Dave Whyte, UK I think there are 730 people out there who have obviously got nothing better to do than make a complaint about a picture of a naked woman (did the same people make complaints about the naked woman that appeared in the M&S ads as well?). The picture is fine and should be left up, but these people are obviously offended by the sight of a beautiful woman. Get a life! Cassidy, UK It is pretentious and propagates the myth that perfection exists Paul Williams, UK Look, we are all sucked in by the marketing machine's hype. Whether it be a new car or a bottle of perfume it is all sold with some kind of allusion to sexual prowess of some kind or another.

The marketing hype of the "perfect" man or woman has gone so far now that if you do not conform to the marketing companies ideal norm, then you are abnormal. The ad should not be banned because it is provocative, but because it is pretentious and propagates the myth that perfection exists. We are all imperfect in some way, and to be sold a product based on the ideal that it will in some way hide your imperfections and make you more attractive to the opposite sex is the real obscenity. Paul Williams, UK A risque advert or a marketing manager's dream? Banning the advert will only increase the publicity of the product. But why ban it? Can anyone really consider this advert to be offensive? Chris Moore, UK Another reminder of one of the many small reasons I enjoy living outside of the UK. What prudes you are! Stuart Paterson, Germany The most popular tabloid press in the UK shows worse every day of the week Bob, UK Seven hundred and thirty people find the image of a beautiful young women offensive and it disappears from general view - when will the book burning start? Shame on you. The most popular tabloid press in the UK shows worse every day of the week, when will we ban that?

Bob, UK A woman lying in the street in such a pose would be arrested for indecent exposure. So why allow an advert to show a picture of this instead? RP, UK What a bunch of sad people we have become! It is a beautiful picture of a woman in tune with her body. The only reservation I have is that from a road safety point of view it might cause a few accidents. Incidentally I am a 57 year old grandmother. Ailsa, UK The advert reflects the completely immoral society we live in today. Nearly everything these days is advertised with sex. What would you say to a five year old who saw that advert? It was right to ban it. Jay, UK I don't think it is the kind of ad that looks right on a billboard by the roadside. It is sexually suggestive and would be difficult to explain to children. Not to mention the distraction it could cause to drivers! Francoise Cleland, Ghana Why don't we complain about the amount of violence in out societies instead?

Woyteck Morajko, USA I'm sorry to see that the UK is as mistaken as the U.S: we can show ALL kinds of violence on TV/Cinema, but a little NUDITY is completely unacceptable! Why don't we complain about the amount of violence in out societies instead? Woyteck Morajko, USA I am very glad to hear the Opium add has been banned. This country has a horrible record for violence against women as a recent report confirmed. This kind of advert is not suitable for display in public places, bus stops and bill boards, as it is the kind of thing that encourages some men to harass women. I have been subjected to harassment and aggression because I walked past a Wonderbra add at the wrong time. The overall attitude of men to women in this country is still very poor and this kind of thing sadly encourages some of them to bully females. Aure, UK What about the Women's Institute, they have produced a calendar with lots of nudity but everyone thinks it is nice and tasteful. I think these images are more of what you make of them.

Rob Jones, Oxford, UK The pose and content of this advert is belongs within the covers of a 'top shelf' magazine not on large billboards that are highly visible and can vividly 'imprint' images in children's minds. Mark Hughes, UK In Spain this picture hasn't been banned. I don't know why it should. It is an advertisement for women. It pictures a beautiful woman enjoying her body. Oops! Perhaps I forgot women shouldn't enjoy their sexuality. Sorry. Belen Reyes, Spain I think the whole campaign was a bit risqu� Michael Kenning, England I think the whole campaign was a bit risqu�, but I don't think they should have banned it - after all, it didn't show any more that Gail Porter projected onto Big Ben. Michael Kenning, England Come on...when will the British come out of the closet about sex, nudity and their insecurity that goes with it. It is a body without any clothes on. We all have one and they are all different. Do you feel bad about being a woman? I might feel jealous of her body, but that is as far as it goes. Go wild; let it all hang out.

Bea Reynolds, UK Children will be asking "what is that lady doing?" Catherine, UK I really do think that the poster was unacceptable. It is undoubtedly a beautiful image of a beautiful woman, but it is just not right to put this image on a ten-foot poster by the roadside. Children will be asking "what is that lady doing?" and what are you supposed to say? Oh, she's in sexual ecstasy because she just bought some overpriced scent? Catherine, UK Nobody would allow rape to be portrayed on a billboard - thus we all accept there should be "some" standards. A public debate about common morals and values is long overdue ... before the UK slides any further into the relativistic abyss. Colin Humber, UK I don't think the picture is degrading or offensive to women... that's not the point though. I think it should be removed, as it is sexually explicit and therefore not suitable for public spaces. I don't have a problem with adverts such as this appearing in publications intended for adults, e.g. Cosmopolitan magazine, or Maxim etc.

Alex Kells, UK Aside from the sexual side of the ad, it also suggests a positive mental state produced by OPIUM Neil Towns, UK Aside from the sexual side of the ad, it also suggests a positive mental state produced by OPIUM, a highly addictive and illegal narcotic, as well as a perfume. Do we want people to associate OPIUM with such a positive image - albeit an image many people find offensive in its own right? Neil Towns, UK Naked Sophie scores even more free PR. | Adland ® Naked Sophie scores even more free PR. By Dabitch on 24 Apr 2001 Adland: adrants Note 2004-01-15 Paypal, the eBay owned internet-bank thing has frozen our assets and shut down the Commercial Archive's only donation option right before the superbowl (ouch) due to the nudity in this image. Read more here The now infamous Sophie Dahl Opium ad has become the most offensive ad of 2000 . It'll go down in history kids! Or at the very least, become a trivial pursuit question. Aren't we proud?

Opium: a whopping 948 complaints - but the ad was never banned. The controversial poster for Yves St Laurent perfume featuring a naked Sophie Dahl accounted for a third of all complaints about poster advertising last year. The second most complained about advert was for gas supplier Npower, which featured a ginger-haired family accompanied by the words: "There are some things in life you can't choose". The ASA received 219 complaints from people who believed the advert was offensive to redheads, but the authority ruled they were not justified because it was intended to be lighthearted. Other controversial campaigns included a poster of a woman's naked bottom for Marks & Spencer, and one for Benetton featuring a prisoner on death row. Objections to two posters for underwear firm Gossard were upheld for being sexually explicit, and they were ordered to be removed. The Sophie Dahl Picture Pages Miss Opium Background: Sophie Dahl began her successful career as a full figure model in 1996, after being discovered by a then Vogue stylist, Isabella Blow.

She quickly worked with noted photographers and appeared in major campaigns and publications, but she is probably best remembered for her naked advertisement for Yves Saint Laurent Opium perfume in 2000, which was banned by the British Advertising Standards Agency. Since then, she has made a triumphant transformation to a career as writer. The granddaughter of author Roald Dahl has released three books: “The Man With the Dancing Eyes” (2003), “Playing with the Grown-Ups” (2008) and a cook book, “Miss Dahl's Voluptuous Delights” (2009). She also has contributed to “The Saturday Times Magazine,” “The Daily Telegraph” and “American edition of Vogue,” among other publications. Dahl has also collected several credits as an actress, including “Best” (2000), “The King of Bollywood” (2004) and “Little Fugitive” (2006). Dahl has one daughter with husband Jamie Cullum, whom she married in January 2010.

She is a supporter of the Roald Dahl Museum and Story Centre in Great Missenden, Buckinghamshire, and is active in the charities The Place2be, First Story, GOSH, NSPCC, RSPCA & Break Through Breast Cancer. Dahl was once ranked No.10 in the Channel 5 “World's greatest supermodel” list. Between 2000 and 2001, she dated actor/director Griffin Dunne. Sophia Holloway Childhood and Family: Sophie Dahl was born Sophia Holloway on September 15, 1977 in London, England. She is the daughter of actor Julian Holloway and author Tessa Dahl. Her paternal grandparents were actor Stanley Holloway and former chorus girl Violet Lane, while her maternal grandparents were children's author Roald Dahl and Academy Award winning actress Patricia Neal. Sophie has an older half sister named Luke Kelly. She attended Bedales School. In 2009, Sophie was engaged to jazz pianist virtuoso and singer Jamie Cullum (born August 20, 1979). They married on January 9, 2010 in a private ceremony at Westminster Abbey in England.

The couple's their first child, daughter Lyra, was born on March 2, 2011 at Portland Hospital in London. The Delicious Miss Dahl Career: Sophie Dahl was first spotted by Isabella Blow, a Vogue stylist/fashion expert, in 1996. Astonished by her beauty, Blow then referred Dahl to Sarah Doukas of Storm, one of the hottest model agencies in London, and within a within weeks, Dahl was signed to the agency. Dahl, with her weight at that time, would soon become famous as a plus size model. She recalled, “I don't think I could be a wallflower with a body like this.” Dahl appeared in major campaigns for The Gap, Versace, Alexander McQueen, Patrick Cox, Pringle, Godiva, and Banana Republic, amongst others. She also appeared in many popular publications, such as “Elle,” “Marie Claire,” “Harper's Bazaar” and the British, Italian and American versions of “Vogue.” She became favorite among noted photographers like Peter Lindbergh, Richard Avedon, David Bailey and Steven Meisel, to name a few.

In 2000, Dahl gained a degree of notoriety when she posed nude for Yves Saint Laurent's Opium perfume advert campaign. This ad was banned by the British Advertising Standards Agency. Dahl branched out to acting in 1999 when she appeared as prisoner on the British comedy film “Mad Cows,” starring Anna Friel, Joanna Lumley and Anna Massey. The following year, she landed the supporting role of Eva Haraldsted in the biographical film “Best,” starring John Lynch as Manchester United football legend George Best. Dahl resurfaced in 2002 with roles in the crime/drama film “People I Know,” starring Al Pacino, Téa Leoni and Ryan O'Neal, and Alex Cox's drama, “Revengers Tragedy,” starring Christopher Eccleston, Kevin Knapman and Michael Ryan. In 2003, she starred in a 18 minute short called “New York Stories,” which was directed by Steven Sebring. It was also in 2003 that Dahl released her first book, “The Man with the Dancing Eyes,” an illustrated novella and Times bestseller.

Following this, she started writing regularly for publications such as American “Vogue,” “The Guardian,” “The Telegraph,” “The Observer” and the “Saturday Times.” 2004 saw Dahl co-star with William Ash and Nicholas Audsley in the short film “Standing Room Only,” by Deborra-Lee Furness, and play Crystal Chaurasia in the Indian film “The King of Bollywood,”opposite Om Puri and Kavita Kapoor. She played Veronica in “Stories of Lost Souls” (2005) and was cast as Mermaid in the 2006 drama film “Little Fugitive,” starring Nicolas Martí Salgado, David Castro and Justina Machado. Dahl served as a contributing editor and regular columnist at “Men's Vogue” from 2005 to its closure in 2008. She now becomes a regular columnist for “British Vogue,” from which she won a a Jasmine Award for her column, and “Waitrose Kitchen.” Dahl's second book, “Playing with the Grown-Ups,: A Novel” was published in 2008.

It was followed by a cook book titled “ Miss Dahl's Voluptuous Delights,” which was released in 2009. She provides introductions to the Puffin Classic new edition of “The Secret Garden” by Frances Hodgson Burnett, and Virago Press re-release of Stella Gibbons' 1938 novel “Nightingale Wood,” which was released in April 2009. Dahl's six part cookery series called “The Delicious Miss Dahl,” which she wrote and presented, was broadcast on BBC 2 between March and April 2010. Awards: Are these the most offensive ads of all time? - BBC News BBC News Are these the most offensive ads of all time? By Kathryn Westcott BBC News, Magazine 30 May 2012 Read more about sharing. Close share panel Image caption Clockwise (left to right): Stills from adverts for Volkswagen Group Ltd, 2009; Barnado's, 2008; The Christian Party, 2009 (Rex Features); and British Safety Council, 1995 The UK's advertising watchdog has released a list of the most complained-about ads of all time.

There are some surprising results. Anyone guessing what adverts provoked the most complaints might speculate along the lines of sex, violence, swearing, animal cruelty and blasphemy. Wrong. A Kentucky Fried Chicken TV advert, which aired in 2005 and featured call centre workers singing with their mouths full of food, is the most complained about of all time. To coincide with its 50th anniversary, the Advertising Standards Authority has collated the 10 adverts from the past half century that have garnered the most complaints. The KFC ad received a record 1,671. Many people felt it could encourage bad manners among children . But the complaint was not upheld by the ASA, which ruled it was unlikely to change children's behaviour or undermine parental authority. Among the other most-complained about ads was the famous Opium perfume poster ad of model Sophie Dahl reclining on a fur rug wearing nothing but a pair of strappy high-heeled shoes and some jewellery. Minding our manners Simon Fanshawe, author of The Done Thing - Negotiating The Minefield Of Modern Manners, on people singing with full mouths: The British public has a finely tuned sensor in relation to disgust. We are quite curious about it, though.

For example, if we were sitting on a train and someone opposite us was putting on their make up, we wouldn't really mind. If they were cutting their nails, it would be a different story. In my mind, it's all to do with the invention of the sewers. All the things that people used to do in public were literally swept away and the Victorians developed a sense of disgust. In terms of eating and other bodily functions, we've developed a very refined sense of disgust. The thing about eating, there are no absolutes, they are culturally determined. Other cultures eat differently to how we do in western Europe. We are quite bourgeois in that we set a great deal of social store in the degree of delicacy with which we eat. Also making the top 10 were adverts featuring a blind football player kicking a cat across a pitch, a car engineer fighting with versions of himself, and two with religious themes. But earlier controversial trailblazers are conspicuous by their absence. Where for example, is Benetton, which pioneered the use of "shock tactics" in the 1990s? Numbers of complaints are growing.

Over the last five decades the ASA has dealt with around 431,000 complaints - 31,000 were lodged in 2011 alone. "In recent years it has become much easier to complain via the web," says Claire Beale, editor of Campaign magazine. And the ad industry has even invited complaints as it tries to keep its self-regulatory position, argues Beale. Social media now allows momentum to generate a wave of complaints, she suggests. But many of the most controversial themes are familiar ones. "There are perennially provocative subjects, sex and children being two of the main ones," Beale says. "Clearly KFC was trying to create an ad that people talked about, and that stood out in the increasingly crowded ad break. "In doing so, they strayed too far beyond what's reasonably acceptable behaviour in commercials and clearly touched a sensitive nerve with parents who felt they were setting a bad example to children merely to create some shock value that would raise the profile of the commercial." Media captionGuy Parker of the ASA on how complaints are handled Yves St Laurent's Opium perfume ad saw battle lines drawn over the portrayal of women.

It was the brainchild of Tom Ford who described it as a "tasteful nude in the tradition of high art". He said it was inspired by Woman In White Stockings by 18th Century romantic artist Eugene Delacroix. The all-time top 10 1. KFC (2005): Call centre workers singing while eating 1,671 complaints - not upheld 2. Auction World (2004): Shopping channel 1,360 complaints - referred to Ofcom 3. Paddy Power (2010): Cat being kicked by blind football player 1,313 complaints - not upheld 4. The Christian Party (2009): Poster saying "There definitely is a god" 1,204 complaints - not upheld 5. British Safety Council (1995): Condom advert featuring Pope 1,192 complaints - upheld 6. Marie Stopes International (2010): TV ad offering sexual and reproductive healthcare advice 1,088 complaints - not upheld 7.

Volkswagen (2008): Depicted an engineer fighting multiple versions of himself 1,070 complaints - partially upheld 8. Yves St Laurent (2000): Poster of naked reclining Sophie Dahl 948 complaints - upheld 9. Department of Energy and Climate Change (2010): Press and TV campaign about climate change 939 complaints - upheld in part 10. Barnardo's (2008): TV campaign about domestic child abuse 840 complaints - not upheld Supporters, including a number of feminist writers, described it both as a wittily shot image and a tasteful nude . They said it was a far cry from the vulnerable images of women hitherto portrayed in advertising. But opponents - including many young women, according to the ASA at the time - denounced it as degrading and pornographic. Some commentators even suggested the ad would pose a danger to road users by distracting them. The watchdog received 948 complaints and banned the billboard ad after agreeing that it was sexually suggestive and likely to cause offence. Concerns over "decency" motivate many complainants, says Sarah Tate, head of brand at Mother creative agency.

"We haven't really changed that much since the Victorian times - we are offended by bad manners and nudity," she says. "It's basically the dinner party things - you don't talk about religion, get naked or talk with your mouth full. "It's definitely 'no sex please, we're British'." You can run naked adverts without getting hundreds of complaints, Tate says. Mother created a series featuring Olympic athletes - including cyclist Rebecca Romero - performing their various sports nude. Another featured naked British rugby players. "We had no complaints," says Tate, although some advertisers refused to take some of the posters. "It's down to personal taste about what is seen to be decent. A lot of it is about context." The most complained about adverts from 2011 A campaign by the Department of Energy and Climate Change, which aimed to make adults feel guilty about the impact their carbon emissions are having on their children's future, received more than 939 complaints, making it the ninth most-complained about ad. One ad showed a young girl being read a nightmarish bedtime story by her father about a world blighted by climate change, while two press adverts made use of nursery rhymes.

The press ads were banned after ruling that they could not be substantiated by hard evidence. Analysis By Torin DouglasMedia correspondent Some of the most famous 'shock' campaigns don't appear in the top ten. Benetton, the Italian clothing company, was notorious for its posters - more than 800 people in the UK complained about its giant image of a new-born baby covered in blood. French Connection UK, another fashion chain, prompted hundreds of complaints with the provocative use of its initials, as in "fcuk advertising" and "fcuk fashion". Pot Noodles caused hundreds of complaints with lines such as "The slag of all snacks" and "Have you got the Pot Noodle horn?". There were 774 complaints about an anti-smoking commercial for the Department of Health, showing people being dragged along with fish hooks in their mouths. And there are always complaints from animal-lovers. 589 people objected to a poster showing a cow saying "When I'm a burger, I want to be washed down with Irn-Bru". A Levi's Jeans TV commercial, showing a hamster which had apparently died of boredom in its cage prompted 519 complaints.

Charities and public service messages have often prompted complaints, due to the shock tactics often employed. An ad by Barnardo's designed to raise awareness of domestic child abuse and one by the British Safety Council highlighting national condom week feature in the most-complained about list. The Barnardo's TV campaign, which attracted 840 complaints, featured repeated scenes of violence and drug taking which many viewers found upsetting. The complaints were not upheld. The British Safety Council's 1995 leaflet featured the Pope wearing a hard hat with the strap line The Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt always wear a condom. Nearly 1,200 people complained. The following year, the council created a storm by featuring a fresh-faced Prince Charles kissing a blushing Princess Diana. "Appearances can be deceptive," ran the copy alongside. "Use a Johnny Condom." "When you are trying to create awareness, there is a fine line between pushing a message and offending people. In some areas, you are just asking for trouble - such as messing with religion - it's common sense," says Justin Tindall, group executive creative director at Leo Burnett.

There were complaints in 2009 about an ad by The Christian Party with the strap line: "There definitely is a God. So join the Christian Party and enjoy your life." It came in response to a humanist ad reading: "There's probably no God: now stop worrying and enjoy your life." The Christian Party ad attracted 1,204 complaints but they were not upheld by the ASA. The second most-complained about ad ever is for shopping channel Auction World, which attracted 1,360 complaints focusing on poor customer service, misleading guide prices and delays in delivery of goods. The channel had its licence revoked by Ofcom, after referral from the ASA. Image caption The Dahl ad was the brainchild of Tom Ford Number six on the list, with 1,088 complaints, is an ad for Marie Stopes International. A number of complainants said the ad, which aired in 2010, promoted abortion. The ASA also received more than 3,600 postcards and petition signatures because of a campaign by activists before the ad was even broadcast.

The complaints were not upheld, with the ASA at the time saying: "We felt it was clear that the advertisers were promoting their post-conception advice service and was neither advocating one course of action over another, nor trivialising the dilemma of an unplanned pregnancy." A 2008 ad for a Volkswagen Golf - seventh on the all-time list - depicted an engineer fighting multiple versions of himself attracted 1,070 complaints, which were partially upheld. In the ad, the man opens the door to his office to find a man identical to himself. The man punches the engineer in the face and kicks him before a series of fight scenes, some involving the men using car parts as weapons, take place. At the time Volkswagen said the "highly stylised and choreographed" adverts were not intended to condone violence. The ASA ruled it should not be shown before 9pm. Third on the all-time list was the most complained-about ad of 2010. It featured a team of blind footballers kicking around a ball with a bell on it until it goes out of play. A cat with a bell wanders onto the pitch, the players restart their game and a painful miaow is heard.

This attempt at a blackly humorous scenario from Paddy Power provoked more than 1,300 complaints. It contains two themes that are a classic cause for complaint - depiction of disabled people, and ill-treatment of an animal. But the ASA ruled that the ad was unlikely to "encourage or condone cruelty to animals or cause serious or widespread offence". But the top 10 is almost enough to make the cynical think that some firms are occasionally setting out to provoke controversy. Sex doesn't sell | London Evening Standard The Evening Standard Banned: the Opium poster If there is one golden rule of the advertising industry, it has to be that sex sells. Whether it is the model draped over the bonnet of a car or the latest Wonderbra, they are images all too familiar to us. But according to a new survey, the way women are portrayed in such adverts is the last thing that people actually want. Research by the Chartered Institute of Marketing found almost half those questioned believed women are still regularly and inaccurately stereotyped in advertising. The blatant use of sex to sell goods has proved controversial.

Sophie Dahl's naked billboard pose for Opium perfume saw the advert banned, and one for the British International Motor Show which featured a woman in a lacy bra was labelled "sexist and pathetic" by Trade and Industry Secretary Patricia Hewitt. The public, it would seem share the minister's views. "Consumers soon grow tired of outdated marketing practices and marketers need to become more imaginative to talk to them," said Institute spokesman Mike Johnston. "It also demonstrates that using sex to sell a product is not always effective." The survey of 1,000 men and women found that nearly a third did not enjoy looking at such adverts and that their purchases were not influenced by them. It did, however, discover that 47 per cent thought women were per cent admitted enjoying sexy adverts and being influenced by them. Twelve per cent said that women are not stereotyped in advertising at all. The Advertising Standards Authority disagreed in the case of the Opium advert. The ASA took the unusual step of banning the 20ft poster in 2000 - after it generated more complaints than almost any other in the authority's history - on the grounds that it was degrading and offensive to women.

Last October the British International Motor Show attracted criticism - and headlines - due to comments made by Ms Hewitt for its poster advertising the event. It featured the slogan: "The other way to your man's heart is down the M6 and off at junction 4." It prompted Ms Hewitt to say that advertisers were "stuck in the Fifties". Advertising experts agree that women do get a raw deal in adverts - but then so does everybody else they say. "The trouble is advertising has to talk to lots of people at once and so everybody gets stereotyped by lazy advertising," said James Burgess of advertising company Klondyke. However, it seems that men may be the new women when it comes to being poorly treated in adverts. Penny Harris, a senior planner at advertising agency St Luke's, said: "I am more concerned at the way advertising shows men being humiliated, physically assaulted and being stupid. If women were being treated this way there would be an outcry." More about: 1000+ images about Miss Dahl. on Pinterest | Sophie dahl, Girl crushes and Debbie harry Sophie Dahl as Debbie Harry for November 2001 issue of Vogue by Steven Meisel - Copy.jpg See More

Question: When in 2000 a poster advertising the perfume Opium was banned, which model appeared nearly naked on it?
Answer: Sophie Dahl