In essence, the complainants submitted that the billboard exploits women as it depicts them as mere objects for sexual gratification and that the billboard degrades the dignity of women and encourages sexual promiscuity. Furthermore, that it is situated in a residential area where children are exposed to it. The second complaint submitted is that the billboard promotes pornography.

The complainants submitted that the billboard degrades the dignity of women by displaying them as sexual objects.

Clause 3.5 of Section II states, inter alia, 'That gender stereotyping or negative gender portrayal shall not be permitted unless portrayal is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom.'

Clause 4.19 Of Section I defines gender stereotyping as '…advertising that portrays a person or persons of a certain gender in a manner that exploits, objectifies or demeans'.

When deliberating on such issues, the Directorate has certain key factors to consider. These include, inter alia, whether or not the image used has product relevance, whether or not the models are reduced to a sexual body. In addition cognisance is taken of the relevant surrounding circumstances.

The association noted that the respondent’s primary function is the promotion of its magazine which feature nude women. The ASA has often ruled that it cannot rule on whether or not such trade is objectionable, it is only the content of advertising used to promote such a business that falls within the scope of the ASA’s duties. If anything, however, this arguably suggests that the use of an attractive, seductively clad model is product-relevant in the case of this respondent.

The association found that the image on the billboard is not overtly sexual, and would not be understood as sexual by a child. A child who is not aware of the nature and typical content of the respondent’s magazine would not be familiar with the concept of the 'Playboy' magazine or what a 'Play mate' party is. It is only an adult or more mature child that would know the respondent’s magazine featured adult content, in which case there could be no moral or emotional harm in seeing this particular piece of advertising. To an uninformed and unaware child, this is no more than any image that they would already be familiar with or have seen on beaches and in other media forms.

In light of the above, the billboard does not contain any statement or visual presentation which might result in harming impressionable children, mentally, morally or emotionally.

The ASA Directorate considered all the relevant documentation submitted by the respective parties. In its ruling, the ASA, among other, refers to Playboy Magazine’s argument that there may be more dangerous stereotyping at play in the frequent publishing by so-called family magazines of detergent and other household product advertisements that reduce housewives to highly dependent and helpless kitchen-dwellers who rely on mythical brand characters in super-hero costumes to save the day before their husbands come home expecting the perfect household.