United Kingdom

British Regulator Bans Pamela Anderson Ad For Being 'Sexist and Degrading to Women'

|

Reason

A TV ad for CrazyDomains starring former Baywatch star Pamela Anderson has been banned by the Advertising Standards Authority in the U.K. for being "sexist and degrading to women." The ad features Pamela Anderson leading a business meeting with a voluptuous assistant, both of whom inspire one of the men at the meeting to fantasize about Anderson and the assistant dancing in bikinis while getting covered in cream.

From The Guardian:

A raunchy TV ad featuring ex-Baywatch star Pamela Anderson has been banned for being sexist and degrading to women.

The ad, for web hosting service CrazyDomains.co.uk, featured the Barb Wire star in a boardroom full of men.

While addressing the board Anderson and her assistant, Vanessa, show a lot of cleavage and one of the men fantasises about the pair dancing in bikinis while covered in cream.

Dreamscape Networks, the parent company of Crazy Domains, said the dream sequence was not "gratuitous or pornographic".

Feel free to subject yourself to the sexist and degrading horror by watching the ad below:

 

Follow this story and more at Reason 24/7.

Spice up your blog or Website with Reason 24/7 news and Reason articles. You can get the widgets here. If you have a story that would be of interest to Reason's readers please let us know by emailing the 24/7 crew at 24_7@reason.com, or tweet us stories at @reason247.

Advertisement

NEXT: Iraq War Veteran Says Cops Shot His Dog During Wrong Door Raid in Buffalo

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. Isn’t the whole point of hiring Pamela Anderson to do anything Sexist and arousing to men (and therefore degrading to women)?

    2. If anything it’s degrading to men (its not), but I guess our gender just has fewer whiney cunts with ban-boners.

      (Note I said fewer. Total ban-bonerism is equalizied by Bloomberg alone.)

  1. The Limeytards really are trying to out-nanny the Aussietards. It’s a real showdown of stupid.

    1. Are we the only descendants of those guys that haven’t gone full on nanny state retarded?

      1. Hey, careful! I’m a kraut.

        1. I think that works sort of in reverse order, considering that English supposedly evolved from some form of Germanic language.

  2. Look, just cause busty chick with low cut dress is bending over and putting those things right in yo face, doesn’t mean you’re supposed to be looking, and especially not fantasizing over it.

    We need those thought crimes, legislated now! This guy is practically guilty of rape! Who’s going to protect the wiminz?

  3. What’s wrong with being sexy?

    /Nigel Tufnel

    1. Ian Faith: Sex-IST!

      David St. Hubbins: IST!

  4. I would think that it’s sexist and degrading to men because they are betting that men will purchase hosting services based on remembering a video of an attractive woman and her neptunian-skanko-beast friend being covered with whipped cream.

    1. Of course they would! Men on the average are stooped fat balding imbeciles, who only think about sports and sex all day, don’t you watch TV?

      1. Boyz, we’ve done this to ourselves.

        We’ve allowed the feminazis to cow us. The only proper response to the idiots wanting to “change men for the better” is:

        “Fuck you cunt”, and leave it at that. I’m about sick of these bitches telling me I need to be ashamed of being a man.

        NO MORE!

    2. I would think that it’s sexist and degrading to men because they are betting that men will purchase hosting services based on remembering a video of an attractive woman and her neptunian-skanko-beast friend being covered with whipped cream.

      [Stops his purchase of domain names] Wut?

  5. How to have the most popular thread of the day, on H&R? Include moar boobage.

    1. seconded.

    2. Big, round boobs.

  6. sexist and degrading to women

    I suppose one needs to ask Ms. Anderson and her fellow actress if they felt the bit was sexist and degrading to them. I have a feeling they might not say yes. But I’m sure it’s not sexist and degrading to determine that for them because they’re too…stupid?…too…childish?…to determine that for themselves?

    Man, protecting women from themselves and from men is some full-time work. Thank Jeebus there are people who are willing to treat women like children in order to protect them from life. That’s how you empower women: treat them like retards who are too stupid to make their own decisions.

    1. Doesn’t matter they grew up in a culture that only values them for their appearance.

      Also MALE GAZE.

    2. The commercial IS totally sexist and degrading.

      But not to women.

      1. As Louis CK said:

        “You get to have those thoughts, I have to have them.”

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGgS5GVCZwI

      2. You cannot degrade the male oppressor. Everything done to smash the patriarchy is an unalloyed good.

        1. Women cannot be sexist, and men cannot be oppressed.

          If you think you’ve found an instance of male oppression it’s really just a roundabout away of oppressing women.

          Like that whole “men are stupid and bad at being fathers” meme. It’s just a way for the patriarchy to further pressure women into being good mothers. Any failings by the father are really just failings by the mother because “she should have known better.” It’s just the patriarchy’s sly way of absolving men of all responsibility.

          1. I never really thought of it that way dude. Wow!

            http://www.stupidpatriarchy.com

    3. I suppose one needs to ask Ms. Anderson and her fellow actress if they felt the bit was sexist and degrading to them

      Nah, no need to ask. It’s only degrading to ugly feminist hate mongers who hate men, only because they can’t attract one.

    4. Welcome to the wonderful world of progressivism. Progs want to “empower” people by assuming that those same people are too stupid to make choices over their own bodies. When I call them on that, they respond by sputtering.

    5. I think it’s supposed to be degrading of other women, not of those who made the ad.

  7. And now this has been banned it will be seen by far more people then it ever would have been if the advertiser had to pay for it be shown.

    I wonder if the advertiser slipped a few dollars into the regulators hands so that it would be banned and generate views?

  8. Oh, and WIH are the Brits gonna do with this:
    http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/

    1. Oh come on, it’s just a baby born in the cull. What’s the big deal?

      1. Caul.

        And yeah, it happens, although rarely with the whole amniotic sac intact.

  9. IMHO, the ‘Advertising Standards Authority’ is degrading to Britons.

  10. I’ve always been more of a legs/ass man. Don’t get me wrong, I like boobs, but they don’t make the package – and this coming from a man whose wife, until recently, was a D-Cup. (now a C, thanks to Taubes & Ripptoe)

    1. I’ve always been more of a legs/ass man

      Same here. Boobs are nice, but they are not the main attraction. But it is nice, if the woman actually has them, although some of our fellow Reasonoids would disagree with them having either T or A.

      1. If you don’t like big boobs then you’re a homosexual. John said so so it must be true.

        1. John said so so it must be true.

          Broken clocks.

          Homo.

          1. It’s not my fault you weren’t breast fed as an infant, resulting in a subconscious craving for big boobs.

        2. Wait, since when did gays (not including artsy fashion designers) not like big boobs? Everyone likes boobs.

          1. not like != dislike

          2. Thank you Jesse for saying what needed to be said.

      2. I must object. Tits & Ass.

        1. That wasn’t supposed to post. I was going to agree about ass being my favorite too.

          1. I’ve always been an ass man. Everyone always tells me that, you’re an ass, man.

            1. Seriously, that’s the first thing I will notice about a woman, is from the waist down. Yes, I’m a pig, or maybe just a normal guy, something like that.

              1. I’ve always been a sucker for women who can make tight jeans look good.

                1. You guys may be too young to remember spandex.

                  1. This year I will officially fart dust, so yeah, I’m old enough to remember.

                    1. Actually, spandex in the 80 was the beginning of the “it is no longer okay to be a man” era.

                      When it first came out, women would wear JUST spandex pants. Skin tight, top to bottom…glorious!

                      Then in the late 80s they started wearing spandex pants with long sweaters so you couldn’t see their butts. About the same time women started putting shorts over their bikini bottoms when walking on the beach. They would lay on their towels in bikini bottoms, yet if they got up they would put on shorts.

                      All to defeat… TEH MALE GAAAZZEE!

                      All downhill from there.

                  2. that’s why the Yoga “pants” fad has been a blessing. Walking a college campus is 50% of being in heaven.

                    1. I drive past a college campus on my commute (Bates) and haven’t seen much for yoga pants, though the tank tops and running shorts can be quite distracting.

                    2. Wait, they have a whole college for that?

                    3. Wait, they have a whole college for that?

                      Yup, I graduated Valedictorian.

                    4. Michigan State is overflowin’ with ’em.

      3. More than a mouthful is just a waste. Otherwise, they just hang there, serving no real purpose.

        1. well, large breasts can also have objects slid between them. Just sayin’

          1. well, large breasts can also have objects slid between them. Just sayin’

            Way overrated. Especially with lips in such close proximity. Just sayin’

            1. I wouldn’t say “way overrated” – just not good as other entrances. But for foreplay, it’s fun.

          2. I can think of at least 3 better places to slide things.

    2. My girlfriend is getting slimmer too, much in the same way. Losing the D’s for C’s was a minor sacrifice for a firmer body and a better ass. The confidence boost alone is miles better than the cup size. But I’m not much for body parts, but rather overall shapeliness. Some girls need some T&A to swing that sexy sway. Some (a la sarcasmic) I guess look better as skeletons (though that’s never been my thing).

      1. Sarc needs to try some filet mignon, so he’ll forget about those spare ribs, (;

        1. I think of fat chicks like mopeds. The ride is nice, you just don’t want your friends to see. Damn I’m a pig.

          1. oink! *dips head in trough*

  11. Wow, they actually made Pamela look halfway decent. Looks like a few coats of makeup though. She’s 45, and those are mostly city miles.

    1. It’s pretty amazing what a little plastic surgery and air brushing can accomplish.

      1. Hell, they might have even used CGI.

  12. Dreamscape Networks, the parent company of Crazy Domains, said the dream sequence was not “gratuitous or pornographic”.

    It was, in fact, entirely necessary to the content of the ad.

    1. It wasn’t pornographic. I am either desensitized to porn or hold pornography to the definition that it must explicitly display some kind of sexual act. I guess cream covered bikini girls is overtly sexual but then we would have to consider bikini car washes to be pornography too.

      1. Luciiiilllle.

        /Dragline

      2. Hell, we’d probably have to consider bikinis to be pornographic.

        The Progressive Left often talks about how the GOP and the American right are really just a Western Taliban, but occurrences like this show that all their protestations are really just projection.

      3. If it results in a chubby then it’s pornographic.

        /derp

        1. Then Catholic mass must be pornography, at least to my 13 year old self with a massively awkward boner.

          1. Were you in altar boy regalia?

            1. Nope, Catholic school uniform. Size 14 slim, all my inches showed through and the girl to my left couldn’t stop staring. Earned me the nickname “Mr. Bonus”.

  13. I am highly offended… by the amount of silicone in that ad. Couldn’t they find women with natural breasts?

  14. OT: The dude facing contempt if he didn’t decrypt his laptop has been spared on appeal. A US District judge has ruled that the 5A prevents him from having to provide the password.

    May sanity continue to prevail.

    1. That’s good news. That story really bothered me.

  15. Check this out:

    Crazy Japanese

    6 made me lol.

  16. Aaww, that was so cute.

  17. So Monty Python could never be aired today.

  18. Um, of *course* it’s sexist and offensive. That doesn’t mean it should be censored. If we censored everything sexist or offensive, or even everything sexist *and* offensive, say farewell to most of modern culture.

    Hmm, maybe censorship is a good idea after all…

  19. Smash the matriarchy!

  20. “degrading to women.”

    It’s degrading, but not to women, it’s degrading to men as represented by the soft little goof who can’t think straight when presented with partially exposed mammary glands. Only puritans would want to ban it, though.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.