ASA's ban of Calvin Klein advert with FKA Twigs perpetuates historic condemnation of female nudity – Laura Waddell

Well-intentioned attempts to protect people from harmful stereotypes can feel overly restrictive as the world changes

The marketing spend on Calvin Klein’s latest campaign has gone further than the fashion company probably imagined since their controversial image of musician FKA Twigs was banned by the Advertising Standards Authority and subsequently became a news item.

The crux of the matter? Not the ever-complex feminist debate over whether or not nudity is empowering but how little the banned image differs from another in the marketing campaign featuring The Bear actor Jeremy Allen White, who appears dressed only in white boxers showing around the same amount of skin – and the ASA has no problem with that. That only one of these images has been banned highlights how differently received feminine and masculine bodies are.

Because of the inconsistency, the ASA decision appears to many onlookers to be punitive. A statement about the ruling said: “We considered the image’s composition placed viewers’ focus on the model’s body rather than on the clothing being advertised. The ad used nudity and centred on FKA Twigs physical features rather than the clothing, to the extent that it presented her as a stereotypical sexual object.”

The Advertising Standards Authority banned an advert featuring musician FKA Twigs because it 'presented her as a stereotypical sexual object' (Picture: Gareth Cattermole/Getty Images for Disney)

Sex appeal sells clothes

In response, Twigs posted a statement on Instagram: “I do not see the ‘stereotypical sexual object’ that they have labelled me. I see a beautiful strong woman of colour whose incredible body has overcome more pain than you can imagine... In light of reviewing other campaigns past and current of this nature, I can’t help but feel there are some double standards here.” She finished by thanking the ad directors for “giving me a space to express myself exactly how I wanted to”.

The image is beautiful, but let’s get real: sex appeal has always been used to sell denim and underwear and that’s what’s happening here too. Despite the defence of the banned image leaning heavily into self-assertion and agency, this wasn’t a promotional campaign for strength and confidence: that’s not what they’re selling at the tills. And that’s okay. It’s an eye-catching sales campaign for branded fashion with the unsubtle message of ‘buy this, and you, too, might feel as great as Twigs or Allen White look’.

But what the ASA are responding to is not the image in isolation, but the historic context of how women have been depicted in ads. In short – appallingly. Advertisement imagery has a wide audience and an often underrated power to promote cultural ideas, assert norms, and suggest desires. Beyond reducing women to arm candy or skivvies, ads have historically reinforced and promoted the restrictive gender roles of their time to sell products.

Sinister, idealised Instagram images

There are screeds of examples of ads through the ages putting women firmly in their place – often the kitchen. You may have seen the Alcoa Aluminium bottle caps ad where a woman making a shocked, red-lipsticked expression next to a bottle of ketchup is captioned with the incredulous: “You mean a woman can open it?” A 1961 Kenwood Chef food processor came with the tagline: “The Chef does everything but cook – that’s what wives are for!” It’s this kind of degrading messaging – sexist and tasteless to modern eyes but not so long ago very overt and widespread – the rules were intended to address.

Women’s widening place in society is reflected in media as times change, but the essential aspirational psychology behind advertisements is the same. The basic suggestion that fulfillment is purchasable evolved with technology, and now takes a more insidious form. Instagram is essentially one giant advertisement for either products or, more sinisterly, idealised selves. We know that the app’s steady stream of enviable sights and pressure of literally unreal filtered and poreless beauty standards have a negative impact on the mental health of young women in particular.

The strength, power and ubiquitousness of peer-to-peer advertising, which must be declared as sponsored but is not subject to the same content rules, makes the Calvin Klein ad appear almost quaint. As a society, we have barely begun to make sense of the barrage of information and images now accessible to us.

Mildy racy

Ads are dispersed from a wider array of sources than ever before. The move from limited channel terrestrial TV to streaming services in many British households has hugely dented the idea of one big cultural conversation in the ether; we’re all looking at different things now. But this landscape also diminishes the impact of something like one sexualised ad.

The Calvin Klein shots are mildly racy against the backdrop of today’s body-positive pop culture and many will be wondering what the big deal is. But another key thing about advertising, and why the regulatory body exists, is that it isn’t opt in. The consumer who chooses their own media is nevertheless still not in control of which advertisements they will be subject to.

As far as taking off clothes, sometimes girls really do just want to have fun – as much fun as the Jeremy Allen Whites of this world get to have. The stooshie around this ad shows not only how politicised the feminine body still is, but how rules meant to protect us can come to feel restrictive as the world around changes and the cultural context becomes more complex.

The problem with the ASA ruling isn’t the intention couched within it, which is based on the precedent of how women have been treated in adland, but that the double standard of the ruling continues the historic precedent of sensationalising and condemning the nude feminine body, rather than freeing us from that burden, which can be a pain in the ass to carry around.