ASA Adjudication on X-posed Gentleman’s Club
X-posed Gentleman’s Club
The Railway Arches
8 August 2012
Number of complaints:
Trinity Mirror Southern Ltd
A regional press ad, for X-posed Gentleman's Club, showed a woman wearing lingerie and stockings with one knee on a chair and her hand on the other hip. Text stated "Reading's only adult Caberet [sic]/Gentlemens's [sic] club Males, females, couples welcome *Dancers Required *Stage shows & Private fully nude dances available".
A reader challenged whether the ad was:
1. offensive; and
2. unsuitable to appear in a publication, which children might see.
CAP Code (Edition 12)
1. & 2. The X-posed Gentlemen's Club said they had no involvement in the design of the ad or where it was placed in the newspaper and relied on Get Reading for issues of taste and decency.
Get Reading said although they acknowledged that some readers might not like the ad, or the nature of the business it was advertising, they did not believe that it would cause serious or widespread offence. They said the ad was sufficiently explicit to accurately reflect to readers the nature of the club, which was a licensed and lawful business. They said the ad was placed near the back of the newspaper with other advertising.
Get Reading said they received two complaints about the ad in 2011, but considered that they had no grounds to refuse to carry the ad, which they understood was also carried by another newspaper in the area.
1. Not upheld
The ASA noted the woman in the ad was dressed in lingerie and stockings, but considered that the image was mildly provocative and not sexually explicit. While some readers might find such establishments objectionable, the text "Stage shows & Private fully nude dances available" described the type of club advertised and was not in itself likely to cause serious or widespread offence. We concluded that, although clear that an adult service was being advertised, the content of the ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence to readers.
On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 1.3 (Social responsibility) and 4.1 (Harm and offence), but did not find it in breach.
2. Not upheld
The ad was placed towards the back of a regional newspaper with other ads within the weekend entertainment section of the paper, which was unlikely to attract the attention or interest of children. We concluded that, given the relatively mild nature of the ad and that children were unlikely to see it, the ad was not unsuitable to appear in the publication.
On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.3 (Social responsibility) but did not find it in breach.
No further action necessary.