I spotted this Supre ad on a bus tonight
Here’s a closer look (from their website) 
You probably can’t see it but in the ad on the bus, on the bottom left it says ‘It’s all about jeggings”.
Let’s leave aside that jeggings are possibly the worst thing to happen to fashion ever, why isn’t this girl wearing a top?!?!?!? Seems like it’s actually all about a topless girl. A girl sexualised for the sake of selling pants.
And I say ‘girl’ quite purposefully – she is very young. If this picture was found on the computer of a middle-aged man wouldn’t we call it child porn? But driving around the city on the back of a bus it’s just good advertising right?
This biggest concern is that Supre’s main target is teenaged girls. Advertising like this teaches them that sex is currency and woman & girls are nothing more than objects. Way to go Supre.
Supre can be contacted here http://www.supre.com.au/Help—FAQ/Contact-Us.aspx – please get on board and tell them this is not acceptable.
a girl who speaks 
I think the biggest difference between child porn and this ad is that the person in this ad is an adult. Also, that her (adult) breasts are almost completely covered by her hair.
how do you know she’s an adult?
katierae, how do you know she’s a child? Where is you evidence other than your own personal opinion is that to you she looks like a child? I think your commentary, calling commercial advertising child porn, is really trivialising child sexual abuse. I think it’s quite OK to criticise such advertisements, but comparing it to something as horrible as child sexual abuse makes your argument look absurd and is in far worst taste than the original advert.
I’ve come from advertising. I’m not defending the ad, but the creative (almost) covers it’s claim “It’s all about jeggings” – “so that’s all we’re going to show”, hence no shirt, no jewelry, no handbag, no shoes. Where the execution fails however is that it show shoes. Doing so, they have contradicted themselves. But this is all a moot point. The point is they’re promoting the world’s view of sexiness and promoting lust. It’s an epic win for retail and satan, but a loss and ‘dismissiveness’ of God.
thanks for your input Grant. I’m interested, as someone with an advertising background, do you think the slogan and the lack of shirt are related or is it a simple as knowing that sex sells??
not that either is defendable in my view – they both say, we’re willing to use the female body for the sake of the bottom line.
Hi Katierae. I DO think the slogan and lack of shirt are ‘somewhat’ related – it’s clever word-play. But ultimately it IS as simple as knowing that sex sells.
From a guys perspective (and the focus groups would confirm this) – I don’t see jeans. I don’t see shoes. I don’t see the slogan. I see the enemy tempting me to sin.
And you’re right (and you know you are) when you say “we’re willing to use the female body for the sake of the bottom line.”
Q. for you: what do you think a typical (worldly/non-Christian) ‘girls perspective’ of this ad be saying to you?
It’s hard for me to say what a non-Christian perspective would be. I think the danger is that for young girls (not just teenagers, but girls as young as 8 or 9) the main messages they get are 1) there’s a certain way you need to look and 2) that taking your clothes off isn’t a big deal, because your sexuality is a commodity to be used to suit someone else’s purpose. combine that with the fact that young boys are also getting the same message about a girls sexuality, and I think we’re setting up young kids with a dangerous set of expectations about sex.
Dangerous indeed.
Edward – You’re right, I don’t know that she’s a child. She certainly looks very young to me. Knowing that Supre’s main demographic is young teens, it would make sense that they use a teen, or someone purposefully chosen to look like a teenager. Which I’m fine with, but combine that with making her topless and I find it concerning that this is how they choose to marget to teenagers. (and not just teens – actually girls as young as 9 and 10)
Of course I have no intention to trivialise child sexual abuse – in fact quite the opposite. You’ll note that what I said is “If this picture was found on the computer of a middle-aged man wouldn’t we call it child porn?” I’m really pointing out that in a different context, we think very differently about this picture. I believe that normalising images like this is what trivialises child sexual abuse.
I really don’t think nine or ten years old shop at Supre, or at least with their own money. The parents have the power (i.e. money), not the children. I think putting the blame on the advertising agencies and retailers is really short sighted. It takes the view that consumers (both teenagers and adults) are unthinking and are unable critically view the media and advertisements. Of course this is not true. Consumers know what they want and reject anything which doesn’t fit their values or tastes.
The image still isn’t child porn no matter what you say. You yourself said you had no idea if the woman in the picture was under 18. The greater majority of people would view the image as a fashion image taken out of context. The image alone without the wording looks like a stereotypical fashion image you’d find in Cosmo or other women’s mags. It doesn’t matter if it’s on a billboard or on someone’s computer. As it’s not child porn, and as far as I’m aware no one from Supre or the agency that created the ad have been charged with any offence, then I can only conclude that you are trivialising the issue of child sexual abuse by linking a commercial advert with it.
I really don’t understand why you and others seem to be on the hunt for these images. What you are doing is attempting to think like a paedophile and asking others to do so. Is it really healthy to ask people to view and critique images like this and images of children through the eyes of a paedophile?
I work with kids, and I can tell you that 9 and 10 yr olds are shopping at supre. Whose money is irrelevant, because the kids still see the ads. And it’s *their* minds I want people to view the ads through. What does this teach them about how women/girls are valued? What does it teach them about what their sexuality is worth?
and I wasn’t on the hunt for the image. It was in front of me while I was driving – no way I could avoid it. I have a problem with it and I’m telling people why. I also told Supre, although am still waiting for their response.
How money is spent in these stores and by whom is quite relevant. Companies won’t spend the money on advertising if it doesn’t shift the product. You cannot be serious and tell me that children as young as nine and ten view these adverts in a sexual manner. They don’t. They haven’t hit puberty yet so it’s impossible. They’re not interested in sex at all. You also seem be suggesting that children live in some sort of vacuum where only the messages of the media get though and the values of their peers, parents, teachers and other adults seems to have no effect on them. Again this is most certainly not true.
You want me to view that image as if I was a nine year old? “It’s a woman with no shirt on. Is Power Rangers on yet?”. What you’re doing is projecting your fears and ideas about sexuality on children. This has no basis in reality of how a child thinks or interprets an image.
Child psychologists around the world would disagree with you.
You might find this article interesting, which address the very question of how advertising affects children
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/dad-how-do-you-make-sex-last-longer/
Joe Tucci seems to have no evidence that children are affected by these images. Correlation does not equal causation. It’s very telling that Tucci says “The majority of children receiving counselling only engage in this kind of behaviour when they have been sexually abused or traumatised in some way”. So we are talking about a very small minority of children who are exhibiting abnormal sexual behaviours seemingly in the absence of abuse. However the ages of the children involved aren’t disclosed. Are they teenagers? Prepubescent children? Nothing has been disclosed.
Even if there was peer reviewed research which shows that a very small percentage of children as young as nine or tern are affected by advertising (and there seems to be none whatsoever, plus there’s implausibility of prepubescent taking an interest in sex because of a billboard), then you have the problem of a world revolving around the needs of a small minority. For example those who suffer epilepsy are triggered by such things as markings on a road while travelling in car or neon lights. While it would great to get rid of the triggers for the millions of sufferers of this condition, it would be impractical for society.
Another problem I have is the fear whipped by Tucci with statements such as “childhood has come under attack”. Not only is this complete nonsense with practically no evidence to back it up, it’s practically a call to reduce society to the level of a child. Children are meant to prepare for adulthood. Reducing everything to the level of child is quite insulting to adults and children alike. There’s also the problem that these “experts” have been caught out before whipping up fear over nonexistent problems. Take the hoopla over “Rainbow Parties” for instance. It was a complete work of fiction and there is no evidence that any parties of this nature took place anywhere, let alone the urban myth they were widespread. They’ve led us up the garden path before, why should we believe them now?