Report news now! Text pictures & video to 80360, starting message with WITNESS then leave a space
Restrictions on Rihanna poster
A poster for Rihanna's perfume Rogue which has been restricted to areas where children are unlikely to see it
A poster for Rihanna's perfume Rogue has been restricted to areas where children are unlikely to see it because of its "sexually suggestive" image of the pop star.
The poster featured an image of the singer sitting on the floor with her head and shoulders leaning against a wall and her legs raised against a large bottle of perfume.
One person complained that the ad was offensive because it was overly sexual and demeaning to women and featured a "sexualised and provocative" image which was inappropriate for children to see.
Parlux Fragrances said they had received no other complaints, adding that Rihanna was known for her provocative songs and persona, which the ad sought to capture without featuring improper nudity or offensive, suggestive or demeaning imagery.
The company believed the majority of women would not consider the portrayal of Rihanna to be demeaning, but rather she was depicted as being in a position of power, as indicated by the name Rogue, which suggested "one with the courage to challenge boundaries".
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) noted that the image showed Rihanna mainly covered, and she was depicted looking directly at the viewer with a facial expression "of defiance rather than vulnerability".
It said the overall impression of the singer was one of confidence, and concluded that the ad was "unlikely to be demeaning to women or to cause serious or widespread offence".
However it noted that the ad was not given a placement restriction and had appeared in a number of places where it was likely to be seen by children.
The ASA said: "While we did not consider the image to be overtly sexual, we considered that Rihanna's pose, with her legs raised in the air, was provocative.
"Because of this, and the fact that Rihanna appeared to be naked except for high heels, we concluded that the ad was sexually suggestive and should have been given a placement restriction to reduce the possibility of it being seen by children."
It ruled that the ad must not appear again without a placement restriction to reduce the possibility of it being seen by children.