It’s so easy to trash the Advertising Standards Authority – who, as I must constantly point out, have no more legal authority than a bloke waving a placard in the middle of the street, and possibly far less common sense – that I only do it sparingly. But once again, they have made a decision that beggars belief, going far beyond a mere judgement on issues of taste and decency and entering into a world of thought crime that ironically makes them sound like a group of repressed, twisted perverts.

The ad in question is for one of their favourites, American Apparel, until recently known for their provocative promotional material. Except that it’s not actually an advertisement at all, at least not in the way you, I or any other sensible person not looking to maintain a lucrative business model of control would think of as advertising. The offending image appeared on their website, and was displaying an item of clothing called Lips Print Cotton Spandex Sleeveless Thong Bodysuit (no one can accuse AA of not being thorough in product descriptions). To call this as ‘advert’ is like saying that anything in a mail order catalogue is advertising, rather than product description and ordering information. In order to see this, you have to be seeking it out, actually visiting the website in question.

Still, plenty of idiots will scour the pages of websites in the hope of being upset, and someone did that here. One person. I have no idea how many people visit the AA website every day, and how many had also visited this page, but I’ll take a guess that ‘one’ is a miniscule point of a percentage figure in comparison. Not that the ASA care – their own self-righteousness, much like OFCOM and other bodies, will allow then to dismiss hundreds, even thousands of complaints while upholding a single one – the fact that they will then claim the possibility of ‘widespread offence’ being caused would be hilarious if the consequences were not so serious.

The complainant said that the image was “irresponsible and offensive, because it portrayed a sexualised image of a model who the complainant considered looked under 16 years of age.” Sexualisation, especially of children, is the modern cultural bogeyman, at least in Britain, and a great excuse for moralisers use, as they hide their true agenda behind a dubious ‘protection of children’ façade. It’s a questionable claim at the best of times, but here, is especially ludicrous.

First of all, is this really a sexual image? It’s for a piece of ladies lingerie, after all, and so we might expect it to be modeled by a young woman. Now, perhaps I’m jaded, but I don’t see anything hyper sexual in the way this has been presented. The ASA say that “we considered that readers were likely to interpret the model's expression and pose as being sexual in nature.” That seems quite a leap. The model is looking back over her shoulder – because it would be an aesthetically rotten image is she wasn’t – with a fairly blank expression. She’s not running her tongue over her lips, parting her legs, touching herself inappropriately or thrusting her arse at the camera. I can’t imagine a less sexual way of displaying this piece of clothing, short of sticking it on a showroom dummy. To see this as an overtly sexual image suggests the mindset of the tabloid hack, both leering and disapproving of women who are dressed ‘provocatively’ – a classic bit of ‘she asked for it by dressing like that’ slut-shaming, you might think.

But it’s not just the pose and the fact that OH MY GOD YOU CAN SEE HER BUTT that has upset the ASA. No, they agree that this image is sexualizing a child. There’s just one problem with that idea. The (unnamed) model is 20 years old.

Now, in a fashion industry where youth is prized, it might be considered a compliment that the ASA have decided that you look younger than you are (though not much of a compliment, given that it will probably end up costing the poor woman work), but facts are facts. She is 20 years old. Everything else is entirely subjective. The ASA and the complainant claim that she looks under 16. I respectfully disagree. But even if I did agree with their interpretation, it doesn't matter. She's not a child. That should be the end of it. Everything else becomes a case of the ASA trying to interpret how other people will read an image, while at the same time ignoring the fact that (presumably) thousands of people - most likely predominantly female customers - have seen this image and not read it that way. Indeed, I would certainly question the mindset of someone who looks at that image and thinks “ooh, sexy… and underage!”. I might even suggest that believing this girl to look under 16 smacks of rather dodgy wishful thinking…

Ironically, if this model posed naked in a magazine or appeared in a porn movie, there would be no legal objection. That she can’t rather chastely model underwear is nothing short of insanity, and this decision will do precisely nothing to prevent actual child exploitation. It simply allows a few grubby-minded individuals to feel important.