Steel Panther Posters Deemed 'Overtly Sexual'

A poster for Steel Panther's new album, "Balls Out", was deemed "overtly sexual" by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).

logo
Ultimate Guitar
13
According to Blabbermouth.net, a poster for Steel Panther's new album, "Balls Out", was deemed "overtly sexual" by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). The ASA is the U.K.'s independent regulator of advertising across all media, now including marketing on web sites. They work to ensure ads are legal, decent, honest and truthful by applying the Advertising Codes. The poster ads for "Balls Out" (based on the album's front cover) featured a scantily clad woman leaning back, showing a fair amount of skin with her hand by her crotch holding a sting of two metal balls. A domestic abuse charity complained to the Advertising Standards Authority, claiming the posters were offensive as the picture of the woman was demeaning and overtly sexual. They also questioned whether it was suitable for being displayed where children might see it. The band's label, Universal Island Records, countered that it was meant to be so over the top that no one would take it seriously and so it didn't actually undermine women, adding that it was mostly put up in places like clubs and bars where adults went for nights out and they weren't aware of them being close to any schools. They hadn't actually checked though and admitted more care should have been taken in choosing where to put the posters. ASA upheld the complaint though, noting that "the poster was not meant to cause offence or be seen as demeaning to women", but continuing, "we considered that the main image on the poster was overtly sexual. We noted that the pose of the woman showed her with her legs apart, her hand between her legs and her breasts partially exposed and considered that her facial expression was suggestive of an orgasm and sexual activity. In addition to this, we considered that the album title 'Balls Out' was sexually suggestive particularly when viewed in the context of the poster, where the woman was seen dangling two silver balls between her legs in a way that we considered was suggestive of male genitalia." ASA concluded that it "was likely to cause serious and widespread offence, was unsuitable to be seen by children and therefore was not appropriate for outdoor advertising."

74 comments sorted by best / new / date

comments policy
    jordo246
    Yeah this is overtly sexual, but Rihanna can sing about s and m and then market it to 6 year old kids, that's totally okay.
    headstone05
    THE BULGE wrote: I think Michael Bay could sue for a breach of copyright here :/
    No...there's no explosion in there
    jason878
    I wouldn't want kids to see a disgusting album like this. Why can't bands make covers that aren't so sexual and disgusting? y'know, like Cannibal Corpse's albums?
    JFRules
    Love Steel panther lol Fucking funny and kicks ass at same time. Imagine they would have came out like 20 years ago the PMRC would have went insane lol
    kill it
    this is no worse than what 90 percent of female pop stars do in their videos or album covers. you know, the ones that have to sell their asses because they can't sing or write music.
    nailsarecruel
    It's a chick in a bikini with the truck nuts she bought for her Dodge Ram. How is this different from what Kim Kardashian, Rihanna and Nicki Minaj do for the advancement of women?
    Lord_Doku
    "A domestic abuse charity complained to the Advertising Standards Authority, claiming the posters were offensive as the picture of the woman was demeaning and overtly sexual. They also questioned whether it was suitable for being displayed where children might see it." Fuck TV, it's posters that need to be regulated.
    dr_shred
    It's only a sexual thing if you know what each of the signs within the poster suggests. Therefore if children see this they shouldn't be offended and those that are offended well they all ready have that mentality in place, so how does a poster inspire it?
    krvolok
    "where the woman was seen dangling two silver balls between her legs in a way that we considered was suggestive of male genitalia."
    These people are very...naive.Those balls kinda remind of a certain fetish practice,more so than "male genitalia"...Just saying,just saying.
    wicked_hobbit
    The only way they should handle this is replace it with a cover so black it can get none more black.
    mastodude13
    +1 Vincenzo188 wrote on 01/26/2012 - 09:51 am / quote | Haven't heard this much fuss over an album cover since Smell The Glove.
    Haha thats exactly what I was thinking. "Whats wrong with being sexy?"
    jrodgers
    Wow. Just listened to some Steel Panther for the first time, and have to say it is absolutely hilarious. Reminds me of Dragonforce, except steel panther doesn't try to pretend they aren't a complete ****ing joke
    FearOfTheDuck
    In addition to this, we considered that the album title 'Balls Out' was sexually suggestive particularly when viewed in the context of the poster, where the woman was seen dangling two silver balls between her legs in a way that we considered was suggestive of male genitalia
    No shit...
    ne14t
    Steel Panther is a total kick at the 80s glam metal, yeah its kinda funny but there music isnt to bad and if you have a chance to goto a live show holy shit, they were here in Vancouver like two weeks ago and for a show being held in a small venue I have never seen so many titties being shown. Plus tons of hot slutty glam chicks, good times had by all. I love how sexuality gets you in shit but when you have a demonic baby bursting out of a woman in a few places that's quite alright...FUCK CENSORSHIP!
    IWasMaiden93
    I love how it's demeaning to women... Yet the band also ran advertisements of them with no clothes and vinyls covering their genitalia (Satchel has a smaller record to the bemusement of the band) Reeks of Spinal Tap... The one with the woman gets pulled, but the same thing with men stays up
    LeakyFlask
    csensesfail92 wrote: so a woman in a bikini is demeaning to women? I've seen a lot of women that are a decrase to their gender then. the only reason there aren't things like this of males is because no one likes to look at men.
    Of course just a woman in a bikini isn't demeaning, but you can't claim Steel Panther aren't sexist. They're a parody band and it's part of the package. I mean, with song titles like "17 Girls in a Row" and "It Won't Suck Itself" they aren't exactly subtle about it.
    BassPlayer18269
    Come on everybody sing it with feeling! THAT'S WHAT GIRLS ARE FOR, THAT'S WHAT GIRLS ARE FOR! THAT'S WHAT GIRLS ARE FOR, THAT'S WHAT GIRLS ARE FOR!
    sparkeyjames
    It's the SHOCKER. Look at her hand. hehehe. They did that one up. Hope it creates a huge uproar.
    csensesfail92
    so a woman in a bikini is demeaning to women? I've seen a lot of women that are a decrase to their gender then. the only reason there aren't things like this of males is because no one likes to look at men.
    Chronologo
    Chronologo wrote: oooh c'mon these aren't medieval times, is up to the parents to taught their sons correctly, you can't always put a bandage over their eyes
    * I mean teach
    samhell
    priestfan76 wrote: This is only offending people who have sticks too far up their asses to smile anymore. And why is it that a girl choosing to be sexual is automatically demeaning? Fuck off moral America
    Comment FAIL "ASA is the U.K.'s independent regulator"
    mpk3432
    LeakyFlask wrote: csensesfail92 wrote: so a woman in a bikini is demeaning to women? I've seen a lot of women that are a decrase to their gender then. the only reason there aren't things like this of males is because no one likes to look at men. Of course just a woman in a bikini isn't demeaning, but you can't claim Steel Panther aren't sexist. They're a parody band and it's part of the package. I mean, with song titles like "17 Girls in a Row" and "It Won't Suck Itself" they aren't exactly subtle about it.
    actually, if u listen to 'it wont suck itself' then u'd realise tht the girls NEED to suck the poison out, its not as if SP would deliberately put tht in just for the innuendo ;D
    samhell
    I am going to file a complaint that it is not overtly sexual enough. I cannot spend my hard earned money on such wimpy material when the band clearly states that it wants to be over the top. This is false advertising and they should be punished for it.
    Eifler121
    Where has this organization been since the 70's? They can complain all they want, but does the British government actually have the right to say what can or can't be on a poster? (That's an actual question, I don't know how you guys are with censorship) I also never understood why illustrating/portraying women in a suggestive manner was demeaning to women. Why can't it also be glorifying women? Posing women this way doesn't suggest that they should only be portrayed like this, that they can only be portrayed like this, that women are stupid or incapable of doing anything, so why is it offensive?
    Eifler121
    Crevan wrote: I thought we liked overtly sexual.
    My vote for comment of the day
    priestfan76
    This is only offending people who have sticks too far up their asses to smile anymore. And why is it that a girl choosing to be sexual is automatically demeaning? Fuck off moral America
    Junior#1
    Somebody, think of the children! If SP don't use posters like this, kids won't pay any attention to them. Do you really want to deprive future rockers of such hilarious, awesome music?
    ali.guitarkid7
    rebeltildeth87 wrote: and the ukers have the "balls" to talk shit about american ultra conservatism?
    To be fair, this poster shows a girl showing her underboob and probably masturbating. Conservatives in the US freaked out over a completely white cover with the text 'Suck it and see' in the middle.