Did they actually ban Calvin Klein’s ad?

The controversy surrounding a Calvin Klein advertisement featuring musician FKA twigs, initially banned by the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), has seen a pivotal development. This case illuminates issues of censorship, representation, and perceived double standards within advertising. Here’s a concise summary of the events and their implications:

1. Initial Ban by ASA: The ASA initially banned the Calvin Klein ad with FKA twigs, citing concerns that the imagery depicted her as a “stereotypical sexual object,” which could potentially cause offense. This decision contrasted notably with the agency’s response to other provocative campaigns, including one featuring Jeremy Allen White, which did not attract similar censure.
2. Backlash and Review: Following criticism from FKA twigs and public outcry over perceived double standards—especially in comparison to Calvin Klein’s campaigns with Kendall Jenner and Jeremy Allen White—the ASA undertook a review of its initial decision.
3. Reversal of Ban: The ASA revised its stance, acknowledging that the advertisement, which shows twigs partially nude but covered by a dark denim shirt, is not sexually explicit. This reversal came after acknowledging the widespread critique of their original ruling, including the objections raised by twigs herself.
4. FKA twigs’ Response: In an Instagram post, FKA twigs challenged the ASA’s label of her as a “stereotypical sexual object,” instead framing herself as a “beautiful strong woman of colour” who draws inspiration from iconic figures like Josephine Baker, Eartha Kitt, and Grace Jones. She emphasized pride in her physicality and the empowered, sensual art she creates.
5. Conditional Display Restrictions: Despite the overturned ban, the ASA has decided that the Calvin Klein ad featuring FKA twigs should still not be displayed in areas where minors are likely to see it, citing the ad’s “overtly sexual” nature. This stipulation underscores ongoing concerns about appropriate content for untargeted media spaces.

This case spotlights the complex dynamics of advertising regulation, the subjective interpretation of imagery, and the evolving conversation around artistic expression and body autonomy.