Apparently an advertiser created a 100,000 sq. ft. on the ground featuring a female pole dancer near LGW only really visable to passangers in the air on flights near the airport. Of course there has been protests for it's removal. Apparently similar sexy ads have been done before and also had to be removed. Why do such a thing, except for the free publicity the advertiser gets in the protests.
BWI5OH From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 141 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 9211 times:
Quoting Richierich (Reply 15): No, but you don't go around painting it on schools, post offices or shopping malls either.
While I agree that pornography is not appropriate for school children, post offices or malls, I can't grasp the concept of HOW this is considered porn...children see much more (and worse) everyday. Just go to any school, post office or mall and look around you. People are dressed, or lack thereof, in much less and you can see much more than a white silhouette. We all have our opinions of what is considered pornographic and what isn't, it all depends on how we were raised. I agree with you whole-heartedly though...I find this amusing and a good advertising tool also. I guarantee most men who see it will remember the place by name for a long time to come!
Oldeuropean From Germany, joined May 2005, 1992 posts, RR: 4 Reply 22, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4652 times:
Protesting against this ad??
Funny how specially American viewers react. Here in Germany and in the most of the other European countries, you can see topless women (real, not drawings) in TV ads or photos of them on many billboard in the streets.