Do you find this David Beckham for H&M ad "offensive" and "unsuitable for children to see"?
The U.K.'s Advertising Standards Authority has received three complaints to that effect, asking the industry watchdog to ban the ads, according to Vogue UK.
Three people called the ad offensive, while two of those complaints stated the ad was "irresponsible" because "it contained material that they said was unsuitable for children to see." But don't worry--you haven't seen the last of Beckham's bulge: The ASA rejected the claims and defended the ads, pointing out there's no actual nudity and, duh, it's an underwear campaign (they didn't say 'duh').
The findings stated:
"The ASA noted that there was no explicit nudity in the image, and that the ad was for an underwear range. We considered that the nature of the product meant viewers of the ad were less likely to regard the ad as gratuitous or offensive, and considered that the poses and facial expressions of David Beckham were mildly sexual at most. While we acknowledged that some viewers might consider the images distasteful, we concluded the ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence."
Phew. That was a close call. Now let's all go back to drooling over Beckham's abs...
On another note: Who are these jokers who want to see underwear campaigns, without any, you know, underwear in them? Is this the Tim Tebow effect? We hope not!
To those offended by Beckham's H&M underwear ads, we offer you this: