Rihanna's gone rogue, y'all.
Photo: Rihanna's Instagram
Last summer, Rihanna released her fourth fragrance, Rogue, complete with an ad campaign featuring our girl curled up beside a life-size bottle of the scent partially naked with her gams and sultry stare on full display. You might remember it, but you also might not—mostly because Rih is becoming pretty well-known for flashing her skin around like it ain't no thang. (And we're not mad at that!) But, in the UK, the Advertising Standards Authority had a major problem with RiRi's "provocative" campaign.
"We noted the ad was not given a placement restriction and had appeared in a number of places where it was likely to be seen by children. While we did not consider the image to be overtly sexual, we considered that Rihanna's pose, with her legs raised in the air, was provocative. Because of this, and the fact that Rihanna appeared to be naked except for high heels, we concluded that the ad was sexually suggestive and should have been given a placement restriction to reduce the possibility of it being seen by children."
"The ad must not appear again without a placement restriction to reduce the possibility of it being seen by children."
Call us crazy, but we think this ruling is pretty harsh considering all the other way (way!) more provocative fragrance ads that have existed throughout time. Um, remember when Rosie Huntington-Whiteley was basically naked in those Burberry Body ads? Or how about those crude, close-up shots of greasy groins and oiled-up bosoms for Tom Ford's 2007 campaign, which apparently were ruled A-OK by the same ASA. HMMM, it's interesting how a men's fragrance pushing the "sex sells" limit of advertising is fine, but when a women's fragrance does the exact same thing (and IMHO, Rih is pretty demure here comparatively), it's considered "provocative." We want to know what you think! Tell us your thoughts about Rihanna's Rogue ad in the comments below.