ADVERTISEMENTS CRITICISED

Press, Volume XCIII, Issue 27913, 9 March 1956, Page 3

ADVERTISEMENTS CRITICISED

Sir,—l am not a member of the Housewives’ Union, but consider Mrs Furey should be applauded and upheld. Surely women’s undergarments are the concern of women only. They know when replacements are necessary, and, as all shops stock the leading brands, surely it is the duty of an efficient saleswoman to place the merits of each brand before the customer, and thus do away with the debasing advertisements for all and sundry to see and ponder over. Intelligent people know what this leads to. —Yours, etc., D. E. SMITH. March 8, 1956.

Sir, —As a mere man I would like to support the protest of May E. Furey at the sexy advertisements now so prevalent. For some considerable time there has been a loosening of national restraint in such matters until now we find sex flaunted in advertisements. and window displays in a manner which would have aroused a public outcry not so long ago. It appears to be part of the widespread loosening of the moral fibre which we find breaking out in several directions. No-one will deny that the female figure is a gladsome sight and that it is a national instinct for the feminine to reach out for the fullest expression of beauty. But there is also a natural delicacy and refinement about the matter, and any commercial house which condones otherwise is doing a disservice to the community. —Yours, etc., JOHN CITIZEN. March 8. 1956.

Sir,—All honour to May E. Furey for her bold attack on the foundations of our moral decadence. But surely there are more corrupting, though more insidious. influences at work in the advertising columns of our newspapers. The furniture firms brazenly expose undraped legs of tables and chairs, and every so often they pander to the tastes of the salacious and depraved by actually depicting beds. And this sort of thing is greeted with no more effective protest than an occasional raised eyebrow.—Yours, etc., MOTHER HUBBARD. March 8, 1956.