This week, the Advertising Standards Authority warned that adverts like this one for Lee Jeans had drawn complaints from people who regarded them "sadistic, sexist and condoning violence". "We don't know whether girl power is an irreversible shift or just a passing fad," a spokesman worried, "but we have seen a lot more adverts showing men being demeaned by women."

But is the man on the street really offended by ads like these? Or is the only real threat that Sue MacGregor may have to repeat the phrase "naked buttocks" on the Today programme? We found out.

Theo, 22, charity worker: I think it's funny and creative. I think the fact that men are complaining about it just highlights their own insecurities. Women have been putting up with this kind of thing for years, and some have seen the funny side of it, so why should it be any different for men?

John, 32, computer consultant: I'm not offended myself but if you switched it around, if it was a guy's foot on a woman's body, I think a lot of women would be offended by it, so if it's standards one way it's got to be standards the other way. You don't even read the writing on the poster, you just look at the picture and think what's she going to do with the heel?

Tom, 22, banker: It's not too bad. It's about time they reversed the whatdyacallit, the strategy as it were. I don't think too deeply about it, to tell you the truth. I don't think any women would wear boots like that with those jeans anyway, so I'm a bit confused on that one.

Martin, 48, lecturer: It is possibly demeaning to men but probably no more than similar advertisements are to women - so there's a dilemma for people who are opposed to advertisements that are demeaning to women. Is this a kind of getting your own back or is it equally bad?

John, 26, banker: I don't react to it at all, it's nothing out of the ordinary. It's not a very good advert - you can hardly see the jeans and it doesn't tell you anything about them.

Dave, 31, removals technician: It doesn't bother me. It's a bit kinky, but so what? They've done it because it's shocking, to sell the jeans. It's normally the naked woman being shown off, but now it's a naked man, so it's selling to women, I suppose.

Simon, 23, research consultant: I think it's quite amusing. It takes a lot to offend me when it comes to advertising. It's nice to see someone getting their own back after all the sexist advertising for women. It certainly makes you think, which is the purpose of advertising as I understand it.

Scally, 60, engineer: It's okay, it doesn't bother me too much, but it doesn't sell me the pair of jeans. It's fairly ineffective.

David, 35, engineer: I don't really like to see naked flesh all over the newspapers, men's or women's. I'd rather not see naked flesh at all.

Adrian, 60, no profession: I'm against advertising in any case. There has been a tendency in advertising recently to show women in a more aggressive role. Whether that is socially right or not I don't know. It's all to make money in any case. The shoe is very pointed, it has an almost phallic- type heel that could almost be said to be penetrating the rectum of the character on the ground and I find that aggressive.

Mark, 30, engineer: It's just a bit of fun, innit?