The chain says recruitment is costing an extra �250,000

The high street retailer is trying to overturn a government ban which stops it advertising its staff vacancies through job centres.

Ann Summers' lawyer Kate Gallafent told Mr Justice Newman that its stores were not sex shops and that the ban was "unlawful, unfair and illogical".

But the Department of Work and Pensions says some claimants may be uncomfortable about Ann Summers and that it was right not to advertise jobs connected with "the sex or personal services industry".

'Moral judgement'

Ms Gallafent told the court there had to be strong grounds for Jobcentre Plus, which covers both job seeking and social security services, to deny an employer access to its services.

There will be job seekers who find it embarrassing and those who do not find it embarrassing Mr Justice Newman

"It is no part of the statutory role of Jobcentre Plus to make any sort of moral judgment on the claimant's business," she added.

Before the case started, a spokesman for Ann Summers said there had been no problem with using Jobcentres to advertise for staff until early last year.

He said the cost of switching to private recruitment agencies was �250,000 a year.

Ann Summers' chief executive Jacqueline Gold said: "You can buy vibrators in Selfridges but they are allowed to advertise in Jobcentres. The whole thing is a farce."

Ms Gold added: "The diabolical thing is that we cannot even recruit a tea lady for head office."

Listening to Ann Summers' lawyer, the judge, Mr Justice Newman, considered the sexual attitudes of the nation in the age of the popular television series Sex and the City.

He said: "Common sense dictates that, no matter how advanced we are in Sex and the City, there will be job seekers who find it embarrassing and those who do not find it embarrassing."

'Embarrassment'

Ann Summers' legal challenge follows an unsuccessful lobbying campaign aimed at persuading government officials that it should not be categorised as part of the sex industry.

It invited representatives to visit its headquarters, stores and warehouses, to see what its business involved.

But Jobcentre Plus said it believed carrying adverts for the store "could potentially offend or cause embarrassment to a significant number of jobseekers".

It said there was a risk they could be deemed unwilling to consider vacancies and their benefits put in jeopardy.

The Department of Work and Pensions said its policy would be defended vigorously at Friday's hearing.