Fashion Designers Dolce and Gabbana's 'Gang Rape' Ad Banned

[DeSwiss]

What is with the fashionistas these days? Is it something in the fabric???

'Gang Rape' Dolce and Gabbana Advert Banned

March 07, 2007 05:31am

Article from: Agence France-Presse

(Rome) A CONTROVERSIAL ad by fashion designers Dolce and Gabbana suggesting gang rape has been banned from Italian publications.

"The advertisement showing a woman pinned to the ground by the wrists by a bare-chested man, with other men in the background looking on", has been banned since yesterday, the Advertising Self-Discipline Institute (IAP) said.

The body said the ad "offended the dignity of the woman, in the sense that the feminine figure is shown in a degrading manner. The woman has an alienated expression, with an absent look". The woman in the ad is "immobilised and subjected to a man's will", the IAP said.

"Because of the passive and helpless position of the woman relative to the men around her, (the image evokes) the representation of abuse or the idea of violence towards her," the IAP said.

The ad promoting D and G's spring/summer 2007 ready-to-wear collection has appeared in several women's magazines in Italy and in the La Repubblica newspaper. Last Saturday, 13 Italian senators and Equal Opportunity Minister Barbara Pollastrini demanded in a joint letter to the IAP that the ad be withdrawn from circulation.

D and G already pulled the ad in Spain last month while labelling the country "a bit backward" for the objections raised by the government and a consumer association.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21339711-2,00.html

Cretins
:mad:

[nashville_brook]

1. link to story with pic of ad

http://www.eitb24.com/new/en/B24_36294/life/MILAN-BASED-FASHION-HOUSE-Dolce-Gabbana-angry-at/

[DeSwiss]

2. Thanks for the heads up...

Here's one of the pics:




OT: DeSwiss <----- Nashville Too!
:hi:

[jollyreaper2112]

18. bah

From the looks of the dudes, chick is the last thing on their minds.

I never understood why women take their fashion cues from gay men. Sheesh! Wouldn't they rather listen to what heterosexual men are looking for? ...... on second thought, wouldn't they want to hear from heterosexual female designers? :)

[NashVegas]

26. Bah Too

From the look of the ad, it looks like a business transaction.

[noamnety]

305. Because they "look" gay? wtf/n/t

[IntravenousDemilo]

372. Frankly, I was looking more at the hot guys with their rippling muscles glazed in man-sweat. n/m

[hang a left]

3. I know I am going to get flamed...

I am a female but I think the ad is very sexy. I love her shoes.

[Pastiche423]

7. Ever been gang raped?

It ain't sexy. To think it is, is way beyond sick.

[hang a left]

20. As a matter of fact...

when I was about 13

[paparush]

24. You just made the Marketing Department's Day!

Its the shoes!

[BreweryYardRat]

37. That's a tacky-ass ad.

You want to effectively market shit? Show people genuinely smiling, laughing, and having fun in your stuff. Candids. Not lame crap that looks like it just came off a porn set. A bad porn set.

[nashville_brook]

43. "what's wrong with sexy" (asks tufnel... )

Bobbi Flekman: You put a *greased naked woman* on all fours with a dog collar around her neck, and a leash, and a man's arm extended out up to here, holding onto the leash, and pushing a black glove in her face to sniff it. You don't find that offensive? You don't find that sexist?

Ian Faith: This is *1982*, Bobbi, c'mon!

Bobbi Flekman: That's *right*, it's 1982! Get out of the '60s. We don't have this mentality anymore.

Ian Faith: Well, you should have seen the cover they *wanted* to do! It wasn't a glove, believe me.


revised cover for Smell The Glove

[DrunkenMaster]

62. its not a rape ad

that's why. There is NO violence anywhere in the image. You will, however, experience the typical hysterical overreaction that accompanies the "social art critics" like Rudy Guliani and Tipper Gore.

[Matariki]

74. There is clearly a *lot* you don't understand

The ad is clearly depicting rape. Ask any woman on this board and 99% will agree. The violence is in the expressions - the cold, detached business of four men dominating one woman. Not for pleasure, just pure domination. That's rape.

Perhaps you enjoy that, which is fine on a fantasy level - but you don't have to pretend that the ad is someting else.

[DrunkenMaster]

102. wow

again, the only people that defend the ad must love rape...what a ridiculous, unethical response.

[Matariki]

106. I'll ask you again. WHY are you defending this ad with so much energy and emotion?

Why are you comparing it to art? Do you really think the ad has the same merit as the paintings you've mentioned? Or do you have a different point you are trying to make? If so, you're not communicating very well.

[DrunkenMaster]

121. ad hominem again

stop accusing me of enjoying rape...it's digusting and vile.

If that is the highest level of discourse we are capable of it is no wonder the Repubicans have made fools of us all.

[Matariki]

145. You're really working hard to avoid some valid questions.

Since you are by far the most vocal defender of this ad, I think the questions are valid anyway.

Why are you comparing this ad to art? Do you really think the ad has the same merit as the paintings you've mentioned?

Do you think it's effective advertising? Do you LIKE the ad? If so, why?

Or are you trying to make a point about censorship?

[mongo]

153. And why do you see a sexual boogieman under every rock?

[Matariki]

157. that's just dumb.

[nashville_brook]

325. obviously, anyone who doesn't think this is HOT FUN is a PRUDE

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

334. Dish it out, but can't take it, eh?

[Carni]

240. I'm sorry... but to this woman it just looks like typical weird

Fashion type fluff.

It looks more to me like some strange designer's idea of a fashion orgy than a rape, as someone pointed out, actual rape is not glamourous.

I often look at magazine's like Vogue and wonder what in hell the photos in the ads are supposed to be signifying--they are usually pretty out there.

To me this just looks weird and artsy for the sake of being bizarre.

JMO

[ThomCat]

190. It clearly IS a rape add.

x(

What else could it be implying? It's not a tea party.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

204. What else could it be implying?

Group sex. Hot, hot group sex.

[ThomCat]

211. If that's anyone's idea of sex

then they've got some issues.

Nobody in that picture looks pleased to be there, the guy using physical force doesn't appear to be playful, and I don't see anything at all that makes that look like a pleasant situation.

It seems so obvious to me that it's a rape situation that I'm quite honestly amazed that there is even a debate about this. But then again, rape fantasied seem to be very common among straight men so maybe people really do thing this is acceptable.

I still think it's sick.

[Marrah_G]

264. that is some people's idea of sex

It's not limited to straight men. People of all sexual orientation have very varied tastes in sex. Unless it involves children or non-consensual acts then who is to say what is "sick".

Because you see it as a rape scene you assume anyone who isn't offended thinks gang rape is great. What you are not seeing is that those people who do not have a problem with the picture are not seeing it as rape in the first place. They are seeing it as a sexual pose with other people watching. Now some people may find group sex offensive, as you seem to, but that is very different from rape. We live in a country where lots of people find the sexual preferences of others "sick".

[mzmolly]

369. Thank you.

:toast:

[Donnachaidh]

226. I'm sorry - do you NEED an animation?

Wow.

Notice how the chauvanists ALWAYS label women who object to images promoting rape as *hysterical*.

How 70's of you! Did you keep your pimphat? :sarcasm:

[Scout]

279. hysterical, anti-sex, seeing sexual bogeyman, etc.

couldn't be anything else, just hysterical prissy women.... :sarcasm:

[Triana]

380. It's not a rape ad to a mysogenist MALE, no...

...but to the REST of the population - it's a RAPE AD. There is SUGGESTED violence and force in the ad - and that is quite ENOUGH. Take your mysogenist attitudes about "hysterical" women elsewhere.

We can see where YOU come from.

[raccoon]

98. Sexy! In that context? Or didn't you notice the context? nt

[The Doctor.]

344. Are you crazy!?

No woman would ever fantasize about being pinned down and treated like a sex object by one or several tan, buff, half-naked, virile male models.

-Never!

How dare you act like any woman would ever even dream of something so primal!

[undergroundpanther]

4. Imagine it in reverse

A male pinned down by a stronger woman, with strong women looking on.

If these idiots want to stir real controversy make an ad of that situation in reverse, and wait for the calls from upset men who feel degraded by it.I bet the asshole designers wouldn't DARE run an image like that.
I heard about a porn movie where men were put in the subservient roles women get forced into in porn and it upset the consumers to be on the receiving end. Apparently the gander can't handle what he thinks is good for the goose himself.I hate binary gender bullshit,and I hate domination to oppress one gender,to elevate another even more.
I am disgusted that these cretins thought an ad like that was OK to put in magazines.

[MotorCityMan]

23. It would be like the male reaction to Thelma and Louise

The cries of 'male bashing' over that movie were truly pathetic.

[ThomCat]

191. I remember that.

You're right, a lot of people get really upset when they're called on the double standard. What's acceptable treatment of women is absolutely not considered acceptable treatment of men.

[Morgana LaFey]

224. Wasn't that unreal?

I couldn't BELIEVE the chorus of outrage and dismay by men who didn't even understand the damn movie. They all felt that they were being bashed and they cried like stuck pigs. It was PATHETIC.

[undergroundpanther]

304. Male power in the context of the ad

is fake because it masks male powerlessness by "domination".
Domination is FAKE POWER.FAKE to the Core, Empty..NOTHING.

[nashville_brook]

58. man submissive is an affront to his masculinity -- woman submissive is "sexy"

when you see "man submissive" metaphors, it's portrayed as ironic... he's either a hen-pecked husband (de-sexualized), or with a wink and a nudge it's asserted that he's really "in control" because hey, look at the sexual attention he's getting (sexually irresistible).

these images are really about POWER -- who has the power in the G&D image? it's not the woman. she's an object. but ooooooooh she's "sexy," no?

in the scenario i mention with the hen-pecked husband, who has the POWER? the woman. is she sexy? NOOOOOOO!


the message is: WOMEN CAN'T HAVE BOTH POWER AND SEXUAL ATTENTION.

[Morgana LaFey]

239. And let's be clear about that sexual attention, too --

Well said, btw.

We are not that far removed from the time when women depended for their very survival -- their literal survival -- on "attracting" the right man to marry because the jobs and economic opportunities for women were severely limited and not very well-paying either.

It's STILL a male-dominated world, where social and political power resides with men, almost exclusively tho economic power has been equalized a LITTLE (even tho women still earn only a percentage of what men in comparable jobs earn). So it's STILL a "sellable" idea that women have to kowtow to men, attract men and their attention in order to have access to the social and political power we can't get on our own, since we're all still quite "unequal" and the most sure-fire way to do that is sexually.

PLUS, it's how many if not most women in this culture are raised (acculturated): to strive to become first and foremost not just sexual beings but sexually attractive to men beings, at the expense of every other consideration, including their very humanity (see: Anna Nicole Smith, Britney Spears, Christina Aguilar, et.al.).

So LOOK at the attention this woman is getting -- 5 men!!, thanks to her submissiveness. It's a horrible message to put out to women of any age but especially the young and foolish and impressionable, but it's also a horrible message to put out to men, that they somehow merit or deserve or are ENTITLED to this kind of display or submissiveness and obeisance.

And since it IS basically a rape scene, it also promotes violence against women in the same way that some porn does, because as DU's own pornographer put it, in this thread;http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=229&topic_id=6490&mesg_id=6490

to some of you men, it's just an ad, esp. since we poor hysterical women tend to see "sexual boogiemen" under every rock (a stock response, apparently, drawn out for use in this thread too). To him, the woman was not clearly demonstrating fear or any other signal of being distraught, so it's all good.

That is actually PRECISELY WHY the ad is so very harmful, not to mention disgraceful (or rather one reason, a major one).

RAPE is wrong, illegal and unbelievably traumatic for every woman who experiences it. It can and has ruined entire lives. Perhaps more to YOUR interest, it has ruined women's entire sex lives as well. It causes PTSD. It causes STDs and unwanted pregnancies. Most rapes go unreported, reported rapists uncaught, caught rapists untried, tried rapists unconvicted -- AND virtually all rapists are serial rapists which helps explain why something like 1 in 4 women will be RAPED IN HER LIFETIME, and she doesn't even have to be a sweet young thing to be so "lucky," she can be 80, crippled and/or demented.

Pornography makes all that okay -- for the men: see how she's not afraid? See how she LIKES it? See how she WANTS it? LIES about women, for male "pleasure." LIES about women for male "pleasure" that will result in more women getting raped.

And that's why I have such utter contempt for pornography and the people who defend it.

[undergroundpanther]

303. Women need power right now

Sex is sexy if it's equal and consenting .Until women assert power and give up powerless = sexy then men will cease to think shit like that ad is OK.

I don't want to be sexy to any male unless my POWER is respected first.
Don't respect my power,Don't get anything from me but my hate and disregard as another pathetic inferior insecure male..screaming about his fake power.

[mongo]

61. Have you seen the ads for Axe body spray I think it was

with the gang of young women chasing after and tackling a guy?

[Donnachaidh]

230. we turn that CRAP off.

and that doesn't come CLOSE to the ad being discussed.

[DrunkenMaster]

65. because NO man ever wants an aggressive woman!

Are you even thinking before you type?

[nashville_brook]

93. it's not about sex -- it's about POWER.

guess they didn't teach semiotics in your art history class.

[DrunkenMaster]

125. I will quote you again

"the amount of energy you are expending on this piece of shit tells me that it REALLY really appeals to you on that subconscious level. you've become one with it."

Is THAT what you think semiotics is all about, accsuing people of adoring rape? I think you've tangled your signifier and signified, genius.

[nashville_brook]

175. the "pornographic gaze" is a powerful lure for some men

and it's also a mechanism used to reinforce power structures.

[ThomCat]

192. You're just trolling for reactions, aren't you?

[undergroundpanther]

301. Men have weak egos are you saying?

Men are insecure and threatened by women that could make them eat pavement if they tried to dominate her?

Than the world needs more strong women. And less insecure men. If what you say is true.

[lumberjack_jeff]

147. There is a great deal of misunderstanding between the genders

a) the fantasy of "amazon women" isn't promulgated by women. Would the ad you describe be effective in selling something? I dunno.
b) the ad was placed in womens magazines to sell shoes. The marketing people clearly felt that the strongly negative opinion expressed here would not be shared by those who are their target market.

I really hate the effect marketing has on us, and the implications that advertisements carry about human nature, but I see this as not significantly different from everything else. It's why I don't have a tv.

[Morgana LaFey]

244. and that's precisely why it needed to be removed and banned

but I see this as not significantly different from everything else.

Degrading and harmful to women. That shit needs to STOP. It needs to stop so men can quit fantasizing about women's powerlessness being sexy, and women can stop getting their clues about how to BE women from damaging, harmful, pornographic propaganda masquerading as advertising.

You, unfortunately, seem rather sanguine about the whole thing. Pity.

[lumberjack_jeff]

310. I'm not in the habit of reading womens' fashion magazines.

Good thing too, since it's apparently the secret propoganda mechanism used to reach men intent on degrading and harming women.

I'm all for boycotting manufacturers who market their products in antisocial ways - but don't blame it on me. This ad was not intended for men as an audience. I had never heard of this company, and after visiting their website, I find their entire marketing methodology equaly as disturbing as the unremitting barrage of marketing dogma which portrays men as moronic bumbling idiots.

That said, their marketing, like the bubba stereotype, is apparently effective.

[TreasonousBastard]

5. Surprise, surprise...

somebody's upset. And if they think Spain is "backward" they should try running it here and see some real hysteria.

Anyway, since ads are meant to sell stuff, and high fashion's been doing some strange things, like those junkie ads a while back, to sell ridiculously expensive clothes to ridiculously rich women, one wonders just what they think their market is.

Do ridiculously rich women really have rape fantasies and are they prone to slumming? Or are high end designers just assholes?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[Carni]

248. yeah-- I remember the junkie ads

I thought at the time now how many dying junkies have the money to buy THESE particular products/fashion items?

I guess because this ad too is for fashion I just took it with a grain of salt....

I think the bottom line is they are getting all this free press from the ad because it's controversial and it had to be pulled--maybe that's the angle with all the weird photo layouts for fashion??

[Selatius]

6. Double standards.

There would be no outcry if the roles were reversed. Nuff said.

[Tsiyu]

8. See post #4

Rape is real, not just some fantasy.

It is backward to have no regard for the trauma such an image might cause a woman (or man) who has been raped.

And it is VERY backward to try to make a buck using the same tired story of the helpless and violated female.

The ad agency needs some fresh minds and some sensitivity training. As a female, I find the ad pathetic and tasteless, and I am no prude.

[GreenZoneLT]

9. Yeah, but that image doesn't look like rape

That's a freaky-deaky grouping of people, but the woman sure as heck doesn't look like she's having a bad time. And, as mentioned, fab shoes.

[KittyWampus]

13. Hitchcock didn't show Janet getting stabbed in the shower but it's considered a disturbing scene

Why? Because our Subconscious Mind completes the action/picture on its own.

And because an artist is smart enough to allow the Subconscious mind to do its job, the effect is far more powerful than if the actual violent act is shown from start to finish.

Want another example? What is more effective in child control?

Swatting a kid on their rear end when they do something really bad or saying "wait til your father gets home" and the kid gets to imagine what their dad is going to do for a couple of hours.

[mongo]

66. Perhaps an investigation

into why YOUR subconsious mind sees gang rape, and not so much for other people would be more effective.

[Morgana LaFey]

254. You're not very good as an armchair psychoanalyst

at all.

As I've pointed out elsewhere, we're not the only ones who found it obviously gang rape. Frankly, you yourself did here, in another thread about the very same ad:

I'm sure it suggests gang rape.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=229&topic_id=6490&mesg_id=6515


Any "others" who don't see gang rape there are either badly informed (naive) or lying (mostly to themselves).

But the real key is this: people who are responsible for seeing that the ad doesn't run ALSO found it objectionable. Too late to try to turn it on just a few of us poor, hysterical women who are just uptight about sex or something.

[mongo]

375. Our society as a whole is hysterical about sex

But the real key is this: people who are responsible for seeing that the ad doesn't run ALSO found it objectionable. Too late to try to turn it on just a few of us poor, hysterical women who are just uptight about sex or something.

It's not the "hysterical few" -- it's our society in general. We teach abstinance only to our teenagers, we cower in fear of the thought of gays getting married, for most of us our health insurance doesn't cover birth control, etc. etc.

But nice to see you twisting my words around in this thread, as you are apt to do.

Nice fucking try -- play again sometime.

[Morgana LaFey]

386. You keep accusing me of twisting your words without UNTWISTING

them -- is there a reason for that beyond that you CAN'T ?

[nashville_brook]

396. "hysterical" ...niiicce. this photo doesn't depict "sex" it depicts "power-over"

to object to that isn't hysterical -- it's responsible.

[Morgana LaFey]

247. Okay, so I'll say it again

That is actually PRECISELY WHY the ad is so very harmful, not to mention disgraceful (or rather one reason, a major one).

RAPE is wrong, illegal and unbelievably traumatic for every woman who experiences it. It can and has ruined entire lives. Perhaps more to YOUR interest, it has ruined women's entire sex lives as well. It causes PTSD. It causes STDs and unwanted pregnancies. Most rapes go unreported, reported rapists uncaught, caught rapists untried, tried rapists unconvicted -- AND virtually all rapists are serial rapists which helps explain why something like 1 in 4 women will be RAPED IN HER LIFETIME, and she doesn't even have to be a sweet young thing to be so "lucky," she can be 80, crippled and/or demented.

Pornography makes all that okay -- for the men: see how she's not afraid? See how she LIKES it? See how she WANTS it? LIES about women, for male "pleasure." LIES about women for male "pleasure" that will result in more women getting raped.

[hang a left]

21. Did you see the way that she has her pelvis tilted???

Of course you did.

Doesn't appear to me like she is having a tough time at all.

Like I said, very sexy.

But, sadly, I can't afford D&G shoes and I need a pedicure.

[gollygee]

29. Isn't that the whole point of the ad?

rape and female submissiveness are sexy . . . ? She is in a rape scene and she's positioned in a way where it looks like she's enjoying it. I don't know why the fact that they've set her up to look like she's enjoying it makes the scene *less* troubling for you.

[Mad_Dem_X]

38. Yes, she's obviously asking for it!

I mean, her pelvis is tilted up! Obviously, she's enjoying herself!
:sarcasm:

I can't fucking believe some of the responses on here. :grr:

[Beaverhausen]

46. Neither can I

Some of these responses are disgusting.

[youthere]

179. she's dressed provocatively..she MUST be asking for it.

:sarcasm:

[ThomCat]

219. You raise a really good point.

She's dressed to be attractive. In fact they're all attractive. I'll bet if all the people were ugly there would be no debate about whether or not this picture was about rape. But when people are attractive it's suddenly acceptable. They're too handsome to be guilty. She's too sexy to be doing anything other than asking for it.
x(

[gollygee]

249. It is troubling

It's obviously staged - no one is debating that - so whether her pelvis is tilted has nothing to do with whether it's a rape scene. The fact that the advertising company thought it would sell products if they created a rape scene and then showed the victim raising her pelvis toward one of her attackers as if she liked it is really disturbing.

[nashville_brook]

114. she's totally asking for it!

[nashville_brook]

51. that would be called "irony" -- this is "metaphor"

[HardRocker05]

194. uh, seriously, how many woman-on-man rapes are there? oh, i'm sure that there

have been some throughout history, but the two situations are hardly comparable. does the average man go through his entire life conscious of the possibility that at any time he might be the victim of a viscious rape at the hands of a woman? i doubt it. the contexts are just a little bit different because the realities are different. that being said, *I* would oppose an equivalent women-against-man gang rape ad, regardless of what other people said about it. Do *you* oppose this ad suggesting a gang rape of a woman? nuff said.

[951-Riverside]

10. RAPE?

group sex is not rape. :mad:

[Tsiyu]

11. You're correct

and there is actually no sexual act depicted.

However, the fully clothed men standing around do not appear to be happy polyamorous individuals. They are situated in the ad in a rather threatening, "when is it my turn" manner with blank expressions on their faces, no soul, no spirit. The polyamorous people I've known would all be naked in a pile with happy faces on.

And the woman looks soulless as well. It's a tasteless ad to me, once more some dumbass male glorifying the helpless female. When are advertisers going to give that shit up and come up with something new?

[KittyWampus]

14. The Subconscious Mind sees sex in that picture. It's disappointing DU'ers lack basic understanding

of how our minds work. It really is.

[Triana]

27. The woman is being HELD DOWN - Hellooooo?

And the men - looking angrily on - waiting to "take their turn"

It's GANG RAPE - or that's the suggestion.

[NashVegas]

28. Wrists Down, Pelvis Way Up

And no one's forcing it.

[manic expression]

123. Holding a partner's arms down isn't uncommon in consented sex

just thought I'd throw that out there.

[HardRocker05]

196. consensual sex with a crowd of men standing around? that *is* uncommon, i think.

are you playing devil's advocate or really reaching for a rationalization to dismiss/justify gang rape. just thought i'd throw that out.

[Marrah_G]

262. uncommon yes

Unheard of, no.

[Morgana LaFey]

259. Right. And DU's very own "expert" on the matter says it DOES

convey gang rape:

I'm sure it suggests gang rape.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=229&topic_id=6490&mesg_id=6515

[mongo]

377. Bullshit

You're twisting my words. Stop quoting me.

[manic expression]

117. You made a ton of presumptions in your argument

to me, it really isn't that big of a deal. That sort of position is done in many mutually consented acts.

[lumberjack_jeff]

152. They'll give it up when it ceases to sell shoes. n/t

[ThomCat]

195. If that appeared to be a group sex situation then you would be right.

But it looks very much more like a power situation than anything else.

[NuttyFluffers]

12. love those shoes!

:9

[Scout]

86. why? n/t

[bbernardini]

15. I saw the ad, and NEVER thought "gang rape" until I saw the article.

Honestly, to me, it just looks like any other pointless advertisement for something I can't afford, featuring women and/or men in various stages of undress and suggestive positions. That it could be interpreted as a gang rape scene never even entered my mind.

[blondeatlast]

16. The ad did what was supposed to do--sell shoes. I would not have thought 'gang rape'

if I never saw the article--the article put that thought in my mind. Two responses about them already, and I must say, I like them too.

Suggestive, I suppose, but I'm a woman and it doesn't bother me. To me it looks like freaky sex and I see nothing wrong with that among consenting adults.

It's meant to invoke the subconscious; some see violence, I see freaky (and a bit arousing) sex.

To each their own--and the ad did it's job rather nicely; now it's reaching an even bigger market.

Edit: the D&G ads in men's magazines here in the US are pretty suggestive too; a hint of implied violence and no women to be seen.

[NashVegas]

31. It's Kind of Like a Freeper

Who never thought Tinky Winky was gay until Jerry Falwell said so. I think she looks like she's being paid very well, and that's about it.

[Mad_Dem_X]

40. !

As soon as I saw the picture, before I read ANYTHING about the ad, the first thing I thought was, She looks like she's about to be raped. The man is holding her down, for crying out loud. Add the other men standing around her...it's just a disgusting, offensive ad.

[NashVegas]

41. Look At the Pelvis

It tells a different story.

[lukasahero]

44. Yeah - it says women *like* being held down and forced while more men wait their turn

Not sure how that's supposed to make us feel better.

[mongo]

89. Now that you mention it

I'm sure I could find a room full of women who would like that if the scene and participants were well negotiated beforehand.

There is an element of Dominance/submission in the ad -- but that is far from "gang rape".

D/s is certainly a valid dynamic outside of rape, and even a normal part of sexual maturity. How many of us had wrestling or tickling matches with members of the opposite sex as a part of exanding our sexual horizons?

[nashville_brook]

100. "...a roomful of women who would like that scene... if negotiated beforehand"

find that group of women -- bring them here -- and we'll talk.

[mongo]

122. Unfortunatly

on a POLITICAL website, there are many more women who participate to reinforce and validate their "victim" status than to celebrate alternative sexuality.

There is one friend I keep trying to get over here. She has a degree in Women's Studies and is a joy to talk to.

[nashville_brook]

130. "reinforce VICTIM status" -- uh, that's what we're critiquing

not so fond of ads that portray women as sexual victims.

finally we agree!

[mongo]

163. I agree that YOUR interpretation of the ad

and the "rightous" anger it fuels helps maintain YOUR status as a sexual victim.

To other women, it's just an ad.

[nashville_brook]

170. i'm a "sexual victim" because i think this image is "sexist"

that's quite irrational.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

193. Well, then you're also the "sex offender," aren't you?

Because you're the one who things it's "sexist."

Hmm.

[Matariki]

173. "if negotiated beforehand" is the key here

And if mongo is as hip to the s/m scene as s/he pretends - then s/he'd understand that consensually extends to other people in the environment.

[Matariki]

165. That is NOT a depiction of consensual D/s

I've been to plenty of s/m parties pal, and no one stands around with maliciously bored expressions like that. That ad is ugly, pure and simple. Largely for it's LACK of emotion.

[mongo]

177. "maliciously bored" expression?

Would it have been better if she was pictured screaming? Would that have implyed consent?

I have a real hard time believing you are in the BDSM community if you are squicked out by this ad so much.

[Matariki]

198. Yes, emotion would have implied consent

Have you ever read Samuel Delany's book Hogg? It's about a guy paid to do 'revenge rapes'. That's what that photo looks like to me - NOT consensual s/m play.

But that really isn't the point of this - whether we can agree if this is depicting consensual s/m or not. That's pretty much irrelevant.

The point is that there is so much REAL violence against women that many, many women find offense in this ad. That there has been an undeniable history of systematized domination and violence against women, so that things that appear to perpetuate that will be met with a lot of anger. Apparently many women are reacting to the ad in this way - so are you saying they're all wrong? Hysterical maybe?

The equally valid point and question is whether or not censorship is an appropriate reaction to being offended and angry. Me, I say it is not.

Now as far as your ignorant crack about my involvement in the s/m community - if YOU have any involvement beyond internet chat rooms you'll know that even the most edgy players can get 'squicked' by something that doesn't bother the next person. Nor am I 'squicked' by the ad.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

188. Looks consensual to me.

In fact, it looks like the woman's enjoying herself.

[VelmaD]

197. does it make you think...

that your perception is so different from the people on this thread who think she looks vacant or bored or basically not even there?

A larger concern that I have about the world in general is how often men's perception of what a woman is saying or doing or wants is so vastly different from women's. Or you can change that sentence to apply to any group in power vis a vis a group in a lesser position.

On a final note...I can guarantee you the look on that model's face is not one I make when I'm really interested in having sex.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

203. The look on her face...

is the one of somebody who's thoughts are quite distant, focusing on, say, enjoying her orgasm. Fits with the thrusting of her pelvis.

[VelmaD]

205. way to completely ignore the point...

of my post. We could have had a serious discussion. Oh well.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

209. Did I miss your point?

I thought I was addressing it. Please clarify.

"that your perception is so different from the people on this thread who think she looks vacant or bored or basically not even there?"

Actually, I'm agree with that. The expression is vacant, distant, not there. It's an O face.

"A larger concern that I have about the world in general is how often men's perception of what a woman is saying or doing or wants is so vastly different from women's. Or you can change that sentence to apply to any group in power vis a vis a group in a lesser position."

Not following. Everybody's got the same expression.

[VelmaD]

216. I'll try to clarify...

does it make you go "hmmmmmm" that some men on this thread are looking at this picture and going "sexy" and some women are looking at it and going "sexist"? That seems to happen a lot...that different groups see the same image through different lenses is not a surprise and it wouldn't really be an issue if groups with power didn't try to enforce the idea that only their perception was the right one.

[Marrah_G]

217. But at the same time

Some men are going "sexist" and some women are going "sexy"

It's all about how you perceive the picture. We don't all agree and there is no reason we should all agree. We are a diverse community.

[VelmaD]

222. it's easy to say "'let's agree to disagree" when...

you weren't the one offended. I'm going to paraphrase what I end up saying around here a lot when it comes to sexism, racism, homophobia, you name it...when someone tells you you're being offensive there are a couple of ways you can react...a decent human being will listen and try to understand and try in the future not to cause offense again in the same way...on the other hand some people will blame the other person for being offended and insist they have no right to their feelings...those people are assholes.

The problem we run into so often is that the things we find offensive help perpetuate a larger culture that devalues women (or gays or blacks or...pick a group). It's hard to say "let's agree to disagree" when we're talking about an image that furthers the idea that women like to be gang raped. (And that's how some people see that image.)

But, to reiterate something I've also said before...the solution is not censorship. The solution to bad speech is more speech. They had the right to run the ad. And I have the right (and the responsibility as far as I'm concerned) to tell them they are bad corporate citizens and should be ashamed of themselves for doing so.

[Marrah_G]

231. It's always easy to say "let's agree to disagree"

When you respect another persons right to their own opinion it is ALWAYS easy. It's as easy as this: I disagree with your view, and here is why, but you are entitled to your own opinion.

The only way to never offend someone is to never have contact with others. And let me clarify that offend does not mean intentionally offend. You can always make an effort to not intentionally offend others. If I know a certain subject is touchy to someone I know then I avoid the topic in the future. But if they bring the topic up and are looking for opinions I certainly won't lie about how I feel.

And yes if you are offended by the ad you should definitely let the company know.

[Morgana LaFey]

268. But you see, it's NOT appropriate to respect those points of view

that harm others. It's just not. You are demanding "respect" for your LACK of respect -- however unintentional -- which harms whole classes of people. That's just wrong.

Your argument is that it's okay for you to call black people by tne N word, and the rest of us need to merely respect that as your opinion.

What you suggest is a wonderful way to remain civil and avoid arguments; it's a horrible way to build a society.

Yeah, people ARE entitled to their own opinions, but they're not entitled to take their bigotry out in public. THOSE opinions need to stay at home, unspoken in the wider world.

[Matariki]

271. I'm not so sure that one of the more insidious kinds of racism and sexism

isn't the 'polite', unspoken variety. Maybe it's better to hash this shit out in public?

[Morgana LaFey]

384. absolutely. Very good point.

In fact, I think it's PRECISELY this type of racism and sexiam which is the most harmful because so much of it goes under people's radar, and/or gets defended so strongly. And yet, it's the kind that absolutely permeates the entire culture -- which is what makes it "invisible" to those who harbor its roots and tentacles within their very own bosoms.

[Marrah_G]

273. The problem with that arguement is this

You are assuming that the people who are not offended condone rape, therefore condoning harm. In actuality what is happening is that there are people who do not see this as rape and therefore are not defending rape because they do not see it as rape.

Your N word arguement is a false arguement.

As for your last line: Who are you to decide who's opinion are allowed in public? Just because you disagree with someone does not make you right and them wrong. A society where no one is allowed their own point of view is a scary one.

[Morgana LaFey]

383. No. Flat ass wrong premise --

You are assuming that the people who are not offended condone rape, therefore condoning harm.

Not even close. It doesn't matter WHAT they think about rape (tho some certainly are known rape defenders). The people who aren't offended are fucking clueles -- UNLESS, of course, they ARE among the pro-rape group.

One can be blase and sanguine about and therefore not the least bit concerned about the harm being done to individuals in oppressed groups -- thus benignly promoting (tacitly "allowing") the harm to continue without being PRO-harm.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

218. ...

"does it make you go "hmmmmmm" that some men on this thread are looking at this picture and going "sexy" and some women are looking at it and going "sexist"?"

No, because there are also women saying it's not sexist, and men saying it is.

"that different groups see the same image through different lenses is not a surprise and it wouldn't really be an issue if groups with power didn't try to enforce the idea that only their perception was the right one."

In my opinion, the two different groups aren't between men and women, or people who are concerned about sexism and aren't. IMHO, it's between puritans, and, well, regular people.

"didn't try to enforce the idea that only their perception was the right one."

Have you seen anybody who doesn't have an objection to the commercial accuse somebody else of being a rapist, because they had a different opinion?

[VelmaD]

225. sigh

Any time a man can find at least one woman to agree something isn't sexist...that automatically means it isn't. *sigh*

What. Ever.

BTW, the puritan thing would have got a lot more traction for you if the whole freaking world didn't know I edit gay porn as a side job. Velma = not a puritan. One can love sex and loathe sexism.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

227. Actually, no.

It's just not sexist. Period.

The fact that other women don't think it's sexist was just to disregard your phony suggestion that women think it's sexist, and women don't.

"BTW, the puritan thing would have got a lot more traction for you if the whole freaking world didn't know I edit gay porn as a side job. Velma = not a puritan. One can love sex and loathe sexism."

Eh, so you say. But you've also complained about porn in the past, so I'll stick with the puritanism explanation.

[VelmaD]

234. you are not the arbiter of what is and is not sexist

And given your gender stated in your user profile is "male" I find it ironic to the point of laughing out loud that you seem to think you are the final "decider". *snort* I've been pretty clear in the past exactly what I think of men who think they have the right to tell women what is and is not sexist.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

236. I'm an arbiter of my own opinion.

And in my opinion, it ain't sexist.

Now who's judging whom based on their gender?

[VelmaD]

250. So...

How does it feel to have your opinion dismissed because of the genitalia you were born with? Not so much fun when the shoe is on your foot is it? Sucks on ice to have to put up with it every day.

When it comes to determining what is and is not sexist...you're damn right I'm giving more weight to women's opinions on that. Because men benefit from sexism they have no real incentive to see it and every reason not to.

In all honesty, I do listen to men on this subject...but they have to show me that they've really thought it through. When all I get is something like your post 227...then I tend to blow that person off. And you did very much come across in that post like you thought you were the decider. No disclaimer there that it was just your opinion. "It's just not sexist. Period."

on edit: I'm about to have to leave. Got a long drive ahead of me to think a lot of this stuff through. Have fun having the last word. :)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

252. How does it feel?

I don't know, I was too busy laughing at you.

Did you also notice how in one post you were complaining about how one side disregards the other side's opinion, and then you did just that?

:rofl:

[Matariki]

251. Ha. Bornagainhooligan, the arbiter of what's sexist. Period.

And all those women's groups that felt the ad was sexist, well, they're just a bunch of knee-jerk, hysterical *women*. This thread is amusing.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

256. And you're not doing the same thing?

i.e. forming your own opinion?

:shrug:

Actually, since you're borrowing heavily from other people's books and vocabulary...

[Marrah_G]

235. You see it as sexist...he does not

Why does one of you have to be "right" and the other be "wrong" . Why can't there just be 2 people who see things differently?

[VelmaD]

243. you haven't been on DU for a long long time

so maybe you haven't experienced some of the threads where women have been basically told to sit down and shut up about all sorts of sexist non-sense. We've had to fight like crazy just to get most guys on DU not to use gender slurs...and some still cling like limpits to their right to call women nasty names just because they're women. I personally have been called every old sexist canard in the book...too emotional, too sensitive, not rational, even hysterical...all for asking men to show a little sensitivity.

And that doesn't even begin to addres how women's issues like choice have been thrown under the bus when convenient...and men on DU actually advocated for backing away from women's issues as a means of getting more votes. (They were also willing to throw gays and lesbians under the bus as well.) It was just one more example of women being patted on the head and told to wait our turn while the men dealt with something more important...and there's always something more important than us.

I guess what it really boils down to is that despite being on DU since almost day 1 and seeing the way sexism has been tolerated here over those years...I still have an unrealistic expectation that liberal and progressive men will actuall "get" it. That they will understand why women's issues and women's rights and working to end sexism is important. That they'll not just see the big sexism but that they'll see the little ways that women are put down every day. That they'll see how sexism pervades their own lives and thinking and at least try to do something about it. With many men this is not an unrealistic hope. But with a small but loud minority it feels pretty hopeless...thus the periodic explosions around here when it gets to be too much for one woman or another. If you stick around for any length of time you'll see it.

[Marrah_G]

253. My length of time on DU has no bearing on this conversation

It breaks down to two people who view a picture in two very different ways. To you it is sexist, to the other it is not. That doesn't make either of you right or wrong. All it means is that two people see things differently.

Of course womens rights are important and yes sexism exists, but his not viewing the picture in the same manner as you do does not make him sexist. What WOULD be sexist is if he said " yes it looks like she is being gang-raped and I think that's fine" , but he didn't say that. Instead he said he DOESN'T see it as depicting rape and therefore doesn't find it sexist. There are women here who share his view as well.

There isn't a right and wrong here, just two differing opinions.

[VelmaD]

257. the point I was trying to make...

that I guess didn't come through...is that there is a history of people who don't see this kind of thing as sexist telling women who do to basically STFU. That our opinion doesn't matter. Makes it harder to blow this stuff off all the time as just a difference of opinion.

Like I said above, I'm about to have to log off...got a long drive back home tonight. Y'all are gonna have to have fun hashing this out without me for a while.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

258. Hmm.

Who's telling whom that their opinion doesn't matter?

[Marrah_G]

260. Have a safe ride home

:)

[HardRocker05]

201. you probably also think 'no' doesn't really mean no. nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

207. LOL

:rofl:

[Morgana LaFey]

263. THANK YOU!!!

That's precisely why the ad is so harmful (to repeat myself AGAIN, because it bears repeating)

In fact, it looks like the woman's enjoying herself.

Well, she's getting paid to do the ad and LOOK enough like she's enjoying herself to you and other people who benefit from the degradation of women that you can defend this crap that way.

So THANK YOU!!

You've just perfectly explained why the ad is so very harmful, not to mention disgraceful.

RAPE is wrong, illegal and unbelievably traumatic for every woman who experiences it. It can and has ruined entire lives. It causes PTSD. It causes STDs and unwanted pregnancies. Most rapes go unreported, most reported rapists go uncaught, most caught rapists go untried, and most tried rapists go unconvicted -- AND virtually all rapists are serial rapists which helps explain why something like 1 in 4 women will be RAPED IN HER LIFETIME, and she doesn't even have to be a sweet young thing to be so "lucky," she can be 80, crippled and/or demented.

But YOU think all that's okay -- at least for the men (the people who actually count): see how she's not afraid? See how she LIKES it? See how she WANTS it? See how she's ENJOYING IT?

LIES about women, for male "pleasure." LIES about women for male "pleasure" that will result in more women getting raped, more women rendered more powerless in their lives, more women ROBBED of the fullness of their lives.

[Marrah_G]

266. I have to disagree

People who do not look at this picture as rape are not defending rape or the denigration of women. I understand you see it as rape, but labeling others sexist evil people because they view a photo differently is just not right.

[Morgana LaFey]

385. Yes, they are.

Just as people who "defend" using Native American icons as sports mascots are defending the denigration of Native Americans, whether they UNDERSTAND it or not.

Get a clue, Marrah. It's high time you learned more about the society that would rather see you losing than winning, weak rather than powerful, poor rather than wealthy. Of course, if you continue to uphold and promote the patriarchy's point of view, you can probably be useful as a Token for them, until they get tired of you.

[Marrah_G]

199. I don't know anyone in the D/s community that would take issue with that picture

Some would like it, others might think it to tame, but I honestly can't think of anyone I know who would come to the conclusion that the picture is one of rape.

There is someone somewhere who will find offense in anything you create, say, think, eat or touch these days. I take confort that those people, even if vocal, are far and few in between.

Personally, I didn't mind the picture, but I am also respectful enough not to throw insults at people who find offense in it.

[Matariki]

206. I take issue with it and I'M in the s/m community.

In fact, being involved in s/m has made me much more sensitive to NON CONSENSUAL acts of violence, and much more aware of undercurrents of sadism in our culture.

That doesn't mean I want the photo censored, although I'm sure the amount of controversy will cause the company to self censor anyway. I believe it's more positive than negative that society generally finds images of violence against women appalling.

[VelmaD]

213. same here

Though I don't do s/m per se...I do engage in extreme play. (It's about endorphins for me.) So I am hyper-aware of consent. I get really annoyed at depictions of women being used to get men off where the woman does not obviously appear to be enjoying herself. In fact, my biggest pet peeve in porn is how so many of the actors, both male and female, don't appear to be enjoying themselves...but that's another rant.

I got off topic...my point was that I agree with you. It is quite possible to be a part of the community, to engage in consensual s/m or b/d or both and still be able to look at this picture an go "that ain't right".

I also agree that censorship is not the answer...public approbrium heaped on the company for being irresponible fuckwits is.

[mongo]

223. so what exactly about this ad implies non-consent?

As far as the blank expressions -- I would say that is a common thread in almost all fashion ads.

[VelmaD]

228. It's common so that makes it ok?

C'mon mongo. I know you know what I'm talking about in terms of how bored people look in bad porn. I will say it again...if I'm EVER making the face the woman in that ad is making (or the men for that matter) during sex...just shoot me because all the joy has obviously gone out of my life.

If they didn't want the ad percieved as non-consensual then they could have stepped outside the "norm" for fashion ads and put a smile on their faces. Or that look of ecstacy that I hope everyone on DU has experienced first-hand.

[Matariki]

229. The blank expressions certainly - and the lack of anything that implies consent

The lack of expression on the woman shows a detachment devoid of enjoyment - or perhaps an escape from the reality of her situation. The lack of any emotion on the men's faces makes the whole act seem to be about anything but sex. The image makes me ask, what *is* their motivation?

So - similar question back at you. What in the picture actually IMPLIES consent?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

233. LOL

You mean if you don't know, you assume it's rape?

[Matariki]

241. Bornagainhooligan, you can be tiresome

I gave my reasons for why I think the image looks non-consensual. You have any reasons to defend it depicting something consensual, or you just want to be annoying?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

242. I ask tough questions, don't I.

"You have any reasons to defend it depicting something consensual, or you just want to be annoying?"

1. I think it's consensual because she appears to be enjoying herslf.

2. There's nothing to suggest rape. Any more than there is to suggest the guy second from the right is committing insurance fraud.

3. Why would anybody depict gang rape in their commercials?

[Matariki]

245. don't kid yourself.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

246. I'm sorry, I guess that's your job.

[Marrah_G]

214. Well see that is where we disagree

You see non-consensual, and I see consenual. And I will say again, no one "I" know in the D/s community here would be "offended", I didn't say no one in the lifestyle would be offended. It's impossible to make blanket statements about any community.

We will never agree on this because we see the phote very differently and that's okay, we don't have to agree.

[Marrah_G]

208. As much as I agree with you

I think it's the type of arguement where both sides needs to say "let's agree to disgree on this". No one is going to change their minds because every side is looking at the picture from their own point of view, molded by their own life experiences.

[mongo]

232. Awwww

Do you have to be the voice of reason to my thunder?

No, you are right.

[Marrah_G]

237. hehe

I actually love thunder so....carry on!

[Morgana LaFey]

261. You're contradicting yourself.

In this thread you said you were SURE it represented gang rape:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=229x6490#6582


But it's a lot easier to defend the ad if you can find mindless, well-brainwashed women who will support it too, isn't it?



I'm sure I could find a room full of women who would like that if the scene and participants were well negotiated beforehand.

I'm sure you could too -- the PROBLEM is that the ad neither portrays nor says ANYTHING about negotiating whatever is going on, and from equal positions of power. Quite the contrary, it displays a total lack of power for the woman involved.

[Matariki]

267. Morgana LaFey - I want to say that women enjoying a 'well negotiated scene' are NOT mindless

or brainwashed. That is quite unfair. I too could find a room full of women who would like that scene if it were negotiated and consensual. Intelligent, independent women. One woman I know who would have fun with that is even the head of her state chapter of NOW.

The ad is a whole different story. Most people do NOT understand negotiated consensual s/m scenes and that is not what the ad is appealing to.

[Morgana LaFey]

269. Okay

I subsequently saw your post upthread about S&M -- not my bag (obviously), but I can see your point.

MY point was more aimed at those women here on this thread and elsewhere at DU who don't see anything wrong with the ad. Or say they don't.

[Matariki]

275. What bothers me most isn't women who don't see a problem with the ad

but men who just don't seem to have the capacity to listen to what women have to say without insulting them. If a majority of woman and woman's groups seem to think this ad is depicting rape and/or violence against women, they really ought to be more courteous and LISTEN. When rape statistics are as high as they are, men on this board should be more respectful to women who find the image disturbing. Instead it's all about *their* opinions being respected, as always.

As a progressive board we ought to be discussing the merits (or rather lack of merits) of censorship. Not whether women ought to be offended or not.

[Morgana LaFey]

381. Well, they won't get it because they don't want to. And certainly

no one here can make them. It's the whole crux of male entitlement, probably THE most important "feature" of white male privilege: they don't have to give a damn, and by God they WON'T. They sure as HELL won't.

[Marrah_G]

276. So any woman who disagrees with you is mindless and brainwashed?

Now THAT is offensive and sexist. As a woman I am perfectly capable of having and expressing my own opinions. I do not need your permission to do so and neither does anyone else here.

[Morgana LaFey]

382. I've offended you?

Good. If there's any woman on DU who needs offending on the subject, it's you. Definitely.

And yes, you're entitled to your opinions, but not your own facts. The ad is offensive and harmful, and that isn't open to evaluation or quibbling. It's FACT. Do with it what you will, including ignore it, or even continue to lie to yourself that your position (what you call your "opinion") on the matter has ANY merit or validity whatsoever. It does not.

[Marrah_G]

387. Oh please

You really need to get a grip. Not everyone sees things the way you do. It is not a fact that it is offensive, it is a fact that YOU find it offensive.

If you find it offensive so be it, I can understand how some people would see it that way, but do not try and bully those of us with a different opinion.

I am not offended by your opinion of the ad, I am offended by your characterization of any woman who doesn't agree with you. Not all women see every issue in the same way. You were personally insulting. You didn't just disagree with a veiwpoint, you made nasty and uncalled for characterizations on a personal level.

I would never tell you that you have no right to feel as you do and I would ask the same in return.

If you can't have a civil conversation on the topic with me then I guess there is nothing left to say.

[Morgana LaFey]

388. I think there is nothing left to say

I find you one of the least civil people on the planet. I'll take all the clearly misogynist MEN here over your type any day. But by all means please DO continue that civility act, or what you insist on calling civility. It's oh so becoming.

[Marrah_G]

270. Not all women who are not offended by the picture are mindless or brainwashed

Everyone has a right to their own opinion. I can most certainly think for myself. You are welcome to your opinion and as a woman I am entitled to my own. Insulting others kills any rational discussion.

[mongo]

379. More bullshit

That's not what I said and you know it, unless you don't comprehend well...

[mongo]

76. Kudo's to you!

Another well-adjusted woman who doesn't see a sexual boogieman under every rock!

If the sexual boogieman crowd would just spend more time examining their own viseral responses to this ad than railing against it, maybe there could be some growth.

[VelmaD]

184. mongo...contrary to what you might think...

you are not the arbiter of who is and is not well adjusted. And there are plenty of definitions of well adjusted that do not include "agrees with mongo all the time".

You should spend more time actually listening to women and why they find these adds offensive rather than writing people off just because they disagree with you...you should spend more time examining your own visceral reaction in the opposite direction...then you might actually achieve some growth.

And before you go off on me, remember, I edit gay erotica...I probably have an even "weirder" sex life than you do. There is not a more sex positive person on DU than me. But being in favor of sex does not preclude the ability to see rampant sexism and to deride the constant barrage of anti-women messages in the media.

[nashville_brook]

215. all he wants is for us women to "grow" into more mature sexual creatures

who understand that submission is hot. if only we could embrace our inner slave!

[Carni]

255. The photo reminded me of the old Dieter skits on SNL

I immediately thought Oh geez "Time to dance" and heard sprockets music in my head.

Maybe I am getting old or something I have no idea lol

[robinlynne]

309. I agree with you. I'm sure the art director didn't think 'let's portray a rape'.

He or she probably thought let's put a woman with a bunch of men, then they started taking pictures and chose this one. That's pretty much how it goes. One person picks the outifts. Another person picks the models, and another the makeup.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

395. Right, the portrayal of rape just kind of naturally evolved when the art director

started arranging and rearranging a woman with a bunch of men. That's pretty much how it goes.

[Cerridwen]

17. To those saying I don't see and therefore I don't think rape

You're not supposed to.

Marketing of this kind isn't targeted at that part of your brain that is consciously engaged; not the part of your brain that's used when driving down the road looking for a particular street or watching for the status of traffic signals. This kind of ad is more subtle than a flag upside the head. It's targeted at that part of your brain that is collecting thousands of bits of information, of which you are unaware, as you drive down the road. You, know, those bits and pieces an investigator will drill you about during an investigation of a crime or a traffic accident. Those bits and pieces that you might "suddenly remember" several days later without having ever realized you were "seeing," and "recording" during the time you "saw" them.

Since this is a political board, let me remind those reading this of some of the ads we saw during the last campaigns and some of the outrage here. Now remember some of the denials the other side spouted to defend the crap they were peddling. Most of the political ads criticized, on this board, did not have the subtlety of this one, but then, their target audience isn't known (broad brush for brevity) for subtlety nor for sophistication. The target audience for this ad, apparently is.

This has more of the subtlety of the stage-oped pictures of camera angles aimed upward at shrub making him look taller, a halo behind his head. We see it. Ever heard the deniers? "Just an accident." "Doesn't mean anything." What campaign was it in which an African-American candidate was shown connected with a Caucasian woman who was depicted as...what, a hooker? Racist? We sure thought so. But the 527 that put it out? What WAS their defense?

I'm gonna go look for a link now in which some researcher showed the effectiveness of playing the fear card just a few days before the last presidential election. Many of the ads aired during that time had pictures in the background of the twin towers burning - subtle (not so much to some of us) reminders to be afraid, be very afraid. The researcher concluded that many punched that repub ballot more out of newly induced fear than from conscious thought.

If we can see it in political ads, lets keep our brains engaged and see the subtle manipulation we're surrounded with everyday.


edit: spelling

edit #2: link to the article mentioned above and a blurb

<snip>

...even a subtle shift was enough to tip the balance of the Presidential election, and the direction the country took for years. "Without 9/11 we would have a different president," says Solomon. "I would even say that the Osama bin Laden tape that was released the Thursday before the election was sufficient to swing the election. It was basically a giant mortality salience induction."

<snip>

To test this, Solomon and his colleagues prompted two groups to think about death and then give opinions about a pro-American author and an anti-American one. As expected, the group that thought about death was more pro-American than the other. But the second time, one group was asked to make gut-level decisions about the two authors, while the other group was asked to consider carefully and be as rational as possible. The results were astonishing. In the rational group, the effects of mortality salience were entirely eliminated. Asking people to be rational was enough to neutralize the effects of reminders of death. Preliminary research shows that reminding people that as human beings, the things we have in common eclipse our differences—what psychologists call a "common humanity prime"—has the same effect.

<snip>

The solution, then, is remarkably simple. The effects of psychological terror on political decision making can be eliminated just by asking people to think rationally. Simply reminding us to use our heads, it turns out, can be enough to make us do it.

(emphasis added)

[blondeatlast]

19. I understand what you are saying; it's just that I would not have even considered rape

had the article not suggested it.

Yes, it's aimed at our subconscious, yes, it's meant to arouse something, yes, we will all see the ad differently. Sex is aimed at our most primitive brain; where the interpretation goes from there is anybody's guess.

Is there S/D implied in the ad? Definitely. Is there an implied threat? Absolutely, and that's why I interpret it as S/D.

Is it rape? As this thread clearly shows, it depends on who you ask. Or--who suggests that it is to you--in my case, the accompanying article suggested it to me. I didn't see it that way before and still have a hard time seeing it.


Not to mention--this kind of controversy is actually great for the advertiser. They can't buy this stuff, but you can bet plenty of people are going to buy that D&G now has radical chic.

I think D&G knew EXACTLY what they were doing with this ad and are laughing and slapping backs at the corporate offices now.

[Cerridwen]

22. Therein lies its effectiveness.

Therein lies the manipulation. It doesn't appeal to rational thought. Rational thought would mean they'd have to market their product based on its merits. Haven't seen that in a while. Probably won't. As long as we, the consumers, can be manipulated into buying based on some visceral response to manipulative marketing psychology, businesses don't have to make a good product, they just have to have a good marketing team.

Think of it. An entire consumer economy comprised of shoddy products bought by people who've been "programmed" to need them driven by forces more concerned with bottom-lines and profits than quality of merchandise. The next thing you know they'll be able to sell us some politician who's a total failure; lousy product but effective marketing. Oh wait...

And therein, lies the danger of ignoring this type of manipulation of "the masses" for fun and profit.

[Tsiyu]

30. Nice analysis

When I first saw the ad, for some reason the main guy's glasses reminded me of the military. And then it made me think of the gang rape and murder of the gal and her family in Iraq.

That's what I saw right off the bat. It did not look like the woman was enjoying herself, just posing, and the expressions on the men's faces were not those of admiring the female form or enjoying sex, but of malevolence and almost disgust.

Just my reaction. The last thing I noticed were the shoes that so many women are going ga-ga over. In fact, I didn't notice the shoes until so many said 'nice shoes' and then I went back to look and said, "Oh, they're selling shoes with this crap? Hmmmmm..... Some fool will buy them , too."

[Cerridwen]

33. Thanks.

I didn't see the ad before reading the post, so my reaction is tainted. *grin* So, I missed the shoes, too until reading down the thread. :D

I don't "get" why some people don't "see" that this kind manipulation can be dangerous and how it can be used and applied in other forms of marketing. I guess I'll just keep posting and trying to connect the dots. *sigh*

:hi:

[Tsiyu]

34. We humans HATE to admit to being tricked

That's why some Repukes will stand by their Pretzeldent no matter how low he brings their nation. As you suggested earlier, people vote for candidates with no more to go on than a cheesy ad that appeals to their fear/greed/prejudice.

The marketing machine knows psy-ops better than the military. They know that humans want to "belong" and "be special."

Wearing a certain brand is like being a member of a certain gang. And humans want to be part of a 'gang' even when they live in gated communities. That high dollar purse that all the ladies on the block own is no more than a glorified do-rag like the Crips and the Bloods wear, a symbol of success and "belonging."

Look at the drug ads. Insipid and unscientific and relying on fear and false promises to sell a high-priced designer med. Even physicians - who should know better - are sucked in by the hype and the marketing ploys.

The problem is, this hypnosis of the American public via advertisement has caused many a family to go into hock just to buy the A&F clothes their kids "have to have" and the new SUV that is just like the neighbors' and the furniture they won't have to pay for til 2009 when they'll probably be living on the street.

Shopping and brand worship are addictions all on their own, causing people to forego saving for education or retirement so that in the HERE AND NOW they can have the cool stuff and everyone will look up to them with awe and envy.

To each his own, I suppose, and you are right - people refuse to understand the way they are being manipulated. But keep trying! Your posts are enlightening to some, no doubt.

:hi:

[mongo]

113. And the people "tricked" into seeing gang rape in this ad?

We humans HATE to admit to being tricked

...

The marketing machine knows psy-ops better than the military. They know that humans want to "belong" and "be special."

Wearing a certain brand is like being a member of a certain gang. And humans want to be part of a 'gang' even when they live in gated communities. That high dollar purse that all the ladies on the block own is no more than a glorified do-rag like the Crips and the Bloods wear, a symbol of success and "belonging."

The people who are being "tricked" into seeing gang rape in this ad want to belong to a group too -- The group of the "oppressed", the "victims". Mostly priviliged, middle class white women who somehow want to believe they aren't on top of the world, statistically speaking.

There is such power in being the downtrodden. It allows you to belong, absolves you of responsibility for your actions or failings, gives you righous anger to feed on, and lets you totally ignore your own personal demons for how and why you react to things the way you do. People who don't want to grow and change and live their lives as damaged goods.

[Tsiyu]

376. Hello?

And how much do i owe you for this diagnosis, Doc?

Seriously, mongo, you are way off the mark, bless your heart.

I first saw this ad on another place before "gang rape" was mentioned in connection with it. I merely stated what I, personally felt and noticed when I saw the ad, as it related to me personally. I was not tricked into seeing something; my own mind processed what the image conveyed to ME. So maybe I tricked myself?

You are angry over ANYTHING which smacks of censorship, and I understand that due to your business. I probably would not be in favor of censoring the ad, but I certainly would not buy the product and I feel the ad is a tired and pathetic attempt to be cutting edge.

It certainly does us no good to shut down a conversation about images in the media and varying people's responses to those images. Trying to shame me into not expressing my opinion is censorship in its own way. Your name-calling and internet diagnosis of everyone who dislikes this ad is very sad to me.

I am not angered by those who like the shoes; why are you angered so deeply by the comments I made? Ask yourself, darlin' because i certainly can't figure out where your animosity is coming from over a simple discussion.

My remarks about advertising are evidence of "victimhood" on my part? That is truly a stretch, and evidence that you are intimidated by anyone who has a different opinion from yours. That's too bad, because we need more discussions on this topic, but people like you try to shut them down every time they begin.

So sad.

[Gormy Cuss]

104. I agree with your analysis.

There is no rape displayed explicitly. There are many elements that separately and together add up to a message that these shoes will make women such a magnet of male attention that they'll be lining up for a turn, whether she likes it or not. The upswung pelvis suggests she wants the attention, the detached look on her face suggests the opposite.

[nashville_brook]

120. "shit from an old notebook"

let the products sell themselves fuck advertising, commercial psychology psychological methods to sell should be destroyed because of their own blind involvement in their own conditioned minds the unit bonded together morals, ideals, awareness, progress let yourself be heard!

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000000LZV?tag2=chalkhills

[mconvente]

272. I'm no Phd in Psych at all, though I have gotten an A in my social psych class...

You're above quotation -

"As long as we, the consumers, can be manipulated into buying based on some visceral response to manipulative marketing psychology, businesses don't have to make a good product, they just have to have a good marketing team."

Unfortunately, it takes a LOT of self control to not be affected by advertisements, especially in the subconscious. A lot of us could say that I never pay attention to advertisements, but subconsciously you do. That's where the problem lies - yes, as humans we have a higher level of self control than other mammals (at times at least), but the subconscious remains. Controlling yourself from advertisements can be done, but it's extremely hard, and most people can't do it. And in the "bottom-line" corporate world, what advertisements do you think they will put out - the fact that their shoes are made form tough material and will last 5 years, or that they are perceived - subconsciously - as sexy, and yes even very aggressive from that advertisement.

And when the 10% or so (or even less) kick and scream about the ads being sexist and depicting rape, the other 90% - the overwhelmingly large percentage who don't "get" the ad in the first place - rail you as extremist and such. It's a lose-lose situation for the critical thinkers of the world...

[nashville_brook]

49. it's sexist: woman submissive... men towering over her... she's restrained...

apt metaphor for the struggles i've experienced in life.

[Triana]

25. GOOD! (n/t)

[Forkboy]

32. Hey,at least they're not pushing pedophilia this time

:crazy:

[BreweryYardRat]

36. Dear god, please tell me you're being sarcastic.

Although it wouldn't surprise me if the fashion industry has done stuff like that in the past.

[Forkboy]

42. No,they really made them.

This is the story...check out the ads at the bottom of the page.


http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/educational/handouts/ethics/calvin_klein_case_study.cfm

[BreweryYardRat]

45. Eww...

That is fucked up.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

35. Apparently, gang rape's in the eye of the beholder.

:shrug:

Reminds me of all the people who thought "child porn" when they saw those calvin klein commercials.

[bleedingheart]

39. Sex sells

we all know that....and the designers will go to new highs or lows to find the ad that gets more advertising...like newspaper articles about how good or bad the ad is.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

47. The Ad Was Sexual And Portraying Erotica, Not Violent And Portraying Rape.

There isn't a claim that can be made that would change my rational mind's perception on it either.

But since it is just some stupid ad for some stupid company I don't care about, I guess I really couldn't care less that it was banned. Was just fascinating to me though how some (those calling it rape) simply see what they want to see, not what's actually there. Course, since that's a matter of my opinion, to each their own I guess.

[lukasahero]

48. Thank you for at least conceding it may only be your opinion

at the end of your post because the rest of it sure sounded like you were presenting a fact and anyone who saw it differently might not be wholly "rational". :eyes:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

52. You're Very Welcome, Lukasahero.

:hi:

[Matariki]

238. you know, if the majority of women look at it and see 'rape',

couldn't you, as a man, concede that there might at least be something to that? i won't hold my breath.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

265. Until You Can Supply Any Proof Whatsoever That A Majority Of Women See It That Way,

your point is moot.

[Matariki]

280. Right - The National Organization for Women counts for shit against your opinion

http://www.talkaboutdesign.com/2007/02/21/dolce-and-gabbana-ad/

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

282. The National Organization For Woman Does Not A 'Majority Of Women' Make. Try Again.

You said majority of women. You did not say the majority of women who belong to the national organization for women. Huge difference there. My point stands firm.

[Matariki]

284. I figured you would dismiss them. Start a poll if you are interested.

The ad was banned because of pressure from women's groups amongst others. I doubt any information will satisfy you.

Having more than one woman on this board tell you it's sexist or demeaning to women ought to make you a little less sure of your own opinion.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

287. Why Shouldn't I Dismiss Them? They Aren't A 'Majority Of Women'.

Since the argument that was put forth was referencing a majority of women overall, then when you return back using NOW as your proof, then you ABSOLUTELY should expect it to be dismissed as illegitimate within the direct contextual argument. That's just common sense logic.

But don't take that out on me. It was you who put forth the 'majority of women' argument to begin with. The fact that you can't just stand up and admit that you have no such proof and your original point was moot to begin with, but instead can only try and respond back with deflection, really isn't my problem or of my doing. Sorry. :hi:

[Matariki]

290. Oh Operationmindcrime - you are ALWAYS right

Honestly - ASK the woman on this board if they find the ad violent against women. I'm a woman on this board, I think it is depicting violence against woment. You are a man on this board, you don't see it.

That's 1 to 0 buddy.

[Lurking Dem]

291. I'm a woman on this board

and I find the ad neither violent nor offensive. :shrug:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

293. Just About Always. I've Had A Select Few Times I Wasn't, But They're Generally Few And Far Between.

Regardless, instead of deflecting the conversation to personal attack and different context, let's get back to focusing on the point shall we?

You said the majority of women would look at it and see rape. I said offer any proof to legitimize that claim or I will consider your point as completely moot. Since you have yet to offer any proof to that, then I guess your point is in fact moot.

Oh, and by the way, if one were to ask women "many think this picture represents rape. Do you agree?" I would not consider the answer to be valid as it was already compromised by the question since it already put a seed to the answer in the person's head. Instead, the valid way of capturing data on this would be to simply show the picture to women who are unfamiliar with the context and in a completely neutral way simply ask "what pops into your head when you see this ad?", as I did today to five different women. All 5 answered with things related to sex as opposed to rape.

So that makes it 5-1 me. :hi:

[Lurking Dem]

295. I got similar answers.

The best one was, "It reminds me of your last party. With much better looking guys."

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

296. ROFLMAO! Now THAT's A Heck Of An Answer! LOL

Thanks for the levity. :)

[Matariki]

331. heh - were the people at your party as bored?

Sorry for you if they were. When i've been to 'those' kind of parties, people always look much happier and engaged.

[Lurking Dem]

338. Actually, no.

There was too much....ummmmm....going on for boredom to set in. And we weren't having to wait for lights to be set up right, the photographer to finish his ranting at the make up girl, or pretending that when we broke for dinner there would actually be food and we would actually eat it.

[Matariki]

341. LOL

"or pretending that when we broke for dinner there would actually be food and we would actually eat it."

That's funny!

[salin]

378. held down - head turned away from the man on top of her...

here is another woman who sees it differently than you. But you can easily discount me (as many men do) when you learn that I am a rape survivor. No worry. I am very used to be discounted, dismissed and disbelieved as having any valid opinion - all because I was raped. Funny how our society works that way on this issue.

[Matariki]

281. You know, you don't really have much credbility on this one.

You seem far more interested and certain of your own opinion than in LISTENING to the women who are saying that *yes* they find this ad demeening. It's more important for you to win the argument. I suppose you also tell blacks what's racist and gays what's homophobic? Personally, if a black person tells me something is racist, I don't argue, I listen. If a number of black people tell me the same thing, I STFU AND LISTEN and respect the information.

Start a poll and ask what *women* think of this ad if you are so interested.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

283. This Post Is Beyond Laughable. If You Want To Debate Then Do So Respectfully. If Not, Then See Ya.

[Matariki]

286. Heh, I got OPERATIONMINDCRIME speechless. Must have made a valid point

:evilgrin:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

288. Valid? Far From It. One Based On Logical Ignorance And Personal Attack? Absolutely.

Your post wasn't responded to because it was just quite simply too ignorant and childish to warrant it.

[The Straight Story]

285. I think the point might be is that there is always someone who will be offended by most anything

So where do we draw the line? Christians might find X offensive, men might find Y offensive, women might find Z offensive and so on.

So should we stand by anyone, any group, that says something offends them and have it pulled?

I don't like most advertising as it is unrealistic usually and portrays both men and women in a poor light. Why are men seen as the aggressor here, is it because the advert people see men as rapists, especially young nicely built ones? Some see it as a rape, some don't.

It all goes back to the Rorschach test. Throw out something and ask what people see - and you will get a lot of different answers.

I agree some people see it as rape. But not all do. Why? does it make someone bad if they don't see it the way someone else sees it?

[Matariki]

289. I don't agree with the 'have it pulled' part

I agree we seem to have become a society where someone always seems to be offended. But have you considered that this is a temporary by-product of groups of people claiming equality in a society where RECENTLY they had none? It's not like some magic wand was waved in the 60's and we are all living harmoniously in perfect equality. There is still a struggle going on.

It's all well and good if you are part of the recently privileged group to accuse people of being 'easily offended', 'thin-skinned' or 'hysterical'. I would expect a little more sensitivity from people on a progressive board; to at least listen to the people the offending thing is most effecting. In this case it seems to be *mostly* men on the board arguing themselves blue that the ad isn't offensive or demeaning to women.

[The Straight Story]

300. It is a matter of view point

Some women don't see it that way, my wife didn't - she thought it kinda cool. My wife has been raped in her life and does not find it a funny subject at all. This ad just not seem like it was about rape to her.

You see it as rape, I can't change how you see it. I can respect your view, but that does not mean I won't see it as something else. Our experiences differ in life. I think most ads are too sexual in nature anyway and have no idea how that shit sells anything. Maybe I am just too old :) I prefer people not be treated as objects and to me beauty is more internal than external, not to say I cannot appreciate both.

I wonder too about this ad and others - who is it targeted to? Most ads in fashion mags and such seem targeted at women, and maybe some women fantasize about being surrounded by a bunch of boy toys and having sex with em - whom am i to tell em that such a desire is wrong? I have enough issues keeping my own life going in a positive direction ;)

I am glad the ad is gone simply because I hate dumb adverts, and this is one of them imho. Tell me why a shoe is something I want to buy. Is it comfy, well made, etc. Screw the image. I won't be sexy or desired no matter what shoe I am sporting!

If you see it as rape and you want to write them and tell em so, then more power to you. Go get em. Enough people do so, they pull it and move on. But just because I don't see it in the same light does not mean I am some stone ager, and because some women do not see it that way does not make them ignorant or wanting to be abused, etc and so on.

I CAN see WHY some would see it as rape. She is being held down by a man with an obvious desire that more is to follow. But I have been around the block sexually speaking and can see why some see it merely as a passionate moment of group sex where one woman is actually the one holding the power here. I won't go into details of my experiences :) but I can say that this ad struck me as more the woman having more power than the cabana boys.

So all I ask is that people understand that just because some don't see it the same way does not mean we are not on the same page on core issues.

over the snickers ad I have been called everything from a sex offender to a homophobe. I took the time, and almost started a thread on it, to call several people I know who are gay. My best friend, wife's best friend, my brother in law, and a guy I work with (who was fired from translating for the govt because he is gay). To a T all them said the same basic thing - the ad was funny, was a slick way of snickers to slide in two men kissing (you didn't used to see that on tv), and made fun of homophobes. All of them. I said the same thing here and I am a hater...it does not matter how I vote, how much I try and help people in the gay community (ask my best friend and his husband about that), or anything - the fact I disagreed with how some interpreted an ad campaign has given me a scarlet letter to some.

I was there when todd (james' husband) had to go in for testicular cancer - I took him (james was out of town working), held his hand afterwards, took him home, fed him, and made sure he made it through the day. he was a mess. I have supported gay people from their personal lives to sending emails and making phone calls. But here on DU I am a pariah because I don't agree 100% with everything from everyone about ads and such.

So this ad I am seeing the same things crop up i did there. If I don't see it the same way someone else does something is wrong with me, I am not sensitive enough, don't care enough, etc. Well I do care - I just don't always interpret things the same. I respect that others see it different - they are not whiners, and I am not a male chauvinist pig because I don't. We disagree over what we see and what it means. Welcome to religion and it's many denominations. Welcome to America where people tend to interpret the constitution in many different ways.

I am sorry you were offended - and i am glad the ad was pulled, more so because it was a dumb ass add. But I see it different than you do. Does that make me a bad person?

[Matariki]

314. The thing is - I'm not particularly offended by the ad

And truthfully, I'm far more offended by censorship. Market pressure is one thing but outlawing the ad? Uh-uh.

What bothers me is men telling women what is or isn't sexist, straights telling gays what is or isn't homophobic, etc.

I appreciate that you took the time to ask some gay people you know what they thought of the snickers ad, or your wife what she thinks of the shoe ad. I thought the snickers ad sounded funny but then I read what gay people on this board felt about it and began to see it from their point. Realizing of course that one person can't speak for the whole group they're part of, I feel it's polite to LISTEN instead of argue with what they find offensive to that group. I'm not walking in their shoes and the best way I can hope to have any understanding is to listen.

Does that make sense?

[The Straight Story]

330. It makes more sense than a lot of things I have heard here

And you are indeed correct and your post makes more sense than a lot I have heard here.

You are correct that it is polite to listen to WHY someone is offended, and I will admit I have not done that well. I am trying to though. I hope others on the same token are listening to why I believe some don't think something is offensive - and not resorting to labeling people.

To me it is a fairness thing - I do get why some were offended, and I respect and understand that. I can do so without labeling people as something (hopefully, shit - even I make mistakes on a daily basis, shame on me when i do so - but I do).

Some see the ad as something less offensive - and that is fine as well. I posted a thread a bit ago where I featured an art work and asked people what they saw. Everyone had a different answer. None was right, and none were wrong.

We are a big tent, and some people won't see things the same way. I don't see that as bad - I see it as a way we can all learn.

[Matariki]

336. Thanks. I feel sort of funny arguing this

I too fall on the opposite side of the 'outrage train', *especially* about sex ;-)

[Matariki]

50. What is especially creepy about this ad is the facial expressions

Apart from the typical vacuous fashion model look - the men look as if sex with the woman is the last thing they want. It's all business, as if they had a purely unsexual agenda to sexually dominate her. Which probably sums up the act of rape pretty accurately.

[DrunkenMaster]

53. We Better Ban Shakespeare, Plutarch, Reubens and Tennessee Williams!

We can't have work like "The Rape of the Sabine Women" or "A Streetcar Named Desire". Oh yeah, and Shakespeare wrote several rape scenes into his work, so we need to ban the bard as well.

[Matariki]

56. so, do you think ads using images of gassing jews is equivalent to Anne Frank's diary?

[DrunkenMaster]

59. a little red herring, eh?

Anne Frank's diary isn't fiction or a painting, it's a DIARY. FICTION and ART versus the recording of REALITY.

I would LOVE to hear a real-life example of people using concentration camp images to sell products....got one? I don't think so.

You still didn't answer the original post -- should we never produce "Titus Andronicus" or "The Rape of Lucrece" again?

[Matariki]

70. No, what we have is an advertisement depicting rape, which you are comparing to a Reuben's painting.

blech :eyes:

I agree with you about censorship but in cases like this, boycotts work wonders.

[DrunkenMaster]

75. Reubens painted rape too

and the Impressionists painted nymphs under attack from horny satyrs. Klimt painted Zeus raping Danea as a shower of gold.

The Impressionists especially caught hell for "vulgarity" and obscenity. Naopleon actually attacked a painting of COurbet's with his riding crop...

[Matariki]

79. Yes, I have a degree in Art.

And comparing this ad to Reubens isn't helping your argument. Focus on the censorship part and you'll make more sense.

[DrunkenMaster]

81. So you KNOW the what happened to Manet

and the rest of the Impressionists for exhibiting at the Salon de Refuses. They were vilfied with almost exactly the same hysterical, knee-jerk reactions I see here.

[KittyWampus]

84. Ruebens was portraying archetypical humanity as an artist. The D&G ad is Corporate Marketing

selling a product and deliberately feeding your Reptilian brain.

The corporate ad has several extra layers of manipulative behavior thrown in.

This isn't about censorship. It's about speaking out against a reprehensible marketing ploy.

But hey, Snickers should just go ahead with their anti-gay marketing campaign too I suppose.

[Matariki]

90. Yep, Cryingshame - those snickers ad were CUTTING EDGE, just like the works in the Salon des Refuses

And anyone who hated them has no vision or education in the arts. Philistines!

:rofl:

[DrunkenMaster]

92. Reubens created a product for SALE

He was the most successful painter of his era. He created work that was "classical" enough to pass muster for rape scenes above the couch.

[nashville_brook]

83. no one here is saying BAN this ad -- we are discussing WHY we don't care for the imagery

we get that you are into this stuff. we aren't. you think this ad rises to the level of the great of the last few centuries. we don't.

can't we just get along -- :evilgrin:

[DrunkenMaster]

95. we would get along just f**king fine

If you didn't accuse me of defending the ad because I've f**king "bonded" with the "rape" image on a subconcious level..

[nashville_brook]

134. concept. creativity. craftsmanship. why does this particular ad rank with

advertising's greatest campaigns...

ESPN SportsCenter, Little Caesars, MasterCard and Volkswagen?

[DrunkenMaster]

139. what does that have to do with

you accusing me of "bonding" with a rape image?

[nashville_brook]

176. see, you can't defend this work on it's own merit -- you just *like* it

you're allowed to like this image. but no one is buying that it's art. defend it on its own merit or admit the obvious.

you should find another way to defend this work. if you like it, you like it. WHY do you like it?

[Name removed]

274. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

292. Mr. Master...

are you now or have you ever been a member of a rape party?

[Beaverhausen]

54. LOL!!! D&G compares this piece of shit to Caravaggio

from the article linked above:

"Dolce & Gabbana defended the campaign as art in comments reported by La Vanguardia. "What has an artistic photo got to do with a real act?" the paper quoted the firm as saying. "You would have to burn museums like the Louvre or the paintings of Caravaggio.""

:rofl: artistic photo! :rofl:


:mad:

[DrunkenMaster]

55. YOUR opinion is more valid?

Somehow, I don't think we need would be censors deciding what is and what isn't art...

[Beaverhausen]

57. Yes

This isn't art - it is advertising - it is using a portrayal of a controversial sexual act to sell shoes.

[DrunkenMaster]

60. art never makes money?

What a joke -- you need to reread your art history.

[Beaverhausen]

64. And you need to look up the word "advertising" in the dictionary

[DrunkenMaster]

67. if you look up the concept of "patronage"

I don't think YOU or Rudy Guliani or Newt Freaking Gingrich or any other censorious a**hole has the right to declare what is and what isn't "art".

[Scout]

91. but YOU do? n/t

[NashVegas]

116. I Don't Think Patronage Applies Here

Patronage was a system where the artist got his name spread around, and the patron got their ego gratified by having universally-acknowledged good taste.

Most of the people who work in the creative departments of ad agencies will never have their names spoken, outside of industry awards shows.

[DrunkenMaster]

118. the artist got a whole lot more than "recognition"

they got CASH.

[NashVegas]

129. That's Only Good Once

You're the one who used the patronage system as an example, so I can only assume you must realize that system wouldn't have worked, for both the artist and the patron, if the artists remained anonymous.

[Marr]

185. Toulouse-Lautrec wasn't an artist?

Commerical work can be art, and self-proclaimed art can be crap.

The sort of hostile reaction this image is receiving actually makes me more inclined to call it art. But that word is so open to interpretation that it's practically meaningless.

[nashville_brook]

69. lessee.... Caravaggio or G&D advert.... hmmmmm

which would i hang in a museum to document humanity's rise to greatness:







or

[DrunkenMaster]

72. Do You read Art History?

Are you aware that the paintings of the Impressionists were physically attacked by the crowds who came to see the Expositions because they showed naked women in compromising positions with fauns and satyrs? That the French Academy declared them "vulgar" and "tasteless"?

Read more history, please.

[nashville_brook]

77. like you're the only person here who took art history in college. give us a break!

:rofl:


this isn't an impressionist work of art -- those guys aren't satyrs or fauns.

[DrunkenMaster]

78. Neither were the rapists of the Sabine Women

nor was Stanley in "A Streetcar Named Desire".

Try again, please.

[nashville_brook]

63. "when fashionistas start talking about ART, you know some serious shit is flying"

paraphrase from some comments i read on the ad.

[DrunkenMaster]

68. yeah, art and afashion have NEVER gone together

ever.

[nashville_brook]

71. wow... how much *do* you love that ad!

be honest. it does sumthin' fer ya!

[DrunkenMaster]

73. when all else fails, go ad hominem!

You are right, I MUST LOVE gang rape to defend this ad! There is just no fooling you....

On edit: Seriously, how do you manage to feed yourself?

[nashville_brook]

80. seriously...; is it THIS ad or ADVERTISING in general that you are so passionately defending

because we can talk about REAL artistic advertising all day long. this ad however, SUCKS.

the amount of energy you are expending on this piece of shit tells me that it REALLY really appeals to you on that subconscious level. you've become one with it.

[DrunkenMaster]

82. is that the best you can do?

Pathetic and ridiculous. Since I defend the ad I MUST be a subconscious rapist as well.

You and Adrea Dworkin! Congrats.

On edit: I also adore the fact that you assume -- on no evidence -- that I am male. WHO has the issues here?

[Matariki]

87. Um, your profile says you are male - are you lying?

[nashville_brook]

94. lets discuss how this ad rises to the level of say, a Volkswagon campaign...

debate parameters:

creatvity.
craftsmanship.
concept.


GO!

[Matariki]

85. Agreed - that's definitely the impression 'drunkenmaster' is giving

[DrunkenMaster]

88. Ya Got Me! I LOVE Gang Rape!

That is the ONLY possible way ANYONE could defend this ad! I MUST be just waiting for my chance....


Seriously, how do you people muster enough brain power to breathe?

[nashville_brook]

96. like you said: what man doesn't love aggressive women -- this must be heaven!

[DrunkenMaster]

99. what does that have to do with your original post?

Nothing. You accused me of defending the publication of this ad because I identified with the rape scenario.

[Scout]

97. well, until YOU came along, it was quite difficult!

:sarcasm:

:rofl:

[Matariki]

101. Seriously, what IS your point?

You are defending this particular ad - why? Do you think it's artistic? Do you think it has merit equal to Avant-garde works of the past? That's what you seem to be arguing. So what exactly do you think are the artistic merits of the ad?

One one hand you say it's not depicting gang rape, then you compare it to Rape of the Sabine Women. So which is it?

[DrunkenMaster]

107. That's Because I'm NOT sure

if the ad is depicting a rape or not and I'm a bit suspicious of those who claim to see it instantly.

My second point is that even IF it is, that does not automatically mean the photograph is devoid of artistic merit. Artists have painted controversial or graphic images including rape scenes for thousands of years. Many, including ones that are now our most beloved artists, were ridiculed and scorned in exactly the same fashion we have seen here in this thread. They were called perverts and degenerates in their day, and now college students hang their posters in their dorm rooms.

Do I think it is a good idea to use depicitons of rape to make money? Of course not -- it's a disgusting idea. Is that what this piece is doing? I'm not sure. Should a group of loudmouthed kneejerk reactionaries ban it from public display without a full debate that includes historical precendents? Absolutely not.

[Matariki]

128. I agree with you about censorship

and if that were your main point, we'd be in accord. Even with public debate I don't think censorship is a desirable thing.

However, I don't agree that the ad has any *artistic* merits whatsoever and building an argument around that premise isn't serving you well. Surely you must understand the difference between advertising and art? Even when you look at art as a sellable commodity it's NOT advertising. The sole purpose of an ad is to sell a product, not the ad itself. If the public boycotts the advertiser because of an offensive ad you can be damn sure they'll drop that ad. They won't be defending their 'art' and freedom of expression the way Joel-Peter Witkin or Andres Serrano had to.

You're putting up a far more passionate defense than Dolce and Gabbana ever would. That's what is making people wonder if it's the content you're defending and perhaps wonder why.

[DrunkenMaster]

135. I'm NOT claiming artistic merit

I am claiming that the concept of artistic merit is one that is socially malleable and almost never resides in knee jerk reactions like we have seen here.

Manet was called a pervert and his work was deemed without merit becasue of his hasty, incomplete style of impressionism. Nazis burned the "degenerate" art of Otto Dix, which can be viewed as very obscene.

I'm not defending this photo because I've "bonded" with it -- I find it interesting that is the ONLY reason you can think of -- but becasue I'm sick and tired of people thinking it is OK to limit free expression because they don't like what they see or read. I don't give a damn if it's the Harry Potter books or Huckleberry Finn or a stupid ad for shoes...STOP TRYING TO FORCE YOUR VALUES ON THE SPECTRUM OF FREE EXPRESSION.

[Matariki]

151. I agree with you - I'm trying to get you to focus on the more valid part of your argument.

[nashville_brook]

178. no one is LIMITING expression. we're CRITIQUING the degradation of women

to sell shoes.

[Matariki]

103. "you people"?

that's a good one!

[DrunkenMaster]

109. You People Who Called Me A Rapist-In-Waiting

Is THAT specific enough for you or are you going to accuse me of being a racist as well?

[nashville_brook]

112. reducto ad absurdum -- you lose!

blahahahahaha!

:rofl:

[DrunkenMaster]

115. not a chance

YOU were the one who write the post above. Anyone can read it, if you haven't edited it away.

You claimed that I was defending the ad becasue I had "bonded" with the rape image. That is without a doubt both disgusting and pathetic. I'll let anyone who reads your post -- don't edit it -- make thier own decision what it was you were calling me.

[nashville_brook]

126. settle down cowboy -- either make an argument for this being on par with

advertising that is universally recognized as exceptional... or pack up.

remember you parameters:

creativity.
craftmanship.
concept.


i eagerly await your defense.

[DrunkenMaster]

131. nice try

I'm not interested in defending the specific merits of this photograph: I'm interested in responding to kneejerk asshole censors who think they know what "right" expression entails.

Maybe you should just call it "Degenerate Art" and ask for it to be burned and banned...

[nashville_brook]

136. your argument doesn't work because i'm not calling it "degenerate art"

you are -- and you're defending it AS SUCH because you can't defend it on the level of CONCEPT, CREATIVITY AND CRAFTSMANSHIP.

or gee -- did you not take enough ART in college to be able to discuss these things.

[DrunkenMaster]

140. you called it a rape scene and accused me of bonding with it

Yeah, you're a star debater.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

141. People who took art in college...

know that what some consider art is simply a matter of opinion, and those that go on at lengths about how something they don't like isn't art is full of beans.

[Matariki]

148. So you think this ad is 'art' too? Cutting edge? Avant-garde?

And anyone who doesn't like it just doesn't 'get it'? Philistines?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

156. I think it's got merit.

It's certainly a good photograph.

[nashville_brook]

161. that will get you a big ZERO in crit -- WHY is it a "good" photo?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

169. Well, I'm no expert in photography...

but it strikes me as having good framing, good lines, good contrast, good rule of thirds...

If it wasn't being used in a commercial I wouldn't think the photo would be out of place in any collection of artistic photographs.

[nashville_brook]

189. still wouldn't pass -- WHY does it work.

everyone thinks art school was all crayons and playtime. it wasn't. you have to be able to defend your work just like any PROBLEM SOLVING exercise.

so. you *like* the "craftsmanship." you think it's a "technically" good photo. you're not sure why -- but you've referenced something about composition.

now -- what do you think about the CREATIVITY of the work? how do you defend the CONCEPT?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

200. I think the idea that art needs a concept...

is bullshit. Regardless of whatever you learned in your workshop's book.

"so. you *like* the "craftsmanship." you think it's a "technically" good photo. you're not sure why"

Would you disagree that the photo has technical merit?

As for "creativity" and "concept", I don't see any major difference between this, and, say, a mapplethorpe photograph.

Sounds like an idea for a commercial.

Announcer: "We've secretly replaced this art student's Mapplethorpe photo with a jeans commercial. Let's see if she can tell the difference."

Frankly, I think you're only judging it on it's subject matter. Which is a terrible method to judge art.

[nashville_brook]

210. advertising is 'problem-solving' -- how does this ad SELL SHOES?

that would be the concept we are looking for here.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

220. Well, at one level...

it's a sexy commercial. And sex sells.

Secondly, whether it was intentional or not, it's generated controversy. And controversy sells.

[nashville_brook]

150. actually, in art school we have to pass critique. this is when work is assessed

on it's merits defined by:

concept
creativity
craftsmanship


you don't go to art school to bless every visual image as "art." that's a tired old cliché.

[Matariki]

154. "you don't go to art school to bless every visual image as "art." that's a tired old cliché."

tell it sister!

[nashville_brook]

158. got your back

:evilgrin:

my two favorite things rolled into one hot, steamy thread: art and patriarchy.

[DrunkenMaster]

162. don't forget your third favorite thing:

baseless accusations of subconscious rape desires against people who disagree with you.

[DrunkenMaster]

159. So I'm Curious

when you were in workshops, did you accuse those who disagreed with you of being closet rapists? I'll bet it was a GREAT class!

Seriously, though -- how entitled do you think you are to be able to make eternal claims of merit?

[nashville_brook]

167. i haven't accused anyone of being a rapist. i think this AD is sexist.

you equate critque of "sexism" with critique of "sex" -- that's the weakness of your position.

[DrunkenMaster]

171. you accused me of being a subconcious rapist

and I've already quoted you several times. STOP LYING.

[nashville_brook]

181. saying you LIKE this image and saying you're a rapist are two different things.

you're defending this image as if you had produced it yourself. you obviously think it's pretty swell.

so... WHY is it swell?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

172. Sure you did.

And you owe him an apology.

[DrunkenMaster]

174. BornAgain,

I've written some truly stooopid things in these forums, and some of them were in debate with you.

Thanks.

[nashville_brook]

182. blahahahaha! poor fellow can't defend himself and suddenly the girl owes HIM

an apology.


mmmmmmmmmManly.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

186. ...

You're not fooling anybody.

You screwed up. And everybody knows it.

Yes, you owe an apology.

[nashville_brook]

202. here's what "everyone" knows...

there's a certain contingent of guys who stalk the Women's Rights forum to pick fights. they also pile on any thread where women discuss sexism in general. these guys attack all women as being sexless "Dworkinites" if they dare critique anything as reinforcing patriarchal values. to them, a woman who finds sexism tasteless, is an undesireable woman -- or, that's the fulcrum of the argument most often leveled against us.

among politically aware women, a man who defends sexism would be shunned in real life. the only place for shunned men to defend sexism is annonymously, online.

guys who are comfortable with their power and sexuality don't pick these fights -- they might actually critique sexism themselves. politically aware women such as the ones found in DU Women's Right's forum, describe these men as "desirable" and seek relationships with them in real life. so, when it is said that feminist women are sexually less attractive, that's half true. we are less desireable to sexist men and find sexist men undesireable.

which begs the question:
why do these guys spend SO MUCH time posting to women they don't like, and who don't like THEM?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

212. Ah, it's a conspiracy theory.

oookay.

:crazy:

[Goblinmonger]

221. I tried to keep out of this little argument

but it is just ridiculous that you are arguing from a "patriarchy is bad" standpoint and then insult his masculinity. Are you serious? You do owe an apology. You told him that he like the picture because he had bonded with the image and subconsciously like the rape imagery.

And then you insulted his manhood because patriarchy is bad. Wow.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

160. Is that where you got that from?

The

"concept
creativity
craftsmanship"

jazz?

Sounds like something somebody read out of a book.

[DrunkenMaster]

119. I'll Quote You DIRECTLY

"the amount of energy you are expending on this piece of shit tells me that it REALLY really appeals to you on that subconscious level. you've become one with it."

[Marrah_G]

133. Now now....

You didn't respond in the standard, approved manner. In the future please refrain from having an original thought or feeling of your own since it upsets the neighborhood.

:sarcasm:

About the original topic: ~shrug~ I didn't find it offensive at all. It depends on how you are looking at the picture. If it is offensive to you then don't buy the product and voice your reasons why it offended you. On the other hand you cannot expect everyone else to see things the same way you do and get angry with them if they don't.

[DrunkenMaster]

138. thank you very much.

I appreciate your response. I don't like being called a rapist in waiting, or a subconcsious rapist, or any other kind of rapist.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

143. I'm reminded of the "Happy Feet" thread.

Wherein somebody thought the penguins were scary and racist.

[blondeatlast]

315. A classic. Wish I'd thought to bookmark it. nt

[mongo]

187. Marrah_G

:applause: :woohoo: :applause:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

124. My goodness.

That's almost as silly as saying it's depicting rape.

[sakabatou]

105. Kurose...

:grr:

[ReverendDeuce]

108. Rape? Oh god... that's a fairly tame ad, IMO...

D&G are clearly in the right on this. Backwards countries, indeed.

[nashville_brook]

110. patriarchy is OH so sexxxy! and a discussion of the Rape of the Sabine Women

"...a sexual system of power in which the male possesses superior power and economic privilege. Patriarchy is the male hierarchical ordering of society.... The patriarchal system is preserved, via marriage and the family, through the sexual division of labor and society..."


this image was not produced to sell shoes. it was not produced to exhalt the rape of the sabine women. as a matter of fact, the event this image portrays is a women's revolt and the response it generated. message: buck the system and it will rape you, stealing your sexual and familial autonomy.

[DrunkenMaster]

111. was it made for money or patronage?

Then it was made for profit. Just because it is old doesn't change that.

[KittyWampus]

132. Art devoid of meaning is just a product. As an artist, my work is much more than a commodity

and every other artist I know would share a similar sentiment.

Your understanding of art is extremely banal.

Even when Warhol painted a soup can it was making a meaningful comment about consumerism and American culture.

When Duchamp put a urinal on display he was making a meaningful comment about Artistic Choice and the Artistic Process.

Duchamp did NOT display a urinal to try and sell urinals for a corporation who manufactures such products.

[DrunkenMaster]

144. warhol sold his work like it was disappearing.

Wow, using the man who destroyed the concept of high art to defend it...nice reversal.

On edit: wanna debate what Warhol would have thought of this ad?

[KittyWampus]

149. You have no understanding of Art or Artists. Warhol produced art with MEANING

He made intentional statements with his work about Consumerism.

And his canvas of a soup can was not made to SELL SOUP.

The subliminal meaning and purpose of the D&G ad is "enjoy the thrill of gang rape when you buy our shoes".

And the marketers and photographer who came up with the D&G ad had that as their goal.

[DrunkenMaster]

166. it had already sold soup!

Warhol's work was "pre-sold" before he made it!


Again, I don't see the violence in the ad. Sorry.

[The Doctor.]

370. Well it certainly seems they felt there was

some target market for that ad.

Obviously they didn't do any homework.

I mean, Christ... it's not like an add like that is going to find it's way outside of that *obviously tiny* target market and on to discussion boards or anything. :eyes:

No one talks about shit like that y'know.

[nashville_brook]

155. why not discuss this ad based in IT'S merits?

i know you'd rather role-play -- but i'm seriously interested in your critique of THIS ad. you oughta give a shot.

[Matariki]

137. jeez - an artist selling their work IS NOT THE SAME as an advertisement selling a product.

apples to oranges, nonsensical argument.

[DrunkenMaster]

142. tell that to every musician

currently selling their "indie" rock to automakers....

[Matariki]

146. If they wrote the song for the ad in the first place you'd have a glimmer of hope at making a point.

Those a called 'jiggles' in the advertising business.

[DrunkenMaster]

164. so where is the boundary between them

and who makes that decision?

[Matariki]

180. C'mon, that's a no-brainer. You're just belaboring a poorly made point now.

An existing song that a company pays a fee to use vs. hiring musicians to write a song for a product.

I'm done with this conversation. It's getting tedious.

[DrunkenMaster]

277. not at all

a post above mentioned Lautrec as a great example of the almost nonexistent line between art and commerce and I think it is a fine one to mention. Lautrec created the advertising poster, for christsake. Are you going to tell me Toulouse Lautrec was NOT an artist?

It is obvious you want to use "art" to create a niche for yourself emotionally. You're "special" and "different" because YOU are an ARTIST.
It allows you to feel superior and justified in using baseless slurs and meaningless cliches.

It's kinda sad.

Sayonara.

[Ursus Rex]

127. It's "Derelicte"!

first The Onion fell to life-imitating-art, now it's Zoolander - satire, parody, and cynicism just can't keep up

edited to change "reality" to "art"

[Marr]

168. I'd assumed that the woman had just passed out, having not eaten anything since

January, and the shirtless fellow was just trying to help.

[Lurking Dem]

278. LOL!

That was awesome!

[likesmountains 52]

297. Thanks for the laugh...sorely needed after browsing through the thread!

[HardRocker05]

183. good. nt

[Matariki]

294. knock yourselves out

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x363018

[lies and propaganda]

298. gang rape? fucking stupid.

so now if a woman happenss to not be 100% standing up, and their are dues around her standing, and OMG topless!

rape! help!

LETS FOCUS ON SHIT THAT ACTUALLY MATTERS!

This is SICK that this topic is off little or any concern with all the shit we have to be focusing on right now.

[Lurking Dem]

299. I think it boils down to moral judgment.

A GOOD woman would never allow herself to enjoy more than one man, you see.

That would be something that only sluts would do or a woman who was being forced.

Closed minds are everywhere.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

308. That's a really good point.

I think you may have hit the nail on the head.

[undergroundpanther]

312. People who believe in a just world

Kill off some of their moral character just to hold onto the lie and pretend "she asked for it" or She got what she deserved".The world is made MORE unjust and more disgusting by those kinds of Beliefs.


Rationalizing rape and blaming the victim or excusing the perps, or saying it's just an ad, does not excuse the evil that rape IS and pictures of rape are as disgusting as rape is..because it is wrong.

Nor does calling pictures of rape "art" make it not rape and not wrong.
Freedom of expression does not make the vile expressions of racism, sexism,rape ,torture or verbal abuse alright.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

313. I'm not following you at all.

"Rationalizing rape and blaming the victim or excusing the perps, or saying it's just an ad, does not excuse the evil that rape IS and pictures of rape are as disgusting as rape is..because it is wrong."

1. It IS just an ad.

2. Depictions of rape are not as disgusting as rape.

"Nor does calling pictures of rape "art" make it not rape and not wrong."

This picture is not rape, it does not even depict rape. There's nothing wrong with it.

"Freedom of expression does not make the vile expressions of racism, sexism,rape ,torture or verbal abuse alright."

Of course not. Nor does this ad express racism, sexism, rape, torture, or verbal abuse.

[undergroundpanther]

321. Being held down against your will

Is abusive, Making pictures of an abusive scene promotes the notion that shit like that is normal and expected behavior.Men dominate and are entitled to rape. That is why it's wrong. As for just world READ THIS and put it together..THINK. better yet empathize!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x362630.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

324. This ad is not abusive.

Nor was the model being held down against her will. Nor is she depicting a woman being held down the will.

[Lurking Dem]

347. The more this continues

the more right it sounds.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

362. Post #317's a gem.

When you think about it.

[Lurking Dem]

365. LOL

Yeah.

They DO have an outlet store in Vegas though.

[bigwillq]

302. The ads are art

and will be interpreted in a variety of different ways.

What ever happened to freedom of speech?

I may see it one way, you in another.

That's the way life is.


I find the ads very sexy. I dig them.

[Name removed]

307. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lurking Dem]

320. The poster doesn't agree with your depiction

so now they must think Abu Ghraib was a turn on?

That is so totally beyond The Pale.

You have absolutely NO concept of Dominance and submission in a consensual relationship. NONE.

[Greyskye]

371. Thank you.

You have hit the proverbial nail on the head. I think that if the person you responded to was aware of the high percentage of Type A personality women (and men) who enjoy the type of consensual relationship you are referring to, their head might just explode.

[Lurking Dem]

373. Very likely.

Power is exchanged. It's not given away to the wind. The CEO's, lawyers, doctors, etc. of both sexes that enjoy these relationships are the farthest thing from "sick" I know.

[bigwillq]

322. I thought the D&G ads that show men

being dominated were hot too.

I did not, however, think that Abu Gharib was hot. That was torture, not art.

These ads, to me, ME!, are sexy and sensual.

Like I said, people will interpret these ads differently and I respect the opinions of those who disagree with me.

However, I do feel you are way off base in judging me as insecure and sick. Because I find these ads sexy does not make me sick or insecure nor do I like abuse or any human, male of female.

I am just not seeing the violence or abuse in these ads. Again, other opinions will vary, so be it.

[Marrah_G]

332. This one takes the cake

You are actually comparing a fashion layout to prisoner abuse in Iraq?

Here is a CLUE:

In Iraq people were tortured and raped while other people photographed it and laughed.

In the ad....yes, ad, as in NOT REAL...a woman and a man were photographed consentually (and paid well) in a sexually suggestive pose and then photos of other men were photoshopped in around them as if watching them.

Those are two VERY different things.

Now if YOU think it suggests rape then call the company and complain, post here and state your views on why you think that. But saying someone who DOES NOT SEE THE PHOTO AS DEPICTING RAPE must think the Iraq pictures are art and condones rape is just fucking sick. Disagreeing is one thing, slinging disgusting insults is another

[Scooter24]

306. I personally love Dolce & Gabbana

Their jeans are incredible.

As for the ad, I couldn't care less. The ad did what it was supposed to do- get people talking. Now thanks to the reaction, D&G sales are more than likely up. They haven't lost me as a customer, in fact, I want a pair of those jeans that the man holding the supposedly "rape victim" is wearing.

That's what a good ad is supposed to do.

[undergroundpanther]

311. Another

Just world consumer bobble-head with no empathy for others suffering I guess. Go ahead empower yourself and spend money and play make believe the world is just.Live in fantasy land where you never feel true power.And never really control your own life.Live the lie until someone with real power says enough and kicks your ass for being such asshole..

[nashville_brook]

317. anyone who pays $750 bucks for a pair of jeans already LOVES getting RAPED

http://www.bergdorfgoodman.com/store/catalog/prod.jhtml?itemId=prod16110022&parentId=cat213542&masterId=cat248700&index=19&cmCat=cat000000cat000002cat000008cat30005cat20053cat248700cat213542

DRY CLEAN ONLY!

[Matariki]

339. !

:rofl:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

348. Oh my goodness.

Did you just tell a rape joke?

[Deja Q]

316. I know shock tactics generate money, but isn't that scene a bit too bloody far?!

:wow:

Degenerate. :(

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

318. bloody?

:shrug:

[noamnety]

319. My summary of the thread so far

A large number of women - including national women's organizations - find the ad to be offensive, in that it promotes eroticizing the domination of women (if not flat out gang rape).

The reaction of a few: "who the fuck cares whether the ad is offensive to anyone, so long as I think it's hot?"

Study after study shows that this sort of image is not only pervasive in our culture, but pervasive in a sexist way (i.e. overwhelmingly showing domination by men of women). Study after study shows that this sort of image damages women by influencing the way men and women perceive themselves and the opposite gender. In other words, the studies show that this has a real, and negative effect, on women.

The reaction of a few: "who the fuck cares whether the ad is harmful to anyone, so long as I think it's hot?"

[nashville_brook]

323. love your observation!

totally right on!

[noamnety]

333. I can't help wondering

What the reaction here would be, if they put out an ad showing a black man hanging by a rope from a tree, and a buncha white guys standing around him below. Let's say the expression on the black guy's face didn't look like he was in pain, it was more of a neutral look.

Ooooh, and the black guy would be wearing nice shoes.

Acceptable ad?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

342. No need to wonder.

There was a thread awhile back about a rather cruel display of racism. People were making fun of black people, and gospel music, and so on.

The reaction was horrible. People were actually defending that "art."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=5906664

[bettyellen]

351. they hang a black penguin in the movie "Happy Feet" ?!?! Um, I didn;t think so.....

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

354. They don't have a lynching, no.

But it's a very racist movie, and it encourages lynching.

You do agree, don't you?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

327. My summary so far.

OP: Italy censors shoe commercial, citing gang rape.

Person 1: That's terrible.

Person 2: There isn't any rape going on in that picture.

Person 1: You're a rapist.

Person 2: I'm a woman.

Person 1: You're mindless and brainwashed.

[Lurking Dem]

329. Bingo.

I'm apparently also sick and contributing to the demoralized, depraved view of women in today's society.

[Matariki]

328. good post

now prepare to get flamed/ridiculed/dismissed by those few.

on edit: haha - i see one of them even beat me to this post

[Name removed]

335. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

337. The woman's dry humping the air.

If that gentleman weren't helping her, she might slip and hurt her back.

:shrug:

[Name removed]

345. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

352. Who's laughing?

I'm quit serious. Wild sex is a leading cause of injury in the home.

"I hate bullies who minimize traumas like rape like you do here .Be glad you are typing online and not saying this shit in person..
You will be typing in air Cause you are on ignore after I say this.Because you proved yourself to my satisfaction to be a morally degenerate scumbag and beneath me.."

I might be offended if I didn't think you were off your meds again.

[Marrah_G]

343. That is just YOUR interpetation of the picture

NOT all women who have been raped will look at that picture and see a rape photo.

I am a woman, yes I have been raped. THAT picture does not look like a rape to me.

Now you are welcome to your opinions, but your vicious insults towards others is very, very wrong.

I find your words far more offensive then that photo.

[Lurking Dem]

350. "I find your words far more offensive then that photo."

No kidding. And horribly abusive.

[undergroundpanther]

361. Enable much?

Ooh yeah you so healthy. Look I see what I see because I will not deny. You can deny what you see all you want . Maybe you have no clue what abuse IS because you don't have boundaries..I dunno..Or you never learned how things like this ad dis-empower and dehumanize women..but I am not the only person seeing a degradation and implied rape in the ad.
And I have been raped and I fought back too..I have PSTD what is your point? I don't want men thinking women want like or deserve to be treated in that way and I think it's sick that some think it's hot.
I also don't care what you think of me. I say what I say. put me on ignore if I upset you more than an ad that looks like rape.Do it for your own mental health,IF that is what your comments are motivated by.

[Marrah_G]

368. Work on your own issues

Thank you for your back-handed insult...err I mean "concern". I am quite healthy and I worked hard to get there. I'm not going to debate this with you any further because you have lost even the slightest bit of civility. I'll leave you to sling more shit at people who haven't added you to their ignore list yet.

[undergroundpanther]

391. I am hunny

By confronting just the type of person that would minimize what happened to me ,by claiming shit like it's all in my head, namely YOU. Yes you ARE an enabler. Work on YOUR issues dear. Standing up against a cultural sickness doesn't get innocent people hurt, more often than not assholes tend to shoot the messengers because they are cowards and play make believe. Just as this merry little clique of a few certain mouthy respondents are are trying to do here.Trying to minimize it invalidate me and shut me up..Hunny I won't enable by stand OR perpetrate a cultural sickness because some emotionally dead people think staged abuse is"hot.But enabling and denying a cultural sickness DOES hurt innocent people by proxy. Get a competent therapist that isn't a moral coward .You'll need it.

[dsc]

326. After looking at the ad it is pretty hard for me to think it isn't a rape ad

I don't agree with banning it via government action, but a boycot forcing them to back down is another matter.

[undergroundpanther]

340. I'd take the assholes

Who think making an ad like that is OK ..I'd want them to do a special sort of time.. To sit and listen in on rape crisis calls. I want them to see the actual damage to real people,rape causes to the souls of women. I want them to see the suffering up close and face to face with no way to hide. Let them hear the women's stories in group Therapies and watch them break apart inside cut up their arms and be in terror and see how rape ruined their lives and relationships..Make these assholes see and feel the END RESULTS of what their sick ad promotes. Make it PERSONAL. Make these marketers so ashamed of printing that ad they wish they were DEAD.
And If I was lucky a few might kill themselves in a fit of guilt and shame.A few might step up and speak out against idiots who find abuse "hot".

[Lurking Dem]

346. I'm a survivor of a sex crime

and I do not find the ad offensive. The ad has nothing to do with rape or anything non consensual. NOTHING!

Dislike the ad, feel offended by it, bitch about the ad, but for G-d's sake quit projecting your view of the world on everybody else and accusing them of horrible things.

[Marrah_G]

349. BINGO!

[undergroundpanther]

353. Excuse me

But pinning someone down and making an ad that looks like rape is SICK.
There used to be laws against photographing and selling a crime in progress.That had a valid purpose ads like this BLUR the lines.
And I do think there is something very depraved about even thinking an ad like that was OK. Some people who have been through trauma re-traumatize and some go into denial.People react in different ways. I prefer to stand up instead of stand by.

[Marrah_G]

358. In your mind it looks like rape

Not everyone thinks that. Not every man or woman who holds down their partners wrist during intimacy is a rapist. Some people even like HANDCUFFS! Your comments on this thread have been extremely insulting to fellow DU posters and are over the top.

[Lurking Dem]

360. You are NOT "standing up".

"Standing up" would be stating your point and why you feel that way. What you're doing is beating people over the head with offensive verbiage, heinous accusations, and depicting their personal sexual practices as depraved and sick.

So "stand up" all you want. Just stop standing on my fucking bondage cuffs.

[Marrah_G]

363. "just stop standing on my bondage cuffs"

:rofl:

That one made me snarf my cocoa!

[Lurking Dem]

367. Sorry 'bout that!

I think I'm going to go for something a little stronger than cocoa at this point.

[WhollyHeretic]

364. Not to mention wishing violence and death on people who disagree

[dsc]

355. Clearly it could go further

but I think in totality it is trying to project a gang sex thing going on. It also sure doesn't look like the woman is having a good time. I am glad you survived and hope you are OK but on this we will have to agree to disagree. To me this ad crosses a line. I am not as adament about the punishment as the person you responded to, but I sure would join a boycot of D and G.

[noamnety]

356. I'm glad for you that you aren't disturbed by it.

Others clearly are very disturbed by it.

The fact that you aren't personally offended by it doesn't negate that others are deeply offended.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

357. People are disturbed by lots of things.

Shoe commercials, cartoon penguins, Nickelodeon children's bands...

[Marrah_G]

359. nor does it make those not offended some kind of monsters

[The Doctor.]

366. The moral of this thread, apparently, is;

"When men are portrayed as being aggressive with a woman, it's dehumanizing and degrading to all women everywhere, promotes the normalcy of subjugation, and promotes rape."

-And-

"When women are portrayed as being aggressive with a man, it's liberating and empowering for women, it promotes confidence, and cripples an outdated paradigm."

-Got it!

[lukasahero]

394. Sorry, can you point me to where there's a substantive discussion in this thread about

women being portrayed as aggressors that supports your assertion? Key word being "substantive discussion".

[The Doctor.]

397. What's wrong with my synopsis?

-There is truth to it you know.

Someone did mention that it would be outrageous for 'big women' to be dominating a man. I do not know whether they were being sarcastic or not, nor was it the sole basis for my post.

Do you disagree with it?

[smoogatz]

374. It's not all that different from most "high fashion" print ads--

super-skinny woman as semi-comatose blow-up doll surrounded by admiring but effeminate men. What strikes me about this one is that the effeminate men appear to be not so much pondering rape as the possible theft of the blow-up doll's shoes--which are pretty fabulous. Like most such ads, this one is silly and tacky and intended to stir up a bit of controversy. It has apparently succeeded in that small ambition.

[Rhythm]

389. Excerpt from the WaPo fashion section, Feb. 25th

Seems that it's not just the ads with a problem...

There were stilettos at Dolce & Gabbana that looked to be about six inches high. They bent and wobbled each time a model took a step. They made runway pro Gisele Bundchen stumble. They were so perilous that someone should have complained to OSHA. Those are the kinds of shoes that tick a woman off. They make her paranoid: Surely, the designer must hate me.

At Dolce & Gabbana, there was technical proficiency and design skill in the clothes, but there was no subtlety or restraint in the presentation. The designers noted that they have shifted their interest from creating clothes that are "molto sexy" -- which has always been their mantra when building their collections -- to those that are erotic. Apparently the difference has to do with the amount of patent leather in the collection, the height of the heels and the degree to which the corsets prevent a woman from taking a deep breath.

The designers' runway Thursday afternoon was filled with women wearing tight leather everything, carrying crystal-studded riding crops, hiding behind black patent leather eye masks and swaddled in leopard coats encased in black tulle.

It is impossible to discuss the designers' ready-to-wear without considering the photo exhibition in which they are the stars. The images were originally shot by photographer Steven Klein for W magazine, and they reveal the designers, Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana, in various stages of undress and in situations that reveal their secret erotic fantasies. (Klein interviewed them, thus ensuring the pictorial accuracy.) In the exhibition's opening photograph, Gabbana reclines on a bed in only his briefs and a pair of stilettos. In another photograph, Dolce lies on the ground on his back as a woman stands over him. Her stiletto-clad foot rests on his naked chest. He's staring up her skirt. Other images combine rosaries, nudity, the iconic "mafia widow" and an admiring homoerotic aesthetic.

Ordinarily, one would be loath to engage in pop psychology to make sense of a designer's collection. But Dolce and Gabbana have given viewers the equivalent of an illustrated guide to their therapist's notebook. They've invited folks to ponder their mindset.

What does it mean when all the women in the images seem to be portrayed as some tortured combination of Freudian cliches? What does it mean when designers invite their professional colleagues to contemplate their life-size, semi-nude portraits? The photographs ask the viewer to decide whether they are art or porn. Perhaps they are simply artful pornography.

Fashion design is a highly personal expression. After all, designers are not merely creating a bunch of frocks. They are helping individuals define themselves. They are offering a definition of beauty and helping the culture place value on certain aesthetics.

On the runway, two talented designers have decided to use their skill to craft a fantasy world in which women are alternately dominant and submissive. In one moment, they're using their sexuality to gain the upper hand. In the next, they're practically bound and gagged. But nowhere in the Dolce & Gabbana imagination are men and women equal. The clothes may not be pornographic, but their message is certainly obscene.

One has to ask this uncomfortable question: Do these designers actually like women? Or more specifically, do they respect them?

Whole article here in the WaPo:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/24/AR2007022401477.html?sub=AR

[omega minimo]

390. Could DU agree to consider the studies, literature, etc. on imagery in advertising so that

Could DU agree to consider the studies, literature, etc. on imagery in advertising so that
just talking about whether "we" see it or "we think" this or that about it could be based on actual information?

It's not even a question or a matter of opinion. Folks who dispute it might do a little reading about media imagery and the power of advertising (or manufacturing consent)-- then consider how ELSE they're being manipulated without knowing it.........

This thread has a whole series of ad photos and comments
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=357330&mesg_id=358213

[HuffleClaw]

392. bwaahhhhahahaaaaaa

that ad is a LOT tamer than i was expecting from the comments i've been reading about it. sounds like clever marketing to me.

[Danger Mouse]

393. I don't know if it's a rape ad. It looks to be in poor taste, though,

and was a stupid decision on the part of the designers.