When did D&G hire Sony's advertising team?

I think everyone looks too freakin' bored to be there for this to invoke anything emotional. But then, NOW wouldn't have something for their latest fundraiser letter.

I always wonder why models don't refuse to participate in these kinds of ads. Who knows; maybe some did, but maybe there are always enough in line behind the conscientious objectors.

The picture does make me uncomfortable.

Out of all the ads on the NOW list, the Mitchum one is the only one that strikes me as outrageously misogynistic. Ick.

I think the Dolce and Gabbana folks purposely kept the ad vague enough in CYA mode.

I think that it's just generally icky and not sexy. I don't think that the ad expressly imply or portray gang rape, but the imagery is just sketchy enough to be unpleasant to look at.

I think everyone looks too freakin' bored to be there for this to invoke anything emotional.

@emjsea: *In Tyra Banks Voice* You have to portray sexual assault but then make it model.

I don't think the Paul Mitchell is bad: it's for a product that reduces frizz. If hair with a lot of volume can be called full bodied doesn't make since to call flat, straight hair skinny? I don't think it'd work as well if they called it quiet or muted hair.

Mitchum can go *censored*

This is such an old ad. This came out around 1 year ago.

If anything this portrays an orgy, not rape. There's plenty of ways to have sex and one involves holding the girl down.

These models are probably gay anyway, so it's just role play.

It does not look like sexual assualt to me. All the guys in the add are clearly gay.

To me, the center part is def. meant to be erotic, but Emjsea is right; everyone else looks too bored for it to be a gang rape issue. The guy on the lower left looks like he's about to walk off screen for something more interesting.

The Misty cigarettes ad would have been more effective if it were tagged: "Light & Sassy - just like Blossom"

@bdgbill: Nuts, that was my thought too

I can't imagine that they were thinking "Hey, let's use rape to promote our product". But then again, looking at it, I really can't figure out what the hell they WERE intending here.

It just looks dirty and sweaty and oookey to me. And where are the clothes, exactly? That's what drives me nuts about these campaigns.

Do you all remember when Abercrombie and Fitch used to sell clothes that my dad would wear? And, more importantly, when those clothes actually were included in their advertisements? I know that sex sells, but this is ridiculous.

My problem is that they are marketing to kids. This is America so they have a right to show whatever they want as long as it is legal.

The only way this type of advertising will stop is when consumers decide they have had enough and quit buying from companies that depict such sexual images.

Unfortunately, many parents have decided not to raise their kids and have let TV raise them instead. The advertisers know and love this fact and will continue to target kids with sex appealing advertising.

D&G must have gone religious.

@loquaciousmusic: It's not about clothes. It's about image(not picture kind image)

@BigNutty: whoa whoa whoa. Where are you getting the 'they are marketing to kids' from? This ad was in Esquire, and it's been run in many other fashion magazines that aren't catered towards juveniles.

@Rectilinear Propagation: LOL re your Tyra Banks impression.

People still pay attention to NOW?

The problem I have is that NOW is a bunch of killjoys if you look at their whole list. Yeah, the main add is pretty bad. But to get pissed off at the Dfrnt add? Or the Paul Mitchell "Super Skinny" hair product add?

My impression is that it is supposed to be group sex, and not explicitly rape -- I imagine it is supposed to be somewhat ambiguous, and the "mystery," if you can call it that, is supposed to draw attention to the ad. In that respect, they certainly succeeded. I would say it is in poor taste, (and not very artistically interesting), but a legal ban seems perhaps too far. I certainly won't be buying any of their products though.

They're all the same guy. It's all psychobabble imagery like that bad Jennifer Lopez movie.

I think it actually would have been brilliant if they photoshopped the guy's face onto the other models including the girl.

Chris Hansen voice: I like rape! (for the Don and Mike fans :P)

I actually took a moment to try and appreciate the picture as I would a piece of art...something about the way her heels are planted and the line it forces her legs to create is appealing. Might be a nearly equilateral triangle tilted to the left with one of the points not clearly defined, but under her butt, kind of in the air.

Using her calves and arm of the guy holding her creates a nice triangle ending in the sky towards the top (maybe even off page a little, which is also appealing to me).

I probably thought way too hard about it, but I like the woman and the pic's composition.

Yeah, right. Like those guys even realize there's a woman on set. They're desperately hoping she's a stand-in for the A&F surfer model who's being fluffed off to one side.

My favorite part of the NOW listing is the "OFFENSIVE TO WOMEN" watermark they stamp on every ad on the list.

What I think is more offensive (to women, especially, but really everyone) than any of the ad's is NOW's attempt to tell the readers how to think and feel.

Fashion ads almost always make no freaking sense and exist only to connect some sexual symbolism with clothing or merchandise.

If more than one man was touching her I might think it had "gang rape" imagery to it, it seems more voyuerstic to me.

Why is anyone suprised about imagery like this in a magazine ad? The raping of women has been considered entertainment in films for years.

I'm surprised we haven't covered this one yet...

[www.youtube.com]

Or maybe it was posted and I missed it.

I don't find it offensive. I look through fashion magazines all the time, I tend to just find it strange and vague, very suggestive, but not obscene.

I meant to mention that the interesting thing about the Dove Onslaught clip is that Dove parent Unilever is simultaneously pushing their Axe body spray with ads like this: [video.google.com]

@liquisoft: Agreed.
There will always be controversy over everything. The clergy wanted Michelangelo to cover up the nudity on the Sistine Chapel. When I was in college, the campus store had novelty posters, and one was of a hot girl with the caption "Freshmen: Get 'Em While They're Skinny!" It caused brew-ha-ha when an article in the school paper was published, and all these groups and Anti-Anorexia organizations came out of the woodwork to sling mud at each other. That's a healthy way to go through your life: argue over everything.

I'm not sure I'd call them offensive per se, but out of those ads many of them I can definitely see as promoting negative images of/to women, such as the Calvin Klein and Paul Mitchell ads that promote the idea of being super skinny. The mitchum one I'd also agree is kinda misogynistic.

I just don't understand the Cesare Paciotti one at all. I'm not sure what type of message that ad is trying to send.

And I didn't get "aimed at pre-teen girls" for the Misty ad. The girl there doesn't look pre-teen to me. Young girl? sure. But she doesn't look preteen.

Yea.. gang rape, that's it. Granted at least this ad has a "sexual tone" to it, so I'll give them that. Nothing like an organization going to extremes and making themselves look like asses. Gang rape.. yea, that's it.

I thought when I finally made it to the "Until I find a real man, I'll take a real smoke." I figured we'd finally get to see: "OFFENSIVE TO MEN" - but alas no, they were still demeaning women while simultaneously implying there is a shortage of good men. Hah.

@CoffeeCup: I just realized that my last comment paired "vague" and "suggestive" together, which is bizarre, but I meant that the ad was vague in its intention to showcase fashion, but suggestive in its intention to display a visual message of sex.

some people might take offense for various reasons but i'm sure most of the people offended have flipped right by these ads without taking notice. i think NOW insults women by telling them that they should be offended by this or that. i imagine it's in the best interest of any business not to offend any of their potential customers.

I just don't understand the Cesare Paciotti one at all. I'm not sure what type of message that ad is trying to send.

@bonzombiekitty: You're supposed to want to buy the dress because an unconscious/dead woman is wearing it and looks fabulous.

Whether it's gang rape or just some extreme yoga, it's definitely gross. I know advertisers have to get all edgy to entertain us these days, but this is so far from anything I'd aspire to that it's hard to see how it might make somebody buy the brand.

@ CHRISTOVIR

I didn't see anyone suggesting a legal ban. Just suggesting that they are offensive.

I agree that they are offensive. Then again, I don't buy anything from D&G anyway because it's so overpriced so I'm not sure they would care what I think.

On the list, I thought the Cesare Paciotti, Gucci, and Dior ads were most degrading.

The ad is definitely high on the "ick" factor and definitely makes me uncomfortable. I have no idea why the advertising people thought their product would be best displayed on a woman being held down by a shirtless man and surrounded by others. Really, can you imagine that meeting? "OK, we're gonna have the model in our clothes, but WAIT, she's pinned down by a shirtless guy, BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE, she's surrounded by more shirtless guys." "Brilliant!" I do appreciate NOW bringing this stuff up, it's insidious precisely because we don't stop to think about what these kinds of ads mean.

Hey, I'll be brave over here and admit that I find all of those ads offensive to some degree. Because... well, sex sells, we know that. If it were just a good-looking woman in a bikini, that'd be one thing. Good-looking women being shown consistently in subordinate, submissive positions, used as luggage racks and bowling balls (wtf??), victimized in one way or another -- that's a different matter altogether. The general theme seems to be "getting women to be what you want," where what you want is a nude model for pics you can show your friends, a submissive sex partner who may not actually want it, an anorexic, or a piece of furniture.

As a feminist, I find NOW largely irrelevant; they spend their time addressing issues that only matter to a small, privileged segment of women, demanding corporate day care or protesting men's-only golf clubs when millions of women in this country suffer from abuse and poverty. However, that doesn't mean NOW is always wrong, or that they always overreact. I think they're right in identifying the misogynist undercurrents in these ads, but I'm not sure how much that matters.

Bored=OK?

So....

If this was a picture of a lynching where everyone looked bored, that would be ok?

The whole thing wouldn't be so icky if he weren't holding her down. Her raised hip implys that she must like it. Bah, unfortunately this is nothing new for the fashion mags.

There is nothing wrong with this ad.

There is no reason to be offended by that ad.

Anyways when I look at this ad I do not see a gang rape. I see a woman who knows what she doing and wants a train ran on her.
I see a woman who controls men.

Since when has the idea of four men pinning down a woman ever suggested rape? Sheesh, you people are such feminazis. I mean, all the chicks I've done have totally dug the 4-on-1 approach, especially with the implied threat that comes with being outnumbered and physically restrained. Plus, how are you supposed to make it exciting if you don't have some actual danger involved? I'm tired of all the whiny man-hating libs telling us we can't celebrate rape fantasies in the pages of a magazine--whatever happened to free speech? If I want my children looking at rape-staged scenes in magazines, then it's my choice--not the government's. This is all part of a feminist plot to emasculate our males. Everyone knows that rape scenes provide healthy masculine role models for growing boys. Geez.

Oh, and the most offensive ads on the list are the Mitchum, dfrnt, and Maker's Mark ones. The images of naked/too-skinny women don't offend me as much as the ones with the subtext "Heh heh heh, we know you're an asshole. Go ahead, we're assholes too. Just don't forget to buy our product, ktxbai."

I like the stern OFFENSIVE TO WOMEN label stamped across every ad, as if I was going to forget what kind of list I was reading.

I see group sex/orgy (and a boring one at that), not rape. I don't get how this is supposed to sell clothing, but I don't get the majority of fashion or fashion advertising.

Gay, gay, gay!
Not offensive at all.