What EXACTLY About This Ad Is Offensive?
Dolce & Gabbana recently decided to pull one of their magazine ads (pictured above) after “worldwide protests” by the National Organization for Women and other groups. There were even protests in Spain and Italy, two countries that some consider reasonably lenient when it comes to sexuality in advertising. The argument is that the ad portrays rape.
The ad shows a man and a woman, presumably about to have sex, with four other men at various levels of undress looking on. There’s no denying that the ad is extremely racy and people are well justified to be offended if strikes them negatively, but from a design perspective, I’m interested in *exactly* what elements of the ad push it over the line. For the purposes of this discussion, I’m going to throw out all people who find every ad involving the objectification of women offensive, because hey, then the entire industry is offensive. I’m also going to throw out all people who think everything is fair game and are offended by nothing. “The line” is basically when it’s offensive enough to the average person that it should be pulled.
So, let’s break down our cast of characters (left to right):
- Purple Shirted Android Guy
- Unbuttoned Shirt Guy
- Mr. Top
- Ms. Bottom
- Denim Cutoffs Guy
- Withdrawn iPod Guy
So the question is, what sorts of combinations of 1-6 would or would not be considered “over the line offensive”?
My opinion?
Removing everybody but Mr. Top and Ms. Bottom would seem to make it a “normal” fashion ad. Strangely, I think that the only person you could add back into the scene in addition to those two would be Withdrawn iPod Guy. He’s away from the action, he doesn’t seem overly interested and his presence doesn’t imply dominance or danger in any way. All three of the standing guys seem to be the worst culprits here, with Denim Cutoffs Guy and Purple Shirted Android Guy being 1 and 2.
Strangely, Mr. Top seems to be in the greatest “position of power” here but I don’t think removing him would really make the ad less offensive. I’m not even sure removing only Ms. Bottom would either. Imagine the ad with Ms. Bottom airbrushed out. It’s still basically an ad depicting a group of guys thinking about having sex with the same woman. The fact that the woman isn’t visible hardly changes things.
These are just my opinions and clearly others may disagree, but after working through the permutations, I think the uproar about this ad has nothing to do with “rape” at all. After all, there’s no evidence to prove that’s actually occurring. It has to do with multiple men having sex with the same woman in one setting, and that (perhaps rightfully so) is what causes this campaign to cross the tastefulness line.
You can read interviews with Stefano Gabbana (of D&G) and Kim Gandy (of NOW) over at this Newsweek article.
Disclaimer: I have never purchased any D&G products and I’m not a proponent of this campaign or anything it depicts. It’s just an interesting advertising issue to me.
I think it’s the combination of two things:
1) The woman is being held down.
2) She is looking away from Mr Top, as if to try and ignore whatever may be going on.
Oh, and Denim Cutoff Shorts guy is just creepy.
Good call Andrew. Those are the sorts of things I’m interested in. I couldn’t make up my mind whether or not she was *actually* being held down and I looked to her face for a clue about that. Unfortunately, the face gives away no indication of stress or discomfort. It’s decidedly ambiguous.
And for the record, I think Purple Shirted Android Guy is totally the creepiest.
Yeah, I second Andrew. The first thing I noticed was her wrist being held down and she was turned away. That’s universal-speak for “No.” The elevated hips might also indicate a struggle.
Glad the first comment pointed out the obvious, and I would argue that yes, it is rape scene, and so it has everything to do with rape. Contrary to your statement Mike.
Why is it a rape scene?
Let me ask another question: when is a gangbang not rape? (porn doesn’t count here).
1% of the time? Less? More?
But your question is “what sorts of combinations of 1-6 would or would not be considered “over the line offensiveâ€?”
And my answer is – what exactly is the point of answering that question? Are you really curious? Does it tell you anything about design?
Before you throw me out let me answer your opening question: “What about this ad is offensive?”
It’s a rape scene Mike.
Ok, I’ll buy that Devon. The facial expression is really what throws in the ambiguity for me. You really just can’t tell exactly what’s going on. That seems clearly intentional to me as a strained facial expression would undoubtedly throw the ad over the edge for a lot more people. I wonder what percentage of people flip the ad 90 degrees to really try and figure out what’s going on. I know I did.
Willi: I’m curious because the advertising industry seems full of very similar messages and imagery practically wherever you look. Some gets pulled and some doesn’t. Heck, this campaign even ran for awhile with no complaints until some people in Spain started the protest. I’m not here to say whether the campaign is right or wrong. I’m just curious about where it crosses the line for certain people. I didn’t even say it wasn’t a rape scene (even though it may not be)… I just said it’s the unmistakably explicit “multiple men, one woman” thing that would seem to push it over the line in my opinion.
The scene set is definitely a rape scene: her hands are pinned behind her head, she has turned her face away from the aggressor ( Mr Top ), she is arching her back as if in struggle… all things point to a rape scene… and a gang bang at that.
What makes this scene so hard to process, though, is that it’s like a play being acted and the director is just blocking-out the scene, but hasn’t called “action” yet… so the actors are in position, but sans any emotion.
“advertising industry seems full of very similar messages and imagery practically wherever you look. “
True – and I get that point. Sexually explicit advertising is certainly pushing limits as time goes by, and we give little by little over time.
So where is the line now? The line is that you don’t show gangbangs with strong sweaty men surrounding a woman who appears to be wishing she was somewhere else. And while I am an atheist to the bone, I pray on this point as a father to a daughter the gangbang line (aka rape scene) will never be crossed in advertising.
When the image was rendered shortly after visiting your blog I had a visceral reaction. I had to check that I was at your blog. Once that was verified I guessed I was about to read one of your delicious rants about this offensive ad.
So my knee jerk reaction was disappointment in not just the seeing the ad, but your passivity towards it I guess. And I admit on this point I’m dealing with my own issues ;)
On that note I will bite:
The iPod guy is actually one of the most offensive. His presence treats the scenario like it is a game, a casual pastime. And in that regard, if only him and Mr. Top were around – I would still find it offensive.
The only combination of men that I would find closest to not offensive is Mr. Top and Unbuttoned Shirt guy. Because in that scene I can kinda pretend/imagine that unbuttoned shirt guy is rethinking the gangbang and might stop it.
So again, it crosses the line because it says rape to me.
1. It’s all perception. I asked a friend and he suggested that something else may be taking place: she’s looking at Android Guy with some form of expectation.
2. Perhaps this is just me playing the typical role of “gay guy in design,” but what would happen to this image if a scantily-clad man were put in place of Ms. Bottom? Would this still be targeted as a depiction of rape or simply a homoerotic fashion ad meant to grace the pages of The Advocate?
Better yet, reverse roles: replace all of the men with sexy women and Ms. Bottom with Denim Cutoffs Guy. What does it depict now?
Fair enough Willi, and I’m now wondering if I should require a click to see the ad. I don’t think it’s graphic enough to require that, but if a couple more people suggest something along those lines, I’ll do it.
I guess I’m a bit ambivalent because I’m really trying to study it from the directors’ standpoint… from a pure advertising perspective. D&G actually does its own ads without relying on an agency for concepts so that makes their process all the more interesting to me. If you read the Newsweek interview, it’s clear the *intention* here was not to glorify forced sex. No brand that enjoys so much loyalty among women would *willfully* do such a thing. So the question I’m just trying to explore is “where exactly did they go wrong”? Clearly the ad you see is one of probably about 300 shots they took on this shoot. Maybe more. If you have an “raciness scale” of 1 to 100, I’m sure there was at least one shot which fit each number in that range.
As they picked their final shot, they had to think to themselves “what number can we go to and is our favorite shot at or below that number?”
They probably picked somewhere in the 70 range, as many provocateurs do, but the shot they chose ended up being maybe an 80 to a large enough percentage of the world… and so they blew it. They surely tried different combinations and positions of guys, different facial expressions, and different other stuff. They just went over the line in the end.
To answer your larger question about hoping this sort of thing goes away though, I really don’t know the answer to that. Some might argue that this stuff goes in cycles where we get super-liberal for a few decades and then we get super conservative and the cycle repeats. Others would argue that with the access to media, technology, and virtual worlds that we have now, there’s really no turning back and we’ll just see more people desensitized to this sort of imagery at younger ages than we’d ever imagine. I remember first being interested in girls at around age 9. I don’t think I even knew what porn was until age 15… and even then, access was pretty limited. Now any 9 year old with a computer and some creativity can find his/her way to whatever piques their curiosity. Makes me think the “internet parental controls industry” is going to be even more lucrative than anyone ever thought.
I think Willi nailed it on the head. Once you decide it’s a rape scene, as I have, I’m not sure deconstructing it to examine the degree that it’s rape is apropos. I try not to be too sensitive, but rape is a line I just don’t cross. Ironically I could make a joke wishing someone dead but I would never wish someone raped.
But there are many elements that led me to the conclusion that it’s a rape scene.
If the woman was not being held down, for instance, if she was laying there untouched, it would change the whole dynamic of the scene. It would become either a bunch of serious people standing around or a bunch of creepy guys looking at the hot chick. Ogling in an advertisement is commonplace – and it is a cornerstone the fashion industry is built upon.
Alternately, if the other guys were looking away, it could look like two lovers in public. Or if the other guys were looking but the two in the middle were locked in a passionate embrace it could be dismissed as voyeurism.
Or, they could just Photoshop a Twister mat under the woman and change the entire tone of the ad.
I could dismiss a lot of the individually questionable elements on their own: the ogling is commonplace, the various states of undress is standard for fashion, the holding down of the woman could easily be the two fighting or a prelude to a passionate kiss. However, put together, I find the ad offensive and is probably the result of either a series of bad judgement or a repulsive concept.
i hate advertising (coming from someone with an advertising design degree), but for the sake of the conversation, Denim Cutoffs Guy freaks me out simply because of the lean he has going on — like he’s trying to get a better view of Ms. Bottom’s face… or maybe he’s imagining himself in Mr. Top’s position…
creepy as hell.
Brian: Very interesting.
1. Yep, that’s a good point and it’s what I was getting at when I mentioned not being able to dicipher the facial expression. Not sure what she could expect of Android guy though… maybe he could run a Google Map query in his head really quick and tell her where exactly they are.
2. Good point. I think it would still be looked at as pretty racy, but I’m not sure what group would be doing the complaining. Gay culture tends to be much more forgiving of imagery like this.
2a. Even better point. If I’m denim cutoff guy, I’m pretty damned happy with that situation… besides the fact that I still wear denim cutoffs and it’s 2007.
Welcome to the fashion advertising world. Is this much different from Diesel or other big players out there? They all depict unusual scenes with actors in various states of undress, emotion-less facial expressions and poses that suggest a sexual intercourse.
But I think some of you may have jumped to conclusions here a bit early. First, we all probably realize sexual fetishism is a continuous inspiration to these marketers – high heels, leather, lingerie etc. I think what we’re witnessing here is a case of bondage; many details point to the fact that she is only acting unwilling. First, her leg muscles are not tense, which means she isn’t raising her hips in struggle. Second, there is no signs of adrenaline or any other excitement, yet the males are already in states of undress. Third, the look on her face – while not expressing consent – shows no fear, only “repulsion” that is part of the bondage act. I believe she is curious what will happen next. Also her hair is not messed up, which isn’t the state it would be in if she was violently pushed to the floor.
My conclusion is that this is not a gang-bang rape scene, and not an intercourse with consent either, but something in-between. Many people choose to walk this fine line between taboos and usual sex; it is breaking (or playing with) the rules which makes the act exciting, and – as a result – pleasing. But most of the people just end up only imagining it, as it distances their fantasies from their routines. Our fantasies may therefore be spun from such very images because we try to guess the stories behind them. Stranger scenes yield more fantasies, but here “the line” was struck when a critical mass of (probably conservative/religious) people became confused enough by some unknown sensation that they started to be scared of the very ad that aroused them.
That would be a Axe commercial, of which few people seem to be offended by.
One Love.
I guess men are not so “fragile” by nature to fear being gangbanged by a buch of greasy, partly undressed women.
Mislav: I’m with you on your first comment. The second one isn’t exactly fair though because female-initiated rape is not really an issue in any countries that I’m aware of. Certainly if it was, there would be greater concern among men… even in situations where the men may be physically attracted to the women. Since the scenario is really so inconceivable in the heads of men, it ceases to be a “fear” and by extension, is not a comparable issue in discussions like this.
“Or, they could just Photoshop a Twister mat under the woman and change the entire tone of the ad.” haha!
Sex sells. Rape doesn’t. In this case, my focus and attention is not geared towards any product that I can see. What about yours? The medium (inadvertantly?) in this case has superceded the message. Or is it the other way around?
Hm, I was just being sarcastic – I just wanted to follow-up on the most amusing comment Eddie gave before me :)
To get back on the subject: Will marketers cross “the line” when it comes to rape? I believe so. It happened with other taboos over the last century. Now D&G treat it not as a crime, but as an “erotic fantasy”. More will follow, and eventually we’ll get used to it – and get on with something else. Consuming alcohol was a crime in America – didn’t exactly stop people. Drugs are illegal (and hurt people!) – still madly popular. If sex sells, then rape will sell, too.
Her ambiguous expression does not make it less offensive, it makes it more offensive.
The expression of the other men does not strike me as ambiguous. Their expressions exude power. Mr. Top especially appears to me to have a predatory look of cool, calm, sadism. If a man looked at me the way he is looking at that woman, I would start nervously backing away. The fact that they’ve shown him topless and oiled up his muscles to emphasize his strength makes him all the more scary. A topless oiled-up man is a pleasing sight if he’s smiling and looking friendly – but with that expression and pinning a woman down, he just makes me nervous.
I learned in an art appreciation class that in most depictions of a man raping a woman, the woman is making eye contact while the man is not. The woman looks at his face with pleading eyes while the man looks at her body as if she were an object to be used.
The fact that the woman appears to be being raped and she is completely nonchalant about it is, to me, what makes this all the more objectifying.
I just want to butt in here and point to the fact that Mr. Top is wearing sunglasses. It almost makes us sympathize with the girl on the bottom because we can see her eyes. Because of the sunglasses, we cannot see Mr. Top’s eyes, therefore we can’t read what is going on as well. Am I making sense? Sorry.
That is really interesting and something I wouldn’t have thought of. However, is that what happens in *art*, or is that what happens in real life? Or both? It would seem that the two could conceivably be independent. I would also think that an artist’s depiction of such a thing would depend heavily on a) whether they themselves were male or female, b) whether they had actually witnessed a rape, and c) what their own psychosexual biases were. I probably know as little about rape as just about anybody, but if I had to guess, I would think that actually looking at the guy would be the last thing a woman would want to do in that situation (other than to identify him).
A friend of mine sent me this post. I sent it to more than a few of my girlfriends and none of us see anything wrong with it. The general consensus is that this ad is hot. There’s no sign of rape. There’s no sign of distress. A sexy female with more than one male suitor. Obviously it must be rape because no woman would actually want more than one man to satisfy her, and of course not in an anything but a sweet and docile way — note the sarcasm. The problem isn’t the image, it’s that men (especially the ones on this page) apparently still seem to think that women are somehow inferior, delicate, less-capable creatures that must be protected and coddled.
I find it entirely amusing that a bunch of men are up in arms about an ad that they deem to be misogynistic and portraying rape, when every woman I’ve asked thinks quite the opposite. Maybe all of you need some intense therapy to figure out what’s going on in your heads to instantly jump to such a violent conclusion from such an image.
Hi. Don’t know about Spain but here in Italy no one noticed this ad adn sure there were no protest that I know of. Do you have a source for that? Im just curious.
oh, the whole discussion on the interpretation of the image is really interesting. thank you.
LG: Indeed it would not surprise me if most of the Italian public didn’t even notice this campaign, but this from the Newsweek article referenced above:
So I guess the question is, do 13 Italian senators represent the actual opinions of Italians or did they do this as a way of supporting what they thought was a politically beneficial protest?
Rick Poynor wrote a good book last year called Designing Pornotopia, which is all about this kind of thing. Using the tropes of porn in advertising is common – complaints about it, less so.
I think the real issue is the intent of the people who made this image. The arm being held down isn’t just something that creeps into such a design by accident. The designers are fully aware that the image depicts a rape scene, but then they have tried to ‘pull away’ from that by introducing ambiguity.
To me this is the worst kind of deception in that the designers are trying to controversial, but by not having the courage of their convictions (and one has to wonder what kind of conviction makes a designer think that showing rape is good advertising) they have tried to ‘blur’ the image so they can say ‘hey, it’s not rape’.
Unfortunately, they have failed there because most people can see exactly what it is. So basically, it’s both badly executed and unimaginative.
While it does appear to be a rape scene, I don’t think it is, either. It seems to me that men are more put off by this ad than women because men really don’t like thinking that women may not be monogamous. Not only non-monogamous, but actually lustful creatures who might choose to have sex with multiple partners at the same time.
As a woman who has a distinct sexual preference for men in pairs, or even trios, I’m used to offending men the same way this ad does. Believe me when I say that some men are particularly voiciferous about all the ways in which I must be insane. They think I’m doubly insane when I just chuckle at them. I chuckle because I think most of them are just jealous that they can’t do what I do, only with women.
Mike: no, 13 senators do not represent the opinion of the majority of Italians.. I’m almost proud to say.
But it is true. Right in the middle of a Government crisis these people (in case you’re interested the names are here 3rd paragraph) found some time to act funny. I think I might have erased any memory of this till now. Trying to go back I think the reaction was prompted -or given voice by- a widley known moralistic newspaper (conservative and pro-USA, no offense in that, of course), “Il Foglio”.
then there is the matter of why did the senators act that way. One answer, my favourite, is that they are old. Way too old to have an uptodate ability to intepret any image produced nowadays.
Second it’s the the catholic middle and right speaking, they think they still have a wide base and they actually have because it’s a country of old-aged.
A whole another point is whether something was built up by D&G communication offices..you know they stand on these thing pour épater le bourgeois, as sad as it can be.
I never bought anything by D&G, way too expensive and the two have been quoted a few times saying they would never buy somthing that laks in taste that much.
A very interesting, and – for me – somewhat funny discussion. I just cannot see any rape or other offensive issue in the ad. Just a hip and modern ad for jeans or something, with a few young, beautiful models posing.
If there was an intent of showing something offensive as a rape scene, they didn’t succeed very well.
If people are offended by this, next you know ads for shampoo, with mothers carrying a naked baby are forbidden (child pornography!).
I’m an old-fashioned moralist, which means I’m going to give an old-fashioned answer. It’s ‘offensive’ because it portrays the woman as an object of gratification and lust for the men, and it portrays sex as something that fulfills a desire rather than as something expresses a love.
Portraying women as sexual objects is wrong, and portraying sex as consumerism cheapens its beauty.
It’s perfectly fair to point out that all sorts of advertising does this, but being conventional doesn’t logically entail that it’s acceptable. I didn’t find this ad more offensive than most designer-label clothing and boutique store ads. Far too many of them still portray women as objects of sexual gratification, rather that as people.
As a society, we’re generally pretty good about saying that we value people equally and don’t intentionally perpetuate discrimination. When it comes to the use of sexuality in ads, however, we still have a ways to go.
Way too many comments to read them all right now.. But, to address your bit about this being rather common in advertising (objectification). It’s more common that while we may objectify the sexy woman walking away, the ad at the same time will leave you with the impression that while the guys think they have control, the woman knows she has control.
Don’t know if that makes sense. It sounds right in my head. In this ad, not only do I not think the woman has any control I also don’t think she’s gonna get help from any of the other guys standing around.
As for “will this add sell clothes?” To me? No. This ad, to me, says one of two things depending on gender. 1. Wear this dress and get gang-raped. 2. Wear these jeans and you can rape a woman and no one will care.
I’ll pass on both counts.
The one thing in this ad that is a complete turn off for me is the placement of Mr. Top’s arms. If they were not holding her arms like that I don’t think it would portray rape at all. A company like D&G doesn’t choose a photograph like this by accident – it is obviously a staged rape scene chosen for the shock value and “talk about” value it would [and has] produce.
Oh, and Mr. Android is SO GAY.
I think this ad is plain stupid. It’s in poor taste as a scene but, more importantly, what is it selling? Clothes? Body oil? The Lady’s Shoe?
Most amusing is that the models used for this ad probably have no interest in women at all.
matijs:
“If people are offended by this, next you know ads for shampoo, with mothers carrying a naked baby are forbidden (child pornography!).”
Appealing to Probability? Please. Let me illustrate the fallacy:
“If people are NOT offended by this, next thing you know there will be ads of people eating babies.”
lusty:
“It seems to me that men are more put off by this ad than women because men really don’t like thinking that women may not be monogamous.”
Interesting – let’s get a show of hands. Who of those men who find this ad offensive are against the idea of a woman being polygamous?
I am not! I see people starting to confuse finding this ad offensive with some sort of conservative values. Which is simply wrong. I’m politically left, and clearly aware that was is offensive here is a rape scene, not the sexual habits of men or women.
We need more women commenting on this clearly.
One other more, kind of subtle thing is Mr. Tops appearance. Hes got big sunglasses and a close haircut with shaved sides (plus hes the only one with either of those in the scene, so its intended for them to be noticed).
These things together say to me: Military. I guess you could extrapolate that to also have connotations of the Military rape scandals over the past several years, but for me it just made me think that Mr. Top probably has the stereotypical Military Attiude. Macho, in charge, aggressive…
@chris, im definitely in agreement with you on the portrayal of men and womens roles in modern advertising. The man, although he thinks he is in control is most definitely not. Without going on too big of a rant, the cousin to your example, the Doofus Dad role (which you see alot in commercials now a days) is not only way overplayed, but also a pretty lame message to send to a culture in need of solid competent males in the family.
The fact that he’s holding her down and the way her hips are raised makes it look like something she is MORE disinterested in. (That’s a joke, you see, because they all look so disinterested. She’s a little more disinterested in the sex.)
I agree with others that if he weren’t holding her down, if they were being bizarrely sweet to each other, that I’d feel a lot differently.
What SHOULD happen is that the person who laid this scene out should learn that maybe this isn’t the best idea, but I doubt that will happen.
I think many men see this ad as more offensive because there is an underlying homophobia that pops-up. Slender, pretty boys who are oiled up and wearing Dolce & Gabbana play on underlying gay fears some men have. It doesn’t help that they are all looking in a voyeuristic, creepy way that makes us uncomfortable for gazing at the same scene.
We don’t like that we’d be watching a guy pin down some woman and we don’t want to think we’d be the guy to pin some woman down. If movies like Rear Window, Psycho and plenty other Hitchcock movies has proven is there is heightened suspense watching someone watching someone. We project into that character for doing the same thing we are doing (watching, gazing) and that is uncomfortable.
When I first started to read this post I was annoyed that Mike asked for such analysis (it seems obviously offensive). But, by the end, I think this was a great exercise. We usually don’t try to describe “why”, especially with ads. Usually the ad is at the offensive level of “stupid” and you stop there.
Think about the messages it is giving.
“Wear these jeans and you can rape women, or at the very least you can view it!!”
Or “Wear this dress and shoes and men will want to do this to you!”
“We are so cool. This doesn’t even phase me. I rape. I watch rape. I get raped. No biggie. We are sooo hip!”
Being part of the ‘corrupted, desensitised youth’, I thought I might be able to offer some sort of conjecture as to why this message can be portrayed as wrong (however, it shan’t be any profound child psychology, unfortunately).
I think the problem, in it’s entirety, is what first appears. I have no degrees or experience to back this argument up with, but I feel that first impressions count, ie, the first few seconds. If that first few seconds offers a negative imagery, it can put a biased spin upon all reevaluations, and that’s if someone accepts that there might be more to it than meets the eye. After only the first glances, people would probably remember the wrists, the obscure look on the woman’s face, and the fact there’s others around her. And possibly the lack of emotion in both the Man On Top, and in the whole scene.
Regardless of the other’s looks, or minute facts such as raised hips and unmessed hair (valid arguments which people have made. Though I’d dispute the latter as part of the popular, almost guide-line ‘advertising of perfection and small, contained worlds’. With no buildings nearby, mere sky, it can offer the idea that there’s no sense of reality, and rules), I believe those first factors, on their own, might instantly flag up ‘rape’ to the viewer.
I personally don’t feel the bad part is the many people surrounding. Especially in the younger – perhaps even the target audience themselves – I don’t think there’s any particular objection to someone having more than one sexual partner, at least while the people are unmarried or unengaged (I see no rings on the fingers). Perhaps that’s even what makes it worse – there’s no sense of mutual agreement, no sense of a consenting partnership between the two. If the whole thing took place in a setting of an alleyway, I don’t think there’d be any objection that it isn’t rape. If it took place in an (admittedly large) bedroom, people might agree more with it.
But in D&G’s trademark ruleless world of sky and steel, it offers a clearly ambiguous location in which the viewer must call upon their own moral values. There’s not even any thing persuading the viewer not to see the worst, something which is needed in our negative, pessimistic society.
I have to go with either Half-Shorts or Android Guy for being the most creepiest. While the others exert an almost-creepy emotionless lookout, Half-Shorts offers a look which suggests he’d like to ‘hit both of ‘dat”, in either position, and Android Guy is, well… just plain creepy.
I completely agree with Spain’s protest of the advert. I stand by the opinion that if something bad is happening, you don’t offer something that either instills motive, acceptance or even remembrance to the viewer. I’m sure it’s a common thing in the advertising industry, just poor timing – it happens in other industries (being a fan of videogames, the unfortunate instance of Advance Wars being released the same week as 9/11 springs to mind). As for Italy, I can’t say I know enough to pass judgement.
What I think they could have changed:
As it stands, the only consolation is Android Guy might prevent the scene by calmly proclaiming “I can’t let you do that, Dave”.
Note: I am unqualified, 15, and have no prior knowledge, or indeed interest, in the fashion industry, and as such am probably completely wrong in all my assessements.
PS. On a final note, being new to the site I must say I love it, and the thought-provoking discussions you provide.
Elijah, I love the military comment! And everyone else is just standing around watching the military rape.
I think the entire feel would be changed if you just switch Mr. Top with Ms. Bottom. Leave the guys there, and pose Ms. Top and Mr. Bottom the same.
Then it would change from a rape to an “exhibition”.
They should have got Jeremy Keith to do the ad, obviously.
“We are so cool. This doesn’t even phase me. I rape. I watch rape. I get raped. No biggie. We are sooo hip!”
ROTFL!
That tone is exactly why I have so deliberately chosen to filter advertising out of my home and as much of my life as possible. The message – how to be cool – is so ridiculous anymore.
It’s amazing what happens to your tolerance level and just your perception of life in general when you begin filtering out all these messages.
And I don’t think the alterations I’ve made are so out of the ordinary anymore. Judging by the requirements my business is receiving from our clients; corporations are well aware of consumer filtering and are asking for full integration into the new/next generations of media delivery.
In terms of crossing lines, there’s a completely different avenue where advertising is going to push boundaries and offend current consumer comfort levels – conventional product placement is just the tip of the iceberg.
Aaaaand I’m off topic now . . .
First of all it is a magazine ad, so we have no idea what led up to this and what might happen later.
I don’t see it as a rape scene at all. Why are we thinking rape? Because she is very attractive … sexy? She is fully clothed (well fully is a relative term) and he is beside her, not between her legs.
What it does depict to me and why I find it “objectionable” or in bad taste is that it says to me personally, this woman is being held down by actual force and apparently against her will. His look and angles say it and her angles say it to me as well. The fact that there are others in the scene also applies “implied” or “available” force.
What if she was giving a thumbs up sign with her nearly visible hand? Smiling? Licking her lips?
Many men might find that an engaging fantasy. Women might as well find this scene engaging, but if bottom lady did, wouldn’t she somehow indicate pleasure at the situation … or not? I don’t know?
I have never heard of this company before and I have no idea what they are selling. Is it an A&F kind of a thing selling clothes? They definately got their name out there just by pulling the ad.
What if this wasn’t a magazine ad and you saw them playing around and she was happy and he tossed her on the bed/couch/floor? Well then it wouldn’t be a magazine ad would it … You would have a lot more information to go off of in judging what was going on.
So my answer after my ramble: it implies the use of force against an unwilling (or not apparently willing) person — rape never enters my mind if I see it without reading any of these other comments because there is no rape going on.
What if the next page had bottom lady kicking top guy in the groin and said: “don’t let your guy make your decisions, you decide, just say No”. Does it matter what is being advertised or what happens next. Can something happen next in a magazine ad?
Dave: “it implies the use of force against an unwilling (or not apparently willing) person — rape never enters my mind if I see it without reading any of these other comments because there is no rape going on.”
You’re removing the sexual nature/tone of the scene. “use of sexual force against an unwilling person” is rape under most criminal codes.
Does “sexual assault” enter your mind?
What offends me abot this ad goes beyond the implied rape scene – it’s the desperation on the part of the ad agency. I worked in advertising for several years, and left out of disgust and exhaustion. I could no longer bear the degree to which ad agencies are completely out of touch with reality. What I see here is a clear case of pure psychosis – a disconnect with reason and common sense.
There is a level of desperation to be “original” and “provocative” to the extent that the product is completely overlooked. All you remember is the ad – you don’t suddenly feel like buying a shirt from Dolce and Gabanna, do you?
They’ve forgotten the whole point of advertising – to increase sales. Marketers are accutely aware of how numb we are to advertising, to the extent that we can smell the panic. So what do I see in this ad? Burnt-out ad execs so full of fear and lack of imagination, they reach for the crazier and crazier idea, hopelessly losing sight of simplicity, elegance and honesty.
The scene is sufficiently ambiguous that you have to decide what you see. The part that upsets people is that THEY see a rape scene. That is what occurs to their mind and this is uncomfortable to many people.
This is not obviously a depiction of rape. It is completely ambiguous, while still suggestive of certain possibilities.
Christian: Good points, but many would argue (and have argued) that the men are the objects of sexual gratification for the woman instead. So it goes both ways.
Stephen: Good stuff. Too much to respond to. :)
Dave: Interesting idea about continuing the ad to another page and putting a “punchline” in there. So let’s say this was actually an ad PAID FOR by a group like N.O.W. with the punchline that you mentioned. An anti-rape ad that used this exact imagery to get its message across. What then? Still offensive?
Meinert: D&G actually does their own ads so its their own doing and not an agency’s. You also asked about losing sight of the goal of selling product. I actually agree with D&G on this issue. You can’t sell wildly overpriced $500 jeans based on rational, objective advertising. You *have* to create tremendous amounts of buzz and wildly unrealistic visions in people’s heads in order for them to even consider such a purchase.
This falls right in line with the Calvin Klein “child molestor/child porn” ads that were pulled because of public outrage.
Now, we can pick apart what separate elements make up the whole and which element pushed it ‘over the line’ but it’s not really about that.
As blameless and innocent as the art directors play – they know exactly what they’re doing.
You don’t plan an innocent photoshoot, spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and “accidentally” come up with something that looks like gang rape or kiddie porn. Just like a company doesnt spend thousands of dollars and “accidentally” come up with a suggestive ad.
It’s a plan, it’s an idea, it’s a goal and I think it’s perverse.
Their response is just spin – ‘of course we didnt mean it to look like underage molestation/gang rape’.
Well, all signs point to the fact that they did.
I’ll admit – this ad is slightly more ambiguous than the Klein ads – but somewhere along the line someone knew what they were doing and directed it as such.
I have to object to the description of rape as “taboo.”
Drug use is taboo. Nudity is taboo. Rape is a violent crime.
This is backed up by two disparate sources. The FBI classifies rape as second only to murder, and worse than robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, vehicle theft and arson. Speaking of which, you can do just about all of the above in Grand Theft Auto with the exception of rape. You can steal an army tank, kill innocent civilians by the dozen – hell, there’s a carjack button after all – but even Rockstar drew the line.
But let’s push the envelope with some other “taboo” topics. Would showing kids trying to kill each other over a new pair of basketball shoes be considered breaking a taboo? How about someone tied up and being tortured to find out where the last Krispy Kreme is hidden? How about a wonderfully artistic photo of a black man being hung from a tree holding a Fendi bag in one hand and a pair of Jimmy Choo shoes in the other? Ridiculous as those ideas are, you would be hard-pressed to find someone that would consider murder, torture and hate crimes as simply taboo.
I certainly have no problem with overt sexuality – in this ad or any other. I wish our country wasn’t as uptight about sex as it is. I wish we had nudity in prime time commercials like in some places in Europe.
It’s the implied force that offends me. And the same person to whom this ad appeals, and none seem to be posting here, could also get the message that rape is no big deal. I’s in a fashion ad, after all, and there is nothing more frivolous. Right?
Well!! I’m not one to get all bent out of shape about fashion ads… but this one is pretty “naughty” I might like it more and be less creeped out if like Mike said; remove all but Mr. Top and Ms. Bottom. Or even mix up the voyeurs! you know, like some other people. Maybe a chick with a cute dog? And as mentioned, would it be acceptable if it were Ms. Top and Mr. bottom? With a bunch of undressed women looking on? hhhm? I like it! D&G should do their next ad like that and when no one makes a peep they should point out our double standards. Also if I were really turned on and wanted it, I would look away and arch my hips (trying to get closer contact) just like that. Sorry people.
Dave: A few have posted actually. Interestingly, the majority of people who seem willing to state their lack of offense taken are women so far. I think this points to the fact that it isn’t rape that is “taboo”, it’s the admission that one finds this imagery interesting/arousing/etc that is taboo.
And that is why women may feel more comfortable stating their true opinion here. If a woman admits to finding this scene non-offensive and/or hot, she will never be accused of being insensitive about actual rape. If a guy however expresses this same opinion, he is subject to much more scrutiny.
I completely agree with Dave Metcalf. Nothing about this ad would be offensive to me if rape were not a gross, real, sexually violent crime that occurs every second in this country & around the world. That we live in a time where human trafficking for sex and prostitution are rampant, never mind ‘simple’ internet porn –this says a lot for our social collective regarding the less ‘fortunate’ or less ‘powerful’. (mostly women & children, but also including men & boys) . Let’s not blur the lines : Hot is hot; Violence is not! Because of the ambiguity of this ad: less thinking types may see this ad as just a ‘sign of the times’, and therefore acceptable. As an adult female commercial artist, (non-prude) with 2 gay brothers (also non-prude): we think this ad is a bit over the the top & not all That chic. Furthermore, the ad people behind this campaign know Exactly what they’re doing!!!
The most offense part is the woman’s ‘decidedly ambiguous’ expression. Its a classic case reinforcing the idea that a woman should accept the reality of being Ms. Bottom.
There is a big difference between lack of offense and arousal.
Maybe the question, “Is anyone aroused by the ad” should just be asked?
For me, the only thing close to arousing is a couple of the body parts. Nice stomachs, nice arms, the women has great legs. But it is quickly overshadowed by the the scene that is set. It’s just icky.
I would venture to say that women have been taught to not find stuff like this “offensive” because we will then be labeled many things… a prude, a bitch, and my favorite a man hating feminist. I think women have to be more accepting to offensive imagery because there is so much more of it out there as well.
Men may be portrayed more as stupid fathers (which I found worth noting from above) but women portrayed as sexual *things* so frequently that it doesn’t even take notice usually. AND as totally submissive. That combination sucks!
exactly montavillian!
It’s just one guy having sex with her. They are all the same male model. Maybe it is just his alter “fashion” egos looking on.
So I went and had a little look around their site. How about this one?
http://eng.dolcegabbana.it/dolcegabbana.asp
Four girls surrounding a poor guy in his underwear. One even gets below him to stare up at his privates. He is so concerned that he decides to film the event or something?
I guess I’m old cause nothing appealing in most of their work for me and I don’t like this picture at all.
Interesting point someone makes that may be just one male model. It does appear that way to me too.
I don’t like the use of force in the photo and find it offensive.
Ah-ha! I figured out why Mike finds this ad so offensive:
http://livinginsmallsizes.com/images/zune.jpg
Seems the jokes on us! Our posting in response to this provacative advertisement is On Target with what the advertisers wanted: to stir up controversy & therefore recognition. As they say in the biz- Any attention is better than no attention! Paris Hilton, 50 Cent, Etc. know this well- Sex Sells! Now, it’s just a question of- What Kind?!
he’s not raping her
he’s not haveing sex
the other guys are just standing there looking prity
that aint no rape
Yes, it’s a rape scene. It’s worse than creepy. I know nothing about fashion, but you can be sure I will never knowingly buy anything from this company. Rape is not something to be cool or indifferent about. Rape is a violent crime. This scene has everything to do with cynicism and disgusting indifference to the MILLIONS OF WOMEN ALL AROUND THE WORLD who are raped every year. This is disgusting and makes me want to vomit.
Ugh. “that aint no rape” huh? Do you find it arousing?
Sure, it’s not an actual rape. But that’s what they want you to *think* about when you view the ad, so it’s even worse.
Mike – I would argue that even with only #6 (iPod guy) in the picture with “Mr Top” and “Ms Bottom”, it’s really creepy. It’s creepy because he’s totally ignoring what’s going on, and that is potentially far more disturbing than the other guys trying to observe or get in on the action.
This calls to mind Malcolm Gladwell’s statements about human instinct – the more people are present observing a crime, the LESS LIKELY someone will object, stop, call the cops, etc.
Don’t like the ad one bit.
SusieQ-
Succinctly put! I & many others have danced around the subject….By the way, this isn’t the first time I’ve seen this ad or witnessed the debate surrounding it on other websites. It’s all over other sites that also believe that rape (suggested or actual) is just Not Amusing. Thanks to all (ok-90%) of the Men who have posted with thier comments & concern. Because Stand-up guys do matter! they’re apparently the only ones that the other men who think this is ‘cool’ will listen to……?
Whoa there TJ. I think it’s ok to be a “stand up guy” or even a “stand up girl” and still wonder a bit about this ad. As I said above, the question is not whether D&G approve of rape or have intentionally created a scene that gives the message “rape is good”. Neither of those is true. The question is, where exactly — from a design/art-direction standpoint — did they go wrong with this ad (as they clearly have)? Their intent was to create most sexually provocative scene they could, stopping short of offending a critical mass of people. From the looks of things, the ad is fine with some people (guys and girls) and not fine with other people (guys and girls). Chances are with a slightly different detail here and a slightly different detail there, it would have come off as less offensive. I just think it’s interesting and educational to explore exactly what those details are.
“As I said above, the question is not whether D&G approve of rape or have intentionally created a scene that gives the message “rape is good”. Neither of those is true.”
That may not be the question, but you certainly cannot claim the answer one way or the other. “Approve of rape” is often done in ignorance, lack of realizing what rape means/is. I know that sounds silly to a stand up guy like yourself, but I can recall and NPR segment last year consisting of interviews of young men and women and their opinions on issues like rape and consent. I was floored to hear some young men’s perceptions of consent that under criminal law would be classified as rape.
So the in my mind it isn’t a leap to assume that one of two things happened at D&G:
1) Either they intended to create controversy but creating an as close to rape scene as possible (so intentionally).
2) They are some ignorant (granted creative) people designing these ads.
You’re ruling out both of those?
Mike -
They have facial expressions? Could have fooled me.
Willi: All good points. Let me answer 1 and 2 though –
1) I don’t think it was really reverse-engineered from rape like that. I think it was more like “What are the most provocative images we can think of that we’ve never seen another fashion company use? Hmmmm, almost every one we’ve thought of before has been done, but how about the fantasy of one woman having sex with multiple men? Hmmm, that’s not illegal… there may be something there if we do it right.” And then later… “Hmmm, a lot of these poses are too tame and a lot of them could be construed as rape. We need to pick the one that’s got just the right amount of appeal and stops short of poor taste.
So yes, Willi, you’re right in that they are trying to straddle the line here (as a lot of advertisers do)… but I just don’t think it’s reverse-engineered from rape. I think it’s reverse-engineered from the fantasy of one woman and multiple men.
2) I think “desensitized” and even “insensitive” are better words than ignorant for the D&G crew. You could argue this campaign was a net positive for them because of all the attention (some of it quite positive, even from women).
In casually mentioning your valued opinions on this subject with a good friend tonite, enjoying our usual banter of a myriad of topics….He said: (without seeing the ad.:) that he thought it was an ad. simply expressing a state of disconnect. That we live in a world so desperate & devoid of/for intimacy & deeper connection on a either & physical or intimate (or even spiritual–,heavens to Mergatroid! Haha-) level that it’s to be expected. Then again- although he’s a thinking man; He hasn’t seen this ad. Still, I thought he made a good point. I’ll email it to him. More Later……..
Mike,
By Jove- I think you’ve got it!:
“Their intent was to create most sexually provocative scene they could, stopping short of offending a critical mass of people.”
(and us monkeys think this is interesting!)
Mike, Seriously, to answer your ad. design question-
The difference in the details are, or could be:
—Less pinioning by force. (more cooperation)
—Less indifference by models.(more warmth)
That would make (regardless of gender/placement) a more socially acceptable ad. Reasoning: No-body naturally likes forced cold stuff with thier sex; unless they’re into that.
So, maybe the ad says:
Think outside the box: Kink can be your friend!?
Mike writes:
“As I said above, the question is not whether D&G approve of rape or have intentionally created a scene that gives the message “rape is good”. Neither of those is true.”
I say, wow, are you really that naive?
Mike writes:
“The question is, where exactly — from a design/art-direction standpoint — did they go wrong with this ad (as they clearly have)? Their intent was to create [the] most sexually provocative scene they could, stopping short of offending a critical mass of people.”
I say:
Mike, you’re trying to dance on the head of a pin. It doesn’t matter “where, exactly, they went wrong.” What matters is that they KNEW they went wrong, and hoped/counted on the fact that it would be provocative enough to stimulate the buzz o’ the green, to come out at the end of it with a profit. That’s all this is about, period. Profit. On the backs of the, I say again, MILLIONS OF WOMEN IN THIS WORLD WHO ARE RAPED EVERY YEAR. This company deliberately flirted with the “provocativeness” of rape because they thought they could make money off of it. As I said before, this is disgusting. I will add, this is immoral. I will add, a pox on all their houses. How anybody involved in this ad can look in the mirror and not spit at their image is beyond me.
SusieQ I think you have hit the nail on the head and the hammer should be tossed–this ad is meant for the young slut d@g market-the sad fact that women like paris and brit are stars in the eyes of youth–and you all know that youth is the driving force in today’s fashion market……..
I’m 18 and I think I am a lady of the world-tell me nothing for I have lived 18 years and I know more than you old folks who think you have lived the life.
The photo is a photo
The realizations and articulations do not change the photo into life.
Perhaps educating youth is more a problem……..
I think the ad is sexy. If I had just seen it in a magazine (i.e. without all the hoopla), I would never have spent any time thinking about what it depicted. I would have noticed the female model’s beautiful legs and the oiled muscle tone of the male models. I might have especially noticed how the nakedness of her leg’s and Mr Top’s torso and arms really stand out in the photograph. It’s a fashion advert. Then I would have turned the page and continued with my reading.
(As it may be important within the context of my comment, I am a woman.)
Just another female POV – it’s not offensive at all. She does not look the slightest bit distressed. Perhaps a little distant, like, is anyone of these guys going to be any good?
I think men have a difficult time accepting the possibility of intense female sexuality.
The ad gives me the impression that D&G is really, really sexy, so I think it does the job.
“2) I think “desensitized” and even “insensitive” are better words than ignorant for the D&G crew.”
Yes I would agree with you there – that is probably more accurate.
“I think men have a difficult time accepting the possibility of intense female sexuality.”
Ummm. You need to find some different men to hang out with.
Kink, exploratory sex, bi-sexuality, acting out sexual fantasies, multiple partners, serving a partner’s desires and fantasies for hours on end . . . whatever . . . these are not mutually exclusive with being offended by one’s own perception of a rape scene.
@Willi –
No, no need for different men, why would you make that personal? My point was, men seem to be more disturbed by this image than women, both online and among the people I’ve discussed it with.
The assumption could easily be she’s wanting to do several guys and likes it a little rough, as easily as the assumption that it’s a rape scene. Men seem to intuit rape faster than women do, which I think is very very interesting. The target audience for D&G would be primarily women, yes? And women that are a little more worldly.
The image, by intention I think, is pretty ambigious. My response to what makes this image offensive is that it is not to me personally, and I am curious to why it would be to so many men.
May as well add to the pile.
As someone much earlier in the thread said (and yes, I did read each and every comment), I was taken aback when I first saw the image and wondered if I was truly on Mike’s blog. For me (and I’m male), the image implies rape even without the other men standing around. The only factor Mr. Top and Ms. Bottom are missing would be having him between her legs. Otherwise, it’s all there — he’s restraining her, she’s turned her face from him, she’s elevating her hips in an effort to free herself (since he’s likely far stronger than her in the upper body, her only hope in this situation is to use her lower body in some fashion).
I find some of the arguments against a rape scene amusing — that she’s not straining, that there’s no indication of fear or revulsion or whatever in her face, etc. — of COURSE those indicators aren’t there. Because then it really WOULD be an ACTUAL depiction of rape, when D&G only wanted to approach the line.
For me, though, they crossed it. Call me a prude, call me unenlightened, call me an anti-progressive — whatever. It’s an implied rape scene, and it’s offensive.
The caption reads:
Woman thinking:
“Will this “bi” guy ever get it up? I wish these homos would just SELL me their coke!”
I have a feeling that their intent was “group sex” but it is undeniable that many people see”rape”. If they were deliberately trying to be ambiguous, they succeeded, otherwise, they screwed up. In any case they got a lot of free publicity. How does that old saying go…”I don’t care what you say about me, just spell my name right.”
All they need are two other females looking tipsy, spilling martinis, pointing and laughing at their friend, Ms. Bottom. I think then everyone could relate to the ad.
Jason, umm I think that would definitely (in the US) make the ad unacceptable.
Whats really ashame is the the ad creators really missed an opportunity. If the women had her eyes (and maybe her head) looking at Mr. Top provactively ( a come hither look) then , I think, the ad would convey the intent ( pushing the boundaries, fetish, dream desires, etc…) and yet not seem like rape or even a gang bang (in the porno sense).
My thoughts
Mike,
What if instead of removing any one person, you cropped it so you couldn’t see Mr. Top’s hand holding down Ms. Bottom’s?
I tend to agree with those that say it does not intend to portray a rape seen, but certain clues may inadvertently cause some to think so.
In addition, I grew up in a very conservative home and religion, and I am still part of that religion, but yet on first sight I certainly didn’t find this ad shocking or repulsive. Maybe I’m too naive.
SusieQ: Did you really just say that you think D&G actually approves of rape? I think you’re the naive one there. Using imagery that ends up being construed by some as rape and approving of rape are not even in the same ballpark. The former is a miscalculation and arguably just extremely insensitive. The latter is criminal in every way imaginable.
It still continues to amaze me that most men seem to have a problem with this ad and most women do not. Perhaps that validates the theory that this ad is indeed geared towards women and it really is more about the woman’s dream than the dreams of the men.
This is the 240th entry on my blog since starting it a few years ago, and I have to say, this conversation thread has been the most interesting to me. People seem to be emailing this post to each other rather than linking to it which is keeping the conversation at a nice, high level. I’m so glad it hasn’t been Dugg or anything. Comments would probably be off right now if that were the case.
2c:
I’m not particularly offended by the ad. I sometimes buy D&G, I am often immersed in this up-scale “world of fashion” with the likes of Roberto Cavalli, Versace, Armani, Zegna, Gucci, etc. (not my fault, I have an expensive sibling.)
I see a lot of ads that are geared to get attention, display beauty and basically, trigger materialistic desire.
I suppose to me, I just see it as “oh, it’s a fashion ad. Fashion ads never seem to make sense.” *turns the page*
Nice, Mike. I couldn’t have put it better myself.
Sorry, but in this case I think the wish is father to the thought.
1-Woman in bathing suit.
2-5 guys.
3-??
4-GANG RAPE!!
Why should it be gang rape? Does the woman looks like she has been beaten unconscious and is being forced to have sex with these 5 guys? No, the woman is lying on the ground being sexy and the 5 men are standing around looking gay, that’s all…there’s a huge difference between looking sexy and gangraping someone that only VERY prude and/or sex obsessed would see the connection IMHO…
I can see that some women don’t like to be always the sexy and thin girl in advertising but on the other hand: I’m don’t have my pumped up chest covered in oild either, and I’m not offended…
And by “wish is father to the thought” I mean exactly what Mike said before:
“…think this points to the fact that it isn’t rape that is “taboo”, it’s the admission that one finds this imagery interesting/arousing/etc that is taboo…”
The ad is deliberately, annoyingly ambiguous, and it distresses me that they’ve done this with a scene that’s an inch or two away from rape. If they wanted a multiple men fantasy, they failed, badly. I’m female, I like multiple men fantasies, and I promise you the “extra” men do not stand around with vacant looks, while some ex-soldier holds me down and stares at me. If these men were my fantasy cast, I’d fire them.
The central ambiguity is that all the facial expressions are empty. If the men were leering and the woman was in distress, there’d be no doubt of what was happening. Same for if she looked eager and the men looked hungry. But D&G don’t want me to know what these people are feeling, and they put them in a situation where I need to know that in order to read it. The lack of emotion goes beyond creepy into disturbing.
I can’t tell if the woman’s eyes are closed or if she’s looking at Purple Shirt. Is it disgust or lust, and for whom? Is she aroused enough to close her eyes and let her head fall, exposing her neck for kisses and licks? Who or what are each of the men are looking at, especially Purple Shirt? Is Shirtless ogling Mr. Top or Ms. Bottom or the pair?
Ms. Bottom is *posed*. Her legs are together, but placed to suggest that Mr. Top is between them, by diminishing the further thigh. She’s lifted herself, but probably isn’t struggling. But if she really wanted him, wouldn’t her legs either be open in invitation or squeezed tighter for sensation? Her back is arched, but it could easily be sexual excitement and display, not struggle. My boyfriend read it as eagerness. I can’t decide what she wants without more clues.
Mr. Top’s position suggests that he’s holding down Ms. Bottom, but is he really? One arm is hidden and the other *seems* to be holding her wrist. Some tiny detail of the visible hands is telling me that he can’t apply full force to her wrist. I’ve done playful struggle, and in the pose there, he isn’t gonna keep her pinned if she really wants to escape. She has him off-balance, and he isn’t using his torso to press her down. If she was really struggling, any sensible rapist would straddle at least one of her legs and use his hands to pin her arms open in a V, holding her wrists tight. (A weaker person can hold down a stronger person like that, at least for a while, so Mr. Top could surely keep Ms. Bottom helpless that way.) Between both their poses, there’s no question that the ad designers planned to screw with our minds.
The men are in dirty street clothes, but the woman is wearing a leotard and stiletto heels. That’s not a neutral outfit, but it’s not the right stuff to signal bondage and domination scene either. No leather, latex, straps, buckles, or studs. Black alone means nothing, and normal people do wear stilettos. (The men are even less dressed for a B&D scene than she is.) D&G could have put something, anything that counted for a collar onto Ms. Bottom. They didn’t. No eagerness-fear-excitement-power vibes to get the message across, either.
I still think the image would be disturbing if we had a Mr. Bottom instead of a Ms., or had Mr. Bottom and staring women, so long as nothing else were changed. Although in the latter case, at least I know that Ms. Coathanger there probably can’t hold down Mr. Beefcake in that pose unless he wants to be held.
I think the ad was based on this painting which would suggest the violence was built-in from the start. There is an obvious resemblance between Mr Top and the executioner. They are both pinning someone down about to perform an action on them in an unemotional, workmanlike way. Also, the odd blankness on the faces of the onlookers checks out. They draw the same kind of questions from us.
Other correspondences are more subtle. Elements from the painting have transformed and shifted as though the director wanted to keep the format of the painting but mix it up a bit.
I agree with Mike that they probably were going by increments towards the innocuous. But their source material was a representation of brutal violence which they then tried to make sexy. They couldn’t erase the suggestion of violence without making everything else redundant. If they had used kinky s&m pictures for inspiration they might have been more successful in depicting a consensual fantasy space.
In style and setting the two images are exactly opposite. A dark corner of the earth and a blue-sky dreamland.
I think the surface style owes a lot to Top Gun . So men have the choice of identifying with the act of rape as a male bonding exercise or a humanoid object with no subjectivity. (You can also read the purple android as the girl’s brother or boyfriend – powerless to prevent her violation ). That explains the number of men objecting and the queasiness in general.
I, for one, don’t find this ad offensive. I’m not aroused by it either – but I definitely don’t read real resistance into Ms Bottom’s posture. I’ll leave out her expression for the moment, since everyone in the ad is looking impassive in their own way – even cut-off jeans guy, who seems to be more interested in the scene than anyone.
Dave pointed out earlier that Mr Top is not between the girl’s legs – and I’ll add that her raised hips look more like an offering than an attempt to get away. Her fingers are curled, not flat – so I take from that she isn’t trying to use her arms for any leverage.
So, then, were the people who created this ad *trying* to depict rape? While the obvious answer might seem to be yes, I don’t think so. D&G would have to be pretty nutso to depict the humiliation, torture, and violation of women, when they have so many brand loyal women.
I do, however, think they are suggesting a rape fantasy – not for the men, but for the woman. That makes much more sense – especially if we consider that often, the hip crowd who can afford D&G are thought of as a little jaded, and often a little out there in their exploits (not saying I share that opinion – just saying that the stereotype of the wealthy, jaded fashionista partying in their D&G exists).
I think this ad is actually aimed at women, and carrying the message that if you’re wearing D&G, you can have even your most verboten fantasies fulfilled, and look great doing it.
Lastly, I can’t let all this pass without making some response to all the talk of objectification in this thread. When you’re talking about fashion advertising, you’re talking about objectification – from Mizrahi’s affordable Target line on up to the chicest of the chic designers. Fashion is about being iconic and perfect and beautiful all the time. That’s what people buy, when they drop the average person’s house payment on less than a yard of black cotton. They aren’t buying cotton, or even clothes. They are buying the object in the ad – buying that they can be that icon.
Simply put: ad designers don’t keep objectifying women and men in ads because it doesn’t work.
Just wanted to add that my comment (83) was meant to be entirely sarcastic and funny. Apparently my sense of humor is more warped than I thought, or I just need to use smileys more :)
It’s several things, and I think most if not all have already been discussed.
For me it’s that she’s held down AND other men are watching AND particularly, Mr Cutoffs is half naked and he has his hands on his hips like he’s impatiently waiting for his turn.
I think what’s so depressing about it is that if I were flipping through a vogue or other such magazine I would look at it, think, god I need to diet, and then read on.
But now that I’m actually *looking* at it– damn. It sure looks like the guys are all waiting around for their turn.
And if that’s her thing, fine! But if she had the slightest curve of a smirk on her face… or just a hint of “hey, sailor” just the tiniest indication that yeah, she wants this– it’d be a whole different scenario.
Plus- doesn’t iPod guy look like he’s all “oh man, I dunno if I should be here, I mean, I really want to get into the fraternity, but geez-”
But the thing I can’t fathom at all is… what the *hell* is up with that freakin’ android? I can only see him thinking “I’m sorry Dave, I can’t do that…”
It’s patently offensive because its a hocked loogie from the soulless, vacuous world of fashion, an industry, concept, and ideal that is singularilyk qualified as offensive by its very definition. Each time a fawning press and an adoring crowd of disgustingly rich benefactors worship a designer who drinks $15 still water between Peruvian flake blasts, the world throws up in its mouth and a few dozen children die in Darfur.
She’s arching your hips, you don’t arch your hips towards the guy who’s raping you when you’re trying to get away. I would think this is a wanted rape and those other guys are just perverts.
I don’t see this as offensive, although it’s perhaps not something I would want my children to see on a subway ad. I see the woman as the one with the power here. She looks almost bored with Mr. Top and looking for another. Her legs are together not spread signifying she’s still in control. Yet they are raised in excitement or maybe perhaps routine? It almost says clothes are more satisfying. Especially since her gaze draws us to the automaton purple shirt guy who everyone seems to find a poor replacement.
I’d also like to point out that just because he’s holding her wrist down it does not signify it’s rape, not everyone plays so vanilla.
I think the thing that disturbs me most is not that it is racey… its that it is so casual. There is a distinct sense of boredom in fantastic surroundings. I think men see it as a blow to their machismo (the woman is beyond them) if these guys can’t satisfy her. And women probably relate to some sense of unsatisfied sexual desire transferred to clothing.
I think this is a great ad if your trying to sell high end clothing to bored/unsatisfied women.
I think where the ad went wrong is that the purple guy almost has the look of a guy who’s lost. That signifies that Mr. Top has won. And since Ms Bottom does not look particularly interested in Mr. Top (other than her hips) it invokes a feeling of a lost prize and thus non-compliance.
When the two stories come together it invokes a much stronger reaction than what either would have been alone. The undercurrent is a blow to the masculine machismo, coupled with a man who has lost his prize is probably just too much for most men and thus why they are more offended by it.
Interesting points, Justeve.
This advertisement, like many in the fashion industry, is meant to evoke exactly the kind of discussion that is occuring on this forum. Our reaction, whether positive or negative, is part of the “art-as-process” (as opposed to art as product). Good attention, bad attention…it’s all attention. Think of all the Calvin Klein commercials that have disgusted and confused (or perhaps titillated) you.
Besides, the image is deceptive. It’s very Mona Lisa-esque, isn’t it? One could draw the conclusion that a gang rape is taking place, but then again the man on top is not actually between her legs but beside them.
The conclusion that one draws about this image probably tells us more about that person than it does about the image itself.
ok, so i know this discussion is fairly dead by now, but i still have to comment.
Reason for rape feeling: She turns her head away. Why? Because you would never accept her looking directly at the man on top. It would be so obviously sexual.
Just like many of the other girls: i don’t get offended at all, although i get offended by the fact that you sit here and discuss this and talk about arms and what-nots and almost not commenting on the girls posts at all… You discussing rape of a female in an ad, but when females try to say that “no, its not a rape”, you ignore them or say that they are wrong? How come you choose to listen to only the girls that get offended? Are you discussing or just stating your opinion?
sorry for the crappy english. am swedish.
Hi lovisa: I assume you are talking about other people on this thread because it is the female opinion that is *most* interesting to me here. I’m not kidding when I say that this is the most interesting comment thread I’ve ever hosted. I mean, it’s an ad that is supposed to be offensive to females, and yet it’s only the males that are offended. It’s endlessly interesting to me.
Read through the first dozen or so of these posts. After that it’s all blah, blah, blah. Let’s cut to the chase…The only reason anyone would second guess this ad as not being a rape scene (or a bland, slightly abstract representation of one) is the source. G&D is a company that markets to women. As such, I am sure that there are no nasty Male Chauvenist Pigs or Male Oppressors working there. If this ad were in any way perceived as coming from a male-dominated or male-oriented (and I, of course, mean heterosexual male) business (sports team, beer company, etc.) it would be Katie-Couric-bar-the-door…
Mike Writes:
“It’s an ad that is supposed to be offensive to females, and yet it’s only the males that are offended.”
Then you’re not paying attention, Mike. No, it’s *not* only the males who are offended. Plenty of women have written objecting to this ad, including me. Maybe you just forgot?
SusieQ
Hi SusieQ: Sorry. What I meant was “the majority of females seem not to be offended while the majority of males are”.
Mike, that’s OK. Thanks for the clarification.
SusieQ
|# March 21, 2007 08:48 AM–
|– from Mike
|–Hi SusieQ: Sorry. What I meant was “the majority of females seem |not to be offended while the majority of males are”.
|
Mike & Susie, Still watching this blog & the various thoughts & opinions expressed here have been interesting. I am one of the females who is somewhat offended by this ad. Why ‘somewhat’? It’s definitely a complex, sexually based, edgy ad: And just like sex itself (read: beauty, fashion) in all of it’s largess, is oftentimes a complex & edgy subject…I sense this ad snubs it’s nose at any sort of moral compass, or true intimacy. ( by positioning of bodies / lack of eye contact or connection/possible coersion/complicity ) This, being witnessed by millions, who may or may not be able to think through the very real ramifications that beauty & prostitution are usually linked. Not prostitution in the hooker sense, but prostitution in the sense of ‘I’ll trade you ‘this’, for ‘that’, is kind of scary. I don’t want to live in a lean & mean world where people are divided into 3 camps: dominate. submit. or comply. But maybe, after all, that’s how this world IS?!
Wow TJ, “the very real ramifications that beauty & prostitution are usually linked”? Astute observation, vaguely stated possibly to obscure its meaning? Sorry, don’t mean to be rude or personal (I think I’m beginning to pick this up by osmosis), but reading through these posts it astounds me to what extent many of those posting here will go to in an attempt to explain that either 1) D&G didn’t realize what they had done or 2) deny D&G are using a violent theme, a violence against their customer base (read: Women) theme no less, to promote their product. Either way, it’s warped. But it’s OK because it’s originating from “good” people, thus there must be some other interpretation, right?
the whole fashion industry is a basless world. it a constant objectification of, well, everything. It’s all done under the guise of ‘high fashion as art’ mentality when in reality it conjures sexual reactions and emotions revolving around sensuality.
Is it a rape scene? maybe, maybe not. I think what people are arguing here is not if THIS ad is offensive but the industry itself. the industry is made, the clothes and ads in their entirety, to make you want to buy their product, or want the people who wear the product. they do this by making you feel inferior and less sexy through a continual boundry-pushing exercise. all in the name of high culture.
hail the mighty $ you money-grubbing whores (men and women alike).
I guess this thread is still active. . . the profundity and subtlety of thought demonstrated on it have been dazzling!
Regarding why men might be more offended than women. . .
Women seldom comprehend exactly how inundated with lust most men are. The sexual drive of most women from puberty to age 40 is more or less equivalent to that of a man aged 60 (okay, I know I’m waving a red cape).
But my point is that lust often pushes even good men to cross the line from persuasion to coercion. Knowing this, the sight of anything resembling rape brings out the protective, rescuer side of good men.
Women, as demonstrated perhaps by the woman arching her hips, might be turned on by all the attention of multiple partners, but men know how fast the situation turns ugly.
OK, now I gotta ask one of those questions that we’re all supposed to understand without question (stupid wording intended). I am really tired of this “objectification” BS. I mean, yes, on the conceptual level, I understand it. But WTF is with it being used as some sort of Deus ex Machina kind of explanation for damn near every discussion involving marketing that includes any marginally attractive female? I have never seen an objection to the “objectification” of men, and yet there are quite a large number of ads (in fact this one could apply) showing sexy, lights-are-on-but-nobody’s-home-looking men (granted, nowhere near as many as of the women, but still…). Let me repeat the point from one of my earlier posts, D&G is a company that markets predominately to women (ok and a few gays, and a few metrosexuals, but really…). If so many women object (hey, wait a minute…object/objectification…hmmm), why does it work? (no, I’m not stupid, it’s a rhetorical question).
“I’m going to throw out all people who find every ad involving the objectification of women offensive, because hey, then the entire industry is offensive.”
The only Questions I have are:
1. What happened to men protecting womens honor?
2. Why are we accepting that sex sells?
3. Why is is ok to have an entire industry that is based soley on selling clothes as well as sex?
4. When did sex become a game?
5. when will people figure out that because we take sex so lightly is why there are more relationship issues and more divorces then ever?
if you have the balls or the brains to answer those questions, please let me know.
Vala: My pleasure.
1. Not sure what you’re talking about with regard to “men protecting women’s honor”. Men have been acting like superior beings to women for centuries. Millenia, really. It ebbs and flows, with women being more respected and treated as equals during some periods, and in other periods being treated like subordinate playthings. My “throwing out” of people who are offended by objectification is not meant to support objectification… it’s just meant to deal with the mainstream, which is what causes ads like this to get pulled. When the offensiveness gets too close to the mainstream, that’s when ads get pulled. And by the way, the statement also refers to objectification of men as well as women.
2. Why are we accepting that sex sells? Because it does. We accept things that are true, regardless of how we feel about the realities. If you’re waiting for a time in your life when sex isn’t going to sell, good luck with that.
3. You tell me, why is it not ok? Both clothing and sex have been for sale for again, centuries and probably millenia. Industries exist because there is demand for them, and there has always been demand for clothing and sex. There always will be.
4. I don’t know. Probably the first time someone tried to play Hide The Pickle. I’m going to go with somewhere around the beginning of time.
5. I’m not sure people will ever figure that out because I’m not sure it’s true. In my mind, the reason there are more relationship and divorce issues now is probably because the roles men and women play in the world are becoming more and more equal… and I don’t think that’s a bad thing. 50 years ago women grew up with their moms telling them they should be good cooks and good homemakers so they could satisfy their future husbands. Now, girls are told they should grow up and have a career and the rest will come naturally. I think that’s good advice, but I also think it leads to less subordination and therefore perhaps more overt personality clashes within marriages. It’s just a theory, I’m not a psychologist, and I could easily be wrong, but that’s my take on the situation. I’m not sure women are any less happy with their husbands now than they ever have been, but it just seems like they are more empowered to do something about it these days. And again, I think that’s a good thing. People get married too early. The simple fact is that you’re unfit to marry probably 99 out of 100 members of the opposite sex that you meet. It’s those that find the 1 which are happy and those that settle for the 50 or 60 or 70 that are not.
I saw the ad and wasn’t really offended. It looked like another cheesy fashion ad to me. And maybe I need reading glasses, but they looked like the same dude with different haircuts and outfits. So it’s sort of like one similar “dude” clone like creature in different poses and D & G gear, and a vapid model doing her thing. The dudes are interchangeable and don’t matter. I guess that might be why people are worked up about it. But models pretty much sell sex anyway so I don’t see how it shocks people. But I’m weird I guess.
It is a sanitized, sterilized, glamorized, deodorized, Disneyfied, glossed-over rape scene (left “ambiguous” (?) enough so the creators can back-pedal and look doe-eyed if anyone cried “foul”). I find SusieQ’s comments (whom I agree with wholeheartedly) refreshing, and lacking the hair-splitting (and sometimes nonchalant, or nihilistic) rhetoric of some of the other posts.
LOL :). Rock on, girl. I guess most of us are since we’re actually spending time deconstructing the still photo to ascertain whether it IS or it ISN’T. That is most eloquent of the spirit of the times (or lack of, rather). I mean, if you can’t see that for what it “ambiguously” pretends to evoke… but, then again what do I know about fashion and coolness.
Good thing my humor is black enough to help me chuckle a bit at the absurdity of it.
CW that was the best comment on this page.
One other thing that I found interesting… the 2 countries that pulled this ad are countries where men pride themselves on their machismo… a possible connection which didn’t dawn on me until later.
I find all the comments here provocative, and narrow. How is it that she said to these men “hold me down, and ride me till the five of you collapse in a heap on the ground”, and men for the most part; being whipped as they are when it comes to women, can do nothing but submit! Then in a narrow minded twist of fate, society turns backward and protects the aggressor, because she has the look of innocence – and nobody is the wiser?
[...] needs to be replaced. That’s not the end of the subject. Just yesterday, I was reading What EXACTLY About This Ad Is Offensive?, which again, came down to body language ad. I find this fascinating. Some people think this [...]