'Censored' ad sparks row in Spain [Archive] - ThisisBigBrother.com

Mrluvaluva

14-03-2007, 05:16 PM

Originally posted by GiRTh
Originally posted by BAZG

I agree. I was just correcting your post. lol
Funny lad aren't you. I think that you're trivializing this. Remember a few years ago when Calvin Klein did that adverts of kid in their under wear. Disgusting. They always come back with the usual garbage about freedom of expression. They make me sick.

What are you getting on your high horse about? I am not condoning this, but even someone like you should know that companies have used shock tactics to get peoples attention for years. And it works! Just look at the controversy it is causing. They are getting what they set out to get. Publicity. I would have thought that was obvious. PR companies do not care about your opinions. Thay care about making money. If you worked for D&G's PR department, would you refuse to be a part of it on ethical grounds, and walk out on your job, because of your beliefs? I don't think so. Get real.

GiRTh

14-03-2007, 05:32 PM

I'm not getting on my high horse and I don't know what your mean by ' someone like you'. Perhaps you could explain.

I just hate the industry. They seem to have a different set of values from everybody else and this advert confirms that. They promote the size zero woman when we all know how unhealthy that can be for young women. The women may feel they look better as size zero but it's very unhealthy. The thing is, the women are so blinded by the images they see and we men actively encourage it that they end up having little choice than to buy into the designer label culture. I know of women and men who do not own a single piece of non designer clothing but maintain they're not influenced by fashion. It's very subliminal.

Back to the topic. I would like to know what was going to happen next in this picture. Perhaps you can tell me.

Mrluvaluva

14-03-2007, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by GiRTh
I'm not getting on my high horse and I don't know what your mean by ' someone like you'. Perhaps you could explain.

I just hate the industry. They seem to have a different set of values from everybody else and this advert confirms that. They promote the size zero woman when we all know how unhealthy that can be for young women. The women may feel they look better as size zero but it's very unhealthy. The thing is, the women are so blinded by the images they see and we men actively encourage it that they end up having little choice than to buy into the designer label culture. I know of women and men who do not own a single piece of non designer clothing but maintain they're not influenced by fashion. It's very subliminal.

Back to the topic. I would like to know what was going to happen next in this picture. Perhaps you can tell me.

Firstly, let me explain to you by what I meant by "someone like you". I meant, somebody whom I regarded as intelligent. Nothing more, nothing less, so don't try to pick up on things that aren't there, ok.

Regarding the size zero comments, which are off thread, again, but I will retort to them. Whilst there is a gaggle of young models clamouring to get into the fashion industry, because they see it as glamorous and exciting, there will always be fashion houses waiting, ready to pounce, and bastardise them for their own self gratification. Whilst there are willing parties lining up, prepared to go as far as it takes, you will always have a problem. Until people stand up and say "No. Enough is enough".

I myself am too a designer label clothes horse. It is just my taste. Nothing wrong with that. Doesn't make you a snob does it? Most people are influenced by fashion. I should know as I work in the industry.

And as for what happens next in the pic - how the hell should I know? Some people may view it as gang rape, and some people as a kinky sex game.

Get off your soap box Grith.

GiRTh

14-03-2007, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by BAZG
Firstly, let me explain to you by what I meant by "someone like you". I meant, somebody whom I regarded as intelligent. Nothing more, nothing less, so don't try to pick up on things that aren't there, ok.

Thank you. I was wondering what you were trying to imply. I'm glad it was nothing.

Regarding the size zero comments, which are off thread, again, but I will retort to them. Whilst there is a gaggle of young models clamouring to get into the fashion industry, because they see it as glamorous and exciting, there will always be fashion houses waiting, ready to pounce, and bastardise them for their own self gratification. Whilst there are willing parties lining up, prepared to go as far as it takes, you will always have a problem. Until people stand up and say "No. Enough is enough".

My comments are off thread but still relevant.

You're right in your last comment but I feel that people are such slaves to the industry that they will never stand up. They're bombarded with images and the designers make their clothes to emphasise the skinny woman.

I think plenty of people are saying 'enough is enough' but, as I said right at the beginning, the fashion industry seem to have a different set of rules to everybody else

I myself am too a designer label clothes horse. It is just my taste. Nothing wrong with that. Doesn't make you a snob does it? Most people are influenced by fashion. I should know as I work in the industry.

You're in the industry? What do you do? Are you a sleazy photographer luring young teenage girl into you 'studio'.

And as for what happens next in the pic - how the hell should I know? Some people may view it as gang rape, and some people as a kinky sex game.

I don't think anything nice is about to happen in this picture and whether consenting or not it's an image that does not belong on billboards.

Get off your soap box Grith.

It's GiRTh not Grith and you know it.

Lauren

14-03-2007, 06:05 PM

Originally posted by GiRTh
I don't think anything nice is about to happen in this picture and whether consenting or not it's an image that does not belong on billboards.

But she appears fully consenting, it's not showing what happens afterwards either - so it's all down to interpretations.

GiRTh

14-03-2007, 06:08 PM

Lauren

14-03-2007, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by GiRTh
Originally posted by Lauren
Originally posted by GiRTh
I don't think anything nice is about to happen in this picture and whether consenting or not it's an image that does not belong on billboards.

But she appears fully consenting, it's not showing what happens afterwards either - so it's all down to interpretations.
But is it the kind of image that belongs on posters and billboards?

Why not?
They have women in underwear on them.

GiRTh

14-03-2007, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by Lauren

Why not?
They have women in underwear on them.
But are those women being held down? Is there something you want to share with us Loz. We'll understand.

Mrluvaluva

14-03-2007, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by GiRTh

Thank you. I was wondering what you were trying to imply. I'm glad it was nothing.

Well now you know. Don't be so bloody sensitive.

My comments are off thread but still relevant.

We were supposed to be talking about the image in hand.

You're right in your last comment but I feel that people are such slaves to the industry that they will never stand up. They're bombarded with images and the designers make their clothes to emphasise the skinny woman.

I think plenty of people are saying 'enough is enough' but, as I said right at the beginning, the fashion industry seem to have a different set of rules to everybody else.

Bit of a contradiction there. One minute you say people will never stand up, and in the next breath say plenty of people are saying enough is enough. Which is it? Are you confoozed?

You're in the industry? What do you do? Are you a sleazy photographer luring young teenage girl into you 'studio'.

That is just a pathetic comment and you know it. I ain't even going to reply to that. It doesn't deserve one!

I don't think anything nice is about to happen in this picture and whether consenting or not it's an image that does not belong on billboards.

That's your interpretation of it. Other people have different opinions. The fact is that shock tactics often work and companies gain publicity which is what they want. Ignore it, and they have lost what they set out to do!

It's GiRTh not Grith and you know it.

It was a simple typo error, and you know it. Get over it and stop being so picky, like there is some ulterior motive there or something.

Lauren

14-03-2007, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by GiRTh
Originally posted by Lauren

Why not?
They have women in underwear on them.
But are those women being held down? Is there something you want to share with us Loz. We'll understand.

LOL, they're not, but... whats wrong with being held down? It's not like she's obviously fighting back or anything.

GiRTh

14-03-2007, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by Lauren
whats wrong with being held down? It's not like she's obviously fighting back or anything.

There's nothing wrong with being held down while a group of guys watch you? Are you going to be saying this to your teenage daughter when you have one?

Lauren

14-03-2007, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by GiRTh
Originally posted by Lauren
whats wrong with being held down? It's not like she's obviously fighting back or anything.

There's nothing wrong with being held down while a group of guys watch you? Are you going to be saying this to your teenage daughter when you have one?

I meant the image :shrug: The image on a billboard of someone being held down (although she's not fighting back, so it's not really being "held" down) - isn't worse than most images across billboards in the UK.

GiRTh

14-03-2007, 06:35 PM

Originally posted by BAZG
Originally posted by GiRTh

Well now you know. Don't be so bl***y sensitive.

not being sensitive but just wanting to know what you meant. Is that OK?

We were supposed to be talking about the image in hand.

Bit of a contradiction there. One minute you say people will never stand up, and in the next breath say plenty of people are saying enough is enough. Which is it? Are you confoozed?

Not really a contradiction. I think there are many girls, and it is predominantly girls, who would like to nosh out but are scared of gaining weight. So they would want to stand up but feel afraid to. You seem to think I've said something other than I've said. Thats your fault not mine.

That is just a pathetic comment and you know it. I ain't even going to reply to that. It doesn't deserve one!

How do I know you're not a sleazy photographer. I've only got your word to say so. You could be anybody for all I know. Do you have a 'studio'?

That's your interpretation of it. Other people have different opinions. The fact is that shock tactics often work and companies gain publicity which is what they want. Ignore it, and they have lost what they set out to do!

Is that OK in your book. Why not shoe full pornographic images. You're argument holds no water. Where does it all stop and I'd have thought that someone in the industry would try to be less biased. Please wake up and smell what you're shovelling.

It was a simple typo error, and you know it. Get over it and stop being so picky, like there is some ulterior motive there or something.
Yeah right bgrayson. You knew that would rile me and it's succeeded.

Mrluvaluva

14-03-2007, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by GiRTh
Originally posted by BAZG
Originally posted by GiRTh

Well now you know. Don't be so bl***y sensitive.

not being sensitive but just wanting to know what you meant. Is that OK?

We were supposed to be talking about the image in hand.

Bit of a contradiction there. One minute you say people will never stand up, and in the next breath say plenty of people are saying enough is enough. Which is it? Are you confoozed?

Not really a contradiction. I think there are many girls, and it is predominantly girls, who would like to nosh out but are scared of gaining weight. So they would want to stand up but feel afraid to. You seem to think I've said something other than I've said. Thats your fault not mine.

That is just a pathetic comment and you know it. I ain't even going to reply to that. It doesn't deserve one!

How do I know you're not a sleazy photographer. I've only got your word to say so. You could be anybody for all I know. Do you have a 'studio'?

That's your interpretation of it. Other people have different opinions. The fact is that shock tactics often work and companies gain publicity which is what they want. Ignore it, and they have lost what they set out to do!

Is that OK in your book. Why not shoe full pornographic images. You're argument holds no water. Where does it all stop and I'd have thought that someone in the industry would try to be less biased. Please wake up and smell what you're shovelling.

It was a simple typo error, and you know it. Get over it and stop being so picky, like there is some ulterior motive there or something.
Yeah right bgrayson. You knew that would rile me and it's succeeded.

Erm, I think you need to get a grip Geoff. Nothing to do with who's fault it is here. Read your posts back to yourself before you post them. There was a definite contradiction in your post as I highlighted by "quoting" what you had said. I said I worked in the fashion industry. Why does that make me a "sleazy photographer"? You are just jumping to conclusions. "Studio" indeed. I work in sales if you must know. Happy now? And my opinion may be biased if you want to look at it like that, but it is MY opinion, and I am entitled to it, just as you are to yours. So you don't think shock tactics get publicity? In that case, it is you who needs to wake up! And as for typing your name incorrectly. I did it on purpose did I? I knew it would rile you? And you say you are not sensitive? Could have fooled me.

Bells

14-03-2007, 08:25 PM

I do think it's open to interpretations certainly, but plenty of people will see it in one way as opposed to others and in their eyes it's wrong. So for that reason alone the ad being removed is a wise option. I wouldn't say it glorifies gang rape since it's just the one man holding her down, but it's gone one step further than your average billboards degrading women in terms of girls simply posing in their underwear. And to me, that one step is quite a big one, hence the reactions and uproar it's caused. Whilst it may not offend everyone, at this stage it does offend others.

Mrluvaluva

15-03-2007, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by ice_maiden02
I do think it's open to interpretations certainly, but plenty of people will see it in one way as opposed to others and in their eyes it's wrong. So for that reason alone the ad being removed is a wise option. I wouldn't say it glorifies gang rape since it's just the one man holding her down, but it's gone one step further than your average billboards degrading women in terms of girls simply posing in their underwear. And to me, that one step is quite a big one, hence the reactions and uproar it's caused. Whilst it may not offend everyone, at this stage it does offend others.

Precisely Ice_maiden. I agree. One step further. Just over the borderline. Enough to shock some people, to obtain publicity. It's already achieved it's own goal. Example - when a song is banned, what happens? Answer - it goes straight in the charts at no 1. Nuff said.

Dr43%er

15-03-2007, 12:50 PM

For me the image is one of power, not violence. This can be seen in two ways. The obvious man holding down woman and him having the power over her, or the not so obvious, the woman having the sexual power over the men. She is in charge of the situation. (shown by her enjoyment) The men in the background are being submisive to her, watching and wanting to touch but waiting for her instruction to join in or take his place. If they were in charge would they be standing back or helping?

Power is sexy, a turn on. Pick the alpha male and you will have a better chance of you bloodline being passed on. Look at apes. The males will do thier best to impress the female so she will choose them to mate (she has the power even though the males are the stronger) Once she has picked her mate the others tend to back off. They will still try to impress her but they have no power. Now take the above photo and picture them as apes. She has chosen her alpha male (shown by the only one wearing sunglasses) so the others have to stand round hoping she will change her mind.

The massage I see is wear D&G and you will be seen to have power (by the fact you are wearing an expencive brand) thus more lightly to pass on your blood line (get laid)

Of course that could be a load of bollocks.

but it's gone one step further than your average billboards degrading women in terms of girls simply posing in their underwear.

How do you feel about men in their underwear or the current trend to emasculate and make fools of men in tv ads?

Ruth

15-03-2007, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by Lauren
Originally posted by GiRTh
I don't think anything nice is about to happen in this picture and whether consenting or not it's an image that does not belong on billboards.

But she appears fully consenting, it's not showing what happens afterwards either - so it's all down to interpretations.

I'm not happy with an advert that could potentially be interpreted as a gang rape is about to take place.

does she look consenting? She's all dressed up with make up on and she has her eyes shut. She looks sexy sure, but I wouldn't necessarily say she looks consenting.

It's pretty obvious that D&G have intended that the advert could be interpreted as a gang rape is going to take place (or at least one man is going to rape her while the others watch). I don't think an advert that could be interpreted that way is appropriate.

Ruth

15-03-2007, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by Dr43%er
How do you feel about men in their underwear or the current trend to emasculate and make fools of men in tv ads?

I know your question wasn't directed at me personally, but I hope you don't mind if I answer it. I have no problem with men or women in their underwear for adverts. This picture is a different kind of image though.

Dr43%er

15-03-2007, 02:35 PM

How would you feel about an image of a male on the floor with him being held down by a six" stilleto?

Ruth

15-03-2007, 02:38 PM

I wouldn't like it unless it wasvery obvious that he was enjoying it.

Dr43%er

15-03-2007, 02:39 PM

How would you know he is enjoying it?

Mrluvaluva

15-03-2007, 02:44 PM

Thought this may pop up in the conversation.

Ruth

15-03-2007, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by Dr43%er
How would you know he is enjoying it?

Well, what if he was grinning all over his face?

Dr43%er

15-03-2007, 03:06 PM

But grinning is not very sexy and sultry. How about if he had his eyes closed and had his pelvice raised to meet her?

GiRTh

15-03-2007, 03:12 PM

The topics getting interesting.

Mrluvaluva

15-03-2007, 03:13 PM

Oooh. It's getting all sleazy. lol. Carry on.

GiRTh

15-03-2007, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by BAZG

Erm, I think you need to get a grip Geoff. Nothing to do with who's fault it is here. Read your posts back to yourself before you post them. There was a definite contradiction in your post as I highlighted by "quoting" what you had said. I said I worked in the fashion industry. Why does that make me a "sleazy photographer"? You are just jumping to conclusions. "Studio" indeed. I work in sales if you must know. Happy now? And my opinion may be biased if you want to look at it like that, but it is MY opinion, and I am entitled to it, just as you are to yours. So you don't think shock tactics get publicity? In that case, it is you who needs to wake up! And as for typing your name incorrectly. I did it on purpose did I? I knew it would rile you? And you say you are not sensitive? Could have fooled me.

Get a grip huh?

OK my comments about you being a sleazy photographer we're below the belt. It was a cheap shot.

We need to get this thread back on track. It seems to be descending into a - you wouldn't say that if it were a man discussion.

I'm worldly enough to understand the value of shock tactics. In fact I believe myself to be more amoral than most people on this forum, but I find this advert to be deeply offensive. My main problem is not with the advert but with the fashion industry, that is so well represented by BAZ, stooping to these depths. This kind of advertising is sucking at the sump pump of sensationalism and should not be encouraged or endorsed in any way, shape or form.

Dr43%er

15-03-2007, 03:54 PM

It seems to be descending into a - you wouldn't say that if it were a man discussion.

That's not where I was going with it. I was going to get to the point that an image of a woman holding down a man with a healed shoe is a very powerfull image and one that shows the woman having ultimate power. As I belive the advert image is one about power (and who really has it) then it is linked to the main discution.

Mrluvaluva

15-03-2007, 03:58 PM

[i]Originally posted by GiRTh

Get a grip huh?

OK my comments about you being a sleazy photographer we're below the belt. It was a cheap shot.

We need to get this thread back on track. It seems to be descending into a - you wouldn't say that if it were a man discussion.

I'm worldly enough to understand the value of shock tactics. In fact I believe myself to be more amoral than most people on this forum, but I find this advert to be deeply offensive. My main problem is not with the advert but with the fashion industry, that is so well represented by BAZ, stooping to these depths. This kind of advertising is sucking at the sump pump of sensationalism and should not be encouraged or endorsed in any way, shape or form.

Oh! So I am here representing the fashion industry am I? ROTFL! Tell me, where did I condone the use of this advert? Go and scour all my posts and tell me where I said I personally agree with it. The fashion industry is not the only one to use overt sexual images, and references to promote their products. Sexual overtones are used in everyday products all the time from food to cars. I seem to remeber Pot Noodle getting their ads banned for being offensive. "The slag of all snacks" it was called. Whenever you go over the line, you are bound to offend someone.

Example of use of a figure in a provocative pose in advertising. Magazine advert for Obsession perfume, by Calvin Klein.

Mrluvaluva

15-03-2007, 03:59 PM

Other examples for you.

1. 2003, Gucci advert featuring an unkown model, possibly Carmen Kass or Louise Pedersen, depicting the Gucci (G) logo shaved into the models pubic hair. (I ain't posting the pic).

2. The Advertising Standard Authority in the UK banned an advert, for watchmaker Accurist, which showed a naked woman reclining on a chair with her left hand on her stomach and her partly obscured fingers above her crotch. (not a fashion retailer).

3. The controversial Opium Yves St Laurent advert featuing Sophie Dahl in 2000. The advert was never banned having recieved 948 complaints in the U.S..

GiRTh

15-03-2007, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by Dr43%er
That's not where I was going with it. I was going to get to the point that an image of a woman holding down a man with a healed shoe is a very powerfull image and one that shows the woman having ultimate power. As I belive the advert image is one about power (and who really has it) then it is linked to the main discution.
Power? Possibly, but with the woman all done up like a dogs breakfast, skirt hitched up and two of the men shirtless, I'll take a different view.

Dr43%er

15-03-2007, 04:01 PM

Just on a slight side. Does anyone remember the Benetton bill board ads that really caused a storm in the UK a few years back? Pretty much did for them in the UK.

GiRTh

15-03-2007, 04:06 PM

Was it the blacked up Queen?

GiRTh

15-03-2007, 04:12 PM

ROTFL

What does that mean? Sorry, I'm not familiar with chav speak.

Mrluvaluva

15-03-2007, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by GiRTh
Was it the blacked up Queen?

What? I think the doctor is talking about the one with all the knobs and fannies in! I am not posting it though! All their adverts were controversial at that time. I found one here.

Mrluvaluva

15-03-2007, 04:13 PM

Anothe one..........

Mrluvaluva

15-03-2007, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by GiRTh
ROTFL

What does that mean? Sorry, I'm not familiar with chav speak.

"Rolled on the floor laughing", and you must be familiar with "chav" speak as you call it as you are always posting LMFAO & PMSL so don't be two faced.

Dr43%er

15-03-2007, 04:17 PM

ROTFL= Rolling On The Floor Laughing
you can ad MAO= My Ass Off.

Cant find the images.

Benetton posters
1989 - Black and white men handcuffed
1991 - Newborn baby
1992 - Dying Aids patient
1993 - Bullet-riddled military uniform
1996 - Black horse mounting white mare
1998 - Children with Down's syndrome
1999 - Bloodstain and UNHCR logo
2000 - Convicts on death row

GiRTh

15-03-2007, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by BAZG
Originally posted by GiRTh
ROTFL

What does that mean? Sorry, I'm not familiar with chav speak.

"Rolled on the floor laughing", and you must be familiar with "chav" speak as you call it as you are always posting LMFAO & PMSL so don't be two faced.

Oooooh!!!! Hark at you. Don't get your panties in a bunch:whistle:

Mrluvaluva

15-03-2007, 04:32 PM

[i]Originally posted by GiRTh

Oooooh!!!! Hark at you. Don't get your panties in a bunch:whistle:

Stick to the subject. Where were we? Ahh yes. I was awaiting a reply from you on the last points I made. I am sure the DR has more to add too.

GiRTh

15-03-2007, 06:14 PM

Originally posted by BAZG
[i]Originally posted by GiRTh

Oooooh!!!! Hark at you. Don't get your panties in a bunch:whistle:

Stick to the subject. Where were we? Ahh yes. I was awaiting a reply from you on the last points I made. I am sure the DR has more to add too.
What was the last point you made? I'm sorry but it got lost in the waffle of you claiming that you publicly didn't endorse the poster and then the bombardment of offensive images.

Please enlighten me?

Mrluvaluva

15-03-2007, 07:25 PM

Just retrace your footsteps. Surely you don't need help.............

lily.

16-03-2007, 11:11 AM

I like the ad. I think it's extremely sexy.

Dr43%er

16-03-2007, 11:16 AM

Just wondering what you find sexy about it. The fact that she is vulnerable, that she has power over them, or its just fit bodies?

lily.

16-03-2007, 11:23 AM

I don't think she is vulnerable. It's about "control".

The way I see it (again, we all interpret it differently) is that she is the one in control. When you indulge in such things as light bondage or roleplay, you are always in control. The set up of the photograph is such that I interpret it as she is consenting to be held down for her own sexual pleasure, and also consenting to the men around her to be looking on. She has a look of arousal on her face, not one of fear or terror. Her facial expression alone could change this picture from one which is sensual/sexual to one which is nasty. The men also don't have menacing expressions or body language.

I understand why it was banned. If enough people interpret it as "gang rape" then obviously it sparks outrage. But, also, as has been already mentioned, any publicity is good publicity so D&G win either way.

When I look at the picture, it doesn't conjure up the words "abuse", "rape", "degrading" or "violence". I find it sexual and a bit kinky. It floats my boat.. maybe it's all about preference. :wink:

Dr43%er

16-03-2007, 11:26 AM

That's pretty much the way I see it too. I just wondered about a female perspective that likes it.

lily.

16-03-2007, 11:29 AM

Glad we agree. I wouldn't like to be singled out as the "freak who likes it" hahaha

Seriously though, it doesn't hurt that the men in the ad are ridiculously hot!

I do think people will see it differently depending upon the things they "like" (if you know what I mean). I would bet muh azz that Kizwiz will think it's hot too... :thumbs:

edit to add: How old are you if you don't mind me asking Dr?

Dr43%er

16-03-2007, 12:09 PM

Seriously though, it doesn't hurt that the men in the ad are ridiculously hot!
Yes they do look hot. Quite what the ambient temperature has to do with it I do not know though.

Of course I don't mind you asking how old I am.

I see you say you were an original punk. That gives me a rough idea about you. Close?

lily.

16-03-2007, 12:12 PM

I was late with muh punk phase though. I'm 33.

Mrluvaluva

16-03-2007, 12:19 PM

Stay away from her Doc. You will just end up another notch on her bed post.

lily.

16-03-2007, 12:20 PM

You weren't complaining last night Baz.. :wink:

Mrluvaluva

16-03-2007, 12:25 PM

erm...um....oh.....splutter....splutter.....

lily.

16-03-2007, 12:27 PM

:bigsmile: Anyway, all this size zero talk in the other topic is making me hungry... I'm guna go make some soup... (translation: open a can of Heinz)

Byee.. x

Dr43%er

16-03-2007, 12:37 PM

35 me.

I am not a notch on a bed post. I am a free man.

Mrluvaluva

16-03-2007, 12:40 PM

Oooh. We should all call ourselves the "thirty somethings". Geoffs in his thirties too.

Ruth

16-03-2007, 12:46 PM

Yep, me too.

Mrluvaluva

16-03-2007, 12:48 PM

It's just like an episode of This Life! lol

Dr43%er

16-03-2007, 01:07 PM

Never watched it. Is that the one with a bloke called Egg?

Mrluvaluva

16-03-2007, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by Dr43%er
Never watched it. Is that the one with a bloke called Egg?

That is correct. A load of thirtysomethings shared a house together.

Dr43%er

16-03-2007, 01:13 PM

Never watched it as anyone who is called egg, would no doubt be a prick and annoy me. Close?

Mrluvaluva

16-03-2007, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by Dr43%er
Never watched it as anyone who is called egg, would no doubt be a ***** and annoy me. Close?

Not at all. It was a great programme, and all of the characters were really cool and from different backgrounds. An eclectic bunch you might say. They all had different careers, and it followed their lives through their jobs, and tackled certain issues. It also followed their relationships at home with one another, and their friends & families etc. And of course they often got drunk, did drugs and had sex. Just like real life really.

Dr43%er

16-03-2007, 02:09 PM

But, Egg.

Mrluvaluva

16-03-2007, 02:15 PM

I know. It's a crap name isn't it.

GiRTh

16-03-2007, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by Linda
I don't think she is vulnerable. It's about "control".

The way I see it (again, we all interpret it differently) is that she is the one in control. When you indulge in such things as light bondage or roleplay, you are always in control. The set up of the photograph is such that I interpret it as she is consenting to be held down for her own sexual pleasure, and also consenting to the men around her to be looking on. She has a look of arousal on her face, not one of fear or terror. Her facial expression alone could change this picture from one which is sensual/sexual to one which is nasty. The men also don't have menacing expressions or body language.

I understand why it was banned. If enough people interpret it as "gang rape" then obviously it sparks outrage. But, also, as has been already mentioned, any publicity is good publicity so D&G win either way.

When I look at the picture, it doesn't conjure up the words "abuse", "rape", "degrading" or "violence". I find it sexual and a bit kinky. It floats my boat.. maybe it's all about preference. :wink: :rolleyes:You're a filthy pervert.:whistle:

GiRTh

16-03-2007, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by BAZG
Oooh. We should all call ourselves the "thirty somethings". Geoffs in his thirties too. Only just.

GiRTh

16-03-2007, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by Dr43%er
But, Egg. It was short for Edgar.

Dr43%er

16-03-2007, 05:12 PM

Then call yourself Ed. Egg indeed. I know nothing about him and I want to slap him.

I do know he is not real by the way.

GiRTh

16-03-2007, 05:23 PM

He was probably the second best character in it. Such a nice guy.

The best character was Anna.

Mrluvaluva

16-03-2007, 06:51 PM

Anna was great.

lily.

16-03-2007, 10:12 PM

Originally posted by GiRTh
Originally posted by Linda
I don't think she is vulnerable. It's about "control".

The way I see it (again, we all interpret it differently) is that she is the one in control. When you indulge in such things as light bondage or roleplay, you are always in control. The set up of the photograph is such that I interpret it as she is consenting to be held down for her own sexual pleasure, and also consenting to the men around her to be looking on. She has a look of arousal on her face, not one of fear or terror. Her facial expression alone could change this picture from one which is sensual/sexual to one which is nasty. The men also don't have menacing expressions or body language.

I understand why it was banned. If enough people interpret it as "gang rape" then obviously it sparks outrage. But, also, as has been already mentioned, any publicity is good publicity so D&G win either way.

When I look at the picture, it doesn't conjure up the words "abuse", "rape", "degrading" or "violence". I find it sexual and a bit kinky. It floats my boat.. maybe it's all about preference. :wink: :rolleyes:You're a filthy pervert.:whistle:

Indeed I am. :thumbs:

~Kizwiz~

17-03-2007, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by Linda
I do think people will see it differently depending upon the things they "like" (if you know what I mean). I would bet muh azz that Kizwiz will think it's hot too... :thumbs:

I dont find anything disturbing about this ad, but like stropz said, its just the way we are...... its riddled with sexual undertone and she doesnt look like she is desperately trying to fight them.

There aint anything wrong with a bit of role play and consented fun :wink:

I guess you have a little kinky side in you to understand the sexual deviancy if it :hugesmile:

Dr43%er

17-03-2007, 11:06 AM

So, shall we start The Kinky club then?

~Kizwiz~

17-03-2007, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by Dr43%er
So, shall we start The Kinky club then?

I'm gain if you are :wink:

Dr43%er

17-03-2007, 12:01 PM

I feel a bit awkward starting a club when I am so new here. But first we need some ground rules.

There should be a safety word for when things get a bit to much. I would like to suggest "harder" or "more" so there can be no confusion.

What other things should we have.

Mrluvaluva

17-03-2007, 01:22 PM

lol. How are you gonna work The kinky club on here?

Dr43%er

17-03-2007, 01:43 PM

Are you going to join us? We are still working on the how's and what for's .

Mrluvaluva

17-03-2007, 02:29 PM

Sure thing. So how are we doing this?

lily.

17-03-2007, 02:30 PM

I'm in. :thumbs:

Mrluvaluva

17-03-2007, 02:35 PM

We already knew that! That went without saying! lol

Mrluvaluva

17-03-2007, 03:12 PM

So come on DR. What are your plans? Spill the beans.

lily.

17-03-2007, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by BAZG
We already knew that! That went without saying! lol

True.

Since Doc suggested it he needs to draw up the Club Rules :thumbs:

Dr43%er

17-03-2007, 03:32 PM

I am working on it. It is a democracy though, so any ideas will be welcome.

GiRTh

17-03-2007, 04:39 PM

I think you're all a little off topic.

On another note. Count me in.

Dr43%er

17-03-2007, 05:36 PM

Major news on Kinky Club coming soon.

Dr43%er

17-03-2007, 06:39 PM

Well, what does every club need?

A logo.

And yes, that is me.

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a191/123andrew/Kinky-club-to-web.jpg

lily.

17-03-2007, 09:59 PM

LMMFAO!!! Now u need to make a new thread..

Dr43%er

18-03-2007, 12:10 AM

You like then? I can make it kinkier if you want? What are exactly
the rules on here?

Dr43%er

18-03-2007, 12:26 AM

Can I just say, squint. I look sooooooooooooooooo much better if you do that. Thanks.

lily.

18-03-2007, 01:24 AM

Originally posted by Dr43%er
You like then? I can make it kinkier if you want? What are exactly
the rules on here?

I'm probably not the best person to ask about rules. Apparently I flout them... :wink:

xGemmax

18-03-2007, 01:44 AM

I usually love d&g adverts but not that one so much. I don't think it's meant in a violent way or anything its just supposed to be sexy. I couldnt resist posting some of my fave d&g ads as they are so stunning

http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/9983/fashion90uy8.th.png (http://img201.imageshack.us/my.php?image=fashion90uy8.png) http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/6071/fashion91pt2.th.png (http://img224.imageshack.us/my.php?image=fashion91pt2.png) http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/1513/fashion95kk1.th.jpg (http://img138.imageshack.us/my.php?image=fashion95kk1.jpg) http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/5392/fashion96ut0.th.jpg (http://img148.imageshack.us/my.php?image=fashion96ut0.jpg) http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/8793/fashion97td7.th.jpg (http://img148.imageshack.us/my.php?image=fashion97td7.jpg)

These ads are so much better than that one :love: