[Dr43%er]

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]

Originally posted by Lauren

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]

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]

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

[Ruth]

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

[Dr43%er]

How would you know he is enjoying it?

[Mrluvaluva]

Thought this may pop up in the conversation.

[Ruth]

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]

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]

The topics getting interesting.

[Mrluvaluva]

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

[GiRTh]

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]

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]

[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]

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]

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]

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]

Was it the blacked up Queen?

[GiRTh]

ROTFL

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

[Mrluvaluva]

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]

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

[Mrluvaluva]

Originally posted by GiRTh

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]

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]

Originally posted by BAZG

"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

[Mrluvaluva]

[i]Originally posted by GiRTh

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

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.