Dolce & Gabbana angry at advertising campaign controversy in Spain

[Salvatore]

lol I always thought of Elmo as not being fully developed or slow....LOL!

JJ!

 

[belletrist]

It's not that simple Khaotic. One may not think of "censorship" everytime something is banned because it's considered as offensive. I'm not offended by this ad but I think it oozes mediocrity and cheap tacky advertising techniques. So I'm 100% behind spain because honestly p*rno chic is disgusting (apart from the one with na touch of humour)

Ther's a strong difference between the sexual revolution (Benetton ads, if offensive, at least had a sense) and the fact of putting sex everywhere without any claims, just to sell (which D&G is doing)

 

[Whitelinen]

It's not that simple Khaotic. One may not think of "censorship" everytime something is banned because it's considered as offensive. I'm not offended by this ad but I think it oozes mediocrity and cheap tacky advertising techniques. So I'm 100% behind spain because honestly p*rno chic is disgusting (apart from the one with na touch of humour)

Ther's a strong difference between the sexual revolution (Benetton ads, if offensive, at least had a sense) and the fact of putting sex everywhere without any claims, just to sell (which D&G is doing)

I agree with you.

 

[tomfordfan]

i think that it is absoulty obserd that they should have to stop running the add....i thought there was something called freedom of speech.
if the spanish claim it depicts a sort of r*pe situation then i guess they should ban all movies with violence or whatever...spain needs to get
with the times and shut up for once!

 

[stilettogirl84]

It's not that simple Khaotic. One may not think of "censorship" everytime something is banned because it's considered as offensive. I'm not offended by this ad but I think it oozes mediocrity and cheap tacky advertising techniques. So I'm 100% behind spain because honestly p*rno chic is disgusting (apart from the one with na touch of humour)

I don't think a government should have the right to ban somthing simply because they find it offensive, tacky, or disgusting. There are many great artworks, books, paintings, ect that are disgustiong or offensive to some people, but I do not feel that the government has the right to interefere with or ban those things.

Obviously, I don't think this advertisement is great art, but I think the same principles should apply across the board. Since when is it the government's job to control the quality and content of Advertising? The government should maintain law and order, and that's about it. I don't think it should be up to them to decide what advertisements are shown in magazines, or to decide waht is or isn't "allowed" in their media.

To me that's too much governmental control, and it's a bit creepy.

 

[xmodel citizen]

^ I agree! So anytime people don't like the way an advertisement is shot, or the intent behind it, they can ban it?

 

[Scott]

^yes but one must realise,this is being put in magazines which can easily be picked up by a 13 or 14 year old.....

it's not about them at all,in fact. it's all in how they feel the masses percieve this kind of imagery and imagery children in fact can see very easily. forceful sex,may look "hot" to some people,but it sends the wrong message,especially since some many young women are concsious of fashion. i think it makes women look objective....as everybody says,a man is holding her down and another group of men are looking on with lust.

somebody mentioned films too....i dunno about how Spain uses age restrictions in cinema's...but aren't certain age groups barred from certain rated films?

 

[Whitelinen]

^yes but one must realise,this is being put in magazines which can easily be picked up by a 13 or 14 year old.....

it's not about them at all,in fact. it's all in how they feel the masses percieve this kind of imagery and imagery children in fact can see very easily. forceful sex,may look "hot" to some people,but it sends the wrong message,especially since some many young women are concsious of fashion. i think it makes women look objective....as everybody says,a man is holding her down and another group of men are looking on with lust.

somebody mentioned films too....i dunno about how Spain uses age restrictions in cinema's...but aren't certain age groups barred from certain rated films?

Good points.

 

[xmodel citizen]

^yes but one must realise,this is being put in magazines which can easily be picked up by a 13 or 14 year old.....

it's not about them at all,in fact. it's all in how they feel the masses percieve this kind of imagery and imagery children in fact can see very easily. forceful sex,may look "hot" to some people,but it sends the wrong message,especially since some many young women are concsious of fashion. i think it makes women look objective....as everybody says,a man is holding her down and another group of men are looking on with lust.

somebody mentioned films too....i dunno about how Spain uses age restrictions in cinema's...but aren't certain age groups barred from certain rated films?

Um, what about Stuff or FHM? Anyone can pick up magazines with scantily-clad women in situations and positions that I don't find attractive. The government is not a babysitter, and they can't control who buys a magazine. If you're going to ban one ad, you might as well ban every other ad (and there's a lot of them!) that portray people in postitions that might not be appropriate for 13 year olds to view. A lot of things offend me in advertisements, but I don't think they should be banned. All kids have to do to be exposed to inappropriate material is turn on the TV, go to the movies, read a book, flip through a magazine, etc. D&G are hardly the most explicit.

And who's to say there's something wrong with viewing material you might consider inappropriate or offensive? My mother never stopped me from watching R rated movies or other sorts of things that people considered offensive and I'm not some sort of deviant or deliquent. I think that point is unproven.

 

[belletrist]

i think that it is absoulty obserd that they should have to stop running the add....i thought there was something called freedom of speech.
if the spanish claim it depicts a sort of r*pe situation then i guess they should ban all movies with violence or whatever...spain needs to get
with the times and shut up for once!

Where do you live? Since Zapatero, Spain has A LOT to teach to every country in this planet, and this is surprising because they're getting close to the scandinavian countries. Spain is doing a lot for the woman - whose situation is not ideal in spain so it's not easy for the governement, and yes they should ban violence and p*rn on TV, because whoever doesn't see the link between the violence, especially on woman, and what they see on TV, need to be informed. That's not pure censorship, like Spain used to do (Remember the spanish were going to France just to see Last tango in Paris because it was banned in Spain). Here there isn't anything artistic, nor anything that could justify sex - I mentionned Benetton before. It's pure vulgarity. And a state should worry about what its children see.

In france whe had the same problem when Baise Moi ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baise_moi ) was banned because we could see women getting raped deruing approx 80% or the time, so it's a big debate. But here, we shouldn't ask ourselves if it's legitimate or not: I° it's an ad, II° it's from D&G. Promoting the fact that a woman who is obliged to do anything sexual could be "fun" or "sexy" makes no sense to me.

 

[stilettogirl84]

The government is not a babysitter, and they can't control who buys a magazine. If you're going to ban one ad, you might as well ban every other ad (and there's a lot of them!) that portray people in postitions that might not be appropriate for 13 year olds to view. A lot of things offend me in advertisements, but I don't think they should be banned.

I agree- when government begins to take this much control over the lives of the citizens, it's like the government thinks that the citizens are unable to think or act for themselves in a responsible manner.

 

[belletrist]

I agree- when government begins to take this much control over the lives of the citizens, it's like the government thinks that the citizens are unable to think or act for themselves in a responsible manner.

The larger the role a government has in the lives of it's people, the less personal responsibility for their own actions people feel that they need to have.

So, according to you, all the citizens are "able to think or act for themselves in a responsible manner"

Where do rapes, murders, etc come from?

I don't mean that offending images could create rapers, I just think that It could, cause some kind of "excitation" which is absolutely not necessary. Not everyone is well balanced and responsible, certainly not.

 

[Whitelinen]

Promoting the fact that a woman who is obliged to do anything sexual could be "fun" or "sexy" makes no sense to me.

I agree.

And who's to say there's something wrong with viewing material you might consider inappropriate or offensive? My mother never stopped me from watching R rated movies or other sorts of things that people considered offensive and I'm not some sort of deviant or deliquent. I think that point is unproven.

I was never stopped either, and I didn't turn out well. I got disturbed and cynical. There's a reason behind why there are such ratings. I'm not saying every child who views that is affected, but the risk is much bigger than if it is an adult in question. Children cannot judge things the same as adults.

 

[stilettogirl84]

So, according to you, they are "able to think or act for themselves in a responsible manner"

So, where does rapes, murders, etc come from?

they do these things by there own personal choice

I'm saying that it's absurd to say- "It's not my fault I raped that girl, Dolce and Gabbana's advertisement made me think it's OK"

People know better- but will use any excuse to blace the blame outside of themselves.

 

[Whitelinen]

^ That's true I think. Rapes and murders have existed through centuries, before there was anything like this.

I don't know why these discussions need to be brought to this. Of course that image does not cause rapes. BUt isn't is obvious it's awful to make money on an image like that? I think that's why it's inappropriate. It makes women look like sluts and sex as something that's about looks and dominating. Isn't sex quite private? Why do we need to sell things on sex? I think it's plain stupid. These days it seems sex = fashion, clothes = sex.

 

[xmodel citizen]

they do these things by there own personal choice

I'm saying that it's absurd to say- "It's not my fault I raped that girl, Dolce and Gabbana's advertisement made me think it's OK"

People know better- but will use any excuse to blace the blame outside of themselves.

Exactly! Anyways, there are many external and internal factors that lead to a person's outlook on life. What about their family? Witnessing violent acts within the home has an infinitely greater effect on a person's violent behaviors than an advertisement ever could.

And what about the other things in fashion? What about the fact that they glorify smoking, drugs, unhealthy body weights, the fact that they produce clothing in sweatshops in third world countries? What about the rapes being committed in real life everyday? There are far more pressing things in the world than a couple frickkin high fashion adverts. Crap like this just distracts from the women who are actually being sexually assaulted. How about focusing time and money and outrage on them?

 

[stilettogirl84]

^ That's true I think. Rapes and murders have existed through centuries, before there was anything like this.

I don't know why these discussions need to be brought to this. Of course that image does not cause rapes. BUt isn't is obvious it's awful to make money on an image like that? I think that's why it's inappropriate. It makes women look like sluts and sex as something that's about looks and dominating. Isn't sex quite private? Why do we need to sell things on sex? I think it's plain stupid. These days it seems sex = fashion, clothes = sex.

perhaps it is, and individuals who dislike the ad can write to the company, or someting like that.

But is it right for a government to ban something just becasue it's offensive? I jsut don't think it is

 

[taperjeangirl]

Maybe if the other guys were touching each other, it would've been less offensive?


[sarcasm noted]

That quote has made my week...Karma!!

 

[Whitelinen]

What about the fact that they glorify smoking, drugs, unhealthy body weights, the fact that they produce clothing in sweatshops in third world countries?

I think pretty much all this is as serious as this over-sexualisation of fashion and objectifying of women that fashion ads seem to be about. How is the glorifying of drugs different from glorifying of making women mindless sex machines?

 

[Whitelinen]

perhaps it is, and individuals who dislike the ad can write to the company, or someting like that.

But is it right for a government to ban something just becasue it's offensive? I jsut don't think it is

I don't think it is right to ban these, but I think they should be placed with a warning from those who think it is offending to them.