Provocative / Offensive Ads #1

[MyNameIs]

Not that I disagree with you, but I think the argument goes something like this. That image is glorifying violence (sexual assaults) on women, which happens MUUCH MUCH more than it does on/against men. Also it reinforces the LONG HELD stereotypes that women are sex toys/objects to men. (Un)fortunately there don't seem to be such stereotypes for men.

But I agree with you that, this PC police is going too far. It's became a habbit of mine to try and spot how many tv shows/commercials make the man in the scenario the dumb party and the woman as the reasonable rescuer. And you're right nobody complains over those.

 

[Spike413]

I see what you mean, but I think the violence is open to interpretation because I personally don't see violence happening in that photo, I just see the implication of rough sex. It's all in her face, she looks all lustful and come-hithery....not remotely threatened or afraid.

And I just reread the post and saw that comment about parents not wanting their children emulating that scene. What teenage girls, or boys for that matter, are reading GQ, Details and Men's Vogue? That's a menswear ad, so it wouldn't have been run in Vogue, Elle or Bazaar, so not many teenage girls would even be exposed to it.

Besides, parents just use stuff like this as a scapegoat for the fact that their children are out doing things that they shouldn't be. If a 16 year old girl decides to allow her boyfriend and his buddies to do anything like that to her, it's not because of something she saw in a fashion magazine.

 

[dior_couture1245]

Besides, parents just use stuff like this as a scapegoat for the fact that their children are out doing things that they shouldn't be. If a 16 year old girl decides to allow her boyfriend and his buddies to do anything like that to her, it's not because of something she saw in a fashion magazine.

Exactly. I mean, kids are impressionable, but they really aren't that impressionable that by flipping through a magazine and catching a glimpse of an erotic ad (in which nothing remotely p*rn*gr*ph*c is even shown) would cause them to suddenly become some sl*t. When your teenager is loose, it's not because they were inspired by a magazine ad...

About the ad itself...I think all the fuss over it is silly. Like Spike mentioned, why can't a woman be portrayed in an erotic situation? It's not like now that women have assimilated into the workforce and are no longer exclusively housewives that all aspects of their sexual lives should be shoved under the carpet. If anything, I think it's good for fashion to be well rounded in its views towards women...there are designers who celebrate the intellectual side of women, designers who celebrate the practical and resourceful side of women, designers who celebrate the history of women, and there are designers who celebrate the sexual side of women. What's so wrong about that?

 

[tigerrouge]

Not that I disagree with you, but I think the argument goes something like this. That image is glorifying violence (sexual assaults) on women, which happens MUUCH MUCH more than it does on/against men. Also it reinforces the LONG HELD stereotypes that women are sex toys/objects to men. (Un)fortunately there don't seem to be such stereotypes for men..

Statistics show that men are the victim of general violent assault far more often than women are, with sexual assault being such a shameful area for them that we automatically think it doesn't happen at all, because no-one wants to talk about it. But it happens, to straight men and to gay men, and attitudes mean it's an uphill battle to even acknowledge it does.

And it's also a long-held stereotype that a man is a source of money for a woman, a woman with superficial desires and a one-track mind, though for diamond rings, rather than sex. You see plenty of those type of women in advertising, for whom a rich lifestyle is more important than the human being they're married to.

 

[Deborah]

#1064 how is that meant to make you look at puma in a good way? Or do they want to be seen as tarts trainers?

 

[Spike413]

^ It's a fake ad, it wasn't done by Puma and it was never published.

 

[jollyvixen]

Statistics show that men are the victim of general violent assault far more often than women are, with sexual assault being such a shameful area for them that we automatically think it doesn't happen at all, because no-one wants to talk about it. But it happens, to straight men and to gay men, and attitudes mean it's an uphill battle to even acknowledge it does.

Women are ten times more likely to be a victim of sexual assault than men. (National Crime Victimization Survey)

As for general violence, men are more likely than women to be involved in crime. (Bureau of Justice Statistics)

 

[bun-bun]

When I first saw those Dolce & Gabbana ads I was offended, but now I'm more bored than anything. Between that brand and the D&G brand, it seems like every other season for the past three years the photographers deliver some other equally unimaginative p*rn scenario to "shock" us all, and frankly, it's more boring than disturbing.

 

[tigerrouge]

Women are ten times more likely to be a victim of sexual assault than men. (National Crime Victimization Survey)

As for general violence, men are more likely than women to be involved in crime. (Bureau of Justice Statistics)

That's what I said, if you look at the distinction I made in my wording about men being the victim of general violent assault - not specifically sexual, but general. Statistics show they are much more likely to be the innocent victim of stabbings, robberies, random beatings etc, without them being 'involved' in generating the crime.

My argument is: in terms of stereotypes we see around us, should victimhood belong to women? Why not realise (and represent) that bad things happen to men too - and that assault of any sort is wrong.

Is the outcry about the Dolce & Gabbana ad coming from our all-too-quick assumption that 'if it's a woman, she's a victim'. We seem TOO eager to think a woman is a victim - like it's an approved role to play, one that we don't want taken away from us.

And are we are too slow to realise bad things can happen to men too? Why are we resistant to this realistic idea? Maybe don't want them hogging the victim role too - they already get to be the perpetrator.

A serious change in advertising stereotypes is going to require a massive overhaul in how we view the roles and attributes of men and women, and the labels we've learned to attach to them.

 

[2Nova]

I'm surprised no one cares to mention the obviously offensive new "mother nature" Tampax commericals which depict a woman (mother nature) giving a box to another woman stating it's her 'monthly gift'. The entire commerical is so ridiculous:


From beginning to end the whole commerical makes periods seem like something "mother nature" uses to torture women. The entire purpose of having a period is to inconvience them and cause discomfort. In the end mother nature says "Newlyweds!" in which we're left to deduct that mother nature wants to cause the couple distress due to the woman having her period.

Excuse me, but as a woman I am very happy to have my period. Yes there are bad sides to it, but if the choice of having cramps or the ability to have children, I'd of course choose children. There is no "being" that "creates" periods to cause pain for women, and that is not the purpose. I hate how this commericals tries to portray it as nothing but a painful experience to be avoided and hated.

When a women loses her period (before menopause) that's a sign that's something wrong with her body. Anorexics can lose their period from near starvation, having your periods is a sign of health, it's a good thing.

And what's even more offensive and a total slap in the face is that they try to make it to be a joke! How comical it is that women experience pain during their period, how comical it is that women even have a period. That commerical is totally disgusting and offensive.

I'm a woman and I actually have a condition that causes my periods to be extremely painful and I still find this ad funny

I mean all tampon ads are a bit uncomfortable to watch but i think it's silly how she says ooooh newlyweds just comical!

I think you're overacting a bit

 

[2Nova]

I'm sorry I dont understand how 85-90% of these are offensive....
the only one i'm a little uncomfortable w/ are the tom ford ads....? and some of those are actually kinda hot

i think most of you are really stretching it to find something offensive

 

[tigerrouge]

It's like the letters page in Vogue, where some people write to cancel their subscriptions if there are bare breasts in the magazine. For many, there's no problem with the sight of the human body, but for others, there's no place for nudity in a fashion magazine because it exceeds their standards of good taste.

Each will think the other has no grounds for their objection/allowance. Yet even if we don't support the belief of someone, it is always worth considering their arguments, to see things we may fail to see, being so wrapped up in our own opinions.

We may not find something offensive, but it doesn't stop us from appreciating WHY someone else might do, and not dismissing their idea, even though we don't share it.

That is the value of this thread to me - everyone's vastly different take on things. It's the thread on tfs that makes me think the most.

 

[eternitygoddess]

Remove all the other males and I find the D&G ad quite...er..."hot".

 

[aaron95]

well i found hot all that season of the ADS

 

[nyc_art_style]

hey guys,

i'm working on a homework project, and i need offensive, conversational, or infamous eyeglasses campaign. it could be from any campaign, but i need the eyeglasses ad. if anyone thinks of anything good or wants to point me in the right direction i would greatly apperciate it.

 

[aaron95]

there is some ad by tom ford for eyewear in this thread you could just search some pages back

 

[Faith Akiyama]

I don't believe this campaign was previously discussed here, so I was wondering what everyone's thoughts were on it:

Barbie Loves M.A.C. (SS07)
Models: Mona Johannesson and Emanuela de Paula

Wordpress

Any personal views/opinions on this particular campaign? I'm conducting some research regarding the images for a project, so your comments are much appreciated!

 

[reese06]

I looove the MAC ad. I loved the mannequins that looked like the models that were in the stores even more though.

It seems people will find controversy in anything though.

 

[Filipe]

Well, what is that? those are ads incredibly photoshoped, it´s insane, they don´t even look like real people.

It can influence in a certain way for those little girls that see those ads & want to look like those models. which is not possible at all.

 

[eternitygoddess]

^I disagree.

At the rate of calling out how provocative ads or images out, it seems like people will be influenced by EVERYTHING they see.

Little girls see mannequins all the time. Maybe we should start reshaping mannequins.