-
Announcing... The WINNERS of the 2025 theFashionSpot Awards:
Designer of the Year
Ready-to-Wear Collection of the Year
Haute Couture Collection of the Year
Model of the Year
Photographer of the Year
Stylist of the Year
Magazine Cover of the Year
Ad Campaign of the Year
Congratulations to ALL of our worthy winners! Thank you to our tFS forum members who voted and participated.
Provocative / Offensive Ads #1
- Thread starter Spike413
- Start date
- Status
SnejanaIsMyMuse
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 1,632
- Reaction score
- 1
Lol ,yes bad legs.
It's just a weird ad.
It's just a weird ad.
Diorette
Active Member
- Joined
- May 22, 2006
- Messages
- 6,713
- Reaction score
- 2
. le go garçon 84
Member
- Joined
- May 14, 2007
- Messages
- 259
- Reaction score
- 0
eww, Paris Hilton is offensive by herself
le go garçon 84
Member
- Joined
- May 14, 2007
- Messages
- 259
- Reaction score
- 0
Go to Tom Ford's page http://tomford.com/fr/default.aspx?folderId=7e1ea22a-c88d-4c77-9f30-c30f85030b88 i'm refering to the last batch, the photos are ok, cute guys and all, but really tasteless IMO, sorry if already posted
ultramarine
chaos reigns
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2003
- Messages
- 6,436
- Reaction score
- 69
hahahaa
OMG! Richardson and Ford!
What a combo!
OMG! Richardson and Ford!
What a combo!
tigerrouge
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2005
- Messages
- 18,994
- Reaction score
- 10,041
Is that Tampax ad for real, because it seems more like a satirical take on it?
As far as any message goes, visually, the fishing lure is suspended as if to say, even when my lala is 'not open for business', it can still reel them in. But I don't get what the slogan refers to.
But overall, with a topic as culturally sensitive as menstruation, where blood has to be coloured blue and body parts left unmentioned, I can't see any ad trying to sell tampons with that approach. Or it's a brave design agency that tries.
Though it has demonstrated one thing - that ordinary legs are now deemed 'too ugly' to appear in advertising for women's products. I don't think the sight of a supermodel's legs would have made me feel any different about the fishing tackle.
As far as any message goes, visually, the fishing lure is suspended as if to say, even when my lala is 'not open for business', it can still reel them in. But I don't get what the slogan refers to.
But overall, with a topic as culturally sensitive as menstruation, where blood has to be coloured blue and body parts left unmentioned, I can't see any ad trying to sell tampons with that approach. Or it's a brave design agency that tries.
Though it has demonstrated one thing - that ordinary legs are now deemed 'too ugly' to appear in advertising for women's products. I don't think the sight of a supermodel's legs would have made me feel any different about the fishing tackle.
Glamourizing gang bangs?
This Dolce & Gabbana ad was posted on yahoo! a few days ago with the accompanying article about sexist ads. Many of the users found it offensive as it seems to glamourize gang bangs. Apparently a few moms don't want their kids simulating what these "sluts" are doing in these ads. Maybe I'm desensitized but I just don't see it.
What really bothers me is how much praise Dove gets for that damn "real women" campaign. They're owned by the same company that makes AXE body spray for men. I think everyone recognizes AXE ads, and it sure isn't because they use "real women".
Should sexist ads be banned altogether?
"If you think the sexism in "Mad Men" is offensive, consider this: The E.U. is seeking to ban gender stereotypes in ads. Maybe it was what some considered a depiction of gang r*pe in the Dolce & Gabbana ad above that broke the proverbial camel's back, but according to the New York Times, the legislature will be actively assessing and slapping companies on the wrist for even minor transgressions.
And lest you think the move is laughable--after all, who cares if Mr. Clean represents the idea that it takes a "strong man" to clean a floor?--consider the idea that these moves could eventually become legally binding. The thought of the government regulating advertising sounds scary: I would rather they outlaw companies making outrageously false claims about wrinkle creams than focusing on the creative side. And what next? Editorial output? Journalism?
"The concern, according to the committee report, is that stereotypes in advertising can 'straitjacket women, men, girls and boys by restricting individuals to predetermined and artificial roles that are often degrading, humiliating and dumbed-down for both sexes." Well, that sounds noble. And it seems like the advertising industry is experiencing a small but significant revolution in general. The prevalence of blogs has created a kind of public awareness of airbrushing and the other types of tomfoolery advertising has traditionally relied on to sell products, and the usual tricks don't seem to be working anymore. France is even proposing to levy fines against ads that feature overly skinny individuals in order to combat the promotion of anorexia, and who could forget Dove's campaign aimed at "real women?" It seems like we're slowly but surely moving toward a radically different set of standards. Still, one look at the ad above and it's clear we have a long way to go.
The question is, is it the government's place to regulate such things? Or is it up to the public to simply self-ban and boycott by refusing to purchase products that use gender stereotypes and degrading images to sell? You tell us. "
shine.yahoo.com
This Dolce & Gabbana ad was posted on yahoo! a few days ago with the accompanying article about sexist ads. Many of the users found it offensive as it seems to glamourize gang bangs. Apparently a few moms don't want their kids simulating what these "sluts" are doing in these ads. Maybe I'm desensitized but I just don't see it.
What really bothers me is how much praise Dove gets for that damn "real women" campaign. They're owned by the same company that makes AXE body spray for men. I think everyone recognizes AXE ads, and it sure isn't because they use "real women".
Should sexist ads be banned altogether?
"If you think the sexism in "Mad Men" is offensive, consider this: The E.U. is seeking to ban gender stereotypes in ads. Maybe it was what some considered a depiction of gang r*pe in the Dolce & Gabbana ad above that broke the proverbial camel's back, but according to the New York Times, the legislature will be actively assessing and slapping companies on the wrist for even minor transgressions.
And lest you think the move is laughable--after all, who cares if Mr. Clean represents the idea that it takes a "strong man" to clean a floor?--consider the idea that these moves could eventually become legally binding. The thought of the government regulating advertising sounds scary: I would rather they outlaw companies making outrageously false claims about wrinkle creams than focusing on the creative side. And what next? Editorial output? Journalism?
"The concern, according to the committee report, is that stereotypes in advertising can 'straitjacket women, men, girls and boys by restricting individuals to predetermined and artificial roles that are often degrading, humiliating and dumbed-down for both sexes." Well, that sounds noble. And it seems like the advertising industry is experiencing a small but significant revolution in general. The prevalence of blogs has created a kind of public awareness of airbrushing and the other types of tomfoolery advertising has traditionally relied on to sell products, and the usual tricks don't seem to be working anymore. France is even proposing to levy fines against ads that feature overly skinny individuals in order to combat the promotion of anorexia, and who could forget Dove's campaign aimed at "real women?" It seems like we're slowly but surely moving toward a radically different set of standards. Still, one look at the ad above and it's clear we have a long way to go.
The question is, is it the government's place to regulate such things? Or is it up to the public to simply self-ban and boycott by refusing to purchase products that use gender stereotypes and degrading images to sell? You tell us. "
shine.yahoo.com
tigerrouge
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2005
- Messages
- 18,994
- Reaction score
- 10,041
It just sounds like a new source of revenue for lawyers on court cases that'll go nowhere.
I mean, good luck to the department whose job it'll be to officially decide what's personally offensive to 'women, men, girls and boys' across Europe and then to successfully impose financial punishment on the perpetrators.
Sexism isn't the problem in the Dolce & Gabbana ad, it's the implied violence - there's nothing inherently sexist about being the only woman in a crowd of half-dressed men.
And I wonder what the outcry would have been if the supposed g*ngb*ng had centred on a man being pinned down by another man, would newspapers disapprove and describe him as a victim of sexual violence, or do men not matter? Would it matter if a gay man was the supposed victim? Or is it only women who need protected?
Because scanning for stereotypes and making judgements, the process has to be fair to everyone.
I mean, good luck to the department whose job it'll be to officially decide what's personally offensive to 'women, men, girls and boys' across Europe and then to successfully impose financial punishment on the perpetrators.
Sexism isn't the problem in the Dolce & Gabbana ad, it's the implied violence - there's nothing inherently sexist about being the only woman in a crowd of half-dressed men.
And I wonder what the outcry would have been if the supposed g*ngb*ng had centred on a man being pinned down by another man, would newspapers disapprove and describe him as a victim of sexual violence, or do men not matter? Would it matter if a gay man was the supposed victim? Or is it only women who need protected?
Because scanning for stereotypes and making judgements, the process has to be fair to everyone.
^ You're completely right in your last point.
Another thing to consider, if the roles were reversed (the man being pinned down while a crowd of women watches), no one would bat an eye and they'd probably be considered empowering to females. Men can be the dumbed down sex objects to women and no one would voice any objections to that. But if a woman is shown as a sex object it's offensive, degrading and misogynistic. If anyone is imposing these "straightjackets" on particular genders it's the people writing this stuff, because by saying a woman can't be in an erotic situation like this without it being degrading, you're basically putting women on a Victorian pedestal.
It's not even like she looks remotely distressed, so if it is implying some sort of gang bang scenario, she certainly doesn't seem like an unwilling participant.
Another thing to consider, if the roles were reversed (the man being pinned down while a crowd of women watches), no one would bat an eye and they'd probably be considered empowering to females. Men can be the dumbed down sex objects to women and no one would voice any objections to that. But if a woman is shown as a sex object it's offensive, degrading and misogynistic. If anyone is imposing these "straightjackets" on particular genders it's the people writing this stuff, because by saying a woman can't be in an erotic situation like this without it being degrading, you're basically putting women on a Victorian pedestal.
It's not even like she looks remotely distressed, so if it is implying some sort of gang bang scenario, she certainly doesn't seem like an unwilling participant.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
Similar Threads
Users who are viewing this thread
New Posts
-
-
-
-
Jonathan Anderson - Designer, Creative Director of JW Anderson & Christian Dior (4 Viewers)
- Latest: Lola701
-
