It's the CENSORSHIP, DU--regarding yes, the D&G ad.

[blondeatlast]

I can see how many people thought it victimized women, promoted sexual violence, etc. I personally am not offended, but take no offense at those who are; I can see now why they think that way.

But imagine if the US OFFICIALLY banned some heavy metal or rap performances for the same reason. I don't want a governemnt entity OFFICIALLY blocking (and that's pretty much what Italy did) this consenting adult from seeing anything (and I'm not going to even start on this administration and the corp-whore news). If Italy can do this to a popular clothing brand--a COMMERCIAL entity--when do they come for the artists? I see a very slippery slope here.

Many have seen it as depiction of gang rape, many others have seen it differently. Who should win the argument, and should the government decide for us? I think not.

This is official CENSORSHIP, folks--and I for one am highly offended by it. FWIW, until very recently, I worked in a library and dealt daily with requests for reconsideration.

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,23663,21340398-5007192,00.html

[blondeatlast]

1. Lots o'viewing, no responding, so pardon me while I

:kick:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. Yes.

Now those are the people that are the perverts.

[KittyWampus]

3. Since when is protesting 'censorship'? Oh, and was objecting to that Snickers crap censorship?

I've about had it with corporate advertising.

This includes that assholery with the Litebrites.

[rockymountaindem]

5. It's censorship because aparently they were actually banned in Italy n/t

[LoZoccolo]

8. What is the story behind the Lite Brites? n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. Somebody put up some LED commercials in Boston.

Some morons thought they were bombs and had the whole city shut down.

[Kingshakabobo]

34. I'm wondering if you noticed Locco's(notorious rabble rouser) sig-line?

:)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

38. No, I saw the avatar though.

But mistook it as somebody elses.

[blondeatlast]

12. The Italian government actually banned the ad. I've no problem

with consumer boycotts, even when the RRR does them. It's their right.

[KittyWampus]

39. Thanks. Gotta say, a dialog about corporate advertising would be welcome by me

In general, I mean.

[muriel_volestrangler]

51. The Advertising Self-Discipline Institute banned it

which sounds like an advertising industry body. There's nothing there saying the government did it.

Your equating this with a heavy metal or rap performance is incorrect - this is about an advert that appears in publications. People don't get the option of knowing they'll see it until they do. This is more like the FCC having a say on what goes out on broadcast TV - which happens all the time in the USA. And that is a government body.

And yes, the ad is offensive.

[Madspirit]

4. It is a slippery slope

...and though the ads offend me, particularly the gang rape depiction, I am not sure I would support government censorship. However, I would support consumer boycotts. People have the freedom to boycott whatever they want and that pressures the pocketbook of the company.
Lee

[dkofos]

6. were the advertisers going for the rape look or is that just how

some people perceive it?

It looks like it was computer generated.

But I do like the shoes.

[BayCityProgressive]

9. how do we know

it is depicting rape? Sorry but lots of people like group action or like to "watch". and lots of people like it "rough". I don't mean to be graphic here but my god, I have seen way worse than this...

[dkofos]

22. You missed my point completely

and answered my question with another question.
Please reread the post you you answered and try again.

[BayCityProgressive]

27. sorry I should have made my post clearer

I was responding to the article in general..not your sepecific post..

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. I think people just want to see it.

Like racist cartoon penguins.

[gravity]

79. I doubt the advertisers were going for the rape look

It's just a highly sexualized picture taken the wrong way. Just because the man is an a dominating position, it doesn't mean that the woman actually is being raped. Some people enjoy being sexually controlled by another, given that it is consensual and in a safe environment.

[aikoaiko]

7. Do the Italians have the equivalent of a 1st Amendment>?

Obviously, the US govt hasn't banned the ad, but official in Italy have.

I read that article too fast-- it wasn't even a government body in Italy was it (Advertising Self-Discipline Institute (IAP))?

[Beaverhausen]

10. And what Ann Coulter said was OK with you, too?

Hey, no one here is advocating censorship, but those of us who do find the ads offensive have every right to express out opinions, as do those who think the ads are OK.

[blondeatlast]

16. Speak out all you want, but that's another issue.

That's why I changed my SL; it was too provocative and didn't say what I really meant.

What Ann Coulter said was vile and I'm not okay with it. You can see the D&G ads however you want and comment on them as you see fit. But censorship scares me--and if they can censor a major clothing brand, they can--and probably will--someday censor an artist or writer.

Please, when stating your case, don't put words in my mouth. You can be as angry as you want, but don't assume my feelings for me. In this case, you are quite wrong.

[Beaverhausen]

28. And you are putting words in our mouths

or on our computers.

I see no one advocating censorship on any of the threads about this ad. Maybe I missed it, but I don't see it.

I do see people offering opinions about it.

[gollygee]

14. I don't think the gov't should censor ads that I find offensive

However, I do find that ad offensive and I don't mind saying so out loud.

[MADem]

15. Official censorship? The D and G idiots are the ones who retracted the ad

NOT the government. See here http://www.thinkfashion.com/blogs/stylosity_style_scene/archive/2007/03/07/110045.aspx

and see here

http://www.brandweek.com/bw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003554614

It was published in Italy a while ago, no one noticed. It was the Spanish women, when the ad migrated, who made the first stink, and THEN the Italians got on the bus.

It was a frigging business decision by a couple of bozos who charge way too much for clothing.

I think if there was any 'official' reprimand it happened after the ad was pulled.

They got what they were looking for, though--publicity.

[blondeatlast]

20. The article I cited states the process differently.

The fact that Italy has a ministry overseeing this kind of thing bothers me, if nothing else.

[MADem]

25. That article is fact challenged I suspect

Especially since the ad has been all over Italy for over a month.

[Carni]

152. Ah---That explains it then...

Makes more sense that the D&B people pulled it after creating a huge buzz about their brand.

[sandnsea]

17. Pornography is illegal

Depictions of rape is pornography.

What I really, want to hear from you personally, is how can you not see that ad as degrading to women? And, did you see the other thread with the litany of degrading ads? When are we going to demand that we stop being portrayed that way?

[Beelzebud]

18. It will stop when women stop playing along... And BTW... Porn isn't illegal.

[sandnsea]

23. Yes there are obscenity laws

The depiction of a rape is obscene.

And I agree, women should stop playing along. But there's also the issues of economic disparity, conditioned beliefs, and fine lines between art and obscenity.

[Beelzebud]

26. And what is obscene to one is acceptable to another.

Thats why censorship sucks.

[sandnsea]

29. Too bad

This is a case where the majority of people would find the depiction of rape for advertising purposes obscene, that's the basis of the law, it can easily be defined as illegal. I am generally against censorship as well, but this particular ad goes over the line. Some of the others that are even more degrading towards women, aren't obscenity. This one is.

[Beelzebud]

31. You don't speak for a majority of people. I can guarantee that...

I don't think the ad looks like rape.

[Morgana LaFey]

95. and that's because you have been

habituated, seasoned, trained, taught NOT to see it that way. you have been inured to its menacing quality, the inherent violence in it. AND too, probably because you don't want to give up your porn, by your own admission. You'd rather allow the pandemic of violence against women to go unchecked than stand up against it.

[Warren DeMontague]

120. This ad isn't porn.

I highly doubt anyone, anywhere, is going to masturbate to that ad. And if the point was to turn heterosexual men on, why was it in fashion magazines?

[mongo]

87. Someone tell Stanley Kubrick

Yes there are obscenity laws
The depiction of a rape is obscene.

And I agree, women should stop playing along. But there's also the issues of economic disparity, conditioned beliefs, and fine lines between art and obscenity.

Under YOUR PERSONAL definition -- which is NOT the definition of Obscenity (look up the Miller test) the movie A Clockwork Orange is obscene.

[sandnsea]

108. Those aren't mainstream advertisements

Completely different medium with different rules that were put in place for the very reasons this thread exists. Do we need a rating system for magazine ads now??

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

19. Pornography is not illegal.

Not all depictions of rape pornography, nor are depictions of rape illegal.

[Warren DeMontague]

64. Dammit! There is NO MORE IMPORTANT BATTLE than keeping consenting adults

from looking at pictures of other consenting adults naked or having sex!

[blondeatlast]

21. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Personally, I wasn't offended--I've seen MUCH worse. I can see how many would be offended though.


This thread isn't about me, dammit.

[sandnsea]

24. I asked a question

If you don't want the thread to go off on a tangent, that's fine with me. I would appreciate your response in a PM though. I don't understand how you cannot see that ad as degrading to women and would truly like to hear your thinking process on it.

[blondeatlast]

30. No PM--I'm okay with a sub-thread.

Let's begin by me stating upfront--I'm into some sexual play that some on DU would not approve of, including some that is depicted in the ad as I see it. FWIW, I'm happily married and my Mr. is into the same types of play. We've been together for 11 years now and show no signs of stopping.

I didn't interpret the ad that way when I first saw it; my perspective has changed a bit and I can see why some think it's degrading.

Beyond the fact that I'm into some play that many would not approve of, I can't explain my thinking and with all due respect, see no reason to try.

[sandnsea]

36. Thank you

Whatever turns your crank, seriously. I guess I always figured people who were privately engaged in varying sexual activities knew that it didn't mean it needed to be splashed on the pages of popular magazines.

[northzax]

33. I look at that and see 'gang bang' not rape

she certainly doesn't appear to the withdrawing from the man holding her down, in fact she is thrusting her hips skyward. Nor, in fact, do the other men look all that interested in her, not does she look frightened or disturbed, she simply looks bored as well.

[sandnsea]

37. "the man holding her down"

Yeah, she's loving being raped. That's almost more degrading than just depicting a rape.

She can't be thrusting her hips skyward - and bored - at the same time.

[northzax]

44. why does it have to be a rape?

seriously, why can't she be a woman who gets to have five hot men? an opinion was asked for, and I gave it, I don't see violence in this picture.

[sandnsea]

45. She has to be held down for five hot men?

Those are your words. Go back and read them until what YOU wrote sinks in.

[northzax]

47. there is one person leaning over her

he is either holding her down, or supporting his weight or a combination of both (most likely to me that last) she certainly doesn't look like she is struggling much, does she? (and maybe that implies not a tacit endorsement, but that she is consenting?)

[sandnsea]

50. rationalize all you want

it's obvious you're doing it. It makes no difference to me. Begs the question, why do you have the need.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

55. Yeah, what's with people being rational around here?

Obviously, they hate women.

[northzax]

113. I guess we are down to the Felix Frankfurter position

on pornography then. You look at this picture and see rape. I don't. who is right?

[BuddhaGirl]

129. some women LIKE to be held down!

I for one like it - my husband and I enjoy that and other activities (as a poster mentioned upthread).

I did not see it as rape.

[Warren DeMontague]

132. Oh boy.

Now you've done it.

:popcorn:

For the record, some MEN like to be held down, too.

...Just sayin'.

[sandnsea]

135. That's in the privacy of your home

I don't care if you tie each other up and flog each other bloody. Not my business. A reenactment of that doesn't belong in a mainstream publication and if it were in one, it would be obscene.

[BuddhaGirl]

140. the ad is not a reencactment of a flogging, geez

the ad is not obscene. It is sexy and erotic.

Society needs to loosen up and be less puritanical!

[BuddhaGirl]

141. obscene is YOUR perception, YOUR interpretation

just as it is my perception and interpretation of being sexy and erotic.

That's why the ad shouldn't be censored.

[taught_me_patience]

133. Are you saying

holding a woman down = rape? WTF!?!?! You are demeaning the seriousness of rape.

This cannot be rape because:

1) He's not even between her legs. He's not even close to penetration.
2) Their clothes are on. Again... they are not even close to having sex.
3) She doesn't appear to be saying "NO"

[muriel_volestrangler]

137. 1) You have to look fairly hard to realise he isn't between her legs

See the full advert:

2) It wouldn't take much 'adjustment of clothing' for sex to be possible

3) It's you who are "demeaning the seriousness of rape" here. Rape is when someone doesn't give consent to sex. A woman doesn't have to be saying 'no' constantly. There's no sign of consent, or pleasure. Many women freeze in fear when they are being raped.

[lumberjack_jeff]

32. Then organize a boycott

If you object to womens portrayal by companies that create products marketed to you, you have no obligation to purchase their products.

I didn't like the ad. I didn't like any of the ads on their website. Then again, I'm not their target market.

The ad certainly made a subconscious appeal to a sexual theme, this is nothing new. If it were objectionable to their target market, it'd be counterproductive.

Sadly, sex does sell. I'm glad I got rid of my TV.

Women can successfully demand that they stop being portrayed that way when other women stop buying their products.

[sandnsea]

35. I don't buy it anyway

Neither do any of the people I know. This is just another instance to me that proves people don't put their money where their mouth is, on so many issues. Day after day, DUers whine whine whine about the evil corporatists and Walmart shoppers. But when it's THEIR spending habits questioned, well it's a whole other ball game.

[mzmolly]

49. While I don't always agree with you...

:toast:

[Warren DeMontague]

61. Define "pornography".

I'll wait.

[sandnsea]

68. I should have said obscenity laws

It's already been defined as community standards and I feel very comfortable stating that US community standards would find a rape depiction, or even a gang bang, in a mainstream magazine violates obscenity laws. In this particular instance, I just don't give a shit what any free for all DUer has to say on the matter. Note, if this were in any other venue, I'd be for letting the artist do whatever the artist wanted.

[Warren DeMontague]

74. I guess since I don't want government involved in censorship, I'm a "free for all DUer"

So if you want to go by the "community standards obscenity law" benchmark.. you HONESTLY think that a jury in this country would find the makers of THIS AD guilty of obscenity? Really?

I'm not saying it's a good ad, I'm not saying it's not offensive- but you honestly think that 12 citizens would send someone to PRISON over it?

[sandnsea]

89. Do you support child pornography?

If you don't, then you do support limits on speech. If you do, then there's nothing further to discuss.

This is obscenity because of its location, more than its content. In an art museum, it's freedom of expression. In a public venue, it carries a different community responsibility and consequently becomes an obscenity. Stripping in a nudie bar is different than stripping at the park.

[Warren DeMontague]

99. Good grief. What a BS question.

Any time someone can't come up with a reasonable argument to justify censoring material

BY AND FOR

CONSENTING ADULTS*,

they invariably pull some variation of this "what about the children" argument.

In answer to your question, not that it deserves one, is no. I am a parent and a human being and EVERY argument I make about socially libertarian, free speech principles around this issue is predicated upon the twin pillars of CONSENT and ADULTS.

I agree with you, that context and location matters- but whether or not this ad was appropriate for a fashion magazine, my question still stands (I answered yours, I'd appreciate it if you'd answer mine) If this ad is "obscene", it violates "obscenity laws" and "community standards", do you think the folks who made the ad should be criminally prosecuted? Do prison time?

Over this particular ad?


*Sorry to make it so glaring, it just seems that people miss those two little words all the time in these debates.

[sandnsea]

106. It portrays a rape

that is a hideously violent obscenity. The work has no artistic value, in that this is not a museum or art piece, it's not even pornography. It's an ad in the mainstream public venue. That's the reason it becomes a different kind of work. Like I said, as different as a nudie bar and a public park. It's an obscenity and I do think a jury would decide public advertisements depicting rapes should be illegal. They probably shouldn't go to jail, but mandatory sentencing is a different issue.

I brought up the child porn issue because people always think they're 100% freedom of the press - until they realize they do have limits. Maybe it's a close-up of an asshole, or a dick shooting cum on a billboard across the street from an elementary school - but everybody has limits and obscenity is the umbrella in which we regulate them.

[Warren DeMontague]

119. Right, but there is no nudity, no a** close-ups, no penetration, no

dick shooting cum on a billboard in this ad; there is a man apparently holding a woman down. Can it be seen to imply rape? Yeah. It's a terrible ad. Whoever came up with it should be fired- but by their boss, not by the government.

But that's not what you said. You said they "probably shouldn't go to jail". Over an ad. An ad full of dressed people, posed in a way that suggests something offensive. For this, you're willing to entertain the idea that we could fill some more prison cells.

That's absurd. If someone said "Rape is good", an asinine statement if there ever was one- would you say they maybe should go to jail or face prosecution?

Here's another question- and it has exactly as much bearing on the topic at hand as tossing out hyperbole about "child porn"...

Do you think it should be against the law for CONSENTING ADULTS to look at pictures or films of other CONSENTING ADULTS having sex- in the privacy of their own homes?

[sandnsea]

124. I said it's legally obscene

I stand by that. Part of its obscenity is that it is NOT in the privacy of anybody's home, it is out in the public square. You put obscenities out in the public square, you get arrested. Pretty simple.

[Warren DeMontague]

127. I think you would have a very hard time proving that in a court of law.

Like I said- no one is naked, no one is penetrating anyone else, you have one man holding a womans' arms. Which is not to say it's a good ad, but I think there are plenty of things, starting with those old Underdog cartoons where Pretty Polly is tied to the railroad tracks, (not only is she being held down, she's being threatened with implied dismemberment) which could be argued to be equally "obscene".


I'm glad you accept that consenting adults should have the right to look at other consenting adults nude or watch other consenting adults having sex in the privacy of their own homes, however. There are certainly folks here who don't.

[muriel_volestrangler]

138. It's the violence that's the problem, especially associated with sex

It's a huge problem in society, and adverts in the public arena, which depict it as a casual occurrence, could encourage some boys or men to think it may be morally acceptable. Many of the comments on this thread, along the lines of "many women like rough sex, and being held down", and "she's not saying 'no'", make this problem worse - it implies that unless a woman is actively struggling and shouting "rape!" at the top of her voice, it's not 'rape'.

Consexual sex is acceptable, and the depiction of it in public may or not not be acceptable. Forced sex is never acceptable, and any depiction of it has to be careful, just like the depiction of murder needs to be careful. Showing someone in an advert being knifed so their jewellery could be stolen would be 'obscene' too.

[Warren DeMontague]

146. The problem with instituting government censorship over this ad--

not complaining about it to those responsible, boycotting the company, etc... but having it declared obscene by the goverment and making, by extension, the producers of THIS AD criminally liable, possibly subjecting them to lengthy prison sentences--

the problem is, that seeing a "rape" there is subjective. I'm not saying I don't understand HOW people could make that interpretation, I'm not saying I don't also find the ad offensive- but still, saying "this ad depicts a rape" IS a SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION.

If you really want to start criminally charging people over putting material out there that some folks subjectively object to because of what they think it implies, then you're going to need to build a lot more prisons.

[muriel_volestrangler]

147. I'm not sure if sandnsea is asking for government censorship or not

but, in what actually happened, it isn't government censorship - it's the advertising industry's standards body that decided the advert wasn't suitable.

Adverts are images, and their interpretation is going to be, to a degree, subjective. But when a large amount of people interpret the image as rape (and frankly, the quote from the designer that it depicts 'seduction' is laughable), then that is a problem - because some people will also interpret it as both violence and a normal occurrence.

I wouldn't put someone in jail for producing an obscene advert - the point is that you can have standards as to what is acceptable in publications with a general readership. By having an industry body, you can have a decision made by several people, rather than just publication by publication (ie it's less subjective). This doesn't stop the image being produced somewhere, so D&G can still have 'freedom of speech' - but it means it doesn't appear in publications that don't normally feature violent images, so violence itself doesn't become mainstream.

If an advertiser, or an advertising agency, produced adverts that it obviously knew were against a code, then some kind of sanction (banning all their adverts for some time, or a fine) might be suitable. This is, after all, the kind of thing the FCC does for broadcasting in the USA. Few executives are going to refuse to pay a fine with the company money, and risk going to jail themselves. You wouldn't need any more prisons.

[Warren DeMontague]

149. I agree. There are lots of problems with the ad. It's a bad ad.

And I think the fact that it got yanked by the industry proves that community sanction and standards work.

However, I'm still not sure a court of law would find it "obscene". I think the bar would have to be pretty high for something like that- higher than "most people see implied X occurring in this picture")

[NotGivingUp]

91. i totally agree with you. i'm totally sick of of this crap, and it just keeps getting worse. n/t

[Carni]

153. Until women hit them in the wallets... it'll stay that way

When these companies start seeing their sales slump they'll change their marketing practices.

[Bonobo]

40. Censorship: Where the Right Gleefully Meets the Left. EOM

[blondeatlast]

42. Sadly too often true.. nt

[bettyellen]

71. bullshit! no one here thinks the govt should censor it at all, this thread is BS flamebait.

[Taverner]

41. Excuse me but (yes it's rape)

HOW THE FUCK IS THAT SUPPOSED TO SELL SUNGLASSES OR WHATEVER THE FUCK DOLCE AND GABBANA MAKES???

It shouldn't be banned though - I'm a 1st amendment absolutist

[mentalsolstice]

43. It's censorship when the gov't bans it.

It's not censorship when the marketplace eschews it.

[huskerlaw]

46. Agreed.

Personally, I think the ad is distasteful. And I think everyone has the right to protest it/boycott Dolce & Gabbana...or whatever they see fit.

But I do NOT think that we should be asking for the ad to be pulled. That would, indeed, be censorship.

I felt the same way about the Snickers ads. They were disgusting. But if that's the message that Snickers wants to put out there, far be it from me to stop them. The price they pay, of course, is reduced sales. But that's their right.

Same with Ann Coulter. I will fight for her right to call anyone she wants to a f*ggot. I absolutely despise the word. I disdain her completely. But she HAS THE RIGHT to say that. Just like we have the right to burn her column. Or to boycott the companies that advertise on her webpage.

Bottom line: People have the right to say things and print things that we disagree with. We, of course, have the right to ignore, boycott, and vocally disagree.

[mzmolly]

48. Imagine if we allowed every possible so called expression of free speech

everywhere?

Is it censorship to deny a KKK ad in Ebony magazine? NO. We can exercise OUR free speech by demanding accountability/integrity from those we support.

I support labels/ratings and albums, movies, television programming as well. As a woman I find the ad highly offensive. Imagine how a women who was raped might feel?

[bigwillq]

52. But we don't really know

that the woman in the ad is being raped....we can't assume one way or another. She could be enjoying it....we just don't really know.


I don't see it as a violent ad, glorifying rape.

I find it a sensual and sexy ad.

But that's my take on it.

I respect your take, however.

[mzmolly]

57. A large man is holding down both of her arms with others looking on.

She looks like she's writhing to get away. Not generally how I engage in sex?

Thanks for respecting my view, however. :hi:

I also think the implication was meant to be subtle rather than overt.

[bigwillq]

60. Well they can't really be too obvious

well trying to depict a happy gang bang, now could they? :P

:hi:

[mzmolly]

63. Well they could,

but not in a fashion mag. ;) :hi:

[bigwillq]

76. This is true.

:hi:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

53. Oh, the humanity.

"Is it censorship to deny a KKK ad in Ebony magazine?"

No, but that's not a great comparison.

Is it censorship to deny, say, Hustler the right to sell their magazine in, say, Detroit? Yes.

As an American, I find censorship highly offensive.

[mzmolly]

54. This isn't about a D and G magazine, this is about attempting to sell products

to women using RAPE as a backdrop. As a woman, I find the ad highly offensive and there are men here who agree.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

56. Magazines aren't sold products?

The issue is censorship.

"As a woman, I find the ad highly offensive and there are men here who agree."

Yes, and there's women who aren't offended by it. Given the poll thread, it's about split evenly.

[mzmolly]

58. We have a right to censor that which is offensive under certain conditions.

Magazines choose advertisers all the time, if you wish to call that censorship, feel free.
Did you complain when Coulter was "censored" by losing advertisers, or is your anti-censorship bent limited to the objectification of women?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

59. Magazines have a right to choose their advertisers.

You have a right to boycott any product for any reason.

The government does not have a right to tell people what they can and cannot take pictures of.

"anti-censorship bent limited to the objectification of women?"

No, I'm against censorship in all forms. Is your pro-censorship bent limited to sex? Or does it include violent video games, rap music, and Harry Potter books?

[mzmolly]

62. Oh, are they having sex?

It looks like they are simply overpowering a women in an attempt to rape her at some point? I don't equate rape to sex, personally.

However, my preference toward ratings systems and choice is not limited. I am a parent and I don't wish for my child to be exposed to a carte blanch of violence, objectification, perverted ideas of sexual expression.

I will say I have mixed feelings about the government stepping in however.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

65. It's certainly closer to consensual sex than rape.

"However, my preference toward ratings systems and choice is not limited. I am a parent and I don't wish for my child to be exposed to a carte blanch of violence, objectification, perverted ideas of sexual expression.

I will say I have mixed feelings about the government stepping in however."

Now that I find obscene. However, I will protect your right to be obscene.

[mzmolly]

67. Well we do have obscenity laws,

you are free to call that censorship, but I am personally thankful.

Do you think child porn should be censored for example? Or are you a free for all kind of a guy?

[Marrah_G]

70. self-delete. n/t

[Madspirit]

84. Child porn is illegal

Having sex with children is illegal and child porn is illegal. Raping women is illegal but for some reason, depicting it in ads is not illegal. Go figure.

I am not sure myself I would want the government to stop this ad but I surely would boycott the product.
Lee

[mongo]

88. CHILD PORN IS THE FILMING OF A CRIME

FILMING AN ACTUAL RAPE IS FILMING A CRIME

That is what makes it illegal. A depiction of rape is NOT illegal, or in many, many cases Obscene.

[mzmolly]

101. Gotcha,

glad to see there are some limits agreed upon.

[northzax]

110. actually, technically

I think, Child Porn itself is the crime, the filming of it is also a crime.

[mzmolly]

125. That's a good point, though I disagree with rulings that computer animated CP

should be legal. I think the obscenity laws should apply. But, I don't wish to open a debate about that. The subject is nauseating to say the least.

[Warren DeMontague]

103. And the link between child porn and consenting adult porn is what?

The link between child porn and a dumb ad -an offensive ad, to be sure- that seems to imply rape to some folks, is what?

I mean, the folks who are up in arms about this, here- not the people calling for a boycott, not the people who think the ad is horribly offensive, not the people who got the thing pulled by the company, ferchissakes- but the people who want the government involved OVER THIS SPECIFIC AD...

Do they think the folks who made the ad should go to prison? Which ones? The Ad Execs? The Photographer? The lighting guy? The shirtless dudes? The woman being held down? Who should go to prison, and for how long?

We put Child Porn people in jail- and certainly, well we should. But if this ad is like Child Porn, then I'd like to know what the prosecution and court case is gonna look like.

[mzmolly]

104. This as is NOT akin to child porn, but if you read the post I responed to,

the person stated that he objected to all forms of censorship, I simply wanted clarification. The women in the ad consented, obviously. That doesn't mean I can't object to it.

[Warren DeMontague]

112. 'course you can object to it. I object to it. It's an offensive ad.

But there is a bit of difference between pointing out that "this is an offensive ad" and saying the government should get involved by censoring it.

[mzmolly]

114. I don't support government censorship, but I do support the right of advocacy

groups to object as was the case.

[Warren DeMontague]

115. Then you and I are on exactly the same page.

It's a really bad ad. Whoever greenlighted it should be fired.

I just don't think that this is the kind of case where the government needs to get involved, and comparing it to child porn is the worst kind of hyperbole.

[mzmolly]

121. Not comparing it to child porn in any fashion,

just want clarification that we all draw the line somewhere. :hi:

[sandnsea]

107. People do support first amendment limits

Child porn is the most obvious limit which is why I chose it. No reason for violent porn to be treated any differently.

[Warren DeMontague]

123. Can you define 'violent porn'? And how does this ad meet that definition?

If the definition is just that an act of rape is implied, then isn't "A Streetcar Named Desire" morally equivalent to Child Porn, too?

[sandnsea]

126. Rape is violent

This particular violent obscenity is not displayed in an artistic venue. It is portrayed in the public square, as I've said repeatedly. The context matters, as it always does for obscenities.

[muriel_volestrangler]

69. It's a D&G ad, not a D&G magazine

Their ads turn up in magazines and newspapers.

(a) The purchasers of the magazines or newspapers won't know they;re getting this until they see it - if you want your Hustler analogy, it's as if a Hustler porn shot turned up in an ad in the New York Times; having some standards of what appears in general readership publications is reasonable.

(b) Yes, the obvious interpretation of the ad is rape - a man holding down a woman, while he's between her thighs. She shows no sign of inviting this, or enjoying it. The depiction of sexual violence should never be used for marketing purposes.

[marions ghost]

134. the first thing I thought also

was how victims of rape and sexual assault would feel coming across this ad in a magazine. Since at least 1 in 5 women in this country have been the victims of sexual assault, this will happen. Yes the ad is somewhat ambiguous, but this does not excuse it. For someone sensitive to these issues this ad could trigger everything from nightmares to more serious problems. I have worked with victims and this ad makes me sad and depressed. Would we defend such sly ads if they used a "suggestive" picture of an African -American man lying on the ground surrounded by an unfriendly looking gang of whites (or if the woman in this ad was black)? No, but then why is this depiction of a woman supposed to be OK in a fashion magazine? The subtle message is that this situation is condoned, acceptable. We have too much of that already.

Agreed, you have to draw a line somewhere. It's not a matter of censorship. It's a matter of rejection of these ads which further hurt and offend those who have already been hurt by our society's attitudes toward sexual assault. And in a wider sense an image like this affects those who have been victimized --in other ways --by a culture of domination. Abuse can be mental as we all know. Label these guys in the ad Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Coulter (ie. any neo-con bastard), and see how you feel about the image. I'd have no problem with this ad as 'art' in a context where you are invited to question it. But it is not in a critical context in a mainstream fashion magazine.

People who defend ads like this are not thinking beyond their own individual reaction. Which is not a crime, just incredibly myopic.

[mzmolly]

148. You and I think alike. I wondered about this as well:

Would we defend such sly ads if they used a "suggestive" picture of an African -American man lying on the ground surrounded by an unfriendly looking gang of whites....

[marions ghost]

150. yeah

people really underestimate the power of an image, especially one as evocative as this.

I question whether the women supporting this image --used as an ad --have ever experienced any sort of domestic violence, mental abuse, sexual abuse, or assault of any kind. If you have been violated in some way, you would be sensitive to the implications of this image used as advertizing. (Like I said, I'm not opposed to it being presented in a more critical context). The older you get the more liklihood of being f/ed over in some way...even by your own s/elected government.

Let the men here who support this image take a second to imagine themselves in the woman's position. They would NOT like it. They would most likely have a hard time even imagining it.

[mzmolly]

154. Well imagine if it were a smaller man with a larger man holding him down.

Somehow I think the "it's sexy" mantra would fly right out the window?

Perhaps as you've stated, some of us are more sensitive due to personal experience? And, given the statistics that makes for loads of turned off customers.

[Warren DeMontague]

66. I don't think governments should be telling consenting adults what they can look at

as long as everything involves consenting adults.

Boycott the company, protest, etc. etc. The ad showed shitty judgment and was clearly in poor taste. But censorship is bullshit. I agree.

[muriel_volestrangler]

72. What part of SELF don't most people on this thread understand? It's NOT the government

"watchdog the Advertising Self-Discipline Institute (IAP) "

This is not the Italian government.

The Istituto dell'Autodisciplina Pubblicitaria, as set out in its own Statute, is a non-profit organisation.
Amongst its main responsibilities are the formulation and updating of the rules of the Code of Self-Regulation, the appointment of members to the Jury and the Review Board. Today, it includes 16 bodies, among which companies and corporations investing in advertising, professional organisations and individuals, advertising media.
The Istituto intends to act and make sure that all advertising be honest, truthful and proper and carried out as a service for the information of consumers.

http://www.iap.it/en/final_04.htm

[mzmolly]

73. Thanks for the clarification.

:hi:

[Bonobo]

77. So pressure is put on that library to remove pictures of "alternatative families"

Because good Christians in Alabama or whatever think it promotes an "immoral lifestyle". Remember that case?
It offends some version of the thought police and so pressure is put on. This is different?
It wasn't rape, it was the stylized idea of a rape that was being evoked. You can see that photo and say "Hey I hate rape" or you can say "Hey, I wouldn't mind playing rape with those boys" or you can say "Hey I wouldn't mind doing that girl" or whatever. But that doesn't make it rape. It makes it an idea. rape exists, rough sex esists, play rape exists, SM play exists, testoterone exists, sexuality and power ARE related, like it or not. THESE are ideas. Forced self-censorship is the same thing when conducted by a small number of extremists with an agenda.

[mzmolly]

80. Remember Ann Coulters recent excercise in "free speech?"

She paid a price as her remarks were offensive. As a society we have a right to quell material that is offensive to most. Women deserve the same respect that other groups are afforded.

[muriel_volestrangler]

81. Yes, this is different

You're talking about some library - a public institution. This is the advertising industry's own body. They are setting themselves standards of morality. Since the ads are seen by people who don't make a decision to view the ad before they've seen it, some idea of standards is a good thing.

We do the same here on DU - threads with explicit images of violence have to have a warning in the title. Is that the work of "a small number of extremists"?

"The stylized idea of a rape"? Just because the models look moody, that doesn't stop it being a depiction of rape. Sexuality may be related to power, but that doesn't mean it's OK to use the abuse of power to sell shoes.

[Bonobo]

82. Thanks for the thoughtful response.

I am sorry I cannot respond more fully right now since I am working, but I wanted you to know I read your response.

I think you make some good points indeed and of course I can see how it would offend some.

One point I would like to make understood in return is that we cannot change reality simply by refusing it to be shown. I don't think it really matters if it is to sell shoes or not, I assume you would be equally offended if this were on display in a museum, no?

[marions ghost]

136. No, u r wrong about that assumption...

I am hugely offended by this image used as an ad to sell shoes. Label it-- "edgy" "cool" "naughty" "sophisticated"...whatever. It's mean to stop the viewer in his/her tracks. I have worked with abuse victims. It makes me want to vomit.

BUT I would NOT be offended to see this image in a museum, or in an art magazine, or in another kind of critical context. Even in a museum there would likely be a disclaimer & warning re. sensitive viewers. People do not seem to understand the difference between showing this where people are expecting to see provocative or controversial material (this very thread tells you this is controversial). In the museum context there is a cultural critique that goes on. In a fashion magazine, this is more likely to be interpreted as being a part of what is 'the norm' or normal. It slyly promotes a certain POV that is definitely not healthy.

[mitchum]

75. Well, I find ALL advertising to be obscene, but I do agree with your concerns

[Cats Against Frist]

78. Yes!!!

The government shouldn't be in the business of censorship -- I don't really care how degrading/disturbing/violent/discriminating.

We've argued on here, before about whether media that depicts criminal activity should be banned. Rape is obviously criminal activity. But the picture could have a number of narratives, many of which happen in my bed 2-3 times a week.

[alarimer]

83. So ad agencies can use whatever despicable tactic they want

to sell products, however demeaning it might be to women or gays or minorities or whatever in order to sell their products? And it we find it offensive and pressure the company to stop running the ads, that constitutes censorship? Bullshit. Bull-fucking-shit. I guess we should just stop whining and suck it up? Portraying gang rape in an ad is a good thing how? It sure doesn't make me want to buy whatever shit they're selling that's for sure.

[gravity]

85. The ad was targeted towards women and gays

I don't think its the ad agency's intention to offend their targeted audience.

[alarimer]

90. well for me it failed miserably

The ad disturbed me. Of course I hate advertising, all advertising, to begin with, so I may not be the best judge.

[NotGivingUp]

92. Bull-fucking-shit is right!!!!!! I am so sick of this totally sick crap perverting society. n/t

[blondeatlast]

97. Consumer boycotts are fine by me--I don't by Snickers. But I'm an ex-librarian

and institutionalized banning is--CENSORSHIP.

[Cleita]

86. I've seen worse than this that is regarded as art.

I guess because it was an ad and for commercial purposes is why there might be a definition of just how far a corporation should go to promote their goods. Just something to think about.

[salin]

93. Rape is cool ... it sells products... lets embrace it.

protesting against it would be akin to soviet era censorship... except it isn't. Censorship is government action to silence speech - not protest and the ability to voice to those making advertisements that perhaps some images are counterproductive to selling their image. I haven't read of a US effort to censor the ad. I would be surprised as the bushco as much as they pander to the religious right *always* takes the side of corporate profit. Thus the issue in this country is one of individual protest.

Protest - without advocating Government Censorship - Does Not Equal Censorship.

But hell - I was told a week or so ago that I shouldn't speak on any issue related to rape because I was so easy to dismiss because I was emotional because I was a survivor and by implication only folks with NO direct experience should have their opinions be discussed.

[kikiek]

96. What kind of reasoning is that? So 20 pct of the female population don't deserve an

opinion because they were raped? Just who are the experts? The rapists? And that is only approximate percentage of women who are rape victims. God knows how high it really is since many go unreported. We haven't gone nearly as far as we like to tell ourselves. That makes my blood boil! Oh and by the way check this one out from Raw Story. They aren't allowed to talk about it either. http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Danger_of_rape_by_male_soldiers_0307.html

[salin]

102. thank you for your response.

I posted a defensive response - based on the response I have receieved, here on DU, as a survivor. In fairness I should say that there are generally many more folks who are supportive than dismissive. But those who are dismissive are excessively harsh - without realizing (or so their posts suggest) how dismissive they are. :-(

[blondeatlast]

98. Gad--how many times must I say it?! Boycotting, discussing, etc. is OKAY--

an institutionalized ban is censorship.

Enormous difference.

[salin]

105. I am just pained

by the acceptance and justification of images of rape. Not uncommon on DU. Nor is it uncommon for folks to dismiss the comemnts of those who are rape survivors as "too emotional" to have their opinions taken seriously. It is the only topic that I know of on DU - on which some DUers will suggest (often with others agreeing) that the folks who should not be listened to as legitimate (because they are too emotional) are those with DIRECT experience.

I have come to hate threads that relates to rape on DU - as those threads almost always help explain why rape continues to be such a huge problem and why so many women are victimized in our society. Mostly because of the multitude of ways folks explain away things that tend to empower the attitude of potential perps - most of whom dont "look or sound" like perps. Too late tonight to explain that - but if folks ask I would be willing to expand on this point later tomorrow.

[kikiek]

94. I am all for the censorship of this type of ad. The message is obvious, and the marketing is

to young men. There is a fine line between free speech and promotion of violence against women. In my eyes this ad crosses it. Music is chosen. We listen or we don't. These ads are on billboards and we are all subjected to them. It is demeaning. I would hope the companies who own billboards would refuse to sell the ad space for it. Frankly looking at it makes me ill.

[northzax]

109. it is an ad in a magazine

not a billboard.

[kikiek]

111. Frankly I don't care where it is.

[northzax]

117. that isn't what you said

it is in a magazine, read it or don't, just like listening to music or not. the only people who would see it are people who actively purchase a magazine, how is that different from music?

[kikiek]

122. I object to it being in a magazine too. I am not changing my opinion so

that's it!

[muriel_volestrangler]

139. Because they purchase the magazines and newspapers for other things

and the magazines and newspapers aren't generally known as "containing depictions of rape". They're about fashion, or news.

[BlooInBloo]

100. DU support of prior restraint is as baffling as it is jackass.

[mongo]

142. And as the left advances the idea

It's the right that will put it into law -- and not with the result the left was looking for.

[Tsiyu]

116. many of us who disliked the ad also said we disliked censorship

So many hotheads in the other thread. Too many people here cannot discuss gender issues without personal attacks. Why?

It's sad.

censorship is another matter altogether.

[Buzz Clik]

118. I missed the threads where banning the ad was called for..

I'll confess to having read only two threads on the subject (that was enough to satisfy my curiosity about the matter), and in neither case did even one person call for banning the ad. In stark contrast, the OP in one of the threads (a totally civilized discussion, by the way), the author made it perfectly clear that she was NOT interested in banning it.

I hated the ad but agree that it shouldn't be banned.

[GirlinContempt]

128. I don't even see rape in that ad

And I've seen WAY more explicit things in mags.'Banning' it seems like overkill.

[mzmolly]

130. "Smell the Glove?"

"You know, if we were serious and we said, ‘Yes, she should be forced to smell the glove,’ then you’d have a point, but it’s all a joke." Bandmate Nigel Tufnel replied, "It is and it isn’t. She should be made to smell it, but..." which David clarified with the statement, "But not, you know, over and over."

:rofl:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smell_the_Glove

Sorry, just thought of this scene from Spinal Tap and how it relates to the discussion a bit. ;)

[omega minimo]

131. It's the BRAINWASHING, DU

Could DU agree to consider the studies, literature, etc. on imagery in advertising so that just talking about whether "we" see it or "we think" this or that about it could be based on actual information?

It's not even a question or a matter of opinion. Folks who dispute it might do a little reading about media imagery and the power of advertising (or manufacturing consent)-- then consider how ELSE they're being manipulated without knowing it.........

This thread has a whole series of ad photos and comments
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=357330&mesg_id=358213

btw
When a company pulls an ad because of public reaction to it, that's not "censorship"

[mongo]

145. Who has been more brainwashed

Someone that says -- eh, it's just an ad, maybe there is a suggestion of Dominance/submission

or It's depicting RAPE!!! Can't you see it? The ad is HARMFULL!!!

Who is being manipulated more?

Compare the outrage over this ad with the outrage over J Jackson's wardrobe malfunction. The fundies who were up in arms about it. Who was the brainwashed there?

[PaulaFarrell]

143. Lots of ads get banned, don't they?

I think most countries have an advertising authority which sets the standard for what is acceptable. There has to be a standard, agreed? Otherwise ads could print literally anything they felt would sell their product. How far would you agree is OK? How about erect penises to adverstise condoms? How about a woman giving a blow job to advertise lipstick? Do you honestly believe there shouldn't be a line? If you do believe there is a line somewhere then who are you to tell countries like Italy and Spain where they should draw theirs?

I any event, I believe D & G withdrew the ad before any action was taken (assuming any would have been).

[VelmaD]

144. This happens every damn time

Women (and some men) use their free speech rights to point out that something is sexist and rather than argue the point, people who disagree immediate start yelling about how we want to ban or censor things. It feels like projection to me since so many of the people who yell about how we want to censor things are the first ones to tell us to sit down and shut up. Believe me, the image of half-naked women being used to sell every goddamn thing you can think of is not being censored...we drown in it every day. Feminist critique of it, on the other hand, gets constantly drowned out by the crowd screaming that we're hysterical and too sensitive and incapable of judging what is sexist for ourselves and we're the censors come to take your porn and eat your children. Blah blah blah...lather rinse repeat.

[Carni]

151. But since it's an ad isn't that different? The US bans cig commercials

The ad really didn't offend me (in fact after really studying it I thought it was kind of dumb) but with that said...because of the fact that it's selling something, doesn't that make banning it, not technically censorship? (per say)

I have sort of a mixed opinion on this.