DU women: are you offended by these ads??

[AZBlue]

I was reading an article on MSNBC.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17490782/site/newsweek/)on Dolce & Gabbana having to pull some of their ads because womens' groups thought they were inappropriate and, one in particular, promoted rape. Knowing D&G as I do, I've seen their ads through the years and don't think much of them because, well, it's D&G - their ads follow along in the mode of Helmut Newton and other "risque" photographers. Or am I being too tolerant? I'm not really sure.

As I read further in the article, there's also an interview with Kim Gandy of NOW and a link to the ads they promote as "Offensive To Women" (http://loveyourbody.nowfoundation.org/offensiveads.html). Now, I'm all for more realistic models being used in advertising and fashion and don't like blatantly abusive ads - but I'm not sure I'm offended by each of these ads. I'm going to hold off saying anything more specific until others have weighed in - and that's my question: are these ads really offensive?

I would certainly say that some are stupid - and, yes, the Calvin Klein ad just makes me want to feed her. But, beyond that, are you offended by these ads? Is it really about ads that are offensive against women or more about the fact that, for the most part, Madison Ave. treats us like we're drooling morons? I've seen some advertising that might be pretty offensive to men too (including a similar one with all men from D&G). Are they getting upset over nothing? Or over the wrong thing? Or are they correct in labeling these as offensive? I'm curious to see what other women (and men too!) think. Thanks!

(Disclaimer: the text under the photos is from the NOW website - it was not written by me or it would have been much funnier).



http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/03/07/rape_ad_wideweb__470x352,0.jpg
Dolce & Gabbana: This ad is beyond offensive, with a scene evoking a gang rape and reeking of violence against women. In an interview, NOW Foundation President Kim Gandy said, "It's in Esquire, so they probably don't think a stylized gang rape will sell clothes to women, but what is more likely is that they think it will get them publicity. It's a provocative ad but it is provoking things that really are not what we want to have provoked. We don't need any more violence."



Mitchum: There's nothing "sensitive" about a man who dupes his girlfriend into posing for his camera.



Paul Mitchell: What?!? Even our hair has to be super skinny now? Come on!



St. Pauli: This ad should have you foaming at the mouth. The implication here is that women are disposable; once you're finished you just discard her like an empty beer bottle.



Dfrnt: Couldn't they find a "different", less offensive way to market cell phone ring tones?



Tab: Why is Tab selling us "fuel to be fabulous" for club-hopping but not career-building? Fabulous works in the office too, you know...



Gucci: This ad attempts to demonstrate a woman's "place" in the world—at a man's feet - right below his...uh... Just don't stand up too fast, sister!



Maker's Mark: What is it about selling alcohol that makes advertisers want to belittle and insult women...does it really make men feel more powerful? Don't answer that.



Longchamp: This is an ad for luggage, right? And the nearly naked, bronzed woman is there because...? When creativity fails, insert sex.



Dior: The text reads, "New! Dior Addict Lipstick to Die For...in 30 killer shades...Get hooked. Now." Dior proudly uses the themes of addiction and death to sell lipstick, under the impression that the tactic is edgy and original. Not.



Winston: Winston tries to convince young women how tough and cool they can be by smoking while waiting for a man. Hope he arrives soon ...before lung cancer sets in.



Candies: This is too easy. Is that a space shuttle on your computer, or are you just happy to see me? This ad is so obvious in its "subliminal" message, it's sad.



Calvin Klein: Good ol' Calvin — always leading the way with images of nearly naked, pre-pubescent-looking women and girls.



Ralph Lauren Polo: Not to be outdone, Ralph offers that perfect look to wear while scratching your back on a tree while waiting for, um...the stableboy?



Brown & Williamson: Brown & Williamson appears to be marketing cigarettes to pre-teen girls with this ad that practically makes smoking look wholesome. Really not.

[babylonsister]

1. No. Someone has too much time on their hands. I do, too, but spend

it here.
I'm not high maintenance, nor do I read the mags this stuff appears in, so I'm not a good barometer.
Phew! :hi:

[FrenchieCat]

27. As the mother of two daughters.........this is part of the problem

we have living in this society today.

But then the media, including advertising is terrible for our health.

I like the thread a lot. My oldest daughter was studying this stuff a few years back. She came to the same conclusion......We have to take a lot of abuse while also spending our money.

[walldude]

2. That first one reminds me of Spinal Tap's Smell The Glove

"What's wrong with being sexy?" Not sexy, sexist! "It's a fine line between stupid and clever."

[hedgehog]

3. As a woman, I don't find them offensive. As a human being, I find

them disgusting.

[SharonAnn]

14. As a woman, I find them offensive. They are objectifying women to sell products. When in doubt,

ask why you don't see men in that kind of "objectified" role. The answer will tell you.

Yes, I'm offended. They actually mean it. It's not a joke. It's not art.

After 45 years as a professional in the business world, I've learned that this stuff is not harmless. I used to accept it, or at least tolerate it. Now I'll often say something like "what's this about? This is stupid. Don't they ahve an talent at that agency?" It at least draws attention to what's going on, so that the awareness is conscious, not subliminal.

[sandnsea]

29. Worst I've seen in a while

I can't believe anybody would let some of those go to print. How many people approve an ad anyway?

[EFerrari]

4. Objectifying women is great. The infant mortality rate goes up

in societies where women are mistreated, and more wars are started.

But, that doesn't affect me so, who cares. :sarcasm:

[ironflange]

5. Sure shows you Wilson Bryan Key was right

Though there's not much that's "subliminal" about that crop of ads.

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

[Nikki Stone1]

6. There's a lot that's nauseating in those ads

The only ones I don't have issues with are The Ralph Lauren and the luggage one. Both of those just look like good fashion photography.

[Straight Shooter]

7. I think most of the ads are tasteless and lowbrow.

The first ad, with the man holding the woman down while the other men look on as if they don't give a damn, that one is definitely offensive, I don't care how artistically it's costumed and/or photographed.

What next? Little boys and girls in erotica themes?

All for the $$$$.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

8. I don't describe my reaction as being offended

It doesn't adequately describe it. Offended implies that it's a personal issue and also conjures up images of pearl clutching and smelling salts. I think the images are the usual unimaginative, gratuitous dreck that passes for edgy in marketing and pop culture these days.

[Tunkamerica]

9. As a man I'm offended by most television commercials

and most sitcoms which depict men in general as stupid, sexist, inneffectual, controlled by their wives and urges, etc.

It cuts both ways and I think we'd all be surprised how many women probably worked on those campaigns.


P.S. the mitchum ad...aren't you (or the original author) underestimating women's intelligence when you say they can be duped into posing for these (i'm guessing) "dirty" pictures?

[Catherine Vincent]

10. Yes. Definitely.

[BlueIris]

11. Well, sure. But I find 98% of all advertising offensive. And these are bad,

but I've seen a lot worse.

[Lisa0825]

12. Yes, I find most of them offensive, especially the D&G one.

The D&G one is just plain disgusting. I don't mind the Ralph Lauren one or the Misty one. The rest are business as usual.... women are just meat, and should be skinny and "perfect."

[AZBlue]

13. You know, I find that more offensive usually.

The fact that we have to be skinny and perfect. Especially when the ad comes from some overweight, unintelligent, middle-aged man with a really bad comb-over (after all, Madison Ave. is still ruled heavily by men).

[Midlodemocrat]

15. More like disgusted. Except for the last one. I don't find that to

be sexist, just pathetic.

And, I have to admit, I don't get the St. PauliGirl one.

The Bowling Ball one is awful.

Where are these ads being shown? I don't believe I have seen any of them or if I have it didn't register?

[AZBlue]

16. I'm guessing some of these are from men's mags.

I know the D&G ad is from Esquire here in the US (but all over Europe). Although I've seen Tab, Dior and Paul Mitchell in women's mags.

And, you're right - the bowling ball ad is just awful. It's offensive to everyone - and it's just a bad ad!

[Midlodemocrat]

19. I'm glad someone else mentioned that.

I used to be in advertising and I think they are all awful ads. I remember 'back in the day' that was an effort to try to reach the target audience.

What audience are they trying to reach with these ads? 14yo boys like my son with no money?

I still don't get the St. PauliGirl ad.

[ProfessorGAC]

36. Nor Do I

I will say that not one of those ads would make me consider purchasing that brand when it came time to get such products. So, if i'm the target audience, they all failed miserably.

The St. Pauli ad, i agree, is pretty inoccuous, and doesn't really appear to be accomplishing anything. A silouhette is a woman in a dress doesn't seem too offensive, but it has nothing to do with beer. (Except that men like women and beer????)

I will say that some of the critiques in the OP under each image are stretching. Some totally understandable. Some not so much.
The Professor

[EstimatedProphet]

55. The silouhette is supposed to be a beer bottle, for those not seeing it

The hair is the head on the beer. Implying a good beer is like a good woman, etc. It took me a minute to see what the image was supposed to represent.

I should add that I find most of the ads offensive to people in general, not just women. I am sick of using sex to sell products. I think it is partly what is wrong with our country's outlook on life - we seem to look at other people as objects which can do things for us, anymore.

[Carni]

79. I agree with you there--most ads offend my intelligence in general

When I said I was "not offended" by the bulk of the ads (the Mitchum one really annoyed me however)

I guess I should rephrase my original comments...I find these ads in general *offensive* to my intelligence, but after having to look at this type of bullshit since the 1970's they just have little, or no effect on me whatsoever at this point.

The fact that the marketers and advertisers of these products apparently think all women AND men are stupid and enjoy these themes should offend us all!

Take the bowling ball ad for example...are they counting on men all being so neanderthal like that they'll get all hot and bothered about a bowling ball in a thong? I think that one is probably more insulting to men than it is to women.

It does piss me off that most women as barbie doll type ads are usually aimed at 14 to 25 YO girls and women. Glamour and Elle and those mags have been foisting this crap on that age group and giving them complexes for years.

[matcom]

83. St. Pauli Girl - Know its origin?

the St Pauli Girl was from Hamburg Germany. the original whore.

they called the red light district workers "St Pauli Girl's"

[Solly Mack]

17. To varying degrees they all sparked a negative reaction in me

Some more than others and I'm left feeling disgusted that such things even have to be explained.

[Carni]

81. Yeah I would go along with "negative reaction" -- same here

NONE of those ads provoked a positive feeling in me about the product/brand being advertised but I wouldn't go so far as to say I was "offended" per say.

[Bjornsdotter]

18. The only one that really

...made my gut clench was the D & G one. I really didn't like it, it had the impression of gang rape to me.

As far as the cigarettes, I don't think they should be allowed to advertise to anyone....period.

Cheers

[Triana]

39. They're ALL disgusting, especially the D & G one.

GANG RAPE?!

They ought to be SUED for advocating that. And they ARE advocating that.

[raccoon]

43. I agree. I find that photo disgusting and offensive. nt

[Lisa0825]

64. I agree. The first thought I had when I saw it was

of the movie The Accused with Jodie Foster.

[Sabriel]

20. Not offended so much as amazed

In this day and age, they're still so obtuse as to think this stuff still sells merchandise?

Someone get these dinosaurs an asteroid....

[glitch]

56. "Someone get these dinosaurs an asteroid...." !

:rofl: Thanks for that and couldn't agree more :)

[cynatnite]

21. sexploitation of women is nothing new...

unfortunately, I'm used to it.

[cynthia]

22. offended, disgusted and saddened

that our young people are still being subjected to this crap.

[nonconformist]

23. I don't find them offensive. I think that several of them are low-brow and/or tacky, though

Sex apparently sells, and it will always be part of advertising. Overtly sexual ads in mainstream arenas do seem more commonplace lately, I will say... but maybe I just notice them more these days as the mother of "tween" boys (9 yrs this week & 12 in two months). More than anything, I'm offended that impressionable kids are subjected to this crap day in and day out, regardless of gender. But I can't say that I'm *personally* offended as a woman.

[Ino]

24. St. Pauli explanation

Not offensive to me: Paul Mitchell, St. Pauli, Tab, Winston, Calvin Klein, Misty

The tagline in the St. Pauli Girl ad reads: "You never forget your first girl." I find that rather sweet, and clever! Of course I'm thinking of a puppy love romance rather than "having" your first girl in a biblical sense. I guess it could be interpreted either way, although the illustration suggests the latter. Even so, I think it's sweet :)

[omega minimo]

25. You might consider why you think these concerns have to be justified, rather than recognized

"and that's my question: are these ads really offensive?"

What does "really" mean? Why the suggestion that the concerns may not be legitimate or worthwhile? Thank you for posting the photos and links. It looks like an opportunity to learn about the reasons these ads are critiqued and studied as they are-- hopefully not an invitation to dismiss the whole subject.

"and that's my question: are these ads really offensive?"

Well, the answer is there, isn't it, in the captions?

"(Disclaimer: the text under the photos is from the NOW website - it was not written by me or it would have been much funnier)."

Sorry-- is that another invitation to dismiss the NOW information and the perspective of those who say "These are offensive and here's why"?


If anyone wants to discuss this honestly, a good starting point would be to acknowledge that there are reasons these are considered offensive (suggested in the "unfunny" captions). Consider a cultural expedition, an exploration of another POV, one that may be unfamiliar or even uncomfortable. Or look at it from an advertising/messaging/packaging angle.

But please don't suggest that whether it's offensive is "really" in question.

Especially as your OP comments and the caption and the first photo refer to gang rape.

"...one in particular, promoted rape."

"(Disclaimer: the text under the photos is from the NOW website - it was not written by me or it would have been much funnier)."

"Dolce & Gabbana: This ad is beyond offensive, with a scene evoking a gang rape and reeking of violence against women. In an interview, NOW Foundation President Kim Gandy said, "It's in Esquire, so they probably don't think a stylized gang rape will sell clothes to women, but what is more likely is that they think it will get them publicity. It's a provocative ad but it is provoking things that really are not what we want to have provoked. We don't need any more violence."






That answered your question right there.

[Warren DeMontague]

26. I can understand the objection to some, but it seems that ANY ad with any sex at all would be

deemed by this group to be "offensive". :eyes:

Well, that's a lot of ads.

[sandnsea]

28. Degrading, denigrating,.. and so passe

Until I find a real man, I'll take a real smoke? WTF. Is it 1910?

These ads are all AWFUL. As I've said before, we need to stop using the word offended. It's not about how I feel. It's about what the abusers are doing, and sick, twisted, abusive assholes denigrate others.

[lukasahero]

30. Consider this: Dove pro-age TV campaign BANNED in US

http://www.doveproage.com

As another poster noted, I would not use the word "offensive" and asking "Are you offended by these ads?" makes it something personal. This is not personal, this is universal.

Look at these ads and tell me what they are telling us - all of us - young women, older women, overweight women, boys and men. Tell me what you think it means when the images of young, thin, sexualized women are allowed but the images of older, stronger, wiser women have been banned in the US? Tell me what it means when sexualized images are ok but straightforward images of a woman's body are not?

We get "the message" whether we want to or not.

[Cameron27]

32. Thank you,

couldn't say it better :thumbsup:

[wicket]

37. I hadn't seen that Dove ad

Thanks for the link. Lots of beautiful ladies!

[blondeatlast]

38. Those are great ads--I'm gonna go buy that stuff!

Kudos to Dove for selling reality, improved.

We should all buy one of those products and see if we can send a message to MadAve.

[Cameron27]

60. They're offering a free sample...

I went for the overnight cream :-)

[Marie26]

41. THAT was banned?

:eyes: This culture is so messed up.

[mcscajun]

44. I've seen the print ads for that campaign in a magazine. I think they're great!

I'm not surprised; disappointed, yes, but not surprised the TV ad won't run here. We're still in the dark ages when it comes to nudity in advertising.

[Scout]

51. I saw these ads in the trailers before the movie at the theater the other day.

I LOVE the pro-age ads!

[bicentennial_baby]

52. Huh? I've seen those ads here

:shrug:

[lukasahero]

54. Not on TV you haven't

Google it if you believe me.

[Beaverhausen]

57. Right on

well said!

[IronLionZion]

58. I saw that ad in the US

And I highly doubt that I'm the only young guy who thinks those mature women are attractive. It makes me giddy to see what I have to look forward to when I get older.

Many big women are still attractive, if they have a nice smile and take care of themselves. And many thin women are unattractive if they don't smile and are weak from lack of food. Real women have some curves, especially below the belt.

edit: I think it was on a trailer for a movie, not on TV.

[ecstatic]

77. I saw it for the first time in the movie theater previews/ads

I was shocked, but I'm not surprised that the ad won't be allowed on regular TV.

[Carni]

82. Very Honestly....I don't like that ad either

What is it about that ad?

It's like too stagey or something -- it isn't that the women are not wasting away models under 20 (that wouldn't suit me any better)

You know what it is?

How can I put this...it's like as a person in my early 40's -- it actually offends me because it's as if they're saying "here you go you old fart women---use our soap, all the old out of shapers such as yourself do and it's after all totally natural, so just get over yourselves"

I guess it elicits a who in the F are THEY to tell ME I am old and fat and not hot?
(Even if that were the case lol)

I certainly don't understand why it's banned -- it should not be banned, but as a consumer who is very likely in their target age market...that ad campaign turns me off and would most likely actually put me off of buying their products.

I would think from a marketing perspective that no one likes to be reminded that they're not getting any younger!

But maybe it's just me!

[Marie26]

31. Offended? No

They make me feel saddened, cheapened & totally objectified. "Offense" implies that you're somehow shocked or surprised by this, and I'm not.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

48. Exactly what you said...

That is what I felt, too when viewing these. 30+ years after the women's rights movement and we're still dealing with this kind of crap.

[NobleCynic]

68. Unfortunately, you'll continue to see it

until the day sex no longer sells. And that could be a while.

[gollygee]

33. I respond to them differently

some bother me, some don't. Nakedness or near-nakedness to sell products isn't a big deal for me. The rape scene is a big problem for me though. And the degrading jokes about women bother me as well, but not as much as that rape scene. Prepubescent-looking girls and comments about women having to be skinny bother me too, but not as much as the rape scene.

[Coexist]

34. the first two are offensive, the rest, just stupid.

[Cerridwen]

35. You are NOT supposed to be offended.

You're not supposed to be offended. If you are, their ad didn't work. If you're not, their ad is very effective. This post below was originally in response to the D&G ad - the ideas behind it can be extrapolated to the rest. This is not about rational thought. It's the psychology of marketing.

Marketing of this kind isn't targeted at that part of your brain that is consciously engaged; not the part of your brain that's used when driving down the road looking for a particular street or watching for the status of traffic signals. This kind of ad is more subtle than a flag upside the head. It's targeted at that part of your brain that is collecting thousands of bits of information, of which you are unaware, as you drive down the road. You, know, those bits and pieces an investigator will drill you about during an investigation of a crime or a traffic accident. Those bits and pieces that you might "suddenly remember" several days later without having ever realized you were "seeing," and "recording" during the time you "saw" them.

Since this is a political board, let me remind those reading this of some of the ads we saw during the last campaigns and some of the outrage here. Now remember some of the denials the other side spouted to defend the crap they were peddling. Most of the political ads criticized, on this board, did not have the subtlety of this one, but then, their target audience isn't known (broad brush for brevity) for subtlety nor for sophistication. The target audience for this ad, apparently is.

This has more of the subtlety of the stage-oped pictures of camera angles aimed upward at shrub making him look taller, a halo behind his head. We see it. Ever heard the deniers? "Just an accident." "Doesn't mean anything." What campaign was it in which an African-American candidate was shown connected with a Caucasian woman who was depicted as...what, a hooker? Racist? We sure thought so. But the 527 that put it out? What WAS their defense?

I'm gonna go look for a link now in which some researcher showed the effectiveness of playing the fear card just a few days before the last presidential election. Many of the ads aired during that time had pictures in the background of the twin towers burning - subtle (not so much to some of us) reminders to be afraid, be very afraid. The researcher concluded that many punched that repub ballot more out of newly induced fear than from conscious thought.

If we can see it in political ads, lets keep our brains engaged and see the subtle manipulation we're surrounded with everyday.


link to the article mentioned above and a blurb

<snip>

...even a subtle shift was enough to tip the balance of the Presidential election, and the direction the country took for years. "Without 9/11 we would have a different president," says Solomon. "I would even say that the Osama bin Laden tape that was released the Thursday before the election was sufficient to swing the election. It was basically a giant mortality salience induction."

<snip>

To test this, Solomon and his colleagues prompted two groups to think about death and then give opinions about a pro-American author and an anti-American one. As expected, the group that thought about death was more pro-American than the other. But the second time, one group was asked to make gut-level decisions about the two authors, while the other group was asked to consider carefully and be as rational as possible. The results were astonishing. In the rational group, the effects of mortality salience were entirely eliminated. Asking people to be rational was enough to neutralize the effects of reminders of death. Preliminary research shows that reminding people that as human beings, the things we have in common eclipse our differences—what psychologists call a "common humanity prime"—has the same effect.

<snip>

The solution, then, is remarkably simple. The effects of psychological terror on political decision making can be eliminated just by asking people to think rationally. Simply reminding us to use our heads, it turns out, can be enough to make us do it.

(emphasis added)

edit for subject line.

[VelmaD]

40. offended doesn't even begin to cover it

I'm really fucking tired. It would be nice to think that maybe, someday before I'm dead and gone I'll be able to go one whole day without seeing something like this. That I'll get one day where women's half-naked bodies aren't used to sell everything. A whole day where we aren't treated like meat. I hold out absolutely no hope that this will actually happen, particuarly given the tendency of even "liberal" men not to even see that the problem exists.

[Dora]

42. I see a gang of men dominating a woman whose hands are forcibly restrained.

Gee, what's wrong with that? :eyes:

She looks disaffected, detached. There is no protest, neither is there compliance, there is only passivity. The upthrust pelvis signals only that her body responds, though her face signals unresponsiveness and disengagement. What's the message? Your mind may say no, but your body says yes?


YES, IT'S OFFENSIVE AND PERPETUATES THE OPPRESSION OF WOMEN. Anyone who says otherwise is sucking a big nasty lie.

[Mad_Dem_X]

47. That's the worst one, IMO

I actually felt nauseous looking at that ad.

[Matariki]

45. kinda lost me on a lot of those

The Dolce & Gabbana is EXTREMELY disturbing and very offensive. The rest are just typical stupid advertising for the most part. Getting offended by them 'as a woman' only seems to reinforce a cliche stereotype about 'feminism'.

[Mad_Dem_X]

46. Yes to all of them

Some are more offensive than others, but none of them are good.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

49. When I worked at a post-production house...

here in San Francisco, I saw national commercials come through for editing on a daily basis. It was there I learned just how carefully the images/content of advertising are created -- nothing is by accident, everything is done to create a particular impression.

Two that stick out in my mind where for a shampoo and a beer -- it was a long time ago, so I can't remember the brands.

I was in the Master Control Room watching with the video techs as they were editing the shampoo commericial. It featured a woman in the shower, lathering her hair up, with the suds dripping down the sides of her face -- she appeared to be enjoying this experience sexually. Then they cut to her in close-up, hair dried and looking fabulous, talking about how much she liked the shampoo. One of her lines was, "I like how it comes down my face." Her emphasis was on the work "comes".

Shirley, the vid tech who was assisting on that job and I were rolling our eyes and talking about how disgusting the ad was. One of the ad's creators -- a man in his mid-30s -- then came in the MCR and watched as the ad was replayed. When it was done, he looked at us expectantly and said, "What do you think?" Man, he asked the wrong gals! :D Shirley let rip about how much she hated it and why, and I just looked at him with a disgusted look on my face and repeated the "come" line. He seemed surprised at our reponse. The ad later ran, as was, no changes.

Another was for a beer - it featured a very sexy woman, gyrating, mouth half open, you know the drill. The completed ad was shown for a large group of us for a response -- when it was finished playing, the director got up and said (I kid you not), "So, did it make you hard?" You could here the jaws of the women present hitting the floor. :eyes:

Anyone who dismisses the power and the intent of advertising is just kidding themselves.

[Killarney]

50. The only one that bothers me is the first one.

[donsu]

53. yes! and the misogynist bastards who made and approved the

ads and the misogynist bastards that published them.

and the female models who posed for them.

and don't tell me the models were just making money. you either have character or you don't.

[yellerpup]

59. I don't like them so I'd boycott the products.

But I wouldn't censor them unless they were lies. Free speech, ya know.

[Marrah_G]

61. I wasn't impressed by them

I wouldn't race out to buy any of the items. Offended is a bit of a stretch though. Just because I think something is tacky doesn't take away someone elses right to print what they choose. I am not one to analyze every image for the hidden meanings. The first one is racey and some people automatically think rape, others think sexy. It's all in how you are looking at the picture. Life is too short to be offended by every single thing you read or see. I realized this after years of getting angry over how my religion is portrayed and came to the conclusion that if I went on a tangent everytime witch was substituted for bitch I would lead a very stress-filled life. I save the energy for the bigger battles.

Just my opinion :)

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

62. No.

The ads that offend me are the ones that attempt to attach spiritual growth and purposefulness of life to the purchase of a product or service.

[NashVegas]

63. Yes, But Not for the Reasons Most Are

I think all advertisements are stupid.

I do think the Winston ad is funny, though, and so would anyone who understands the link between their cigarettes and oral fixation.

[yardwork]

65. Yes, I am offended and won't buy those products

Some people think that it is somehow "cool" or "with it" to pretend not to be offended by offensive material.

[grace0418]

66. The D&G, the Mitchum and the Maker's Mark ads bothered me the most.

The others were just really stupid.

[Madspirit]

67. YES and yes

The majority of these ads play on the barely pubescent inner adolescent.

The gang rape ad I find completely and totally offensive. The Calvin Klein promoting anorexia I find completely and totally offensive.

"Sex" is not sexist and I am not sure how I feel about using sex to sell but since most of these ads aren't just sexy, they actually have women being subjugated, submissive, UNDER the man or over the rocket....it isn't just sex, it's sexist. I find sexism offensive.
Lee

[KansDem]

69. As the father of a 15-year-old girl, I find them offensive...

Because my daughter has more to do in life than be unnecessarily exposed to sleazy ads...

Oh, and the definition I'm using for "sleazy" is:
seamy: morally degraded; "a seedy district"; "the seamy side of life"; "sleazy characters hanging around casinos"; "sleazy storefronts with...dirt on the walls"- Seattle Weekly; "the sordid details of his orgies stank under his very nostrils"- James Joyce; "the squalid atmosphere of intrigue and betrayal"

[AnnInLa]

70. Most of them, yes

For all of the normal, obvious reasons. Would it make me not buy that particular product? Yes.

[bling bling]

71. Totally.

I've been offended by the marketing campaigns by companies using sexy girls to peddle their crap as long as I can remember.

I'm more than offended, it infuriates me.

And you know what else infuriates me are the marketing campaigns that target young kids and sucker them into spending $80 for a pair of shoes. I used to work in a boys home where the kids' self-esteem was literally impacted by whether or not they could have the cool shoes that some bazillionaire athlete "role-model" was wearing on the commercials.

I've seriously made it a *major* goal of mine to do my best at convincing my daughter to see the marketing tricks for what they are and to rise above it. She can't even talk yet. That's how challenging this goal is --I'm already planning how to approach this topic. Kids, and especially young girls, are so vulnerable and I want her to be self-confident and believe in herself without all the body-image self-esteem issues me and pretty much every woman I know grew up with.

And marketing is the single biggest factor in that.

How many times a day does a man think about sex? Probably about as many times a day as a woman thinks about her body/weight (which, this boils down to her thinking about sex too, but in a whole different context). Probably most women are so programmed we don't even realize how much we think about our bodies. And that's just the top layer. When you start to think about *why* we think about our bodies and what we're using as a baseline to determine whether our bodies are appealing or not it boils down to these types of marketing campaigns.

This argument is as old as the hills but the problem just keeps getting worse and worse and the girls exploited and/or targeted get younger and younger.

[Greyhound]

72. 15 examples, my score is 5 definitely offensive, 4 probably offensive,

4 not offensive, and 2 just so weird I'm not sure what they're selling or whether they are offensive or not (I don't see your interpretation of the St. Pauli Girl ad, and the dfrnt is just WTF?).
:kick:

[BlooInBloo]

73. Basically, any marketing aimed at women is ipso facto offensive to women?

Looks to me as though you conflate valid and/or invalid criticisms which aren't in the sexism genre with others that are.

[omega minimo]

74. These photos show subjugation of women and "stylized" male violence against women

How is that "marketing aimed at women"? The one thing all these ads have in common is that they are "aimed at" men-- aka from the POV of "the male gaze." That may be why some can't "see" the offense.


"Looks to me as though you conflate valid and/or invalid criticisms which aren't in the sexism genre with others that are."

That's an interesting statement. What "valid and/or invalid criticisms which aren't in the sexism genre with others that are"?

[Carni]

75. One of them does REALLY offend me

The Mitchum one about the photos I think is REALLY horrendous--after seeing it I would never buy their products for the hubby.

The Dior ad is gross--not sure what they are thinking showing a dead woman to sell lipstick.

The Maker's Mark ad is juvenile and along the same lines as the mitchum ad.

The rest all just look lie typical fashion/makeup type bullshit and are much ado about nothing IMO.

If someone was really going to do a survey that is conclusive I would be very curious to know the ages of those offended vs those not--just for curiousities sake.

[ecstatic]

76. We're so used to these images that the true implications may go over our heads

sometimes. It's hard to be raised in a sexist society without becoming somewhat sexist. As far as the D&G ad, I see something different. I think it's encouraging women to be used and abused by men--and that's what could be offensive, IMO.

What can we do? We can start by seriously seeking true representation in our government. We can no longer be taken as jokes and/or sex objects if we're right alongside the men running things at the top levels of government.

[OnionPatch]

78. Yes, but most especially the first one

The first one really ticks me off. It's one thing to portray a woman as a sex symbol. It's quite another to portray RAPE as an acceptable form of recreation.

Sigh. I guess I'll never see an end to this bull*#@&# in my lifetime. I doubt that my daughter will, either.

[marions ghost]

80. To men who do not find the D&G ad offensive:

Ask yourself what you do feel. Be honest. Does it make you feel strong, powerful, sexy, cool, a sophisticated manly man among men? Be honest. What does identifying with the males in this picture do for you?

OK men, now imagine yourself as the woman in this picture. You are now the person lying on the ground being held down. You are now the prey animal selected by the circling pack. You are now the one selected by this particular interest group for domination. Even if you can't imagine yourself as a woman, you can imagine yourself as the person being held down, the target. Label her with your name.

How does this make you feel?

[MilesColtrane]

84. "What does identifying with the males in this picture do for you?"

If you identify with the male models in that ad you're probably not that interested in women.

[omega minimo]

85. Good question-- and points to part of the perception problem

The image is "stylized" to the point of dehumanizing all the characters. They look like mannequins, not people. Most models these days are seen in the blank-faced mode-- no emotion, no spark, no life.

Makes it easier for the viewer to overlook what they're actually being shown.