Bwaaahahahaha.
This is so horrible!

It´s degrading, yes, but the biggest mistake of this ad is to draw the attention of female´s envy.

Seriously, an important detail to describe this as a rape can be the man´s sunglasses, more than the women´s posture.

i think from the blank stares on their faces this is more trying to suggest a class of people so rich and carefree that they can be excited by nothing, up to and including group sex, or be as it may, gang rape.
if the woman is being forced, as she may be, she doesnt care because her shoes are so fabulous.i dont think most ads try to specifically portray anything other than the fact that they make you irresistable to any and all men, thus resulting in gangrape, groupsex,or as some ads appear to portray, even molestation. the people making these ads know there are some women who NEED every man to at least want to have sex with them.

Anyone who isn't offended by that ad probably "thinks" that 'good taste' means a woman likes giving b.j.'s.

No me gusta.

[www.feeldifferent.philips.com]

And the sex starved stereotype is just as bad. Actually, I avoid Unilever brand products for just that reason. I think Axe insults men just as much as women. I'm sick of seeing ads that make guys out as only thinking about where they can park their Johnson.

I see this as more of a gang bang. Not gang rape.
Maybe if her facial expression was more along the lines of agony or scared then I could see it as rape...but she clearly seems to be enjoying it. NOt offensive to me.

seriously, images can be taken a buhmillion different ways, so STFU!

"Since when has the idea of four men holding down a woman ever suggested rape?"

...Wow...Great observation! Four men pinning down a woman, even against her will, can't POSSIBLY suggest rape...

"Everyone knows that rape scenes provide healthy masculine role models for growing boys. Geez."

Oh yeah, rape scenes - the classic American dream in two words. The world would be a much better place if all guys modeled themselves after rapists!

Seriously though, why the heck would you want your kid or anyone else influenced by such perverse atrocities?

ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIAM

I heard about this months ago in some article that didn't show the ad and I went searching for the picture. I was far more creeped out by this one: [secretum.files.wordpress.com] Man rapes man, print it. Man rapes woman, that's a banning.

I would call it odd too if they didn't look so bored. Looks more like they're gettign ready for a willing group scene with a hot chick they already know is just boring in bed...

I'm not the kind of gal spends a lot of time looking for things to be offended about, but this is definitely creepy.

The fact that she's outnumbered and restrained is bad enough, but when you add in the fine layer of grease on everyone's skin and hair it really ups the skeeviness factor...
It kinda reminds me of those poorly lit, bad flm-quality ads that CK put out a few years ago - looked like amateur underage porn and left one feeling unsettled.

With shoes like she's wearing, I think she's enjoying herself.

Also, D&G, Gucci, all those couture fashion houses are based in Europe, where the standards for what is "okay" in advertising are much looser. When they have commercials for shampoo or soap over there, they freely show breasts and backsides all the time. No one thinks anything of it. It's a different culture in some ways.

Besides, I've seen far worse and more offensive crap than this regularly pumped out by America. Someone up there mentioned ads for erectile dysfunction meds....yeah! Those damn Enzyte commercials, with "Bob"...those things offend me more than a sexy guy holding onto a sexy woman would any damn day.

Oh wait...

...models will!

Okay, I don't get the whole "this can't be gang rape, those dudes are obviously gay," thing. I mean, what does a gay man look like, anyway? If it's just about the way they're dressed, well, even the straightest of straight men can "look gay" if properly tarted up by makeup and wardrobe departments. Otherwise, I have no idea why everybody's insisting on the gay thing.

Also, even if all those models are gay, that doesn't mean they're incapable of posing as straight men in a still photograph.

One of the TV ads for the perfume "Diesel" has a woman walking away from the camera and you get a full view of her naked backside. I haven't quite figured out who this ad is supposed to be targeting, or appealing to, men or women? Or what a naked butt has to do with perfume?

I hate people who are always looking for reasons to be outraged.

That, and as is usual with clothing ads nowadays is that they don't ever seem to focus on the clothes they're trying to sell. So WTF are they "wrestling" for? The ad agency needs to be firing a designer, not for a faux "gang rape" clothing ad, but for making an ad that makes no sense whatsoever.

The thought that came to my head when I looked at this photo is "damn that guy on the right standing up sure is hot!"

In my point of view, most of D&G have the same "sex" theme. It is either, a bunch of guys and a girl; or a guy and a bunch of girls, or "Guys". I don't find their advertisement attractive, and their girl models are anorexic looking. To make this clear, why children or teenagers should be looking into Bazaar, Vogue Magazine, etc? Those magazines are for Female adults and male gays (no offense).

I highly doubt that the average person looks at that and thinks gang rape...unless they are looking for things to be upset about...

If the Ralph Lauren Polo ad with the semi-bare-breasted chick is offensive to women, should I be thrice as offended by the D&G ad featuring a semi-bare-breasted and two completely shirtless men? I don't know what I'm suposed to think! Please help! What's an appropriate response to this ad? How offended should I act? Is there a National Organization of Men tracking this shit and telling us men what to think and how to feel about this and other inane advertisements?

I wonder when people are going to get up in arms about the thousands upon thousands of TV commercials that depict fathers and husbands as bumbling idiots.

I have to agree, it does. However, it is very tame.

In contrast, most romance books and films describe male dominance in romantic issues. So, I dont think this ad is anymore harmful than the Princess Bride.

To be honest, I find the ads on TV for the "ED" and herpes medicines alot more offensive.

I see group sex/orgy (and a boring one at that), not rape. I don't get how this is supposed to sell clothing, but I don't get the majority of fashion or fashion advertising.

I like the stern OFFENSIVE TO WOMEN label stamped across every ad, as if I was going to forget what kind of list I was reading.

There is nothing wrong with this ad.

There is no reason to be offended by that ad.

Anyways when I look at this ad I do not see a gang rape. I see a woman who knows what she doing and wants a train ran on her.
I see a woman who controls men.

Bored=OK?

So....

If this was a picture of a lynching where everyone looked bored, that would be ok?

The whole thing wouldn't be so icky if he weren't holding her down. Her raised hip implys that she must like it. Bah, unfortunately this is nothing new for the fashion mags.

Hey, I'll be brave over here and admit that I find all of those ads offensive to some degree. Because... well, sex sells, we know that. If it were just a good-looking woman in a bikini, that'd be one thing. Good-looking women being shown consistently in subordinate, submissive positions, used as luggage racks and bowling balls (wtf??), victimized in one way or another -- that's a different matter altogether. The general theme seems to be "getting women to be what you want," where what you want is a nude model for pics you can show your friends, a submissive sex partner who may not actually want it, an anorexic, or a piece of furniture.

As a feminist, I find NOW largely irrelevant; they spend their time addressing issues that only matter to a small, privileged segment of women, demanding corporate day care or protesting men's-only golf clubs when millions of women in this country suffer from abuse and poverty. However, that doesn't mean NOW is always wrong, or that they always overreact. I think they're right in identifying the misogynist undercurrents in these ads, but I'm not sure how much that matters.

I didn't see anyone suggesting a legal ban. Just suggesting that they are offensive.

I agree that they are offensive. Then again, I don't buy anything from D&G anyway because it's so overpriced so I'm not sure they would care what I think.

On the list, I thought the Cesare Paciotti, Gucci, and Dior ads were most degrading.

@bonzombiekitty: You're supposed to want to buy the dress because an unconscious/dead woman is wearing it and looks fabulous.

I just don't understand the Cesare Paciotti one at all. I'm not sure what type of message that ad is trying to send.

And I didn't get "aimed at pre-teen girls" for the Misty ad. The girl there doesn't look pre-teen to me. Young girl? sure. But she doesn't look preteen.

[www.youtube.com]

Or maybe it was posted and I missed it.

If more than one man was touching her I might think it had "gang rape" imagery to it, it seems more voyuerstic to me.

Why is anyone suprised about imagery like this in a magazine ad? The raping of women has been considered entertainment in films for years.

What I think is more offensive (to women, especially, but really everyone) than any of the ad's is NOW's attempt to tell the readers how to think and feel.

Yeah, right. Like those guys even realize there's a woman on set. They're desperately hoping she's a stand-in for the A&F surfer model who's being fluffed off to one side.

I actually took a moment to try and appreciate the picture as I would a piece of art...something about the way her heels are planted and the line it forces her legs to create is appealing. Might be a nearly equilateral triangle tilted to the left with one of the points not clearly defined, but under her butt, kind of in the air.

Using her calves and arm of the guy holding her creates a nice triangle ending in the sky towards the top (maybe even off page a little, which is also appealing to me).

I probably thought way too hard about it, but I like the woman and the pic's composition.

I think it actually would have been brilliant if they photoshopped the guy's face onto the other models including the girl.

The problem I have is that NOW is a bunch of killjoys if you look at their whole list. Yeah, the main add is pretty bad. But to get pissed off at the Dfrnt add? Or the Paul Mitchell "Super Skinny" hair product add?

@loquaciousmusic: It's not about clothes. It's about image(not picture kind image)

D&G must have gone religious.

My problem is that they are marketing to kids. This is America so they have a right to show whatever they want as long as it is legal.

The only way this type of advertising will stop is when consumers decide they have had enough and quit buying from companies that depict such sexual images.

Unfortunately, many parents have decided not to raise their kids and have let TV raise them instead. The advertisers know and love this fact and will continue to target kids with sex appealing advertising.

Do you all remember when Abercrombie and Fitch used to sell clothes that my dad would wear? And, more importantly, when those clothes actually were included in their advertisements? I know that sex sells, but this is ridiculous.

@bdgbill: Nuts, that was my thought too

It does not look like sexual assualt to me. All the guys in the add are clearly gay.

If anything this portrays an orgy, not rape. There's plenty of ways to have sex and one involves holding the girl down.

These models are probably gay anyway, so it's just role play.

@emjsea: *In Tyra Banks Voice* You have to portray sexual assault but then make it model.

I don't think the Paul Mitchell is bad: it's for a product that reduces frizz. If hair with a lot of volume can be called full bodied doesn't make since to call flat, straight hair skinny? I don't think it'd work as well if they called it quiet or muted hair.

Mitchum can go *censored*

I think that it's just generally icky and not sexy. I don't think that the ad expressly imply or portray gang rape, but the imagery is just sketchy enough to be unpleasant to look at.

I think the Dolce and Gabbana folks purposely kept the ad vague enough in CYA mode.