![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
I think everyone looks too freakin' bored to be there for this to invoke anything emotional. But then, NOW wouldn't have something for their latest fundraiser letter.
I think everyone looks too freakin' bored to be there for this to invoke anything emotional. But then, NOW wouldn't have something for their latest fundraiser letter.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-127658-100x100.png\")
I always wonder why models don't refuse to participate in these kinds of ads. Who knows; maybe some did, but maybe there are always enough in line behind the conscientious objectors.
The picture does make me uncomfortable.
Out of all the ads on the NOW list, the Mitchum one is the only one that strikes me as outrageously misogynistic. Ick.
I think the Dolce and Gabbana folks purposely kept the ad vague enough in CYA mode.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-185231-100x100.png\")
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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-6536-100x100.png\")
I think everyone looks too freakin' bored to be there for this to invoke anything emotional.
@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*
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-61213-100x100.png\")
This is such an old ad. This came out around 1 year ago.
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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-51496-100x100.png\")
It does not look like sexual assualt to me. All the guys in the add are clearly gay.
To me, the center part is def. meant to be erotic, but Emjsea is right; everyone else looks too bored for it to be a gang rape issue. The guy on the lower left looks like he's about to walk off screen for something more interesting.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-56672-100x100.png\")
The Misty cigarettes ad would have been more effective if it were tagged: \"Light & Sassy - just like Blossom\"
I can't imagine that they were thinking \"Hey, let's use rape to promote our product\". But then again, looking at it, I really can't figure out what the hell they WERE intending here.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-62482-100x100.png\")
It just looks dirty and sweaty and oookey to me. And where are the clothes, exactly? That's what drives me nuts about these campaigns.
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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-180473-100x100.png\")
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.
D&G must have gone religious.
@BigNutty: whoa whoa whoa. Where are you getting the 'they are marketing to kids' from? This ad was in Esquire, and it's been run in many other fashion magazines that aren't catered towards juveniles.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-61815-100x100.png\")
People still pay attention to NOW?
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?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-100141-100x100.png\")
My impression is that it is supposed to be group sex, and notexplicitly rape -- I imagine it is supposed to be somewhat ambiguous,and the \"mystery,\" if you can call it that, is supposed to drawattention to the ad. In that respect, they certainly succeeded. I wouldsay it is in poor taste, (and not very artistically interesting), but alegal ban seems perhaps too far. I certainly won't be buying any oftheir products though.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1509-100x100.png\")
They're all the same guy. It's all psychobabble imagery like that bad Jennifer Lopez movie.
I think it actually would have been brilliant if they photoshopped the guy's face onto the other models including the girl.
Chris Hansen voice: I like rape! (for the Don and Mike fans :P)
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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-16563-100x100.png\")
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.
My favorite part of the NOW listing is the \"OFFENSIVE TO WOMEN\" watermark they stamp on every ad on the list.
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.
Fashion ads almost always make no freaking sense and exist only to connect some sexual symbolism with clothing or merchandise.
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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-6762-100x100.png\")
I'm surprised we haven't covered this one yet...
Or maybe it was posted and I missed it.
I don't find it offensive. I look through fashion magazines all the time, I tend to just find it strange and vague, very suggestive, but not obscene.
I meant to mention that the interesting thing about the Dove Onslaught clip is that Dove parent Unilever is simultaneously pushing their Axe body spray with ads like this: [video.google.com]
@liquisoft: Agreed.
There will always be controversy over everything. The clergy wanted Michelangelo to cover up the nudity on the Sistine Chapel. When I was in college, the campus store had novelty posters, and one was of a hot girl with the caption \"Freshmen: Get 'Em While They're Skinny!\" It caused brew-ha-ha when an article in the school paper was published, and all these groups and Anti-Anorexia organizations came out of the woodwork to sling mud at each other. That's a healthy way to go through your life: argue over everything.
I'm not sure I'd call them offensive per se, but out of those ads many of them I can definitely see as promoting negative images of/to women, such as the Calvin Klein and Paul Mitchell ads that promote the idea of being super skinny. The mitchum one I'd also agree is kinda misogynistic.
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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1629-100x100.png\")
Yea.. gang rape, that's it. Granted at least this ad has a \"sexual tone\" to it, so I'll give them that. Nothing like an organization going to extremes and making themselves look like asses. Gang rape.. yea, that's it.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-190860-100x100.png\")
I thought when I finally made it to the \"Until I find a real man, I'll take a real smoke.\" I figured we'd finally get to see: \"OFFENSIVE TO MEN\" - but alas no, they were still demeaning women while simultaneously implying there is a shortage of good men. Hah.
@CoffeeCup: I just realized that my last comment paired \"vague\" and \"suggestive\" together, which is bizarre, but I meant that the ad was vague in its intention to showcase fashion, but suggestive in its intention to display a visual message of sex.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-122784-100x100.png\")
some people might take offense for various reasons but i'm sure most of the people offended have flipped right by these ads without taking notice. i think NOW insults women by telling them that they should be offended by this or that. i imagine it's in the best interest of any business not to offend any of their potential customers.
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.
@bonzombiekitty: You're supposed to want to buy the dress because an unconscious/dead woman is wearing it and looks fabulous.
Whether it's gang rape or just some extreme yoga, it's definitely gross. I know advertisers have to get all edgy to entertain us these days, but this is so far from anything I'd aspire to that it's hard to see how it might make somebody buy the brand.
@ CHRISTOVIR
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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-126807-100x100.png\")
The ad is definitely high on the \"ick\" factor and definitely makes me uncomfortable. I have no idea why the advertising people thought their product would be best displayed on a woman being held down by a shirtless man and surrounded by others. Really, can you imagine that meeting? \"OK, we're gonna have the model in our clothes, but WAIT, she's pinned down by a shirtless guy, BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE, she's surrounded by more shirtless guys.\" \"Brilliant!\" I do appreciate NOW bringing this stuff up, it's insidious precisely because we don't stop to think about what these kinds of ads mean.
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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-124115-100x100.png\")
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.
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.
Since when has the idea of four men pinning down a woman ever suggested rape? Sheesh, you people are such feminazis. I mean, all the chicks I've done have totally dug the 4-on-1 approach, especially with the implied threat that comes with being outnumbered and physically restrained. Plus, how are you supposed to make it exciting if you don't have some actual danger involved? I'm tired of all the whiny man-hating libs telling us we can't celebrate rape fantasies in the pages of a magazine--whatever happened to free speech? If I want my children looking at rape-staged scenes in magazines, then it's my choice--not the government's. This is all part of a feminist plot to emasculate our males. Everyone knows that rape scenes provide healthy masculine role models for growing boys. Geez.
Oh, and the most offensive ads on the list are the Mitchum, dfrnt, and Maker's Mark ones. The images of naked/too-skinny women don't offend me as much as the ones with the subtext \"Heh heh heh, we know you're an asshole. Go ahead, we're assholes too. Just don't forget to buy our product, ktxbai.\"
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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-191279-100x100.png\")
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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-113511-100x100.png\")
Gay, gay, gay!
Not offensive at all.
To be honest, I find the ads on TV for the \"ED\" and herpes medicines alot more offensive.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-110833-100x100.png\")
Now NOW is railing about this? About four years ago my Sociology professor showed the class an ad about shoes.
The man's legs were spread. A woman was on top of him, butt to his crotch. Both wore shoes, obviously.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-145221-100x100.png\")
\"a scene evoking a gang rape and reeking of violence against women.\"
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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-65015-100x100.png\")
ya, those guys are a little too gay to be gang-raping a woman. If anything, most of them seem to be \"supervising\" the rape.
Promoting? Maybe not. Exploiting the fantasy that gang rape is somehow taboo-sexy instead of evil and wrong? You betcha.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-100888-100x100.png\")
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.
@rmz: FWIW, I hate those ads too. They're dumb and offensive and no better for women than the \"rape me\" ads, because they don't just stereotype the dumb husband, they stereotype the wife too as the perfect housekeeper and an obnoxious know-it-all.
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?
It looks like mannequin gang rape. That's not really offensive, just weird.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-98412-100x100.png\")
Give me a break people...it's art...not a news photograph.
I highly doubt that the average person looks at that and thinks gang rape...unless they are looking for things to be upset about...
How offensive do you find this Dolce & Gabbana ad? A: I find it very offensive; in the way that a bunch of gays try to pretend to be straight.
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).
all the guys look gay to me, but then most male models are
Doesn't offend me. Gang rape isn't what i thought when I looked at this. Looks like he wants to tell her a secret, I think he wants to borrow her shoes!
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!\"
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-151698-100x100.png\")
What's \"offensive\" about the ad is how godawful scrawny she is.
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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-42079-100x100.png\")
Couldn't it just be group sex, involving beautiful people, wearing nice clothing, on a roof top?
I hate people who are always looking for reasons to be outraged.
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?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-161572-100x100.png\")
I'm surprised the NOW website doesn't list recent-ish (within the past year) Jimmy Choo ads that were featured in numerous magazines that showed women IN CAR TRUNKS and lying by the side of a road while a man DUG A HOLE to presumably bury the woman in. Those were very disturbing and no one talked about them. I wrote letters to the company and to the magazines but didn't hear back (not that I'm surprised). Not to mention Jimmy Choo's are crap quality for the price -- they'll snap right in half according to many people I know who have paid $700+ for their shoes.
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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-170665-100x100.png\")
I've never even heard of Dolce & Gabbana, but their ad makes me NOT want to look them up. For all I know from this ad, it's a company that sells lube or something. Way to go guys, lost a potential customer because your ad is offensive and has nothing to do with whatever the hell your product is.
I mean - we all know the men creatively behind these ads are absolutely sexist pigs, but I can't believe that there are woman who would actively participate in such blatantly sexist advertising at any creative level, much less NEGOTIATE for or ACCEPT very large sums of money from the people and companies responsible for the aforementioned offensive content. I mean - who would do that?
Oh wait...
...models will!
Being interested in the fashion world, this ad doesn't surprise me at all...it's pretty much par for the course, and to me it's not offensive. It's meant to be a little shocking and eye-catching...it's an AD, after all. Okay, he's holding her down...and? Is he holding a gun to her head? Is she crying and screaming? No...there's no implied danger or terror on her part.
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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-42077-100x100.png\")
This is such old news. Like months old. This horse was already beat to death. And gang raped apparently.
Oh, and the people bad-mouthing the models should probably be bad-mouthing the art directors and the companies themselves. The girls that model for a living are usually doing it to support their family, and the money isn't that good anyway (average model makes like, 30k a year), so if I was one of them I wouldn't turn down a D&G print ad. And if you were a model, you probably wouldn't turn it down either, so blame the companies, not the individuals trying to make a living.
She is raising her hips way up in the air. This isn't gang rape, it's just a good, old-fashioned gangbang.
With shoes like she's wearing, I think she's enjoying herself.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-146449-100x100.png\")
I don't see how that's rape, she doesn't look frightened, sorta bored. If anything they should have just gone with voyeur or exhibition or even just rape, rather then gangrape - because the other guys don't really seem to be doing anything, and you could cut them out of the ad and paste them anywhere and it wouldn't like any different.
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.
Nothing offensive about that at all. She's clearly not struggling. And is that a bit of a Mona Lisa smirk I see? Perhaps she's looking forward to some group sex. Who are we to judge her likes. :)
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...
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-202704-100x100.png\")
OK, I think the outrage is probably overkill, too, but I can't help but question the \"hips raised\" comments. If you're being held down against your will, I suspect you'd try to squirm away. And if you did, isn't it possible that your hips would tilt in the process? Just sayin'.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-150574-100x100.png\")
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.
\"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
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-143003-100x100.png\")
@utsastudent: Or she's in shock, meaning that the other guys are just waiting their turn...
seriously, images can be taken a buhmillion different ways, so STFU!
The main problem I see here is illustrated pretty well by the NOW Foundation page showing their preferred and offensive advertising selections. Seems pretty clear that there are a bunch of fat women who prefer that guys not want to look at thin women; a bunch of ugly women who prefer that guys not want to look at pretty women; and a bunch of shy or puritanical women who prefer that guys not witness or want anything passionate, arousing, or salacious. Despite the fact that advertising, by its very nature and due to limitations of the presentation medium, is entirely aesthetic and superficial, these would-be police of what we should see, think, feel, or hear would have us witness only the aesthetic and superficial \"average\" (or less) in society, yet somehow sit in appreciation of the inner beauty, kind soul, thoughtful wit, or loving heart of the subject that the medium is simply unable to express. Advertisers often get only a fraction of a second to seduce your eyes. A sweet photo of Grandma Moses ain't gonna do it.
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.
@rmz: My thought exactly. If I had to see that idiotic \"fooled the pizza hut guy\" ad with the idiot husband pirouetting in the living room one more time, I think I'd vomit.
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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-175856-100x100.png\")
I think her startling lack of healthy flesh is way more offensive than the positioning of the models.
Regardless of how offensive it is, how EFFECTIVE is it? It makes me actively want to not buy D&G products. Maybe that's because I'm not their target market?
No me gusta.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-73631-100x100.png\")
Anyone who isn't offended by that ad probably \"thinks\" that 'good taste' means a woman likes giving b.j.'s.
I'm pretty sure rape implies a lack of consent, the women in the ad is arching her back up, it hardly looks non-consensual. The Now Foundation is similar to those feminist groups that claim that all sex is rape. Frankly, these organizations would be more effective in getting there message across if they stuck to complaining about legitimately offensive advertisement, instead of complaining about every ad that features women in general.
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.
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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-14466-100x100.png\")
Bwaaahahahaha.
This is so horrible!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-38607-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-21970-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-158727-100x100.png\")
![used to sell clothes that my dad would wear?](\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Aafc1.jpg\"){kind=link}
![[secretum.files.wordpress.com]](\"http://secretum.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/dolce_gabbana_ads4.jpg\"){kind=link}
When did D&G hire Sony's advertising team?