Posted on 03/05/2007 6:05:17 AM PST by cgk
Fri Mar 2, 3:11 PM ET
An ad suggestive of gang rape by Italian designers Dolce and Gabbana has drawn the ire of 13 senators who demanded Friday that it be withdrawn from circulation.
The ad, which has appeared in several women's magazines in Italy and in the daily La Repubblica, shows a bare-chested man pinning a woman to the ground as two other men look on impassively.
"We ask that Dolce and Gabbana withdraw the ad or that the company be called to respect the rules," they wrote to the Italian watchdog body Advertising Self-Discipline Institute.
Dolce and Gabbana already pulled the ad in Spain last month while labelling the country "a bit backward" for objections by the government and a consumer association over the ad.
The Italian lawmakers wrote: "The ad represents in a blatant way an outright instigation to gang rape: a suffering woman on the ground and three men whose function leaves no doubt to the imagination."
"We are disconcerted and offended, since it goes well beyond the concept of a woman as an object (common to) advertising images," wrote the 13 senators, men and women from both the ruling centre-left coalition as well as the opposition Forza Italia party.
"We wonder how it is possible to allow such violent advertising images," they wrote.
Dolce & Gabbana has for some time been popular among the teen crowd, and I didn't understand why until I realized their chosen celebrities wore D&G clothes to all the Teen Choice awards and encouraged kids to buy same. I've seen this company's ads & logos on the MySpace profiles of teens, right beside images of "Who I'd like to meet: Jenna Jameson!"
One of Dolce's previous campaigns, if anyone has any doubt about where they're coming from:
And... (link only):
i dont see any "men" in that first photo
seems all bunch of girls hanging out
Dolce & Gabbana angry at advertising campaign controversy in Spain
02/23/2007
Italian fashion house Dolce & Gabbana has branded Spain as being 'behind the times' for demanding it withdraw a controversial advertising campaign, a newspaper reported on Friday.
Dolce & Gabbana plans to pull the advertisement, which shows a man holding a woman to the ground by her wrists while a group of men look on, following complaints from consumers' groups. "We will only withdraw this photo from the Spanish market. They're a bit behind the times," La Vanguardia newspaper quoted the Milan-based fashion house as saying.
Dolce & Gabbana, known for their risque clothes and adverts, declined to comment on the matter.
Spain's Labour and Social Affairs Ministry branded the campaign as illegal and humiliating to women, saying the woman's body position had no relation to the products Dolce & Gabbana were trying to sell.
"One could infer from the advertisement that it is acceptable to use force as a way of imposing oneself on a woman, reinforced by the passive and complicit manner of the men looking on," the ministry said in a statement.
Dolce & Gabbana defended the campaign as art in comments reported by La Vanguardia. "What has an artistic photo got to do with a real act?" the paper quoted the firm as saying. "You would have to burn museums like the Louvre or the paintings of Caravaggio."
The fracas follows criticism from Britain's advertising watchdog last month about another Dolce & Gabbana campaign showing models brandishing knives.
The British Advertising Standards Authority upheld more than 150 complaints from people concerned that the pictures glorified and condoned violent crime. In that case, the company said the ads were heavily stylised and mimicked early 19th century art.
Not many teens can afford D & G. The ads are bad, but are more tame than most videos on Mtv, not that that is a good thing. It is a sorry statement on society and the message we send to our kids on a daily basis.
Right? Just creepy.
You are entirely correct: most can't afford D&G new - so they end up at thrift stores, even Ross (yep I saw a t-shirt there once), and ebay, buying it anyway. My teen daughter's friends spend a lot of time at thrift shops buying items they can't afford new.
It's sick. It seems that everyone has to be "extra controversial" anymore in an attempt to get free publicity and "chatter" going about them or their product. That's what it's all about. The problem is that they've been doing it for so long, most people are just bored by it.
From what I understand about D&G, I'm surprised it wasn't all guys in that ad.
Gang rape? Judging from the 2nd ad and the others you linked to, I'd say those Senators are off base. The "victim" depicted in the 1st ad is too much a women to be a sexual target for Dolce & Gabbana's "men"... more likely they are out to steal her dress or shoes for their own use.
No matter how bad the cultural rot is here, Europe still manages to plunge further down into the slime pit.
Did you go to the "Another Graphic Ad" hyperlink in the comment?
What D&G will compare the 'gang rape' image to in defense
I've never seen these before, but they're very sick and very disturbing.
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping lists.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Yeah, I thought it looked more like a jealous catfight over a real man who isn't in the picture. ;)
You've got me laughing at the first portion of the above: seeing how often they advertise to gay men, that 'gang rape' ad won't be winning any converts THERE. And yes - I concur with your guess on the 2nd. Here's one pic of the duo:
They may be gay and it's all done in play, so to speak, but the ad has a level of coldness and violence in it that I found really, really ugly. The message it gives goes beyond the usual D&G soft core gay porn and into some really nasty places, like the hatred a lot of these gay men have for women.
Ping to thread... more of it in #13.
I sure wouldn't put it past them for encouraging an impression.
That's exactly what I thought, too. They were supposed to look like military.
In the latest issue of British Elle, Madonna says she's worried because her daughter keeps wearing jeans that are too tight. She says:
"My daughter is going through a phase of wearing jeans that are so tight she can't bend her knees in them. I have a go at her and say, 'Can't you wear something else? You have a closet full of clothes and you wear the same pants every day. And please wear a belt because I don't want to see your butt crack when you bend over.'"
Actually, I think the woman in the ad looks bored out of her mind because she's a slut and realizes that none of these guys are at all interested. The guy is holding her down because she came onto him forcefully and he is restraining her. The other guys are just wondering when she's going to leave so they can go back to whatever it is they were doing (notice they are sweating and she isn't).
Talk about irony.
Maybe they're trying to force feed her. Like an anorexic intervention.
they are holding her down, about to do her hair?
In Madonna's defense, I don't think she ever wore jeans.
LOL!!!!!
I read that last week and laughed. What's the saying? The chickens are coming home to roost or something like that. LOL!
I completely agree with everything you said here. D&G's "explanations" of their ad campaigns are a complete joke: rubbish and hooey!
Here is what the ASA (Advertising Standards Authority) had to say about these 2 D&G ads:
The 1st ad that Denmark banned
| Dolce & Gabbana |
 |
 |
| Adjudication of the Advertising Standards Authority: Ad: a. An ad in the Times and the Daily Telegraph magazine supplement for Dolce & Gabbana featured four men dressed in Dolce & Gabbana clothing. Two of the men were brandishing knives in an aggressive manner towards a third man who was sitting on a chair. A fourth man was lying on the floor with a wound to his forehead. b. An ad in the Daily Telegraph magazine supplement for Dolce & Gabbana featured two men supporting a woman who was holding a knife and had a wound on her chest. |
 |
|
| Issue: 1. 157 complainants, including Mothers Against Murder And Aggression ("MAMAA") and Media March were concerned that ad (a) was irresponsible because it condoned and glamorised knife-related violence in the UK; 2. 47 complainants objected that ad (a) was offensive in the Times because of the recent knife amnesties and the proliferation of knife-related crime in the UK; 3. 26 complainants believed ad (a) was offensive in the Daily Telegraph supplement magazine because of recent knife amnesties and the proliferation of knife-related crime in the UK; 4. One complainant believed that ad (b) was irresponsible because it condoned and glamorised knife-related violence in the UK; 5. One complainant was concerned that ad (b) was offensive because of recent knife amnesties and the proliferation of knife-related crime in the UK and 6. One complainant objected that ad (b) was inappropriate and irresponsible because it linked self-harm with fashion and could encourage self-harm amongst impressionable young people. Response: Dolce & Gabbana (D&G) said they were an international fashion house with a youthful and innovative clothing style, designed to reflect Mediterranean culture. D&G explained that their Autumn/Winter 2006/2007 clothes collections were designed to evoke the Napoleonic Period. The related ad campaign took its inspiration from well-known paintings by Delacroix and David. They explained both ads had run in a variety of print media in Europe, China, Hong Kong, Japan and the USA without complaints. On the individual points of compliant, D&G argued that: 1. ad (a) was highly stylised and intended to be an iconic representation of the Napoleonic period of art, emphasising the theatrical effects of that genre. They insisted that the men in the ad were not brandishing the knives in an aggressive manner and did not give the impression that they were going to stab each other. 2. & 3. the background in ad (a) did not represent a realistic scene that could cause offence and there were no words or expressions used to suggest violence or any offensive act. 4. ad (b) was deliberately designed to be out of focus, so that it gave the appearance of a canvas of a painting. They explained that the models make-up was designed to give a theatrical effect to the scene and the wound on the womans chest was made-up to be unrealistic. 5. ad (b) showed the models in rigid poses, in order to concentrate the readers attention on the advertised clothes they maintained for that reason the ad could not cause offence. 6. ad (b) was photographed to reflect the Napoleonic period and to appear theatrical and highly stylised. They asserted that for those reasons the ad did not represent any act of aggression or self-harm. The Times said they had received several complaints about ad (a). They said they accepted that the ad might be problematic under the terms of the Code and would discuss those issues as a matter of urgency with the advertisers. The Daily Telegraph maintained that; although a small number of readers had contacted them directly about ad (a), they did not believe that most of their readers found the ad offensive or would see it as condoning violence. They also argued that most of their readers would not be adversely influenced in any way. The Daily Telegraph said they had not received complaints about ad (b). They said they did not believe that readers would see self-harm as either a fashion statement or a fashion accessory and that they were confident that their readers behaviour would not be inappropriately influenced by the ad. They believed the ads were part of a series, which used dramatic and classical poses in theatrical tableaux, involving a Shakespearean atmosphere. They insisted that the models were heavily made-up in both ads which gave them a surreal appearance presented in classical settings. The Daily Telegraph argued that most readers of the supplement in which the ads appeared were educated, professional, fashion-conscious people who would recognise the ads' heavy stylisation. Assessment: 1. Upheld The ASA noted the comments of D&G, the Times and the Daily Telegraph. We also noted that ad (a) was highly stylised. However, we considered that the knives were brandished aggressively and the image of a man lying on the ground with a wound to his forehead added to the overall impression of violence. We considered that the ad could be seen as condoning and glorifying knife-related violence and concluded that it was irresponsible. 2. Upheld We noted the comments of D&G and the Times. We noted that the Times had acknowledged that ad (a) had caused concern to a number of readers and welcomed its willingness to approach D&G to discuss the issue further. Furthermore, many readers of the Times were concerned that ad (a) had appeared in an unfortunate juxtaposition opposite an article on knife-related crime. We concluded that, in that context, the ad was likely to cause serious or widespread offence. 3. Upheld We noted the comments of D&G and the Daily Telegraph. Although, we considered that the depiction of the knives in ad (a) was highly stylised, we also concluded that its appearance in the context of the Daily Telegraph supplement was likely to cause serious or widespread offence to readers. 4. Upheld We noted the comments of D&G and the Daily Telegraph. We considered that the depiction of a woman with a wound to her chest and a knife in her hand could be seen as glamorising knife-related crime in the UK and concluded that it was irresponsible. 5. Upheld We noted the comments of D&G and the Daily Telegraph. We considered the depiction of the wound caused by the knife in ad (b) glamorised knife related violence and was likely to cause serious or widespread offence in the context of the Daily Telegraph magazine supplement. 6. Not upheld We noted the comments of D&G and the Daily Telegraph. We acknowledged that there were strong public concerns about self-harm. However, we noted that the ad had appeared in a magazine supplement with an adult readership and was highly stylised. In that context, we concluded that the ad was unlikely to encourage self-harm among young people. Action: We reminded D&G of its duty to prepare ads with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society and told D&G and the Times to take greater care in the placement of similar ads in future. |
Yeah. No wonder the Muslim dream of reconquering much of Europe is alive again. I only wonder what the Muslims will do with the D&G's "men" of Europe... kill them, sell them or just make them wear burkas?
Probably. I never saw a complaint about this ad, which isn't far off:
And I didn't hear any Christians decry the placement of the cross in this pic (from the 'making a gay porn campaign'):
And strangely, no complaints about the placements of ANIMALS in many of their more "intimate" ads:
I'd say it didn't look like any of those 'men' were that interested in the woman. The guy is probably holding her down because he wants her Prada handbag or something.
Wow.... who would ever thought Madonna would be a voice for modesty?
I thought they were trying to give the impression that the watchers were mannequins.
See, no knives, everyone looks either happy or disinterested, so no objections. Never mind the fact that half of these girls appear to be in their mid-teens.
Real classy. and then they charge 500 dollars for a pair of socks.
Gonna have to disagree with that. There is more implied in the second picture than you will see in Mtv videos. Those videos, while sexual, do not border on snuff or homoerotica.
"And I didn't hear any Christians decry the placement of
the cross in this pic (from the 'making a gay porn
campaign'"
I've noticed for the past few years that in movies and on television the more evil a person is the bigger the cross they wear. Just part of Hollywood's hatred of Christians.
Only because fag sex doesn't sell on Mtv, hetero group sex while drinking does. My comment was directed toward the first, didn't mean ads plural, sorry for the mix up, stupid "s" key.
I think men go by the standard that if a girl looks 18 and says she is 21, she is 13. If a woman looks 22 and says she is 25, she is 25, and if a woman looks looks 37 and says she is 34, she's 53.
I'm a man and I always figured that if I needed to ask a girl's age that I was asking for trouble.
LOL!
got ya. Its true, hopefully fag sex won't ever be able to sell. I'm glad to see that it isn't selling in sports, it isnt gonna wash in rap music, which is a staple on mtv.
pinging
ping for home
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
