Gender based poll - the Dolce & Gabbana Ad

[Matariki]

Does opinion about this ad fall along gender lines? No cheating please.

http://www.talkaboutdesign.com/2007/02/21/dolce-and-gabbana-ad/

[Matariki]

1. burp

[Scooter24]

2. Nothing wrong with the ad.

Maybe I'm just biased because I love and wear the brand though.

It's provacative, yes, but I've seen far worse offensive ads.

The shoes are nice though :)

[Beaverhausen]

3. so far, this poll looks like I thought it would

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. You forgot a couple of categories.

"6. I like this ad because subconsciously I'm a rapist."

and

"7. I'm subconsciously a racist, and I'm offended by this ad."

[LoZoccolo]

7. Those are already covered.

Says other people.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. Well then...

I guess they also got the "mindless and brainwashed" category covered then too.

[TahitiNut]

54. I take it you don't see it as him administering CPR, huh?

:evilgrin:

[KittyWampus]

73. Unless we send messages to our Subconscious otherwise, we are all inwardly sexual predators

That's the thing about humans. We can harness our sexual urges or not. We can cultivate our sexual nature or not. We can allow our Reptilian brain to control our behavior or not.

But whatever we do there is no denying we HAVE a Reptilian brain.

Ultimately the question is, are we going to become aware of our Animal self and then what are we going to do about it?

Deny it, repress it, call it evil and dirty, beat it into submission or try to gently train it?

[Marrah_G]

5. Can I vote twice?

Because I also LOVE the shoes.....

O8)

[Matariki]

9. yeah. i like the shoes too.

[Lurking Dem]

16. They are hot!

In fact, the most violent aspect of this ad is the thought of walking in those!

[Marrah_G]

22. I would fall on my ass in 10 steps

[Beaverhausen]

39. My toes hurt just looking at them

honestly, I used to be able to wear some fierce heels when I was young but now...OUCH!!!

[KittyWampus]

74. Some women have their little pinky toes removed to make wearing those things easier

I shit you not.

[Lurking Dem]

75. That's insane.

I haven't worn D&G so can't speak for them. But I do own several pairs of Chanel heels that I can wear quite comfortably. They're very well made.

[Marrah_G]

91. icky icky icky!

[Matariki]

40. Ha - I can RUN in shoes like that.

[Marrah_G]

51. I am green with ENVY!!!

[Judi Lynn]

138. Not that many occassions arise for most people to run in heels.

You are gifted, it seems.

[Carni]

103. I love the shoes

I think the ad is weird for the sake of being bizarre (as I stated in another string) but I love the shoes and if I had the occasion to wear them, or the money to buy them (I have neither) this ad would not put me off purcahsing them.

I have always been a sucker for marketing (yeah yeah not a good thing I know) this ad must be geared towards flashy shoe freaks IMO

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

6. I Can't Help But Find It A Tad Amusing That You Think These Results Will Actually Be Useful Towards

any legitimate argument, if that's in fact why you posted it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. legitimate arguments aren't the issue.

:rofl:

[Matariki]

10. And I happen to know that you love to argue

and nothing short of interviewing every single woman on the planet will shut you up. And even then...

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

15. I Don't Love To Argue. I Just Simply Defend Well.

And no, I don't need an interview of every single woman on the planet. A simple and legitimate scientific poll would suffice. Since there probably won't be one and you don't currently have one at your disposal, then the point you were trying to make about the majority of women looking at it and seeing rape is completely invalid and moot. Why you simply can't stand up and admit that your point wasn't valid but instead are going through now silly lengths by posting a DU poll as if that will help your case somehow, is a bit perplexing and if anything lends itself to the concept that it is you who loves to argue; with all due respect.

[Marrah_G]

23. You do SO like to argue!

:rofl:

[Matariki]

25. No kidding!

but we love you for it!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

28. I Enjoy Intellectual, Lighthearted, Friendly Or Helpful Discussions FAR More.

But I will not shy away from defending my position or challenging false premise. That's not about loving to do so, it is merely about valuing the concept of integrity. But just cause I said I don't love it, doesn't mean I mind it either. :)

[Matariki]

24. Look, you won't even ASK women what they think of this

and THAT was my point.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

26. What are you talking about?

There were a number of women who chimed in that thread.

They were dismissed as being "mindless and brainwashed" but they were there.

[Matariki]

46. Yeah and I called the person on that too

My impression from the other thread was that there were far more women saying it was disturbing. And a few men insulting them for saying it - i.e 'knee-jerk hysteria' etc.

Really, I don't care that much about the ad. I get annoyed with people who are dismissive of the very people who are most affected by an issue.

[Triana]

135. don't forget "hysterical"

That's the ever-classic one.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

33. First Of All That Wasn't Your Point. Second Of All I Did Ask Women. It's Right There In The Thread.

Sorry, but reality is not that easily overcome.

[Matariki]

36. Oh really, where in the thread did you ask women?

And where did you stop to consider what any women said besides the ones that agreed with you?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

42. In A Direct Response To You. Guess You Conveniently Overlooked It.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=358015&mesg_id=363011

[Matariki]

52. Uh, how was that direct response to me in any way ASKING what women think?

furthermore you put words in my mouth in your post. I didn't say "the majority of women would look at it and see rape" I asked: "if the majority of women look at it and see 'rape', couldn't you, as a man, concede that there might at least be something to that?" And by that I was addressing your inability to listen to the viewpoint of people far more impacted by the issue than you. And like I also asked, do you argue with blacks & gays over what's racist or homophobic, thinking you know better?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

56. Jesus Do I Really Need To Spoon Feed? Fine. Here.

"Instead, the valid way of capturing data on this would be to simply show the picture to women who are unfamiliar with the context and in a completely neutral way simply ask "what pops into your head when you see this ad?", as I did today to five different women. All 5 answered with things related to sex as opposed to rape."

And my point to your initial question was that until you can show that a majority of women do so your point is moot and your question hypothetical and a waste of time to consider. That point of mine remains valid.

[Matariki]

62. What, 5 women you just happened to walk up to on the street? your wife and kids?

And that's supposed to be your idea of an unbiased overview of what women think? Somehow I don't quite believe you. At any you weren't asking the women on this board, at least not publically. And you certainly were making NO effort to understand or engage in conversation with the numerous women here who find the ad offensive to women. And YES that was my point.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

67. Co-Workers. And Your Position Of Belief Is Meaningless To Me.

I also never said it was a valid sample since 5 is way too small. But it is disingenuous of you to claim I didn't speak to any.

Furthermore, why the fuck should I have to make an effort to understand or engage in conversation with the numerous women here who find the ad offensive? I didn't give a shit enough about the ad to begin with so why should I care? Fact is, I have my opinion on it and stated what it was. Nothing wrong with that whatsoever. I already understand fine why many who see rape believe that to be the case, but I still think it's a case of seeing what they want to see. If you don't like the fact that I have that opinion I don't know what to tell ya other than that you'll just have to get over it. Personally, I'm of pretty strong opinion that if the question was asked to those unfamiliar with the ad in the ways I put the question forth in that copied post, that far more would think sexual than violence, as the 5 I asked that of today showed. I also have every right to feel that way regardless of your objections.

[Matariki]

68. About the same as you dismissing this poll.

And as you can see, far more women find it offensive than not. But I'm sure that doesn't matter to you.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

70. Wrong. (Latter Point)

Far more women who have explicitly responded to this 'for entertainment purposes only' poll have. But like I said, not only is that not truly representative of DU anyway, but the whole premise has already been contaminated through discussion to begin with.

Like I said, to be valid you have to ask someone who is unfamiliar with the context to simply look at the picture and tell you what pops into their head when they see the ad. The 5 I asked today all said something in the terms of sexuality. I'd wager if the question was asked like that with a scientific and legitimate sampling, that the poll numbers would hugely favor my side of the argument.

But really, in the end of it all I really couldn't care less. It's just some stupid ad for God's sake. LOL

[Matariki]

79. 81% of women polled find this ad violent or offensive. IN YOUR FACE OPERATIONMINDCRIME

:woohoo:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

80. ...

Most. Childish. Misguided. And Ignorant. Premise. Ever.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Matariki]

83. Oh not a premise but YOUR FACE!

as in 'neener-neener, i'm right, you're wrong' :rofl:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

84. Actually, By Using This Poll As Your Only Evidence I Believe You've Proven Yourself Even More Wrong.

This poll obviously is meaningless in the realm of reality for the reasons I've previously stated. The fact that you want to use it as your only source of defense shows just EXACTLY how weak your argument and premise was to begin with. If this is all you've got in terms of justifying your premise, then your premise has been unquestionably defeated.

Not only have you not offered any intellectual or substantial argument to justify your silliness in the other thread, but you've managed to make yourself look ridiculously childish and logically challenged in the process.

Bye now! :rofl:

[Matariki]

86. Last word, last word!

I was actually trying to leave this discussion with a little humor, by making fun of myself - did you think i meant 'in your face' seriously. But since you won't play -

I do have a last word. You have a discernible pattern to your posts. They are full faux intellectual dismissals to whoever you are arguing with, that amount to nothing more than 'is not'. Yet you always continue the argument. This is what I ALWAYS see in your posts, not just the ones to me today.

Furthermore, my point was and still is that you have a stubborn inability to LISTEN to other people's viewpoints, especially when the topic being discussed has FAR more to do with their experience than yours - all in favor of 'being right'.

Anyway, I was just having some fun with you.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

90. I Just Call It Like I See It. Get Over it.

And the way I see it, that ad is nothing more than an overly sexual and erotic ad intended to provoke emotion of sensuality, passion, lust and desire. I can see why some wanting to see it as rape believe that's what they're seeing, but I'm still firm in my belief that it's because that's simply what they WANT to see as opposed to what is actually there. I'm more than confident that a real poll of real people who know nothing of the premise of the ad would show an overwhelming majority of respondents answering within the context of sexuality and not violence.

As far as my intellectual dismissals go, I will always dismiss misguided ideals, false premise, empty rhetoric and logically empty declaration. I'm a firm believer that granting legitimacy to illegitimate premise is just plain dumb. If you were debating someone and they told you that Bush was totally honest with the war and has always had honorable and pure intentions, would you take that argument seriously? Would you LISTEN to it? Would you attempt to understand why they feel that way? Or would it be really dumb to do so and more likely that you'd be dismissive of that argument as well? See, logically illegitimate and irrational arguments need not to be heeded. They are meant to be dismissed. When I do so it is always for that reason.

And as far as your having fun with me goes, no sweat. I'm always having fun on here too. It's just a message board, and some take posts here wayyyyyyyyyyy too seriously.

[Matariki]

101. Oh man, what part of 'last word' don't you get ;-)

Your comparison of this to a debate about Bush being honest is "logically empty". You, as a man, arguing with the numerous woman who see the ad as violent toward women is far more akin to you, as a heterosexual, arguing about what's homophobic with a gay person. You're out of your league.

[Marrah_G]

104. You two should just arm wrestle already!

:rofl:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

107. LOL :o)

[Matariki]

110. Oh, I'd kick his butt ;-)

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

118. Only If I Let Ya ;-)

Admit it... You love me.

[Matariki]

122. That's what they ALL say after I kick their butts ;-)

And yeah, you're okay.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

127. Just For The Record, You Are An Extremely Talented Artist.

Just checked out your website. Some impressive stuff there. Extremely creative.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

109. Actually The Only Woman I've Argued With Is You, And You Haven't Put Forth Any Valid Ones Either LOL

Just for sake of clarity though, my * analogy was meant towards the general premise of the times I reply in such ways, not really this topic itself.

As far as being out of my league, that's just really silly. You want to keep putting forth the premise that a majority of women see the ad as you do. There is zero reason to believe that to be the case. Once again, your assertion of such is illegitimate and therefore worthy of being dismissed. If there's one point I think you need to understand in all of this, it's that just because you have an opinion on something doesn't mean everyone else in your class shares the same. To deduce as much is a logical violation and intellectual fallacy. A small subgroup of women on DU does not general population make; with all due respect. That's the point of all of this going back and forth we've been doing. You want to make it like a majority of women will see this as you do when they look at the ad objectively, and that I simply disagree because I'm a man. But there is no basis to your theory so your points are still, as they were at the time of my first reply to you, moot. Sorry, but that's inarguable fact whether you want it not to be or otherwise.

I do get a kick out of you though and I'm sure you actually are quite a fun person to hang out with and all (as am I), but I'm still not gonna let ya get off easy in terms of logical argument. :)

[Matariki]

117. And just as I can't speak for *all* women - you can speak for *no* women

so i'm still 'one up'. :hi:

Truthfully, I don't care about the ad. I personally think it's depicting domination as opposed to sex in a way that ultimately hurts women - and this is coming from someone who gets her jollies from s/m. I understand that both men and women are seeing the scenario in the ad in many different ways, and all are valid.

What bothers me is when people in a particular group have something to say about an issue that effects them personally, people outside that group either argue that it isn't true, or they 'need to get over it', etc.

If I were the *only* woman saying the ad is violent toward women in a non-consensual way, you'd have a point. But I'm not. You're conveniently ignoring the fact that women's groups are criticizing the ad - NOW is calling for a boycott. Do you think NOW exists in a vacuum unconnected to women's issues or a large numbers of women? They're an organization committed to women's issues and if you had any sensitivity you'd at least consider WHY they think the ad is damaging to women instead of just stating over and over 'is not'.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

125. Actually For The 3rd Time, I Speak Directly For At Least 5, So You're Still 4 Down LOL Furthermore:

"Truthfully, I don't care about the ad. "

Me either.

"I personally think it's depicting domination as opposed to sex in a way that ultimately hurts women"

Then why not say so to begin with? I wouldn't argue with that at all and can totally see why that would be a legitimate argument.

"- and this is coming from someone who gets her jollies from s/m."

It's all about the passion.

"I understand that both men and women are seeing the scenario in the ad in many different ways, and all are valid."

Absolutely. Course, some are probably more valid than others LOL

"What bothers me is when people in a particular group have something to say about an issue that effects them personally, people outside that group either argue that it isn't true, or they 'need to get over it', etc."

Just because someone sees something a certain way doesn't make it true. Furthermore, in my original posts in the other thread I made it clear that it was my perception and opinion only. I'm entitled to have one, including a strong one. I also never took the tone of 'get over it' whatsoever. I merely stated that I think some people are seeing what they're seeing because it's what they want to see.

"If I were the *only* woman saying the ad is violent toward women in a non-consensual way, you'd have a point. But I'm not."

I disagree. I've made no point that revolved around you being the only one deeming the ad as violent. Undoubtedly there are plenty of women who would agree with you, especially once the seed is planted that the concept is what they are supposed to be seeing. But I still believe strongly that if asked to women who don't know a thing about it or what they're supposed to be looking for, as to what pops into their heads when looking at it, that most would respond with sexual context and not violent context. The 5 women I asked today that all responded with the former gave me further reason to believe my perception was on the right track. Do me a favor: Tomorrow, bring up the picture on screen and ask a woman at work what pops into her head. Don't say a thing about rape or violence. Just ask objectively, innocently and outside of any context. See how she answers.


"You're conveniently ignoring the fact that women's groups are criticizing the ad - NOW is calling for a boycott. Do you think NOW exists in a vacuum unconnected to women's issues or a large numbers of women? They're an organization committed to women's issues and if you had any sensitivity you'd at least consider WHY they think the ad is damaging to women instead of just stating over and over 'is not'."

I have considered it and disagree with it. I don't know a whole lot about NOW but from what I've read so far I get the inkling that they are probably feminist extremists. I don't know for certain, but that's the vibe I got so far. I think if they would've taken the 'dominance' angle I would've given more credibility. But I do find the rape angle to be alarmist. I know you disagree, but you have to understand that I have every right to feel that way. I try and look at everything objectively and use whatever pure logic I can when making a deduction about a concept. In relation to this concept, D&G making an ad portraying rape contains zero logic. Making an ad with strong, passionate, erotic, sensual and lustful overtones does. So even though my deductive process goes further than that, just that alone can be a start of deducing the ad is putting forth the latter concept, and the former concept is only being seen because the viewer wants to see it that way. But I will absolutely give credit to the dominance aspect of your argument as I think that is in fact plain to see. But many women do get turned on with sexual dominance (trust me, I know this to be true) so I can understand their use of that concept. But I also know there are tons of women who like to do the dominating and yet others who find the stereotype of men being the dominant partner to be disgusting and offensive. So like I said, I wouldn't argue about that premise at all, because it is inherent within the picture. But rape? Not for a second.

So it's been fun and I hope you've taken no offense. God bless and goodnight.

[Matariki]

128. For the record - NOW is not made up of feminist extremists

And no, I haven't taken any offence. You're fun to argue discuss things with because you're smart and you don't take things personally.

g'night.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

129. Ok. I Very Well May Be Wrong There. Like I Said, I'm Not Too Familiar With Them.

I'll check 'em out further so that next time I can have a more educated and informed opinion on who they are and what they do.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

57. If blacks or gays...

made an argument that this commercial was racist or homophobic, I'd take issue with that as well.

[lies and propaganda]

11. violent???

then i suppose missionary position sex is violent and a crime against all women :sarcasm:

Please, its a nice piece of photography. Everyone is pretty hot, clothes are cute, this doesnt affect me at all...

[Matariki]

13. You don't find the sunglasses and impassive onlookers a wee bit Guantanamo Bay?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. More like Guntamano Bang.

Starring Ron Jeremy.

:thumbsup:

[Marrah_G]

20. EWWWWWWW n/t

[Marrah_G]

19. I definitely didn't think Guantanamo

I did think "Europe" though.

[lies and propaganda]

31. I find them to be high fashion uppity couture crap...

Nothing taht is up my alley, but very much Top Model, fashionista shit, not Bushco scariness...

[Goblinmonger]

77. exactly

what everyone is calling a "stare" just seems to me to be that emotionless look that all high-fashion model bullshit goes for. The "I'm too cool to give a shit about anything" look.

uppity couture crap!!

[tgurney]

14. it looks like a gang bang is about to begin

[soothsayer]

64. yup, reminds me of a porn movie (lady of hte house, landscapers)

you get the idea

[Uncle Joe]

17. Looks like they're subliminally promoting gang rape to me,

now even if you believe the woman looks as if she is not resisting, I understand why many women would view this image as demeaning to them.

[bigwillq]

21. I think the ad's hot.

I don't think it's offensive. No big deal to me.

I'm sure some people will find it offensive but I think, to me anyway, that's it's just a matter of how sensitive people are.

[Matariki]

29. you're a guy right

Well, i support your right to find the ad hot. I don't think it's fair to call people who are disturbed by it 'sensitive'. You know what the rape statistics are for women? That alone will make people 'sensitive' to this ad.

[bigwillq]

43. A guy, yes

Your point is well taken about the 'sensitive' issue.

I don't see rape in the ad though. Gang bang, yes but not rape.

We cannot assume it's rape or that she's volunteering to be gang banged.

I see it as sexual and sensual not as violent but again each person is going to have a different opinion on it.

[everythingsxen]

27. There should be two more options...

I am a man and think that ad is HAWT!!!

and

I am a woman and I think that ad is HAWT!!!

:evilgrin:

[Matariki]

34. sure i thought of those, except not spelled in 'Alabamian'

:evilgrin:

[Lurking Dem]

37. LOL!

Hell, I'm a woman and a violent crime survivor and I think the ad is HAWT!!!

[Vektor]

30. D&G ads are always a little strange, but this one is a bit over the top.

It made me a little uncomfortable. I've seen worse, but this is not one of my faves.

[walldude]

32. I'm a man and that ad looks like a Spinal Tap album cover to me.

Smell The Glove. "It's a fine line between stupid and clever"

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

35. ...

Wossa matter wiff being sexy?

[Beaverhausen]

38. "Sexist" not "sexy"

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

41. Looks sexy to me.

:shrug:

[Beaverhausen]

44. yeah, we know already. We heard you the first 57 times.

I was quoting Ian in Spinal Tap.


Hello! Is anyone there?



edited to fix who I was quoting.

[LoZoccolo]

58. Who is that guy?

He is trying to look like Liam Gallagher; he is some sort of wannabe, apparently.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

60. I can't tell from sarcasm anymore.

So just in case, it's a character from This Is Spinal Tap.

[mitchum]

95. Indeed...or some fifth rate Helmut Newton rip off

[nonconformist]

45. I'm a woman. I think the ad is pretty sexy.

There, I said it.

[dkofos]

47. sorry prudes, I went for the shoes

And if you look real close they look like computer generated graphics.

[Scooter24]

49. I think those shoes are the main focal point in the whole ad...

your eyes just can't help but focus on them.

[Recursion]

48. Power and sex

I see a lot of "this isn't sex, it's power"; I disagree that the two are so easy to distinguish.

Lots of people with both kinds of genitalia respond to the power/force aspect in that picture, and the frequency with which you see basically that pose in erotic art throughout history tells me that is nothing new; it's a common fantasy and I don't think it should be so shameful to say so. Is it a fantasy entirely based on growing up in a phallocentric patriarchal society? I think that's certainly possible, but then that's how most of us grew up and that's how most of us respond.

[KittyWampus]

76. Such an interesting post.

[Carni]

111. OK I think the ad means...the shoes give the woman ultimate power

OVER the men...they're lining up because they can't resist the shoes!

Yeah yeah it's very James Bond, very likely sexist and very 1960's -- but that is what D&G are trying to promote THE SHOES! (IMO)

It's just artsy BS to sell high end shoes--I find the commercial for playtex tampons with the women wearing white and pretending to be kotex tampons 1 million times more offensive (hate that ad)

I just don't see the woman as being in a submissive state--but then maybe I am just an old fart type shoe freak, that wants young hot shirtless men to lust after me because I am wearing 1500 shoes.

God, I sound like a Republican LOL

[featherman]

50. I'm guessing these four beautiful young men were far more interested

in each other's phone numbers after the photo shoot than they were in that of the scrawny model.

[Matariki]

55. that is precisely why it seems more violent than erotic to me

their 'attentions' seem to have little to do with sex and more to do with domination.

[The Straight Story]

53. So basically - some find it offensive and some don't

Does that make anyone bad?

[GoneOffShore]

59. We both looked

And Mrs GoS said, "Nice Shoes"

Of course, we both do work for advertising agencies, so we see this stuff all the time.

We looked at the photo styling, the models and the shoes and the graphics.

Subtext on the ad - buy our shoes.

Anything else, you don't look at high end advertising, and you've got WAY TOO MUCH time on your hands.

Added on edit:

Your choices for votes are far too "Forced Choice". Not good - Don't go into polling.

:hi:

[noamnety]

71. "we see this stuff all the time"

You say that like it's a good thing.

[GoneOffShore]

96. No. That's not what I said or implied.

:banghead:

And we both like the shoes.

:headbang: :shrug:

[noamnety]

99. Is it a bad thing that you see it all the time? nt

[GoneOffShore]

130. It's advertising

It sells soap, or shoes, or cars or political candidates.

Must we protect the 'weak minded' from advertising? Are people that easily influenced?

Anyone with the least component of skepticism sees this stuff for what it is.

Of course, your mileage may differ.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

61. IMHO it looks more like Her fantasy than a gang bang with violence. Personally

I'm not thrilled with it but I don't find it exceptionally offensive.

[Horse with no Name]

63. That's my take

:shrug:

[dsc]

65. What were they thinking of?

Not to mention what are they selling? This really is over the top. I hope that this ad quickly sinks to the nether regions.

[Beelzebud]

66. Oh god no. Not another Advertisment melee on DU....

[Matariki]

69. No, no. just a good old fashion 'battle of the sexes' :)

[Colobo]

72. I don't see anything wrong with the ad

Nothing I haven't seen before...

[Robb]

78. Dunno about that, but HERE'S a picture of gang rape:

[Marrah_G]

89. I see a fox.........

Does that mean I need therapy?

[mitchum]

98. No...it's two foxes who have turned their backs on one another...

after a bitter argument about the scarab between them.
What, are you crazy? :)

[Marrah_G]

106. Apparently I am!

(I still see a fox dammit!)

:rofl:

[Carni]

112. I thought it was a moth

Not sure I want to know what that says about me lol (BORING most likely)

[BlueStorm]

131. I thought it looked like the pelvic bone complete with coccyx bone...

So what does that say about me? LOL.

Blue

[Starbucks Anarchist]

81. Guy who thinks it's offensive.

[huskerlaw]

82. Nice shoes!

No, really...they're adorable.

But that's not really the point, is it?

I have to say, honestly, gang rape didn't even come to mind when I first saw this picture. There's nothing definitive in that picture whatsoever.

Only 2 of the guys even seem to be paying any attention to the woman. None of them look menacing. The woman doesn't look particularly distraught...

I'm sorry, this picture does not yell "violent rape" to me. I can see how it could be interpreted that way, but...personally, not so much.

[Ron Green]

85. The ad is offensive and violent against all human beings.

It says that a product is more important than a person. Most modern advertising does this; it trivializes human relationships and emphasizes things, or actually replaces a human with a thing. These ads give our fears permission to rule us, and promise love and connection only through the product, not through another person.

[mitchum]

114. Ron, that is a succinct analysis of advertising

Advertising is indeed based on exploiting already existing or newly created fears.
It infuriates me to hear someone blather on about the alleged creativity in advertising. There is nothing creative in advertising; it is as formulaic as porn. And to their credit, most porn producers don't delude themselves into thinking that they are artists or creative.

[NotGivingUp]

116. so happy to finally hear a voice of reason. i agree with you 100%. n/t

[uppityperson]

87. "knock me down and fuck me shoes" Mother in law says

[Clark2008]

88. I don't see "rape," but I do see clear domination.

Woman - and it's offensive to me.

And, as I have big, pregnant Fred Flinstone feet at the moment, I couldn't give two shits about the shoes.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

92. Now That's A Premise Towards The Ad That I See Nothing Wrong With.

Though I know plenty of women who love that sort of sexual dominance I also can easily see why many would take issue with the dominance aspect of the ad. To me that is a far more logical and rational premise than the rape one.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

93. Cheesy and vulgar. But, cheesy and vulgar sells everything from shoes to toothpaste.

It sure isn't Toulouse-Lautrec.

[mitchum]

94. Why would those gay men be raping a woman?

That just doesn't make any sense...

[porphyrian]

100. Ha! Jinx! I didn't read yours before I posted mine. - n/t

[Carni]

113. They do a burlesque show and they want her shoes?

OK that was a really bad joke -- carry on!

[mitchum]

115. Or they are trying to get Cher's phone number from her?

Now, THAT was a really bad joke :)

[Carni]

120. Thank God someone else jumped in!

I was swinging out there in the wind lol ;)

[Matariki]

123. Damn! I think you hit the nail on the head

It *is* violence against the woman and they're after her shoes. LOL. That might actually BE the real subtext there. Go figure ;-)

[Carni]

124. Hey -- those are some expensive shoes.

And these are tough times after all!

[porphyrian]

97. Gay men don't rape women.

None of the guys are even looking at her. The one holding her wrist has his eyes closed. They guy on the left is looking at something (her hair?) off screen to the right. The other guys are looking at guys.

No straight man will look at this ad and think raping women is OK. No gay man will look at this ad and think raping women is OK. I'm sorry, people are over-reacting to this.

[Labors of Hercules]

102. BINGO!

[Irreverend IX]

134. Yeah, they look like they're stoned out of their minds.

The zombie-like expressions on these models somehow don't scream "gang rape" to me. That type of look is common in fashion photography, but it appears that the photog and the models weren't able to break out of that mold to make a more "action-packed" picture. I don't think it shows that DG supports rape so much as it shows that DG's photographers are running out of ideas.

[BlooInBloo]

105. Are men the primary *targets* of D&C, or women?

(shrug) Looks like a man's guess at a woman's fantasy to me.

[Matariki]

121. I read that the ad ran in Esquire magazine in the US

[BlooInBloo]

108. There are actually *2* questions, not 1...

(a) Is the message-sender *sending* an offensive message?
(b) Is the message-receiver *receiving* an offensive message?

I have no feel for hipster-avant-garde-crap - hence I don't know the answer to (a).
Answer to (b): quite likely.

[NotGivingUp]

119. the ad is totally offensive and disgusting. they can keep the shoes, too. n/t

[salin]

126. I hate these threads - hadn't seen the ad and wished I hadn't

nor read the dismissal of those who don't agree that it is all okay. But since we, as a society, so easily dismiss rape surivors as not beng able to discuss any issue related to rape because we are too emotional (just had that said to me in the last two weeks on DU) - and thus only folks with NO experience with rape have a voice on the issue - what ever. When as a society we ponder the high prevalence of the rate of rape of women between the ages of 15 and 30 (33%) yet continue to dismiss any discussion that may ask men to think about their actions that may enable/empower other men with the tendency of forced sex (rape) - well what is the surprise to the continued high incident of rape?

So please - continue dismissing me and my voice. After all I have none - as being an actual rape survivor apparently prevents me from having a legitimate voice on such an issue - only those with NO direct experience should reply.

[BlueStorm]

132. I find it as more of a BDSM scene

a type of fantasy gang bang, and yes there are people out there that like that stuff.

As a lesbian I find the woman to be hot and the situation to be sexually arousing, that is when I substitute the men for women.

Blue

[jillan]

133. I'd like to know where I could meet the guy standing

behind them. The one without his shirt on.
Very nice!

[Lurking Dem]

136. When I showed the pic to my PA

she rubbed her finger over his chest and went "mmmmmmm".

He's even hotter than the shoes.

[noamnety]

137. The disconnect between the poll results and the comments

I don't know why people would continue to post dismissive comments.

Looking at that poll, it's clear to me that the vast majority of women here see this as being offensive/harmful. I'd hope that if I were in the group that didn't personally look at the ad and see something harmful, those poll results would tell me something important. Also, I'd like to think that once I recognized that, I could at least get to the point where I accepted that the ad was somehow harmful, even if I didn't completely get why yet. And then I'd start asking why, and listening.

I've flipped on other issues, for exactly that reason - I didn't think/realize something was offensive, but I saw a lot of anger on DU about it. Rather than being derisive about an entire class of people, rather than dismissing an entire group of people as hysterical or shrill, I listened. Is that so hard to do - to make an effort to understand, rather then trying to shut people down?

I can't imagine making an ad that offended people of color at a rate of 4 to 1 or 5 to 1, and then telling those people there's nothing offensive about it. I just don't understand that kind of arrogance.

Particularly for the men, I would think there'd be something to learn in the discrepancy between how women overall view the ad, and how men do. This is a problem I've had consistently on DU, that the men (AND IF YOU AIN'T ONE OF THESE MEN I AIN'T TALKING ABOUT YOU) feel entitled to tell women what women experience, and the men feel entitled to tell women how they are supposed to feel, how they are supposed to react to things, and how they are supposed to think, like the women on DU aren't enlightened enough or smart enough to think proper thoughts on their own.

I am a little tired of the men on DU knowing oh so well that the real problem isn't that women are raped and harassed and abused at epidemic rates in this country. And I am tired of the women who talk about why that is being shut down by a small but shrill group of men claiming that the reason we aren't shutting up about the forces that make these things epidemic is because we like to be victims. SHIT. If we liked to be the goddamn victims, we wouldn't be speaking out against crap like this ad.

1. We are pissed off that being sexually harassed and assaulted is an accepted part of our lives.
2. We recognize that popular culture contributes to these actions being normal and accepted in our society.
3. We speak out when we see popular culture contributing to the normalization of assault and harassment.
4. The people who are experiencing discrimination are in a better position to recognize the forces that cause it than those who don't experience it
5. This ain't exactly brain surgery.

[atommom]

139. Thanks. That's a very good synopsis, and you said it better than I was about to.

:yourock:

We now return to our regularly scheduled :banghead:

[lukasahero]

143. Bravo. Thank you for having the patience and taking the time to write this.

:yourock:

[VelmaD]

146. A-freakin-men

Preach it. :yourock:

[youthere]

140. The Ad aside....

AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO DOESN'T LIKE THOSE SHOES?!!

[atommom]

141. I don't like them either.

But then, I like to be able to walk in my shoes. :)

[youthere]

142. YAY!

I'm not alone!
I don't think fashion is worth a lifetime of disability either.

[lukasahero]

144. I never even *saw* the shoes

until somone mentioned it in that other thread. Do people still really wear those things? (Seems so 1980's to me.)

[PassingFair]

145. Doesn't every mother dream of gang bangs for her daughter?

Why do you feminists hate fashion and the male sex drive?

:sarcasm:

WTF?