Dolce And Gabbana 'Fantasy Rape' Ad

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

MrsSpringsteen

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
29,245
Location
Edge's beanie closet
This is irresponsible advertising in my opinion. Yes it gets them attention- but anyone who truly loves women, as D and G say they do, would not create an ad such as this one. I find it very difficult to believe that they had no idea this ad looked like a rape/gang rape/rape fantasy scene.


Is rape in the eye of the beholder? Women's groups called this ad violent, the designers called it an 'erotic dream.'

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17490782/site/newsweek/

070306_DolceAd_wide.hlarge.jpg


KIM GANDY

NEWSWEEK: Where is the line between an ad that is about a sexy fantasy and something that is offensive?

Kim Gandy: The line there is whether one considers rape to be a sexy fantasy. The Dolce & Gabbana ad was a stylized gang rape. It's in Esquire, so they probably don't think a stylized gang rape will sell clothes to women, but what is more likely is that they think it will get them publicity. It's a provocative ad but it is provoking things that really are not what we want to have provoked. We don't need any more violence."

NEWSWEEK: You've got a number of ads on your "Love Your Body" Web site that you've deemed offensive to women. Should they all be removed from circulation?

Some of those ads are just insulting and of course there's a difference between being insulting and portraying women as less than human—as people to be raped or assaulted. The bourbon ad that said "Your bourbon has a great body and fine character. I wish the same could be said for my girlfriend," is more insulting. I think that insulting various groups of people has become a lazy way of getting laughs or attention.

NEWSWEEK: Men are insulted a lot in ads too. Fathers and husbands are often portrayed as clueless. If everyone is being insulted can we pick out one ad or another for criticism?

The sexualization of girls is different. It has gotten extreme and that can't be good for our kids or our society. I don't want my two middle school daughters internalizing images which objectify women and I especially don't want their male friends internalizing them. They are bombarded with the message that women are there for sex and are available for sex at anytime. And as strong as parents try to be in educating our own kids and giving them good values, they get bombarded by messages from the outside for more hours per day than their parents have them.

Here is that "Love your body" site, the section on the ads

http://loveyourbody.nowfoundation.org/offensiveads.html



NEWSWEEK:Is advertising more demeaning to women today than it was 10 or 20 years ago?

Advertising is far more demeaning to women today than it was 20 years ago. In the 1970's and 1980's, we had a national project where you could send post cards to companies who used offensive advertising. It said that they were the recipient of a bad ad award. I'm sure if we looked back at some of the ads we were talking about then, they probably wouldn't even register as offensive now.
 
I think ads like that are always pushing the envelop. It's hardly about selling clothes anymore. It reminds me of the Gucci ad with the "G" shaved into the model's pubic hair.

I look at them and think "whatever...no thanks."

Some men have rape fantasies, and so do a lot of women. Weird, but true.

I guess it depends on whether the ad is glorifying actual rape, or just appealing to people's fantasies. Honestly, I think it's the latter in this case, and I can't really judge someone else's fantasies even if they are weird to me.

I don't usually read magazines that feature these types of ads, so they don't really bother me one way or the other.
 
I just can't imagine who came up with this idea and how they pitched it so that it got picked up and actually run....I guess they are just going for the shock factor, the old saying that there's no such thing as negative publicity. I beg to differ, of course. :tsk:
 
Liesje said:


I guess it depends on whether the ad is glorifying actual rape, or just appealing to people's fantasies. Honestly, I think it's the latter in this case, and I can't really judge someone else's fantasies even if they are weird to me.


I don't think most people fantasize about rape. They might fantasize about someone they are very attracted to reciprocating that and doing it in an assertive way, but that is about the desire and not a violent act of rape. And whatever someone's fantasies might be, that is entirely different from perpetuating the myth of rape fantasy-that is that women want to be raped, that that is a sexual fantasy of women. That is a false notion, and it perpetuates the myth that women are asking for it. I find it highly disturbing that any company would perpetuate that in any ad.

There's nothing wrong with sexy ads, and they can be beautiful. But there's nothing erotic or like a "game" about that ad or what it represents. Sexy does not have to degrade women-and sexy has nothing to do with rape.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:

I don't think most people fantasize about rape. They might fantasize about someone they are very attracted to reciprocating that and doing it in an assertive way, but that is about the desire and not a violent act of rape. And whatever someone's fantasies might be, that is entirely different from perpetuating the myth of rape fantasy-that is that women want to be raped, that that is a sexual fantasy of women. That is a false notion, and it perpetuates the myth that women are asking for it. I find it highly disturbing that any company would perpetuate that in any ad.

There's nothing wrong with sexy ads, and they can be beautiful. But there's nothing erotic or like a "game" about that ad or what it represents.
 
There's a difference between having rape fantasies and wanting to be raped. Women do have rape fantasies. No one wants to be raped.

anyway, I think the ad is disgusting and I can't believe they'd actually put it out. it's one thing for people to have private fantasies but it really seems to be glorifying gang rape to me (although like Lies said I guess you could argue either way). I dunno it makes me very uncomfortable.
 
mmm I don't really like it either. I think it would bebetter if the girl was in change, wanting to have some gang bang with them all, rather then have men standing around menacingly and one forceably holdng her down.

I don't think people actually have 'rape fantasies' as much as 'domination' fantasies. I think its different. I'd be worried if people had actual rape fantasies because rape is no walk in the park as is any assault. I do think there is a difference between rape and being a little dominated in the bedroom
 
Angela Harlem said:
Why do you think this?
It's not a controversial claim from a psychology standpoint, at least if by 'rape fantasy' you mean an erotic fantasy of being overpowered sexually/had sex with against one's will ('one' in this case may or may not mean the actual woman doing the fantasizing, as some people fantasize about characters other than themselves). You'll need access to an academic database to read them, but in just a few minutes of keyword searching through some of our psychology databases here I found studies addressing this topic from Zurbriggen & Yost; Bond & Mosher; Strassberg & Lockerd; Pelletier & Herold; and Knafo & Jaffe. I glanced at only the summaries for these; the latter three all found more than half the female subjects reporting fantasies of this type. The Zurbriggen & Yost one looked interesting because it addressed the fact that having such fantasies is not correlated with attitudes about real-life rape. That fits with what I remember learning about this topic when it was briefly covered in a psychology course I took as an undergrad, which is that the prevalence of these kinds of fantasies is commonly explained as a way of enjoying the idea of inspiring uncontrollable desire, without the real-life experience of being humiliated by having no control over the situation.

But I don't know that any of that is really relevant to the ad. I find it creepy and weirdly emotionless, as if they couldn't quite decide whether they more wanted 'drama' or just another artsy mishmash of beautiful oiled bodies lounging nonchalantly around. I wouldn't say it suggests that women enjoy being raped, people do all kinds of things that no one would actually enjoy in fashion ads, but it's certainly more unsettling than most. D&G claimed their aesthetic inspiration for this ad was 'Napoleonic' (early 19th cen. French) art, I suppose meaning people like Delacroix, Ingres, etc. who commonly painted densely peopled (and in Delacroix's case, often violent), narrative scenes with naked or seminaked women, iconic or 'realistic,' draped about the foreground. Generally I find it a bit grandiose when advertisers describe their work in that way, but then fashion designers do often see themselves as artists, so perhaps it's not so strange.

Spain actually has a law against depicting women's bodies in advertising in a way that's 'irrelevant' to the product, which strikes me as pretty extreme, but I guess that's why this ad first ran into major trouble there. I find it interesting that it ran in women's magazines in Italy, but in a men's magazine here. In any case, the ad's been pulled now in response to all the complaints, so end of story, I guess.
 
Last edited:
MrsSpringsteen said:
This is irresponsible advertising in my opinion. Yes it gets them attention- but anyone who truly loves women, as D and G say they do, would not create an ad such as this one. I find it very difficult to believe that they had no idea this ad looked like a rape/gang rape/rape fantasy scene.


Is rape in the eye of the beholder? Women's groups called this ad violent, the designers called it an 'erotic dream.'



070306_DolceAd_wide.hlarge.jpg




I agree with you.........very irresponsible:tsk: D&G can stick it!
The designers called it an "erotic dream"....for whom I wonder?
Now where do we sign these "bad ad award" thingy's.......I wanna giv'em a mouthful!:yell:
 
D&Gs ads have always made me feel uncomfortable. It's odd that now there's such an outcry when this current ad really isn't any more degrading towards woman than their ads in the past. Perhaps we're all becoming too desensitized. I don't agree with the ad at all - I never have liked any of their ads and I won't ever buy their stuff - but really the only difference I see in this ad is that there's more than one man, and even that is present in some of their past ads. They're all some of the most over-sexed ads I've ever seen. :yuck:

http://bwgreyscale.com/adimg14/adv_7816.JPG
http://bwgreyscale.com/adimg12/adv_6260.JPG
http://bwgreyscale.com/adimg13/adv_6784.JPG
http://bwgreyscale.com/adimg11/adv_5369.JPG
http://bwgreyscale.com/adimg11/adv_5007.JPG
http://bwgreyscale.com/adimg02/adv_0768.JPG
http://bwgreyscale.com/adimg09/adv_4284.JPG
 
Angela Harlem said:
methinks we need to define "rape fantasies".

:huh:

Alright, I meant domination fantasies, gang bangs, I-say-no-but-mean-yes fantasies.

Is the ad depicting rape, or a domination/gang bang fantasy? We'd have to make that conclusion as well....



I don't like it and I'm not going to defend it, it's just interesting that D&G has used plenty of ads like this, some even more offensive to me, yet people don't really notice. I guess enough people think it's hot or "artsy" enough to keep buying their products. I won't go picketing against their ad campaigns, but I'll continue to ignore them and not buy their products.

Rape/domination fantasy debate aside, I guess it's hard for me to be all "woe is me, woman" over some ads when women are still modeling for these ads and women are still obsessing over their products. It seems like there's always a disconnect between woman complaining about how the media over-sexualizes and objectifies them, and women who continue to buy these magazines and these products. I'd rather just ignore it than get stuck in the middle.
 
Last edited:
Liesje said:
D&Gs ads have always made me feel uncomfortable. It's odd that now there's such an outcry when this current ad really isn't any more degrading towards woman than their ads in the past. Perhaps we're all becoming too desensitized. I don't agree with the ad at all - I never have liked any of their ads and I won't ever buy their stuff - but really the only difference I see in this ad is that there's more than one man, and even that is present in some of their past ads.

I agree. I think it's odd there's an outcry now.

Does the fact that there's more men then women, make it offensive?
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Does the fact that there's more men then women, make it offensive?

Honestly, the ad doesn't really offend me. I don't like it, but I don't feel angry at it.

What offends me is people spending millions on these ad campaigns and millions on these clothes while children are still starving to death every 30 seconds, as obvious as that sounds. These ads represent a sub-culture or part of society that I simply will never understand and have no desire to be a part of.
 
Liesje said:


These ads represent a sub-culture or part of society that I simply will never understand and have no desire to be a part of.

I agree, probably another thread for another day, but it would be an interesting topic. Exactly who's fault is it? The uber rich, the fashion industry, etc...
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


I agree, probably another thread for another day, but it would be an interesting topic. Exactly who's fault is it? The uber rich, the fashion industry, etc...

A little bit of everything, I think. I can't take all the blame off myself when I know that if I got to chose between keeping my body or having hers, I switch any day. :shrug:

I think they do it mostly to shock or draw any attention - positive, negative, or just inquisitive - to themselves. They may say they are doing it because it's art, and art should always push boundaries, but IMO the second merchandise is involved, it can't be about art anymore.
 
Angela Harlem said:


Why do you think this?
The internet only proves that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of sexual fantasies out there. If a minuscule percentage of the population are aroused by adults dressing up as babies, humping balloons, or pouring wax on their breasts, you know there's probably going to be a subset of people who fantasize about rape in one form or another.

As for the advertisement in question, I didn't know the picture was the actual ad. If the guy wasn't holding her hand down, do you really think this ad would be considered a problem? Come on, you're telling me at least some women never have fantasies about having sex with multiple men at the same time?

If this were a similar ad in a mens magazine, perhaps with a guy in a chair, surrounded by scantily clad women with one holding him down, I doubt we'd be having this conversation.
 
Last edited:
Who really cares. We talk about advertising, yet we see woman who dress as sexy to draw attention as do men to get woman.
 
Companies run ads like this so that people have conversations like the one taking place right here. They're intentionally provocative, to create buzz and sell products. People go around asking, "have you seen the scandalous new D&G ad?!", which is music to ad execs' ears.
 
Canadiens1160 said:
The internet only proves that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of sexual fantasies out there. If a minuscule percentage of the population are aroused by adults dressing up as babies, humping balloons, or pouring wax on their breasts, you know there's probably going to be a subset of people who fantasize about rape in one form or another.

As for the advertisement in question, I didn't know the picture was the actual ad. If the guy wasn't holding her hand down, do you really think this ad would be considered a problem? Come on, you're telling me at least some women never have fantasies about having sex with multiple men at the same time?

If this were a similar ad in a mens magazine, perhaps with a guy in a chair, surrounded by scantily clad women with one holding him down, I doubt we'd be having this conversation.

you mean like this one?

adv_7816.JPG
 
The ad doesn't offend me personally, although I could understand some people being upset by it. The funny thing is they think they're being so deep and edgy, but it really comes across as pretentious and silly.
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:


you mean like this one?

adv_7816.JPG




hey, lots of people fantasize about being watched by the severed head of Bambi's father. :shrug:

on the whole, i don't like the ad. something strikes me as off. while i think we need to "read" in to find the potential rape, there's also ample, clear visual evidence for the sexual domination of one woman by several men. she seems powerless, devoid of emotion, they're all androids, and there's something surrealist sci-fi about the whole thing. i can clearly see how one could take this as a deadpan gang rape, which doesn't make it any less of a rape.

however, i think the earlier point -- that it could be a female fantasy about having numerous hot men have sex with her -- is a good one, and perhaps what the original intention was.

what turns this particular image from that read (and that, i think, could be empowering, that a woman can decide to participate in an orgy or not) and makes the potential gang rape "read" of the image better is that the man is holding down both of her wrists. that, to me, signals unwanted submission, whereas if at least one wrist were free, we could more readily read the "multiple partner" fantasy.

this happens when you try to go outre.

you can screw up. it seems D&G did, and i hardly think they're advocating rape or deliberately trying to send the message that "no means yes."

the viewer could read that into the picture, which is why the picture fails, but i don't think the intent is there.
 
Last edited:
Irvine511 said:
she seems powerless, devoid of emotion, they're all androids, and there's something surrealist sci-fi about the whole thing.
Yeah, that was what I found "creepy" about it too. Of course lots of fashion ads seem to have that "android" conceit to them.

The comparison to the 'antler fetish' ad seems pretty irrelevant to me with regard to why the present ad is stirring controversy, though. Violent, nonconsensual penetration of men by women is extremely rare, so the way the possible range of scenarios invoked gets perceived is automatically different.

I'm kind of curious to know if anyone else had any thoughts on the "inspired by Napoleonic art" claim. Probably we don't have any art history majors around here and I'm certainly not very knowledgeable on the topic myself, however, I can see to a point how the ad could be said to resemble some Delacroix paintings, which combine apparently erotic imagery with violent imagery in a (vaguely) similarly unsettling way. I can't personally think of any Napoleonic-era art that combines those ideas this explicitly, though. To what extent is it legitimate and credible for a marketer to "justify" their work with such claims?
Liesje said:
Is the ad depicting rape, or a domination/gang bang fantasy?
I realize you were just making it for clarification's sake, but I'm not sure that distinction is meaningful in the case of the ad. Of course it isn't literally depicting a rape, they're just models selling a product. It seems to me a 'domination/gang bang fantasy' is a rape fantasy--the only difference in real life is that the fomer could be consensual while the latter by definition isn't; but to talk about a 'nonconsensual fantasy' is meaningless.
Justin24 said:
We talk about advertising, yet we see woman who dress as sexy to draw attention as do men to get woman.
Why would that matter? The issue isn't how the woman or anyone else in the ad is dressed, it's what appears to be happening to her.
 
yolland said:

I'm kind of curious to know if anyone else had any thoughts on the "inspired by Napoleonic art" claim. Probably we don't have any art history majors around here and I'm certainly not very knowledgeable on the topic myself, however, I can see to a point how the ad could be said to resemble some Delacroix paintings, which combine apparently erotic imagery with violent imagery in a (vaguely) similarly unsettling way. I can't personally think of any Napoleonic-era art that combines those ideas this explicitly, though. To what extent is it legitimate and credible for a marketer to "justify" their work with such claims?

I was wondering the same, since many many images in art depict similar if not more disturbing scenes. However, I can't see any piece born of the goal to sell merchandise as true "art", but that's just me.

I realize you were just making it for clarification's sake, but I'm not sure that distinction is meaningful in the case of the ad. Of course it isn't literally depicting a rape, they're just models selling a product. It seems to me a 'domination/gang bang fantasy' is a rape fantasy--the only difference in real life is that the fomer could be consensual while the latter by definition isn't; but to talk about a 'nonconsensual fantasy' is meaningless.

I agree, but then I don't think women can complain. If the ad is not actually depicting rape, but a domination fantasy, and many women DO have these fantasies, then we women can't say that the ad is absolutely unrealistic and demeaning. D&Gs ads are usually about fantasy, this one's no different. I just don't think there's much point in saying "depicting this fantasy is OK (or socially acceptable) but this one is not."
 
Back
Top Bottom