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 said:


Kim Gandy: " . . . 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."

I agree with this sentiment. I think the real potential harm in advertising like this is to children and teens who haven't sexually matured yet.

As is evidenced by all the intelligent discussion by the women posting in this thread (of course I'm assuming most of the women who have already posted are past their late teens/early 20s) "women" and "men", as oppposed to "girls" and "boys", are able to analytically view and digest an image of this nature. And mature women and men, drawing on their life and sexual experiences, can either enjoy this ad, dismiss it, take it as offensive, or respond in some combination thereof.

However, children and teens IMO, don't have the life skills or tools to be able to stand up to the adverstisement, question the advertisement, or try to digest it in an analytical manner. The harm is that the girls and boys who have not yet matured will just accept an image like this without inquiry.
 
Last edited:
Re: Re: Dolce And Gabbana 'Fantasy Rape' Ad

FitzChivalry said:


I agree with this sentiment. I think the real potential harm in advertising like this is to children and teens who haven't sexually matured yet.

As is evidenced by all the intelligent discussion by the women posting in this thread (of course I'm assuming most of the women who have already posted are past their late teens/early 20s) "women" and "men", as oppposed to "girls" and "boys", are able to analytically view and digest an image of this nature. And mature women and men, drawing on their life and sexual experiences, can either enjoy this ad, dismiss it, take it as offensive, or respond in some combination thereof.

However, children and teens IMO, don't have the life skills or tools to be able to stand up to the adverstisement, question the advertisement, or try to digest it in an analytical manner. The harm is that the girls and boys who have not yet matured will just accept an image like this without inquiry.



while i agree, in general, with this post and with the concerns echoed by the women (and most of the men) in this thread, i think the above posts brings up another point, though slightly tangental and not directly in reference to this ad which, i agree, is in poor taste.

i understand the desire to protect children from images that might be harmful, but where does that override my right as an adult to consume images that might be offensive to some but not to others? must everything in popular culture be child-friendly and kid-tested/mother-approved? do we stop whatever we do and think, "but is this good for the children?" do we have to run everything created by popular culture through a sort of metaphysical "mom" understanding and wonder if she'd approve or not?

or is it that this ad is likely going to appear in upscale, expensive, and meant-for-adults magazines like Vogue and Vanity Fair? do teenagers read these magazines? surely. are these magazines aimed at teenagers? certainly not. what teenagers -- aside from those on "My Sweet 16" -- could possibly afford Dolce and Gabbana? a teenager is not their audience, so why must D&G create ads appropriate for teenagers? and if teenagers, then why not for pre-teens? for kids? for children? for toddlers?

i suppose i'm wondering where responsibility for whatever "harm" that might be caused for an ad begins and where it ends. and why should adults have to be limited in the materials that they can consume -- again, not necessarily this ad, but then, i also think it's safe to say that even though this ad might depict a fantasy gang rape, or just a gang rape, a discerning adult knows that this isn't reality.

i suppose i wonder just how stupid do we think people are that someone is going to see this ad and think that a non-consensual gang rape is okay.

that said, why i dislike this ad is because it makes me feel uncomfortable, especially at the clearly out-of-whack male/female power balance/imbalance. i think it's creepy, and suggestive of something gross, but it does not in any way validate or contradict anything i've already thought.

why should we assume that anyone else is different?
 
Re: Re: Dolce And Gabbana 'Fantasy Rape' Ad

FitzChivalry said:
However, children and teens IMO, don't have the life skills or tools to be able to stand up to the adverstisement, question the advertisement, or try to digest it in an analytical manner. The harm is that the girls and boys who have not yet matured will just accept an image like this without inquiry.

Actually there was a study done (I believe by the Canadian or American government but I'd have to look up the SCC case that cited it) which found that children under the age of 7 are not capable of distinguishing between reality and fantasy in ads, nor understanding the true purpose of the ad. However, at some point between the ages of 7-13 they start developing these skills and by 13, children are as good as your average adult at disseminating advertisements.

I could look it up if anyone's genuinely interested.
 
yolland said:

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.

Liesje has now clarified. To explain what I was getting at, though, the lack of distinction between rape and dominatrix fantasies is too often blurred when there is in fact a whole psychological field of difference between the two. As far as sexual fantasies go, there are as many (probably) as there are individuals. Like you alluded to, it's not relevant. I did want to question why Liesje stated that 'lots of women fantasize about rape'. It strikes me as horribly incorrect on two levels. Firstly, that that as a statement is just not true, and secondly, if (as it was shown to be) it was simply harmless interchanging the terms of rape and fantasy, then yes, fantasies a bound. Anyway, I don't wish to pick at liesje's phrasing. She has clarified, and that is all great. I am well aware of the literature written about this topic, and am on my first full day of a glorious 10 week break from uni and these now dreaded online databases. If I have to look at one again, I think I could go sailing over the edge and, well, it won't be pretty! Nah, it's all good.

Back to the ad, though. There is a lot to find revolting about it. Whatever their aim was is a little irrelevant. Advertising agency and marketing goals are always second place to how something is received. If there is a large public outcry, then they have failed in whichever their original aim was. They've got no place in dictating someone doesn't have the right to find something offensive. They're selling something. Let the masses decide on their own personal moral laws.
 
Re: Re: Re: Dolce And Gabbana 'Fantasy Rape' Ad

I have a friend, that's not on here, who is my same age (32) and is also an attorney, and I've been e-mailing with her about this, so I just thought I'd share her view:

I think that a) women most assuredly do have rape fantasies and b) that all fantasies are acceptable, as long as the fact that it is a fantasy is clear in your head.

But real rape is about power and control, not sex - many rapists don't acheive orgasm, and a very large number can't get hard.

Rape fantasies are about submission, and giving yourself permission to engage in activities that you wouldn't normally find acceptable.

I think real women (and men, for that matter) that have rape fantasies are very clear that they do not actually want to be raped. But if a hot guy wanted to pretend, as a role-playing game, that he was raping me, oh yeah, I'd go for that.



To some extent, I agree that shielding children is counter-productive -- I'd certainly rather that Kaya encountered that sort of thing when she was still young enough to ask my opinion. On the other hand, yes,I do feel uncomfortable with the fact that that ad is going to be seen by a lot of teenagers young enough to not really be able to analyze the connections between sex and violence.
 
Ask any woman who has been raped if she fantasizes about being raped again :|

People confuse fantasies about overwhelming passion and desire with rape. The two have nothing to do with each other.

And anyone who is interested in this topic should read about Jean Kilbourne and her studies about the images of women in advertising.
 
Last edited:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dolce And Gabbana 'Fantasy Rape' Ad

FitzChivalry said:


Rape fantasies are about submission, and giving yourself permission to engage in activities that you wouldn't normally find acceptable.

This is NOT a rape fantasy. It may sound like semantics, but it is not.

Being a submissive participant with a dominant male or dominant males is something entirely different from not providing consent in a sexual encounter.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dolce And Gabbana 'Fantasy Rape' Ad

anitram said:

Being a submissive participant with a dominant male or dominant males is something entirely different from not providing consent in a sexual encounter.

Exactly, and it seems that is being confused here. Being submissive or being dominated sexually is something you choose to consent to. Rape is not, under any circumstances.

And many men have fantasies that involve being dominated/being submissive.
 
I seriously think there is an extreme difference between 'baby can we play act tonight and you hold me down and i beg a little and then we get it on'
and having someone force themselves on you while you are terrifed out of your fucking mind and feeling completely overpowered to do anyhting else (and then the whole host of feelings that follow that)

Women may say they fantasize about 'rape' but i think their little fantasy is a million miles away from an actual rape.

I also do agree with Irvine about not having to 'kid coat' everything in society and having to worry about what their little impressionable minds can see - i don't think i should have to censor something purely because mrs mum doesn't want timmy to see it etc
 
If there was an instance where she said no, no but her eyes say yes, yes but it was done non-violently it would count as rape - given that the term is used for a whole spectrum of different situations is it hard to think that some fantasies would cross that line?
 
dazzlingamy said:

I also do agree with Irvine about not having to 'kid coat' everything in society and having to worry about what their little impressionable minds can see - i don't think i should have to censor something purely because mrs mum doesn't want timmy to see it etc

I agree. No, I wouldn't want kids seeing these ads, but I don't know any little kids that read the magazines they're published in, and if kids are, the parents should be more responsible instead of squashing out anything that might make them uncomfortable.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dolce And Gabbana 'Fantasy Rape' Ad

MrsSpringsteen said:


Exactly, and it seems that is being confused here. Being submissive or being dominated sexually is something you choose to consent to. Rape is not, under any circumstances.

And many men have fantasies that involve being dominated/being submissive.



:scratch:

has anyone on here confused a domination fantasy with actual rape?
 
A_Wanderer said:
If there was an instance where she said no, no but her eyes say yes, yes but it was done non-violently it would count as rape - given that the term is used for a whole spectrum of different situations is it hard to think that some fantasies would cross that line?

well i do admit there is a whole grey area here, but i do think that saying 'no no' and your eyes saying 'yes yes' to your partner or someone you've discussed being dominated with is a lot different then really meaning 'no no' especially as you may think her eyes are saying 'yes' in your passion addled head.

I think if a woman (or man) says 'no i don't want to do this' case closed its all over get out and be on your way - continue and face the consequences.

but i am now getting off the topic :wink:
 
Irvine511 said:
:scratch:

has anyone on here confused a domination fantasy with actual rape?
I was wondering the same thing... :shrug: Perhaps there's an assumption that "rape fantasy" somehow implies wanting to be raped in real life, though I don't understand why anyone would get that out of it.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dolce And Gabbana 'Fantasy Rape' Ad

Irvine511 said:




:scratch:

has anyone on here confused a domination fantasy with actual rape?

Not that I have seen. I think we're all preaching to the choir...
 
A_Wanderer said:
If there was an instance where she said no, no but her eyes say yes, yes but it was done non-violently it would count as rape - given that the term is used for a whole spectrum of different situations is it hard to think that some fantasies would cross that line?

Saying no is saying no, period. There is no such thing as eyes saying yes, except in the delusional justifications of a rapist.
 
Last edited:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dolce And Gabbana 'Fantasy Rape' Ad

Irvine511 said:

has anyone on here confused a domination fantasy with actual rape?

I was referring to the post that anitram quoted

Rape fantasies are about submission, and giving yourself permission to engage in activities that you wouldn't normally find acceptable.

To me that is confusing the two
 
i'm not going to get hung up on semantics "rape fantasy" vs. rape, because the poster made a clear distinction between the two.

i don't think the use of the term "rape fantasy" is in and of itself offensive, where as the phrase "fantasize about being raped" is offensive.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dolce And Gabbana 'Fantasy Rape' Ad

MrsSpringsteen said:


To me that is confusing the two


In the next sentence she makes her point very clear, so I don't see any confusion.

In the overall context there is no confusion.
 
Does what one person fantasizes about and another thinks is gross even matter with regard to the ad? Is the ad somehow more or less OK depending on what fantasy we attach to it?
 
A_Wanderer said:
If there was an instance where she said no, no but her eyes say yes, yes but it was done non-violently it would count as rape - given that the term is used for a whole spectrum of different situations is it hard to think that some fantasies would cross that line?

Mercifully most courts have recognized there is no such thing as implied consent in sexual assault cases so it's irrelevant what her eyes are "saying."
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
Ask any woman who has been raped if she fantasizes about being raped again :|

People confuse fantasies about overwhelming passion and desire with rape. The two have nothing to do with each other
You're exactly right, but the only reason we're talking about rape is because this thread was started with the assumption that this ad was depicting rape....
 
Canadiens1160 said:
You're exactly right, but the only reason we're talking about rape is because this thread was started with the assumption that this ad was depicting rape....

I didn't start it with that assumption, it was pulled by D&G because people said it was depicting rape/ "rape fantasy". I think it is, and I think they knew just what they were doing.
 
Well, I mean the discussion basically started in the context of rape, rather. My phrasing was a bit off.

I'm really undecided on this ad myself, but I still maintain that it isn't a stretch to say there's a percentage of women out there would have had fantasies of having sex with a couple of men at once. Would we be getting the same outcry from the ad with the sexes reversed that was posted on pg 1 of the thread?
 
Do you think that ad looks like consensual sex with several men? Look at the way she is being held down, the expression on her face.

The way the others are watching reminds me of that case(real) from the movie The Accused.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
Do you think that ad looks like consensual sex with several men? Look at the way she is being held down, the expression on her face.

The way the others are watching reminds me of that case(real) from the movie The Accused.
Jody Foster aside, there are plenty of deviant facets of sexuality that involve domination and submission. So, although I do not necessarily disagree with you about this ad in question, it's also important not to paint with too broad a brushstroke.
 
Maybe it's unfortunate, but most people don't have a hard time looking at that and seeing gang rape, and I'm sure the designers knew that. Of course it *could* be consentual but it's pretty obvious what that image implies for a lot of people in our society.

People do have rape fantasies (we agreed on that right?), but they are fantasies and are not meant ever to be acted upon. What if an ad depicted something else that is socially unacceptable but part of peoples fantasies...like implied sex with innocent-looking underdeveloped underage girls? Would people be ok with that because it's only appealing to fantasies and not actually advocating child molestation or rape?

I'm not sure if that's a good analogy but I'm just wondering if it's always okay to depict in a way that's not exactly negative people's fantasies, which would be completely wrong and horrible to act upon.
 
Last edited:
Canadiens1160 said:
Jody Foster aside, there are plenty of deviant facets of sexuality that involve domination and submission. So, although I do not necessarily disagree with you about this ad in question, it's also important not to paint with too broad a brushstroke.

It's not about Jodie Foster, that was a real case

And yes I'm well aware of those deviant facets. But corporations also need to take responsibility. And "strangely" enough it was seen in Europe as rape/rape fantasy-where attitudes towards sexuality are said to be much more liberal, if that's the right word to use. More open and accepting, perhaps.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:


It's not about Jodie Foster, that was a real case

And yes I'm well aware of those deviant facets. But corporations also need to take responsibility. And "strangely" enough it was seen in Europe as rape/rape fantasy-where attitudes towards sexuality are said to be much more liberal, if that's the right word to use. More open and accepting, perhaps.

Well, the only reactions came from Spain and Italy, not Europe. (That shouldn't in any way say these countries don't belong to Europe of course.)
I have no information on how it was seen in the other European countries.
Spain and Italy are rather conservative countries and the people there are quite religious, so I think this might play a part.

I don't know whether this picture was shown in other countries as well, hence I can't say why there are no reactions form other European countries.

I understand that this picture really is really quite strange and the fantasies involved shouldn't be part of a large advertising campaign. There are magazines for such pictures I think.

The thing with the art; well, if it's art, put it in a museum. That's the place for art. A magazine or even a billboard is not the right place.

I'm ok with words like vagina in public, but I think it is going a bit in the wrong direction with this oversexation of advertisements. I don't care which fantasies are involved, but I really feel a bit uncomfortable when in the afternoon there is and advert with two literally having sex, or with the noise of it and all that.

Ok, this one still is quite funny ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XswWr1FCJ74
 
Back
Top Bottom