Fashion or Fantasy Rape? - Rape Board

LucyBoots · 03-14-2007, 04:28 AM

This is a new Dolce and Gabbana ad that has landed them in hot water. They ended up pulling the ad because critics claimed it depicted the woman being pinned about to be gang raped.

I posted an article about it on my blog here.

What do you guys think?

(comment here first, my blog second)

ego · 03-14-2007, 06:53 AM

I think that stupid people have nothing else to do than complain for everything.Most movies are far more extreme than this picture.
Its what we say: "someone can see the tree, but cannot see the forest"....

Wendel · 03-14-2007, 08:07 AM

I have to dissagree with ego on this one.

There is a place for pictures such as that one, such as this site.
The place is not in this month's Redbook or Seventeen magazine.

I think it is a great photo both as art and erotica.
I just don't think is belongs in wide distrabution.

Louise · 03-14-2007, 08:33 AM

But wendel, why is this inappropriate and not the billion other images of sexulisation that are potrayed in magazines, who's readers are much younger than 18.

Surely its the viewers mind that interprets what is being seen. For an "innocent" surely this scene merely represents a collection of good looking men posing...

Its only because, as adults, we can choose to see what we wish to see and attach meaning beyond what is meant. In my mind its similiar to the old what do you see test....is it two faces or a vase?

Sternenlied · 03-14-2007, 08:41 AM

@ wendel

Why not?

I saw advertisments bei United Colours of Benetton I thought were much more offensive ...
Sure, people might get the impression described by critics, but how old are we? Is our society really that non-self-dependant and stupid to think noone can differ between an arty ad and a suggested rape?
Boy, I'm in a bad mood, granted, but all this whining about stuff like that makes me angry and gives me great doubt about most people's intelligence!
I think sometimes (actually mostly that is) we're taking all this "concern" way too far!

Louise · 03-14-2007, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sternenlied

Why not?

I saw advertisments bei United Colours of Benetton I thought were much more offensive ...
Sure, people might get the impression described by critics, but how old are we? Is our society really that non-self-dependant and stupid to think noone can differ between an arty ad and a suggested rape?
Boy, I'm in a bad mood, granted, but all this whining about stuff like that makes me angry and gives me great doubt about most people's intelligence!
I think sometimes (actually mostly that is) we're taking all this "concern" way too far!

*LOUD APPLAUSE FOR STERN!*

ego · 03-14-2007, 10:33 AM

Btw, i advise the members who want to upload pics, to avoid imageshack.They try to keep a politically correct face on the web, and boards like rb are not welcomed there.Its clearly written on thumbnail: "Hotlinking has been disabled for this domain".They dont want us.We are banned.Link will be dead tommorow (i think).

Lucy, sorry for the off-topic.

Wendel · 03-14-2007, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Louise

But wendel, why is this inappropriate and not the billion other images of sexulisation that are potrayed in magazines, who's readers are much younger than 18.

I did not say they were not inappropriate. I was not asked to comment on them. I was only asked to comment on this ad. The ad campaign here is going for a theme and a look. I do not think that theme or look is correct for Tigger Beat or Teen Vouge.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Louise

Surely its the viewers mind that interprets what is being seen. For an "innocent" surely this scene merely represents a collection of good looking men posing...

That is the statement that earned you the A in your college ethics class Louise, but you know it does not always hold water in the real world. It is not the "good looking men posing" that made Lucyboots start this thread. And if the lady being held down was nine years old then this picture would have been removed by the board administrators. As "innocent" as it may have seemed to you and me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Louise

Its only because, as adults, we can choose to see what we wish to see and attach meaning beyond what is meant.

And here is where we agree 100%. That these types of artistic renderings belong in the adult world.

ego · 03-14-2007, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wendel

And if the lady being held down was nine years old then this picture would have been removed by the board administrators. As "innocent" as it may have seemed to you and me.

Now this is a point.

But i am afraid it is another point.....
You see my friend, every person has his own blinders and buttons to press....

My opinion is that is not correct to try drive young people away from criminality by hiding it.Or by hiding everything that might be releted.
They will find it out someday, no matter how well you hide it.And then-as they wont know what it is- they will fall in....

Wendel · 03-14-2007, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sternenlied

@ wendel

Why not?

I saw advertisments bei United Colours of Benetton I thought were much more offensive ...

I have seen the same thing Sternenlied, but that, in itself, does not make this ad right, nor does it mean that this ad should run in any market.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sternenlied

Sure, people might get the impression described by critics, but how old are we? Is our society really that non-self-dependant and stupid to think noone can differ between an arty ad and a suggested rape?

Hey, I'm all for suggested rape, but even the Olympus of suggested rape, this very board, has rules to maintain civility. You can't post whatever you want and say "I've seen worse on other sites." It won't fly.

And let's take a closer look at the so-called revolutionary artist here.

The picture was done to spark controversy and discussion. However the BOLD artist was careful not to be too bold or controversial. Just enough to get in that glossy mag, but not enough so that we shift in our seats.

So give the Madison Ave. artist his spread in a three pound glossy, but keep him out of the magazines that cater to children.

ego · 03-14-2007, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wendel

I did not say they were not inappropriate. I was not asked to comment on them. I was only asked to comment on this ad. The ad campaign here is going for a theme and a look. I do not think that theme or look is correct for Tigger Beat or Teen Vouge.

But then, "teen vogue" shouldn't exist at all.

Louise · 03-14-2007, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wendel

I did not say they were not inappropriate. I was not asked to comment on them. I was only asked to comment on this ad. The ad campaign here is going for a theme and a look. I do not think that theme or look is correct for Tigger Beat or Teen Vouge.

Interesting...but I simply dissagree, would you then object to images of Michelangelo's David...the epitomy of the body perfect...being used as an advert, this is nothing but another form of art...yes it glorifies a body image most will never achieve...so perhaps objectionable on that level...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wendel

That is the statement that earned you the A in your college ethics class Louise, but you know it does not always hold water in the real world. It is not the "good looking men posing" that made Lucyboots start this thread. And if the lady being held down was nine years old then this picture would have been removed by the board administrators. As "innocent" as it may have seemed to you and me.

I am proud to say I never have and never would sit in a "ethics" class...my views are my own, through experience and personal learning. And as such, I stand by my view and opinion. The fact is, a nine year old IS NOT being held down...??? why talk about the non-existant when you in fact point out we're talking about a specific advert?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wendel

And here is where we agree 100%. That these types of artistic renderings belong in the adult world.

Nonsense. A ten year old will play Lara Croft games and is not "damaged" in any way by a artisitic rendering clearly formed in an adult mind. You have delibrately misunderstood my intent in that last sentence.

Andering REDDSON · 03-14-2007, 07:03 PM

I’m not so convinced… ¿Who is it to know what she’s thinking? I saw the same pic you did, and thought it was consensual- “You can’t rape the willing (and apparently eager).”
¿So what crystal ball did NOW’S Mrs GANDY, Spain’s Labour and Social Affairs Ministry (who cowardly wouldn’t apparently step up and name the official who eventually made the call, or the 13 Italian senators look into to “know” that it’s a rape at all, let alone a gang rape?

Wendel · 03-15-2007, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Louise

Interesting...but I simply dissagree,

Which is just the thing that drives good Forums.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Louise

would you then object to images of Michelangelo's David...the epitomy of the body perfect...being used as an advert,

David has been used a good many times, including a present ad campaign for shoes. Are you trying to compair this ad campaign with David? Apples and oranges Louise.

If you want to compair renaissance art with a fashion ad campaign then we should at least choose the same theme. How does this photo stack up against Rape of the Sabines, Rape of Europa, or The Rape of the Daughters of Leucippus. And while these are classic art I agree, do they belong on the walls of an elementary school cafeteria?

(personaly I don't think David or Rubens has anything to do with LucyBoots' question, but if this is your path, I'll follow).

It is interesting though that THIS picture is the one to generate the controversy.
Check out THIS picture from the Dolce & Gabbana web site

[URL="http://eng.dolcegabbana.it/dolcegabbana.asp"]

Nobody was upset about this picture and yet you could write a story about it that would have you banned in 23 states.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Louise

this is nothing but another form of art...yes it glorifies a body image most will never achieve...so perhaps objectionable on that level...

Oddly enough, if the picture was JUST about unhealthy body image, it would never have been pulled. We hear cries about this sort of image all the time, yet childhood obesity is on the rise and the next issue of Dolce & Gabbana will still feature this type of girl (and guy). Go figure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Louise

The fact is, a nine year old IS NOT being held down...??? why talk about the non-existant when you in fact point out we're talking about a specific advert?

What, you can bring up David but I can't bring up Jon Banay Ramsey?

You said, "the viewers mind that interprets what is being seen." I was simply asking if you would want your Innocent viewer to see the same innocent picture with a child as the subject? My point was that this site, with all it collects, still has limits as to what can be seen. The people who object to THIS picture, in wide distribution, have the same objections. They, like the Board administrators here, have limits, and their limits were reached with this ad.

Now, the hypocrisy of this is blatant. AXE, for example is running an ad campaign where any young man can get a hundred young women by using their product. It is not even implyed that these women want to come over and help the boy with his math homework. The girls are all archetypes (cheerleaders, hot babes, etc.) and the guys are always the type who needs a chemical persuader to get those types of girls. Yet there is no outcry to pull the ads because of what innocent viewers might read into them.
(by the way, Hi Karate used the same idea forty years ago, only with an older crowed. Nothing is new under the sun

)

Take a look at LucyBoots' picture again.

What if the girl was standing, and not being held down? Same girl, same boys, same setting. Would there still have been a call to remove it, or would this have been just your work de arte Louise? Would LucyBoots have even noticed it? Is position so important in our interpretation?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Louise

A ten year old will play Lara Croft games and is not "damaged" in any way by a artisitic rendering clearly formed in an adult mind.

That is a subject for a different thread.

For now let me point out that the Lara Croft game story is not the same story you would see posted on this board, and you are not saying it should be (are you?). I think we agree that the rape fantasies Lara goes through here would not be OK for inclusion into the card and video games of children. Do you think that the ten year old would not be "damaged" by that type of "artisitic rendering"? Or should there be a limit to the "art" a ten year old is exposed to in the pursuit of pleasure?

And by the way, I did not "delibrately misunderstood my intent in that last sentence." I may have, true, and for that I apologize. But I did not actively set out to get your point wrong. I did not say, "I know what she means but I am going to use the full force of my will to misunderstand her."

I thought I was agreeing with you. Adult themes are for the adult world.

03-14-2007, 04:28 AM	#1
LucyBoots Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 43 Reputation: 131	Fashion or Fantasy Rape? This is a new Dolce and Gabbana ad that has landed them in hot water. They ended up pulling the ad because critics claimed it depicted the woman being pinned about to be gang raped. I posted an article about it on my blog here. What do you guys think? (comment here first, my blog second)

03-14-2007, 06:53 AM	#2
ego the obscure Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 3,457 Reputation: 14892	I think that stupid people have nothing else to do than complain for everything.Most movies are far more extreme than this picture. Its what we say: "someone can see the tree, but cannot see the forest".... __________________ ..lure them all into the abyss!

03-14-2007, 08:33 AM	#4
Louise Privileged Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,865 Reputation: 4905	But wendel, why is this inappropriate and not the billion other images of sexulisation that are potrayed in magazines, who's readers are much younger than 18. Surely its the viewers mind that interprets what is being seen. For an "innocent" surely this scene merely represents a collection of good looking men posing... Its only because, as adults, we can choose to see what we wish to see and attach meaning beyond what is meant. In my mind its similiar to the old what do you see test....is it two faces or a vase? __________________ ...no mercy in thy icy heart, for the lost prey you stalk and hunt, only the lust... Last edited by Louise; 05-17-2007 at 10:47 AM.

03-14-2007, 08:41 AM	#5
Sternenlied Unknown Entity Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Niflheim Posts: 2,427 Reputation: 77819	@ wendel Why not? I saw advertisments bei United Colours of Benetton I thought were much more offensive ... Sure, people might get the impression described by critics, but how old are we? Is our society really that non-self-dependant and stupid to think noone can differ between an arty ad and a suggested rape? Boy, I'm in a bad mood, granted, but all this whining about stuff like that makes me angry and gives me great doubt about most people's intelligence! I think sometimes (actually mostly that is) we're taking all this "concern" way too far! __________________ The Life and Death of Sam Crow - How the Sons of Anarchy lost their way

03-14-2007, 10:33 AM	#7
ego the obscure Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 3,457 Reputation: 14892	Btw, i advise the members who want to upload pics, to avoid imageshack.They try to keep a politically correct face on the web, and boards like rb are not welcomed there.Its clearly written on thumbnail: "Hotlinking has been disabled for this domain".They dont want us.We are banned.Link will be dead tommorow (i think). Lucy, sorry for the off-topic. __________________ ..lure them all into the abyss!

03-14-2007, 08:07 AM	#3
Wendel Privileged Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 279 Reputation: 3443	I have to dissagree with ego on this one. There is a place for pictures such as that one, such as this site. The place is not in this month's Redbook or Seventeen magazine. I think it is a great photo both as art and erotica. I just don't think is belongs in wide distrabution.

03-14-2007, 07:03 PM	#13
Andering REDDSON Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: R/Bâ€™s cyber-Auschwitz Posts: 609 Reputation: 1028	I’m not so convinced… ¿Who is it to know what she’s thinking? I saw the same pic you did, and thought it was consensual- “You can’t rape the willing (and apparently eager).” ¿So what crystal ball did NOW’S Mrs GANDY, Spain’s Labour and Social Affairs Ministry (who cowardly wouldn’t apparently step up and name the official who eventually made the call, or the 13 Italian senators look into to “know” that it’s a rape at all, let alone a gang rape?