The D&G ad is offensive to both sexes

And we should all be pissed,but not at each other.We should be pissed at an industry that perpetuates such negative stereotypes about both sexes.The vast majority of men aren't shirtless clods on the beach walking around with their cock bulging in their Dockers.The vast majority of women aren't stiletto wearing babes existing to be some chucklehead's plaything.

I've been reading all the threads going on here lately and I'm seeing people who probably share 90% of the same values clawing and tearing at each other,making sweeping generalizations about both sides that just further polarizes the issue,and totally looking past all the things you people share in common.

Almost everyone here at DU is here because they care about the country,the world,and most of all other people.

So,you can all keep trading blows like Ali and Frazier,or you step back and try looking at the other side as people again and start over from there.

Who knows,you might be able to find a way to...

BTW -- a few of us figured this all out last night...

The woman isn't being raped, she's being robbed--those men knocked her down and want to steal her shoes ;)

And the woman was going to report them to the IRS.

I can tell by the expression on their faces.

:thumbsup:

to the one I get every time I think about needing to do my taxes.

I am usually standing on a chair with a noose around my neck when preparing myself to think about them!

Those men are Skull Islanders, you can tell by their half-nakedness, and they're about to tie their most recent victim to a post and sacrifice her to their god- Kong.

but the original thread was not about the level of "offense"(which is always variable and personal) but about the fact that the ad was BANNED. There is a huge difference, and this is where the conflict arises: there is a large contingent of people who want to ban this photo, pizza ads that equate Italian heritage with mafia, comediennes who simulate sex with God, penguins who might be enforcing racial sterotypes, etc.

The Thought Police are NOT my ally.

were not advocating that it be banned...we just got tired of being given massive loads of shit for using our free speech rights to point out that it was a piece of sexist garbage.

I don't have alot of hope though. Who knows, maybe i'll be pleasantly surprised.

In fact, the main product of corporate propaganda is addiction, whether to tobacco or alcohol or to the acquisition of goods that we don't really need but that our fear and loneliness tells us we do. A "cutting edge" ad such as the one in question tells young people (the primary demographic for this campaign) they're hopelessly unhip and out of touch unless they're willing to participate in what may or may not be rape or subjugation of a woman, or objectification of hard-body men. What's happening in the picture doesn't really matter, of course, as much as that the Product is in place: the overpriced and uncomfortable Shoes, which themselves aren't as important as the Real Message: You must continue to desire something, because you're not good enough without it.

The ad is not the problem. The problem is that we live in a sexist society that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender. The ad is a symptom.

Sehr lang nicht gesehen! :loveya: K&R!!!

:loveya: :hi:

but, always keep in mind that quote, "I'm not member of an organized political party - I'm a Democrat."

that men suffer from some of the stereotypes perpetuated by patriarchy as well. Maybe once a majority of men get that point...we can all do something together about ending gender stereotypes.

J'accuse! Homophobe!

:P

:yoiks:

These ads just reflect the designer's ideal of beauty, to sell their clothes. Thats just basic marketing. Some people will find it cool, and others find it stupid, just like every single advertisement out there.

Just don't let it get to your head, and be confident of your own unique style and looks.

It's not definitively a "rape scenario" and it's not definitively offensive. It's a matter of taste, and taste is relative. Your call for peace is admirable, if futile, but you are making a sweeping generalization yourself in defining the ad as offensive to everyone. Some people seem to think any male contact with women is rape. Others can look at an actual rape and claim it isn't real. The reason for the conflict over this stupid ad, which, I might point out, is effective, given the amount of attention it's produced for the company, is that we don't all agree on what it is. We probably never will.

because while we may be talking about the company...I'm sure as shit not going to buy anything they make.

Branding is what matters, and brands are memes. Memes "survive" by being replicated. It makes no difference if you say "I love Brand X" or "I hate Brand X." Either way, you have replicated the meme of Brand X, giving it the opportunity to spread to a more accepting host. That's why the ten million posts about fuckin ann coulter that have plague GD for the last forever have actually been keeping her in business, despite the temporary successes with boycotts. It's like with half of the heavy metal music - if it weren't for the fundamentalist Christians guaranteed to complain about them, they would've faded into obscurity long ago.

I already knew who D&G were. I had basically the same opinion of them that I do of most fashion houses...mostly negative due to the ridiculous clothes they seem to want to shoehorn women into...but no worse than any other.

I disagree that all publicity is good...even if it's negative publicity. But tell me...if talking about things that we find sexist isn't the answer...what is? Just shutting up and hoping it'll go away? Yeah...that worked for millenia...not.

I'm not saying we shouldn't talk about important issues, like sexism or any other abhorrent form of inequality. What I'm saying is that, whether you realize it or not, simply repeating the name of a brand in a place that another will encounter it effectively promotes it. Important issues can and should be discussed, but don't repeat brand identities you don't want to promote, and simply replying to a thread with a brand name in its title effectively promotes the brand, especially on General Discussion.

we should never talk about any of the rebpuclikkans...at least not in thread titles. Gonna make it really difficult to come up with simple titles to let people know what the thread is about..."this high elected official just did something stupid"...hee....all of GD would turn into "TURN ON CSPAN NOW!!!!!!!111" threads. *snort*

However, talking about rightwing radio idiots, whose names are themselves brands, is a form of promotion. I'm also not presuming to tell people what they can or cannot post. I'm simply pointing out the branding mechanism and its root in memetics.

Most people would never buy their products no matter how much advertising they do.

Some people would find the ad effective however.

when the point became the "branding" you talked about in another post rather than actually trying to convince someone to buy the product based on it's merits.

The merits is how stylish the brand is.

...and potentially evil, though. It's one thing if you make, say, women's shoes and do an offensive ad. Then, only consumers of women's shoes will really have any effect on the company's profits. But, if the company promotes itself as a brand rather than a producer of a certain product, it can sell anything and affect any consumer. It's been the trend for nearly a decade now, maybe more. The movie "The Corporation" has a good bit on it. You should see it when you get a chance, if you haven't already.

I guess I find the whole concept of branding annoying at best. I blame it for the plethora of commercials out there that when they end you have to scratch your head and wonder what the hell they were actually trying to sell you.

How many people who don't know fashion would be able to tell what the D&G ad was selling?

Commercials that make you say "What the hell is that?" can be very effective, as instead of telling you who and what they are, they trick you into doing a little research to find out for yourself. If you ask someone else about it, you pass the question to them if they don't already have the answer.

the one who has the opposite reaction of getting annoyed and not ever buying whatever it is they're selling. :shrug: But I guess I see your point as well.

...of "good consumers," though, so they probably aren't losing any sleep. They're already branding in grade school.

:applause: :applause: :applause:

;)

Guilty on the sweeping generalization part.

so I actually know what everybody is discussing?

This is the thread in question.It really does have over 400 replies,or damn close anyways.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x358015

can act! Why don't they put more people in that can't act at all. And the people they have read the news on television, not everyone can speak in a manner that people can understand. They have none of those people on there.

So the fact that I'm not offended at this ad must mean I'm a genderless fashion model.

Hmm...OK. Thanks for clearing that up. :eyes:

I wasn't trying to insult you or your intelligence.If I did tell me why.

Nowhere did I ever imply that I'm offended by pictures of anyone that isn't like me.I said it offended both sexes,which is true.There are both men and women who see this ad as rather offensive.I didn't say it offended every single member of both sexes.So if you're not one that's fine.That's why I used the modifier "most".

You really read WAY more into that than I intended.Why didn't you just ask me to clarify?

I don't see this ad as offensive, except that it's in the high-fashion style which I consider boring, and the photoshopping was craptastic. The lurid composition (intended to draw the eye and thus sell shoes) doesn't necessarily depict rape, or even a sexual scene. But "gang rape" was in that thread title, so away we went...

You did state in your OP that we should all be pissed. Why? What on Earth is wrong with being a scantily clad young lad, or a young lass who enjoys having heterosexual relations with them? Were you never young and foolish?

Part of the reason fashion is such crap is because people in the industry have internalized the notion that anyone who likes to have sex with men has to be a victim in some way. Especially casual sex. A woman has to want permanent monogamy or she's a damaged freak according to most folks, and that's just sexist booolsheeet.

You seem to see it quite differently. Do share.

I didn't see the ad as gang rape either.

We should be pissed because this type of ad reinforces negative ideas of what men and women need to be like to be either A:sexy,or B:acceptable.Where are the overweight people? Don't they have sex too? What about short people? Or bald guys? Or ugly men and women? Judging by this ad they don't exist,yet in real life they make up probably ninety percent of the people who would buy the product.

It reinforces,in no subtle terms,the idea that one HAS to be a perfect babe or hunk to be happy...to be sexual.It distorts the truth of real sexuality,in both men and women.That's why we should be pissed.We're being manipulated into thinking there is only one type of accepted sexuality.

There is nothing wrong with being a scantily clad lass or lad.If you only knew who you were talking too!!!!!! I'm was not only young and foolish,I'm now old and foolish as well! :)

I can assure you that I don't see any women who likes to have sex as a victim (again...if you only knew me better!).Nowhere in my post did I even come close to suggesting that any women can't sleep with any partner,of any sex,that she so desires.Same for men.If monogamy isn't your bag,great...give me call!

The offensiveness is in the narrow categorizing of BOTH sexes,and how we should be to be either successful and/or sexual.

I don't need a shoe ad to tell me how to be sexy.Do you?

I didn't think so. :)

Thank you,honestly,for your response.

Peace.

On edit - My thread should have been entitled,"The Ad Offends SOME people from both sexes." On that,I'm guilty of the generalizations I accuse the companies of making.

:yourock:

My immediate thought was not "this advertisment will legitimise rape" but "Oh my God, someone actually thought that the message 'wear this clothing and you will be gang-raped' would help sell their product".

My suspicion is that the advert was designed in the full knowledge that it was ludicrously offensive and would be banned, but reasoned that it would generate publicity as a result of being banned, and therefor increase brand awareness.