You Be the Judge--NOW Claims This Ad Is 'Offensive to Women'--Is It? (Part V)
November 1st, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
Background: The National Organization for Women/NOW Foundation has launched a new campaign around ads which they label "Offensive to Women." The campaign involved Love Your Body Day 2007, which was October 18. In this series, I'm reprinting some of the ads which NOW tells us are "Offensive to Women," giving my own humble opinion on the matter and soliciting yours.
In You Be the Judge (Part I), I agreed with NOW. In Part II, I agreed with them on one out of two. In Part III, I thought they were wrong on both. In Part IV, I agreed with NOW.
NOW (successfully) protested this Dolce & Gabbana. They write:
"This ad is beyond offensive, with a scene evoking a gang rape and reeking of violence against women. In an interview, NOW Foundation President Kim Gandy said, '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.'"
I agree that it evokes a gang rape. You get no sense of lightheartedness in either the woman or the men, nor any sense that the woman is enjoying herself. One could argue that "gang rape" is an excessive interpretation, but I asked myself this--"If an ad were to evoke gang rape, what would it look like?" The answer, for me, is "probably a lot like this."
I'm with NOW on this one, so that brings NOW's score, in my book, to 4 out of 7 correct.
"));
19 queries. 0.361 seconds.
November 1st, 2007 at 8:01 pm
And would the reverse be true as well?
Mike
November 1st, 2007 at 8:32 pm
I agree with Mike (although his brevity makes me less than 100% sure).
Reverse the genders, and the poses: one man standing in the center, with 5 women, notably available and interested (posed as only a print advertiser can imagine), and I assume NOW would still say it was offensive to women. With that assumption, NOW should not to criticize it both ways. To me the men do not look threatening, but rather ... invited.
I'd say it depends on the political lens through which you view the image... i.e., if the men are being exploited (even if they willingly allow themselves to be exploited), the ad should be offensive to men, lining up just because she smells right. On the other hand, if you agree that men can exploit women but women cannot exploit men, then by definition both this ad and a hypothetical one with the genders reversed are offensive to women. It takes interpretation, but given the expressions on each person's face, it appears to be a modern reflection of the fact that women in fact can exploit men, and Dolce & Gabbana is just one more way for them to get what they want. Given the expressions, and the pose, assuming she's unwilling is too big an assumption for me. I don't buy it.
November 1st, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Offensive? Yes, offensive to stockholders.
I don't see any stylized gang rape. I don't see anyone male or female looking as if they are enjoying themselves. I don't see the women struggling and I don't see the men piling on her.
I see overblown overphotoshopped over sexualized twinky people selling clothes. I think it's a stupid ad. As a guy that (no longer) looks like that and can (no longer) obtain women that look like that, the ad pisses me off. I ain't buying there shit for anyone I know. I would think most women would think something similar. (I don't look like her, and never will, and I don't want dimbulbs like that near me.)
What is the ad selling? Clothes that make you angry? Clothes that make you look like a eurotrash f*cktard?
It seems like yet another stupid ad with an uniformed critique on NOW's part.
Well, first amendment and commercial speech and companies are allowed to make stupid ads, and if we are to hope we are ever confronted with an interesting ad, or entertaining, or even artistic ad, we probably need to put up with tons of stupid ads.
That NOW's commentary is uninformed can be seen in their "shuttle" example that doesn't show a shuttle in it.
Most important, it's a cop out on their part to show "Ads offensive to women". That's too easy. There are a bazillion ads and I don't think anyone claims that ads are uplifting and good for the soul. Finding 100 offensive ads tells us nothing. The trick is to pair Ads Offensive to Women with NOW's Ads that are Not Offensive To Women. The comparison of the two can be used to let people decide for themselves the values of allowing or somehow regulating offensive ads. The comparison of the two can be used to decide which kinds of ads are more effective. Or even, if there is actually a problem or not.
November 1st, 2007 at 9:12 pm
This is an issue of perceptions, but I don't agree Glenn. I didn't see gang rape at all when I saw this, and I still don't even after reading the blog. The women appears posed and her face does appear to be engaged in the sexuality of what's happening, and does not appear in any way agonized. The doesn't appear in any way struggling or wishing he were off. He appears to be holding her wrists consensually and to be moving slowly, and is sitting to the side of her, not on top as though using his body to pin her down. His arms are stretched completely, which is not the strongest way of holding one down, and I see no flex of tricepts, instead I see a mild holding more for posing purposes and as a conveyance of sexual foreplay. She appears to be anticipating and enjoying. Her legs and body are poised sexually, not turned or showing any indication of resistance. Her fingers are relaxed, not tense, fisted or showing any signs of resistance. I do not even get the sense that the onlookers are even going to take part, or even necessarily that this is what it appears; the guy in purpose doesn't even appear to be looking at the man and women on the ground. It's presented much more as an abstract expression of sexuality rather than a real event.
I do agree, however, that some might interpret it that way or that it could falsely convey or convey other false and/or even dangerous ideas. So I don't say the ad can't do any harm. But I personally do not see gang rape in this ad.
November 1st, 2007 at 10:40 pm
If you ask me, they all look pretty bored. That means there can only be one thing in the near future. Porn groove soundtrack! Certainly doesn't make someone as hyper as myself want to try any of their trashy clothing. Then again all I wear lately is extreme sports gear, uniforms, and work clothes.
And hey, don't knock being eurotrash until you try it, at least the food and beer is a vast improvement! Bourbon is still king, though.
November 1st, 2007 at 11:36 pm
I agree with NOW and Glenn on this.
What responsible father would want their daughter seeing ads of this type?
And how would a father feel if he found this ad, poster-sized, affixed to his daughter's bedroom wall?
Not good.
NOW is right.
This ad is wrong.
November 1st, 2007 at 11:59 pm
"What responsible father would want their daughter seeing ads of this type?"
There are lots of similar ads I don't think are good for any kids, male or female, to see. That's not the same thing as calling this a "gang rape."
Personally, I'm be more concerned about kids seeing images of violence than kids seeing images of sex. Unlike violence, sex is healthy and good, for the most part. But this sex-repressed country still has alot of reactionaries when it comes to sex, while treating images of violence like it's just part of life.
November 2nd, 2007 at 12:18 am
These ads are deemed offensive to women, not to kids. There' s lots of stuff I don't want my daughters seeing, but I don't see Bratz ads on their list.
No these are for the most part, high fashion ads in high fashion magazines.
What the hell do they expect? If you ask me, the whole high fashion industry is incredibly misogynistic and yet women love it, and love to talk about it, and love to gossip about it, and love to spend money on it.
So who cares?
I think they dislike these ads because of some element of sex and male bashing that they can pin their hate on to.
November 2nd, 2007 at 3:20 am
If you look closely at the ad it doesn’t have a look of “reality” about it. The background is surreal and it looks more to me like the attempted depiction of a fantasy.
Maybe this ad is depicting an attractive young woman fantasying about having her way with five attractive young men.
If they are selling clothes to young women this may be an effective ad. Young women are having a hard time attracting one man, let alone five.
I don’t know, I guess you would have to ask the people who did the ad what they had in mind.
Also, just because N.O.W. said it’s offensive to women doesn’t mean anything. I think you would have to ask a fair cross-section of the female population to get an accurate idea.
November 2nd, 2007 at 4:18 am
she looks like she's having fun does anyone have any info on who the female model is?
November 2nd, 2007 at 5:06 am
You know, speaking of fantasy, I guess it does have a sort of artistic bent to it. I guess unhappy people is just what you get when you put them in unnatural poses. Next time hire from the circus!
It's racy but that's about as far as offense goes, nothing you can't see on crappy romance novel covers.
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:58 am
@ Mark A. re: "But this sex-repressed country still has alot of reactionaries when it comes to sex, while treating images of violence like it's just part of life."
Mark...Have you considered that perhaps NOW is reacting because images like this equate sex with violence, making rape "just part of life"?
November 2nd, 2007 at 10:53 am
"Mark...Have you considered that perhaps NOW is reacting because images like this equate sex with violence, making rape "just part of life"?"
Yes. Those types see violence in almost any heterosexual sex.
As someone else pointed out, NOW is claiming it's offensive to *women,* not children. They use this as an excuse to get attention and spread their misandry as usual.
I fully agree with Kevin that "If you look closely at the ad it doesn’t have a look of “reality” about it. The background is surreal and it looks more to me like the attempted depiction of a fantasy." That's how I saw the ad from the start without even looking closely. The is completely a surreal and abstract expression of sexuality for the purpose of getting attention to the ad. I see absolutely no sign or hint of struggle, force or non-consent at all.
November 2nd, 2007 at 11:13 am
Maybe this ad is depicting an attractive young woman fantasying about having her way with five attractive young men.
That's exactly how I interpreted this ad.
Why are the model's eyes closed? Because this is her masturbation fantasy.
November 2nd, 2007 at 11:53 am
Well, I'm with you on this one, Glenn. I saw exactly what you did the moment I looked at that ad. Disgusting.
Of course, women's fashion ads are full of picture ads that are disgusting at worst, and almost all of them ridiculous. Why do they gobble them up like they do?
November 2nd, 2007 at 12:04 pm
"Disgusting" is not the same as "gang rape." There is not "gang rape" in this picture at all.
And I don't even agree that it's "disgusting." I think the picture is very sensual and sexy. I like it. I want to see more.
November 2nd, 2007 at 12:16 pm
There are fewer things more "disgusting" than the union of right wing sexual prudes with radical feminist hatemongers like Catherine MacKinnon to try to supress porn. It is based almost entirely on their own sexual insecurities, coming in different forms between the two camps but insecurities and reactive idiocy nonetheless. NOW's efforts at suppressing this image resonates as just another form of that stupidity. I wouldn't be surprised if they find another Jerry Falwell to join with them on this one.
Not *that* is disgusting. Yyyyyyyyyyyuck!
November 2nd, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Quite honestly, these guys look about as interested in having sex with the woman as I'd be in getting a manicure.
They are so far off the pink end of the 'Metrosexual' scale that I doubt any of them would get excited about hetero sex in any form. If the photographer had excluded the woman then these particular guys might have looked more into it.
If the ad was aiming to evoke erotic tension (through the suggestion of fantasy / gang bang / gang rape - whatever you like) then it failed miserably. It doesn't prompt me to buy the clothes (or the fake tan) either.
November 2nd, 2007 at 12:34 pm
I didn't see rape when I saw this either. She is not screaming, she is not struggling. There is a slight aspect of dominance involved but there always is with sex, going either way.
If this GENUINELY invoked images of 'gang-rape' would any woman honestly buy anything being advertised?
I do agree that it is offensive, just as the ad with a stiletto being dug into a man's behind was. Yet to say it invokes images of rape is sensationalism at best.
Tasteless and offensive, but certainly not about rape or the 'rape-culture' that apparently exists in every country in the world.
November 2nd, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Please I do not have digital video equipment if any one can record the Orbitz commercial on CNN headline news between 0710 and 0720 Glenn would like to have it . . . also I am sure he would like the Wyndham commercial where woman keeps holding up a magazine that has ads with well dresses and physique men without heads on them and she keeps holding them up to her husbands head by the pool lining them up making it look like he has the bodies in the magazine . . .
November 2nd, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Glenn, I have no interest in becoming "sensitized" to NOW's issues. Any pandering to the hate-mongers is wasted effort, or worse, counter-productive. Who cares if NOW, or anyone, for that matter, is offended. Don't buy the product if you find it distasteful. Of course, some of the most "offensive" ads are designed to sell to women, not men. So, are we to join the feminists in dictating to women what they should find "offensive"? Have you considered that perhaps more "offensive" images of women need to be produced so that attention can be brought to all offensive ads, including those that demean men. Remember, only "women's" problems get attention. Men can go pound sand, right?
November 2nd, 2007 at 6:23 pm
@Mark A,
Are you saying that this ad would be offensive if there was a little girl (or boy) in that pose, but it is not offensive because you find it "sexy"? (What's sexy about a woman being held down on the ground with her pelvis up in the air, with a pained look on her face?)
BTW, for those of you who think this might reflect her "fantasy", perhaps you should think again. She's dressed like a dominatrix, but she clearly isn't the one dominating..
November 2nd, 2007 at 6:27 pm
I don't know what surprises me more...
The vulgarity of this advertisement
or
That I can actually agree wtih NOW on this one
November 2nd, 2007 at 7:19 pm
"Are you saying that this ad would be offensive if there was a little girl (or boy) in that pose, but it is not offensive because you find it "sexy"?"
Tell me what part of anything I said can be read as saying anything about a child being in that pose. I'd sure like to see where you got that from.
"What's sexy about a woman being held down on the ground with her pelvis up in the air, with a pained look on her face?"
There is no pain whatsoever in her face. She's posing sexually while he is sitting BESIDE her, not on top as if to pin her down. She is relaxed and fantasizing. Yes I do think it's a sexy pose. Apparently alot of others do too or it wouldn't work as an advertisement.
"BTW, for those of you who think this might reflect her "fantasy", perhaps you should think again. She's dressed like a dominatrix, but she clearly isn't the one dominating.."
How is she dressed like a dominatrix? Where is her whip? A cominatrix can dress in any sexy or revealing outfit just like the one she is wearing. This is not a rape at all.
November 2nd, 2007 at 7:20 pm
"The vulgarity of this advertisement"
Oh boy, another sex prude who belongs in Lancaster PN.
November 2nd, 2007 at 7:25 pm
""Are you saying that this ad would be offensive if there was a little girl (or boy) in that pose, but it is not offensive because you find it "sexy"?"
I'm still trying to figure out the logic of this ridiculous comment. It sounds just like a feminist straw man attack. If it were a little girl or boy in the pose it would depict statutory rape because it's an adult and a child in a sexual act. But these two people are ADULTS. And no, I don't say it's "not offensive because I find it sexy." I say it's not offensive, AND I find it sexy. I guess that's a bit logically complicated for you.
November 2nd, 2007 at 7:43 pm
I don't see any sex at all. The man is a Pilates instructor illustrating how she should keep her shoulders down and relaxed while performing an extended bridge (the heels wouldn't be my first choice in footware for this- but hey, some grrls like to look good working out!). She's doing a great bridge, by the way. I assume the other men are Zumba teachers and students, bored and waiting for her to leave the studio so they can get busy. Those whymen at NOW seem to be preoccupied with sex. Perhaps they need to get out more, maybe take some mat classes.
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:40 pm
These men look about as threatening as Richard Simmons, and are probably as interested in her as he would be.
All six models look like any other bored, narcissist model. Oil up the abs, stand there and look cute.
'Offensive to women' is becoming like 'causes cancer in lab rats'. EVERYTHING causes cancer in lab rats, and EVERYTHING is offensive to women. The shock value has been worn out.
I have yet to see NOW act on anything offensive to men. i can see where this ad is offensive to SOME women. But really, aren't these the same artsy fartsy people who think Robert Maplethorp is the shiznit and deserves millions of your tax dollars for his work, weather you like it or not? At least this photographer is paying his own way.
I wonder how NOW feels about Madonna's coffee table book, when presented in this context.
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:46 pm
re- fantasy: Yes, if you've read "my secret garden", aparently there's a lot of this kind of fantasy. Does NOW have a published opinion of that book? Is NOW going to start publicly shaming women for having sexual fantasies that don't end up with a 12 gauge revenge scene?
So long as it's clearly a fantasy depiction, and not a real violent act, (and this ad certainly meets the criteria of fantasy), what is the big deal?
I think the message in the ad is "make men REALLY REALLY want you. Get LOTS of attention from oily guys with tans and ripped abs, even if you're with someone else".
November 2nd, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Offended Dad, you are awesome. Thank you for adding some scholarly LOGIC to this discussion.
November 2nd, 2007 at 11:53 pm
Offended Dad, you're missing something here:
Yes, this type of fantasy is common. Yes, many women, and some men, get turned on by rape fantasies. I'm not Carrie Nation, and I won't tell you this kind of sex is disgusting. Some people find a scene like this beautiful and hot. Who am I to tell them they're wrong?
The problem is consent. Not the consent of the woman in the ad -- the consent of the viewer. Even if I were an Esquire reader, I have not consented to view images of women being raped. Heck, even if this were a hot fantasy for me, I might not be in a mood to look at these kinds of images at a time when I'm sitting in the dentist waiting room flipping through pages in a men's fashion mag. And women who run across the ad who don't entertain rape fantasies will be disturbed and offended. I believe that they are right to be.
If Dolce & Cabanna want to publish this in some softcore porn magazine, no problem. But Esquire? That's over the top. I agree with NOW and Glenn.
November 3rd, 2007 at 1:19 am
I disagree, Jeff, because I don't see any rape in this ad at all. I think men who read Esquire know very well there are sexual pics in it, and frequent pics of hot women. When you read Esquire you consent to seeing whatever is in it. If you're offended you can close the magazine. There is absolutely no "rape" taking place in this ad at all.
November 6th, 2007 at 9:10 am
Forget NOW. I think men should be offended by this add. It just looks and feels dirty.
November 6th, 2007 at 9:31 am
Marc A. Says:
November 2nd, 2007 at 7:19 pm
There is no pain whatsoever in her face. She's posing sexually while he is sitting BESIDE her, not on top as if to pin her down. She is relaxed and fantasizing. Yes I do think it's a sexy pose. Apparently alot of others do too or it wouldn't work as an advertisement.
^^^
With this point I have to agree with Mark
b
November 6th, 2007 at 9:43 am
Jeff Says:
If Dolce & Cabanna want to publish this in some softcore porn magazine, no problem. But Esquire? That's over the top. I agree with NOW and Glenn.
^^^
I do not think you are missing something I think that you have a misplaced blame issue . . .Dolce & Cabanna have every right to ask any magazine to publish their ad and the magazine has a right to refuse. Dolce & Cabanna are not to blame the more they expose (could not resist the pun) their product the more they sell, make, and employ. Blame Esquire for accepting the ad.
November 6th, 2007 at 9:45 am
Serenity Now Says:
November 2nd, 2007 at 7:43 pm
^^^
NICE, very nice!
b
November 11th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
[...] with them on one out of two. In Part III, I thought they were wrong on both. In Part IV and also Part V, I agreed with NOW. In Part VI, I disagreed with [...]
November 11th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Glenn,
It's my understanding, as a man, that most women have sexual fantasies that involve being raped, no doubt by really good looking hot studs. I'm sure that many a woman that has seen this ad got "turned on" by looking at it. NOW women wouldn't understand this. If it were a bunch of lesbians standing around and holding down a woman, I'm sure that they wouldn't have any problems. As you know, NOW feminists are the biggest hypocrites in the world.
April 21st, 2008 at 1:35 pm
[...] You Be the Judge--NOW Claims This Ad Is 'Offensive to Women'--Is It? (Part V) [...]
April 21st, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Looking back on this several months later I have to wonder, "How would this be if it were five women surrounding a man with one of them on top of him like that?" I'm not sure what the product would be but I'm pretty sure the slogan would be something along the lines of, "If only every man were this lucky."