When I linked to the original story about the ad in this week's Weekly Feminist Reader, Xana pointed out this quote in comments:

"'We will only withdraw this photo from the Spanish market. They're a bit behind the times,' La Vanguardia newspaper quoted the Milan-based fashion house as saying.

'Cause selling high-end designer goods with violence-against-women imagery is SO ahead of the curve.

The expressions on the men's facing looking on as their friend holds the woman down look like a scene out of "The Accused" and that is no "erotic dream" to me.

Glad they're pulling it.

There is nothing sexy about that ad. Exactly whose erotic dream would that be? The woman being gang-raped? I doubt it.

man, I didnt think it looked like a rape scene until I read the article. It just looked like a bunch of pretty people getting ready to have an orgy. I didn't really think she was being held down. They all look so complacent.

I guess its cool that they're pulling it if it was intended to glamorize gang rape..but thats not what i thought of when i looked at it.

Completely and utterly off topic, but does anyone have any idea why D&G and other tony companies feel the need to coat their models in oil before photographing them? Looking at these ads always makes we want to go wash my hands.

Um, not to trade in stereotypes, but to me it looks like homoerotic stuff. You could easily remove the woman from the picture. And yes, the baby oil is ridiculous.

It isn't uncommon for people to fetish-size what they fear. There's Nazi fetish gay porn, lotsa skinhead gay porn. Voyeurism, being watched and doing the watching is highly erotic for a lot of people.

If you look at the position of the girl she looks like she enjoys being held down, as there doesn't appear to be any sign of violence or sign of disturbance on her face.

To assume this artist was condoning violence against women is absurd. D&G tend to be quite risque. Of course, it was irresponsible of them to put this ad up knowing that it could be interpreted as such.

I'm sure the controversy was fully intentional, even if ill-advised. But you know what they say, no such thing as bad publicity.

This ad is creepy. Interestingly, it's almost like a visual representation of the attitudes about sex and rape that seem really common in our society right now. A group of men watching another man assault a woman who is depicted as helpless to prevent what is happening (also, I notice that she's the only one "dressed up" in the picture). I think it's telling that the man assaulting her is wearing sunglasses, and the rest of the men range from looking bored (the guy closest to us) to very interested (but not concerned about her).

Yeah. This thing creeps me out on a number of levels.

Sexual game, huh? Men encouraging or tolerating sexual assault is a game?

Funny how the only person in the picture who looks to be having any fun here is the guy standing with no shirt on, watching a woman get assaulted.

85% of sexual assaults occur with no weapons or 'violence' aside from the rape itself... most rapists are attractive and can and do get consensual sex from other people...'freezing' is a very common response of victims, especially if they feel the trauma is inescapable.

the oil is used to highlight muscles and make people look buffer/thinner etc.

If you look at the position of the girl she looks like she enjoys being held down, as there doesn't appear to be any sign of violence or sign of disturbance on her face.

Sorry for the double comment, but I didn't see this.

We must have radically different ideas of what constitutes enjoyment, because she does not look to be enjoying anything to me. She looks resigned. She's looking away from the man, off to the side, which, to me, suggests that she's avoiding looking at him. Her fingers are limp, her knees are closed.

The only thing that I see that can be taken to suggest that she's enjoying the situation is that they've got her with her back arched. Of course, if they didn't have her arching her back, they couldn't show off the shoes, which are important for making her appear more vulnerable.

I totally admit that I could be over-reading this, but, seriously, I find it really creepy. She looks like she's shut down completely, to me.

You're right, bEx_x3d, when you say there's no sign of disturbance in her face. So far as I can see, there's no sign of anything in her face. She looks totally empty.

The position and expression of the man holding her down are definitely aggressive. The presence of other well-muscled men who are evincing various levels of interest in the proceedings (but none showing concern) simply re-inforces the "gang rape" feel of the photo.

Not to mention the fact that she's got nothing on her legs at all and is wearing those Barbie doll shoes that serve, in the public imagination, to reduce women to visual objects solely.

yeah, i DEFINITELY thought gang rape. i showed my husband, and he thought the same thing.

I guess this is *her* erotic dream. If you just look at the men it does look like a gang rape but if you look at her you can’t see any fear in her face. She doesn’t look like she is enjoying it either. She is completely expressionless.
But I can see how easily it could be read as a violent message considering we live in a world where violence against women is prevalent and REAL violence is excused and eroticized. This ad doesn’t exist in a vacuum.

To me, it looks like she slipped on the catwalk, or passed out from too much coke, and one of her gay model friends also happens to be an EMT. :b But that's just what I see.

hahaha i agree with MD

wow... I dunno. I guess I'm conditioned or something. I really didn't that it was rape. It looked like the typical shitty ads I see all over the place but I didnt think gang rape.

I can see how youd say she looked shut down cause her face is turned away from the guy, but that could just be to draw attention to her face.

I wouldn't mind being that gal ! looks like fun.

question:
have the ax ads been addressed on this forum before?

Heh! MD now that you mentioned it I can see it that way too.

i like being held down in sex, as do lots of woman. i think it's absurd for people to assume there's only one interpretation to the photo. and who's to say she isn't scoping out the guy closest in the foreground.

Shoes? of course they put it in there to make it more titillating! Just as they oil the men, objectifying them just as much.

And she could be shutting down, or she could be scoping the guy who's in the foreground of the picture. Have you heard of cuckholding fetishes.

All i'm saying is there is ambiguity in this photo, and you can't ever know for sure the intent unless you actually made this ad.

and fetishes often don't make sense, and are not about the reality of a situation. but you can't control what gets you going. power plays are common, but in my experience usually the person in the submissive position is the one calling the shots.

Nobody's condemning personal fetishes, or what gets each woman off individually. Lord knows I'm not your straight "missionary position" type.

But that's not the point here. This isn't an ad in a fetish magazine. It's an ad for general consumption by the general public. And without any kind of context to take away from what we're seeing, this ad screams "gang rape."

An advertiser is responsible for making sure that the ad says only what it is supposed to say. Ambiguity is a failure, not something to be used as an excuse.

If the best that can be said about this ad is that it's ambiguous, doesn't that suggest a problem?

If I saw this ad on the subway I would probably ignore it, register some vague irritation at the overall tone of the ad (for reasons I might not even be able to articulate), and not look at it very closely.

But, looking at it now and thinking about it, I can definitely see the gang rape bent of it. I think roymac does a particularly good job of fleshing this out.

Just because you have to think about an ad to understand why it's offensive, doesn't make it okay. Subliminal and subconscious messages can be just as powerful as explicit ones. In fact, on some level this ad would be LESS troubling if it was explicitly advocating gang rape. No one, but NO ONE thinks gang rape is a good thing. If this had a blatant gang rape message it could easily be shrugged off as saying something NO ONE is going to listen to. That it's ambiguous and has some strong subliminal gang rape themes to it, is way troubling. People will see this and think it's sexy. That will cause an association between sexy and something that is ambiguously gang rape.

Anyone see where I'm going with this? Really, I mean, the woman MIGHT be enjoying it, right? And if maybe she kinda enjoyed it, even if she didn't totally say "yes," well, then that's not really RAPE rape, is it? Kinda like how date rape isn't REAL rape, right?

In other words, thanks, D&G, for helping to keep rape normalized.

I thought the raised hips were in preparation for lifting that pointy shoe and kicking her attacker in the head.

Agreed that many people experience pleasure in a perceivied loss of control, but how many women have genuine rape fantasies? And how do men use that popular stereotype of feminine desire? And finally, regardless of our private desires how do we want the issues of consent and violent sex to be portrayed in mainstream media?

After reading in the news about a man impersonating his ex to solicit someone to rape her (http://tinyurl.com/3xjejy) I don't think it matters whether D&G thought it was "sexy"--it's a representation of sexual violence that presents consent as an open question (or a question not even worth asking), and that's unacceptable.

I'm curious to know the genders of the team who worked on this.

I'm not sure that "genuine rape fantasies" isn't a bit of an oxymoron – I think women who have rape fantasies are capable of seeing the difference between a rape and a rape fantasy. Not that that excuses putting rape imagery in an advert.

But generally, I think MD hit the nail on the head. :) And that's why I don't look at it and think "gang rape".

"Interestingly, it's almost like a visual representation of the attitudes about sex and rape that seem really common in our society right now. "

Bingo.

It screams gang rape to me. That's not to say women don't (or can't) have dreams of having sex with multiple men, or don't (or can't) actually have sex with multiple men. But there's nothing about this picture that suggests she's involved in this willingly.

Whatever the practical intent of the oily-ness might be, in this light it just looks like the men have gotten all sweaty abusing this woman, or at the thought of abusing this woman.

It just one more ick factor thing about this pic.

I'm a sadomasochist, and I don't like the ad. I'm glad it has been pulled. Glamorizing sexualized violence is very dangerous, and I don't think that non-BDSMers in some fashion house should be able to use some vague and half-baked conception of BDSM to excuse that glamorization. (I think depictions of BDSM are extremely context- and audience-sensitive, and I really don't want BDSM presented unless it is in a context that makes clear that the participants are consenting. If that means that companies can't use what we do for shock value, good.)

"Ambiguity is a failure, not something to be used as an excuse."

I agree. If they wanted to go with the "fantasy" thing, at least make her look interested. Or, you know, capable of puttng up a fight, if it's not her own "fantasy".

Thomas said: I don't think that non-BDSMers in some fashion house should be able to use some vague and half-baked conception of BDSM to excuse that glamorization. (I think depictions of BDSM are extremely context- and audience-sensitive, and I really don't want BDSM presented unless it is in a context that makes clear that the participants are consenting.

Thank you, Thomas. 100% on target. So many times, those of us who are into alternate sexualities hear those kinds of arguments being made by people who have no idea what BDSM is about, and think it excuses any twisted things they want to do ("Secretary" is another great example).

BDSM is so carefully and consiously consensual it's unbelievable.

This ad is crap, and using BDSM or fantasies as an excuse is bull. Ya know what? IBTP.

I dont know what to think. I love it when my husband holds me down, and I fantasize about the control and dominance, but its strictly a sexual and non-real life thing.

I can see the ad being interpreted to mean rape, but merely in a fantasy setting.

I mean really, do you see people covered in oil getting raped in openly visible places?

Truly, how many of us even look like her? How many of our boyfriends of husbands really look like that? Its strictly a fantasy setting.

She doesnt look scared at all, as far as I can tell.

Does anyone know which gender this company primarily advertises to?

If its meant to advertise to men, then no harm done. But if it was meant to advertise to women, around my age, well frankly, they missed the mark and should fire their marketing team.

I think it really depends on who is looking at it. Like all things art, its subjective, and really comes down to the viewer.

I dont know if I should do this, but let me play the devil's advocate for a minute.

Who would honestly speak up if it was a woman reversed, holding a man down? No one. It only offends a select few.

http://img.zazzle.com/dzn/52/52/14/5252148C-4211-4245-8749-8E9942999470/horz_front_real_sz500_qt80.jpg

Here is a sports add showing a woman hitting a man. Its in good fun. Should women be criticized for responding to it? It hardly promotes abusive women, wouldnt you agree?

I feel the real issue is a few postings back. 1/3 of us have been assaulted and/or raped. I find that more disgusting than humor/art.

Sometimes I really wish there were one central IMPACT-style self defense PHPBB forum where graduates and potential students all got together & gabbed.

Now that this ad has existed and we can't undo its existence, it sure would be fun to discuss with other Multiple Unarmed Assailants Class graduates how to get out of the scenario depicted in that ad.

(1 man to the side of her closed legs, pinning both arms (using one hand to pin each of her wrists to each side of her head); 4 accomplices not yet touching her (but 2 look like they might jump in any moment); and the woman, wearing high heels, seems to be in mid-motion--her butt is off the ground, so she's either not landed on the ground completely or has lifted it, perhaps as part of various motions to see if she can break free)

Perhaps links to the discussion and musings of, "Do you really think it might work?" would catch on in Livejournals, the blogosphere, and even discussions over coffee!

We, bloggers and residents of the world, can never criticize or critique the ad enough to nullify its negative effect on people's minds. Doing that takes a positive new creation, too.

What a great way to help turn around the ill effects of that ad through creation. Get viral tip-sharing going among women.

That'd kick ass.

"No one, but NO ONE thinks gang rape is a good thing."

Really? Then why do they happen so often? And why do the perps so often get away with it? Even in the OC gang rape case, where the victim was drugged and completely unconscious, and where the entire assault was caught on tape, the defense posited that she was making a "necrophilia-themed porno", and that she had "coerced" these "poor boys" into putting a Snapple bottle, lit cigarrette and pool cue into her vagina.

Gang rape is far too prevalent in society for the fashion industry to get away with churning out crap like that ad.

Here is a sports add showing a woman hitting a man. Its in good fun....It hardly promotes abusive women, wouldnt you agree? I feel the real issue is a few postings back. 1/3 of us have been assaulted and/or raped. I find that more disgusting than humor/art.

Yes, and that's the point. Men do not generally walk around in fear of female athletes hitting them, but sexual assault/rape is a very real presence in the lives and psyches of women, which is why advertisements that use those experiences to garner attention or make a quick buck are particularly loathesome, sleazy, and noxious. Cultural context is almost everything.

I can see the ad being interpreted to mean rape, but merely in a fantasy setting. I mean really, do you see people covered in oil getting raped in openly visible places?

That's the point; it's prettifying rape by turning it into something that looks desirable. Because if it looked like rape actually looks, it wouldn't sell clothing. Because it would be ugly. The eroticization of rape (using the term loosely--plastic people covered in oil are not erotic as far as I'm concerned) is exactly the problem.

If its meant to advertise to men, then no harm done.

I disagree. It's exactly men who need to have it drummed into their heads that rape is not pretty, not a fantasy, not sexy. Too many women already know that.

feisty, I was imprecise. Obviously there are psychopaths in the world.

What I should have said is that the average person agrees that gang rape is wrong, period, end of story. Society tells us it's wrong, people agree as a general rule that it's wrong. The problem is (lol -- I feel like I've said this same thing very recently) that people have a misconception of what "rape" is. Take a room full of 12 people, chances are every one of them will say "rape is wrong." Now give those people a scenario that we might call "date rape" (again, GOD I hate that term). I'm willing to bet that a fair percentage of people will say "that's not rape." So I think ads like this normalize rape by letting people get away with saying "I think rape is wrong" while still thinking the D&G ad, and other "ambiguous" situations like it, are okay.

Scilian, your examples about a woman holding down a man or beating up a man are inapposite for obvious reasons. Turning the tables in a specific instance isn't enough. Those ads would not reinforce stereotypes of men as passive objects that exist for women's sexual (or other) pleasure, because no such stereotypes exist. This ad reinforces a stereotype of a woman being dominated by men for their sexual pleasure. That's deeply troubling in a way that the reverse ad you hypothesize simply could not. These ads don't exist in vacuums.

And as for violence against men, speaking for myself, I don't find it entertaining. I don't find any violence entertaining.

How can she be raped when she's wearing empowerful stilettos?

Yes, it looks like the rape scene from The Accused (with Jodi Foster).

Thank you EG - your points were very informative.
I do disagree that the sterotypes dont exist for women. As a grade school teacher, the biggest concern right now is the rampant raping of male children by female teachers. Women are routinely using power and dominance to get their sick and twisted fantasies fulfilled, at the expense of male children.

Is it not rape if the boy enjoys it?

It is.

Granted this ad does not enforce pedophilia, nor does the ad I posted, but to say its ok for women to do this but not based on previous history is the same as saying its ok for Italians to own slaves today, since it was primarily white people who owned slaves before.

If its not ok for men, why should it be ok for me to do?

I just dont understand how people can ethically justify wrongs against men, but defend it when I or other women think its ok.

I have to second what LF is saying- the ad does not exist in a vacuum, and simply saying "if the roles within the ad were reversed, nobody would care" ignores that the pretty significant power differences within our society.
Rape is overwhelmingly commited by men against women, and that's a fact that comes into play when I view this ad.

I mean really, do you see people covered in oil getting raped in openly visible places?

Truly, how many of us even look like her? How many of our boyfriends of husbands really look like that? Its strictly a fantasy setting.

That doesn't take away from take away from the power or change the story being told. Fairy Tales are strictly fantasy, too, but they speak very loudly about things like gender, and they teach children a lot about the roles that they're expected to fulfill. Potentially, this ad is another example of the many ways that society not only permits, but encourages rape.

She doesnt look scared at all, as far as I can tell.

She doesn't look like she's having fun, either.

If its meant to advertise to men, then no harm done. But if it was meant to advertise to women, around my age, well frankly, they missed the mark and should fire their marketing team.

Advertising is dangerous stuff, and if it's advertising to me, it's, again, sending what I think is a pretty dangerous message. The images we see and the stories that those images tell us, are very powerful. There's a reason that companies are willing to spend so much on advertising.

I think it really depends on who is looking at it. Like all things art, its subjective, and really comes down to the viewer.

Part of it certainly depends on who is looking at it, but I don't think that's the end-all be-all. Claiming that something is art doesn't give it a free pass to ignore the social ramifications of the image. It also can't be ignored that this is advertising. Advertising has a pretty specific goal. Sometimes that advertising is clever and may be socially critical, but the primary goal is to sell a product of some kind. That they're willing to use an image that is, at best ambiguous, and at worst is blatantly endorsing gang-rape is, to say the least, troubling.

I find this ad disturbing. Disturbing in a way like I don't know where things started out, but I don't like where they look like they're going. I feel like something bad is going to happen to the girl, and that doesn't work to sell me clothing.

But honestly, the real winner here is clearly D&G. This ad has now received far more attention than a non-controversial ad campaign ever would. They've reached a much wider market, and people all over the world will see the ad in newspapers and blogs and it won't cost D&G a dime. I don't know if that was their intention, but calling Spain "backwards" when they banned the ad makes me think it was. They wanted a media storm, and they succeeded. Well played. It's disgusting, but it worked.

Women are routinely

Scilian, the media reports women as sex abusers like they report shark attacks. No matter how rare, when something makes the news almost every time it happens, it can seem common.

(One of the fundamental problems with "news" is that it is by definition misleading. He don't hear about "dog bites man," which we actually need to know about, but we hear about "man bites dog," which has no importance to us but entertainment value.)

Women are routinely

Scilian, the media reports women as sex abusers like they report shark attacks. No matter how rare, when something makes the news almost every time it happens, it can seem common.

(One of the fundamental problems with "news" is that it is by definition misleading. He don't hear about "dog bites man," which we actually need to know about, but we hear about "man bites dog," which has no importance to us but entertainment value.)

Maybe the big issue here, is why society accepts this garbage.

Call me crazy, but I like men who appear, well normal.

My husband is driven by the same attractions.

Frankly, Im tired of this fantasy world that marketers live in.

Im also disgusted this ad generates this much attention.

Would the world even be debating this if it was a Nazi gassing a Jewish person?

Why should we allow it on any level then?

NOW President Kim Gandy called the ad a "stylized gang rape." Dolce says the ad was meant to "recall an erotic dream, a sexual game."

Both, actually. If you're the woman, it's rape. If you're a man with even a vestige of a conscience, then it's rape. If you're a sick, screwed up man, it's an erotic dream.

The lack of expression on her face is exactly why it looks like rape. Some people, in a situation like that dissociate so as to not have to live the experience they're in. Pretty common psychological phenomenon.

Well, it seems to me that D&C ads generally are prettified scenes of passion with any passion removed.

So this seems like much of what they print - not much expression from anyone, and it's completely ambiguous whether it's consensual or not

As far as I'm concerned, it looks like rape to me, it looks like rape to a lot of people, and if it is a trigger to ONE woman then it's not ambiguous enough

If its not ok for men, why should it be ok for me to do?

Where has anyone in this thread stated, or even implied, that it'd be A-OK for a group of women to gang-rape a man? Or even to look on with indifference as one is gang-raped by other women? Where are all the ads depicting this hypothetical scenario? Where are all the porn films with "erotic fantasy" scenes of female-on-male gang rape being acted out, to the enjoyment of all? When all these things are equally as prevalent in our society as the reverse, then we can justifiably compare the two.

Context is everything. This ad feeds into a much larger body of media that all communicate the message "Rape is sexy!"
That is what makes this ad harmful, more than the mere sum of its parts. That is also why an identical but gender-flipped ad would have significantly less impact--because it'd be a drop in a nearly empty bucket, whereas this ad is just another drop in an ocean that's already overflowing. They are not comparable.

And as for the "fantasy" defense: Given the horrific nature of rape, and how much women fear it, why on earth do you suppose "some" or "many" women still indulge in "rape fantasies" or fetishes about control and domination? Could it be because women are no more immune to these omnipresent images than men are? Could it be that, having been inundated with such images all our lives, we have also come to regard rape as "sexy"--even when bitter experience has taught us painfully otherwise?

Gee, I wonder. I'm sick of seeing this shit.
[end rant/]

Yes it looks like gang rape. What bothers me almost as much about it is the shape of that woman in the ad. She is built like my ten year old sister (who is amazingly skinny) not like any type of woman. In a way it makes the add scream gang rape of an overly sexualised young girl not of a woman, which to me is even more vile and disturbing.

My first impression was that the standing men are all dominating the supine female. If this was a female fantasy I would think that the woman would be standing and the men would be beneath her. Otherwise they all look like someone posed a bunch of mannequins. I sure hope they didn't spend a lot of money on this turkey.

Then why do [gang rapes] happen so often?

Define "so often."

But those guys are really hot, they can't be rapists! Rapists are creepy ugly guys who jump out at you from bushes, right? I mean, if it's a bunch of hot dudes, then it's totally gotta be a fantasy!

Riiiiiiiiiight.

I'm fine with D&G getting to put out whatever ads they want. I just think we should all be made to be conscious of what is implied in so many of advertisements, and what that means. This is a particularly blatant example, but a ton of advertising has subtle (but just as pervasive) messages that objectify women or glamorize violence against them.

It goes without saying that many women probably enjoy the fantasy of being raped, or even gang-raped, or even gang-raped by a bunch of gay, oiled Dolce models, but that doesn't mean that D&G gets to speak for everyone by having an advertisement that would be seen by millions of people. When imagery is suppose to speak to a particular audience, it should appear in a media that speaks to that audience, specifically. I doubt D&G would limit itself to purchases from rape fetishists only.

The vibe I get from the ad is very menacing, regardless of advertising intent.

There is a menacing vibe that comes from the ad, regardless of what the advertiser's intent was.

I am about damned tired of misogyny being called "provocative," "daring," "controversial," or "ahead of its time." This woman's hands are held down, her hips are lifted in resistance, and the look on her face, as many of you have pointed out, is the numbed expression of a victim. Worst of all, D&G knows its audience -- a porn-drenched upper-middle class that likes to blur lines around consensual sex as intellectual sport.
They don't even need to run the ad: they got the hype.

Disgusted, going to have a drink. Now.

"As a grade school teacher, the biggest concern right now is the rampant raping of male children by female teachers. Women are routinely using power and dominance to get their sick and twisted fantasies fulfilled, at the expense of male children."
--Scilian

Define "rampant."

"Granted this ad does not enforce pedophilia, nor does the ad I posted, but to say its ok for women to do this but not based on previous history is the same as saying its ok for Italians to own slaves today, since it was primarily white people who owned slaves before.

If its not ok for men, why should it be ok for me to do?"
--Scilian

WTH? People in these comments have been pointing out the context of the picture and no one has said what you have just implied. The context is that the overwhelming majority of rapes are perpetrated by men against women or other men. But in our culture, women are frequently demonized and blamed for being raped.

Given this, the picture is terrible. It glamorizes a relatively common crime where the privileged and powerful (white males) use force to physically violate those who are less privileged and powerful (women). If the picture were reversed so that a woman was raping a white man, it would still be disgusting. But it wouldn't have the same effect. Men don't walk around late at night fearing that a woman could jump out of the shadows and rape them. We aren't usually afraid that a good (female) friend is inviting us over to her place to rape us. And for good reason: It almost never happens to us or anyone we know. Of course, it does still happen sometimes, but the incidence is literally about two orders of magnitude less.

Add onto this that male social norms actually treat the "female teacher rapes male student scenario" as an awesome thing for the male student. I can't even tell you how many other men I've heard remark, upon hearing about such an incident, "Damn, that teacher is hot. Why couldn't I have been that lucky back in Junior High?" Or "Wow, she's ugly... What was that kid thinking?" Seriously, this is how many men treat these things.

And, to pre-empt possible objections to my wording above, no, not ALL men treat such stories this way. But its part of what is considered to be "straight male culture." Sexual experience is glamorized in any context (other than homosexual, which is used to shame). For women, sexual experience is generally used to shame and embarass.

My jaw totally dropped at that photo. Unbelievable.

"Then why do [gang rapes] happen so often?

Define "so often."

You got it:
http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/global_campaign/en/chap6.pdf

"National data on rape and sexual assault in the United States reveal that about 1 out of 10 sexual assaults involve multiple perpetrators. Most
of these assaults are committed by people unknown to their victims (62)."

If she was looking at him with a big ass "I'm gonna get me some" smile on her face and her arms were wrapped around him, then I might be willing to buy this as an erotic fantasy. Without the woman showing any level of interest or emotion, though it gives me the impression that she has been drugged or is frozen with fear. It's extremely creepy.

I assume that D&G didn't intended the scene to look like rape, but I am seriously bothered by the fact that it didn't seem to occur to anyone who saw it before the complaints started coming in. If nothing else, it shows how desensitized some people have become to images of violence, particularly violence against women.

"Erotic Fantasy"= little escape door for any and all ARTISTES who want nothing to do with boring ole bah-humbug social responsibility.

This is CLEARLY fantasy art -- personally, I find it rather hot (as a woman in my late-twenties). I agree it would be less creepy if the woman looked more into it/less drugged. Her hips could be lifted in struggle (unhappy) or sexual desire (happy)... yet the ambiguity that makes it creepy also makes it provocative. If you saw it in a gallery, it would be something to stare at, ponder, and wonder if it made you angry or aroused or both. Perhaps it's just too much for commercial purposes.

This is CLEARLY fantasy art

I think you left of the phrase "to me" there.

If you saw it in a gallery, it would be something to stare at, ponder, and wonder if it made you angry or aroused or both.

Actually, if I saw it in a gallery, I would think "What a piece of crap--it looks just like those gross oily ads for designers that think they're all that."

"If she was looking at him with a big ass 'I'm gonna get me some' smile on her face...then I might be willing to buy this as an erotic fantasy."

YES!!!!! I agree.

If the best that can be said about this ad is that it's ambiguous, doesn't that suggest a problem?

Um, no? If we can condemn an ad because it's possible to imagine a way in which it interpret it as inappropriately, that's a pretty scary slippery slope.

I'm having a hard time seeing the harm in this one, but I'll grant it. But "ambiguous" is not enough to make something a problem.

Ambiguity in general is not really an issue. Ambiguity on the topic of violence against women (sexual or otherwise) is a big damned problem.

And, quite frankly, if you're having trouble seeing the harm in a half-dressed women with a vacant expression being held down by a half naked man in an aggressive posture and watched by a number of other strong young men, you're really not paying enough attention.

The various reactions to this whole thing see to tie into the problem we're having as a society. If you can't even see the implicit threat in a picture like this, how are you going to fight it?

And keep in mind that I speak as a woman with at least a few kinks in her closet, so don't tell me that I don't understand the allure of consenual power plays in sex.

What do you think?

I think I have no idea what they're selling or why I should buy it.

So consentual power plays in sex are only to be practiced in private, because if they're talked about or put on display in any way there's a problem?

The problem with saying "ambiguity on the topic of violence against women" is it's ambiguous whether that's the topic. I'm a little frightened of the implication that everything has to be submitted to the wildest imaginations of people to judge if it's appropriate. I'm imagining a commercial where a woman takes a bit of a banana - "look, that's ambigious, it can easily be argued that she's violently biting off a penis". I'm not calling my stupid little example the same, only trying to make the point that this needs to be framed in such a way that we don't prevent every bit of creativity and let people push limits some. Otherwise things get mighty boring. I admit there's a line, I just don't know exactly where it is and I don't think this crosses it.

There's a LOT of talk on this blog about offensive advertising. And the stuff that's clearly offensive should certainly inspire some rage (I'm thinking of the two billboards with a woman's legs on either side of the street). But there must be better battles to fight over than over this somewhat racy but clearly fantastical and ambigious advertisement.

Actually, if you look at the comments on this post, there's a strong argument to be made that this ad is not clearly fantastical or even really ambiguous. Given, you know, that the majority of the posters have had no problem seeing this as rape.

You say: "So consentual power plays in sex are only to be practiced in private, because if they're talked about or put on display in any way there's a problem?"

My answer is no. The problem here is that there is no indication whatsoever that this is consenuel. None. Given the body cues of the woman and the men, in fact, most of the indications are the opposite.

If you want to claim the right to put this sort of thing in advertising, you have to bear the responsibility for making sure that it's 100% clear that everyone involved is enthusiastic about what's happening. If you haven't done that, then it's no longer a representation of a consenual power play in sex. It's just a representation of violence or potential violence against women.

Unlike your banana example, it takes no wild imagination to see rape in this ad. Seems to me that it takes a pretty big case of denial to avoid seeing it. Again: there is no indication whatsoever that this woman is willingly involved, or that she is enjoying herself. The man looks aggressive and the woman looks drugged or in shock.

Don't give me all that "stifling creativity" stuff. If depicting rape is the best someone can do towards being creative, they need to find a new line of work.

I'm sorry, I just don't see rape here. At what point does it become rape? Obviously we disagree. We can even disregard my opinion since I'm a man. Do we poll the American public? If 73% say, "yes, this is about rape", then it is so? It doesn't take a wild imagination but I contend it does take some.

"The man looks aggressive and the woman looks drugged or in shock."

Don't see it. Look, I'm all about there being some right answer. I tend to cringe at relativistic, we-each-have-our-own-opinion type arguments. But when you're down to the point of analyzing vague facial expressions, I don't know that there's a clear answer.

Look, this isn't even about the right to publish an ad like this.

Obviously they have the right to publish it. Nobody has suggested that we pass a law preventing them from publishing it.

What is being suggested is that the ad is creepy and reinforces some pretty heinous attitudes.

Jeff, I'm sorry you can't/won't/don't see what I'm seeing. What I see is profoundly troubling.

I can sort of understand saying "Well, I see how it could be interpreted as rape, but I think that this other interpretation is valid, too" but I really don't understand how you can see that image and completely disregard the rape implications. That really blows my mind.

What would it take to make it look like a potential rape to you?

I mean, we've got five men in various states of undress, one aggressively holding down a woman. She's showing no sign of pleasure or consent that I can see. She's dressed substantially different from the men, in a way that would have made escape difficult. All of the men are literally looking down on her. Four of the men are in postures that suggest hostility and the fifth appears indifferent or bored.

It's possible to see this as some kind of fantasy, I guess.
But:
1. It's not at all clear whose fantasy it would be- nothing in her posture or face suggest that it would be her fantasy.
2. Even if it was intended as a fantasy, I'm not so sure that really matters- the attitudes this thing depicts are really troubling. Maybe the ad says more than the creator intended about his/her view of women?

The issue here isn't whether or not some people find this image sexy, nor is it whether some people might enjoy being in the position the woman is in. (For the record, I'd agree with roymac that the signs are mixed on this particular woman's enjoyment: her arched hips may say yes, but her knees & face say no.)

This isn't art, nor is it private sexual expression. If this were art, I suppose a case could be made for the image as asking provocative questions about violence, subjugation & fantasy (Though still her face makes me sick to my stomach. Generally, the slick, blank prettiness of everyone makes this way less effective and more cynical, even as art.)

But we're not seeing this image in a gallery. It's got a brand emblazoned right across it. It's an ad, which means it's selling something. In the most literal sense, it's selling clothes, but you can't even get a good look at any of the clothes in the image except the shoes. We can only conclude, then, that this is a "branding" ad -- it's meant to give you a feeling of wanting to be part of what it "means" to wear D&G.

What it means to me is that D&G is eager to exploit the line between sex and rape in order to make a profit through controversy, and they don't care in what ways they're re-inscribing rape culture as long as the money comes in.

The problematic ambiguity here is that consent is not clear. I don't care what she's wearing, how many men there are, what the men look like, what anyone looks like. I just care about whether or not she's consenting.

As others here have pointed out, the expression on her face makes it entirely plausible that she hasn't given consent, or at best that any consent is ambiguous. Can we all agree that ambiguous consent isn't REAL consent? I mean, isn't that the whole point of our numerous discussions about drunk girls being raped? Isn't the point that, as a society, we should expect wholehearted, enthusiastic consent?

The problem with this ad is that it enforces the notion that "sorta" consent is not only totally good enough, but might even be a little bit hotter. This contributes to a rape culture, even if what is happening in this specific picture is rape. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. The FACt of the matter is, it is being portrayed as sexy and desirable, yet as many of us have pointed out, there is a very valid and plausible view of this that makes it rape.

It seems to me that either we are against messages suggesting that less-then-affirmative consent is wholly acceptable, or we are not. I know I'm against them.

UGH. Apologies for my last comment being rife with embarrassing typos, etc.

I hardly think you need apologize, LF, when you finish up with something like:
"It seems to me that either we are against messages suggesting that less-then-affirmative consent is wholly acceptable, or we are not. I know I'm against them."

Excellently put.

I'm not trying to minimize rape or the glorifying of it in any way, of course. Maybe getting into the particulars is a bad plan. But I don't know how she could look more consenting. If she was giving the guy a swift kick in the balls, I'd say, "she really looks not consenting". If she was flat on her back, looking not sober/out of it in some way, I'd say she looks like she's not consenting. But I'd say, arched back, the expression on her lips, gosh I dunno. It looks consenting to me, or as if it's intended to be consenting. My familiarity with these sorts of ads is that the facial expressions always are that kind of blank look, so I think it's the hips that make it clear in this case. Clearly it would be better off if they weren't limiting themselves to the serious-blank-sexy facial expressions.

But still, I'm trying to imagine how I could create a similar ad - the fucked-up power-play group-sex ad - and make it look more consentual than this looks, short of a speech bubble that says "I'm consenting!"

The clothing isn't all that different in a sense. Everything they're wearing is high-fashion, men and women. It's more a question of what constitutes high fashion for men these days. The only alternative is suits or tuxes, and while I'm not really very up on the big-city party scene, I'm betting at a fancy place you would find the same level of dress on men and women as is portrayed in this ad. It's being made by the same company, after all. Now, I could see a separate issue stemming from this (why is men's high-fashion dress clothing so shabby and women's the opposite?)

Clearly I'm wading into dangerous territory. This is not my intent. But I keep reading this as consentual, but a bit freaky, no matter how hard I look at it.

I should add that a friend pointed out that since the context of this image is as an advertisement, it will be seen for half a second on the side of a bus or something by people who arn't thinking about it. Maybe it's harmless to those of us that are analyzing it but a quick glance might render it harmful to the average viewer.

But still, I'm trying to imagine how I could create a similar ad - the fucked-up power-play group-sex ad - and make it look more consentual than this looks, short of a speech bubble that says "I'm consenting!"

Just a few suggestions:
Have the woman smiling and/or making eye contact, and ditch the sunglasses on the man. Have one or both of her legs wrapped around his waist/legs. Any of those things would help to communicate "I am a willing and active participant, even though my hands are restrained." They would to me, anyway. They would also, in my mind, make this ad a lot sexier (and more worthy of the "erotic dream" claim) as well.
But I honestly don't think sexy is what the advertisers were going for, here.
I think they wanted it to look like the lead-in to a rape. And it does.

"The problem with this ad is that it enforces the notion that "sorta" consent is not only totally good enough, but might even be a little bit hotter."

This quote should get frontpaged.

jeff, I don't think, strictly speaking, we're disagreeing with you here. I totally "get" that this could be read as consent.

But it can also be read as not-consent, or at least as ambiguous consent.

And THAT is the problem. She is not AFFIRMATIVELY, ENTHUSIASTICALLY, WHOLE-HEARTEDLY consenting. And this sort of "dead glare" consent is being presented as something GOOD/HOT/SEXY.

This is the problem. They're presenting not-affirmative-whole-hearted consent as perfectly fine and totally hottt. This is the ESSENCE of rape culture. Like Vervain says -- I want a smile on her face, a leg around his waist, something that says, "yes, *I* want this." I don't see this in the ad, and that's what bothers me.

Actually, maybe these two quotes together should be frontpaged (or brought above the fold):

"The problem with this ad is that it enforces the notion that 'sorta' consent is not only totally good enough, but might even be a little bit hotter." -TheLawFairy

"...they don't care in what ways they're re-inscribing rape culture as long as the money comes in." -JaclynF

"this sort of 'dead glare' consent is being presented as something GOOD/HOT/SEXY.

This is the problem. They're presenting not-affirmative-whole-hearted consent as perfectly fine and totally hottt."

And that breaks my heart. :-(

"If the best that can be said about this ad is that it's ambiguous, doesn't that suggest a problem?"

I was going back and forth about what I thought on this because my first reaction was "that's hot." But then realizing people looked at it as gang rape I took another look at the ad and could see why they might think that as well. I had a really hard time deciding what I thought but I think the quote sums it up nicely.

unconditioned as i am to media imagery (i don't read magazines and i only watch one hour of tv a week), this picture first hit me as "oh, great! another ad about subjugating women to rape!" maybe, if i were constantly bombarded by ad imagery (and i work hard *not* to be!), i might not see that.

i wholeheartedly agree that if, *if!* they wanted to make it seem like a fantasy, they certainly should have used some kind of actual, you know, *known* body/face language that screams consent, not the type of ambiguous shit that screams this is probably rape.

i'm an artist, and i would never make "art" like this, manoy because it's too ambiguous and too impersonal, as well as completely tying into already-known social standards about rape and women's power. to be art, in the definition that art pushes boundaries (which i'm not in total agreement with, but can see), the opposite image would exactly be controversial, in the media/social context in which it arrives. to show a women empowered by her fantasies, and giving wholehearted consent in a situation deemed usually uncomfortable for women (voyeurism, rape fantasy play, BDSM etc.), seems much much more subversive to me than one that plays on accepted social norms of how women should behave. however, plenty of the "artists" that work in the ad world don't give a shit about that kind of stuff. plus, the ad world is essentially just about money. the female body sells, the female body subjugated (by high heels, but being held down, etc.) sells even higher. precisely because of the context our culture gives us about women and their bodies and their sexual desires. that's the point i've gotten from the above posts, and which jeff patently doesn't seem to understand at all.

Even though I'm not easily shocked, I really feel like this ad screams "glamourization of rape". To me, the woman's face undoubtedly expresses discomfort, but even if she was totally vacant, the body language of the guy who holds her down is very aggressive. Besides, the very image of a man holding down a woman while 4 other men look on IS disturbing. As others have said above, it would be completely different if the woman expressed at least one sign of consent, but she doesn't. Even her hips appear to be lifted in a struggle against the man (note her knees' position).

Thomas,

Thanks for what you said up there, about being into BDSM and disliking the way kink is portrayed without context and sensitivity to audience, etc. A while back I saw a billboard on Sunset Blvd. here in L.A. where a gorgeous male model had a gorgeous female model across his lap with his hand raised like he was about to spank her. Her expression was pouty resignation. I have a hard-wired spanking fetish and have had it my whole life. And that billboard infuriated me. As did the movie Secretary. And the short story Secretary, for that matter.

That billboard bothered me because a) as far as I'm aware, people of all ages and experiences drive on the street and could see it; b) there is nothing sexy to me about the idea that women are bratty and pouty and resigned to our place of being discipline-able by authoritative men; c) these previous two points mean, to me, that kids could see that billboard and get an impression that has nothing to do with adults who have fetishes and are acting on them. Fine, with the idea that we don't need to shelter young people from human sexuality like it's a bad thing, but when it comes to fetishes, power play, sexualized pain, etc., where's the responsible aspect of showing a tiny sliver of such things with no explanation around them? If you don't want to hide that shit, then don't fucking hide it - no context and 99% of the information missing is a way of hiding things. Conspicuous absence is a spineless way of *including* meaning.

It looked like a rape in progress to me. Mindful that I might have been influenced by the way the picture was presented, I opened the picture in a new window (without the article) and asked my father what he saw. He said it looked like they were going to rape her.

And he isn't even particularly feminist.

I have an interesting story about this ad actually. One of my assorted group projects for the semester is going to be a content analysis of ads from Vogue and Esquire using Goffman's analysis of gender and advertising. Sitting with my group, flipping through an issue of Esquire to illustrate some points, I came across this ad. I dropped the magazine and gawked, then picked it up and showed it to the group, refering to it as a depiction of a rape. The 3 other girls in the group said "I don't think it really looks like a rape." I pointed to the look of pain on the woman's face, and no one seemed to really get my point. I pointed out that her wrists were pinned and the one guy in the group said "some girls like that."

I almost threw up.

What's truly disturbing is Dolce & Gabbana's statement about the ad, that the image is artistic and was meant to "recall an erotic dream, a sexual game." Just today, I read about a 17-year-old girl assaulted at a high school party where some male baseball players