My Photo

Subscribe

Your email address:


Powered by FeedBlitz

Blog powered by TypePad
Member since 08/2005

.

SPONSOR

« Surgeon General Says: Stop Marketing Alcohol To The Under-Aged | Main | Getting Hooked on Businessweek's John Fine. »

Thursday, March 08, 2007

Dolce & Gabbana Gang Rape Ad Banned in Italy, as it "offended the dignity of the woman"

DgadDolce and Gabbana continue to spark contraversy, as a print ad, suggesting gang rape, is been banned from Italian publications.

According to an article by Agence France-Presse appearing in Australia's News.com.au, "The advertisement showing a woman pinned to the ground by the wrists by a bare-chested man, with other men in the background looking on", has been banned since March 6, the Advertising Self-Discipline Institute (IAP) said. The ad "offended the dignity of the woman, in the sense that the feminine figure is shown in a degrading manner. The woman has an alienated expression, with an absent look".

When the ad was pulled in Spain in February, D and G labelled the country "a bit backward" for the objections raised by the government and a consumer association.

These complaints follow similar concerns around Dolce & Gabbana "Knifing" ads in the UK.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/472678/16694284

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Dolce & Gabbana Gang Rape Ad Banned in Italy, as it "offended the dignity of the woman":

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

This is funny and stupid at the same time. This ad is as inoffensive as McDonald's ad in my opinion.

Is it sexy? Yes! But then again so is Dolce & Gabbana.

I don't see why it's being banned.

Ron E
http://brandcurve.com

The individual models in the ad may be sexy but when they're put together in a simulated rape scene they're ugly. I'm glad the ad was banned.

I don't see it. It's certainly a sex-charged ad, but I don't see how it crosses the line for these reasons:

1. The woman's eyes appear to me to be shut, so I don't see the "alienated" look. For that matter, I could frown and you wouldn't be able to tell if I was angry or just thinking hard. She certainly shows no distress.

2. Both of the woman's legs are in the foreground in front of the man. I'd probably draw the line if he was between them, but I honestly don't see the big deal.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the author has approved them.

This weblog only allows comments from registered users. To comment, please Sign In.

Brought to you by:

Sponsors

  • Advertise on 5 Blogs Before Lunch

Advertising Age Power 150