So, this billboard passed the advertising standards to start with (?) and was then condemned by the ASB following a complaint.

Well that doesn’t make any sense!

Surely all adds, especially ones that are pushing the envelope, need to be carefully assessed to up front. Then the ASB needs to defend their decision if there are a few complaints, not bow to them!

We can expect companies like Calvin Klein to be pushing the envelope. We could argue that many businesses need to take their business to the legal fringe in order to be competitive. Otherwise they’ll go by the wayside, or in the case of a giant like Calvin Klein, risk losing market share. And once a company like this loses a bit of ground and is seen to not be keeping up with current trends, fashions, etc, they could really lose out badly and find it very difficult to recover.

When things are taken to the limits, they’ll offend some people. If a few people complain, it is often a good sign for the relevant company that are being taken notice of and have pushed the limits just enough to be effective without overdoing it. (And if they have been deemed to have overdone it and have to retract a line of advertising, they’ll probably be noticed a whole lot more, with a resultant boost in sales.)

So we can expect a few complaints about all manner of advertising that is right up there at the limit of acceptability.

We really do need strong and consistent judgement from the likes of the ABS. If advertising is initially approved and then deemed to be unacceptable, the company should be able to sue for costs and damages to its reputation.

Is this billboard acceptable?

Well, I find it to be in quite poor taste, but otherwise not particularly objectionable. Just pretty damn ordinary really!

I’d be more concerned about the ASB in this instance.

I thank Helen for showing the whole advertisement. Other articles have only shown the picture on the left, which can be read as showing sexual assault, if you have a very suspicious view of men. The second part of the ad forms part of the story and detracts from the argument that the ad depicts rape.

I loved the Youtube take off and even more so one that popped up following it with the actors replaced with ordinary looking guy's, belly's boxers etc. The Sausage Fest version.

I think that those who saw a rape and sexual violence in the add were not doing so well with some of their own issues.

The branding business is nonsense, I've rarely gone for it except where a particular brand has the reputation for doing the job better than other brands. I apparently don't fit the demographics of the marketing because the add's don't in any way motivate me to buy anything.

Late night ebay is another matter :(

R0bert

I think the day of complaints are only beginning with the moslem moving among us.

This is a no-brainer. Can't believe this billboard was approved by the ASB in the first place.

We can be mindless robots and pretend this billboard is nothing special for fear of the usual 'wowser' labels, or we can grow a spine like those complainants and draw the line.

If advertising does not work, the tired old parroting from the big end of town, why use explicit images like this.

The comment by Hush in regard to trying the jeans is amazingly shallow. It is not about the jeans it is about the Ad. If the jeans are so good why present it as an erotic rape-simulation scenario?

Why are people always feigning a moderate approach on these issues for fear of being labelled, when clearly the Ad is unsuitable for public display.

Pelican I've not seen the add in real life so maybe I've missed something of it's impact.

If I was getting to ban add's there are a lot of places I'd focus on before an add like that.

Almost every political add would get the chop, most are far more deceptive and bad for our culture than that billboard.
Advertising of junk food to kid's.
Add's by lawyers promoting litigation.
Taxpayer paid for advertising promoting scheme's which are very much party political.
Anti-DV add's that provide a false impression of family violence.
Add's claiming that a nasal spray can help men hold their load longer.

I'm not big on censorship but would like to reduce the visual clutter so maybe a ban on all billboards and unnecessary road signage.

R0bert

Well clearly this billboard is working very well as advertising.
Congratulations to the agency.

The worst thing for an ad, is if it is ignored, as information
overload from other ads is the problem.

Love it or hate it, this ad is attracting attention and now
press coverage. If its banned, then it will land up on utube
and elsewhere.

All free promotion for Kelvin Klein jeans.

All along, even if you hate the ad, "Kelvin Klein jeans"
imprinted into all your brains. That is all it needs really.

No doubt their sales of jeans will increase.

Yep, I'm with you on most of those examples RObert. Agreed, billboards are ugly no matter the content. However this Ad would be unsuitable (IMO) for any other advertising outlet - not only billboards.

Seeing the photo provided by Melinda Tankard Reist pretty much frames the discussion.

MTR claims to be feminist, but is closely aligned with the Catholic church and advocates against reproductive rights and all forms of outward sexual expression.

I would wager that the 40 complaints came from this pseudo feminist and 39 of her blue rinsed colleagues that she phoned.

SM
Regardless of MTR's and others' beliefs about reproductive rights this article is about the public display of a specific piece of advertising.

Reproductive rights is not the subject of this article. And the pictures I have seen of MTR and other like-authors - so far not a blue rinse between them. Mockery only makes your own argument weaker - actually you did not make an argument about the Ad at all only criticised the author about something not even raised in the article.

I suspect that the billboard has already overachieved against its original projections, and the outdoor marketing team at CK is doing a jig around the boardroom table even as we speak.

They rely on the Helen Pringles and Melinda Tankard Reists (I notice it was she who took the picture) of this world to do the bulk of their work for them. On this occasion, they have performed perfectly to plan.

Meanwhile, as R0bert hints, our own personal reactions tell us more about ourselves than we might like, at first blush, to contemplate.

It should cause us to analyse, just a little bit, why we think the way we do. Which is a good thing.

Is it offensive to me, personally? Not really. I certainly didn't read "rape" into the pictures. Those "longer lasting sex" billboards, on the other hand, that contain no pictures at all, offend me deeply.

Would I be offended if the billboard was taken down? Not really. CK took a chance and went for it, and have had more than enough mileage out of it already. And "free speech" should, quite properly, have some limits that society can agree upon, from time to time.

They will never be absolute of course, and never unanimous. But that's the interesting - and fun - part about being human.

R0bert, agreed.

Ads for all those things that you mentioned are much worse than the likes of this billboard, when you stop and think about it.

A ban on billboards and other stuff that can distract drivers would also be a damn good idea.

Pericles, yes you can see why many companies try to push the limits of acceptability in their advertising: if they can get a few complaints and generate a bit of public debate and controversy, courtesy of the likes of Helen Pringle, then they are really on a winner.

That’s not supposed to be a criticism of the article author. This subject is certainly worth raising and debating and I say; good on her for bringing it to OLO.

Personally, I have no problem with this ad, nor am I any fan of MTR and her ilk - feeling that there are far more important issues women face than a sexy ad for jeans.

Actually I tried reversing the roles of the models in the ad - group of partially clad women holding a male and I prefer my fantasy - much more fun. I am a mature man with a fair amount of life experience, so the question I need to ask is would I want children to see this ad? This is where I have to agree with Helen Pringle, since the ad is on a billboard there is no opportunity for parents to prevent their kids from seeing the ad and I know as the father of a 12 YO girl - I don't want her seeing ads like this, same if I had a son.

If the ad appeared in a magazines like GQ or Cosmo, I would have no problem - those magazines cater to the same demographic Calvin Klein sells to.

But not on a billboard.

Agree, Yabby nothing like free advertising.

I agree about the free advertizing. If it wasnt for this article I would never have heard about Calvin Klien.

*A ban on billboards and other stuff that can distract drivers would also be a damn good idea.*

Sheesh Ludwig, then they would have to ban those cute 18 year olds
walking along the road, with long legs, short skirts and cleavage
down to their bellybuttons. Fact is sheer boredom distracts alot
of drivers.

I really think we are being overgoverned here, driven by wowsers.

Nobody is naked in the ad. Nobody is showing a nipple, or a penis
or anything else. I betcha that plenty of women would be perving
on those young guys abs, but fair enough, it sells. Calvin Klein
sells jeans, one way or another.

Pelican,

The ad, like many of the CK ads is creating a link between their brand and eroticism. MTR and her blue rinse cohorts are objecting to the sexuality expressed in the ad and the "rape", which did not cross the minds of 99.9% of the rest of the world, was the only pretext they could use to justify their Victorian prudity.

Perhaps the next pretext will be that it causes old ladies to fall off their zimmer frames, or that they don't represent real women in the ad.

MTR for god's sake get a life, if this is what you complain about, they should confiscate your false teeth.

The worst thing about this add is that somebody in one of our universities is wasting time payed for by the tax payer in researching the garbage, & writing about it. No wonder our higher education institutions are in trouble.

No wonder Oz is in trouble with deficits, when any taxpayer funded person has time to write about this cr4p.

Although I often see billboards, I rarely actually see what's on them. I must have been walking when I saw this one, as I did see the add to some extent. Not all that well though, as my thought was, "what a pile of garbage, just to sell deodorant". Perhaps the add was not that good.

Helen's effort was much more effective however. As Huggins says,I wouldn't have known it was a jeans add, or what company was involved, if it was not for her talk-fest. I wonder if Calvin Klein will be sending her a cheque for services rendered.

I wrote:

< A ban on billboards and other stuff that can distract drivers would also be a damn good idea. >

Good ol Yabby wrote:

<< Sheesh Ludwig, then they would have to ban those cute 18 year olds
walking along the road, with long legs, short skirts and cleavage
down to their bellybuttons. Fact is sheer boredom distracts alot
of drivers. >>

Ooow, very good point Yabs!

Alright, let me modify my view - let's ban all billboards except for ones with 'hwaaaw' & 'whee wheoo' value!

It is about where to draw the line - and this one crosses it.

Old men twittering on about their blue rinse fantasies does not change the fact that this Ad is on public display.

*It is about where to draw the line - and this one crosses it.*

Sheesh, there was silly old me, always thinking that naughty
bits were the line. I don't see anything in that ad, that
I don't see on tv every day.

So by my definition Pelican, I would have to place you in
the wowser category :)

Now kids can just turn on their radios and hear the ad for
lasting longer in bed, over and over again. But it seems
that passes the standards test.

Pelican,

As Yabby said, the line was drawn. MTR and her fuddy duddy blue rinse cohorts are trying to move the line.

There are no naughty bits, rude language etc only innuendo.

It is now not only enough not to show naughty things, but one must not inspire naughty thoughts.

Finally MTR and the blue rinse thought police might inspire the following Calvin Klein ad.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_OR8dKL3XDN8/S6wFo4nEW8I/AAAAAAAAFSM/_LgCLvF61e4/s1600/burqa-contest.jpg

good chance that it is the porn industry is complaining. They don't like others showing the filth that they sell. It robs them of money. It seems their is a portion of depraved secularist who are not happy to keep their filth to themselves but want to shove it in the communities face at every bend.

Does the billboard portray a female fantasy.

Possibly, and possibly not. Who knows.

I don't like any billboards. They are visual pollution, and the excessive number of billboards and advertisement signs in Australian towns and cities have made them into some of the most un-picturesque (or boringly ugly) towns and cities in the world.

I would love to see the advertising people rework the existing ad by adding a stupid fake smile to the female model's face and speech bubbles to the male models, where they ask for permission to play with her hair.

I have actually liked some of the rather racy billboard ads put up by Calvin Klein in the past. Advertising is a fact of modern life.

This particular billboard depicts a potentially violent situation
,as far as I am concerned. They were right to ban it.

Unfortunately, as proved by the predominantly male responders to this thread, many men would find a picture like this sexually attractive.
It is a seriously misguided male fantasy that women would actually like this situation...

Like Pelican, I was uncomfortable with that depiction of 3 writhing aggressive looking men leaning over a lone, half naked woman.

Most women would feel the same way I should think.

So there is at least half of the consumer market who would not like that billboard.

Shadow Minister- I looked up a website about Melinda Tankard Reist,
and she sooo doesn't look like anyone I ever saw with a blue rinse!

Get your facts right before you mouth off online.
Check it out for yourself:
http://melindatankardreist.com/about/

No need to call the thought police and blame it on those awful men, women can distinguish between fantasy and reality,

http://www.healthyplace.com/sex/psychology-of-sex/womens-top-ten-sexual-fantasies/menu-id-1482/

http://www.healthyplace.com/sex/psychology-of-sex/are-sexual-fantasies-good-for-us/menu-id-1482/

If women's clothes buying isn't about fantasy what is?

Next the model needs sexy, stylish and seductive shoes, two pairs minimum unless there is a sale.

Suzeonline,

I am perfectly familiar with MTR, and while she is not ancient (though her photo is far from current) most of her followers are.

She is the Sarah Palin of the feminist movement, and as a strict adherent of the Catholic Church opposes women's control over reproductive rights and any pretty much any form of sexual expression.

It is strange that Australia was the only western country to ban the ad, and that virtually no one else saw the "potential violence". If this wasn't so sad it would be funny.

Dear commenters,

This ad was not banned. That is not the way the ASB works. What is more, my opinion piece specifically notes that it was not banned, and this leads me to wonder if people are commenting on my argument or on some other argument that I have not made.

Also, my opinion piece does not deal with the question of whether this or any other ad should be banned. In fact, I oppose "prior censorship" by the state in the form popularly known as "banning". The ASB is not part of the "state" in any strict sense anyway.

Lastly, I wonder if commenters might perhaps refrain from personal ridicule that is unconnected to my argument. People who know me, like some commenters, know that I have a fairly thick skin and am comfortable with robust debate. And I actually think there is too much rhetorical "inflation" in Australian debate, with words like "hate" or "bullying" often taken out of their appropriate context and used instead to characterise what is simply disagreement. But come on, what has a 1950s hair dye got to do with an argument about how advertising works?

thank you for the comments, and the disagreements!

Helen

Helen, you wrote:

<< In a rare move, the Australian Advertising Standards Bureau (ASB) recently upheld a complaint against an advertiser. >>

So, how can the ASB uphold a complaint without then banning the ad?

What does upholding the complaint actually mean??

In my first post I wrote:

< So, this billboard passed the advertising standards to start with (?) and was then condemned by the ASB following a complaint.

Well that doesn’t make any sense! >

Do ads have to pass standards up front or is it self-regulated, or only regulated inasmuch as there is the potential for the ASB to ban an ad or criticise the company if it is deemed to have gone too far?

It begs the question: how on Earth does the ASB actually work??

Could you enlighten us a little. Thanks.

Whilst this is not exactly definative research it might be worth some consideration for those who think that group sex would not appeal to many women (as a visual fantasy even if not something they would choose to do)

http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/lifematters/women-embrace-group-sex-survey-20090526-blpi.html

There is plenty of other material around which suggests that as a fantasy goes it's one that a number of women enjoy. That does not need to translate into a willingness to try it in the same numbers or even a willingness to tell friends who they suspect would disapprove of it.

R0bert

Oh come on RObert!
Don't try to tell me that a billboard like that one would appeal to women as much as it does to men?
In your dreams! :)

Helen,

With all due respect, while the ad was not "banned" CK was forced to take it down, and it is unlikely they will display it again, saying it was not banned is just semantics.

Secondly, CK's advertising is about selling perception, and making you buy jeans for $200 when you can buy $20 jeans at a discount warehouse. The message is simple, wearing CK jeans will make you desirable by many hot young men.

"Blue rinse brigade" was specifically used to create a mental image of someone with old fashioned, out of touch ideas.

Suzeonline,

While it may have appeal to men, it does sell to women very successfully, as the sales results will show. Probably more to the youth more than the blue rinse matrons.

<< There is plenty of other material around which suggests that as a fantasy goes it's one that a number of women enjoy. >>

Absolutely. And as you say R0bert, that doesn’t mean that they are willing to try it. The vast majority would presumably keep it entirely within the realm of fantasy.

CK knows this. That’s why they produce this sort of ad. Because it works!

To state the obvious: if it didn’t work, we wouldn’t see ads like this. And it can only work if it appeals to the fantasies or desires of the targeted demographic.

*That’s why they produce this sort of ad. Because it works!*

Exactly Ludwig. I think that the wowsers and Suze are reading far
too much into it all.

Advertising agencies are pretty good psychologists. The human brain
works by association, thats all it needs, even though most
consumers would not even be aware or it. So to create a status
symbol, advertising creates these associations.

In this case its attractive young people with jeans. In the case
of Nike its Tiger Woods and their shoes. With Rolex, Hermes
handbags etc, its all the same, success associated with their
products.

Result is people will pay a fortune for these products, as they
seek status. China is now the world's biggest market for these
expensive products, as the rich and aspiring, seek status.

Which is all a very clever way to make a quid.

Cosmetics is a classic, as they generally don't cost much to
manufacture. I once knew a cosmetics manufacturer who had been
selling cheaper lines to supermarkets etc. They put their prices
up 40% and as a result sold 50% more in volume, as people associated
a higher price with a better product.

People don't generally study billboards in depth. Its just that
flash of an association that remains in their minds, that does
the trick

Dear Ludwig, good question! The ASB has lots of information on its website, which is well designed and very easy to work through. A good place to begin is the FAQ section:

http://www.adstandards.com.au/process/frequentlyaskedquestions

Plus the section on self-regulation:
http://www.adstandards.com.au/self-regulation-system/aboutself

The mechanism of what happens when a complaint is upheld is described on the FAQs as: "the advertiser is requested to remove or amend the offending advertisement as soon as possible after receiving a copy of the draft case report."

Shadow Minister, I don't think it is semantics to say that banning is a different thing from a request to remove made to one of its members by a voluntary and self-regulating association, an organisation that moreover that has no means of enforcing its "request" other than to say, well maybe you belong in a different voluntary organisation.

kind regards, Helen

What concerns me is that the few, in this case a moral minority, can easily force censorship for the many.

This is a return to post-WW2 when censorship was usual and the excuse of sex (alleged 'pornography') was a convenient way of pulling down the curtains on anything the ruling elite didn't want the public to know. It also offered politicians like Joh Bjelke Peterson a blunt weapon to castigate and attack the credibility of all who opposed them, even if it was a rather naive but well-intentioned remark by a Miss Australia entrant who happened to notice the poor treatment of Aboriginals at the time.

The Reverend Fred Nile must stand in awe at the ease with which MTR and others can wield the pink cosh - faux gender wars to secure further losses of freedom affecting all citizens.

Make no mistake, this fight is about preserving our freedom and should we blink it will cost us dearly.

'The Board considered that whilst the act depicted could be consensual, the overall impact and most likely takeout is that the scene is suggestive of violence and rape.'

Where is the suggestion of violence? IN the minds of those who see group sex as something no woman would voluntarily partake in. This illustrates an age old prejudice against women. Women are sexual beings and can enjoy group sex.

If you reversed the genders in the picture would it still depict violence and rape? No, it would no doubt be put up as an example of objectification of women.

So why isn't this objectification of men. The woman is 'using' 3 men as sexual objects for her own 'gratification'. Where is MTR on all this?

'Our desires and even our very sense of what is erotic have been formed, not merely affected, by the way in which Klein has pushed his envelope. '

Speak for yourself! My desire for group sex pre-dates Klein!

It's almost as if all these feminist commentators think there would be no such thing as group sex or anything other than missionary position lights off sex if advertising or porn never 'corrupted' us. Bollocks!

Suze,

'Don't try to tell me that a billboard like that one would appeal to women as much as it does to men?
In your dreams! :)'

There's 3 half naked men to 1 half naked woman. Many many women like to look at half naked men. And I'm still shocked anyone genuinely sees rape in that picture. Did a quick poll around the office, words like 'he's lush' were the result.

pelican,

You see rape? really? I'm worried about you.

It's like the many video clips from 'edgy' female pop stars with lots of half naked men lusting after them. There is desire and lust on the women and men's face. But, for people who somehow think no women would want group sex...

Nice girls don't? Blah!

I think some women think it's impossible for a woman to be in control of a situation like this. But that is based on the premise that the situation is manufactured by a man somehow. If you open your minds and saw women can and do desire the lust and attention of multiple men, and even hold power with the desire they cause you just aren't living in the real world.

Which comes down to the rejection of fantasy. I don't think that's a valid stance when we're looking at the imagery of desire.

IF one of these three blokes decided to do something out of the woman's control here, without consent, yes, there is little she would be able to do about it. But to read that as the default position is basically saying 'all men are rapists by default' and 'even in fantasy, women never want multiple partners'.

Perhaps the fantasy is safe for the woman, why should we sabotage safe fantasies women can have with multiple male partners with zero risk? Because that would wrongly project men as innocent or harmless?

Are we upset about women even fantasising about a situation where in real life men are behaving ethically in a position of power? Or is that just unfathomable in the first place?

To get in the spirit of things, here is a banned (UK) Levis jeans advertisement,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSG807d3P-U

Of course young women want to look hot in their iconic jeans.

The advertising for boiler suits, flannel shirts and Redback steel toed boots is markedly different, check the Target junk mail in the letterbox.

There is nothing wrong with the sexuality of young women and it should not be censored. That is what the complaints about the Calvin Klein advertisement are really about, telling young women what they can and cannot do Fifties style, it has nothing to do with men.

Thanks Helen. Appreciated.

I perceive a real problem though with this self-regulation business. From the website:

< As a voluntary system self regulation relies very much on the good will, good sense, and commitment of advertisers… >

But, advertisers of the CK ilk are constantly trying to push the envelope or take their ads right up there into that precarious territory where some people are going to be offended in order to be noticed and be effective, without getting them banned.

That’s just the sort of stuff that I would have thought should NOT be left in the realms of self-regulation but should have to seek approval up front.

Corny, aren’t the Poms a bunch of old stodges for banning an ad like that!

Pfff!

I don't believe that CK is trying to push the envelope and offend. These ads recognise the sexuality and humour of young women. That is why the advertisements appeal to them - the healthy sexual fantasy of being hot and in control. The model is not a victim, quite the opposite and young women know that. Young women do need these moral guardians to control what they see and do, it is all out of the Fifties.

Those who object to or are threatened by young women's sexuality and wish to control them through censorship are not likely to admit that fact.

Levi's ad featuring Jennifer Love Hewitt was innocent too. Walk along, kiss b/f, quite wholesome. See here,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7C3S5L6ccGk&feature=related

Men are not so competitive that they would try to banish advertisements featuring male models with well-turned 'buns' and shoulders, even where the models are being ogled and manhandled by women. Men just have a wry grin at their fantasies (as young women do) and buy the featured product.

Helen,

You make the ASB sound like a knitting circle.

The Advertising Standards Bureau is government organisation that appoints and administers the code through the "voluntary" Advertising Standards Board. This gives the ASB real teeth.

To suggest that a request to remove an advert is a friendly suggestion with no consequences is a bit of a porky.

"If an advertising or marketing communication is found to breach a provision of the Codes and the advertiser/marketer does not modify or discontinue the advertising or marketing communication within the allowed time frame, the Board will:

include the advertiser/marketer’s failure to respond in the case report
forward the case report to media proprietors
post the case report on the ASB’s website, and
if appropriate, the ASB can refer the case report to the appropriate government agency."

Which essentially means the advertiser gets a black mark with the media outlets (making advertising more difficult) and faces scrutiny from the government which in itself is likely to be very expensive (as anyone going through a tax audit will attest to)

Yabby
"So by my definition Pelican, I would have to place you in
the wowser category :)"

Well it won't be the first time. :P

You guys are getting caught up in concepts of sexual fantasy rather than simply asking is this billboard appropriate in the public domain.

What has sexual fantasy got to do with it, do we parade our sexual fantasies in public. Humans are sexual beings and while there is no no shame in that (why should there be), neither should rape fantasy simulation or group sex simulation Ads be displayed for public viewing. The public includes children - the world is not just made up of adults.

Helen and others at least have the courage to raise issues like this in knowledge that she will no doubt be subject to some form of ridicule.

If people were complaining about Ads where a women's bikini or bra showed her cleavage or a man o women's bum in underwear then we would have something to worry about. I do think this Ad falls well outside the 'wowser' category.

*You guys are getting caught up in concepts of sexual fantasy rather than simply asking is this billboard appropriate in the public domain.*

Er Pelican, you are speaking for yourself here. You are the one
jumping to conclusions.

My response was simple and straightforward. No naughty bits
are shown in the ad. The rest is in your imagination and you
are protesting against what you imagine. So who has a dirty mind
here?

I want to know if anybodys brought a pair of Clavin Klien jeans since this artical was put up?

'You guys are getting caught up in concepts of sexual fantasy'

pelican,

You're the one who has read rape into it. If you think it's too explicit, that's one thing, there are laws about that. But it isn't too explicit, there is no 'naughty bits' showing, it is only explicit when you choose to read the themes you want to read into it. These themes are also way above a childs understanding. Should we ban The Simpsons and the sexual innuendo in the Batman TV series? They have stayed safely in public space and it safely flies over kids heads.

I think we have addressed very well the fallacy of reading such themes as you have into this billboard, and the prejudices they demonstrate and perpetuate. When you base your objections on a far fetched theme and not on any explicit depiction you really invite ridicule.

In short, you're stretching.

It is too simplistic to suggest the only indication of appropriateness for public viewing is 'naughty bits'.

Pray tell what image you think Calvin Klein was trying to portray.

Thanks Helen and others who continue to raise these issues and refusing to be dragged into the PC age where one can't comment about anything that might be considered unfashionable or against the 'trend'.

Houlley
I am happy to invite ridicule when it is clear that the pro-Ad arguments are distracting from the real issue, but I will continue on nevertheless. I think the Ad is as explicit it as it could be without actual 'naughty bits' revealed which would place it in the 'R' category as regards public display.

If you think explicit depiction with naughty bits is all that is needed to simulate rape then perhaps you need a reality check.

*Pray tell what image you think Calvin Klein was trying to portray.*

That depends on what is going on in your very brain, to give you
your perception. So the problem is not the ad, but your mind.

I just saw a group of young actors/models, obviously staged and
artificial, so typical of an ad. And then I noticed the girl
with really long legs on the right. That's it.

Nothing naughty on the billboard, all the naughty bits in your
brain, Pelican. That is the reality of it.

pelican I agree with a point that Helen made that they are selling something more general than just the jeans. In answer to your question

"Pray tell what image you think Calvin Klein was trying to portray."

I think that they are selling the message to young women that CK products will enhance womens sexual power over men. They will be in control, able to have their pick of hot men. A reversed (and steamier) version of the Lynx add's.

I didn't answer one of Suzie's questions earlier in the thread. I'm not inside enough other peoples heads to say for sure which gender the add would appeal to more but given the add seems to be targeting women's jeans I think it's reasonable to assume that the advertisers made it for women. If they were targeting men then there would be less men in the add and more women.

If I'm going to have fantasies about group sex they definitely don't need to include other men.

R0bert

Pelican,

And others who see a rape scene, try the Rorschach ink blot test, and see how many violent acts you can determine.

Those that do generally have had violent experiences, or have been prompted (as was the ASB review).

The rest of the population were blissfully unaware of the imaginary rape scene.

Well pelican,

As I said, if you see rape in that image, I think you have problems.

It seems in your world, if a woman is depicted getting amorous with three men, then it is fait accompli she is being raped. I think that shows a very narrow view of women and an unfair view of men.

Is it so improbable that men in a position of power will not abuse that power? Is it so improbable that a woman may fantasise about and enjoy sex with multiple male partners? Are you so threatened by a picture showing a woman being desired by three men at once that you envisage rape? Are the men in your world so corrupt that you cant see these three men as innocent or harmless? You cant see this woman with any power here ?

'Pray tell what image you think Calvin Klein was trying to portray.'

Desire, and the thrill of being desired. It's a bloody long way from rape.

Dear Shadow Minister,

ASB FAQs:
Is the Advertising Standards Bureau a government body?
The Advertising Standards Bureau is not a government body. It is the secretariat for the Advertising Standards Board and the Advertising Claims Board. The Bureau is governed by a Board of Directors and is funded by a levy.

Now unless you know something I don't about its secret relations with the government, I suggest we accept this self-description.

I do not "suggest that a request to remove an advert is a friendly suggestion with no consequences". I simply said it is not the same thing as "banning".

Helen

Helen

<< I want to know if anybodys brought a pair of Clavin Klien jeans since this artical was put up? >>

Good query. Not me Huggins. Never bought a pair of CK jeans or any other new jeans for that matter. Buy my clothes at Vinnies of Lifeline.

While it is interesting to ponder the motivations and connotations of ads like this, they completely don’t work for me. In fact, they work strongly against their purpose – they tell me that the product is definitely grossly overpriced and that if you look around you’ll get something just as good for a fraction of the price.

Attracting and maybe even having sex with many admirers, especially strangers, is a common reported theme of female sexual fantasy, as evidenced in the SBS documentary The Female Orgasm Explained that is presently being shown at present,

http://www.sbs.com.au/documentary/program/thefemaleorgasmexplained/about/synopsis

There is a pod-cast.

No-one has produced any evidence so far to suggest that Calvin Klien was doing anything but recognising and appealing to women's fantasies in the billboard advertisement. For what reason would a reputable business, or any business for that matter, waste a small fortune in advertising dollars misdirecting its advertising to titillate men when they are in fact trying to sell a product to young women?

It is like shooting fish in a barrel, getting men to defend themselves when they should be picking up on the very obvious, which is that this is censorship directed at women and instigated by women. Men are just pawns in the game, the cover for the traditional censorship of women, especially younger women, by those women who consider themselves to be the keepers of other women's morals.

There is the easy, simple and reasonable explanation for the scene in the billboard, which is that Calvin cleverly sought to appeal to young, healthy, fashionable women with money to spend and then there is the complicated, censorious allegation, that this company set out to waste a large sum of its advertising money to offend their women buyers while entertaining those disgusting men.

Any in doubt of what women might fantasise about should view the SBS documentary again.

My general experience with the ASB is that a number of people have to complain, and then the ASB might consider the ad.

If they are going to review the ad, the company supplies the ABS with the ad together with an excuse (although this costs the company time and money to do this).

About 100% of the time, the excuse will say that the ad was reviewed by a private panel before it went public, and the majority of the people on the panel approved the ad as being appropriate.

The company will also likely say that the ad was meant to be “funny” or “quirky”, which is another way of saying that the ad was meant to get up your nose.

The ASB is a farce that dismisses about 99% of complaints. But they sometimes put the complaints online, and everyone can see the company involved.

My complaints have mainly been about sexists, discriminatory, feminist type ads that portrayed men as being dumb and stupid.

Hi Ludvig I havent brought any CK jeans either! If the add was suposed to sell jeans it doesnt seem to work very well hey?

Very interesting Cornflour but have you brought any CK jeans?

Huggins,

So you haven't found any women's CK jeans to fit, dear?

Don't fret, ute owners are more into the Colonel's finger lickin' chicken and Coke (or is that Pepsi?) than CK jeans and that is for sure. The unisex rectangular and square shaped jeans in Target are for you.

CK is appealing to a different section of society entirely.

Now is it a black Holden SS ute you drive or are you a Ford tragic?

<< If the add was suposed to sell jeans it doesnt seem to work very well hey? >>

Huggins, I reckon that CK knows exactly what they are doing with their advertising and that it works very well for them, and all the more so now that the ASB has publicly criticised this ad, the media has taken it up, and online discussions have followed.

I reckon the ASB finding, which was purported to point the finger at CK for overstepping the mark, has achieved precisely the opposite – it has done the company a whole lot of good.

What’s that old saying? ‘Any publicity is good publicity’.

It makes you wonder why more companies don’t really push the envelope in the hope that they will be pinged by the ASB!!

I’m still not sure how this business really operates, but it seems that with the self-regulation regime, companies are free to put up billboards or other ads that clearly overstep the mark, and then if they are ordered to take them down, they’ll rejoice in a really successful outcome, because they’ll get much more coverage for their add, publicity about the company and positive notoriety than they could ever hope to get with an ad that stayed comfortably within the guidelines!

*that this company set out to waste a large sum of its advertising money to offend their women buyers while entertaining those disgusting men.*

FWIW Cornflower, I thought that your post of last night, was
an extremely good one.

You've thought it through and expressed it very well indeed.

So congratulations from me!

Yes Ludvig your probably right CK uses such adds to create a Stir but funny that Nobody at this sight buys theyr jeans. I dont know what Cornflours on about but I looked on the CK websight and they sell Mens Jeans too But Ive always been a Levis man, the CK jeans look a bit Gay for me.

And Cornflour I dont know what your trying to say but Ive got a Rodeo ute and I dont eat junk food its unhealthy, also you didnt say wether you brought any CK Jeans or not

Ludwig,
I'm not too ceretain about whether any publicity is good publicity.

The ASB has no pride and will approve just about anything, but if there are complaints made to the ASB by the public about an ad, it costs the company time and money to respond to those complaints. The company involved has to prepare a number of documents to respond to the complaint, and that costs time and money.

I remember making complaints to the ASB about a local company that was portaying men in a feminist and negative way on the radio.

They won, and my complaint was dismissed by the ASB, but the company took the ad off the radio.

Perhaps I should have said a suggestion of rape rather than "rape simulation". It is also suggestive of group sex or sexual empowerment as others have read into it - perhaps all of those things. The image could be suggestive of many things as it was probably designed to be.

Men may see the Ad differently to women. Men don't live in the same 'world' as women, from birth we are told to be careful and not to put ourselves in certain situations. Rape is something that happens to many women despite some hideous comments on OLO suggesting that rape is usually down to a woman regretting consensual sex or that she is at fault for being in the wrong place, or for having too much too drink. In no other crime is the 'victim' viewed in any way responsible as in rape.

Houlley you know very well that I don't see ALL men as rapists. To reduce the argument to that level is ridiculously simplistic and distorts what I am writing to suit your own perception. We are talking in terms of the image the Ad portrays not what it says about men or women in general.

Yabby it is not what is in my mind or yours it is simply is this image suitable for the public domain.

Some people may see it as empowering women at it's most inocuous - (I don't see that at all) however it still does not make the image suitable and I am glad it is not sitting up at the end of my street where kids can see it.

It is possible to be frank and forthright about the Calvin Klein advertisement, accepting that while it does draw from the normal sexual fantasies of women, it is a little too graphic to be shown on a public billboard.

It is absolute rot though to use men as the excuse or claim that it will encourage sex crimes (and only by men!).

It is the dishonesty of the critics and the pious, disapproving 'but women don't think like that' that I find distasteful, nasty and controlling. Would that all children were protected against such cant and hypocrisy, which is far more insidious and dangerous than a little honesty about female eroticism will ever be.

I should have added that I still do not find sufficient reason for the advertisement to be pulled.

<< Ludwig, I'm not too ceretain about whether any publicity is good publicity. >>

Granted Vanna. I was being a tad simplistic with that statement. However, all too often publicity that is supposed to be critical of a company actually works in their favour.

You say:

<< The ASB is a farce that dismisses about 99% of complaints. But they sometimes put the complaints online, and everyone can see the company involved. >>

They should put up ALL complaints there along with the ASB responses, and the relevant companys’ responses where required. In the interests of transparency and public confidence, this would be a good thing.

I haven’t gone runting around the website. So I don’t know to what extent they might be doing this.

Cornflower
You think the Ad a little too graphic for a public billboard yet you disagree that it is sufficient for the Ad to be pulled.

If it is too graphic then shouldn't it be pulled? That is all the reason needed.

Huggin's while not knowing the ages of other posters my impression is that most of us posting on this thread are not part of the CK target demographic. Mostly a little older or maybe somewhat less inclined to be driven by image.

How many people in your block of flat's own newish BMW's? If the answer is none that does not mean that there is no market for BMW's.

R0bert

*Yabby it is not what is in my mind or yours it is simply is this image suitable for the public domain.*

Pelican, there is nothing in that ad that you won't see down at
the beach, but then you Canberra people don't see many beaches :)

Of course it is about what is in your mind. It is how the mind
works by association, which advertisers take advantage of.

Cornflower put the case very well, but in this case we have a few
odd women who are making wrong associations, which tells us something
about their minds. Advertisers are not going to do that on purpose,
but advertising is a numbers game. As long as you appeal to the
majority of the target audience, the odd bods don't matter.

A young, hormonally charged female, is going to have a different
perception to yourself.

But let me tell you something else. Much as your maternal concerns
are showing, you are not going to protect those kids as you think,
if they are curious. I remember in grade 3, drawing things on
the blackboard when the teacher was not around, which were pretty
dam explicit. If your daughter had been in my grade 3 class, she
would have known everthing !

Today they only have to google and they will find free video
porn and absolutaly no imagination is required. The only people
who did not have a clue as to what we knew, were our parents.
We had no good reason to tell them either.

R0bert, it appears that Huggins won’t be responding to you:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4109#103263

pelican, "You think the Ad a little too graphic for a public billboard yet you disagree that it is sufficient for the Ad to be pulled."

Maybe I wasn't clear enough, I trying to present what could be a reasonable grounds for objection, a appeal that accepted the reality of women's sensuality and yet was concerned about the possibility of community affront. Whilst it appeared to be the only argument for censorship of the advertisement that could have any reasonable basis at all, I nonetheless felt it did not have sufficient strength in modern times and said so. The community is not so naive and easily outraged.

What is far more interesting is that the critics of the advertisement didn't rely on such a simple and logical argument and chose to focus on men instead. Why?

Ludwig,
I just did a quick scan of the ASB website and it appears that they have changed it, and now it is not so easy to find the list of companies that people have complained about.

In the past, reading through the complaints from the public, and then reading the responses of the ASB was often a chuckle, as the ASB would basically approve anything, no matter how bad the advertising.

What is interesting is the board of the ASB.

It says

“People sought for appointment to the Board ideally have an interest in, and views on, advertising and community standards.”

The board currently includes people such as TANVEER AHMED, THE HON JOHN BROWN, THOMAS KENEALLY, JOHN LEE, GARY RICE, NATASHA STOTT DESPOJA

Now this is a rather auspicious list, but unfortunately it has not improved the standards or honesty of most advertising.

Sell the sizzle but not the steak seems to be the ongoing motto of most advertising, and excessive advertising signs spread all over the place would now be the number one culprit for visual pollution of our towns and cities.

If this thread achieves anything at all it should be the recognition of the simple fact that sometimes those who claim to represent women might have another irons in the fire. That is why the sexual revolution was necessary in the first place. Freedom has to be fought for every single day and it is a hell of a lot easier for the dark side to triumph where a wedge can be forced between the sexes.

Women's sexuality was always the main fighting ground and it will continue to be into the future. No girl should grow up under the cloud that hung over female sexuality in the Fifties. It is an absolute disgrace that women's sexuality as faithfully represented in the Calvin Klein billboard - which most young women would recognise and respond to and it IS art not pornography - has again been labelled as dirty, dangerous and serving men not women. What a crock! That advertisement is so feminine and full of artistic creativity and merit. It is all in the mind.

While sexual honesty might trouble some of the older generation, especially those educated as Roman Catholics, that is no reason to strip young women of their birth rights.

Men can help by not getting sucked into gender wars through the inevitable (and very effective) baiting. That means attacking the issue and letting the odd few enticing wides to go through to the keeper.

Cornflower,

Brilliant posting on here. I agree with what you say wholeheartedly.

Yabby,

'Of course it is about what is in your mind. It is how the mind
works by association, which advertisers take advantage of.

Cornflower put the case very well, but in this case we have a few
odd women who are making wrong associations, which tells us something
about their minds.'

I second that. It tells us a lot about your mind pelican.

Though I wouldn't say 'wrong associations', I'd say 'odd'.

In the end I think it's troublesome that a minority's wild imagination can have such an effect as to have the advert removed. There should be a more objective test about a reasonable interpretation. In any work of art you can read into it all sorts of things. I'd bet if one read pack rape into an advert featuring a man at the 'mercy' of 3 women it would just bring howls of laughter.

I think it's interesting that if you reverse the genders, that kind of scene would be described by the same people as objectifying women.

So, depiction of 3 women lusting after a male (Ala lynx type advert maybe); Objectifying women.
3 men lusting after a female; Pack Rape of a woman.

The corollary of cornflowers great discussion here about the censoring of women's sexual fantasy is the damning and demonizing of men's sexual desire as necessarily predatory. In both scenarios above we're encouraged by some to read man as predator, woman as victim. It's high time this is rejected.

'has again been labelled as dirty, dangerous and serving men not women. What a crock! That advertisement is so feminine and full of artistic creativity and merit.'

Yes, doubly so as the men in it are even feminine. Just imagine, if the men were more masculine, or perhaps older than the woman. The rape cries would be stronger I believe. Or even if they dressed as bogans or blue collar workers. The lower class male or the more hairy male is even more fearsome and predatory and 'corrupt' than the smooth-chested metrosexual.

Vanna

<< “People sought for appointment to the Board ideally have an interest in, and views on, advertising and community standards.” >>

Hihihihehe. That’s funny!

Ideally?? So what they are really saying is that people appointed to this board don’t necessarily have to have any interest in, or views on, advertising or community standards!

Crikey! I would have expected that only experts in the field would have been eligible to sit on the Advertising Standards Board!

<< Now this is a rather auspicious list … >>

Ooow, I don’t think so. It’s a rather SUSpicious list if you ask me!

No wonder << it has not improved the standards or honesty of most advertising. >>

In the interests of public confidence, they really do need to have experts in the field on the panel, and not a set of odd-bods, who may or may not have any expertise or even any particular interest in the subject!