*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.