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.