the first thing that comes to mind is that women love having sex with groups of men.

it promotes the image that women are simply sexual objects and always looking for some. She's lifting her hips, in anticipation. that's not rape. that's playboy/penthouse porn images of women loving it from many men at once.

does this promote gang rape? I am a believer that rape is an act of violence. I'm not sure a sexual picture is going to create the rage it takes to rape.

the all boy ad, I think, does the same thing. his hands on on his chest, comfortably, as if waiting..

such bullshit in advertising. I can't believe my kids see this crap on subway ads and in magazines. it's soft porn.

in my humble opinion.

Not surprised, considering their clientele. Let's just say that the people I've met who wear D&G aren't the most socially aware folks out there, but really really care about being cool.

No, not really. The one with the female may cause some initial anxiety, merely because her wrists are being held. The woman is not portraying struggle, though; this is a key element for heterosexual gangbang scenes: The woman struggles first, and then she submits to the supposed pleasure. Submission is the real fetish.

You'll find that most straight women actually are accustomed to being the passive entity in the act, so this won't be found offensive by most people at all. It's mainstream heterosexual sexuality characterized by the usual standards of the gender binary.

Allegations against the gay ad, though, are beyond absurd. There's no hint whatsoever at displeasure/repulsion/resistance. He's not even being pinned down. You might as well interpret this to be some promotion voyeur parties.

Lay off the Freudian crap, people. This is a clear indicator of individuals having too much time on their hands.

P.S. The people part is directed at the ones who've fired complaints, not Bilerico members and staff.

And I used to think Ralph Lauren was vapid. The obsession with "branding" an image, lifestyle or aspiration as a way of charging more for a pair of pants. Seems to me that there are more real things to worry about.

Things that are neither gratuitous or tasteless.

Does anyone else notice there is no happiness on any of these faces?

If I was a tranny from Kentucky (oh,. gee, I am!), I'd be asking this question: what does Dolce and Gabbiana sell? Can't tell from this ad. If I didn't know that they sold clothing that isn't made in my size and that I can't afford, I wouldn't learn that from this ad.

Models never smile, right? Never. Isn't the ability to smile something a person loses when they starve themselves.

first of all, you probably will see the second ad in OUT magazine, they do advertise there if I am correct

these need to be looked at on a number of levels - subjective evaluation of the content's intent and context, then the actual argument as to whether they are really selling the clothes or the IDEA of who you wil be if you buy them

both pictures are exploitative, in my opinion - but it's subjective whether or not they offend.

bottom line is that I continue to wonder how we continue to be such prudes about the healthy diversity of sexuality yet be a country that uses sex to sell everything from toothpaste to overpriced clothing

Forgive me, I'm late to the party.

I learned something in art class that I've never forgotten. The eye, especially in print advertisement, usually travels from the upper left corner of the page to the lower right, in a diagonal line, upon first viewing. In each each, the D&G print compositions follow this rule.

In the case of the first print ad the upper left corner is oppupied by the face of a handsome man. Traveling horizontally, the next thing you see is the crotch of a man. Further down you encounter the leg of the nude man and then along his body, finally to his face. Then eye travels up to the two men gawking. Then it pulls back to take in the whole picture and is confronted with the company logo. It is designed to be provocative, and further, effectively designed to be memorable.

A look at the second photograph reveals much of the same technique. The photographer has staged the composition. The ads are almost barren of emotion. The models all have that vague, bored expressions that they teach high end models to have about everything fashionable.

In the end each print ad has done, quite effectively judging that both have ended up here as a topic for debate, what they have set out to do, which is promote the D&G line through memorable advertisement.

If we start judging the content of the advertisement, we have to look at what lies behind it. Companies spend millions of dollars for adverstisement that gets their product noticed. To spend ad dollars in almost any other way is an irresponsible use of company asset.

Each ad is provocative. Each ad works. If you buy into the idea that these ads either objectify men and women or promote rape, then you buy into a whole host of other ideas. Are we objectifing unaesthetic women with unibrows who use Planter's peanuts as perfume to attract the attention of men? Are we promoting testicular bludgeoning when Justin Timberlake slams his crotch into a mailbox post three times before a continued flight into some girls backyard all to sell more Pepsi?

We get hung on on the sex don't we, which is ironic when you consider our own fine art icons like Warhol and Mapplethorpe. The truth of it is that almost all advertising objectifies something or someone, either sexually or not. As for the rape idea in the second ad, I've seen video games that were far more violent and suggestive. Women fighting for the tossed bridal bouquet at weddings are often incredibly violent. You might remember those Axe deoderant body sprays for men depicting women ripping men's clothes off and the men smiling through it all. If the only implication is that you can't rape the willing, then I sugest you look a the females torso in the second ad. It's raised. She's not fighting off any rape. It's part of the staging the photographer used to make the ad visually effective.

It isn't 1950 anymore. And frankly, sex sold products even then, it just had to be more furtive. If people are really concerned that children could see these ads and be influenced, then I suspect I'm not the only one late to the party. I lived by an elementary school for the last 16 years. The things those kids yelled at recess would make a drag queen gasp. If parents aren't guiding their children from early in life about what they see and hear then they're living in a fantasy land. It's wishful thinking that kids haven't learned about the nature of sex at age when we were naive and innocent. It's not that world anymore.

Those D&G ads are too vague to really imply anything except an artful approach to propell a brand name. Excellent advertising too. Look how much debate they've spawned here over hazy obsevations about what they might or might not imply.