It's a start, I suppose (Australia bans rape-porn Calvin Klein ad)

[Sakura]

Billboard Advert

YOu have to wonder about the minds of the people who sit in the boardroom and come to the decision that this type of ad is okay to put on a billboard where children can see it.

So it has been removed, which is good. BUt again, surely someone at some point questioned whether the ad was a good idea. It's not witty, ironic or edgy. Just another mundane image of men on top in sex. It's the norm, the status quo and it's getting a trifle boring

[MoralDefective]

Horrid,well done the Oz Government.

[TeiTetua]

But--did people notice it, did they remember it? If the answer is yes, then the ad agency earned its money.

[sethstarkaddersmum]

well that depends if their response is 'no way am I buying Calvin Klein again now.....'

[Sakura]

Yes it earned its money, that was its aim

[TryLikingClarity]

Stupid ad.

Can't even see the underwear properly, never mind the dire images of the models.

It's not big and it's not clever.

[Sakura]

@ it's not big and it's not clever.

Here's another:

It's all fun and games (until someone gets hurt)

[ISNT]

I'm not sure that people remembering it is good enough TBH.

If I went onto the high street and dismembered a baby, then people would remember it.

What sort of world are we living in when people think it is a great idea to show images like this to children?

[TeiTetua]

I think there's more to it than just how one might respond directly to the ads. Yes, there are going to be some people who'll say that Calvin Klein is an evil company and its products aren't fit for wiping up cat sick.

But maybe they see their customers as fashion conscious rather than feminists. And a month from now, let's say someone is in a store and there are the Calvin Klein clothes in front of her, and what she remembers is "Calvin Klein is bold and daring, and they laugh at controversy" rather than anything specific about the ads themselves. And that image of being anti-establishment but looking smart is what appeals to that consumer, and so the company sells the product. It's all in projecting an image that the buyer wants to be wrapped in, and maybe the image is created by a scene that the customer would find distasteful, if they were questioned about it, but it works if the right impression is left in the mind. These companies don't get rich by making mistakes about how people's minds work.

[ISNT]

But I don't understand how it is legal to display images like this to children?

30 years ago this ad would never have been made. Things have corroded too far.

My I will have to have a word with DH about his choice of underpants...

[ISNT]

Maybe instead of burning bras we can all go to town and burn some of DH's underpants!

(I will wash them first).

[thumbwitch]

Blimey, have you seen some of the comments?? An apparently middleaged woman can't see the problem with it and thinks everyone who objects has some kind of "nanny" issues.

I think it's a dreadful ad and am very glad I haven't seen it here (in Australia - we're out in the sticks though, so don't get "classy" advertising like that - we just get billboards asking men whether they need to "last longer and please her more in the bedroom, if so, Text TRY to xxxxx", FFS)

[WinkyWinkola]

Never mind children seeing it. It's deeply offensive to all who see it.

CK does creepy ads.

[TryLikingClarity]

IMhumbleO, their underwear is quite plain and boring. Perhaps hence the reason their ads are daring and shocking.

But they are a huge name and thus think they can show what they like.

[Diziet]

It's not even sexy, is it. She looks bloody uncomfortable.
I can't afford Calvin Klein undercrackers anyway, and DH would never wear them, he thinks blokes that do are wankers posers!!