One has to guess that D&G accomplished what they wanted - controversy. They do not have to worry too much about a backlash, as the guys are so obviously gay and uninterested. Yet, the ad would clearly garner controversy. D&G gets noticed for this, the way that Calvin Klein and Benetton used to do. It is a very good way to get people thinking about the brand again, so it worked for them. Sigh. As to the coffee one, no that is not a coffee bean. I am glad I do not buy laVazza, now that I know what they let people do in the beans before they package them!

I think it's a coffee bean. However my advanced years have had a effet on my memory. However it does explain getting kicked out of starbucks on occasion. Barry :)

OMG, Women have nipples.

Paul, whether they're gay or not, they do look kind of bored -maybe even annoyed. In fact, arguably more than a gang rape the scene looks like an intervention, like the girl is out of control and they're trying to restrain her from making a fool of or otherwise hurting herself.

Every print ad for fashion, jewelry, alcohol, etc. - every single one of them - is selling the objectification of women in addition to whatever product or brand they're peddling. These are just slightly more direct about it. Does the outrage, I wonder, come from the fact that these ads aren't doing anything to hide it? I can envision a model or actress or pop starlet in the same clothes and pose in an issue of Maxim, with the only difference being the men ogling her 1) aren't that good-looking themselves and 2) aren't doing so in person. The other ad is par for the course in fashion print advertising. I see stuff like that in my magazines every month. It's tiring to keep getting upset over them, so I simply ignore the ads and don't buy from the companies that produce them. That's all I really can do as a consumer (I suppose I could also stop subscribing to the one women's magazine I receive, but I like the content too much to do that. I guess I'm just as hypocritical as everyone else).

There was quite a lively discussion regarding the supposed "rape scene" ad over at Mike Davidson's site.  The comments are worth reading.  Here is the link: http://www.mikeindustries.com/blog/archive/2007/03/dolce-and-gabbana-ad-campaign

Just reading through these comments, none of this makes any sense to me. If "more than a gang rape the scene looks like an intervention", then why would it have been offensive in the first place? You're just trying to justify the lack of any real outrage. I would think this ad is offensive. The women I asked about it said it was offensive, but on the other hand, this company markets to women (much like all the ads in the magazines LV subscribes to). The "nosuchthingasbadpublicity" marketing scheme works mostly because the bad publicity offends people who are not in the target audience for the product. Perhaps the more simple explanation is that deep down inside, a significant number of women are really messed up.

All I can ask is "who still wears denim shorts?!"

KW, it sounds like it makes total sense to you. I don't know if "justify" is the right word, I'd say I'm trying to explain why I'm not outraged. I don't agree with you that just because some people are offended by something it's objectively offensive. Adrian, thanks for the link. I'm embarrassed to say I didn't realize Newsweek had covered this on my own site!

Will, I don't *personally* believe that "if some people are offended, it's objectively offensive", that's just the coin of the realm, so to speak. After all, what exactly would be "objectively offensive"? It's a subjective matter. I'm just tired of the excuses that come out ("wardrobe failure", etc.) when we all know what was really meant. If D&G didn't see this ad as potentially offensive, they're too dumb to be making that much money. Again, the simplest explanation/exploitation is that way down inside a significant number of women are deeply confused.

I have to agree with Will. My wife and others also agree. I do not think they are confused. Offensive is very subjective and always has been. If we had to make sure everything published was inoffensive to everyone, we would not be able to publish much of anything (remember that some Southern Baptists considered the Barney the dinosaur children's show offensive). What we have to consider is why it is offensive and what message it is trying to get across. I do not think the D&G message is much of anything. You may see a gang rape in it, but any scene with a man acting "tough" and a woman acting "submissive" could be deemed rape - and that covers a lot of ads! I do not think anyone takes away the message that gang rape is OK from that D&G ad. But, it is also intended to be a "bit" shocking. A lot of ads are focused on being shocking, else you will not even notice them.

Paul/Will, My apologies, I know I'm not being clear here. Let me state more clearly, *I* am not offended, I think it is "offensive" by the standards often presented by many of the very people this ad is supposed to appeal to. My final question...If this ad (or something quite similar) was selling beer or a sports car, would you think the "outrage" would be the same, less, or more?

Sorry KW, I meant to reply that I understand your point much better from your second post. We might also ask, what's the point of the ad if not to offend - if not to be deliberately offensive so as to cause all of the fuss in the first place? To answer your new question, as a beer ad the whole country would be in an uproar. I'm not sure about the car context.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):