You are here: Home > March 2006 > Has Fashion Gone Too Far?
« Enjoying The Snow | Main | One of My Favorite Male Singers »
March 12, 2006
Has Fashion Gone Too Far?
Posted at March 12, 2006 09:41 AM in Fashion , Gay & Lesbian Issues , Race Relations .
This recent Diesel ad was banned. The reason given by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) was that the position of the women in relation to the man's body clearly alluded to sexual behaviour and it was likely to cause serious or widespread offence. The Italian fashion house responsible for the ad claimed the image, which is no longer running, was intended for an adult audience who would have understood the irony and fun it represented. I can't help but wonder if the ad was offensive for other reasons, particularly, the Black man being straddled by three pairs of White legs. I can remember a time when Black and White did not mix in advertising -- or anywhere for that matter --- and I somehow wonder if some of the more "old school" folks out there -- albeit, UK old school -- found the ad offensive because the man's face, you will note, is right . . . well, I'll let you be the judge of that.
The ad in The Sunday Times Style Magazine, which prompted several complaints about its sexual nature and that it was was unsuitable in a magazine that might be seen by children.
Diesel argued that Style Magazine was a leading voice of fashion, with an adult readership who would be challenged by the ad and were likely to understand the irony and fun it presented.
Another ad, seen here, was banned a few years ago. The image, shot by David LaChapelle, ran in the April 2003 issue of ID magazine and depicts two men wearing jock straps wrestling in a gym locker room behind the naked legs of Sophie Dahl. Again, the ASA investigated after receiving a complaint from a reader who said that the ad "seemed to depict an act of buggery". Cox protested that it was "colourful, fun and beautiful" and in line with the "liberal, imaginative style" of the magazine and said that since its spring/summer advertising season was now over, it had no intention of running the ad again. They also said that both men in the photograph were wearing jock straps, making penetrative intercourse impossible. The complaint was upheld, however, in light of the fact that approximately five percent of ID readers are aged 15 to 17. "The plan to run it once was not a way of pre-empting a ban," says a spokeswoman for Cox. "We simply hadn't used it before because people were keen to run ads that had more coverage of Sophie Dahl. It is a homoerotic image but it is perfect for ID and many of the other ads that ran in that issue were a lot more provocative."
There are many ads I have seen in magazines, both national and international, that could be considered equally rude, crude, distasteful, etc. It is obvious the "two men in jock straps" ad was deemed offensive because of its "gay" overtones. The boots ad, depicting a man -- Black man -- being straddled by three women is considered offensive because of its "overt," shall we say, sexual overtones. However, what about some of Calvin Klein's ads? The "bulge" for instance?
Then there is Michael Compte's photo which appeared in the Financial Times and Yorkshire Post featuring the legs of a man and a woman entwined up against a wall and it became the subject of controversy when members of the public suggested that the couple looked like they'd been "caught in the act". "It was considered to be offensive by some readers because the couple seemed to be having sex," said a spokesman for the ASA. "However, the complaints were annulled as it was decided that although some readers may be offended, the ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence." And yes, it is very straight, very heterosexual, and does not include a mixed couple, or couples, oh but yes, it does present a "clear allusion to sexual behaviour"-- with a white heterosexual couple of course.
Trackback
You can ping this entry by using http://www.femmenoir.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/230 .