Curse

Shursh · Jun 15, 2009, 09:17 PM // 21:17

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,526491,00.html

^ to sum up: there's a 50-foot calvin klein ad on a street corner in NYC depicting what appears to be the start of a threesome with a girl and two guys, while another guy lies on the floor fiddling with his pants' button.

anyway, just wondered what your thoughts on this were - personally i don't think it's that big of a deal, just another thing for wacko community groups to get offended about.

hollisters and A&F have gigantic pictures of people wearing next to nothing in the mall, which is just as public a venue as a street corner.

SO - too much, or not that big a deal??

Bryant Again · Jun 15, 2009, 09:28 PM // 21:28

Its instances like this why I praise apocalypse.

In regards to the ad, I think it's a bit too much.

Edit: yay, pwnd u has saved me from writing any text since he summed up my thoughts exactly.

I pwnd U · Jun 15, 2009, 09:29 PM // 21:29

Quote:

"It's soft pornography is what it is," said Laurie Baranowski "I don't think that just because you put Calvin Klein's name on it makes it acceptable. It's a beautiful picture, but I don't think that that's the place for it."

Quote:

"I think that this company has a moral obligation to our country to display their product in an appropriate manner, especially in a public venue where you have thousands of thousands of children who will see this ad," said Randy Sharp of the American Family Association.

Pretty much sums up how I feel about it. Unfortunately in today's world sex sells and clothing companies are going to push the envelope. People wonder why so many teens are getting pregnant, well thanks to the media and ads such as these basically saying it is okay kids feel like not only should they do it, but they have to because everyone else is. It is just wrong. As Randy Sharp said, they have a moral obligation to the country to be appropriate. Calvin Klein has failed and there billboard is completely uncalled for.

Chicken Ftw · Jun 15, 2009, 09:44 PM // 21:44

Meh. I'd expect it from Durex, as its product directly relates to threesomes, but CK? Overall, ambivalent.

But lol, faux news.

MMSDome · Jun 15, 2009, 10:51 PM // 22:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicken Ftw

Meh. I'd expect it from Durex, as its product directly relates to threesomes, but CK? Overall, ambivalent.

But lol, faux news.

loldumbfuk

Like how morons always say lol faux when the other choices are stations such as CNN and MSNBC, I needn't say more.

The ad is a bit much but no nudity.

Chicken Ftw · Jun 15, 2009, 10:57 PM // 22:57

None of the above ftw. Getting your news from Fox is just as bad as getting it from MSNBC. Thanks for assuming though.

I don't really know why this is even a story, there is far worse all over NY.

Etta · Jun 15, 2009, 11:00 PM // 23:00

I like it .

I pwnd U · Jun 15, 2009, 11:18 PM // 23:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Etta

I like it .

Ya but you would f%#$ anything with 2 good boobs.

Jumping Is Uselss · Jun 16, 2009, 12:43 AM // 00:43

3 guys = gay...

Snow Bunny · Jun 16, 2009, 12:57 AM // 00:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by I pwnd U

It is just wrong.

How so?

There's no nudity in it whatsoever. It's racy but within bounds. It might be a little inappropriate, but why is it "just wrong"?

Racthoh · Jun 16, 2009, 01:33 AM // 01:33

I don't think I've ever put on a pair of jeans and thought "so this is what a three-some feels like". False advertisement!

DreamRunner · Jun 16, 2009, 01:36 AM // 01:36

The way which people are reacting need to get over themselves. There is nothing wrong with the picture and when you have someone who has said this to a fashion company, you know its the end of humanity.

"I think that this company has a moral obligation to our country to display their product in an appropriate manner, especially in a public venue where you have thousands of thousands of children who will see this ad,"

moral obligation... some people really need to stfu.

Winterclaw · Jun 16, 2009, 01:45 AM // 01:45

Bad ratio of females to males. If you are trying to sell it to most males, you'd need 3 woman and one guy in the ad.

I pwnd U · Jun 16, 2009, 01:50 AM // 01:50

Read my whole post snow, I believe I explained it.

luminoire · Jun 16, 2009, 02:02 AM // 02:02

i'd agree with pwnd u.
public venue is exactly that: public. everyone sees it, whether or not it's their intent.
of course, this includes children and other under-age populace.

Taixen · Jun 16, 2009, 03:02 AM // 03:02

Seems relatively amusing, the guy on the floor must have drawn the short straw.

Personally, I think it's not needed for advertising clothes. Howeverm even if people don't like it, they have still thought of the product and have likely told other people about it, friends, family etc, which ironically - only further promotes something that they are so against.

Edit: Although, poor CK have probably just put themselves up for a barrage of abuse and complaints, because there are lots of people who don't understand that there are many worse things out there than an advert which really, shows nothing that's too bad.

I really disagree with the statement that kids see things like this and think that it's okay, or that they have to behave in a certain way, because I certainly know very, very few people who'd see something like this and worry.

I don't know about America, but here in the United Kingdom the issue of Teenage Pregnancy is getting worse, but instead of better education towards the issue and the impact that it can have on a teenagers life, people simply condemn anything they don't consider normal, or try to wrap their kids in cotton wool which doesn't help whatsoever.

bhavv · Jun 16, 2009, 03:31 AM // 03:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winterclaw

Bad ratio of females to males. If you are trying to sell it to most males, you'd need 3 woman and one guy in the ad.

Actually this is untrue.

When it comes to male underwear, homoerotic adverts seem to be a lot more popular depicting attractive men rather then women.

Even in the mind of straight men, the reaction is 'Wow, if I get those underwear, I will look that good too'.

Look at it this way, a sexy woman advertising lingerie doesnt make men rush out to buy and wear womens underwear.

But as for this threesome advert, it is pretty lame for a mens underwear advert, it is rather advertising an orgy, but I've seen much worse.

See dolce and gabana adverts here:

http://reloky.livejournal.com/5229.html

This one in particular is meant to be for selling clothes to men?

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/f..._group_003.jpg

Whatever.

Konig Des Todes · Jun 16, 2009, 03:37 AM // 03:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Its instances like this why I praise apocalypse.

In regards to the ad, I think it's a bit too much.

Edit: yay, pwnd u has saved me from writing any text since he summed up my thoughts exactly.

Ditto.

-goes burn an upsidedown cross and dances around calling for the apocalypse-

DreamRunner · Jun 16, 2009, 03:41 AM // 03:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by I pwnd U

. People wonder why so many teens are getting pregnant

Actually teen pregnancy is going down and has been going down for a while now. If what you said is true, then this ad should have sparked teen pregnancy, but it hasn't. Just because the billboard shows a little skin, people get all worried and be anxious about saving the children and really children are much more resilient than society gives them credit for.

bhavv · Jun 16, 2009, 03:52 AM // 03:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by I pwnd U

People wonder why so many teens are getting pregnant, well thanks to the media and ads such as these basically saying it is okay kids feel like not only should they do it, but they have to because everyone else is. It is just wrong.

I disagree with you here. So many teens are becoming pregnant because sex these days is no longer as taboo a subject as it previously was, and also children are maturing sexually at an earlier age, and also because we have an age of consent these days.

If you actually want to go back 500 years, then many more teens were actually becoming pregnant then there are today because marriage and making babies used to happen at ages lower than todays age of consent. Also, in olden days, they didnt even have an age of consent like we do today.

Teen pregnancy occourse because teens want to have sex. There is nothing we can do to prevent this unless you want sex outside of marriage to become punishable, the better approach would be to teach sex education and contraceptive use earlier in schools, maybe at around ages 10-12, as opposed to the current age of 14-16 which in a lot of cases is too late for cases of teen pregnancies.

As an example, in Spain the legal age of consent is 13, so if anyone aged 13 or over was to become pregnant, this would not be classed as an underage pregnancy in their demographics.

You can see a full age of consent map here:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...of_Consent.png

Pregnancies within a countries age of consent are not registered as underage pregnancies in those countries.

People critisise the UK for having the highest underage pregnancy rate in Europe, but wouldnt this be mostly due to the UK's higher age of consent then most other countries in Europe, and also perhaps due to the UK's larger population size than other countries where the age of consent is the same?

When talking about underage pregnancies, demographics and age of consent are never fully taken into account when they are the main reasons behind the variance of underage pregnancies in different countries.