Tbh i do see the point if people are still gunnar buy it why dont they let them use it in promotional posters and other stuff.
 

There seem to be a lot of young people here to whom this advert is aimed, and it's interesting, if a little worrying, reading their reactions. There is a wide ranging and far reaching trend endemic in our society to manipulate our young people for material gain; from films, TV, and music, to advertising. These things are extremely powerful influences on young people, and when they encourage them to be shallow, superficial people, rather than thoughtful, self aware human beings, I think we have a problem.

The major problem I have with this advert is that it is so directly and effectively pitching the glamour of teenage sexual excess to the young people themselves. This type of manipulation can cause so much pain, disappointment, and unfulfillment, later in life, and for what? To sell jeans. Please, to those of you that think this is attractive; life is more powerful than this. If you really want to rebel, don't let people that are trying to make money out of you teach you how to behave, wake up, and breathe the fresh air!
 

Hurray! You said what I've been trying to say only much, much better :D

 

Sex is a natural part of life. It should be appreciated and enjoyed. Personally I think the advert is a piece of art...

 

An advert can never be a piece of art. The two forms are directly contradictory. Advertising steals from art to make money. All good art is free now.

 

I'm sorry, but I find your view, or at least the way you've presented it slightly ignorant. Whilst I understand the necessity of sex as well as the enjoyment it brings and the connotations of love that it can produce I don't see how the fact that it is natural renders it acceptable, or valid to be used in an advert which is aiming to sell jeans. By that logic - it should be used to sell any number of products, regardless of content.

Also, I find the fact that nudity is automatically considered art by a number of people a ridiculous one.

 

no offense, but they are quite a few contraditions there.

'I don't see how the fact that it is natural renders it acceptable'

How is it unacceptable, this isn't like porn where it's teaching ppl that every man has 12 inch pieces and just generally misinterpreting sex in a way that is unrealistic and possibly mentally damaging. Saying that nudity is bad is like saying the human body is bad, I don't think any of those people are unrealistic tho the situation might be, but fantasy has been used in advertisement before.

'...or valid to to be used in an advert which is aiming to sell jeans. By that Logic - it should be used to sell any number of products, regardless of content.'

Are you telling me this is the first time you've seen sex used to sell an item, it's been used by countless company for countless probucts, that have alot less to do with sex and the body then jeans by far, it's been used by cigarettes, cars, beers, Perfume, and all kinds of clothes. Which brings to mind, most perfume adverts have alot more nudity then this one, so what's the difference, is it because it's a perfume and and therefore it's 'classy'? or because we are used to perfume adverts being about sex, is it because there isn't any other reason why u would buy a perfume percise sex?

'Also, I find the fact that nudity is automatically considered art by a number of people a ridiculous one.'

Who has 'Automatically considered' anything, i thing there is this 'automatic' assumption that nudity is somehow 'sexy' it's not if u are attracted to some one, u are normmally attracted to them BEFORE u see them nude, just because sex and nudity are normally found in the same place. Perhaps i go to far admittad ly it might be less sexier if it was them all in wollen sweaters, but it still would b sexy. And i'm not sure why the term of sex is really used, it's forplay at most. Nudity isn't sexy, attractiveness, and sexual behaviour are both in this advert, but sex isn't. this isn't porn, it's some one making an artistic advertisement, portraying an aspect of life. sex, passion, romance, love, this advert can be portrayed to b about all of these things and it was probally picked for it's sex appeal, i admit.

To say you find this advert offensive means you take offense in the human body and interaction, which in my opinion has alot more to do with, the human body changes alot slower then you can change your mind.

 

There is far worse on television adverts, even for a perfume they have people rolling around in bed, or antiperspirant where people have to follow the trail of clothing after they met and ripped each others clothes off all the way home.

I honestly can't stand the strange double standards, if you hold one up as an example of indecency, then be consistent and look to hold the same ethical objections to the advertising industry as a whole, not just one poster.

 

It doesn't bother me personally, but using sex to sell these days is going a bit too far. I mean - a bikini clad woman sitting on top of the newest range of vw? Unless you are going to have her thrown in with the car when you buy it then fair enough. I just don't think that some advertising companies use it in the right context sometimes.
 

I say it don't go far enough! Let's see bulging crotches and hard nipples!

 

lol, perhaps they can have 'red-light district' versions

 

Sex is not bad.  Stabbing, killing and rape is. 

 

exactly

 

Let me stab you with my 8 inhes!

 

I think it's OK but you have to be aware that kids are around and it's bad enough that they are losing their innocence to quickly as it is? what do i say to my 6 year old boy when he asks what this is?  
 

it's natural, it's the human body doing something it's designed for.

Would you prefer he asked you and you gave him an educational answer or for him to ask some one else.... like the internet

sorry, if this seems a little forward, i don't hav a kid myself, but if i did i'd want to answer him asking me that question as best i could, tho when it came to it, it would be difficult and awkward, i admit

 

i just hate this tipe of advert.. it isnt well thought out and it is kind of just an advert for stupid ppl/men with small "heads"
if they are going to do this kind of thing they should just have the words Calvin Klein= SEXY on a big bored and not have this sort of thing where little kids can see it and be affected by it. 
 

how are they 'being affected by it' kids can get confused by this kind of stuff i admit, but they aren't going through their whole with out encountering this some day.

 

yeah tbh its to far. i mean yeah sex sells but not tacky sex appeal. not interesting at all.

 

go for it! i've nothing wrong with sex selling products, sex is a great part of life. 'raechiiCHAOS', i salute you! :D
but could we have it a little more realistic please?
i mean come on- photoshop?! and somebody feed those guys a burger!
 

haha! I'd jerk off to it :)
 

This style of advert is hardly new and isn't really that controversial.

The real issue here is the MySpace double-standard since it contains the kinds of images that would cause the MySpace censors to over-react if they were not in the context of a paid advertisement.

We have all seen this happen time and time again and now MySpace are also beginning to censor poetry blogs as well as images "on the quiet".

Recently a fairly innocent poster of a mermaid was removed without warning for its alleged sexual content.

If you are happy to permit me to post a copy of this image as a comment on this thread it will reveal just how laughable this claim was.

What we are dealing with the double-standards of a corporate mindset that use the pretense of Puritanism to pursue a campaign of misogyny.

Some of the images that they allow to be portrayed in their own adverts could be consider degrading to the image of young women and are considered acceptable while works of Classical art which celebrate female beauty in an non-tabloid context are deleted by the authorities immediately.

The real irony of this is that the company which owns MySpace and enforces these hypocritical policies  is responsible for putting "adult content" on the airwaves and in local newspapers.

Just look at the kinds of programmes which are broadcast on the Sky Channel or the topless modesl which are featured on Page Three of the tabloid newspaper "The Sun" and you will see what I mean.

MySpace is rapidly becoming "The Sun" of cyberspace and is beginning to adopt the same phony public pose of being both the "moral conscience" and "purveyor of sleaze" at the same time.

That should make this kind of thing a source of satirical laughter rather than public debate.

Just WHO did THEY think they are kidding ?

Let's get real here ...







 

absolutely, there are tons of photos of girls on myspace useing sex to 'advertise' them selve, what's the difference between some one using sex to advertise a product and someone advertise themselves?

everyone seems to be extra careful not to offend any one, well... no one alive anyway. I'm sure all the dead artists how have filled the like luv're and many other galleries would love their work marked as 'filth'

 

 

i see ur point, and while whether she is a teenager is up for debate, you have to let people make their own dicisions, if a 16 year old girl see that and wants to do that how is that wrong, y shouldn't she do that? it might b a mistake yes, but it's just as likely to b something she enjoys.



 

 

I have made mistake in the past as will pretty much everyone, you don't have the right to 'parent me' when my choices affect you, and for the record as long as i am prepared to take ANY consequences of my actions why shouldn't i do what i want with MY life?

Ok ok ok, i tell u what how bout we all just have some one ELSE make our decisions for us? That'd be great wouldn't it? then when we make a mistake like say something wrong to some one, or hav a drunken one night with someone we don't see that way, you know MISTAKES, mishaps, accidents, things that we DIDN'T MEAN TO DO. Why, we could just blame the person that made the decision for us, that's what happens with kids and their parents, kid does something naughty it's the parents fault.

Hey wait, that means, yeah... you ARE trying to parent us 'Yi ann' cause your trying to make my decisions for me. I am responsible for my actions and i take the consequences of them. If your prepared to take responsibilty for me THEN you can decide my actions and decisions. Otherwise, stop telling me how to live and start telling me WHY i should live that way

 

I am not trying to parent you, I don't give a shit what you do with your life; it is what you say on a public space that I will not leave unquestioned. 


I have not in any way been trying to tell you HOW to live your life, only WHY it is important to think before you say "as long as i am prepared to take ANY consequences of my actions why shouldn't i do what i want with MY life?" You haven't even had to support yourself financially, let alone be truly responsible for your own actions so don't be so quick to say that you are prepared to deal with the consequences.


 

And also by saying that this advert is ACCEPTABLE but a person trying to make a sensible point about consequences is "trying to tell you how to live your life" i.e. control you, you are implying that you are more comfortable being influenced by greedy businessmen and their inanimate manipulative adverts than by well-meaning and concerned people
 

Right, you don't know me but you have automatically assumed that:

1. I am naive
2. I am all about freedom/rebellion and completely against parents/goverment/law/rules/religion
3. that when i say i'm prepared to take responsabilty for my actions that i'm either a liar or haven't thought it through
4. That i don't support myself finacially

PS you also thing that i was annoyed, i wasn't but after those points i am! I understand someone who disagrees with you always speaks in a negative tone. But i have tried hard not to offend anyone or make assumptions about character, and while it is your right to disagree with me I ask kindly you do the same please, thank you. :)

As for those points

1. i'm not Naive, but i can't prove that, infact maybe i am. Who knows
2. I am actually for these :Freedom/goverment/law/rules/parents and against: religion. rebellion i am on the fence about.
Freedom: i believe in freedom of speech, choice and advertisement.
Goverment: I want to join the military, how much more pro-goverment can you be? (i admit my pic has me wth rly long hair, it's alot shorter now :P)
Law: This may surprise people, but i don't actually have a criminal record (Yi Ann, that is what ticked me off)
Rules: kinda goes with law
Parents: I love my mum and dad, and I will not have anyone say other wise (this ticked me off to)
Religion: While my believe in god is a different discussion, i don't believe in the way we worship him.

3. I was well aware of what i was saying, you assumed that i didn't think the whole thing through, and if that happened i would do my best to raise the child, probaly badly, but i still would. But the thing is i do actually think, so i don't go sleeping around, having unprotected sex with strangers

4. This is true! but why hey when you guess enough your bound to get one right. but, i have to ask, what does this have to do with your arguement, apart from to make me look bad?

And for the record You haven't told us WHY we should act the way you are saying. All you seem to have said is that people who don't are immature teenagers. if i'm wrong, please correct me, but as i said earlier please be careful as how you put it, because i have tried very hard not to offend you.



 

I have not had to make any assumptions whatsoever about your character, I am merely going by your arguments. So if you do not like to appear naive then please think carefully about your arguments before you post them on a public space.

Also how have I in any way implied that you have a criminal record or don't love your parents? I was merely making a point that many teenagers regard sensible advice in a one dimensional way i.e. "you are trying to tell me how to live" whether it's parents or school or govt, etc and the only response they know how to give to that is "I'll do what I want with my life because I'm willing to face the consequences for them (even if I don't even know what they are)"

My point in saying that you're not even having to support yourself financially is to point out that you haven't even begun to live in the real world of consequences so saying "for the record as long as i am prepared to take ANY consequence of my actions" is most likely to be an empty promise

And after all that if you STILL don't realise that all I've been doing is say WHY you should be careful what you think is harmless/fine then obviously you have not paid any attention to the essence of my arguments but only to how it makes you look. If you are not prepared to handle the consequences of making poor arguments in public debates then perhaps you shouldn't start one.

 

Well, yeah I THINK I know the reasons behind your arguement, because I'm asking you 'Why should i Listen to you' and all you seem to be saying is I know better... (well, obviously you say about the consequence of my actions and i say i take them into account, but you obviously don't believe me) but are you fit to tell me about the consequences of my actions?

You have said that i have an immature attitude, you don't know me so that's an assumption.

You said that either I choose between Freedom/rebellion or goverment/law/parents/religion, I'd already talked about freedom being important to me so it seemed like you were saying i went with the later.

But anyway you seem to say that I should do what you say because you know better, because you are mature and I am not. But where is your logic behind this is what I'm asking and why should i take that into account, you said yourself that someone could be 50 years old and still be immature. I don't think your immature, i have no reason to, but i have no reason to believe you mature either.

SO

Do you know better then me?

and if you do why?

if you don't, then what is your arguement?

 

This debate is not about you or me and as I said before I don't give a shit about what you do with your life because obviously if anyone tries to give a counter argument to your assertions about what you think is harmless/acceptable then you, like many young ppl, are only capable of seeing it in the one-dimensional view, i.e. they are "trying to tell you what to do". 

My ONLY objective is to add a more thoughtful argument in this debate for anyone who might be reading this. 

Let me spell it out again: my reasons for arguing that this advert, or being blindly influenced by this advert, is wrong because the consequences are much more painful than many young ppl are capable of imagining at their age; 

If you still can't see that but instead you continue to think that I am trying to tell you what to think then perhaps you have some insecurity issues.

Anyway this argument could carry on forever and you can reply to this if you want but as far as I'm concerned I have made my point so I don't care about getting the last word in. It was good to debate anyway. 

 

Thank you, that's helped alot

And yes, this may surpirse you, but i agree with everything you just said and admit they maybe i haven't put MY arguement across, so i'll do it as one last ditch and if you think it's completely stupid then just ignore me.

What is the difference to an Advert that shows the 'glamourous, fun, sexy' side to sex and people who tell about the consequences of such a life style?

To me it's one's trying to help out and the over is trying to sell jeans, but i think it would hardly make a difference if i actually went and bought some jeans. Young people are going to have to choose whether to chase the lifestyle suggested in the advert, and that's a decision the person in question has to make and all we can do is about someone else's decision is inform them about.

Like i said i agree with you completely and I personally don't go out sleeping with strangers and I don't really want to. And i think others should follow and NOT do things like on the billboard.

BUT saying that this billboard should be taken down, to me, is kinda like saying 'You don't have the right to show THAT side of the arguement'. It may be that glamourous, possibly even fantasy side of sex, but that is part of sex.

I agree with you and should hav said long ago, but if your problem with this billboard is that it shows the side of an arguement you don't agree with, then why should it be taken down? Freedom of speech is big in America and Lawfully there isn't a problem with it otherwise it wouldn't have gone up in the first place.

I admit, my arguements have been abit unclear maybe, but like i said if you think this is a stupid arguement, don't replie. if you think I've raised a point that deserves an answer then do so

thank you

And I whole hearty apologise if i have said anything that you've thought to be offensive or out of line

 

I can't decide if you're just taking the piss or if you're genuinely interested in an answer. But I shall give you the benefit of the doubt for now. 

Here.. I have written a bloody essay on the topic and while I realise that I have made many points, don't just skim through it and rush to fashion another silly argument by misconstruing my words "to get the argument to go ahead". I have already had to repeat myself over and over again so if you don't understand something, read my posts again (and again and again if you must). Unless you make an intelligent argument I am not going to bother replying.....

Obviously it is immature to think that the benefits of casual/multiple/promiscuous/gratuitous (whatever you want to call it) sex "outweigh the risks" - REGARDLESS of whether it is protected or not. As I said elsewhere, a newborn baby (or even STDs which can lead to things like cervical cancer) is not the ONLY possible consequence of wanton sex. 

You may think that by using condoms "I am safe fr unwanted pregnancy and STDs therefore what should I worry about?" But, apart from the fact that "safe" sex is never 100% safe (as much as one might like to think), there are also the emotional/psychological consequences of sleeping with whoever you want, regardless of how you feel about them.

I wouldn't call it "emotional trauma" either as you did elsewhere because the real emotional effects are not nearly as dramatic or obvious as that - which makes it all the more insidious.

And that is because one might be happy to be called a whore/slut, they might convince themselves that others are "just jealous"; But indulging in wanton/gratuitous sex leads you into the habit of following ur desires (esp strong ones) and seeking quick fixes - and IF you are not accustomed to thinking about n questioning what you do or practicing any form of moderation/self-control then you will find yourself quickly addicted/dependent on it - and the addiction can set in NOW, not "LATER when you're an adult". Yet while you are already addicted, you MAY NOT even EXPERIENCE the true pain of the addiction until you are truly living independently (without parents to save you) in the real world of consequences. 

And btw, the object of addiction doesn't even have to be something powerful like drugs/alcohol/sex; exercising/food/shopping/etc can just as easily become the object of addiction – yet much less obviously – and even mild addictions can throw your life that much out of balance that you find yourself not truly happy.

For example, take someone who loves his alcohol, loves to party, have casual sex (or whatever combination of pleasurable activities you like). He is most likely to say that he "IS happy" but take away those things just for a week and we'll see just how "happy" he is without satisfying his addictions. Ppl who are addicted almost always are in denial about it. So if he's already struggling to regain control of his desires, how is he going to deal with everything else that the "cruel world" throws at you - crap jobs, complicated relationships, family problems, etc etc. How is he going to do the things he HAS to do to get where he wants to be in life when all he CAN do is what he WANTS to do? Of course it is not impossible but giving up pleasure for responsibility would certainly not be something he is used to, so he would certainly struggle and fail many times even if he tried his hardest.

You are only truly grown up and happy if you have learnt to cope with having to do more and more things that you HAVE to do (regardless of whether you're tired/not in the mood/stressed/etc) and less and less of what you WANT to do, in order to achieve the deeper pleasures that life has to offer. But yes, you have the right to "do whatever you want with your life". This is the game of life and it's up to you to play it the way you want; but if you play it the wrong way by making too many risks too early and later find yourself with a "shit life", then don't complain that the world/humanity is "cruel" because YOU made the decision all those years ago to "take ANY consequence of my actions".

And if one has GENUINELY considered these arguments but still decides to go ahead with it (risking ruining their lives and that of others - esp their kids that they may/may not have intentionally brought into the world) then they must be heartless, empty shells who care nothing for their future or themselves or anyone for that matter.

Of course, one can always change, BUT it is a far more difficult, long and painful process than most young ppl might think. If teenagers find it so hard NOW to be responsible and to put sense before fun, then they're gonna have a "great" time later when they've made so many mistakes for so long that they don't even know where to begin changing their lives, let alone grit their teeth and persevere through the frustration and disappointment - and if you don't know how to build a strong and true relationship with a partner, then you are most likely to find yourself alone in your attempt to change because in the adult world, friends and parents can only do so much, even if they live with you.

So.... this advert is IRRESPONSIBLE because it tries to convince young ppl (v powerfully, I might add) of the glamour of gratuitous sex but says NOTHING about the long-term consequences. And as we have seen on this forum, too many young ppl don't even bother to begin to consider all the arguments that I have bn going on about, and think "why not? it's fun and i'll enjoy it, so why not?". This advert is "educating" young and impressionable minds in a manipulative and at the same time UNBALANCED way. And THAT is why I don't agree with this advert, NOT because it "decides for young people" as you seem to have convinced yourself.

P/S - no one in this thread has said that this advert is advertising UNPROTECTED sex; you again convinced yourself that in your determination to make a counter-argument - as you are wont to do



 

I am trying to find out why you think someone who would have a threesome is immature and not thinking of the consequences, people seem to get permisqueus sex and unsafe sex mixed up.

I admit i've taken some of ur comments a bit to harshly, I'm just trying to get the arguement to go ahead. you have made your point yes, the thing is you seem to be repeating.

I'm saying what if someone wants to do these things dispite they're consequences? Are they immature or do they just think the benefits outway the risks

I'd think it'd help if you said it whether you found unprotected sex or sex with multiple partners wrong (or both even) for the reasons you've stated

I think sex with multiple partners (while selfish) is up to the person in question

and I think unprotected sex (while stupid) is upto the people in question

But also i want to know how this advert is advertising UNPROTECTED sex?

 

and btw, "when we make a mistake like say something wrong to some one, or hav a drunken one night with someone we don't see that way, you know MISTAKES, mishaps, accidents, things that we DIDN'T MEAN TO DO. Why, we could just blame the person that made the decision for us"
- no you can't blame someone ELSE for those mistakes because the decision was yours not theirs. Great argument.


 

that was kind of my point, because i was saying 'what if we have some else to choose our decisions for us, then when we make a mistake....' hence i was kinda making the same point you made,

but, then again, i didn't think we were quoting out of context


but hey let's quote something you said earlier (go a page over for the riginal source of this quote)

The full paragraph says:
'This advert doesn't "leave it to them to decide", it plays on impressionable young minds, encouraging them to think it's "cool" and "if i did things like that then i'd be sexy and cool like that model whom everyone is looking at and admiring"'

So this advert decides for young people, this advert being an inanimate object that can not think or react, BUT another human being cannot decide for another person.

 

i wasn't quoting out of context, my point was that it is impossible (unless you use force or threats) to make someone's decision for them, i.e. if you "say something wrong to some one, or have a drunken one night with someone you don't see that way" , even if some one told you to or dared you to, it is YOUR decision to go along with it - unless, you know, you're a robot operated by remote control. So it was a pointless argument.

And immediately after you accused me of quoting out of context, you have done it yourself by misreading the phrase that you quoted in bold and implying that I think that the advert DECIDES for young ppl. Just because I argue that the advert tries to influence impressionable young minds doesn't mean that I think the advert can make decisions for other ppl.


 

I was trying to point out that no one decides what someone else does, something we seem to both agree on. So we're both trying to point out the same thing here and arguing for arguements sake.

But I'm also trying to point out that you made a huge contradiction when you say that people can't decide for other people and that this billboard is making the impression on young people to decide to behave that way.

in Other words:

I agree that another person can't Choose for another unless through force

BUT why can a billboard cause people to choose something they otherwise wouldn't, when a human can't?

 

The bodies in the ad look like lovely bits of sculpture. I wish that was in that kind of physical shape. I am a mother hen but have higher priorities than to get all worked up over that sort of thing. Honestly, I find it less obscene than a McDonald's ad.

 

Calvin Klein have, as of recent, used nudity frequently to advertise their products, an act which could understandably be perceived as insolent - regardless of personal feelings towards nudity, sex or any other related specifications, surely it's more than slightly redundant to argue that nudity, sex, etc has any direct correlation to the products Calvin Klein produce.
 

The fact Calvin Klein has produce yet another poster along these lines does not surprise me in the least. They have been doing it for years. They have had plenty of ads pulled, like the one using small kids in their underwear. It seems to me like an advertsing statagy to get publicity. Produce something that causes fuss, get lots of headlines, pull the ad and put up something nice a clean cut. They know it works as they have done it before.
 

it's fine with me to use sex in ads i don't see why there has to be so much drama revolving it.

 

 

I think it's fine. People who don't like it are jealous. Children can't be blocked from seeing every 'sexy' thing. It's not like they're doing any thing explicit, they're just lying around kissing for goodness sake. 
 

It is an attempt to murder the decent side of human life & society in general. And then, we always have children.... young kids  looking at it. This is a daring cheap publicity. What a SHAME Calvin Klein!!!!.... this type of cheapness proves that in recession time their business is going through a tough phase for sure. You should sell these products in a SEX SHOP.... don't worry Calvin, you would still make profits.
 

Let us pray for all sinners associated with this advert.Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name,your kingdom come,your will be done, on earth as in heaven.Give us today our daily bread.Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us.Save us from the time of trial and deliver us from evil.For the kingdom, the power, and the glory are yours now and for ever. Amen.
 

Technically an orgy is a sin :P

Sex isn't, its how you get babies, so do it all you want, but turn that into wanton behaviour like sleeping with multiple people and the bible bashers will get offended.

The term 'bible basher' wasn't used to offend, it was said with love :D

 

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOL