To think these ads are offensive to all women and should be banned by a minority of them?

[Vittoria]

msmagazine.com/spring2009/nocomment.asp

I think the first one is quite funny actually. And probably very true. Just because men like to think about casual sex more than women think about romance, I'm not offended!

The secoind one I imagine is offensive to some conservatives per se, but when are they known for reading rolling stone magazine? And soince when does one person getting personally offended by an ad in a mag they never read have the right to dictate what the rest of us see?

oops actually the OP should have read

AIBU to think these ads are not offensive and should not be banned, etc, etc

The first one made me laugh.

The second one, I don't personally find offensive, can maybe see why people might, but the girl doesn't look coerced, or out of control and the guys are in pretty much the same state of undress so don't think it's unjustifiable.

I find the first one thoroughly objectionable - why on earth should a happy marriage have to include a goldfish

As for the second - girl's on top isn't she

"As for the second - girl's on top isn't she"

I suspect the objection is that it's a scene reminiscent of gang rape. Not so empowering.

I think the first one is utterly stereotyped and sexist, and I do find it offensive. But TBH it barely even registers these days because I just assume I'll always be offended by the sexisim in most advertising, it's so damned pervasive these days.

Warning sense of humour failure alert!
Warning sense of humour failure alert!
Warning sense of humour failure alert!

doh!

i cant see the first one.

You wouldn't want to - it's very distressing, it has a goldfish and a horse

goldfish tryig to sit on horse? or other way around ? with poor goldfish getting crushed

What's with the horse?

How is it reminiscent of gang rape? Thats like saying a photo of a couple kissing is reminiscent of rape? She's topless and kissing someone, not even foreplay or simulated sex etc.

I don't find it ofensive, but I would be concerned that my lo would think this were the 'norm' for a saturday night after the pub, iyswim? (although, I'm thinking of her tennage years, early 20's, what she does on a sat night when she's grown up is her choice)

edam horse = knight in shining armour

or, if you get married you get a horse as well as a goldfish. New government scheme...

first one = funny

second one = pretty lewd and not at all funny - not something I would want to see on a billboard, for e.g. Or anywhere, in fact.

i think the second is an example of pornography becoming more mainstream
group sex is not really something that you would expect to see depicted unless in 'adult' magazines and media
i don't think it is about being prudish or conservative, but about how women are generally portrayed in pornography, and whether those messages are ones that we want to be absorbed into society as normal and everyday

i must admit i found the first one funny but it is a bit misanthropic - can't work out whether it is more offensive to men or women really!

Like the first one, think it's quite clever.
Second one - woman has got 3 blokes in her thralls. Good going , girl !

The first one is funny

How is the second one reminiscient of gang rape? I am sorry but I cannot see that link at all!

I can see the mainstream porn angle though, but the woman is not showing any more than the men, there is nothing to suggest that the men are being preditory or that it was their "idea" any more than hers so I am not quite understanding why it is offensive TBH.

the general rise of porn in popular culture is worrying and dangerous in itself, though
it doesn't matter so much whether any one image is offensive or degrading, but if we accept pornographic imagery in general as being acceptable for everyday advertising, I think we open the door a little more to let porn's damaging and objectifying messages be heard

Nice looking set of men in the second one.

How is this more pornographic than some of the paintings done years ago? At certain points in history it was the norm to have pictures of naked ladies and men on teh dinging room walls (or equivalent). Often in sexual positions, then the trend for being a bit prim about it started. I am not quite seeing how that, particular, picture is unreasonably pornographic!

A good point, KingCanute.
And you can't actually see anything.

Why does someone have to see a woman as a victim every time sex is involved?

"unreasonably pornographic"??
not quite sure what you mean?
it is either pornographic or not
pornographic just means designed to titillate and arouse sexual excitement
some old artworks do do this, of course
the problem isn't the nudity - it's all the rest of it
surely we aren't naive enough to think that modern pornography is just about nudity and sexual positions without any other aspects to it?
and that people who object to porn are following a 'trend' to be 'prim'?

Not at all F&Z and that was not what my post said.

The trend I was refering to was the Victorian type trends, not modern trends.

Actually I woould find the 2nd one more offensive if was 3 scantily glad ladies draped over one man!. As it stands, they're all quite fit = I'm

I agree FF, it may not make sense as such but I think 3 women to one man would be much worse and I culd apply F&Zs argument to that much more readily.

why?