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?

kingcanute i think young women dating young men are encountering these attitudes more and more
i think it is permeating society but quite gradually so it doesn't hit you in the face
there i have spread enough doom and gloom for one day! will go and talk about something more pleasant

Message withdrawn

first one doesn't bother me, don't like the second one at all, don't expect to see photos of orgies in mainstream advertising.

Yes, but Bloss - is degradation in the eye of the beholder? It seems so.

I really disagree. The second one is erotica - some of the poses may be redolent of pornography. Yes, porn may be a referent. But that doesn't make the picture pornographic.

They are both in Rolling Stone magazine.

What is it that makes the photo erotica rather than pornography?

Neither of them bother me in the slightest - the second one is hot! Furthermore, it's a Calvin Klein ad; semi-nude beautiful people have always featured strongly in those adverts for decades.

I don't see it as pornographic in the slightest. To me it's more artistic and is a beautiful photo.

It certainly is artistic. Quite reminiscent of those baroque paintings of nudes with arms and legs all over the place that were commissioned by kings and corrupt cardinals to hang in their bedrooms.

Now were they pornography or erotica?

Well that's a ticky defintion. Is it like the difference between a really harrowing yet in deep documentry, and a tabloid cash in of a tragedy?

I think that picture refelcts somehting back about the culture its targeting, and also has a degree of self parody, whilst also being challenging.

I've read sexual fantisies on MN that look a lot like this scenareo. One women with numernous men, but not in the way it's normally targeted to men.

This picture is redolent of porn, who whose porn - men's or women's? I think the power set up is totally equal in the picture.

There are a few stables for mainsteam porn - close up penetration, with mucus menbranes and focus on the woman's face. Plus the cum shot.

Actually, I'm just off to watch Twilight again and - this is totoally subjective but - I think you could define female porn, as in, what makes the majority of us hot is the Darcy pheomenon. The intense look - the man struggling to control himslef. That's women porn!

"degradation, violence, suffering and coercion"

we're not going the route of "everything to do with sex is evil" are we? Condemning porn as universally any of the above is like condemning literature to be universally subversive or even degrading, violent and so on. Or film for that matter, or drama.

forgetting the sex element for a minute, all those riotous young folk in the jeans ad are skinny and gorgeous - boys and girls - thats something I'd like to see less of in advertising - more real shapes and sizes please.

"pressured into blow jobs" !!!!

I just think it's good manners to return a favour

I agree with F&Z about the negative effects of pornography, but I don't consider the ad to be pornographic. I didn't make me think of a gang bang as I presumed the men were bisexual. That may be on of the things that differentiates erotica from porn; with erotica your imagination has to fill in the gaps, while porn is explicit so has more power to directly influence the viewer.

I think Twilight (the book) is degrading to women. It is a story about a woman who chooses to be with a man who admits he has to try really hard all the time to control his desire to hurt and possibly kill her. She makes out that her loving him despite this is true love! He also has to protect her all the time because she can't look after herself. I couldn't finish the book because I found it so sickening. So I certainly wouldn't call it pornography to women, although I suppose it is possible that someone, somewhere is thinking about Edward Cullen during sex!

Each to his or her own, I suppose!

Some people do seem to have a predeliction for seeing the negative attributes of anything remotely sexual.

I probably do see most things sexual in a negative way, apart from artistically designed gemstone dildos...

I keep having dreams about Twilight just based on what I have heard of it!

The first add pisses me off with the stereotyping, and the second pisses me off with the 'perfect bodies'. Would we be arguing it is pornographic more so, or less so, if the women was 20 stone, and the men all had beer bellys... probably more so maybe???

I would recommend watching the film as a bit of light entertainment. It is prettily shot and the actor playing the vampire is very pretty as well. I let my daughter buy it with some birthday money she got.

The other male love interest is apparently being recast for the sequel.

men all had beer bellys.

ha ha - she'd be far less likely to be having a good time - as for her being on top...

Someone tried to lend me the film, maybe I should let her!!!

Ugh @ beer bellys, possibly the most un-sexually-attractive feature possible.

designer jeans with designer beer bellies and optional designer builders bum...

You are ruining the sexiness of the ad! I am thinking of farting drinkers falling out of their jeans with brewer's droop instead of pretty models.

ha ha - sorry Milly. Try thinking of the beer bellies covered in oil...

...sump oil not baby oil

And string vests and chest hair