Calvin Klein's new 'Threesome' ad causing controversy

[NCfuncouple98]

Calvin Klein 'Threesome' Ad Draws Oohs, Aahs and Protests - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com

[Dave_kat]

Life would be so much simpler if people didn't yell pornography or sinner everytime something remotely sensual comes on...

And just think, the Quakers left England to get away from the Puritans.

[NCfuncouple98]

I do think this one is a bit over the top, especially the picture all 3 on the coach with more than one embrace going on/

Not ok for a jeans ad. Not when I have 3 kids that follow blue jean styles!

[Chicup]

Ambercrombie and Fitch (sp, dunno, to lazy to look up) had a MFM on one of their bags, photos, years ago.

[PB&J]

Actually, the Quakers left England to get away from the Anglican establishment after the return of Charles II to the throne of England. It is true that they got persecuted by the Puritans as well, but the big exodus under William Penn happened post-Puritan rule of England.

[Dave_kat]

Originally Posted by PB&J

Actually, the Quakers left England to get away from the Anglican establishment after the return of Charles II to the throne of England. It is true that they got persecuted by the Puritans as well, but the big exodus under William Penn happened post-Puritan rule of England.

LMAO.. Well, heck.. Guess we know Dave's not a history major.. Thanks for the correction.

[turnuptheheat]

It is meant to be controversial.....
IMO, it is in bad taste in the mainstream society of NYC.
Like it or not, it disrespects the mores of the society as a whole. There are lots of cultures and age groups exposed to this in this location.
Supposedly it is to a specific demographic, but it is posted on a very busy SOHO street.
If it was targeted at a demographic, it should have been run in theaters or put in print in specific mags.
It did what it was meant to do, now it will probably be taken down....
Personally I don't really care about the ad and wish we would lighten up as a society....

[Trace Ekies]

I agree it's not appropriate for a billboard on any street.

It's shock advertising to get people talking or make a point. In this case, talking leads to sales and sales leads to more sales. I understand why but I think it's too much for the general public. It will offend someone's sensibilities and they have the right to not see it plastered on a billboard in a public space.

It's like swinging, we don't conceal it out of shame, we conceal it to prevent someone who doesn't like it having to be exposed to it. We're happy and they're happy.

Actually, we're REALLY happy and they don't know what they're missing...but this is a discussion for another thread.

Trace

[VanHlebar]

While maybe it isn't right for a main street, I am not so sure... There isn't anything nude or showing in the picture. Have we come to such a spot in our society that we must shelter our children from anything sexual? I mean I know I was looking at my dads playboy's, porn movies and such when I was extremely young, probably 10 or so. That stuff was WAY more hardcore than this picture, and with the possible exception of being in the lifestyle, I don't think I am any kind of pervert or sick person.

Why is it that in the US we obsess over this kind of stuff? In Europe this add wouldn't even get a second glance and well I don't think most European children are being "scarred" by such stuff.

-Van

[turnuptheheat]

Van, IMO it is a question of sensitivity to others.
In that area, there are a lot of different cultures that are quite prudish in our eyes.
To display this to them is insulting, again, IMO.

[VanHlebar]

Originally Posted by turnuptheheat

Van, IMO it is a question of sensitivity to others.
In that area, there are a lot of different cultures that are quite prudish in our eyes.
To display this to them is insulting, again, IMO.

I completely understand where you are coming from..and the only answer I can give really borders on a "political" one and I don't want to get in "trouble" with Julie...or do I?

-Van

[cplnuswing]

Like the famous quote from a judge,"I'll know it when I see it", regarding the legal definition of what is or isn't obscenity, things like this are on a sliding scale based on the individual (or culture) so I'm not sure there really is an answer.

There is a part of me that totally agrees with sensitivity to others, and there is another part of me that knows that is a slippery slope and things can start to get overly repressive to protect the more delicate sensitivities of the few, some of whom seem to have made a career out of being scandalized about one thing or another that to most simply bring a smile to their faces. Since the few are usually the most vocal, sometimes for self-serving reasons IMO, I usually try to error on the permissive side just to be a counterweight to the professional scolds.

I agree with Mr. Van that the U.S. has some screwed up obsessions over some pretty silly stuff, but also think of other cultures that seem to be even more screwed up that we are so I guess it could be worse

[VanHlebar]

Originally Posted by cplnuswing

There is a part of me that totally agrees with sensitivity to others, and there is another part of me that knows that is a slippery slope and things can start to get overly repressive to protect the more delicate sensitivities of the few, some of whom seem to have made a career out of being scandalized about one thing or another that to most simply bring a smile to their faces. Since the few are usually the most vocal, sometimes for self-serving reasons IMO, I usually try to error on the permissive side just to be a counterweight to the professional scolds.

This is exactly what I meant. We tend to be overly conservative here in the US about protecting the "rights" of the few who "might" be offended, not just with sexual content.

Sure it could be a lot worse here in the US, but it also could be a lot better. I surely don't have the answer as to how you walk that fine line between being sensitive to the few and understanding of the rest of the people. That is why I am not a government official!

I liked the ad myself and maybe if it where displayed in a more appropriate location (like a magazine) it wouldn't have caused such a fuss, but then again when was the last time Calvin Klein didn't cause a fuss with an ad? As some have pointed out, that is what his intention is most often than not. Wasn't it also CK that had the add a couple of years ago that everyone was screaming about because it "clearly depicted homosexuality" with two guys hugging with no shirts on or something like that?

-Van

[Speed & Trixie]

I'm sorry but did anyone see the recent Rolling Stone magazine with the "Gossip Girls" on the cover? The were both licking a large ice cream cone in a pretty sexual way. This is supposed to be a music magazine! What about all those stupid "Axe" body spray/ colongne/ whatever ads with multiple girls all over one guy?

It seems that people tend to get more "up in arms" when it's one women and multiple men.

Trixie

[rdy46227]

Can't people tell that it was really MFMF with one M taking a break?