Bloomberg: Crime Stat Manipulations are "Tiny"
Palin: "Absurd" Not To Consider 2012 Run
School Already Canceled Tomorrow for Snowpocalypse!
Wall Street Throwing More Money at Republicans
More Bald Eagles Spotted In Harlem!
Photo via bitchcakes flickr
C'mon New York, are we such prudes that we can't handle a little denim clad foursome? People are reportedly up in arms over the latest Calvin Klein billboard that the Daily News says "seems to show a teenage girl in a threesome—with suggestions of a foursome."
Located at Lafayette and Houston Streets, not too far away from the always risque American Apparel ads, the billboard has been called "borderline pornographic" by locals, who are also raising eyebrows at the youthfulness of the girl in the ad. And one tourist visiting from Texas said, "I think it's telling people it's okay to do that, and it's kind of gross." Sure, tourists may be shocked at the idea of four clothed jean-lovin' kids dry-humping, but have the rest of us really not come this far since 1981, when a 15-year old Brooke Shields posed spread eagle in a commercial declaring that nothing would come between her and her Calvins?
Meanwhile, on the business side, an Ad Critic for Adweek Media Magazine thinks the billboard is "a desperate act for Calvin Klein," but the company says the "intention was to create a very sexy campaign that speaks to our targeted demographic."
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
nothing offensive to me, i am only offended when there are children involved
I'm only offended when it's MMMF. Would be more palatable as MFFF.
Yeah it mostly seems desperate.
If the logo read "Playboy Magazine" or "Hustler" instead, would this have been approved?
(BTW, whatever, a bunch of anorexic looking models making out - big whoop. I'm much more offended by the constant flashing lights from the giant PSP billboard across the street.)
I'm only offended when it's MMMF. Would be more palatable as MFFF.
I guess women might view it misogynist and perhaps MFFF would be palatable. but the ad doesn't suggest gang banging to me.
The top of the photo suggests a manage troi. The dude on the bottom just wants to wank it.
But am I offended? Only at the lack of women in the ad. This displeases me.
yep, more females are always welcome. Perhaps the Ad seems sanitary because the MMM look identical to each other
probably has something to do with the popularity of the jonas brothers.
oh i just barfed a little..
I feel like puking, this ad isn't offensive but unappealing.
SOME puritanical, frigid, sex hating, misandrist, bra burner feminist chicks who are "offended" by anything sexual or male MIGHT find it "offensive"
Real women would just recognize it as a porno fantasy - and while it might not be their personal cup of tea, other people might like it, so they would live and let live.
It's such a fine line between stupid and clever.
I'm only offended at the portrayal of three perfectly normal gay men as being potentially straight.
me likey.
They're not potential straight. They're actually just in the closet and the woman just act as an intermediary/excuse for them to get cozy with each other.
I'm offended by the total lack of originality. At this point is there any more cliche ad than the "oooh this is naughty and will offend someone" ad?
I have never wanted a pair of jeans more in my life. And by a pair of jeans I mean an explanation as to how this is supposed to sell jeans.
I'm only offended by the fact that I am apparently one of the last people on the planet who doesn't think that wearing the things in ads will get me the sexy action portrayed in those ads.
"a desperate act for Calvin Klein,"
Everything he's ever done is a desperate attempt to stay relevant for one more season.
cause Calvin Klein's/
no friend of mine/
don't want nobody's name/
on my behind!
just another whore on a billboard. (not in real life. probably. maybe.)
This ad imho crosses the line of what should be enlarged to such a giant size in such a public place.
The ad depicts people who look like they could be under 18 in a very risque situation that has some controversial implications. The expressions on the faces of the participants could conceivably be caused by drugs or alcohol, a potential date rapey situation. The guy on the floor might even be passed out.
I bet, most people walking across houston street don't want to imagine that these are their kids (although I'm sure lots of people wish they were in that scene).
This ad is just too over the top for a giant public billboard.
Whereas I don't feel that people have a right not to be offended, I also think that a neighborhood should be a place where everyone can feel comfortable taking a walk with their kids without having to have a discussion about drunken sex orgies.
There is a time and place for sexy material and driving up Lafayette st isn't one of them.
Also as far as tourism goes, I think ads like this may alienate potential visitors from more conservative places, not that I think Soho needs more tourists, but from a commerece stand point I don't see how offensive ads help local business.
Look, it's not the world's responsibliity to desexify everything to "protect the children"!
In places like the Netherlands, they have hard core porno on broadcast TV in prime time, and if you don't want your kids to watch it, that's on you, not the government or the networks!
It works for them - and they have a lower teen pregnancy rate than we do, so maybe we should follow their lead!
it seems to be a successful ad, i mean we're all here aren't we? anything promoting breeding is alright with me, this world is dangerously underpopulated. thanks CK.
don't be that person, hotstepper.
it seems to be a successful ad, i mean we're all here aren't we?
don't be that person.
acknowledging something's existence does not denote success.
apparently you've never worked in advertising.
actually, i did!
i'm back! sorry, for the delay, i was off buying a pair of CK jeans. now, what is it we were talking about?
ha! my work here is complete.
now i'm just waiting for that Spontaneous 0rgy they guaranteed me...
just put an image of the ad up on craigslist and let fate to the rest.
fate, however, is not nearly as slender or attractive as advertised.
It's only successful if it makes me want to run out and spend money on some overpriced jeans, perhaps in the hopes that I too can have three men at my beck and call which I wouldn't need jeans for.
Needs more DADV. For the uninformed,
D=Double and V=Vaginal, I think you can guess what A stands for.
alligators.
Arithmetic
Anonymity
amputee?
Al Sharpton?
bravo everyone
I find the appearance of jean shorts on men in public highly offensive. This billboard is an abomination.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_IQiyoaS67kY/SGFNsP-NSXI/AAAAAAAAAQM/DFXr8a24Fto/s400/yikes.jpg
Surprised they're not Asian.
badumbum.
Anyway, it's just an ad.
I noticed this ad the other day and was wondering if the three guys were all the same. If that was the case it is an awesome ad. If not, wtf?
I ride my bike past that billboard on my way to work every day. I'm pretty sick of it. I guess I could just change my route, but then I could also just buy those jeans. Not gonna happen.
I'm not terribly offended by this ad. It's just got no class.
Anything to make a buck or two.
The word "offensive" is thrown around to lightly. Give me a break. Yes, i am offended. Offended that that chick isnt on top of me on that couch.
It raises a difficult philosophical question: is it possible for a straight man to participate in a man/woman/man threesome while maintaining his straightness, or is such participation necessarily gay? One reasonable-sounding answer is that yes, a straight man many participate, so long as the men limit themselves to shish kebabing the woman and no male flesh ever touches male flesh.
Clearly, the position of the men in this photo, not even counting the one on the floor, goes well past that limit.
It's only gay if balls touch
You've never been on a wrestling team, have you?
What the hell is the guy on the bottom doing? Is he passed out on heroin?
Waiting for the viagra/cialis/ecstasy to kick in.
this would have been offensive 20 years ago, but its lameness is timeless
That's a party!
I'm offended that the threesome about to participate in a DP is so bored, even though none of them look over 19. Is this activity old hat nowadays even for teens? And the guy on the floor would rather sleep than help create an airtight seal. Sheesh, kids today. So lazy.
Perhaps the real message is: Parents, buy your trust fund kiddies these pants -- they're permeated with Oxycontin patches so your slutty offspring will nod off instead of having kinky sex!
Interesting how the billboard is across the street from the "train" station.
Yeah! What are they trying to "pull"?
This ad makes me want to rape Sarah Palin's youngest daughter.
for those who are really offended then shot some paintballs at the ad.
Looks like the kind of party where there might be Cheetos ground into the wall to wall of someone's divorced Dad's rank basement.
The obscene part of the CK ad is not its tired, clicheed sexuality -- this, we expect -- but its total aesthetic lameness, which is imposed on everyone who goes past it. There oughta be a law.
excellent point.
How is this remotely shocking in New York? Who even notices ads like this anymore? There are hundreds of subway stations plastered with ads featuring closeups of Mary Louise Parker's crotch, a double entendre involving the word "pricks" and men wearing masks made out of human skin, but this one single ad making some idiots upset makes the news?
Winner.
I was wondering if they even sell these short shorts. It seems $40 online is a good price. This is good news for all the underage girls dreaming of being fondled by gay guys while topless.
I find this ad totally offensive, because it's just so obnoxious. Ohhhhhhhh, I get it-- it's exactly like a still from a porno shoot, except instead of having obvious-looking porno stars with fake breasts, bleached hair, and tramp stamps, it's got high fashion models in jeans. And this is all to be "controversial" and "daring!"
Oooooh, isn't Calvin Klein oh, so clever, so daring, so anti-establishment? What a brilliant ad!
*squeals like a 16 year old*
Calvin Klein? Didn't he used to be Calvin Kline?
Not sexy. A too-young gal and a few guys who may be homosexuals. The standard ad these days. Hardly sexy, just boring and a weak attempt to excite.
Not sexy. A too-young gal and a few guys who may be homosexuals. The standard ad these days. Hardly sexy, just boring and a weak attempt to excite.
Don't know where the outrage broke out, but I saw it last night on CBS news. I think someone at Calvin Klein's PR office just pulled a favor from some newscasters.
Now everyone is talking about it and looking at the ad. Major win for them in the buzz department.
It's not unusual for CK, really. I've seen guys wearing fine cotton tighty whities that look almost transparent!
I think this ad just needed another girl to balance it out.
What makes you think this ad is directed to girls?
In any case, how many CK ads like this have been towering over Houston Street for so many years now? It's not the worst, I think, but it's pretty much all a blur by now.
WTF is this? The View?
No elisabeth's gluten sensitive skin and petty right wing thoughts are not here.
I don't think it's offensive -- but it seems awfully dated/passe', as if CK is stuck in a time warp.
Right. Hasn't Calvie been doing these same adds since the early 90s? Zzzzzzzzzz.
It's just PORNO!
Grow up!
Well, the American Family Association is against it, so regardless of how obnoxious it is, I've gotta support it.
looks like the same guy in 3 different position. like a time lapse thing. during, before and after mode.
Calvin Klein's no friend of mine.
Cum on! It's just a few kids having some fun. What's the big deal?
do you think if it was 4 blacks in that ad,
it would have been taken down already?
you've done it again CK
Iv never bought anything CK and when I see that label on anyone,it instinctively tells me that person is a douche.
am i the only one who sees all three dudes are the same dude? he's just having some fun with photoshop.
annoying, yes, offensive, not really.
Jaded teens in faded jeans: a fitting emblem of moribund America.
Offensive? No I'm not in the least bit offended. In fact, I'm grateful. Calvin continues to push what's acceptable in the public sphere. What's more, I prefer this caricature of youth and its portrayal of gender and sexuality and drug-altered states of mind, to the ordinary advertisements. Calvin initiates an interesting dialog in a City (upper case intentional to stand for NYC) that has, in theory normalized all manner of behavior and relationships. What's more, Calvin is nothing if not consistent; again this is not an aberration, it is merely an evolution we've seen over the decades, since his "exploitation" of young Brooke Shields at the advent of his corporate advertising. So, I say, well done, Calvin, and, ever onward. In closing, I find the uninterrupted flow of traffic on Houston actually offensive and wish people would focus on what is troubling at street level.
I'm more offended by American Apparel ads on the internets. Every time one comes up it looks like I'm looking at porn at work with some skank with no shirt on and her ass cheeks hanging out... selling flip-flops.
When will people understand that making a big deal out of something like this allows the brand being advertised to get even more exposure and at the same time gives a reputation of being ground-breaking to ad agency that made the poster?
You can bet your family jewels (and I am not talking about one's kids) that if this ad was posted on a billboard of a European city, pretty much everyone would ignore it or at most just smile about its moronic attempt to "shock" the bystander using the cliche of leveraging what some society considers border-line taboo.
The ad is not sexy, not artistic, not creative... really peole, it is not worth any attention, let's stop giving it so much importance. I agree that is someone finds it offensive (like family associations and the likes) they have the right to complain and try to have it taken down, but personlly i could not care less about it, it's just a stupid ad.
It would upset me more would be a McDonald ad than this one! :)
It would upset me more would be a McDonald ad than this one! :)
Sorry.. I meant what would upset me more would be a McDonald ad than this one! :)