Honestly, the undressed man on the ground doesn't look too put out about this turn of events. Maybe the implication is that he's accepted the hierarchy and wants to be dominated by men with better clothes?

Is it violence or consensual bondage we're seeing? Maybe the message of the ads is, "You will not just be mastered by our line of incredibly expensive clothes, you will love ever second of it." Very strange.

I think you may be underestimating how conscious they are about creating controversy.

First and mostly obviously, it's a good way of getting free publicity. If they can create a media controversy, and get activists to protest the ads, they're getting additional publicity for themselves at no cost.

Second, it's worth looking at their corporate website to see the brand identity they're trying to propagate:
http://www.dolcegabbana.com/corporate/en/brand/brand-dg.html

"Dolce&Gabbana is the new luxury, authentic and unconventional. A style that expresses new forms of elegance, presenting itself as a modern classicism, based on superior sartorial content and creativity. The strong identity of the Dolce&Gabbana brand has evolved over the years without ever forgetting its roots. An unmistakable style, which, season after season, combines strong innovation with the Mediterranean flavour of its origins. A brand whose essence lies in its contrasting features."

They want to be seen as superior, creative and unconventional. As such, their ads seek to deliberately breach cultural norms to a certain extent: this differentiates them from competitors and positions their image as unconventional.

So I think it's a bit problematic if you seem to want to use the ad as an example of a naive expression of accepted cultural norms. Instead it seems to me a carefully calculated breach of such norms.

I find it interesting that the second ad seems much more overtly sexual. The male "victim" is completely nude, as far as I can tell, while the female "victim" is mostly/entirely clothed, depending on your sensibilities; similarly, one of the "perps" in the bottom ad is clearly preparing to whip his dick out (or possibly just put it back), while the men in the top ad, while still menacing overall, are in more neutral positions.

I wonder what is different about a homosexual gang rape/group sex scenario (I'm not sure which it's trying to portray) that makes D&G feel it's okay (or at least more profitable) to make it more sexually explicit.

There's nothing more conventional than the dynamic of dominance and submission. In fact, our whole society is predicated on dominance. So, D&G gets to feel all naughty and bold, when they are simply reinforcing the status quo.

Re the second ad, looking at the line of sight of the two men in the top right, the first thing I thought was , they're checking out his dick size - then you have the guy pulling up his fly (or down, however you read it) - so the link I got was, D&C, doesn't matter if you have a small dick, you're still going to be powerful, as long as you're in our stuff. Makes some sense to me, giving the construction of the relationship between power and penis size ...

She doesn't look unwilling at all! She's lifting up her hips to him! I'm more interested in the fact that they cast a man with a disability as the main actor in the top ad. Or accidentally photoshopped out his left arm.

Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá's recent book Sex at Dawn argues that multi-male/multi-female scenarios are a normal part of human sexuality, and I think a lot of people find them pretty sexy. Could be Dolce and Gabbana just want you to look at their logo and feel slightly aroused. In the wallet area.

I have to admit I was a little floored by the second ad. I still find it surprising whenever homosexuality is acknowledged in advertising/mainstream media, let alone treated positively/neutrally/as unremarkable. In this case, given D&G's image, it's easy to assume that they only included homosexuality in order to be more provocative or "edgy." The way the two dressed men on the right are clearly discussing (and pointing at) the nude man, who seems oblivious (or enjoying the voyeurism), and the two men on the left in the middle of dressing or undressing (the one in the back seems to be loosening his tie) all make it much more sexually charged than the first image. The way the nude man is arching his back and touching himself makes the viewer assume he is enjoying himself and thus consented to whatever is going on here.

On the other hand, while the woman's body is arched up, her face is turned away from the man on top of her and she has that typical slightly frowning, brows creased, I'm-not-enjoying-this female model/porn star expression on her face. The body posture of the other males seems like they are, at best, mildly interested (or completely disinterested) observers. This one is rather complex, however, because I think even IF you made the woman more clearly enjoying herself (hands on her own body, pleased expression), I think a lot of people would still see "gang bang" and speculate that perhaps she is too drunk/drugged to object. Likewise, while we are saturated with images of men being apathetic to violence against women, making the men seem more interested in her would probably just make the ad creepier. For some reason we prefer to see the woman as a victim rather than a willing participant in "deviant" sexual activities, whereas I guess it's not difficult at all for us to assume that a gay man is probably "deviant" in other ways as well. (Not that homosexuality is "deviant," but it's been stereotyped as such in the US.)

It's interesting how two very similar ads can be viewed quite differently; one as "maintaining the status quo" (woman=weak, victim, men=powerful, aggressor) and the other as more "controversial" or "edgy" merely by changing the gender of the "powerless" individual, even though otherwise the tone of the ad hasn't changed.

I think Dolce and Gabbana is a lot of overpriced crap, and their attempt to be deep with their ads is laughable. I'd rather wear a pair of $20 jeans and a t-shirt.

Doesn't the analysis "they are promoting the dominance of the men who wear these brand name clothes" not quite apply since the girl is wearing those brand name clothes, too? Or it applies, but only men can access dominance by these clothes, which means that women are, perhaps, immune to the potential dominance accessed by D&G clothes.

Mm, I'll have to go with attentiongrabbing om this one. The selling kg ideas is an old tactic by now, and the big fashionhouses earn their privilege by being ahead if everyone else. It's not like d&g needs to convince anyone anyway, all they need to do is to remins us that they're there. If you accept that the first pic was meant for more conservative audiences, the second becomes almost a perfect idea of of what gets attention nowadays:

We obviously have the gang bang implication, but there's also the image of a submissive or vulnerable man, on top of same sex sex. Then there's the cut and angles that along with the identical clothubg and the lack of bodyhair depraves the models of some of their humanity. They land squarely in uncanny valley and you're left wondering what's wrong with the picture (the same effect could be said to be achieved with stiff poses in the first ad)

all in all, you get one impression that grabs your attention and one that sticks. Pretty diabolical.

I can't stop staring at the left leg of the naked man in the second. There's something seriously wrong with the proportions. Why would it be photoshopped to look so strange?

Normally speaking, don't you have to take you clothes off to have sex? Forced, consenting or other wise clothing is usually Removed. So then to be having sex they would have to Take Off their D&G clothing, and that seems rather counter productive when your trying to Sale clothing.

I noticed two big divides, other than the gender of the submissive person in the picture--class and consent.

The men in the first photo have sort of a blue collar/faux thug (think old JD movies from the '50s with "greasers" in tight jeans") thing going on. Forced or not (though it definitely looks like the glamorization of rape to me--they have control over her, but she wants it), the men are looming over her and are dominant--indeed, dangerous in their poses. They have a bad-boy look about them.

The non-supine men in the second photo have an upper-class presentation--all but one are wearing white/light-colored suits rather than jeans, and they look (for the most part) older and more "distinguished" than the bad boys in the first picture. The fact that the naked man is unrestrained has been discussed (notice also that he is arching his back and willingly spreading his legs, looking pretty relaxed and willing--the woman in the other shot looks to me like she was pushed backwards, and also her legs are together), and the photo is just more overtly sexual. Between the unzipping/tie-loosening and the fascination of the two guys pointing at the supine man's genitals, it looks like, while the naked man is submissive to these powerful, suited men, it's all about sex. The first photo is more about aggression--they're menacing her/"seducing" her by being more powerful and "taking' her--while the second one seems more like everyone's getting something out of it. (Notice how the guy on his back is touching himself.) Even if he's a call boy or something, he really seems to be there of his own accord and for his own benefit (even if that benefit involves submission, which is perfectly possible).

Interesting to note too that in the first ad of mixed-sex combination, you see the faces of everyone involved, but in the second same-sex combination, most of the faces are obscured or deliberately left outside the frame.

I think it's a mistake to read these men as straight men or in a het context. It seems pretty obvious to me, as a gay man, the second ad is a GAY ad, marketing to gay men who wear D&G or might rush out to go shopping after seeing it. (And most certainly, it also serves to be edgy and shocking for publicity as well as to make their brand memorable). Many gay men do spend a lot of time and money on designer fashion, and take it very seriously, there are subsets of gay culture- some quite competitive- that revolve around designers names and brands as icons of culture ( I know, I know). Many gay men would read this as D&G pretty much as illustrating a gay fantasy and overtly "owning" their homosexuality or homoflexibility by "coming out", and acknowledging a gay consumer base - admitting they are stained with GAY GERMS. Pretty bold move.

As a gay man in gay culture, I don't really read oppression into the gay ad - the dressed men might want to suck his dick or penetrate him, but they are definitely interested, and he definitely seems eager for some kind of action by spreading his legs and throwing his head back without coercion. I think many gay men would be turned on by this ad. Either because they like the idea of having a naked willing bottom in their rich and well-dressed liesure fantasy, or they like the idea of being the object of desire among rich and powerful men. It doesn't have the connotation it does for the woman - there are many guys who couldn't be seen as sexual beings, who couldn't get the attention of the handsome guy they wanted in high school, who couldn't be the object of desire when they wanted to, who were shamed or punished or suffered abuse and violence if they expressed their sexuality. That as why so many men, when they come out, often have a phase of promiscuity. Part of how gay oppression, AIDS, etc, as it was traditionally perceived by gay men, goes something like: they are trying to stop us from having sex! Our nudity and desire to be sexualized was seen as dangerous and still is mostly judged not consumable through mainstream media (though this has started to shift more for lesbians and I don’t mean fake porn lesbians). Thus, much of the historical context of gay liberation movements focuses of being able to flaunt gay sexuality. Which does mean necessarily anything we see as “gayness” from a gender expressive standpoint (ie being feminine, etc) but essentially means men desiring each other openly, without punishment. Though the ads are superficially similar, the context of the main character- the bottom, in either case-is entirely different, because he is a gay man, and she is a woman, and they are categeorically oppressed in different ways. (Though I don’t deny there is an intersection of misogyny, homophobia and transphobia, it’s just not particularly relevant to this ad).

For me, I think it's pretty much standard stroke fare, based on my experience with gay-driven stroke lit or porn. The most shocking thing about it, from a mainstream het standpoint is that he isn't fighting to get away (which God knows any "real" man would do- my god he must be invisibly restrained! He must be....NOT A REAL MAN!!!), and the other men do not seem to be dominating him or mocking him (truly if they were straight they would be doing something violent to him, right?) The mere nakedness or receptivity doesn't imply domination to me in gay context , except whatever power dynamics are universal to being located as an object of desire. Assuming there are any, because being depicted so means something different for gay men than it does for women.

In contrast the woman seems potentially coerced because she is literally being held down by the wrist (a common rape trope in media) and is slightly looking away. The raised hips suggest she wants to have sex with at least him (but she cant say that because then she'd be a "slut") which a woman very well may want to in this position, but we'll never know because she comes with a whole other slew of contextual baggage – traditionally she's taught to be good and not say No when people violate her autonomy or opportunity in all manner of ways, then once she's used to that and older she's told if she doesn't explicitly say No and fightit means she's willing, but if she says No too much no one will ever want her and she’s not allowed to be seen as complete by herself. She is at high risk for being sexually asaulted and when she is it isn't taken as seriously as it should be. The female form is often distorted and sexually dehumanized in media, being reduced to public object of mens desire- a desire she is expected to serve before her own. The tradition is to paint her as sexually consumable and disposable. Furthermore the ad itself seems to fulfill a het male fantasy. Not that it couldn't also fulfill a het females, but we just can't be sure, and this raises insecurity about the message.

So the juxtaposition here is interesting, because of the contexts. The gay ad seems like pretty straightforward (!) gay fantasy for the bottom, but it's not something you ever see outside of gay themed smut media, which makes it seem shocking and almost violent, particularly from a homophobic sensibility. However from a gay perspective, it’s more hot than violent or demeaning. Anyone who primarily sees this man as being demeaned might be seeing it through the lens of homophobia (and by extension misogyny –ie being sexually receptive makes you lesser). Either that or I could see a woman projecting her own sense of oppression onto the male bottom out of misunderstanding the differences in how gay men and women are oppressed. Or perhaps anyone (gay or het) may see group sex as meaningless and unhealthy and thus they are all degrading themselves in some way by engaging in it.

So the gay ad seems direct and plays against tradition in a refreshing way. In the het ad, they are pandering to the norm, but there is also more friction - I don't know what to think about the bottom or read what she wants, because she exists in a different context than her male compatriot.

What seems most clear to me, in their similarities (aside from the obvious composition) is they both fulfill male sexual fantasies.

@Tamara
Interesting to note too that in the first ad of mixed-sex combination, you see the faces of everyone involved, but in the second same-sex combination, most of the faces are obscured or deliberately left outside the frame.
_________________________________________

Yes, this seems to me to be their way of holding back a little and not fully "coming out". Showing their faces/identifying them would have been too bold to be acceptable. Because then we'd have to kill them or something.

This also references two things to me:

A. the culture of gay sex that developed earlier this century due to having to do it anonymously or secretly in public places or hotels, which is still a part of gay culture, although it may not be as universally necessary as it once was.

B. Many men who are not gay have enjoyable sexual experiences with other men out of curiousity, experimentation or because it is easier to get laid that way, but as they prefer sex with women and would not be interested in a guy romantically (either due to homophobia or because that's just their orientation) they have sex with guys anonymously.

I tried on the idea that this might be to dehumanize the bottom but you can't see the face of the guy unzippering either, and they are the most sexualized in a gay way, so I don't think that's it. His performance is full of lust, and he is the "feature" as my friends and I like to say. He seems to be more excited (ie out of control) than the others, and he is naked, which does imply some sexual power dynamic in any sexual situation, but this seems pretty consensual and desirable to him.

In the first ad, the woman is intentionally pushing her hips up. That doesn't look like rape.

Just as a small note to some people. Ignoring her face, as that's standard female model face. The fact that her legs are closed and she is actually lifting her pelvis away from him shows more that she's trying to get out of it. People who aren't a victim generally don't understand the signs of it, and in this case though she is a "willing" model in an ad with the imagery of "unwilling", it sends a very strong and harmful message. Regardless, they got the "shock" factor they wanted. But it still goes along the lines of teaching people "They were wearing that, so they wanted it."

Dominance is still violence, and "dominate" someone in sex is still rape (unless is a BSDM scenario)

Both make me uneasy. They make me want to never support D&G again..

I don't know. The first one people see "gang rape"; I see the woman completely in charge. She owns those men. The look on her face shows power, not fear. She's claiming her power... and we can't have that.

Who was the photographer for the second photo?

Hot gay guy in Canberra Australia ..0483 219 182 Allan.. I'm keento find a bad. Boy big cocked gang to gay fagrape me as often as poaiabke ..

I'm willing to serve. And am a taste you will love and want..I'm 166cm tall 69kgs.smooth, Fit, 36years old 100% clean and negative . 7.5-8inch uncut.I'm very good looking and a fit smaller guy . I want to meet the gang and be their rape toy