I definitely think that Americans speak out of both sides of their mouth. Not only are we all subjected to violence on TV, but the language used is often over the top. If Americans are accepting of this on an everyday basis, why can't we accept a beautiful woman advertising a product? I don't get it....

"Here’s a link to the Mendes clip, but it is definitely NSFW. Unless you work from home. (Or for Calvin Klein.)"

...or live somewhere other than America! Good grief! We have full nudity in food commercials during children's programming in the middle of the day here, and nobody bats an eye-lash.

And none of them have anything to do with sex. At all. Off the top of my head; one is of a couple having time to go skinny-rolling in the snow because the pre-prepared dinner cooks itself, another of an elderly couple skinny-dipping and eating chocolate, and a third was something with guys in a sauna drinking beer. Nothing at all sexual, just naked normal-looking bodies. Why care??

America should let it air. Although I'm not one to talk as I don't live there. Though damn, that's a great boob.

I suppose some of the feminists can cry "she's selling her body!" but I think that it's all right. Though this commercial wouldn't even have seen the light of day in my country. And I really do think that sex is a lot better than violence. A boob shot or two men/women kissing are a lot less damaging to little kids than seeing people get blown up to the point that they either think it's cool to shoot people, or no longer care that people die.

As for the Kate Moss and Brooke Shields controversies, the feminist in me says "no!", the maternal part of me says "let the kids have their childhood and stop sexualising them!" while the liberal part of me says "it's totally fine! sex is normal! there's nothing wrong with heroin chic!" So I really don't know what to conclude.

Of course, Baron grew up in France where people are not terrified of a breast.

*Snicker* Thanks for that Gina.

I don't see what the big deal is...once again.

-- - - - - - - - -

-Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.

I blog, therefore, I am

I like the commericial, but all I can really think about is the other type of commercials that will be allowed.  I just picture those "real men" commercials, whether from Burger King or beer companies, thowing in tits.  Instead of ketchup from a Carl's Jr. hamburger falling onto a woman's shirt, the ketchup, or more likely a white condiment like mayonnaise, would fall onto an exposed breast.  

I would much rather have sex than violence in media, but would we happily embrace the commercials that objectify women's bodies even more than the commercials do now?  If commercials now are tailored to make women feel bad about their bodies or use women's bodies to lure consumers, the commercials won't suddenly become female-friendly and affirming.

Part of me hates censorship, but another part of me is cringing at the thought of what misogynistic commercials would air in America. 

In my opinion, two wrongs don't equal a right. While that saying might not totally apply to this situation, I don't think that this ad could be justified by saying that kids are subjected to images and videos of violence, so why not let them see nudity too?

Which isn't to say that I'm adverse to beautiful people and that I completely believe in censorship. I do believe that kids should get time to just be kids though. Fallon ash above mentions that most of the commercials containing nudity in her country aren't about sex or pertaining to sex. But the thing is, in America many things do pertain or allude to sex. There are very few ads that deal with nudity as a non-issue. I may be in the minority here, but that's just my opinion.

Tegan: Everytime I see it, I just want to punch her in the face because I'm so excited for her.

Okay, it was a blink and you miss it moment, similar to the infamous nipplegate that I have never seen (I guess I keep blinking at just the right time). It would be one thing if she was standing there or laying there with a spotlight on her breasts but this was tastefully done. I didn't see her nipple until I went frame by frame. Maybe the image just did not shock me or maybe I was too busy looking at Eva in general that I didn't focus on just one part of her body. I think it is a little extreme to say that adds like this would open up the misogynistic attitude of advertisers to distastefully depict women. They are already doing that without reason in many ads that I have seen. I guess when we get to be a certain age; we forget what it was like when we were kids. When I was seven or eight I would sneak a peek at my cousins Playboy to see what it was all about. It was a naked woman that was skinnier than my mother was but looked the same. Children and people in general are fascinated with breasts because for the most part, that is the first association of comfort (if one was breastfed). Would this have been as controversial if it were an unattractive woman that did not ooze sex just walking down the street? C'mon, Eva is hot. The picture above is hot and is sexy. Beautiful people are objectified but not without their consent. Just my two cents for what it is worth.

As someone with two european parents living in north america i always got myself into trouble. They believed in letting me see the world. I remember watching "old school" when i was 11 with my older siblings because i wanted to be like them. I didin't understand what was going on at all, but i laughed when they laughed and truthfully groaned when Will Farrel(sp?) went streaking. Of course the moment my friend's parents caught whiff of this they deemed me devil child and banished me from their home.

The one thing that i truly love about my mother is that she never once said "no, you are too young" to my questions. Even when i asked her (at the age of 13) how much people would be buying hookers for as I wandered down the red light district on a family vacation (she did not know btw.)

All this to say that i am not scared of a little boob, considering the fact that it was a nanosecond of breast, and the only thing that left me upset about the add was that i took the time to watch it, i wanted more skin! :P

You notice that the europeans have naked women AND american movies?? And amazingly enough they have not self distructed (cough cough see US! cough cough.)  In fact I think their open mindedness has done them good.

And last but not least, why make naked women and men so dangerous? What is so bad about adam and eve here? I apologize and I don't want the wrath of any religious followers but why must being naked be taboo? we all have breasts or penises, why make it seem....wrong? This to me does origionate from the church, but that could be an unfair thing to say because i don't know my history well enough, so don't take my word on that.

Well i seem to be a taboo to some families already, so anyone who wants to join me on the dark side (aka: I LIKE BOOBS IN TV OR OTHERWISE) is welcome too:P

*sucess is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm* -Churchilll

I had to watch that three times just to spot any nipples at all. And I was looking really hard!

I understand the discomfort about sexualising women in order to sell products but Calvin Klein are selling perfume here and what purpose does that have if not to stimulate physical attraction? Eroticism and misogyny are not equivalents. The fact that the product's about sex is precisely why the censors are making a fuss. Good to see the Puritan's who felt obliged to leave England four hundred years ago (pre-UK) are still in charge. I'd bet that if CK's job was selling arms there'd be no qualms from the censor about using women to sexualise a semi-automatic rifle.

I'm not sure how feminism got dragged into the debate about the Mendes ad. It wasn't banned on feminist grounds. It was banned because it shows a nipple, and nipples aren't allowed on U.S. TV. That has nothing to do with feminism. It has to do with Americans being prudish, hypocritical, and totally screwed up when it comes to the human, especially female, body. If sexist ads were illegal, half the ads currently running would have to be taken off the air. I think maybe what bothers some people (not me) about the ad is that she looks like she's "enjoying" herself.

Of all the ads shown in this post, the Mendes one is the only one that doesn't bother me. I'm not a fan of ads that promote pedophilia or anorexia, and the crotch grabbing is just tacky.

Seriously, it isn't a big deal.  Damn, the US needs to get a grip- you'll let your kids watch violent cartoons and TV shows but a slight nipple shot is causing this much commotion.  Come off it!

Eva is drop dead gorgeous so I personally could watch her for hours and never get sick of her.  And Calvin Klein does what he normally does.  Even though I've never viewed his campaigns as controversial even when I was younger.

Obviously!

Before you can even get to the point where you're able to "enjoy" nipples on TV (in any form), you have to go back to the classrooms, and allow teachers to teach UNCENSORED science and human sexuality...then you have to be able to provide avenues for children to become more at ease with their bodies and sexuality...you have to banish the so-called "Religious Right " to Mars or perhaps even further away, unless they promise to work on reducing their preaching based on ignorance, give those men who can't get their minds out of a womans v-hole long enough to produce quality movies/ads/videos Human Sexuality 101 classes, so they can start to recognize the difference between their sexist and insulting porn videos and film, versus honest, natural, and real (doesn't even have to be positive) messages...that will be a good start!

You'd still have a long way before you could get to the point where you're putting matchsticks in your eyes so as to not blink and miss Eva's nipple in her ad! I mean, can you even say nipple on non-cable american network tv?

Love never loses its way home. Remember...its about the journey, not the destination

Why not just air the ad at a later hour when children should be in bed instead of banning it?

Anyways thanks for the link to the commercial :-) Eva Mendes is gorgeous and I can look at her breasts all day, if I had the time that is.

Couple of things I've noticed about American media.

I usually remember a product that used sex in it's advertisements.  I rarely remember any violent advertisements.  There was a study that showed that people who watch violent or sexual programs don't remember the advertisements. 

This country sees violence as a good thing.  Look at our cops and our military.  Our leadership is all for the 'shoot first, ask questions later (if at all)' type of justice.

We live in a country where you can openly play cops and robbers but you gotta sneak around to play doctor.

Most (not all) forms of media that depict violence have a good guy vs. bad guy theme.  Violence has been apart of our country since the beginning but no one was really worried until Grand Theft Auto, where you are the criminal potentially killing cops.  When people protest violence, they're usually protesting glorification of the 'bad guy' not the actual violence. 

I am a little confused as to how other countries have a more lax attitude towards sex and nudity than we do.  Aren't we supposed to be the land of the free?  I understand our puritan roots; but some of these other countries have (had) state sponsored churches and are less restrictive than we are.

As for the impact of it all, I've always thought the media is a reflection of society.  The media gives us what we want.  Violence and debauchery aren't caused by watching TV, playing a game, or listening to a song.  Media depicts violence and debauchery because they are important to us as a society.  

As far as objectification is concerned, These women know what they're doing and what they're selling.  I don't think they're being taken advantage of in any way.  They're getting paid well for what they do. These women are mature enough to make these decisions and I don't think anyone is forcing them.  If a woman agrees to have ketchup or white substances fall on her exposed breast, then that's on her.  As long as she is a consenting legal adult, she's not a victim.

I don't think censorship would solve anything. I'd rather parents teach their children that their intellect can turn a better profit than their bodies can.  I'd be estatic if they taught them not to compromise their principles for an extra dollar. I'd rather parents teach their children how to live healthy and tell them they are beautiful(and they don't have to compare themselves to others).  I'd rather parents tell their children that solving problems using your intellect is more honorable than violence.

It's a faux banned! This is called a Viral Advertisement.

-Nathiest
the devil is in the details

b/c it's free advertisement at the end of the day.

Even the folks at Fox news are talking about it. (link is below)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRpo2M17Jlg

There is a funny tidbit in the clip where the girl "claims" eva did this ad to prove her heterosexuality b/c she's not straight, and they talk about the rules in the UK.

Seriously. Maybe I'm another "enlightened European" but my brother and I grew up with regularly seeing naked bodies on tv. There was nothing sexual about it. And to this day he and I can look at naked bodies without getting our proverbial panties in a twist :p 

_ _ _ _ _

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind." (Dr. Seuss)

I say give us more of these adverts . . . unless parents are in the room . . .  and then it's just a little awkward. 

God save the Queen

The ad is soooo tame!  You barely see the nipple.  I think it's a very tasteful and beautiful ad depicting a beautiful woman.  

America has become too conservative on the human body but too extreme in its depiction of violence (especially toward women) in all of its programming.  When the words b*tch and whore and slut can be uttered on tv without so much as a censor blinking an eye, but this ad can't air just shows how far America has gone to the religious right.

....a prude or a bigot?

I know which one I would rather share a table with, but that's probably because I would have to listen to more of the ignorant, self-righteous blather about the unacceptable beliefs of people of religous cults faith from the bigot were I to slip up and say 'Grace'. Sexual objectification of women is acceptable, but belief in modesty and propriety are not to be condoned - ship 'em to Mars and rewrite the Bible dammit!

I just love how those who rant the loudest, most intolerantly and most obnoxiously about other people who commit the unforgivable crime of disagreeing with them often do so in the name of their own open-mindedness and tolerance, as if they even knew the meaning of those concepts or actually practiced either one of them when it comes to those who believe differently from themselves. To some people tolerance is obviously a one-way street. How convenient and laughingly hypocritical.

A bigot's prejudices are seen in the fore of every imaginable topic of conversation. Is it even possible for an anti-religous bigot to conduct a civilized debate about, say, standards of decency or the sexual objectification of women without turning it into a mean-spirited, unprovoked attack on people of faith? The only ones I see here who are posting derisively about other people are not the prudish members of the 'so-called Religous Right', but are instead the self-adoring members of the godless secular left. Not one single person has objected to this ad as 'immoral' or 'evil' or 'shameful' yet people of faith and their beliefs are slandered in a pre-emptive attack by those who imagine themselves to be oh so enlightened and who wouldn't recognize the concept of tolerance if it slapped them upside their damned heads. Physician, heal thyself. Or even more apt - practice what you preach.

Mirror, mirror on the wall....

who's the most self-righteous of all?

Period.

IMHO, the censorship hoo-ha is perhaps based less on a visible nipple (although much appreciated!) and more on the way Eva is lolling about, touching herself, an arched back here, a stroked breast there, in what might be seen as supremely satisfying self-pleasuring (henceforth known as SSSP).

What could p**s off the right wing censors more than a beautiful woman, obviously alone, revelling in her own body? Afterall, isn't the product called Secret Obsession? Phew! Its getting warm in here! 

I am sure there will be plenty of people commenting on here saying how Eva does not need to bare her breasts at all because it's not right, while others see it as "art." The only reason why I am on this forum and commenting is to share that, personally, I am curious as to what Eva *ahem* looks like....I can't help that she is sexy peoples....And the headline/title caught my eye along with the pictures on this forum....

that's all =)

"Once you seep in under my skin, there's nothing in this world that could wash you away."

I agree with alexaloud. Why is it when women display their breasts and nipples is it deemed inappropriate to show on network television, but it is ok to to show men's chests and nipples. Isn't that being sexist? If nipples are to be banned on TV, all nipples must be banned. Male and female.

This ad is definitely too provocative for US television.  If breasts(nipples specifically) aren't shown in tv shows, even on standard cable(in the US), why would it all of a sudden be allowed in a commercial???  The makers of this commercial shouldn't have even submitted it to be aired. 

 What does a nipple have to do with the perfume?  Ears, inner wrists, --places which a lot of people spray perfume ok...But a nipple??? Is it not possible to talk about the product without using a nipple???

To those comparing the US to other countries, though nudity may be common in Europe, when it does happen it is more of the natural, organic, just life happening kind.  It is not sensationalize like it is in the US, where even CocaCola bottles are sexualized!  I don't think I have ever seen nudity in US films/shows/commericals outside the context of sex(uality). 

Two negatives (violence and gratuitous nudity/sex) do not make a positive, unless one is multiplying/dividing in Mathemaics :o)