rotflol....there is actually a cash room??Wait and you have to RSVP with more info than you need to buy a car ahahaha!

The rape ad is inappropriate for sure, I dont get why they used that imagery.

I'm also wonder is there any sex in the "cash room" ahahah

I think the point of the picture is to clearly shock and grab attention, but the most powerful thing in the ad is the wording

"Who pays for man's sins? Only four per cent of women who suffer sexual violence report their assailants."

And if the picture gets you to read that then whoever created this ad is successful. The truth of the words are way more powerful than the imagery

I don't find the awareness ad inappropriate at all - it has an important, powerful point to make.

The ad is completely misleading about the brutality of rape. It might as well glamorize it.

There's so much wrong with that ad that I don't even know where to start.

On second thought, I do know where to start. The image is clean, sterile, beautiful, and sexualized. Like Organic said, its a glamorous image. Rape is not glamorous. It's brutal and grotesque.

What's more, the analogy is all wrong. Women are martyrs for not reporting rape? They're sacrificing themselves to help other people by letting a rapist walk free? It makes no sense, it's completely backward.

All that before you even get to the fact that it's offensive to Christians. This is truly a horrific attempt at a public service announcement.

I think the idea of the ad wasn't entirely bad for use in rather religious Italy where it was bound to shock people, and therefore by default raise awareness...

(This is, after all, the country that once said a woman wearing jeans could not claim to have been raped.)

HOWEVER....on the other hand..

They didn't hit the mark, the ad should be more obviously a woman in torment and not a model's body posed classically with the ubiquitous "well placed sheet" and such a calm expression.

They could have done this same ad and showed her glaring at the camera, used some creative makeup to represent wounds, had some tears..SOMETHING...because I read about 3 articles on this and the pervasive complaint was that the ad confused Jesus and SEXUALITY, not Jesus, sexuality and violence. SO in that respect, it missed the mark in my opinion.

Being that Italy did have that infamous verdict against a rape victim, claiming that because she was wearing jeans she could not have been raped (ridiculous!), I'm just glad there is an attempt at rape awareness in the country. They need more of it.

I don't see glamour, beauty, or erotica. I see a connection to an infamously murdered man, and a reminder of the atrocities mankind has does to itself. I could never think of anything that calls upon such a violent image glamourous. Too bad the ad makers forgot people interpret religion in extremely varied ways.

I like the comments on that page discussing who defines the erotic, the relation to art history, Italian media norms, rapist psychology, etc. Interesting stuff.

And if they had used a picture of a brutalized woman, most people most likely would have turned away - or gotten turned on by that.

It happened anyway, based on the reactions of the public. Rape is ugly, the ad should have been as well.