Tags:







Nothing comes between me and my Calvins
March 21, 2010 11:42 AM   Subscribe

Creepy banned CK ads from 1995

>The advertising campaign -- which used images of models who were reportedly as young as 15 -- was meant to mimic "picture set" pornography of the '60s.
posted by KokuRyu (93 comments total) 8 users marked this as a favorite

OH GODDAMNIT I JUST HEARD THE FBI PARTY VAN PULL UP
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 11:44 AM on March 21, 2010 [3 favorites]


Does what it says on the tin.
posted by odinsdream at 11:45 AM on March 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


OH GODDAMNIT I JUST HEARD THE FBI PARTY VAN PULL UP

"v&" is my favorite 4chan neologism.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:49 AM on March 21, 2010 [2 favorites]


There's a lot more interesting context about these ads, for example this or this. Looking back on these 15 years later they still seem creepy, but not terribly controversial. Abercrombie and Fitch managed to turn this kind of marketing into a whole brand.
posted by Nelson at 11:50 AM on March 21, 2010 [2 favorites]


Pepsi Blue Jeans!
posted by sexyrobot at 11:50 AM on March 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


A trillion quatloos (CDN) to anyone who can find the 22 Minutes parody where Rick Mercer starts playing the spoons and falls over the ladder.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:51 AM on March 21, 2010


Fake wood panelling... ew!
posted by crazylegs at 11:51 AM on March 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


Who is the creepy guy talking?
posted by chillmost at 11:52 AM on March 21, 2010


Shit, I meant to link to this brief analysis.
posted by KokuRyu at 11:53 AM on March 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


Yup, they're creepy alright.
posted by MuffinMan at 11:56 AM on March 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


numerous experts citing that these ads were pornographic because they featured high definition, sexualized images of young children.

Children should always be securely wrapped in canvas sacks to prevent creepy experts from seeing them as sexualized.

On the other hand, the videos were creepy, and it's hard to imagine a world where they were effective. Was 1995 so different from today?
posted by Jimmy Havok at 11:59 AM on March 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


Seriously, who is the voice speaking? that's the kind of voice you hear in your childhood nightmares, offering you candy in exchange for your underwear...as long as they're dirty.

I could see this unsettling aesthetic being amusing if the models were octogenarians, or circus clowns, or middle-aged firefighters or something...
Anncr: Got big boots I see...
MAFF: Uh...yeah. Fireman boots.
Anncr: Fireman boots, huh? For when things get hot? You like hot things?
MAFF: Uh, yeah. I guess. I mean I like to put them out.
Anncr: Ooo..putting out. That something you do a lot of?
MMFF: (whimper)
But here? I feel like the film stops just before the chloroform-soaked rag appears....
posted by umberto at 11:59 AM on March 21, 2010 [23 favorites]


Nelson did the linking for you.

But a single 15 year old CK ad that has 1.5 million views, and is hardly unknown for a post?

I lived through this the first time around. I don't need to revisit.
posted by cjorgensen at 12:01 PM on March 21, 2010


You're supposed to feel creeped out, umberto. That's the whole point of the ads. Even the still shots conveyed that. They're remarkably well executed. CK has a history of "edgy" advertising. I mean, in 1981 he's got an advertisement of a 16 year old Brooke Shields where the hook is she's not wearing underwear. It's all very well executed, and tasteful, and also creepy.
posted by Nelson at 12:02 PM on March 21, 2010 [2 favorites]


A trillion quatloos (CDN) to anyone who can find the 22 Minutes parody where Rick Mercer starts playing the spoons and falls over the ladder.

Can't say I'm familiar with that one, but here's a USian parody from Mad TV from back in the day.

Hard to believe that this was 15 years ago.
posted by jonp72 at 12:03 PM on March 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


Who is the creepy guy talking?

Sounds like Bruce Weber to me.
posted by dobbs at 12:05 PM on March 21, 2010


Can't mention the CK ads without mentioning the video for Fiona Apple's "Criminal."
posted by dw at 12:07 PM on March 21, 2010 [2 favorites]


Well, I'm glad I never bought CK jeans.
posted by hellojed at 12:12 PM on March 21, 2010


And you can't mention either without mentioning the (extremely creepy) Larry Clark film Kids.
posted by Gilbert at 12:12 PM on March 21, 2010


For comparison... Bruce Weber's recent work.
posted by dobbs at 12:13 PM on March 21, 2010


I wonder how these were filmed. Were the scenes scripted, or were the actors actually responding to a creepy director? They seem to be authentically improvisational.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 12:15 PM on March 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


Wow. After fifteen years, those ads don't seem any more acceptable.
posted by jayder at 12:15 PM on March 21, 2010 [3 favorites]


This is hilarious. My favourite: "You got a real good attitude."
posted by esprit de l'escalier at 12:17 PM on March 21, 2010 [2 favorites]


Bah, my last comment needs a NSFW tag.
posted by dobbs at 12:17 PM on March 21, 2010


From Nelson's first link, at the bottom, the kid's ads that were pulled from Times Square, etc. I have to say, those don't look any different than the JC Penney ads for kid's underwear featuring them frolicking around with their pals sans all but underoos. Has the aesthetic seeped in? Or do we not mind underwearing kids as long as they come from a blue-collar major marketer as opposed to some fruity black-and-white faux upscale artiste?
posted by umberto at 12:20 PM on March 21, 2010 [3 favorites]


This is pretty, um, evocative of a genre that I didn't really think existed in this form previous to the widespread use of internet. I guess there really is nothing new under the sun.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 12:22 PM on March 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


What a great use of misdirection -- get everyone to talk about the pseudo and soon-to-be-dated "edginess" of the ads to get attention away from the fact that those clothes are ill-fitting and drabby...
posted by Alexandra Kitty at 12:24 PM on March 21, 2010 [3 favorites]


Nelson: "...in 1981 he's got an advertisement of a 16 year old Brooke Shields where the hook is she's not wearing underwear."

I never did understand the pearl-clutching over that one.

It seemed to assume on a direct correlation between pantylessness and actual fucking that, to the best of my knowledge, has not been verified by scientific studies.
posted by Joe Beese at 12:24 PM on March 21, 2010 [2 favorites]


I mosh.
You march?
Yeah. Mosh. *procedes to dance around the room like a monkey.*

Soo creepy. But also hilarious and perfectly executed.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 12:26 PM on March 21, 2010


Reminds me a lot of American Apparel's product shots on their website. They creep me out.
posted by liet at 12:34 PM on March 21, 2010 [5 favorites]


I mean, in 1981 he's got an advertisement of a 16 year old Brooke Shields where the hook is she's not wearing underwear.

I don't think this ad means what you think it means. Hint: nothing to do with underwear.
posted by dobbs at 12:42 PM on March 21, 2010 [2 favorites]


We just pulled up the wood paneling in the house we bought. Now I realize why it unnerved me so much.
posted by the bricabrac man at 12:46 PM on March 21, 2010 [2 favorites]


gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah, I couldn't make it even through the third one.
posted by Wuggie Norple at 12:48 PM on March 21, 2010


You have a nice body. You work out?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:53 PM on March 21, 2010 [3 favorites]


Listen, I was young and needed the money so lay off okay?
posted by sourwookie at 1:00 PM on March 21, 2010 [2 favorites]


The Italian "actress" seems about 40.
posted by potsmokinghippieoverlord at 1:11 PM on March 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


it's hard to imagine a world where they were effective. Was 1995 so different from today?

Whereas in 1995 they were shocking (edgy-effective), in 2010 they are simply grotesque (unappealing).
posted by stbalbach at 1:12 PM on March 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


I think this is a good ad campaign it's funny and sexy and interesting and yes creepy. It has this air of exploitation to it; sure but the weird thing isn't that it's there because it would always be there. The thing here is you see it. There's typically this power asymmetry between these models who are young and really sort of vulnerable in that they need to work and it's tricky to get enough work and the photographers/directors who have their pick of people and a model getting work is very much contingent on the approval of these people. Actually seeing (hearing) the comparatively powerful and sort of out of touch director toying with and judging these people and them just taking it and trying to please is pretty unsettling but it also has a sort of inside baseball charm that makes everyone involved feel more more real and human and vulnerable and identifiable.
posted by I Foody at 1:12 PM on March 21, 2010 [7 favorites]


I don't think this ad means what you think it means. Hint: nothing to do with underwear.

I don't this this ad doesn't mean what you don't think it doesn't mean. Hint: "nothing comes between me and my CK jeans" suggests a lack of underwear, especially after a slow lingering pan across crotch.
posted by ericost at 1:18 PM on March 21, 2010 [2 favorites]


I Foody: you just creeped me out more than the ads themselves did.
posted by Jimmy Havok at 1:21 PM on March 21, 2010 [2 favorites]


One of those girls is Bijou Phillips, who probably wasn't exactly hurting for money. Coincidentally, she's in Larry Clark's Bully.
posted by raysmj at 1:31 PM on March 21, 2010


The one with the squishy sort of voice, tangy and girly or something, toward the middle of the vid.
posted by raysmj at 1:32 PM on March 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


Hi, I'm Chris Hansen. Why don't you have a seat right over there?
posted by elmwood at 1:35 PM on March 21, 2010 [3 favorites]


dobbs, what do you think the ad is about?
posted by delmoi at 1:37 PM on March 21, 2010


If there weren't underage people involved, I'd have no hesitation labeling these ads as "awesome." But then again, I'm creepy.
posted by Bookhouse at 1:40 PM on March 21, 2010 [2 favorites]


But a single 15 year old CK ad that has 1.5 million views, and is hardly unknown for a post?

I hadn't seen those when they came out, so this FPP was interesting to me.

I liked the ads -- I liked how deliberate and constructed the creepiness is; it's an artificiality that works because it is drawing on something very real. The voice-over is perfect, like a scientifically-designed CreepyGuy robot.

And you can add me to the people surprised that there is any alternate reading to the Brooke Shields jeans ad other than titillation about her (supposed) commandoness.
posted by Forktine at 1:44 PM on March 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


OK, speculation on alternative meanings for the Brooke Shields commercial, Dobbs remaining charmingly enigmatic on the topic:
posted by umberto at 2:11 PM on March 21, 2010 [2 favorites]


Calvin — white, tight, and badly lit.

I don't care what you say about me, the name is spelled K-L-E-I-N.
posted by cenoxo at 2:13 PM on March 21, 2010


After I listened to that narration was the first time I was ashamed to be an old fart.
posted by digsrus at 2:20 PM on March 21, 2010


I was too young when that Shields ad came out--I think I was 11 or something and I didn't understand what the big deal was as I was taking the colloquial interpretation of comes between. My sister, who was 15 at the time and a quote unquote bad girl, LOVED the ad and when I asked her what the big deal was she would just repeat the tagline with emphasis on the word she thought was important. I still didn't get it.

Almost twenty years later I found myself in a sexual scenario that involved ejaculate rolling down my partner's stomach and into her pants at which point she said, "Looks like you came between me and my Calvins" and I finally understood the double entendre and that the scandal was that if someone were coming between Brooke and her pants then a fifteen year old was on tv saying she has sex (though obviously only when wearing her other pants).
posted by dobbs at 2:34 PM on March 21, 2010 [3 favorites]


The creepiest part was how high the rise was on everybody's jeans. Terrifying.
posted by thinkpiece at 2:34 PM on March 21, 2010 [9 favorites]


Wow, dobbs, you've made that "nothing comes between.." slogan even creepier than I ever imagined. That interpretation never occurred to me.
posted by Nelson at 2:40 PM on March 21, 2010 [7 favorites]


Dobbs, that was a very funny line from your partner, but I really don't think that was what was meant in the commercial. Hilarious though.
posted by ericost at 2:57 PM on March 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


This thread gets creepier and creepier. CK, Fiona, and then dobbs. The title should probably say NSFW.

As for umberto's comment, the difference between JC Penney ads and the CK ads is context. JC Penney is kids in a clean, professional environment, or a park, or something like that. It's decidedly non-sexualized. But the CK ads were filmed as if in someone's basement, with models directed by what instinctively sounded to me like a predatory voice. It was intentional sexualization.

Of course, not according to Calvin Klein.
posted by Galen at 3:03 PM on March 21, 2010


Galen:

The ads that are "no different than JC Penney" are the black and white kids' underwear ads. There's no pornish director commentary, no dank basement wood paneling.

They're pretty much the same as JC Penney ads, but in black and white.
posted by CKmtl at 3:25 PM on March 21, 2010


..no bra, blouse unbuttoned, Calvins in a ball on the front seat past eleven on a school night..
posted by applemeat at 3:32 PM on March 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


dobbs: "... the scandal was that if someone were coming between Brooke and her pants then a fifteen year old was on tv saying she has sex (though obviously only when wearing her other pants)."

Now that I've actually watched the ad again, I'm astounded that I didn't remember that camera does a slow horizontal dolly to center the frame at the juncture of her wide-spread legs. It seems like the kind of detail that my 14 year old self would have noticed.

OK, that was pretty raunchy for 1981. But Brooke's line declares that nothing comes between her and her Calvins. Doesn't that mean "no boys"?

Note that she delivers this line after whistling - of all the public domain songs available - "My Darling Clementine". Which, if you read all the lyrics, you'll notice is a sardonic commentary on male fickleness.
posted by Joe Beese at 3:38 PM on March 21, 2010


OK, that was pretty raunchy for 1981. But Brooke's line declares that nothing comes between her and her Calvins. Doesn't that mean "no boys"?

Yeah, I don't know that dobbs interpretation makes too much sense. Would she just be saying that she doesn't have sex with her pants on? I don't mean to be overly literal, but I think the "no underwear" thing makes more sense. It would still have seemed risque in '81.

Also, it was apparently part of a series.
posted by delmoi at 4:01 PM on March 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


Hmm, here's another one. I'd never seen any of these.
posted by delmoi at 4:04 PM on March 21, 2010


Little boy, are you a model? Well you should be.

Oh wait, I just realized, I'm a big time fashion photographer"
posted by Senor Cardgage at 4:06 PM on March 21, 2010


Man candy
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:10 PM on March 21, 2010


I never did understand the pearl-clutching over that one.

It seemed to assume on a direct correlation between pantylessness and actual fucking that, to the best of my knowledge, has not been verified by scientific studies.

The ad invites you to consider her pantyless vulvular region with a "playing hard to get" double-entendre.

Pearls were indeed clutched over this. Ahem.
posted by desuetude at 4:13 PM on March 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


I don't mean to be overly literal, but I think the "no underwear" thing makes more sense.

It does? I gotta admit I'd never even heard that interpretation until this thread and it doesn't make any sense to me. I can't imagine there being any uproar about the ads if the implication was that she didn't wear underwear. And there was uproar. If I remember correctly, some stations banned the ads and others refused to show them in primetime. Hardly seems like it would be the case if the going commando was the dominant interpretation.
posted by dobbs at 4:21 PM on March 21, 2010


Wanna see my dick?

CK always seemed the epitome of creepshow advertising to me.
posted by geek anachronism at 4:25 PM on March 21, 2010


Although it makes the implications of having a 15 year old in the ad campaign no less creepy, I had always assumed that "the noting comes between me & my Calvins" campaign coincided with the launch of the underwear line. I don't know for sure, but according to Wikipedia: "In the 1980s, as the designer-jeans frenzy reached its all-time high, Calvin Klein introduced a highly successful line of boxer shorts for women and a men’s underwear collection which would later gross $70 million in a single year. " So it's possible, and I think likely. The internet says she did an underwear ad for the company in 1984.
posted by crush-onastick at 4:43 PM on March 21, 2010


I can't imagine there being any uproar about the ads if the implication was that she didn't wear underwear. And there was uproar.

It probably went something like this:

"She's saying she's not wearing underwear. Only sluts go around without wearing underwear, let alone tell people about it. And... and... they're trying to make it look cool! If my daughter sees this, she might stop wearing underwear. Or even tell people she's not wearing any! Then she'll be a slut! No daughter of mine is going to be a no-panties slut! GRAAAAAAAAAAR!!"
posted by CKmtl at 4:44 PM on March 21, 2010 [2 favorites]


Oops. Where did the rest of my comment go? So, the line would mean, "nothing comes between me and my calvin klein jeans, except my calvin klein panties" which would not be scandalous. But that doesn't diminish the creepiness of the hyper-sexualized come-on from a teenager, "ya wanna know what's under my pants?" as advertising.
posted by crush-onastick at 4:46 PM on March 21, 2010


I was 11 or 12 when the ad ran, and I always interpreted Brooke's coy line as ostensibly innocent: She wasn't saying she had no panties on, but rather that she was not gonna take off the jeans (i.e. because she's a "good girl"). In other words, CK's disingenuous trick of making the audience feel dirty for sexualizing this spread-legged, heavily made-up teen. This reading may have been wishful thinking on my part, since at the time I didn't think anything was sexy and would've envied anyone who was allowed to sleep in their jeans.
posted by applemeat at 5:12 PM on March 21, 2010


The gentleman narrating the ads was Lou Maletta, the head of the Gay Cable Network that was on Manhattan public access from 1981 to 2000. He hosted a show called Men in Film which was essentially a clips show of gay porn interspersed with interviews at nightclubs and events. He also did a gay news show that was really a news show. And yes, he was the proprietor of a sex club.

Whatever his preferences or predilections he documented many years of lesbian and gay life in NYC, and at the time I actually thought the ads were sort of dirty genius.
posted by ltracey at 5:12 PM on March 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


I swear this voice is identical to that of the man who followed me for several blocks telling me that he liked the holes in my "dungarees" back in the 80s, when I was yet younger than that poor sweet lamb-on-wobbling-legs mosh pit kid. Did they all go to the same pervy finishing school back then?

8:15: Oily Laughter
9:45: The Suggestive Interrogative and You
10:50: But Officer, S/he Said S/he was 16: NYPD Meet and Greet
12:00: Break for lunch
1:30: Wood paneling installation

...
posted by melissa may at 5:30 PM on March 21, 2010 [4 favorites]


is someone trying to promote CK jeans? in these days??! Have to be cynical.
posted by swooz at 5:49 PM on March 21, 2010


@dobbs: I'm old enough to remember the uproar, and I can certainly attest that in many quarters, the prevailing view was that a woman going without underwear didn't do so because of comfort. She did so because she didn't want to be bothered with removing yet another piece of clothing as she impatiently disrobed for sexual contact. Such a woman, the idea goes, will wear the minimum amount of clothing required by law, nothing more, in order to enable her sexual availability (see: what Dave Chapelle famously called a "whore's uniform").

Of course, if a woman doesn't wear underwear with her shorts or pants she's at higher risk to get a yeast infection. Her sex partner, upon discovering the yeast infection, will probably not assume that it occurred because she goes without underwear, and instead reach other conclusions that might be detrimental to a relationship which heretofore was presumed to be monogamous.


Now...attach all of the above to the fact that Shields was fifteen--and therefore underage--in the commercials.

So, yeah, plenty of pearl-clutching.
posted by magstheaxe at 5:50 PM on March 21, 2010


It does? I gotta admit I'd never even heard that interpretation until this thread and it doesn't make any sense to me. I can't imagine there being any uproar about the ads if the implication was that she didn't wear underwear.

Well, it was 1981. I imagine the thinking was like "She's not wearing underwear, and that makes me think about her vagina! Which I also know is rubbing right up against those pants! Now I'm thinking about it even harder!"
posted by delmoi at 5:53 PM on March 21, 2010


is someone trying to promote CK jeans? in these days??! Have to be cynical.

I can assure you that I was not intending to promote CK jeans with this post.
posted by KokuRyu at 6:31 PM on March 21, 2010


This is quite possibly the best commercial ever shot, definitely the best one for pants of any kind.
posted by signal at 7:00 PM on March 21, 2010 [2 favorites]


So all y'all in the no underwear crowd think the choice of the phrase come between is inconsequential and that any wordplay is on the word between? Am I understanding that right?
posted by dobbs at 7:40 PM on March 21, 2010


Yes, sort of.

You could have had the same commercial with "gets between" and had it mean the same thing, but "comes between" is the more standard form of the phrase.

"Nothing spunks between me and my Calvins" makes no sense. At all.
posted by CKmtl at 8:27 PM on March 21, 2010


So dobbs, you're saying that Brooke Shields is describing an act that she never ("nothing") takes part in? That doesn't make any sense.
posted by Bookhouse at 8:33 PM on March 21, 2010


I didn't realize Terry Richardson had been in the industry so long.
posted by mendel at 8:37 PM on March 21, 2010


@Galen - No, I know the difference between the videos in the FPP and JC Penney's ads...unless Penneys has changed an awful lot. But one of the other links (orig. from Nelson)showed print ads of little kids romping in their underwear on a couch that are indistinguishable from the same boring department store catalogs I get in my mail and throw away. Yet ended up being banned. I guess because they were made by the same people who made the creepy ads.

So they were banned, it would seem, not for the thoughts they would evoke, but for the thoughts they suspect that evoked them.... Curious.
posted by umberto at 8:56 PM on March 21, 2010


IT RUBS THE LOTION ON ITS JEANS
posted by obiwanwasabi at 9:15 PM on March 21, 2010 [5 favorites]


Nothing comes between sleep and a Viking.
posted by The Winsome Parker Lewis at 10:22 PM on March 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


Nothing comes between beans and a plate.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:14 PM on March 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


@umberto: thanks for the clarification. I missed that link.

On review, I agree with you: the ads seem innocent and childlike to me. Kids in underwear seems innocent like summertime, you know, trips to the beach or river where the kid wants to go swimming and the parent says, "No way are you ruining your clothes with saltwater."

Even with the known associations, my mind gets lost in connotations of felicity and sunshine :)
posted by Galen at 11:22 PM on March 21, 2010


Dobbs, I'd love to hear you get in touch with your sister about this and report back to us. It seems fairly clear to me that this was an instance of her over-interpreting the ad's intent -- and then that misreading being transmitted, with a few years' latency, to you. I wonder if she'd change her mind on the matter now.
posted by nobody at 12:46 AM on March 22, 2010


Wait, to back-track a little, who shot/produced the creepy-basement ads then? I know Calvin Klein caught the flack, but who came up with the idea, the 'Concept'? I looked all over and I can't find nothing. I don't think it was Larry Clark, though I remember at the time they came out assuming it was him, but I think I only assumed as much.

Does anyone know?
posted by From Bklyn at 1:52 AM on March 22, 2010


Re: the myriad interpretations of "nothing comes between...": there's no single "meaning" . That's how good ads work, they're polysemic, and are still being discussed 20 years down the road.
posted by signal at 4:30 AM on March 22, 2010


You people who think that the nothing referred to in the Shields CK commercial is ejaculate or boys or whateverthefuck are insane. It simply means she's not wearing underwear. That's the "sexy" part. I urge you to reconsider your objections, because you are wrong.

The airplane takes off on a conveyor belt. When Ralph is a "Viking" while he sleeps, it means he dreams of being a Viking. And the correct interpretation of the ad is that Miss Shields is not wearing underwear. End of story.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 6:16 AM on March 22, 2010 [7 favorites]


All this to sell overpriced dungarees.
posted by jonmc at 6:28 AM on March 22, 2010 [1 favorite]


I think it's a little weird when people I know get really sniffy about animal abuse in stuff like, say, Tarkovsky's Andrei Rublev but don't think twice about using underage models proudly presented as such in hypersexual ads to sell crap. Just my personal pet peeve...
posted by ifjuly at 7:43 AM on March 22, 2010


Who is the creepy guy talking?

I just pretend it's Rob Reiner. Either that turns it super creepy, or makes it a Spinal Tap style marketing campaign.
posted by kuppajava at 8:04 AM on March 22, 2010


Now...attach all of the above to the fact that Shields was fifteen--and therefore underage--in the commercials.

Wait, besides the fact she was 14 and making a racy comment about not wearing underwear is one thing, and maybe I'm betraying my age here if I'm the only one who remembers it, but doesn't the subtext of Brooke Shields' having played an underage prostitute in a Roman Polanski film have something to do with the uproar over her suggestive ad-line? (And I think the controversy over whether body doubles had been used in explicit scenes in The Blue Lagoon were right around the same time as the CK ads.)
posted by aught at 12:27 PM on March 22, 2010


I don't think the ad was supposed to insinuate that she wasn't a virgin because she was THE poster child for viginity despite doing "racy" movies (interesting side note, she said in an interview that she lost her virginity when she was 22 years old, and that she regretted waiting so long).

She had no problem with a body double for Blue Lagoon, but she wouldn't do nudity herself, so I think the "nothing comes between my and my Calvins" was about as suggestive of nudity as you were going to get with her, and that's what made it controversial.
posted by misha at 3:39 PM on March 22, 2010


« Older Today marks the 50th anniversary of the massacre a...  |  In anticipation of tomorrow's ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments