dennis rodman= anti-fur - Page 2

Yan · 02-18-2005, 11:06 AM

I think it's nice. Well, it's not the type of nudity that'll turm me on but I reckon it gets the message across. Plus, I thinnk his tattoos make the ad more interesting.

I mean, if an untattoed guy posed in that ad instead, it would probably look rather boring...

DimHalo · 02-18-2005, 11:43 AM

i don't see any problem with the nudity... its not like you can see anything, and it is not meant to sexual.

ulala06 · 02-18-2005, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yan

I think it's nice. Well, it's not the type of nudity that'll turm me on but I reckon it gets the message across. Plus, I thinnk his tattoos make the ad more interesting.

I mean, if an untattoed guy posed in that ad instead, it would probably look rather boring...

not to mention "think ink not mink" would be completely random.

MuGen · 02-18-2005, 03:37 PM

The ad is for a cause and is trying to deliver a message. If it was dressed and posed in another way, the message would change.

The message is referring to SKIN and the skin of other animals, therefore he must show it.
For the sake of advertising, he poses nude.... and it's necessary. So that answers your question as to "Did he have to pose nude?"

Yan · 02-18-2005, 08:49 PM

True! Good slogan, I reckon