LINK:http://animadversio.com/magazine/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/sisley10.jpg 

1. Describe the offense committed in the ad.

This Sisley ad used extreme sexual images in their ad. It showed a male's hand grabbing a women’s breast that clearly resembled sexual act. The ad barely showed their product but was focusing more on the sexploitation.

2. Explain why you do or don't consider it sexually offensive.

I do consider it sexually offensive. The ad included sexual image that was too racy and provocative for kids and people who are more conservative. I think the ad was more of creating the brand’s image than selling products. However, seeing the way women are portrayed in the ad, it might be perturbed for me sometimes.

3. Where is the socially accepted line between 'erotic suggestiveness' and 'explicit sexuality' in advertising?

I consider that the socially accepted line between erotic suggestiveness and explicit sexuality is on the different degree of nudity and sexploitation.

Although the woman on the ad was not naked, the act still leads the audience to think that a man and that woman are having sexual activity. (erotic suggestiveness)

Woman will be more attractive and sexy when she uses the product: "Sisley clothing", that a man would want to have sex with her. (explicit sexuality)

4. Can an ad feature nudity without erotic suggestiveness or explicit sexuality? Is either ever appropriate in an ad?

No, I don’t think an ad can feature nudity without erotic suggestiveness or explicit sexuality. If it only features nudity, what is the difference between pornography and it? And it’s not appropriate in an ad because everyone would see it. I think the use of an ad is mostly to promote some products. If it only features nudity, it might raise attention but what else?