This shit caused controversy in 1987.... idk seems crazy that it is making headlines today.

Pretty sure i have seen worse thing's advertised at the Hard Rock Hotel

Guns 'N Roses promo artwork removed over implied sexual assault images

hardrockhotel.com

An amended version of the Guns 'N Roses artwork being pulled from the Hard Rock Cafe.

The Hard Rock Hotel in Las Vegas has apologized for controversial ads for Guns N' Roses' "Appetite for Democracy" residency there, the Las Vegas Sun reports.

The hotel has promised to modify the poster, which depicts a robotic monster standing over a woman who is slumped against a wall with a breast exposed and underwear around her ankles. The image is based on the cover art Guns N' Roses had intended to use for its 1987 album "Appetite for Destruction." The band switched the cover after several music retailers refused to stock the album.

The "Appetite for Democracy" promos drew fierce criticism from Clark County Commissioner Mary Beth Scow, as well as Safe Nest, a local women's shelter, who argued the image suggested sexual assault. The ad appears on the Guns N' Roses website selling tickets to their shows at the hotel's venue, the Joint, while a slightly cleaned-up version (without the exposed breast and underwear) appeared in mainstream advertising including newspaper promos and taxicab placards.

"It’s very frustrating to see approval – almost a celebration – of rape and violence against women," said Lisa Lynn Chapman, a Safe Nest spokeswoman. "Our community has enough issues with domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse and so many other violent issues that to have this being paraded around town on taxicabs and in advertising is very offensive."

The posters and show also coincided with the temporary renaming of the Vegas street Paradise Road (which runs alongside the Hard Rock) to Paradise City Road, an homage to one of Guns N' Roses biggest hits. Scow, who represented the county at the re-naming event, said she was unaware of the ad at the time, adding, "It’s clearly inappropriate. Maybe it’s the risk of doing business with a rock band, but I guess we’ll have some remorse over this decision. It’s a lesson learned."

Axl will never learn. Shame.

I still think art should be left to be whatever it is. Controversial or not. Bad taste or not.

Besides that, if it was a guy with his underwear around his knees depicted in that piece of art, people would think he had a good night in Vegas, no?

It's a childish cover, all right, but the idea behind the picture is that the monster attacks the "rapist robot" and retaliates over the incident. So, I wouldn't say that it's exactly an "approval" or "celebration" of rape. If people want to criticize the content than at least they should describe the image appropriately and not say anything they want about it.

nd33 said:

I still think art should be left to be whatever it is. Controversial or not. Bad taste or not.

Besides that, if it was a guy with his underwear around his knees depicted in that piece of art, people would think he had a good night in Vegas, no?

Agreed, but since they already changed the artwork to say "Vegas" then it becomes a pretty offensive ad, not really a piece of art.

nd33 said:

I still think art should be left to be whatever it is. Controversial or not. Bad taste or not.

Besides that, if it was a guy with his underwear around his knees depicted in that piece of art, people would think he had a good night in Vegas, no?

Yes, it's all about people's mind and not the actual picture. I see a woman who is totally wasted after a hard night out...others see rape and violence. Like you said, if it was a man, noone would see rape and violence.

robertlove said:

nd33 said:

I still think art should be left to be whatever it is. Controversial or not. Bad taste or not.

Besides that, if it was a guy with his underwear around his knees depicted in that piece of art, people would think he had a good night in Vegas, no?

Yes, it's all about people's mind and not the actual picture. I see a woman who is totally wasted after a hard night out...others see rape and violence. Like you said, if it was a man, noone would see rape and violence.

She's selling flowers, not partying

It's not really about censoring art, it's about coming up with a good image for a commercial.

Evidently robot rape is still considered a "tough sell" in certain markets.

Asked whether the image would be considered "legitimate rape", former Republican contender Todd Akin responded "Well at least she won't get pregnant."