It's gone too far....

[Dalmar]

I'm glad to see the charges were dropped. I still don't think they should have been filed in the first place. I'm sure that mall also has a Victoria's Secret store that displays much more provocative images. But those images are of half naked women....not half naked men. Am I saying that probably had something to do with it?

You bet I am.

[R_Fredrick_Smith]

Originally Posted by Dalmar

I'm glad to see the charges were dropped. I still don't think they should have been filed in the first place. I'm sure that mall also has a Victoria's Secret store that displays much more provocative images. But those images are of half naked women....not half naked men. Am I saying that probably had something to do with it?

You bet I am.

Just to add a little balance (and suggest that the Victoria's Secret store comparison may not be relevant) keep in mind that Victoria's Secret does not cater to children whereas Abercrombies does. It seems everyone makes lots of assumptions in these discussions. What I prefer in such discussions is to stick only to what the stated facts are. For example, we don't know what other stores are in the mall. We don't know who made the complaint so we cannot suggest what sort of bias the complainee may have had. And so forth.
Cheers,
rfs

[Dalmar]

Originally Posted by R_Fredrick_Smith

Just to add a little balance (and suggest that the Victoria's Secret store comparison may not be relevant) keep in mind that Victoria's Secret does not cater to children whereas Abercrombies does. It seems everyone makes lots of assumptions in these discussions. What I prefer in such discussions is to stick only to what the stated facts are. For example, we don't know what other stores are in the mall. We don't know who made the complaint so we cannot suggest what sort of bias the complainee may have had. And so forth.
Cheers,
rfs

VC has two stores in the mall, both in the same section A as A&B. Of course we all view things through the prism of our own experiences, and mine has been that I've seen as many kids in VC as in A&F. (As an aside, no kid should be wandering the mall without parental supervision these days...it's just too dangerous...imho)

I think the comparison is relevant as far as the type of images they display: to me they are similar in nature (attractive models wearing next to nothing.) It is true that I know nothing about the complainee, but again from personal experience working in retail...some people are very creative about what they will bitch about.

[PhotoDave1]

As Dalmar commented, VC does have a store in the Mall in VB and I think Frederick's of Hollywood has one in that Mall as well although it has been many years since I was in Virginia.

I think the question of context is a valid one and I don't the posters were ever meant to offend anyone but in this world of supposed "political correctness" someone, somewhere, somehow is bound to get offended by something and then there are consequences. This world has become way too much of a "me" world and I don't like it a bit.

I looked closely at the one poster in the article and it looks to me like the kids just might be going swimming and from my days of relaxing in "swimming holes" what those kids are doing is exactly what we did although from the poster I really can't tell if the jeans are travelling up or down but it really doesn't matter.

If anyone was somehow upset by my previous post to this thread I was merely trying to add an eyewitness perspective to the discussion and about the only thing I can say is I call them as I see them and I accept your apology for being thin skinned and allowing your delicate feelings to be bruised. As my Father used to say: "if you can't stand the heat, keep out of the kitchen".

Nuff said!

[Jetboy]

What I haven't heard is where those images were displayed in the store - inside, where only customers could see them..or outside where every passerby could? If they were inside, maybe it'd not be such a big deal. If they were outside in the view of the general public, then the citation's not too much of a surprise (I've seen both posters).

The censorship we should be more concerned about is that exercised by the government and news media. Things like this seem more like a distraction in comparison.

Alan

[Al_Nowak]

Originally Posted by Dalmar

As an aside, no kid should be wandering the mall without parental supervision these days...it's just too dangerous...imho

Hmmm... dangerous for whom? The packs of teenage kids or the adults trying to walk through the mall?

[jestersncourt]

I walk by an A&F just about every day when I am walking through the mall. First time I walked by there I noticed the HUGE picture they had up of one guy running in front of a group of other guys... his pants exposing enough of his butt to get it blurred on regular television... but it was the central display to everyone walking by. When I walked back by this same store I glanced in, kept walking... stopped... backed up thinking "did I just see that". I back up, still outside the store and look at another large picture displayed of a topless girl holding her breasts so her nipples aren't exposed... Implied nudity.

If a store like A&F wants to have these images up then they shouldn't be allowed to display them in such a public location. Anyone walking by is exposed to these images whether they want to be or not.

[wildepics]

Originally Posted by Jetboy

.....

The censorship we should be more concerned about is that exercised by the government and news media. Things like this seem more like a distraction in comparison.

I think this was the government.

The main problem with all of this is who decides..some people are, according to their sincere beliefs, offended by the slightest display of skin - normally female skin - does our society bow to their concerns to the extent that we all wear complete coverings at all times? I've noticed that the more a society covers up, the more things excite "prurient interest" Familiarity begets boredom and lack of interest, the more things are covered up, the more tantilizing the covered bits become.

[lsc1]

If you disagree with someone FORCING their opinion of what is appropriate or not on you, then you might stop and think about the openness of the posters in question even if the material doesn't offend you. Even if we here at G1 are broad minded and are not afraid of the human body, we should fight ANY organization's impetus to FORCE their version of appropriate on anyone else. I know I don't want the Falwell's of the world deciding what I can see or not see. Given exactly the same discussion, should we support Hustler style content on the covers of magazines displayed openly at any bookstore? Or take the your thoughts and debate to another controversial issue that has a similar basis, smoking in public places. Many cities have started banning the practice - not because people don't have a right to smoke and hurt their own health. But because people who don't smoke have a right not to be FORCED to breathe in somoke filled air.

Really doesn't matter what you believe as long as you believe that respecting everyone's rights is the only way to get along peacefully in this unpeaceful world. Parents have a right to decide when to expose their children to sexuality and all the ensuing questions when the child is emotially capable of handling those thoughts and issues. A&F has no right to determine when that discussion should begin for children in public places just to sell aother pair of jeans. If anyone in the world understands the power of well made images, it's the people spending time here. I love the ads, posters and images. I just don't think I have a right to decide whaen my neighbor or their kids should begin their exploration of their own sexuality.

Cheers