| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/03/2008 04:33:31 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by Wenders11:
Originally posted by photodude:
Originally posted by Wenders11:
[i] It's just frustrating that sometimes we're bombarded with those images whether we like it or not. |
And yet nobody gets hurt, dies or goes mentally insane, or gets scarred for life for that matter. |
The next time you see a nine year old at the mall bend over and expose her thong, ask yourself where she's getting those ideas. I DO think that kids are affected by being constantly bombarded by adult images, and I would like to be able to shelter my kids from that as long as I can. My kids are only 4 and 7. They really don't need to see half naked people everywhere they go. They just don't. |
Please ... I offer you a grip...please accept it ...
I have NEVER seen a 9 year old in a thong UNLESS the parents of that 9 year old is compleately devoid of any scrupples. That is another conversation
Fact is that you must NEVER take your children to a BEACH do you?
I don't classify the images in question as "adult images" they clearly are not (refer to the beach again)
Really... folks need to stop looking for evil where none exists.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2008 04:35:53 PM · #27 |
| Please...you see more than that at the beach. I also have kids, and I would never let my 13 y.o. dasughter dress like that. Is she exposed to those images through everyday life, t.v. and the media...yes. Heres the kicker though. I am the parent, I decide what she gets to wear, and I TALK to her about what is age appropriate. I have taught her to be her own person and not follow the crowd. But while she lives in my house, she will follow our rules and that means dressing in outfits that are acceptable to her father and I. I also believe in free speech and expression as long as its not vulgar and rude. Those pics were neither. |
|
|
|
02/03/2008 04:38:18 PM · #28 |
Yeah it is about time they got in trouble, they have some pretty vulgar stuff.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2008 04:40:48 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Wenders11:
Originally posted by photodude:
Originally posted by Wenders11:
[i] It's just frustrating that sometimes we're bombarded with those images whether we like it or not. |
And yet nobody gets hurt, dies or goes mentally insane, or gets scarred for life for that matter. |
The next time you see a nine year old at the mall bend over and expose her thong, ask yourself where she's getting those ideas. I DO think that kids are affected by being constantly bombarded by adult images, and I would like to be able to shelter my kids from that as long as I can. My kids are only 4 and 7. They really don't need to see half naked people everywhere they go. They just don't. |
Next time I see a 9 year old with her thong showing I'm not going to wonder if she got the idea from an ad campaign. What I'm going to wonder is where are his/her parents? People need to worry more about instilling the values they want in their children and not relying on what goes on in the outside world. If you raise your child they way you see morally fit, then what they see out and about shouldn't make a difference. The real funny thing I find, in the US that is, that people are more worried about their kids seeing nudity or sex and not about the amount of violence that they are bombarded with on a dailey basis. "OMG, did you see the female butt on NYPD Blue last night, that's disgusting and my kid could have seen that, I'm calling the FCC" Nevermind that it's NYPD BLue and it's a violent TV show that their kid probably shouldn't be watching anyway. Now I'm not against violence on TV or any other media for that matter and I won't worry about either b/c I'll teach my kid that regardless of what she sees, there are standards that we, as a family, live by and that are acceptable in society. I think parents in this country need to start worrying about raising their children and not worrying about what's on TV or out in front of some store front.Trevor~
|
|
|
|
02/03/2008 04:45:10 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Wenders11:
If you don't like the photo, don't shop there or go in the store - that seems like a pretty easy concept.
That's easy to say, but when the photos are on the outside of the store at the mall, you'd have to avoid the entire mall in order not to see them. It's the same way with the Victorias Secret photos. I HATE that everytime I take my seven year old son to the mall, I have to walk him past gigantic photos of half naked women, even if we don't actually go into the Victorias Secret store. I know that in some parts of the world images like that are totally normal and an accepted part of society, but in my house, we try to keep our kids away from things like that. It's just frustrating that sometimes we're bombarded with those images whether we like it or not. |
I'm definitely not a prude, but there's my objection too.
There was a news story here a while back (tried to find it but couldn't so am going from memory) about a 12- or 13-year old girl who asked LaSenza in one of the malls if they could remove their window posters and they refused.
The girl had had harrassing comparison comments made to her as she walked by, by a group of her male classmates who were sitting on the bench outside the store, ogling the posters.
In our local mall, LaSenza's outside and the back door opens into the mall, right next to one of the main entrances. Above the door are signs for LaSenza and LaSenza Girl, with a large, lighted photo sign. What bothers me is the subliminal message given by placement of the poster above the sign for laSenza GIRL. We wonder why 10-year-olds are dressing like prostitots?
It's also not so much about the level of nudity (as mentioned, buttcracks can be seen everywhere, unfortunately) but more the provocative, suggestive poses. Though I don't consider the posted example terrible, I can see how it COULD suggest that the 3 men are pulling up their pants after having the one woman, who is still nude.
Which would be more disturbing to display in a shopping mall; a shot of a topless woman covering her nipples with her hands or two women in lingerie, one with her face buried in the crotch of the other?
Like it or not, there DOES have to be a line drawn somewhere. But who gets to decide where that line is? |
|
|
|
02/03/2008 04:47:12 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by Wenders11:
Originally posted by photodude:
Originally posted by Wenders11:
[i] It's just frustrating that sometimes we're bombarded with those images whether we like it or not. |
And yet nobody gets hurt, dies or goes mentally insane, or gets scarred for life for that matter. |
The next time you see a nine year old at the mall bend over and expose her thong, ask yourself where she's getting those ideas. I DO think that kids are affected by being constantly bombarded by adult images, and I would like to be able to shelter my kids from that as long as I can. My kids are only 4 and 7. They really don't need to see half naked people everywhere they go. They just don't. |
Next time I see a 9 year old with her thong showing I'm not going to wonder if she got the idea from an ad campaign. What I'm going to wonder is where are his/her parents? People need to worry more about instilling the values they want in their children and not relying on what goes on in the outside world. If you raise your child they way you see morally fit, then what they see out and about shouldn't make a difference. The real funny thing I find, in the US that is, that people are more worried about their kids seeing nudity or sex and not about the amount of violence that they are bombarded with on a dailey basis. "OMG, did you see the female butt on NYPD Blue last night, that's disgusting and my kid could have seen that, I'm calling the FCC" Nevermind that it's NYPD BLue and it's a violent TV show that their kid probably shouldn't be watching anyway. Now I'm not against violence on TV or any other media for that matter and I won't worry about either b/c I'll teach my kid that regardless of what she sees, there are standards that we, as a family, live by and that are acceptable in society. I think parents in this country need to start worrying about raising their children and not worrying about what's on TV or out in front of some store front.Trevor~ |
what does wearing a thong have to do with having good values? no matter how old you are, it's just underwear. some people think they are comfortable, some don't. some think they're sexy, some don't. same with any type of underwear. sheesh |
|
|
|
02/03/2008 04:48:22 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
It's also not so much about the level of nudity (as mentioned, buttcracks can be seen everywhere, unfortunately) but more the provocative, suggestive poses. Though I don't consider the posted example terrible, I can see how it COULD suggest that the 3 men are pulling up their pants after having the one woman, who is still nude. |
Please check again...she is clothed...!
Girl wearing clothes.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2008 04:52:41 PM · #33 |
| Looks to me more like they are running through the meadow to the stream to do a bit of skinny-dipping - ah, I miss my youth sometimes! |
|
|
|
02/03/2008 05:00:01 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
[quote=Wenders11] If you don't like the photo, don't shop there or go in the store - that seems like a pretty easy concept.
Which would be more disturbing to display in a shopping mall; a shot of a topless woman covering her nipples with her hands or two women in lingerie, one with her face buried in the crotch of the other?
Like it or not, there DOES have to be a line drawn somewhere. But who gets to decide where that line is? |
Standard tactic ... taking things to the extreame (we have to oppose gay marage because the next step is that people will want to marry their washing machine ... we have to draw the line somewhere)
The fact is that the latter in you example would not be acceptable ... and most of us here would be on board with saying that that would be over the line in a shopping center . |
|
|
|
02/03/2008 05:01:18 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Judi:
Originally posted by BeeCee:
It's also not so much about the level of nudity (as mentioned, buttcracks can be seen everywhere, unfortunately) but more the provocative, suggestive poses. Though I don't consider the posted example terrible, I can see how it COULD suggest that the 3 men are pulling up their pants after having the one woman, who is still nude. |
Please check again...she is clothed...!
Girl wearing clothes. |
Sorry, just looked at the thumb in the OP's link, and from that it looked like shadows, not clothing.
But the main gist of my post still stands! :) |
|
|
|
02/03/2008 05:05:27 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by nomad469:
Originally posted by BeeCee:
[quote=Wenders11] If you don't like the photo, don't shop there or go in the store - that seems like a pretty easy concept.
Which would be more disturbing to display in a shopping mall; a shot of a topless woman covering her nipples with her hands or two women in lingerie, one with her face buried in the crotch of the other?
Like it or not, there DOES have to be a line drawn somewhere. But who gets to decide where that line is? |
Standard tactic ... taking things to the extreame (we have to oppose gay marage because the next step is that people will want to marry their washing machine ... we have to draw the line somewhere)
The fact is that the latter in you example would not be acceptable ... and most of us here would be on board with saying that that would be over the line in a shopping center . |
Just to clarify, I'm NOT saying I agreed with this shot being pulled from inside a store, just commenting on how hard it is to set just WHERE that acceptable line is for the majority, since everyone has such differeng views :)
Message edited by author 2008-02-03 17:06:36. |
|
|
|
02/03/2008 05:06:09 PM · #37 |
Whether you like it or not, A&F markets their products to teenagers by using sexy (slightly older than teenagers) people who could be teenagers in situations that are clearly sexual.
Call me a prude, but I do think it is unnecessary. How bad are their clothes that they have to use nearly naked people to advertise them (the clothes)?
Or is it because sex is cool, even if you are only 13 or 14? |
|
|
|
02/03/2008 05:06:13 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Which would be more disturbing to display in a shopping mall; a shot of a topless woman covering her nipples with her hands or two women in lingerie, one with her face buried in the crotch of the other? |
Personally, I'd like to see them BOTH. That may get me out of the strip clubs and back into the malls again!
|
|
|
|
02/03/2008 05:08:58 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by desertoddity:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by Wenders11:
Originally posted by photodude:
Originally posted by Wenders11:
[i] It's just frustrating that sometimes we're bombarded with those images whether we like it or not. |
And yet nobody gets hurt, dies or goes mentally insane, or gets scarred for life for that matter. |
The next time you see a nine year old at the mall bend over and expose her thong, ask yourself where she's getting those ideas. I DO think that kids are affected by being constantly bombarded by adult images, and I would like to be able to shelter my kids from that as long as I can. My kids are only 4 and 7. They really don't need to see half naked people everywhere they go. They just don't. |
Next time I see a 9 year old with her thong showing I'm not going to wonder if she got the idea from an ad campaign. What I'm going to wonder is where are his/her parents? People need to worry more about instilling the values they want in their children and not relying on what goes on in the outside world. If you raise your child they way you see morally fit, then what they see out and about shouldn't make a difference. The real funny thing I find, in the US that is, that people are more worried about their kids seeing nudity or sex and not about the amount of violence that they are bombarded with on a dailey basis. "OMG, did you see the female butt on NYPD Blue last night, that's disgusting and my kid could have seen that, I'm calling the FCC" Nevermind that it's NYPD BLue and it's a violent TV show that their kid probably shouldn't be watching anyway. Now I'm not against violence on TV or any other media for that matter and I won't worry about either b/c I'll teach my kid that regardless of what she sees, there are standards that we, as a family, live by and that are acceptable in society. I think parents in this country need to start worrying about raising their children and not worrying about what's on TV or out in front of some store front.Trevor~ |
what does wearing a thong have to do with having good values? no matter how old you are, it's just underwear. some people think they are comfortable, some don't. some think they're sexy, some don't. same with any type of underwear. sheesh |
It's not about the thong itself being worn, hell it's just underware that shows less of line to most women and more comfortable to wear. But a nine year old wearing a thong, exposed purposely to be provacative, is wrong imo. |
|
|
|
02/03/2008 05:10:49 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Originally posted by Judi:
Originally posted by BeeCee:
It's also not so much about the level of nudity (as mentioned, buttcracks can be seen everywhere, unfortunately) but more the provocative, suggestive poses. Though I don't consider the posted example terrible, I can see how it COULD suggest that the 3 men are pulling up their pants after having the one woman, who is still nude. |
Please check again...she is clothed...!
Girl wearing clothes. |
Sorry, just looked at the thumb in the OP's link, and from that it looked like shadows, not clothing.
But the main gist of my post still stands! :) |
Well see, that's where opinions differ. It is acceptable that we all have differing opinions...you see the story line as one where they guys have just shared the one woman...based on one man pulling his jeans up a bit.
Whereas I see a group of young people out having some innocent fun...instead of the vandalism and violent actions of many young out there today. I see them as I was at a young age...having fun at the beach or in a park or on the farm....simply innocent...no sex involved. As for the jeans...many kids pull up their duds because they are a bit too big...so as NOT to show anything offensive. Maybe that is all he was doing...protecting those people from seeing something they may consider offensive.
And that is where peoples opinions differ...that is okay...but that MUST be taken into account when something of this nature occurs... Is one persons opinion the only opinion to be listened too...? If that is the case....why isn't one persons opinion on the violent nature of weapons taken into account and removed from all media? (That is just an example...there are many such examples out there)
|
|
|
|
02/03/2008 05:18:32 PM · #41 |
Well, I looked at that shot and tried to figure out what the objection might be, and that's all I could come up with. It certainly wasn't MY first impression either.
AGAIN, I say that I don't agree with the decision on this shot.
Message edited by author 2008-02-03 17:19:57. |
|
|
|
02/03/2008 05:19:28 PM · #42 |
perfectly said, judi.
personally, i would much rather my children see nudity (not sex...nudity) than violence. however, they're grown now and they know that violence is unacceptable despite having been exposed to it as children on tv/movies. i take responsibility for making sure of that. |
|
|
|
02/03/2008 05:20:57 PM · #43 |
| Judi... as always ... you rock |
|
|
|
02/03/2008 05:26:12 PM · #44 |
| I've seen more crack from the plumber! |
|
|
|
02/03/2008 05:27:33 PM · #45 |
Just to add to the discussion: a photographer/film maker named Bruce Weber is responsible for the images. He's been known to be a bit racy, but this work for AC&F is pretty tame.
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Weber_%28photographer%29
|
|
|
|
02/03/2008 05:29:48 PM · #46 |
| I had a look through the pictures, and I really don't get it. They're sexy, beautifully done, and obviously tasteful (imo). I find it somewhat shocking that these should be seized - why is our society quite so hung up on nudity?! What's so shocking about the hint of a breast? I'd be far happier living in a society where sexuality and nudity were tactfully and tastefully embraced, than one where they were outlawed. |
|
|
|
02/03/2008 05:31:51 PM · #47 |
I'm sorry, but I do have to bring up the schizophrenic nature of American culture, where radical puritanism is allowed unrestrained access to the law in a society built on freedom of expression. It's completely baffling. You can go into grocery stores in Europe and see pictures of body-painted dicks on the front covers of magazines, right beside kids' cartoon books; which society has higher rates of murder and sexual assualt? There's a disconnect in America somehow.
As well, I think HawkeyeLonewolf enjoys promoting his radical views in the guise of "Thank god this happened" posts. This thread should have started in Rant. |
|
|
|
02/03/2008 05:32:57 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Or is it because sex is cool, even if you are only 13 or 14? |
Bingo!
And it's even cooler and sells even better in a country that is neurotic and irrational about and -- not coincidentally -- obsessed with sex and sexuality.
Remember children, sex is bad, dirty, dangerous, emotionally scarring and you should avoid thinking about, hearing about, looking at, or learning about it in any way... and it is the most beautiful thing you can share with your opposite sex spouse.
edit to add that Louis beat me to it
Message edited by author 2008-02-03 17:40:02. |
|
|
|
02/03/2008 05:35:55 PM · #49 |
oooo my - this is definately way too explicit.
now i know why i am so inclined to buy 'trendy' jeans.
i always thought levi made the best - but seemed to 'want' to wear name brand 'trendy' jeans.
off to GAP to find some 'real' jeans... that ad made me sick to think about abercappy and pinch.
think of the children. at least GAP has ' GAP KId's ' . shop safe.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2008 05:39:50 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by Everyone Ganging up on Karmat:
Lets gang up on her because she said that 14 year olds shouldn't be having sex. |
This isn't a rant, he was just pointing out that this shouldn't be legal according to American laws.
How would you fathers want yours 13/14 yr. old girl having sex with her boyfriend because its been so drilled into her head that it is okay to do.
Message edited by author 2008-02-03 17:40:57.
|
|
