Apparently, there's a mall in the DC suburbs with a racy Victoria's Secret display. (Washington Post article)
Here's what really got me:
quote: "Well," said Steina Rubin of Bethesda, "I find it just totally disgusting." And, no, she would not be shopping there. "I'm not entering a whorehouse," she said. "I come to the mall with my daughter. It's disgusting. And I'm from Europe !"
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I have no problem with the display itself, but I believe it is poor taste on the part of VS to display it publicly in a mall.
I'd have no problem with display as an add in some magazines, or if the display were only viewable from inside the store.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
There was a large (like 30' tall) billboard of a VS model in her underwear right next to a busy on-ramp in Dallas (Garland Rd onto LBJ, for those of you from the area) for a couple of months.
It amazed me that there weren't more accidents there in that time.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I must assume she also does not take her daughter to the beach.
Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
meh, The Washington Post picture does not look much different than the stuff you see in VS tv ads, and those invovle real people (I suppose people are bothered by those too).
Is the problem that the underwear is displayed or that it is shown on mannequins?
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
I'm guessing it's that there are multiple mannequins grouped in very sexual poses (the one reclining on a hip, the other crawling, a third lacing up her boots), suggesting a whore house.
And yes, I think VS TV ads are inappropriate for children.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob the Lawyer: I must assume she also does not take her daughter to the beach.
That's disingenuous. Most people on the beach, even if dressed in string bikinis, do not sit around in suggestive poses. There is a big difference in beach wear and fetish wear, as you know.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
That stuff is fetish wear? Perhaps my view of fetish is too risque. Perhaps most women don't sit around the beach in suggestive poses, but there are plenty who go to be noticed who most certainly do strike some sort of a "pose". Not to mention what we have plastered all over billboards. If this is a general discussion of oversexualizing of American culture, this is one thing, but if you're saying that the models are worse than you're going to encounter at, heck, the water park of an amusement park, I'm not sure that I agree with you.
I mean, I was going through a mall in Toronto once and they had live dancers in the display at the front of the store. And you can bet they were not doing the macarana.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
If they didn't want children exposed to scantily clad dress, they shouldn't go to the mall.
Anyways, nothing in Victoria's Secret can possibly compare to what my girl finds in Frederick's of Hollywood.
Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
Does the fact that these are plastic fake people count for nothing?
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Remember the uproar when the fake plastic people got fake plastic nipples? I remember reading lots of stories about voyeurs in clothing stores when that happened.
Yes read. No, I was not one of them. Stopping that comment before it gets made, thanks.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
quote: And I'm from Europe!
How the heck am I supposed to take that? *hmpf*
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
quote:How the heck am I supposed to take that?
Probably with a string bikini, loose hair, pouty full lips, arched back, and a martini on a sunny beach with a gentle warm breeze.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
I can't attach my hair anymore anyway. Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
BtL, I'd say it's fetish wear, yes. The primary purpose in the design of those clothes is to excite sexually. Those specific clothes were designed to play into the dirty-girl, whorehouse fantasy so I'd call them fetish wear. YMMV.
I'll agree that it's "no worse" than what you'd see at the beach, but that's not to say it isn't inappropriate for a window display in a shopping mall (or for the beach, for that matter).
Do I think they should be censored? No. Do I think people have the right to complain? Yes. Do I understand the complaint? Yes. Do I think people should have the right to boycott the mall until/unless the display is changed? Yes.
Luthe,
quote:Does the fact that these are plastic fake people count for nothing?
Not much, really. I think the objection is the public display of (in the protestors' opions) graphic eroticism, which is conveyed just fine with plastic fake people. Would the outcry be louder if they were real people in the display? Probably, but they weren't so it's a moot question.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I see we have another terrible booby scarring of some poor child. Years from now, the trauma from seeing the VS display will cause this kid to machine gun down random passers by. Sad, really.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Just for everyone's information, we don't have this in France, and it would probably make an uproar too.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
This display was set up to draw attention during the unveiling of a new wing of the mall.
Guess what? It worked.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
Well, if that picture in the link is truly representative of the display, I have to say that I've seen display windows racier than that here in Fresno. As far as I know no one has made a deal about them, even here in the buckle of the California Bible belt. Anyway, if they have it didn't make the news. Which it would have, I'm sure, Fresno being what it is.
Although one department store had a full-size reproduction of Michelangelo's David, without fig-leaf, for awhile, and that caused quite a stir. One of my mom's friends was just livid about that "obscene, pornographic" statue. Then again, a few questions revealed the fact that she didn't know that the David is one of the world's classic sculptures -which didn't make a bit of difference to her opinion of it, by the way.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Or maybe this is just a really slow news day and the reporter decided to make a story out of essientially a nonstory. Sex sells newspapers too.
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
A full-size reproduction? How tall was the building?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: I see we have another terrible booby scarring of some poor child. Years from now, the trauma from seeing the VS display will cause this kid to machine gun down random passers by. Sad, really.
Your implied arguement - Breasts are natural so there is nothing wrong with a child seeing a breast - while I agree with it, is overly simplistic for this case in my opinion. Sex is natural and there is nothing wrong with talking about it and helping children learn about it and understand it in age-appropriate ways, etc, but you don't have sexual "how-to" displays in mall windows.
For the record, I don't have a problem, myself, with the display, but I also don't think you'd have to be an extreme prude to find it inappropriate and distasteful. I think this display at least pushes the (albeit fuzzy) boundaries of good taste, and I would have no problem if the mall asked VS to tone it down. On the other hand, if I came across the display with my 9 year old niece, I'd probably end up having a good conversation with her about what is and isn't appropriate, depending on her reaction (if any) to the display. It wouldn't make me uncomfortable having that discussion, and I certainly wouldn't petition VS to change it.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Just for everyone's information, we don't have this in France, and it would probably make an uproar too.
That's a load of poo.
I've seen commercials with topless women during the daytime, in France.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by littlemissattitude: Although one department store had a full-size reproduction of Michelangelo's David, without fig-leaf, for awhile, and that caused quite a stir.
Interesting story about the fig-leaf: Italy created a full-size plaster cast of Michelangelo's David as a gift for Queen Victoria for the Great Exhibition of 1851. There is no fig-leaf on David, but the British made one which was hung on the statue whenever a female was touring the exhibit. When portions of the Victoria & Albert collection were on display in Baltimore, it was felt that the risk of damage to the plaster statue was too great to ship it along, but they did send the fig-leaf. It was nearly big enough for a medium-size man to use as a breastplate. Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Wait, they shipped the fig leaf to Baltimore, but not the plaster cast of the statue? I thought they were something of a package deal.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
In the week I spent in Europe last month, I saw more naked breasts in person (at the beach) and in print than all the years I've been in the US combined, possibly excepting locker rooms. I don't even count the museums. There were magazines with covers of topless women doing things that looked very uncomfortable to themselves right next to TIME at the newsstands in the airport.
Her comment makes sense to me.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Actually, my implied argument is why get upset or ban the display at all.
quote: Your implied arguement - Breasts are natural so there is nothing wrong with a child seeing a breast - while I agree with it, is overly simplistic for this case in my opinion. Sex is natural and there is nothing wrong with talking about it and helping children learn about it and understand it in age-appropriate ways, etc, but you don't have sexual "how-to" displays in mall windows.
For the record, I don't have a problem, myself, with the display, but I also don't think you'd have to be an extreme prude to find it inappropriate and distasteful. I think this display at least pushes the (albeit fuzzy) boundaries of good taste, and I would have no problem if the mall asked VS to tone it down. On the other hand, if I came across the display with my 9 year old niece, I'd probably end up having a good conversation with her about what is and isn't appropriate, depending on her reaction (if any) to the display. It wouldn't make me uncomfortable having that discussion, and I certainly wouldn't petition VS to change it.
So, sex is natural and there's nothing wrong with it, but showing sex(uality) around children is somehow 'wrong' because of a matter of 'taste' that everyone knows is true.
Attend to the beam in your own eye, sir.
You want to make the case that there is some rational reason for not showing the display? Make it. Show some cause and effect. Give me a reason other than 'what everyone knows'.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
They have it similar in the Annapolis Mall window, only about 30 miles from the other mall. Not creating much of a fuss here though.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
My previous post was a lot more snarky than I intended it to be. Pardon.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
I guess I'm desensitized or something, but I really didn't find a whole lot wrong with that picture. I mean it's mannequins in underwear on a bed. They may be trying to imply something, but I'm not sure everyone catches it. I didn't catch it to be honest.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Okay, no comment on the display, although I definitely have an opinion. But this:
quote:A spokesman for the mall management company said "many" complaints had been received. "The comments we receive from our customers are valued and appreciated," a spokesman said in a statement, adding that the mall management had shared the comments with Victoria's Secret.
That kinda bugs me.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: Wait, they shipped the fig leaf to Baltimore, but not the plaster cast of the statue? I thought they were something of a package deal.
<rimshot>
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: So, sex is natural and there's nothing wrong with it, but showing sex(uality) around children is somehow 'wrong' because of a matter of 'taste' that everyone knows is true.
Attend to the beam in your own eye, sir.
You want to make the case that there is some rational reason for not showing the display? Make it. Show some cause and effect. Give me a reason other than 'what everyone knows'.
Do you seriously contend that there is nothing wrong with showing depictions of graphic sexual acts to children? If not, then why must I provide a detailed explanation of points upon which we agree?
I'm not making the case that there is a rational reason for not showing the display anyway. I'm making the case that there is a rational reason for the uproar. The display pushes the envelope of propriety, at least for those patrons who complained. Many people get uncomfortable when the envelope is pushed. People have the right to complain when they are made uncomfortable. When people complain, you can listen, or ignore them, or ridicule them, or try to show them why their complaint is unwarranted. All of these can be legitimate responses depending on the complaint and the complainers.
What constitutes the "envelope" and what determines "pushing it" is entirely based on each person's assumption of "what everyone knows". Unfortunately, this is different for each person and is precisely why this type of thing generates controversy and attention. I'm not making a value judgement here. I'm just describing the way things are (as I see them).
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
If a person is perfectly comfortable with viewing or displaying the human body, this does not entitle him to go around in public flashing people. Even though he may not be offended by it himself, it does offend others.
Likewise, even if we are not personally offended by this sexually suggestive display, other people's views should be considered.
While I'm not personally offended by this display, considering people are offended by this, I do not feel that it should be displayed where it is. Currently it is in an unavoidable place which essentially forces the general public to view it regardless of whether they find it offensive or not. Instead, I think someone suggested this earlier, it should be viewable only to a person that actually enters the store.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:So, sex is natural and there's nothing wrong with it, but showing sex(uality) around children is somehow 'wrong' because of a matter of 'taste' that everyone knows is true.
To clarify what I wrote above, this sentence does not correctly paraphrase what I meant at all. "Showing sexuality around children" is so vague that it is impossible for me to tell you if I think it is wrong or right. Surely you agree there are some ways of "showing sexuality" that are inappropriate for children, even as I'd agree there are some ways that are wholly appropriate and heathy for children. Where the line falls is always going to be a gray area because what is appropriate changes with age and with each person's personal idea of propriety. In a public place, it's courteous to err on the side of caution. In an area where children (of all ages) are likely to be present, I think it is in poor taste to display "brothel-esque" tableux. I don't have to justify this at all because I'm not calling for consequences of this perceived offense to my sense of propriety. I'm simply expressing my opinion, which I have as much a right to as anyone.
edit to add: And while I don't feel I have the right to demand that VS remove the display, they also can't control the effect their actions have on people's opinion of them as a company and as a corporate citizen of the community in which they live. I'm sure VS could care less about my opinion as I don't shop there. (They have nothing that would fit me, and Chris would look ridiculous in anything I'm aware of that they sell.) However, if enough people in a community are offended it could hurt their business in that community, though I doubt that will happen in this case. It is a calculated risk VS is apparently willing to take.
[ October 05, 2005, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
quote:Originally posted by jebus202:
quote:Just for everyone's information, we don't have this in France, and it would probably make an uproar too.
That's a load of poo.
I've seen commercials with topless women during the daytime, in France.
Right, but not in a "whorehouse" representation. That would never pass.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I do find it screwed up that in general people are more worried about sex than violence. I've seen come pretty violent pg-13 movies, but when that nipple shows, gotta strap on the R rating.
As for the window scene depicting a "whorehouse"? How do you know its not depicting a college dorm room, or 5 pretty sisters frolicking about. Oh heck, now I gotta run to the bathroom...
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Stephan, You're bringing up two separate issues, which is equivalent to asking why people are worried about the effect of sexual displays when children are dying of hunger in Africa.
And the point isn't necessarily what it is depicting, rather, whether people should have to be subjected to displays that they are offended by and deem inappropriate for their children.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I wouldn't feel too comfortable taking my little sisters past the window. I mean, it's unlikely that they'd even notice it, let alone be affected by it. But it lends a certain total lack of taste to the surrounding area.
Sure, it's fine among adults, but in a public mall? Isn't that somehat tasteless? It's not the clothing, it's the insinuation... exactly what other than is it trying to sell but sex? (I understand that's what Victoria's Secret is all about blah de blah) How is this possibly even legitimately advertising underwear? There are plenty of windows with only-underwear-wearing models but not many that are blatantly trying to be sexual.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus: Stephan, You're bringing up two separate issues, which is equivalent to asking why people are worried about the effect of sexual displays when children are dying of hunger in Africa.
And the point isn't necessarily what it is depicting, rather, whether people should have to be subjected to displays that they are offended by and deem inappropriate for their children.
I disagree, I always hear sex and violence used in the same sentence (could this also be why sex is always seen in a negative light). But I've never hear people talking about Sex and starving children in Africa.
If your not going to let Victoria's Secret model their clothing in the fashion in which its sold for, then the store should not be allowed in the mall at all. If they are not allowed, they to avoid being hipocritical, game stores should not sell violent games in malls, and video stores should take out all rated R movies from their shelves. After all, your children can easily see disturbing images on the back of those boxes.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Stephan, Whether or not people should be more worried about sex than violence is a completely different topic that has nothing to do with the VS display.
I said nothing of preventing VS from showing their products. My opinion is that they should not be forcing everyone in the mall to see it. By having the displays only viewable to those that actually enter the store, then the general public will have to make the conscious decision as to whether they want to see it or not.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:After all, your children can easily see disturbing images on the back of those boxes.
It takes a wee bit more effort to pick up a box and look at the back than see a life-size window display. I think if that display were viewable by picking up a box and looking at the back, there would be very little complaint.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
SS- You can't argue culture in a multi-cultural society. There is no scientific data which may be brought to bear to show that yes indeed, societies which ban pornography are indeed in all ways superior to societies which bask in their sexuality.
Therefore it is pointless to ask for some sort of objective reason why the exhibit crosses the line into unacceptibility. The same may be said for those who make light of the Janice Jackson episode and any other where cultural taboos have been flouted. Cultural taboos are by definition dependent on culture.
From where I sit, this Victoria Seceret ad campaign (of which this display is part) is simply one more tiny bit of evidence of the parting of the ways of our multicultural society. If there are no cultural rules which are agreed upon by the vast majority of Americans, then there is no American culture.
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
An odd story that may or may not be relevant to the current topic:
I went to Gap Body because it is the only store that sells my bra size. While I was browsing the bra selection, a little girl (five or six years old) started playing with a mannequin. She was totally innocent; she obviously had no idea that what she was doing was inappropriate. But she had a candy wrapper or somesuch and stuffed it into the mannequin's panties. Apparently she saw the panties as a handy little trash-pocket for her.
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
At least in our mall the Fredericks store doesn't have its undies displayed on mannequins. I haven't been in there in awhile though but I did walk by the other day and they have things hanging in displays but there are no life sized, sexually posed mannequins. Since I have long held the opinion that the VS ads are pornographic I do not shop at their store and do not pay much attention when I walk by. I haven't seen this particular display locally but would not be surprised to see it. Just disgusted that our society's values have changed to the point that soft core pornography is accepted in public.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I don't get it. Victoria's Secret ALWAYS has mannequins in underwear in the windows. Why is this a big deal?
And since when does a store display constitute "showing graphic sexual acts to children?"
-pH
Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
Well with the motorized mannequins...
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
It sounds to me like the objection most people have is not that VS products are being displayed, but rather the manner in which they are being displayed (on mannequins in suggestive poses). If the same products were shown on mannequins standing normally (without any real "positioning"), I doubt there would be any complaints.
From what I could see of the picture, it didn't look particularly objectionable to me, but the mention in the article of a mannequin crawling makes me kind of wonder.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I do see one mannequin who is bending over rather suggestively. But it looks like the window continues and the picture doesn't.
Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
quote:Inside the store was a display of one scantily clad female mannequin crawling toward another who reclined on a left hip and leaned back on both hands.
Yeah, but that mannequin is in the store, not in the window display
Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
What I find odd about VS is that they tout themselves as a sex/lingerie store, but they mostly sell bras and panties made for everyday wear. Sometimes it seems like false advertising.
It's like the woman talking about her daughter going there to shop for bras. These bras are not being purchased for sex play. They are being purchased because VS makes wonderful, quality, everyday bras.
I can totally understand the people wanting the bras without the sex-play (especially for their children) being bothered by the overtness of the sex-advertising. Think about it. People don't go to Fredricks for everyday bra shopping. (Do they?)
VS is trying to have it both ways, and I think that is a problem.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
A guy I was dating once told me that Victoria's Secret considers their lingerie "sleepwear."
...I must say, I don't think I'd ever consider sleeping in it.
Anyways, while Victoria's Secret may mostly sell everyday bras and panties, they do have a very wide selection of lingerie that obviously isn't intended to be worn for long periods of time. Or under clothing. I think they have more of that than they do everyday stuff, really.
Victoria's Secret bras are too pointy, anyway.
-pH
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Oh, my gosh, some of those pictures in luthe's link are QUITE suggestive.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I'd weigh in as a person who wholeheartedly approves of eroticism and sexuality easily available for any adult who wants it, but who has no problem with making it a requested display rather than an in-your-face one.
Wal-mart sells rifles. They don't have mannequins gunning down deer on display though, even though that's exactly what many of the rifle-buyers have in mind, because many of Wal-Mart's shoppers are not there for that purpose and such a display might scare off business.
Put the display in the store where interested buyers can see it. Problem solved.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I only saw one unusually sexy pose on that link. Am I looking at the wrong slideshow? It mostly seems to be mannequins just standing there.
-pH
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
pH, 3, 5, 6, and 7.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
3 was the one I was talking about. 5 doesn't look particularly suggestive to me. Just a mannequin in the Captain Morgan pose. 6 is just arms. And 7 doesn't really surprise me because they usually seem to have at least one mannequin in that particular pose.
-pH
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:5 doesn't look particularly suggestive to me. Just a mannequin in the Captain Morgan pose.
The what now? It is very overtly sexual to me.
quote:6 is just arms.
Yup. Arms and a tilted head in just the position that I use when I want... Nevermind. In any case, sexual to me, but I'll concede that one.
quote:And 7 doesn't really surprise me because they usually seem to have at least one mannequin in that particular pose.
Not where I shop.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
I didn't realize this was a new thing everywhere else. Orange County has had those displays in at least two stores for something like a year.
I would say that the new displays are controversial both because the poses are more suggestive than usual and because the mannequins are considerably more realistic than usual.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Really? I've seen the mannequin lying on her side at every Victoria's Secret I've been to. It's sexy, but I don't think it's anything new. And is that one in the store window? It looked like it was inside the store, where the others looked like they were in the window. I've always seen that particular mannequin along one of the walls inside the store.
The "Captain Morgan" pose. There's a Captain commercial with random people standing with one foot raised, and a voice says, "They've all got a little Captain in 'em."
-pH
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Oh, that.
It doesn't look quite like that to me.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:Anyways, while Victoria's Secret may mostly sell everyday bras and panties, they do have a very wide selection of lingerie that obviously isn't intended to be worn for long periods of time. Or under clothing. I think they have more of that than they do everyday stuff, really.
Actually, I have been continually disappointed in their variety and selection *in the store*, to the point that if I want lingerie, I don't go there.
But when they have their clearance sale, I might pick up a few cotton bras and panties. I occasionally buy a bridal shower gift there. I bought a bathrobe there once. Luv it.
It's *not* where I go for what they advertise most: sex play.
quote:Victoria's Secret bras are too pointy, anyway. [Razz]
You think so? I've had the opposite feeling about their bras. *squish*
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
I agree with you, beverly. I have never found anything at VS that I considered mature enough to be sexy. Pink nighties with leopard spots and fuzzy trim don't count as mature.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
They have a few things I like in their catalogue... but it's just so much easier to shop elsewhere.
I actually really like some of their clothes. Or maybe I just wish I looked like the models. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I think Frederick's has much better lingere, on the whole.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
bev: I don't know what size you wear, or the bras you buy, but it might depend on the size. I have a small chest, and it seems like most bras for smaller sizes are pointy, so I avoid them because I don't feel like trying out the Madonna cone boob look.
I like the Playtex bras.
-pH
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I am pretty dang small (IMO, anyway). Maybe it was the style I bought. But they made me look flatter with flesh squished on top--not flattering.
Edit: They were the on-sale cheaper cotton bras. I'm too much of a tightwad to buy the pricy ones.
Is it just me, or do VS bra's run small? I admit, it was flattering to fill a bra size that would normally be loose on me.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Yup. They run small. Which is bad when you're big enough that you wear a size that they don't even carry in their stores anyway.
I don't shop there for myself. Occasionally a gift.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
It seems to me the proof is in the results. This display is simply a matter of "pushing the envelope" further than it has already been pushed.
I see 11 year old girls in school wearing thongs and low rise pants with the waist rolled down, and lacy bras with either see-through or low cut tops, so that the bra (etc.) is on display.
This is like the cigarette companies claiming that Joe Camel wasn't intended to advertise to children. Victoria's secret is doing just that; trying to establish a clientele among children who are too young to understand where the judgement should come from, and why.
We're in a time when society is becoming increasingly aware of how much damage children suffer at the hands of molesters, who use the same techniques to desensitize their victims to inappropriate behavior. They call it "grooming." VS and Fredericks are complicit in that grooming. In my opinion, VS is the worse of the two.
Don't get me started on "Baby P.h.a.t."
Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
I was under the impression that much of the argument against Joe Camel was that he was a cartoon character. I don't see how this is catering to children. Frankly that judgement needs to be instilled into children before they are old enough to wear anything from Victoria's Secret.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I have to say, I definitely consider the parents more at fault than the retailers when I see kids in those clothes. I mean, sure, they shouldn't make those clothes for kids. But if no one bought them, they'd stop.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: quote:So, sex is natural and there's nothing wrong with it, but showing sex(uality) around children is somehow 'wrong' because of a matter of 'taste' that everyone knows is true.
To clarify what I wrote above, this sentence does not correctly paraphrase what I meant at all. "Showing sexuality around children" is so vague that it is impossible for me to tell you if I think it is wrong or right. Surely you agree there are some ways of "showing sexuality" that are inappropriate for children, even as I'd agree there are some ways that are wholly appropriate and heathy for children. Where the line falls is always going to be a gray area because what is appropriate changes with age and with each person's personal idea of propriety. In a public place, it's courteous to err on the side of caution. In an area where children (of all ages) are likely to be present, I think it is in poor taste to display "brothel-esque" tableux. I don't have to justify this at all because I'm not calling for consequences of this perceived offense to my sense of propriety. I'm simply expressing my opinion, which I have as much a right to as anyone.
Actually, your reply seems to confirm my paraphrase as accurate. What your reply seems to be saying is that you don't know what sexual things are inappropriate for children, or when they're inappropriate, but they're out there, whatever they are. Don't you see the problem with the logic of this?
To answer your assumption
quote: Surely you agree there are some ways of "showing sexuality" that are inappropriate for children, even as I'd agree there are some ways that are wholly appropriate and heathy for children.
I don't know. Showing sexuality is completely different than having sex. While I would certainly agree that having sex can be dangerous, how is 'showing sexuality' dangerous? I think they are two different things.
Let me say that it is odd to be having this conversation with a gay person. Don't you want to be able to show your affection with your SO? Don't you ever want to get married? Your arguments are basically the underlying ones used to make any display of gay affection wrong and dirty. If we let gay people show affection, then this is dirty because it's dirty. It's dirty because we say so is not sufficient reason for censure, don't you think? Don't you want people to give reasons as to why they need to condemn what you feel is right for you before they condemn you or your ideas? I would think so, so I'm confused why you make make excuses for the knuckleheads that 'know it when they see it'.
Sure, it's 'understandable' to have certain tastes and to not want to see others doing what you find distasteful. That's human nature.
What's not understandable, and should not be excused, but rather condemned, is jerks shutting off others from enjoying the same freedom of expression that they have.
If the above was too personal, let me know and I'll delete it or retract it. It just seems like you and others are kind of saying 'whatever' because you think it doesn't really effect you. But if I/we don't stand for something like VS, then where does it end? At some point, don't we have to say why? Why let the most prurient parts of society determine what can and cannot be shown in public? Why isn't it polite that they get along with everyone else rather than everyone else walking on egg shells around them? America is a big country and she can accomodate almost everyone, as long as they don't hurt others.
Glenn,
quote: I see 11 year old girls in school wearing thongs and low rise pants with the waist rolled down, and lacy bras with either see-through or low cut tops, so that the bra (etc.) is on display.
Here's something the girls know that you apparently don't: dressing in a sexually provocative manner does not mean that they don't value love and don't understand that they shouldn't screw. So they want to 'look bad'. Big deal. It's the same thing as mohawks and tattoos and piercings. Teens have been visually rebelling for a million years. The mohawks of yesterday are the thongs of today. *twirls finger in air*
quote: We're in a time when society is becoming increasingly aware of how much damage children suffer at the hands of molesters, who use the same techniques to desensitize their victims to inappropriate behavior. They call it "grooming." VS and Fredericks are complicit in that grooming. In my opinion, VS is the worse of the two.
*boggle*
[ October 06, 2005, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
I consider these mannequin displays less sexual than the enormous posters of supermodels in lingerie that are usually hanging in the windows of Victoria's Secret stores at the local malls. You know, like the ones leaning so far forward the only part of the bra they could be advertising is the straps?
--Enigmatic
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: I don't get it. Victoria's Secret ALWAYS has mannequins in underwear in the windows. Why is this a big deal?
And since when does a store display constitute "showing graphic sexual acts to children?"
-pH
I think that last part was directed at me. If you follow the conversation, you'll note that I wasn't saying that the VS was showing "graphic sexual acts to children". I was using that phrase to illustrate that there is a line somewhere going beyond which nearly everyone will agree is wrong. I then went on to illustrate that this line shifts depending on the individual and: 1. You can't expect everyone to agree with you on where that line is. 2. Those who draw the line more conservatively than you are not necessarily overreacting just because their line is more conservative.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
About what we consider shocking or not... When I went in Australia, I've been totally scandalized when, shopping in a supermarket, I saw on display a magazine cover saying that inside was the good method for (I'm sorry and edit if it's inapropriate) a blow job. Now I don't consider myself as prude, but the mere idea to shop my my children one day and that they see that and ask, very innocently, what is a blow job makes me shiver.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Here's something the girls know that you apparently don't: dressing in a sexually provocative manner does not mean that they don't value love and don't understand that they shouldn't screw. So they want to 'look bad'. Big deal. It's the same thing as mohawks and tattoos and piercings. Teens have been visually rebelling for a million years.
Did you see many eleven-year-old boys with mohawks?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
SS,
First, I wish you had (or still would) attribute the last two quotes in your post. Since they come on the heels of a direct quote of and reply to me and don't mention anyone else, it really reads like you're continuing to quote me. Those are definitely not my words.
As for your reply to my post, again, you don't seem to be reading what I'm writing. I haven't said anything in favor of censoring VS. In fact, I've written quite the opposite. I think they have every right to do what they have done. What I don't agree with is the implied "So the rest of you prudes need to shut up and shop elsewhere if you're scared of a little boobie."
quote:Don't you want to be able to show your affection with your SO? Don't you ever want to get married? Your arguments are basically the underlying ones used to make any display of gay affection wrong and dirty. If we let gay people show affection, then this is dirty because it's dirty. It's dirty because we say so is not sufficient reason for censure, don't you think?
Do you believe that in order for me to be morally consistent in my desire to be able to hold hands with Chris, or put my arm around him at the movies I have to also advocate the freedom of two guys to walk around the mall wearing seat-less chaps and no pants and lasciviously rubbing each other's bare behinds? Based on your reply after my attempts to clarify my previous posts I have to entertain the possibility that this is indeed exactly what you're asserting. If so, I disagree. I think in every society there is a line of decency beyond which it is counter-productive to cross. Is this line really something "everyone just knows"? No, although they may tell themselves it is. However, people do and will continue to flirt with that line because that is one of the best ways in modern society to get attention. (Not alway good, productive, or welcome attention, but that's the risk you assume when you are pushing the line). Is it un-reasonable to react negatively when you perceive someone has crossed the line of decency? I don't think so, in general, though not all reactions are resonable for all perceived offenses.
Should we, as a society, allow pushing of that line? Sure. I'm for almost un-fettered freedom of expression, but I also believe there is a time and place for everything. I think gay porn should be available. I don't think I should be able to buy it from Wal-mart. I think I should be able to make love to Chris, even if it involves sodomy, but I don't think we should be able to do that in the town square. I like to hold Chris's hand. I think I should be allowed to do that anywhere. I like to make out with Chris, too. I think it would be in poor taste to do so in a shopping mall.
I believe public sexual expression is a continuum with "Ok to do whereverthehellIwant" on one end and "Illegal to do in public" on the other end. The middle is a gray area where things aren't and shouldn't be illegal but become increasingly in poor taste to display publicly the closer you get to the graphic end. Where specific acts fall on this spectrum is determined by society (de facto).
I don't want to live in a society where sexual expression of every kind is forbidden in public. I imagine an overwhelming majority of people in America feel this way. I also don't want to live in a society where people are constantly having sex on the sidewalk in front of my house. I imagine most people in America feel this way, too. I'm perfectly willing to discuss with these people how best we can build a society between the two extremes. I fully recognize that sometimes there will be disagreements. That's why we have a Bill of Rights and a SCOTUS.
quote:Sure, it's 'understandable' to have certain tastes and to not want to see others doing what you find distasteful. That's human nature.
What's not understandable, and should not be excused, but rather condemned, is jerks shutting off others from enjoying the same freedom of expression that they have.
OK, again nowhere have I advocated anyone's right to shut off anyone else's freedom of expression. What I've been advocating is the idea that while we all have the right to the same freedom of expression, we don't have a right to dictate public reaction to our method of enjoying that freedom. I haven't moved at all into what people should be doing about it. (Though for the record I did say that I wouldn't have a problem if the mall asked VS to tone it down. I still feel that way. We can discuss that if you want to.)
Also, I appologize in advance if any of this seems snarky. It's not meant to. I am carefully choosing my words so as to not be misunderstood. Sometimes I think I can come across as snarky or pedantic when what I'm aiming for is precision. Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Tangental to the rest of the conversation, bev and brinestone, I'm wondering if the VS stores in your area just don't stock the "sexier" product lines that the rest carry. Because while they do have some "everyday" type bras in them, usually, the vast majority of the merchandise in most VSs around here is not practical for everyday, and not meant to be worn under clothing. And yes, there is some of the cutsey leapard print with pink fur trim crap, but most of it is more of what I think you're calling mature. It's still not the sleaziest store in the world, but there is quite a disconnect from what you're describing and what I think of as their normal merchandise.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:I consider these mannequin displays less sexual than the enormous posters of supermodels in lingerie that are usually hanging in the windows of Victoria's Secret stores at the local malls. You know, like the ones leaning so far forward the only part of the bra they could be advertising is the straps?
Reminds me of a controversy over a particular VS poster in my local area years ago. The woman was topless and covering her boobs with her hands. This was for a bra sale.
I figure if you are selling bras, you ought to show the bra on the model. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
ElJay, they do sell some, I just am always disappointed in the selection and variety. Maybe that is a trait of high-class clothing stores to begin with. I wouldn't know, because usually I am too cheap to shop at those.
But when I walk into a VS store and fully half of it seems to be devoted to nothing but different kinds of bras (and I'm not there to shop for "just bras"), I get pretty bored.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: SS,
First, I wish you had (or still would) attribute the last two quotes in your post. Since they come on the heels of a direct quote of and reply to me and don't mention anyone else, it really reads like you're continuing to quote me. Those are definitely not my words.
Pardon. I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth or anything. I had assumed that since the thread was open and everyone could see who posted what that it would be clear who had said what. I'll make it more clear.
quote:
As for your reply to my post, again, you don't seem to be reading what I'm writing. I haven't said anything in favor of censoring VS. In fact, I've written quite the opposite. I think they have every right to do what they have done. What I don't agree with is the implied "So the rest of you prudes need to shut up and shop elsewhere if you're scared of a little boobie."
I understand that you say that you're not in favor of censoring VS, but the point seems to me to be confused in your posts. You don't want to censor VS, but you do believe there are things that children shouldn't see. You do believe that there is a line out there somewhere. So, in support of this mythical line, you seem to be saying that you support those who want to censor the VS display. You don't condemn them or say they are wrong to do so. Why don't you, if you believe that what VS is showing isn't wrong?
quote: quote:Don't you want to be able to show your affection with your SO? Don't you ever want to get married? Your arguments are basically the underlying ones used to make any display of gay affection wrong and dirty. If we let gay people show affection, then this is dirty because it's dirty. It's dirty because we say so is not sufficient reason for censure, don't you think?
Do you believe that in order for me to be morally consistent in my desire to be able to hold hands with Chris, or put my arm around him at the movies I have to also advocate the freedom of two guys to walk around the mall wearing seat-less chaps and no pants and lasciviously rubbing each other's bare behinds? Based on your reply after my attempts to clarify my previous posts I have to entertain the possibility that this is indeed exactly what you're asserting. If so, I disagree. I think in every society there is a line of decency beyond which it is counter-productive to cross. Is this line really something "everyone just knows"? No, although they may tell themselves it is. However, people do and will continue to flirt with that line because that is one of the best ways in modern society to get attention. (Not alway good, productive, or welcome attention, but that's the risk you assume when you are pushing the line). Is it un-reasonable to react negatively when you perceive someone has crossed the line of decency? I don't think so, in general, though not all reactions are resonable for all perceived offenses.
And my point in this particular thread is that it doesn't seem to be reasonable to censor the VS display. It's not reasonable or right to support those who do so. Can they? Sure. Should they? No.
Though you might find that kissing in public is in poor taste, I hope you would advocate for gay people to at least be able to do so without inviting a storm of shock and dismay and outrage wherever they go.
quote: Should we, as a society, allow pushing of that line? Sure. I'm for almost un-fettered freedom of expression, but I also believe there is a time and place for everything. I think gay porn should be available. I don't think I should be able to buy it from Wal-mart. I think I should be able to make love to Chris, even if it involves sodomy, but I don't think we should be able to do that in the town square. I like to hold Chris's hand. I think I should be allowed to do that anywhere. I like to make out with Chris, too. I think it would be in poor taste to do so in a shopping mall.
I don't understand why what is o.k./healthy in private becomes wrong/harmful in public.
I believe public sexual expression is a continuum with "Ok to do whereverthehellIwant" on one end and "Illegal to do in public" on the other end. The middle is a gray area where things aren't and shouldn't be illegal but become increasingly in poor taste to display publicly the closer you get to the graphic end. Where specific acts fall on this spectrum is determined by society (de facto). [/quote]
Yes, this is why supporting the line is really nonsensical to me. Like anyone is going to be ale to stop the finger shakers of the world from bitching and moaning.
What makes more sense is to add your voice to the public debate in support or condemnation of a particular act or acts.
quote: I don't want to live in a society where sexual expression of every kind is forbidden in public. I imagine an overwhelming majority of people in America feel this way. I also don't want to live in a society where people are constantly having sex on the sidewalk in front of my house. I imagine most people in America feel this way, too. I'm perfectly willing to discuss with these people how best we can build a society between the two extremes. I fully recognize that sometimes there will be disagreements. That's why we have a Bill of Rights and a SCOTUS.
Yep, and that's why we should ask why it makes to condemn or censure certain acts.
quote: quote:Sure, it's 'understandable' to have certain tastes and to not want to see others doing what you find distasteful. That's human nature.
What's not understandable, and should not be excused, but rather condemned, is jerks shutting off others from enjoying the same freedom of expression that they have.
OK, again nowhere have I advocated anyone's right to shut off anyone else's freedom of expression. What I've been advocating is the idea that while we all have the right to the same freedom of expression, we don't have a right to dictate public reaction to our method of enjoying that freedom. I haven't moved at all into what people should be doing about it. (Though for the record I did say that I wouldn't have a problem if the mall asked VS to tone it down. I still feel that way. We can discuss that if you want to.)
I hope you see the disconnect in the last sentence here from 'I haven't said anything in favor of censoring VS.' or 'nowhere have I advocated anyone's right to shut off anyone else's freedom of expression.' Again, the fundamental question that you haven't answered is why KarlEd. Just to support the principle of the line in the sand? Why in this particular instance is it right for VS to have to tone down what they are displaying.
quote: Also, I appologize in advance if any of this seems snarky. It's not meant to. I am carefully choosing my words so as to not be misunderstood. Sometimes I think I can come across as snarky or pedantic when what I'm aiming for is precision.
Likewise for myself, too. As far as I'm concerned, we're cool. It's just the usual cumbersome dance of hammering out a clear message and understanding the other person.
Also, let me say that from looking at the pictures, I am one of those who doesn't see anything more racy there than what you see at the beach.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:And my point in this particular thread is that it doesn't seem to be reasonable to censor the VS display
To have the display only visible to people inside the store means that anyone can see it if they so desire, but not everyone has to see it. Victoria's Secret's freedom of expression is not being prevented, and people aren't being prevented from viewing it. So how is this censorship?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
SS,
quote:So, in support of this mythical line, you seem to be saying that you support those who want to censor the VS display. You don't condemn them or say they are wrong to do so. Why don't you, if you believe that what VS is showing isn't wrong?
First of all, no one (unless I really overlooked something in the articles) is trying to censor the VS display. A whole bunch of people are expressing their distaste, and some have said that VS shouldn't have the display there, but the article didn't mention anyone actively trying to get the display removed, did it? Therefore my support of someone's right to criticize or to express their distaste does not equate to a support of censorship.
I said I would support the decision of the mall if they asked VS to tone the display down. Why? Because the mall is their business. If they felt there was sufficient damage to business in the mall because VS was creating an uncomfortable atmosphere for their clientel, why should they not have the right to regulate that? On the other hand, I would support the mall, too, if there was a boycott and they said to the boycotters "We respect VS's right to display their wares in this manner".
I would not support governmental censorship of the display in question.
quote:I hope you see the disconnect in the last sentence here from 'I haven't said anything in favor of censoring VS.' or 'nowhere have I advocated anyone's right to shut off anyone else's freedom of expression.
The mall has the right to censor displays on its property. This is not, in my opinion, shutting off VS's freedom of expression. VS has the right to print their ads in any magazine that will carry the ads, or to have the public display in any other mall that will allow it. If a mall decides the display is too racy, it isn't any more curtailing freedom of expression than it is for Ranger Rick to refuse to publish the print ads.
quote:I don't understand why what is o.k./healthy in private becomes wrong/harmful in public.
Across the board? No exceptions? You'd support orgies in the streets? Masturbation on public busses? Are you saying that there is no line anywhere?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Though you might find that kissing in public is in poor taste, I hope you would advocate for gay people to at least be able to do so without inviting a storm of shock and dismay and outrage wherever they go.
I think gay people should have exactly the same right to express their sexuality as everyone else. I have no way to prevent shock, dismay, and outrage except by education and example. Do you believe that shock, dismay, and outrage should be censored? Do you think I should advocate their censorship?
Would you support a group's right to boycott VS to get them to remove the display? Would you support a gay rights group's right to boycott a company with anti-gay business practices?
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
This is ridiculous. A lingerie store has mannequins in their display dressed in...wait for it...lingerie!! What a scandal! Quick ye' Puritans, back to the boats!!!
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: First of all, no one (unless I really overlooked something in the articles) is trying to censor the VS display. A whole bunch of people are expressing their distaste, and some have said that VS shouldn't have the display there, but the article didn't mention anyone actively trying to get the display removed, did it? Therefore my support of someone's right to criticize or to express their distaste does not equate to a support of censorship.
I will give you that no one has yet made the move to shut the display down. Even so, you still can't say that their distaste is wrong and ill-founded?
quote: I said I would support the decision of the mall if they asked VS to tone the display down. Why? Because the mall is their business. If they felt there was sufficient damage to business in the mall because VS was creating an uncomfortable atmosphere for their clientel, why should they not have the right to regulate that? On the other hand, I would support the mall, too, if there was a boycott and they said to the boycotters "We respect VS's right to display their wares in this manner".
This display shouldn't cause people to not shop at the mall. That's the kind of society that I'm advocating for. You seem to be advocating for a society where a naughty display is good reason for boycotting, etc.
quote: I would not support governmental censorship of the display in question.
Censorship doesn't just come from the government. Had this discussion before with others. Censorship is not just de jure, but de facto.
quote: quote:I hope you see the disconnect in the last sentence here from 'I haven't said anything in favor of censoring VS.' or 'nowhere have I advocated anyone's right to shut off anyone else's freedom of expression.
The mall has the right to censor displays on its property. This is not, in my opinion, shutting off VS's freedom of expression. VS has the right to print their ads in any magazine that will carry the ads, or to have the public display in any other mall that will allow it. If a mall decides the display is too racy, it isn't any more curtailing freedom of expression than it is for Ranger Rick to refuse to publish the print ads.
While I agree the mall can do that, I don't think it should need to do it. It is curtailing freedom of expression if the only things that can be shown in a public forum are those that aren't objectionable to the majority, or at least a significant enough minority.
quote: quote:I don't understand why what is o.k./healthy in private becomes wrong/harmful in public.
Across the board? No exceptions? You'd support orgies in the streets? Masturbation on public busses? Are you saying that there is no line anywhere?
The usual standard of consensual adults/no harm. Since I don't consider what amounts to bad art or 'ugliness' to be harm, I don't believe such should be banned from view. In any case, my question was in reply to your statement below. I think you should support your statement, not me. Why not in the town square? Why not in public? What makes it wrong in public but not in private?
quote: but I also believe there is a time and place for everything. I think gay porn should be available. I don't think I should be able to buy it from Wal-mart. I think I should be able to make love to Chris, even if it involves sodomy, but I don't think we should be able to do that in the town square. I like to hold Chris's hand. I think I should be allowed to do that anywhere. I like to make out with Chris, too. I think it would be in poor taste to do so in a shopping mall.
quote: I think gay people should have exactly the same right to express their sexuality as everyone else. I have no way to prevent shock, dismay, and outrage except by education and example.
Which I would assume means you would say that when people are shocked and outraged that they would be wrong to be so and that you would advocate for your ability to be gay, so to speak, in public?
quote: Do you believe that shock, dismay, and outrage should be censored? Do you think I should advocate their censorship?
Come on, Karled. Those are silly questions. As mentioned above, it's not like you can stop it.
I think the way I look at it is that this display and others that show sexuality openly should fall in the same category as, say, Precious Moments figurines or glow in the dark pool playing dog faux velvet posters. Sure, it might be ugly and a violation of good taste, but is that really reason for anyone to not shop at a mall or boycott the mall? I don't think so.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:This is ridiculous. A lingerie store has mannequins in their display dressed in...wait for it...lingerie!! What a scandal! Quick ye' Puritans, back to the boats!!!
I would have no problem whatsoever if it was the regular, headless, armless mannequins just standing there dressed in lingerie that they usually have. That's not the point.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
SS, I don't think there is an easy answer. There are a lot of people who feel as you do, that there doesn't need to be a line except where harm begins.
But I think KarlEd's point is that a lot of people's "line" is placed more conservatively, and that it isn't wrong to respect that. In fact, respecting that can work well as "enlightedned self-interest". Respect what people find offensive, and your business is more likely to succeed. Shock value and negative publicity might make you a quick buck now, but in the long run, does it pay off? Or does it hurt business? I suspect the latter.
On the one hand, I can appreciate the desire to radically change society. But people need to realize that sudden, radical changes can cause serious problems.
Some say that there shouldn't be separate public men's and women's restrooms. But to change that suddenly right now would make me (and many others, I imagine) very uncomfortable. Is it right to force people to feel uncomfortable? How important is it? Do the benefits justify the effects? These are hard questions to answer. They are not scientific.
I appreciate it when companies respectfully listen to the feedback of their consumers and consider it. When Carl's Jr. made a racy commercial featuring Paris Hilton, many people complained. The company was obnoxious about it, basically saying, "That's your problem, prudes, and we don't care". I really don't think that is good for business, and I personally don't respect that sort of response.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Even so, you still can't say that their distaste is wrong and ill-founded?
Distaste is an opinion and I don't think it's wrong to have opinions.
quote:You seem to be advocating for a society where a naughty display is good reason for boycotting, etc
I think some people in the article mentioned that they personally would not shop there because of that display. You don't need any reason to decide whether you want to shop somewhere.
quote:It is curtailing freedom of expression if the only things that can be shown in a public forum are those that aren't objectionable to the majority, or at least a significant enough minority
But the mall does have the right to make any decision they want regarding what they own. Would you expect to be able to start using profanity and detailing graphic sexual acts on this forum? Of course not. Why not? Because this belongs to OSC and he has the right to decide how it's used.
quote:I don't believe such should be banned from view
Once again, no one mentioned anything about banning it from view. If the display is visible only to people inside the store, anyone can still view it if they desire. That is not banning and cannot be considered restricting freedom of expression.
quote:Sure, it might be ugly and a violation of good taste, but is that really reason for anyone to not shop at a mall
Absolutely. There are many products I don't buy even though I don't have a good reason not to buy it. I think I have the right to choose what I purchase.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: I was under the impression that much of the argument against Joe Camel was that he was a cartoon character. I don't see how this is catering to children.
Nope, the argument was that the tobacco industry actively targets children as "replacement clientele." Chewing tobacco ads placed in comic books, point of sale tobacco ads placed at eye level for children, but which can be barely noticed by adults, etc. The fact that Joe Camel was a cartoon was not coincidental. And this is not conspiracy theory, a few industry executives suddenly got a case of conscience and testified that children were distinctly targeted.
quote:Here's something the girls know that you apparently don't: dressing in a sexually provocative manner does not mean that they don't value love and don't understand that they shouldn't screw. So they want to 'look bad'. Big deal. It's the same thing as mohawks and tattoos and piercings. Teens have been visually rebelling for a million years. The mohawks of yesterday are the thongs of today. *twirls finger in air*
Ah. That explains why we have to check the stairwells and bathrooms for girls performing oral sex on boys. It's because they value love and know they shouldn't screw. /sarcasm
Those girls that want to "look bad" are generally emotionally deprived. They do what they find will work to get them the attention they crave. I've mentioned it before, but I knew a girl who started prostituting herself at the age of 12, and other girls looked up to her as a role model.
*boggle* yourself. If you can't tell that this is unhealthy behavior, then I don't want you near my children.
quote: I have to say, I definitely consider the parents more at fault than the retailers when I see kids in those clothes. I mean, sure, they shouldn't make those clothes for kids. But if no one bought them, they'd stop.
Does this argument apply to cigarettes too? Sure I know parents that buy this stuff for their kids, but I also know that some girls take their outer clothes off on the bus and carry them around in their backpack so their parents won't know what they wore *under* their clothes.
Double income guilt is a powerful thing. I've seen kids walking around with hundreds of dollars, because it eased their parents' conscience over the fact that they aren't there for their kids. I imagine buying inappropriate clothing is the same thing.
Then there are the 25 year old mothers of 12 year old girls who dress like their children. Wonder why.
You can't put all the blame on Victoria's Secret, Jordache was pushing the same envelope 30 years ago. *Their* parents thought tight jeans were cute because they were "just a little racy." What will the next generation accept?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:To have the display only visible to people inside the store means that anyone can see it if they so desire, but not everyone has to see it. Victoria's Secret's freedom of expression is not being prevented, and people aren't being prevented from viewing it. So how is this censorship?
I agree.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Sure I know parents that buy this stuff for their kids, but I also know that some girls take their outer clothes off on the bus and carry them around in their backpack so their parents won't know what they wore *under* their clothes.
And why do 7 and 9 and 11 year olds have that kind of spending money? And why don't their parents check what they're wearing before they leave for school? And why don't their parents know what is in their closets?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I imagine kids can be extremely clever and secretive when they want to be. They may even be borrowing the clothes from a friend and it never comes home from the school locker.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Well, that's something that parents can't control. But they CAN know who their kids are hanging out with. If my daughter was friends with girls who dressed like that, we would be having serious talks about modesty and respecting your body. Every day.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:Those girls that want to "look bad" are generally emotionally deprived. They do what they find will work to get them the attention they crave. I've mentioned it before, but I knew a girl who started prostituting herself at the age of 12, and other girls looked up to her as a role model.
This totally makes sense to me. Young girls don't understand the perversions in the minds of many older males out there. All they know is that they are getting attention. When they are already starved for it, they will do anything to get more. It is easy for a person in such a position to get used.
That is *why* we need to protect children from certain kinds of sexual messages. They honestly are not prepared to deal with the "game".
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
KQ, I'd like to think that I would be a very good parent in those regards as well. But I understand that even with the most dilligent, best-intentioned parents, kids can "go wild". I went through a bit of that, and my parents did a great job.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I understand that.
But when I see most of these 7-year-olds dressed like Britney Spears, their mothers are usually dressed in a remarkably similar fashion, or else in very expensive clothes. I've asked some of them (when I worked with them) where they got a certain outfit, etc., and the answer was almost always, "My mom took me shopping for it" or, "My aunt gave it to me for my birthday."
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Glenn, are you honestly comparing wearing lingerie or provocative clothing to smoking cigarettes?
-pH
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
KQ, no denying that a lot of that look the kids have is fully supported by their mothers. I wonder if they mind when their daughters hit puberty and boys come on to them?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
From what I've seen working with these girls, their mothers often think something's "wrong" with them if they're not dating by age 12 or so.
It's really scary.
Especially since their mothers are then shocked and horrified when they get pregnant as teenagers.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
By the way, what age do you guys think IS appropriate to start wearing thongs and the like?
-pH
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:what age do you guys think IS appropriate to start wearing thongs and the like?
It depends. I know teenage girls who wear them because they're more comfortable in them, or they like them, but don't wear clothes on the outside that show them off. It's fine for teenagers to wear fun underwear if no one can see it.
As for people seeing it? I'd say that should wait until you're married, but that's just me.
On to non-underwear, provocative clothing: I'd say if you're not selling, don't advertise, and you shouldn't be selling until you're an adult.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
When you are ready to be sexually active. For me, that's when you're married. Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
bev: But what about those who wear thongs for reasons that are entirely non-sexual?
-pH
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:From what I've seen working with these girls, their mothers often think something's "wrong" with them if they're not dating by age 12 or so.
It's really scary.
no kidding. My 12 year old is constantly asked who she likes or who she wants to go out with.
She tells me that boys are stupid and why would you want to go somewhere with them anyway.
She actually said, no kidding, that she'd rather go to a movie with me, because then we could talk about it afterwards.
In Natalie's opinion boys are immature, have no concept of personal hygiene and think of nothing but sports and impressing their friends by acting goofy. Those were pretty much her exact words.
I agree with kq on the thong deal - some girls actually prefer them and I know for a fact they're very popular among the dancers and gymnasts because they don't show out the back of your leotard.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:bev: But what about those who wear thongs for reasons that are entirely non-sexual?
Little revelation about me: I never wore a thong until after I was married. My above rule is for me, not anyone else. Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Glenn, are you honestly comparing wearing lingerie or provocative clothing to smoking cigarettes?
I'm comparing:
{the marketing of sexually inappropriate clothing to children}
to
{the marketing of cigarettes to children.}
I'm also comparing:
{children acquiring cigarettes without their parents' knowledge or consent}
to
{children wearing sexually inappropriate clothing without their parents' knowledge or consent}
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: On the one hand, I can appreciate the desire to radically change society. But people need to realize that sudden, radical changes can cause serious problems.
Beverly, I'm not trying to radically change society. In my perfect world, the public square would function more along the lines of a port of call where many different cultures blend together and exchange goods, services and ideas, rather than be a place where only certain ideas and goods/services are welcome.
That said, I'm kind of burnt out on this thread. So, I'm not going to get into an argument about whether or not the observations various people have made about children/tweens/teens are accurate or not.
Thanks for the exchange of views.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
quote:Originally posted by beverly: I appreciate it when companies respectfully listen to the feedback of their consumers and consider it. When Carl's Jr. made a racy commercial featuring Paris Hilton, many people complained. The company was obnoxious about it, basically saying, "That's your problem, prudes, and we don't care". I really don't think that is good for business, and I personally don't respect that sort of response.
Personally I would think quite highly of any company with enough integrity to take a stand like that. We do not have Carl's Jr. here, but if I ever see one and need a place to eat, I may well pick them. Don't like it, change the channel, or turn the box off and read a book. They might have lost your business, but they might have gained mine.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)