Jack Scribe Posted February 4, 2008 Posted February 4, 2008 This is completely absurd and reckless. A police state in action. Check out today's story from the Virginia Beach newspaper: http://hamptonroads.com/node/452689. Tell me if you think the picture - a picture that was a store promotion poster and is currently on the corporate website - is obscene. YIKES! Jack
shadowgod Posted February 4, 2008 Posted February 4, 2008 This is completely absurd and reckless. A police state in action. Check out today's story from the Virginia Beach newspaper: http://hamptonroads.com/node/452689. Tell me if you think the picture - a picture that was a store promotion poster and is currently on the corporate website - is obscene. YIKES! Jack Land of the free... Yup free to complain and ruin things for everyone else because you may feel uncomfortable. Such is the price of living in a society formed on Reliegeous principles.
Site Administrator Graeme Posted February 4, 2008 Site Administrator Posted February 4, 2008 Obscenity is a subjective thing. The picture shown, and the other one described, depict a portion of the human body which is normally not displayed. The question is whether the display of any part of those portions of anatomy are obscene, or only certain sections. Using the second picture as an example, is it just the nipple of a female breast that is obscene to be displayed, or can other parts of the breast be considered obscene if on display? I suspect the case will hinge on this subject, and if they rule against the manager, you can expect a lot of other similar cases being brought (eg. lingere pictures in department stores). Personally, I thought that that photo was slightly risque, but definitely not obscene.
Adrian Michaels Posted February 4, 2008 Posted February 4, 2008 I'm honestly not surprised, A&F are known for their questionable photos. Which is why you have to be 18 to pick up their catalog... because it's not about selling clothes. This picture is actually one of their, erm, more tasteful ones. Still, i can't believe they thought they could get away with plastering that up on a store wall. (Of course, I think the picture is pretty great myself)
Lugh Posted February 4, 2008 Posted February 4, 2008 I'm soooo embarrased this happened in my neck of the woods. To be honest I'm more offended by the naked maniquins in some stores ... you know the ones with lace bras and thongs. And I'm not just talking about Victoria's Secret. I'm more concerned with Spencers and their "18 and older" SHELVES that is in plain view of toddlers (and tweenagers!) than I am of a picture on the wall.
Krista Posted February 4, 2008 Posted February 4, 2008 So I'm guessing the half inch of butt-crackin is what the complaint is about? I see more butt-cracking getting milk at the grocery store or getting a leaky pipe fixed. I'm sorry, ads like this are nothing compared to some of the global ads. There is nothing obscene with that. Abercrombie and Fitch is a clothing line and fashion. I saw nothing wrong with it and it's ignorance. Don't buy their clothes if you can't take their advertising don't go around complaining, just get away from the organization completely. People just want to make a fuss and that censors creativity. I thought the picture was tasteful photography. I know it was planned for the "butt-crackin," but captured seemingly spontaneous, I could see it being tastefully artistic. Anyway, Americans need to lose their fear of the naked body, it's sad to be so afraid of it.
JamesSavik Posted February 4, 2008 Posted February 4, 2008 Let it go to court. A&F will send lawyers that will destroy the local DA. When the police hand this over to the DA, if he's a good one, he'll dismiss it. If he is a grandstander, he'll drag it out as long as it's possible to get face time on the news. Either way, it's a a dog of a case. By these standards the old Coppertone girl adds are obscene. What make the A&F adds obscene? They don't show as much tush as the Coppertone girl and she sure ain't 18!
shadowgod Posted February 4, 2008 Posted February 4, 2008 I guess its a good thing they don't have a large reproduction of Botticelli's The Birth of Venus anywhere right? Full on nipplage there. Or ,heaven forbid, Giambologna's The Rape which depicts the Roman mythology of the abduction of the Sabine women. I know, no fair pitting classical art against Aberporn, yet one in the same, all three are accepted representations of Art. So Abercrombie uses its commissioned photography to great skill, but come on you see more lewdness on MTV then you ever will in a B&W photograph. I often wonder who complains about these things, and why they confuse a tingle of excitement with the bad taste of shame.
colinian Posted February 4, 2008 Posted February 4, 2008 Let it go to court. A&F will send lawyers that will destroy the local DA. When the police hand this over to the DA, if he's a good one, he'll dismiss it. If he is a grandstander, he'll drag it out as long as it's possible to get face time on the news. Either way, it's a a dog of a case. By these standards the old Coppertone girl adds are obscene. What make the A&F adds obscene? They don't show as much tush as the Coppertone girl and she sure ain't 18! There are 8 A&F stores in the SF Bay Area. They all have the photos that were in the Lynnhaven Mall store and others like them, and they've been doing this for years. If there have been any protests about them, they haven't had any repercussions like what happened in Virginia Beach. I agree with James. The local DA is going to have his hands full if they actually take this to court, and with appeals it's going to cost the city and its citizens a bundle of bucks. Ridiculous. If the Coppertone poster was in a drugstore in Virginia Beach, they'd arrest them for both pornography and pedophilia. Colin
Drewbie Posted February 4, 2008 Posted February 4, 2008 (edited) It's not like their showing off the whole ass. ugh another thing about the kids bleh. And I agree with James, so it's okay to show more ass on a little girl, but then again it's a cartoon picture Edited February 4, 2008 by Drewbie
Lugh Posted February 4, 2008 Posted February 4, 2008 heh I know who did it! it's the same idiots who are "boycotting" venturers because co-ed scouting is "immoral". the same ones who refuse to allow their daughters to attend any function were boys are present and vicaversa... and complain about the parents who do. you know the ones...
JamesSavik Posted February 4, 2008 Posted February 4, 2008 the same ones who refuse to allow their daughters to attend any function were boys are present and vicaversa... and complain about the parents who do. you know the ones... You means the same a-holes that have the nerve to look surprised when their girls get pregnant and their boys become known as "Baby-daddy"?
JamesSavik Posted February 4, 2008 Posted February 4, 2008 I guess its a good thing they don't have a large reproduction of Botticelli's The Birth of Venus anywhere right? Full on nipplage there. Or ,heaven forbid, Giambologna's The Rape which depicts the Roman mythology of the abduction of the Sabine women. I know, no fair pitting classical art against Aberporn... These guys would stroke out if they saw Michelangelo's David's junk...
AFriendlyFace Posted February 4, 2008 Posted February 4, 2008 Well, I've probably seen every major advertising photo that A&F has had for the past several years since at some point in the cycle I at least walk by an A&F at the mall if not go in and actually shop. Anyway, personally I didn't care for the photo. In fact I was really disappointed when they used that one as their latest one. Why? Because I've grown used to A&F having something sexy for me to look at while I'm in there, and frankly I didn't care much for that photo. I'll take a close-up of an impossibly beautiful guy with awesome abs over that any day. So anyway, I didn't like the pic that much myself, and actually I remember thinking "WOW! That's really stupid" when it first came out. Do I think it should have been taken down (well yes, and something better put up ...but on obscenity grounds), no I don't. At least not if the other pictures they've been using for years are allowed to fly. It's part of their mystique and if people don't like it they shouldn't shop there. Indeed, I actually do have a friend that refuses to shop there (or at Hollister), because he objects to their hyper-sexualized ads. That's fine, I respect that, but it no one else's business if I, or another consumer, is comfortable shopping there. -Kevin
Site Administrator Graeme Posted February 4, 2008 Site Administrator Posted February 4, 2008 It's part of their mystique and if people don't like it they shouldn't shop there. Indeed, I actually do have a friend that refuses to shop there (or at Hollister), because he objects to their hyper-sexualized ads. That's fine, I respect that, but it no one else's business if I, or another consumer, is comfortable shopping there. I don't shop there, either, but that's for two reasons. The first is I've never seen them in Australia and the second is that the one time I went into one in the USA, fully prepared to pay through the nose for something good, they didn't have anything that fitted my... er... well... body shape It seems that they assume that everyone has a good physique to start with....
Razor Posted February 4, 2008 Posted February 4, 2008 Ahem, overpriced!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm too cheap, bwaha! I can be cute in walmart clothes just as easily. Snoopy shirt ftw! And that's just silly, lol. Whatever floats their boats, but personally I think that attempting to cut out everything that might be objectionable from kids' access is stupid. It's a damn good way to make your kids be absolutely insane, or get that way later. I don't think parents have enough faith in their children's ability to understand the world, and make good choices after being informed. ~shrugs~ End of rant, hehe.
Jack Scribe Posted February 4, 2008 Author Posted February 4, 2008 I went into one in the USA, fully prepared to pay through the nose for something good, they didn't have anything that fitted my... er... well... body shape It seems that they assume that everyone has a good physique to start with.... Most of us don't have a physique that match their models. Here's the corporate site: http://www.abercrombie.com/anf/index.html. A & F is much more middle-of-the-road 'mellow' in their 'cutting edge' catalog and poster photography these days. Ten years ago, the catalogs bordered on hardcore. I've always found it a little amusing to watch a main-stream retailer be so blatant using homoerotic themes in their marketing/advertising programs. All these photographs of their male models appearing in various states of undress, being very friendly with each other in the poses, is geared to sub-consciously 'ring the chimes' of young heterosexual guys. It works. I had a definite crush on the Carlson Twins when they modeled for the company. Like Razor, I am more interested in value pricing. Between TJMaxx, Marshall and Ross, I'm a happy camper. But, as Kevin said, it is fun to stroll through A & F and check out the scenery. James is correct. Let A & F run the town ragged in the courts. Jack
Razor Posted February 4, 2008 Posted February 4, 2008 Sorry, but anyone who pays eighty dollars or more for a pair of jeans should be fed to hungry Ethiopians. ~nods~
Former Member Posted February 4, 2008 Posted February 4, 2008 So i have just clicked the 1 link and there was a picture of these 3 guys in jeans and no shirt Guy on the far right you can just see the top of his butt crack. Ok now there the other guy in the middle holding up his jeans (Dont this boys know about belts) Now theres the other guy who is sort of blocked. HE looked like he had his whole pants almost down. I have seen WAY more risque and obscene ads then some guys butt crack. I know there was 1 company they had a topless female and she was using her arms to cover her breasts and the man you could see ALL his pubes right down to yeah,,,, NOW that was way worse then Butt crack guy. Do i think the add is obscene no. I think the add tells a story. I think that these 3 guys are off to go skinny dipping in some lake LOL. NOW here's where in my version i could say its obscene. Why is the girl there? HA HA Was she to buffer out the maleness. Half naked guys and the girl behind them is fully dressed or maybe not but shes all greyed out. We could say this is the things parents warn there daughter about "Dont go skinny dipping in the woods with boys" My mom never gave me that warning LOL.
Benji Posted February 4, 2008 Posted February 4, 2008 So i have just clicked the 1 link and there was a picture of these 3 guys in jeans and no shirt Guy on the far right you can just see the top of his butt crack. Ok now there the other guy in the middle holding up his jeans (Dont this boys know about belts) Now theres the other guy who is sort of blocked. HE looked like he had his whole pants almost down. I have seen WAY more risque and obscene ads then some guys butt crack. I know there was 1 company they had a topless female and she was using her arms to cover her breasts and the man you could see ALL his pubes right down to yeah,,,, NOW that was way worse then Butt crack guy. Do i think the add is obscene no. I think the add tells a story. I think that these 3 guys are off to go skinny dipping in some lake LOL. NOW here's where in my version i could say its obscene. Why is the girl there? HA HA Was she to buffer out the maleness. Half naked guys and the girl behind them is fully dressed or maybe not but shes all greyed out. We could say this is the things parents warn there daughter about "Dont go skinny dipping in the woods with boys" My mom never gave me that warning LOL. ..........So it was so obscene, the local newspaper posted the picture along with the story :wacko:
JamesSavik Posted February 4, 2008 Posted February 4, 2008 ..........So it was so obscene, the local newspaper posted the picture along with the story :wacko: I noticed that too Benji! Apparently it is less obscene in print than it is on a poster. When you prosecute a case, especially for something as subjective as obscenity, you have to have a smoking gun to put in front of the jury. That poster ain't it. You CAN NOT prosecute an entity like A&F or anyone else for residual lewdness which is what I feel like is going on here. If the city's D.A. is smart he'll drop this case as soon as possible. Otherwise it will simply be a long ugly court fight that the city will lose and be stuck with several million dollars in court costs.
Menzoberranzen Posted February 4, 2008 Posted February 4, 2008 Sorry, but anyone who pays eighty dollars or more for a pair of jeans should be fed to hungry Ethiopians. ~nods~ How a person spends their money is their own business. I like clothes, and as such I don't mind dropping $300 for a pair of Versace jeans. I think that people who spend all their money on their cars are a little odd, but I'm sure Robbie would disagree with me there. I like the add very much; I think it's tastefully done while still staying in the same vein as other A&F adds. It wouldn't meet the obscenity requirment, and considering the fact that magazines like Maxim are on prominent display all over the place, I don't think the DA would have a leg to stand on. In the end, these people are just giving free publicity to A&F and their adds. I also have to disagree with Kevin - I think this add is far more attractive than the blatant, run-of-the-mill pictures of toned chests. Menzo
Bondwriter Posted February 4, 2008 Posted February 4, 2008 How a person spends their money is their own business. I like clothes, and as such I don't mind dropping $300 for a pair of Versace jeans. I've promised not to be judgmental. I've promised not to be judgmental. I've promised not to be judgmental. I've promised not to be judgmental. I've promised not to be judgmental. I've promised not to be judgmental. I've promised not to be judgmental... OK, I've repeated it to myself enough. Time for my immediate reaction as I first read. Yeah, people spend their money as they want. I think I'll never mind luxury clothes as long as I pay for labor and craft, not brand. Tailored clothing, yes. Ordinary clothing with a nice sticker at ten times the price, no. And having been poor for a long time, I've managed to find some very nice cheap clothing in thrift shops or cheap stores. Of course you exploit foreign labor, but with a moderate margin going to the middlemen. Oh, and don't you guys think that exploitingthe image of these poor A&F models, turning them into objects for the whole world to see is pretty tasteless? Like, really tasteless? Mmmh? *types on his keyboard furiously to get a catalog of A&F*
shadowgod Posted February 4, 2008 Posted February 4, 2008 Oh, and don't you guys think that exploitingthe image of these poor A&F models, turning them into objects for the whole world to see is pretty tasteless? Like, really tasteless? Mmmh? *types on his keyboard furiously to get a catalog of A&F* hrmm that would depend on the nature of exploitation. As far as I know A&F recruits models from its store employees ( Info on the website says wanna model? first get a job at one of our stores.) Do I think any of those three cracks are being exploited? Nope, they know what the are signing on for. A&F's advertising history ensures as much. That is not to say i don't think the brand isn't exploiting someone somewhere along the line. perhaps we can start with the $80.00 pair of pants and work our way backwards from there.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now