C James Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 These guys would stroke out if they saw Michelangelo's David's junk... A few years ago, I saw, not sure where (Vegas, maybe?) a near life-size reproduction of Michaelangelo's "David". However, there was a difference; this statue had acquired a rather poorly done loincloth. In fact, it was a big one, more like a pair of boardies. No bulge at all, either. However, much to my shock, the statue was still utterly shirtless! Have they no decency? I mean, allowing upper male nudity (from the waist up) in art! Shocking, I say, shocking! They haven't gotten around to banning that quite yet, I suppose. Ok, seriously, this A&F incident is nuts. However, I have on observation; there were two photois cited, and we've all seen the male one; it's everywhere in the press. However, I note that we havn't seen the fmale one (At least i haven't). Why isn't that being broadcast? My unsubstantiated hunch is that it's becuase that one is likely more provocative than the male one and they cited both just to have greater grounds. Just my wild guess, but crazy regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickolasJames8 Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 I just got off the phone with Senator Jim Webb's office, and I asked them to look into intervening somehow on behalf of the charged store manager. The person I spoke to said that at first they were looking at it as a local or state issue, but that upon further review, it crosses into federal territory because of the violation of the merchant's freedom of expression. It seems silly to me that while there are gangs forming and unsolved murders and rapes in our city, the police are wasting time and taxpayer dollars on a friggin poster. I tried contacting Thelma Drake's office but they acted uninformed (probably because they haven't got a clue). Edit: I just got off the phone with the Mayor's office, as well as the Chief of Police as well. I'm about to call Attorney Gerneral Bob McDonnel's office. I hope they get bombarded with phone calls about this. If anyone wants to email the mayor, the email addy is Moberndo@vbgov.com The mayer's office phone number is 757-385-4851 The phone number to the cheif of police is 757-385-4141. Edit: Oops, I spelled mayor wrong It's fixed now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrenchCanadian Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 I gotta say that, something like that could even in montreal. An individual can file a complain against a poster like that on display in the front window of a store (even for those pictures in front of strip bars). Someone could file a complain for sexual harassment at the Canadian Human rights commission (the CHRC settles the problems and can make decision. The store would most likely settle with that person if not, the commission can go in front of the canadian human right tribunal. now of course the stores and the owner will usually simply pay and settle with the individual. harassment is described as -Treats, intimidation or verbal abuse -unwelcome jokes or remarks about : sex, race, age -unnecessary physical contact -displaying sexist, racist images, poster or pictures. some could argue that the picture is included in that last. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoopny Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 I don't think the police will have much of a case considering the law they involved. The first step is that they have to prove the material in question is obscene. And as the Supreme Court has said, obscene material must be lacking in any artistic, scientific or social value. Only if the material is obscene then you could charge them with the offense that they were marketing obscene materials to minors. Basically A&F could walk into court and say if you say we can't display the poster, we might as well close down every museum, movie theater, art gallery, comic book store that dares sells anything that shows bare skin. The law as applied is waaay overbroad in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 I have always been against censorship. Partial nudity is nothing to be upset about. I never thought that Virginia Beach was that uptight. There are more important things to be mad about in this world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lugh Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 you guys forget that this is also the city that wanted to make it a city ordinance that underclothing could not be visible. I'm embarrassed but not shocked. I believe THIS or THIS is the girl one they are yapping about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickolasJames8 Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 yummy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lugh Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 update -- charges were dropped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Administrator Graeme Posted February 5, 2008 Site Administrator Share Posted February 5, 2008 update -- charges were dropped. Not surprising, but good news. You can never underestimate the stupidity of some people -- they just might have tried to carry through because they refused to admit that they overreacted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Frost Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 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) They often put such ads...often shirtless and bordering the jeans line right at the public hair for years and they're complaining now? Yet they don't complain about the shirtless boys on the beach at Virginia Beach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeaStKid Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Dumb...i say.... just being pure dumb... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Scribe Posted February 5, 2008 Author Share Posted February 5, 2008 update -- charges were dropped. Here's a link to the story concerning charges being dropped. Sanity reigns! http://www.wvec.com/news/topstories/storie...h.848466e5.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benji Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Here's a link to the story concerning charges being dropped. Sanity reigns! http://www.wvec.com/news/topstories/storie...h.848466e5.html .......I wonder if the City gave the confiscated pictures back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Moderator TalonRider Posted February 5, 2008 Site Moderator Share Posted February 5, 2008 My first thought when I was the picture was, certainly less than the plumber working on your kitchen sink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Administrator Graeme Posted February 5, 2008 Site Administrator Share Posted February 5, 2008 Here's a link to the story concerning charges being dropped. Sanity reigns! http://www.wvec.com/news/topstories/storie...h.848466e5.html Thanks for the link, Jack! I found it interesting that something violates the obscenity law only if it is displayed for commercial purposes. I would argue that "art" being on display in a commercial premise is not for commercial purposes as they are not advertising A&F products. I would also suggest that any art gallery or museum that charges for admission and has something like this on display would be at risk of being guilty (since the "art" is being displayed for a commercial purpose -- that of attracting people to come to see them at the museum). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Scribe Posted February 5, 2008 Author Share Posted February 5, 2008 A few years ago, I saw, not sure where (Vegas, maybe?) a near life-size reproduction of Michaelangelo's "David". However, there was a difference; this statue had acquired a rather poorly done loincloth. In fact, it was a big one, more like a pair of boardies. No bulge at all, either. However, much to my shock, the statue was still utterly shirtless! When I managed Caesars Palace (the hotel end), I walked by the "David" every day. This Statue is an exact replica of the original...everywhere. It stands just over 18 Feet High. Maybe CJ was at a local steam bath? Seriously, I salute fellow Hosted Author, Nikolas James, and his proactive stance with the powers that be. Way to go, Nick! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bondwriter Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 And tons of free publicity for A&F. I think we should pull something like this with the company I work for. Shock value rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 My first thought when I was the picture was, certainly less than the plumber working on your kitchen sink. My first thought was, "Yummy!" When I managed Caesars Palace (the hotel end), I walked by the "David" every day. This Statue is an exact replica of the original...everywhere. It stands just over 18 Feet High. Maybe CJ was at a local steam bath? This goes back to my point of people being too uptight. People need to free themselves from the bondage of censorship. It's such a shame that anyone in modern society would scorn nudity. It's the way we were born. People should not be ashamed of it or appalled by it. It's like the whole Janet Jackson thing a few years ago. People need to find something worthy of their ire. Partial nudity does not qualifiy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Frost Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 And tons of free publicity for A&F. I think we should pull something like this with the company I work for. Shock value rules. Yeah... It makes me want to order a catalogue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFriendlyFace Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 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 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. Well said, Menzo. 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. Actually I said abs, not chests. I'm much more interested in abs It is good that it's been dropped, IMO anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krista Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 I'm glad the charges were dropped, I saw nothing wrong with either ad - if the woman posing topless was the one causing the problem was the problem. It's tasteful and my former Spanish professor said that she saw some nude mainstream ads. We're far more conservative than other parts of the world, when it comes to things such as this - to be so developed, it really causes problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 I'm glad the charges were dropped, I saw nothing wrong with either ad - if the woman posing topless was the one causing the problem was the problem. It's tasteful and my former Spanish professor said that she saw some nude mainstream ads. We're far more conservative than other parts of the world, when it comes to things such as this - to be so developed, it really causes problems. I would not even be offended by a woman being topless in a similar photo. Yes, we are more conservative than even our neighbor to the north. Women can run around topless in Toronto from what I understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFriendlyFace Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 Women can run around topless in Toronto from what I understand. But not in winter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeaStKid Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 Thanks for the link, Jack! I found it interesting that something violates the obscenity law only if it is displayed for commercial purposes. I would argue that "art" being on display in a commercial premise is not for commercial purposes as they are not advertising A&F products. I would also suggest that any art gallery or museum that charges for admission and has something like this on display would be at risk of being guilty (since the "art" is being displayed for a commercial purpose -- that of attracting people to come to see them at the museum). Obscene art in India will get your art gallery destroyed!! Mob mentalities of some fundamentalists in India has grown to that extent that this type of art form has virtually vanished from here. And that, happening in the land of Ajanta and Ellora and the land of Kamasutra!!! :wacko: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrenchCanadian Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 Yes, we are more conservative than even our neighbor to the north. Women can run around topless in Toronto from what I understand. I wouldn't bet on that one,,in fact I would bet against that one. quebec is more liberal than the rest of canada,, and a woman running around topless in montreal would get arrested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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