Power To The People!

[Wingnut]

If you wanted to be snarky you'd point out that being naked and modeling lingerie kinda conflict as adjectives of a woman's clothed state.

I thought about that, but decided to leave that one alone.

Irrelevant. I think you are falling into the trap that if someone objects to something you may have stated that they must be diametrically opposed to everything you might be thinking or espousing. If I want my son to see something or not has nothing to do with if there is a reason to model clothing.

Nice attempt at a "Think of the Children!" red herring though.

It doesn't surprise me that SSV's indignation arises from an email received from the American Family Association. I used to subscribe to emails from the AFA, but I had to unsubscribe because the claims were just so far out in right field (pun intended) that they were completely absurd. Talk about fear tactics.

This is just turning into a disagreement about who is right and wrong. I will peacefully agree to disagree with you Dravin and just leave it at that.

Actually, it's turning into an argument of right and wrong vs. what YOU think is right and wrong and trying to apply that the society as a whole.

[Dravin]

vs. what YOU think is right and wrong and trying to apply that the society as a whole.

Well like I said earlier, I don't begrudge her wanting a certain shopping experience and letting her voice be known (by implied threat of wallet). I wouldn't want exposed to extremely racy modeling of lingerie while shopping, though I'm more inclined to just not go rather then speak out under the threat of not visiting the establishment. So I get the desire to not be exposed to certain things (whatever they may be).

It's just if one has reasons to not want something done doesn't mean that there are no reasons why someone would do that something.

Edited May 6, 2011 by Dravin

[pam]

I'm still back on the wondering what a male is doing looking through the lingerie section unless shopping for something for a wife? :)

[JohnnyRudick]

I wonder which parts of the country have QFC?

We have plenty of QFC's in Western Washington:cool:

[JohnnyRudick]

Sears advertises it is family friendly. I do not think it is family friendly to show a

woman's bare breasts not even covered by see through cloth and her wearing

nothing to cover her lower half. Believe what you want but it is pornography in my judgment.

A naked woman does not have to model lingerie. It can be put on a mannequin.

“I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be

embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps

I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion

picture involved in this case is not that. [Emphasis added.] ”

— Justice Potter Stewart, concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 U.S. 184 (1964),

regarding possible obscenity in The Lovers.

[Dravin]

I'm still back on the wondering what a male is doing looking through the lingerie section unless shopping for something for a wife? :)

Well, I've mostly been thinking in the context of an actual brick and mortar store for exposure (yes I'm aware the initial subject was online). As you point out though avoiding exposure online is much simpler, it's not like the lingerie is just sitting there by the aisle on the way to the electronics or something, which is probably why I reverted to thinking in terms of a physical store when thinking about unwanted exposure.

[pam]

Well, I've mostly been thinking in the context of an actual brick and mortar store for exposure (yes I'm aware the initial subject was online). As you point out though avoiding exposure online is much simpler, it's not like the lingerie is just sitting there by the aisle on the way to the electronics or something, which is probably why I reverted to thinking a physical store when talking about unwanted exposure.

But then again in a store, you don't have live models, you have mannequins as you pointed out.

*edit* I'm tired and typed before really thinking of my answer. :)

Edited May 6, 2011 by pam

[Dravin]

But then again in a store, you don't have live models, you have mannequins.

No you don't. Though keep in mind while the subject happens to be lingerie I'm talking in broader principles. One could be talking about there being sex toys or pornographic videos on the shelves. Is there a point I'm making you disagree with, or are you just razzing me on technicalities (which is fine). :)

And technically, whether stores actually have racy models or not I can understand not wanting to be exposed to such.

Edited May 6, 2011 by Dravin

[Wingnut]

Well like I said earlier, I don't begrudge her wanting a certain shopping experience and letting her voice be known (by implied threat of wallet). I wouldn't want exposed to extremely racy modeling of lingerie while shopping, though I'm more inclined to just not go rather then speak out under the threat of not visiting the establishment. So I get the desire to not be exposed to certain things (whatever they may be).

It's just if one has reasons to not want something done doesn't mean that there are no reasons why someone would do that something.

That's all totally fine. It's why I added the "applying it to society as a whole" caveat at the end. It's fine to be uncomfortable with something, and to even protest it in whatever way you feel best. What's not fine is to tell the rest of the world that if they don't have a problem with it, then they have a problem.

[JohnnyRudick]

. . . What's not fine is to tell the rest of the world that if they don't have a problem with it, then they have a problem.

Of course, but. . .how many times have I been accused -

that because I expressed an opinion in the negative on

a thing that I was inferring that I must be saying if you

think it is a good idea I therefore MUST be saying that

there must be something wrong with you.

That WAS what I was thinking (in my humble opinion:rolleyes:)

but I would never SAY that:cool:

[MorningStar]

Um, yeah. So it's true that Sears was selling pornographic DVD's and they are also selling skanky lingerie using models, but don't worry. The models' nipples have been photoshopped out of the pictures marketing the fishnet tops (no, I'm not kidding).

Because only nipples make a picture completely inappropriate.

Also, Target displays very large pictures of underwear models that are very hard to avoid if you take a trip around the store. People have become desensitized to a lot of things, but think of the impact that might have on a boy approaching puberty. Ugh. Glad I still don't shop there.

[JohnnyRudick]

Um, yeah. So it's true that Sears was selling pornographic DVD's and they are also selling skanky lingerie using models, but don't worry. The models' nipples have been photoshopped out of the pictures marketing the fishnet tops (no, I'm not kidding).

Because only nipples make a picture completely inappropriate. . . .

I Saw this picture of a naked lady:huh:

At least I thought she was naked:eek:

I was wondering what those little stars were for:confused:

Now I know:rolleyes:

Thanks:cool:

[RipplecutBuddha]

what puzzles me, in regards to the OP, is why protests managed to get Maxim magazine banned from all wal-mart stores, but Cosmo is still there, and back on full display.

Maxim's covers, while clearly geared for the male audience it targets, have never been as verbally graphic as Cosmo has been for decades, yet Cosmo gets a pass.....Double standards are painful sometimes.

[Saldrin]

Wrong is wrong, even IF everyone is doing it.

and there is nothing wrong in speaking out against something that is wrong.

asking people to be better people is not a wrong thing either, unless your holding a gun to their head. Having dialog to attempt to convince people through reason, is a good thing and should not be shied away from.

Values and morals of society must strengthened that can save us as a people. and I find it sad that a store has a (I'm assuming one) kid friendly lane, instead of making their whole store kid friendly.

I will stand up for whats right. always.

[MorningStar]

what puzzles me, in regards to the OP, is why protests managed to get Maxim magazine banned from all wal-mart stores, but Cosmo is still there, and back on full display.

Maxim's covers, while clearly geared for the male audience it targets, have never been as verbally graphic as Cosmo has been for decades, yet Cosmo gets a pass.....Double standards are painful sometimes.

Well, Kroger did at least decide the headlines were too graphic and covered them. I don't understand why other stores don't see how inappropriate it is to put them in front of children. The truth is, Cosmo pays them to put them front and center. I have pointed out to store managers that if they put kids' magazines front and center, they would sell a lot of them. Fred Meyer keeps Kids' National Geographic and other worthwhile magazines upstairs at our location where my kids would never see it. With the way they beg for candy at the checkout, they would definitely be asking for magazines like that.

I think Cosmo covers are more attention grabbing for girls. A friend of mine said her friend caught her 13-year-old daughter reading it in her bedroom (she ordered it with her mom's credit card) and she was horrified when she discovered the article she was reading.

[MorningStar]

I Saw this picture of a naked lady:huh:

At least I thought she was naked:eek:

I was wondering what those little stars were for:confused:

Now I know:rolleyes:

Thanks:cool:

There weren't even any stars - just blank spots where her nipples are supposed to be. Messed up. I wrote Sears a letter last night to complain about their pornographic ads. I'm not talking about typical underwear and bras. What they put up is truly obscene and I told them I would resume shopping there when they became a family store again.

They're in financial trouble so they resort to "sex sells" marketing. Meanwhile, kids are bypassing school filters because Sears is considered a safe site. Sell outs.

[MorningStar]

Lane Bryant is on my bad list now. After years of receiving ads, they suddenly sent a mailing that has a cover with women wearing jeans and nothing else. A lot of women have complained on Facebook to them because their kids got the mail and saw it. The women are pressed against each other in certain ways in order to cover things, but not all of it is covered well.

LB "apologized" for our displeasure, but now there are huge posters of this ad going up in store windows and the photo is their profile pic on FB now even though there are so many unhappy customers.

I'm bummed because I liked shopping there, but I will never shop there again unless they issue a real apology, which I doubt will come unless they start to hurt financially. Lots of women have asked to be removed from their mailing list now because they don't want more of that.

It's tradition that my husband buys me jammies there for Christmas, but I will be asking him not to buy anything there for me anymore.