Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Pornography has a strict legal definition and many things that people might personally regard as offensive do not meet it.
In order for something to be pornographic, it must be: 1. patently offensive; 2. depict sexual activity; 3. appeal to a "prurient interest" (which would be an unnatural interest in sexuality); and 4. violate "contemporary community standards.
To be specific, even most nude photos wouldn't qualify as pornography under this definition annunciated by the US Supreme Court in Miller v. California, 415 US 13, (1973). So, certainly VS pictures of models running around in their bras and panties don't qualify as pornography either.
I think the best approach is to try and simply ignore it.
I find it funny that parents are more concerned about their children seeing underwear ads than seeing violence on TV and movies. When my son was about 7 or 8, we were watching a program one night on the Discovery Channel. As it ended, a notice showed onscreen saying the following program might not be suitable for young children. He asked me why that would be, and I said it probably had naked breasts in it. Sure enough, we watched it and it was about a tribe in the Amazon rainforest, and there were several shots of women whose babies were nursing while the mothers cooked.
Now I realize that's somewhat different than very young women modeling sexy underwear, but my point is that Americans are very quick to shield their kids from anything having to do with sex or nudity, but (mostly) fine with bang-bang shoot-'em-up TV and video games. Boys in my generation couldn't wait for the Sears catalog to look that the underwear section, and those garments were considered sexy THEN. My concern with the VS ads are the same as Natural510s - the unrealistic expectations placed on young girls to emulate those models. But I feel the same way about cosmetic and clothing ads. As Stephen Colbert said, "But if we make young women feel good about themselves, how are we going to sell them all those things they don't need?"
IIRC Victoria's Secret sells women's underwear specifically designed to create sexual attractiveness. (My spouse also says they are very comfortable.) So displaying huge advertisements of their product is supposed to create immorality? So what if they make already near perfect women look even better? So what if people see these advertisements even if they are children? Near nudity is not always near sleaze.
Anyway thanks for the warning. Now I have to go to the Mall to see if these advertisements meet my criteria of offensive display. I’ll try not to drool.
Ah yes!!! I had forgotten the old Sears, Roebuck catalogs and the underwear section. There was always a lot of snickering and finger pointing.
I guess we learned about as much from the Sears catalog as the kids do from Victoria's Secret today.
And Horrors!!!! Some women even hung their panties and bras on the clothes line for everyone to see. I hate to think how depraved we would be if the clothes dryer hadn't been invented.
Yes, in the 60's it might have been considered pornography. We live in 2013 though, let's not forget that.
I think it is more healthy for children to see a pretty woman in underwear as a bloody massacre on video games, tv and the movies. I see tons of parents take their little kids to grown up movies at night and that is just WRONG. THIS causes serious problems, not a half naked girl smiling at them.
There is alot of European countries who show completely naked people on tv all the time. In sexual and non sexual ways. Don't think it has affected the people.
Don't teach your children that nudity is obscene. It just makes them insecure and weird. My parents told me that being naked it ugly and perverted and I need to be ashamed. It took me many years to get over it and have a healthy relationship with my body. Spare your children stuff like that. Naked bodies are okay! Doesn't make anybody want to be promiscuos or slutty.
Yes, in the 60's it might have been considered pornography. We live in 2013 though, let's not forget that.
I think it is more healthy for children to see a pretty woman in underwear as a bloody massacre on video games, tv and the movies. I see tons of parents take their little kids to grown up movies at night and that is just WRONG. THIS causes serious problems, not a half naked girl smiling at them.
There is alot of European countries who show completely naked people on tv all the time. In sexual and non sexual ways. Don't think it has affected the people.
Don't teach your children that nudity is obscene. It just makes them insecure and weird. My parents told me that being naked it ugly and perverted and I need to be ashamed. It took me many years to get over it and have a healthy relationship with my body. Spare your children stuff like that. Naked bodies are okay! Doesn't make anybody want to be promiscuos or slutty.
I see the point that you are making. However those posters in the mall are more than just nudity. There is a sexual message about them the way they look and are generally portrayed. What pornography does is to cheapen the women by making her a sex object. Pornography seperates love from sex and just leaves sex as the sole thing to be experienced. If a young man sees one of those photos and feels he would like to screw the girl it may be natural but it isn't a good thing for a young man not to realize that there is a heavy emotional element to sex between man and women. That is why many people have been hurt by one night stands. The physical experience with the emotional element absent leaves a huge gap in what the experience is suppose to be about. Those posters in the mall are all about physical experience with no emotional considereation of the girls posing. So how does that influence peoples minds? No one knows because there are thousands of people that see those posters and we are all different and may assimilate what we see in different ways. But I don't think it is good for young boys and girls to see those sexual orientated posters.
I'm no prude since Ive lived in a lot of major cities and seen a lot. But when I see that mall advertising young girls that are almost naked it gives me the feeling that it isn't right. Young girls and boys going through the mall see that and I don't know what it does to there idea of morals. But back in the 1950s and early 60s that would have been backroom pornography. I may have been on a magazine rack but not accessible to someone of young age. Not only that but what are those young models doing posing like that. I think that they are being used by someone. It can't be good for them either.
you are not a prude because you have seen a lot? This is the same concept as "I am not a racist because I have a black friend"! I am sorry, but yes you are a prude in this circumstance. I am guessing to say you have also never watched pornography from the 50's and 60's because these posters do not come any where close to what was depicted on pornography at that time frame.
Maybe you are not happy with your own life, and that is why you feel the need to judge others, I am not sure. But to show the prejudiced you are showing, there must be something that is triggering it.
I think, jealousy triggers judgments pretty often in these cases.
I am a woman, I think women are beautiful and no shame on showing a good body as long as it is in a healthy way and not overly obscene. Which isn't the case at VS.
Overweight women in too tight clothes that show belly, back boobs and masses of piggy skin looking thighs and upper arms - that is way more hurting my eyes and perverted as a well formed model smiling down from a poster. And when these big women they sit down at malls and the ass crack shows like the grand canyon, that makes me gag. I find that way more disturbing.
Naw, I just think you have issues. I don't see anything wrong with it. What, would you rather have a picture of a guy holding a riffle and dead dear in the mall. Think that would be better for kids? It's all just life and they're in it. Children are just little people, explain it in a way they can understand and move on. I think you having an issue with it is worse than the pic.
I'd worry more about the pictures of all these mass shootings and bombings more than cute girls in underwear. IMO, of course
I think the message they send is not pornography but it is wrong and shouldn't be plastered all over their store fronts in a mall for all to see. What bugs me the most is all these young girls that are trying to live up to what they see there. Why do we need 14 year old girls wearing tight clothes and sticking their butts and boobs out ?? Come on girls there is more to life and YOU than your bodies. The last thing I want to see is a 12 year old with the word "JUICY" plastered on her butt and I think Victoria Secrets ads and our sexed up society is adding to that problem.
If your 18 plus yeah where all that sexy gear for boyfriends, husbands and for yourself but lets let our girls be girls.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
