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.
Well, pictures like that in public have been the norm in our society since as long as I remember, and I'm almost 30, so I don't know what to tell you. It's not going away.
And one of the VS models was actually a virgin until she was married at 27 or 28, so I'd say having a role model like that isn't a bad thing...even if she's wearing sexy underwear in pictures.
I really do hate how everything is so sexualized in our society though. I don't really care about naked bodies, but making it always about sex annoys me.
And the thing is, back in the 50s, things were just as sexualized. Women didn't show as much skin, but they were still viewed in the same light.
I am 65 answ its defintiely changed as well as common language used in media. I think I see it reflected in our children also.I have to say I was shocked when Bden was heard whisperig to Obama that "this is a big F.. deal". Its just common langauge of the people how like so mnay toehr things that courts have even ruled on that basis such as shootig the finger not being disorderly conduct in public any more.
I guess, your opinion is partially prude. You come from background or upbringing, where human body is considered "sinful" and eliciting "impure" thoughts. With that in you, yes, it is pornography. I am very open minded, but married to a badly prude person. So we are both suffering as a result.
But in other cultures, this may be considered nothing, or a grave crime. Hellenes had cult of human body and it would have been considered at least Ok and very socially acceptable, should they be built proportionally.
I think, pornography is what one considers it to be. Vs legal description of it.
Kids have no concept of pornography vs prudence and bigotry. It's parents that put it into their ears and minds. And society.
Of course, sex sells. That is there too.
[quote=ukrkoz;29124265]I guess, your opinion is partially prude. You come from background or upbringing, where human body is considered "sinful" and eliciting "impure" thoughts. With that in you, yes, it is pornography. I am very open minded, but married to a badly prude person. So we are both suffering as a result.
But in other cultures, this may be considered nothing, or a grave crime. Hellenes had cult of human body and it would have been considered at least Ok and very socially acceptable, should they be built proportionally.
I think, pornography is what one considers it to be. Vs legal description of it.
Wait a minute. Those photos of those young girls are not there to make an artistic statement. Those are sexually portrayed photos and one can tell by the sexual looks those girls are giving(are taught to give). Sure I appreciate the human body and even nude human bodies. But those Victoria's Secret photos are there for sexual purposes.
I see little kindergarten aged children staring up at those huge V.S. posters that you can't avoid when walking through the mall corridor. If their kindergarten teacher had those posters displayed in the classroom, that teacher would be fired and possibly arrested. Why is it ok to shove these images in kids' faces at the mall and in the checkout line? (By the way I don't want to see it either, and while I understand your precious right to view pornography I demand my right NOT to view it so keep it out of my face!) I don't care if V.S. wants to display these images within their stores, because then I can simply avoid going into their stores. But I should be able to go to the mall and walk from one end to the other without being forced to encounter 12 foot tall posters of nearly nude women posing provocatively. If a woman walked through the mall like that, she'd be thrown out. Why is ok in 2D?
I have 2 solutions. Either quit the objectification and sexual exploitation of women OR do it to men equally. I am sick to death of seeing these images of women everywhere I look. Get rid of them, or add a whole lot of hot naked men to the mix to make it fair.
To be clear, I have zero problem with nudity. I believe that we would be a far healthier culture if we all went around naked. (Although I'd be quite freezing here in Buffalo..) The V.S. posters and all of that type of smut have nothing to do with healthy nudity or healthy sexuality.
Abercrombie & Fitch have the window ads with men in their underwear, so I'm not seeing the double standard. The only issue I may have with the VS ads are the usual unrealistic expectation which may be placed on young girls who are almost always insecure about their bodies. But it's something so ingrained into our advertising and entertainment cultures, it would be unfair to single out VS alone.
I see little kindergarten aged children staring up at those huge V.S. posters that you can't avoid when walking through the mall corridor. If their kindergarten teacher had those posters displayed in the classroom, that teacher would be fired and possibly arrested. Why is it ok to shove these images in kids' faces at the mall and in the checkout line? (By the way I don't want to see it either, and while I understand your precious right to view pornography I demand my right NOT to view it so keep it out of my face!) I don't care if V.S. wants to display these images within their stores, because then I can simply avoid going into their stores. But I should be able to go to the mall and walk from one end to the other without being forced to encounter 12 foot tall posters of nearly nude women posing provocatively. If a woman walked through the mall like that, she'd be thrown out. Why is ok in 2D?
I have 2 solutions. Either quit the objectification and sexual exploitation of women OR do it to men equally. I am sick to death of seeing these images of women everywhere I look. Get rid of them, or add a whole lot of hot naked men to the mix to make it fair.
To be clear, I have zero problem with nudity. I believe that we would be a far healthier culture if we all went around naked. (Although I'd be quite freezing here in Buffalo..) The V.S. posters and all of that type of smut have nothing to do with healthy nudity or healthy sexuality.
Seriously, I agree in part that the window wraps at V S are over the top and even as a guy I get tired of the 'idealized version' of women they continuously display. They look lovely, but if they're going to throw it in my face at greater than life size, I'd like more diversity of healthy body types (athletic, petite, hearty solid women etc... so I could fantasize about being Gulliver in Gulliver's travels and being in Brobdingnab ).
Note: I walk by V S display multiple times a day in an urban mall on my comings and goings from work as well as breaks at lunch. I find it humorous to watch others reactions as they walk by. It is funny at times. My recent favorite was a 30ish physically healthy young male carrying a backpack who was having an ongoing audible conversation with 'the women' as he walked by! I think he may have been on meds at the time as he was having a seemingly two way conversation with supposed responses in his head!
Great point about it being healthier if we all went around naked. I joke with family and friends that the only reason this type of advertising works is because it just teases. I am convinced if everyone went naked for about a week most people would be cured - in absence of the 'sexualized imagery' - and want most everyone covered up. There may be rare exceptions, but even that may not make one appreciate them as much.
Apt observation is the difference between nudity and the human form, versus sexualization / objectification. It is analogous to the oft noted difference in f***ing (animalistic) , Sex (functional operative maintenance of the human machine a la changing oil / lube of an auto), and Lovemaking (wholistic in nature: physical, emotional, spiritual connection when done right )
My personal favorite 'Ad' as a kid growing up was the old Black Velvet billboards
I think we would all be a lot more mentally healthy if we all just kept out of malls to begin with.
And regarding kindergarteners, mine is pretty much asexual at this age and just thinks it's funny to see people in pictures in their underwear. I think I worry a lot more about the preteen kids seeing things like that.
I think we would all be a lot more mentally healthy if we all just kept out of malls to begin with.
And regarding kindergarteners, mine is pretty much asexual at this age and just thinks it's funny to see people in pictures in their underwear. I think I worry a lot more about the preteen kids seeing things like that.
Agree with everything you said, but my point about kindergarteners was that it is strage how if their teacher hung that type of poster in the classroom it would be a major problem, yet parents can't walk through a mall with their kids without being bombarded by these giant displays. An adult showing a child the cover of Sports Illustrated "swimsuit" edition would be considered suspicious, predatory, perverted, inappropriate, etc. but we're expected to think nothing of shlepping our little ones through a gauntlet of this smut in grocery store checkout lines where the swimsuit edition, Cosmo, tabloids, etc. are displayed at children's eye level. It's like society is allowed to mass molest our kids. If an individual showed this stuff to children they'd be considered sick.
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.
Seeing pictures of scantily-clad girls isn't going to harm or otherwise alter anyone's morals, assuming you mean morals as in moral and immoral actions. Also, I don't see how age could make much of a difference. If you believe that it's in bad taste, your opinion isn't going to change because of any posters.
Quote:
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.
Unless they're showing sexually explicit material, they're not showing pornography; this is more broadly sexually arousing or titillating material. Also, Victoria's Secret is not selling any pornographic videos inside its walls. So the answer to your question (Is Victoria's Secret advertising pornography?) is no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9coach
I see little kindergarten aged children staring up at those huge V.S. posters that you can't avoid when walking through the mall corridor. If their kindergarten teacher had those posters displayed in the classroom, that teacher would be fired and possibly arrested. Why is it ok to shove these images in kids' faces at the mall and in the checkout line?
As for the Kindergarteners viewing it, there is a difference in purposes between the two scenarios that you present. With going to the mall, even if you do view those sort of images, they are in the background and it's incidental - you're taking them for the purposes of shopping, not viewing erotic images*. Showing erotic images to them in the classroom would be for the express purpose of viewing erotic images, and although it shouldn't be considered criminal it is rightly considered a sick thing to do.
*This is the case even for adults. How many people ever say "I'm going to go to the mall to view some lewd photographs of women."? Not much.
Quote:
(By the way I don't want to see it either, and while I understand your precious right to view pornography I demand my right NOT to view it so keep it out of my face!
To paraphrase an old saying, your right not to be offended ends where my property begins. This view becomes ludicrous when people's tastes conflict - theoretically, some people might be offended by the absence of erotic material - what would you do then? The non-aggression principle is a far better course than political correctness. That said, it is courteous and decent to (within reason) give deference to the taste of other people. Also, as I have explained earlier, just because something is titillating does not mean it is pornographic.
Quote:
To be clear, I have zero problem with nudity. I believe that we would be a far healthier culture if we all went around naked. (Although I'd be quite freezing here in Buffalo..) The V.S. posters and all of that type of smut have nothing to do with healthy nudity or healthy sexuality.
Oddly enough, I do have a problem with nudity. I'm uncomfortable with public nudity and that sort of total exposure of the body that negates privacy, and I also believe people simply look better with clothes on. I just don't believe in forcing people to conform with my preferred lifestyle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9coach
An adult showing a child the cover of Sports Illustrated "swimsuit" edition would be considered suspicious, predatory, perverted, inappropriate, etc. but we're expected to think nothing of shlepping our little ones through a gauntlet of this smut in grocery store checkout lines where the swimsuit edition, Cosmo, tabloids, etc. are displayed at children's eye level. It's like society is allowed to mass molest our kids. If an individual showed this stuff to children they'd be considered sick.
Mass molesting? So showing a child a picture of a woman in a swimsuit is molestation? Our society's attitudes towards sex and nudity is schizophrenic, but I've never heard of such a thing being considered molestation or child abuse. If I saw an adult showing a child the cover of Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition, it would strike me as very odd, but not predatory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angorlee
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.
Well, the models are being payed well for it, there is no vast disparity in social standing between the models and the photographers/company owners (i.e. no exploitation), and no one is being coerced, so I would say there's nothing wrong with it. I believe it feeds into a pre-existing objectification of women and it's distasteful to lure in customers on the premise that "sex sells", but there is nothing morally wrong with it - that falls under the category of bad taste.
In short: is it immoral? No. Is it corrupting? No. Is it in bad taste? Yes.
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.
). 
There may be rare exceptions, but even that may not make one appreciate them as much. 
)
