PDA

View Full Version : Thong hung blue?



BAMAPHIN 22
10-10-2005, 11:53 AM
Tongues were wagging. E-mails were flying around PTA message groups and church listservs. People who heard about it came by to take a look for themselves. The issue was tiny underwear — women's fine lingerie, to be exact — and how it should be displayed on lifelike mannequins in the newest wing of one of America's biggest malls.

"Little Shop of Whores," huffed one woman standing outside the new Victoria's Secret in Tysons Corner Center. "Slut wear," declared the father of a teenage girl, looking at a feathery-thong-clad mannequin bent over as if she were adjusting her spike heels.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9601234/

Gonzo
10-10-2005, 12:21 PM
They're just mad because they don't make thong Depends and it clashes with their puritan garb.

Wildbill3
10-10-2005, 03:38 PM
WTF? every time I have ever been inside a Vicsec, those have been on display where no one can see them from the outside?

cnc66
10-10-2005, 03:51 PM
WTF? every time I have ever been inside a Vicsec, those have been on display where no one can see them from the outside?

cmon Bill, people that want to take issue and want to be offended will walk a mile out of their way just to say their eyes and morals are offended.

mor911
10-10-2005, 04:55 PM
They should flaunt the damn things more. GO THONGS!

Dolphan7
10-10-2005, 08:13 PM
cmon Bill, people that want to take issue and want to be offended will walk a mile out of their way just to say their eyes and morals are offended.Well now they won't have to go out of their way, it is right in the front display window for all to see. But maybe that was the whole point of the complaints.

Buddwalk
10-10-2005, 08:29 PM
They should flaunt the damn things more. GO THONGS!

Praise it Brother! :evil:

Quelonio
10-10-2005, 08:39 PM
God do people have a problem with beauty.

Gonzo
10-10-2005, 08:55 PM
Well now they won't have to go out of their way, it is right in the front display window for all to see. But maybe that was the whole point of the complaints.

Maybe, but what decency laws does it break? There's no nudity, mannaquin or otherwise. It takes more than a couple of old puritan complaints to determine that something wrong and indecent. The only real damage they can do is not to shop there, but I am betting that isn't a big issue to the company seeing as how they aren't the main target consumer. People like my girlfriend and the majority of ASU women (and U of A) are. And I don't find it offensive in the slightest. :D

Dolphan7
10-10-2005, 09:26 PM
Maybe, but what decency laws does it break? There's no nudity, mannaquin or otherwise. It takes more than a couple of old puritan complaints to determine that something wrong and indecent. The only real damage they can do is not to shop there, but I am betting that isn't a big issue to the company seeing as how they aren't the main target consumer. People like my girlfriend and the majority of ASU women (and U of A) are. And I don't find it offensive in the slightest. :DDoes it have to break a law to be considered offensive. Look I don't have a problem with a manequin wearing a thong. I don't shop there and if I walked by and saw it I wouldn't mind. That is their product. That is what they sell. Underwear. I expect to see that in their store.

But I can also understand why some people would be offended by it. And I don't think they are offended by just this one thing, but the whole push for more nudeness in our society than less nudity. Now I know a lot of the guys wouldn't complain about that at all ;), but where does it end, if at all. Billboards, magazines, television, movies, commercials, advertisements, cheerleaders, fashion, college campuses etc etc etc.... nudity is everywhere. This is just one more place. So that is why I think people are offended. But I have news for those people....it's gonna get worse so you might as well lower your expectations. That way you won't be so shocked when they start showing more bobbies in primetime tv.

Gonzo
10-10-2005, 09:49 PM
Does it have to break a law to be considered offensive. Look I don't have a problem with a manequin wearing a thong. I don't shop there and if I walked by and saw it I wouldn't mind. That is their product. That is what they sell. Underwear. I expect to see that in their store.

But I can also understand why some people would be offended by it. And I don't think they are offended by just this one thing, but the whole push for more nudeness in our society than less nudity. Now I know a lot of the guys wouldn't complain about that at all ;), but where does it end, if at all. Billboards, magazines, television, movies, commercials, advertisements, cheerleaders, fashion, college campuses etc etc etc.... nudity is everywhere. This is just one more place. So that is why I think people are offended. But I have news for those people....it's gonna get worse so you might as well lower your expectations. That way you won't be so shocked when they start showing more bobbies in primetime tv.

True, but then who decides what is offensive or not? I find people harrassing me around campus by shoving religious pamphlets in my face and telling me how I am going to burn and whatnot extremely offensive.

As for nudity, the mannaquins are still wearing underwear and advertising for...an underwear store. I definetly wouldn't consider it lowering expectations, but I guess thats perspective. I would consider it coming to terms with the human form and the willingness to accept it as people of the country are coming to understand and actually enjoy their bodies. Moral values evolve. These ultra "conservatives" are a good way of counteracting the ultra "liberals" and keeping that inevitable evolution, as you pointed out, at a gradual pace. It's what keeps us in between the strict dress codes of theological societies and the loose codes of others (i.e. Europe) But the pace no doubt exists as moral evolution always has (and it shifts direction constantly). Also, as you pointed out, Victoria's Secret isn't going anywhere. I don't expect them to get use to it, but calling it "Little Shop of W****s" and "Slut Wear" shows the hypocrisy of some of these people. Wouldn't they complain if they heard the word "w****" on tv? But its okay to use it if they are describing something the disapprove of? Silly.

On a side note: UA looked good against USC. Can't wait for the game. Go Devils!

MischiefDolphin
10-10-2005, 10:19 PM
Does it have to break a law to be considered offensive. Look I don't have a problem with a manequin wearing a thong. I don't shop there and if I walked by and saw it I wouldn't mind. That is their product. That is what they sell. Underwear. I expect to see that in their store.

But I can also understand why some people would be offended by it. And I don't think they are offended by just this one thing, but the whole push for more nudeness in our society than less nudity. Now I know a lot of the guys wouldn't complain about that at all ;), but where does it end, if at all. Billboards, magazines, television, movies, commercials, advertisements, cheerleaders, fashion, college campuses etc etc etc.... nudity is everywhere. This is just one more place. So that is why I think people are offended. But I have news for those people....it's gonna get worse so you might as well lower your expectations. That way you won't be so shocked when they start showing more bobbies in primetime tv.

But there is nothing wrong with nudity.

As a matter of fact my fondest memories and greatest days/nights specifically involved nudity.

Dolphan7
10-10-2005, 10:38 PM
True, but then who decides what is offensive or not? I find people harrassing me around campus by shoving religious pamphlets in my face and telling me how I am going to burn and whatnot extremely offensive.

As for nudity, the mannaquins are still wearing underwear and advertising for...an underwear store. I definetly wouldn't consider it lowering expectations, but I guess thats perspective. I would consider it coming to terms with the human form and the willingness to accept it as people of the country are coming to understand and actually enjoy their bodies. Moral values evolve. These ultra "conservatives" are a good way of counteracting the ultra "liberals" and keeping that inevitable evolution, as you pointed out, at a gradual pace. It's what keeps us in between the strict dress codes of theological societies and the loose codes of others (i.e. Europe) But the pace no doubt exists as moral evolution always has (and it shifts direction constantly). Also, as you pointed out, Victoria's Secret isn't going anywhere. I don't expect them to get use to it, but calling it "Little Shop of W****s" and "Slut Wear" shows the hypocrisy of some of these people. Wouldn't they complain if they heard the word "w****" on tv? But its okay to use it if they are describing something the disapprove of? Silly.

On a side note: UA looked good against USC. Can't wait for the game. Go Devils!Scumdevils:fire: Just kidding I like all the Arizona teams. I think Stoops is still one year away from being a factor in the Pac10. But we would certainly like to repeat what happened last year vs. ASU. Remember that game (whoopin').:D

Dolphan7
10-10-2005, 10:39 PM
But there is nothing wrong with nudity.

As a matter of fact my fondest memories and greatest days/nights specifically involved nudity.Heck if it weren't for nudity the human race wouldn't exist. God knew what he was doin' when he created Eve. What a babe.:tongue:

Talos
10-11-2005, 03:15 PM
As a matter of fact my fondest memories and greatest days/nights specifically involved nudity.

:rofl3: