Oh the humanity. A half naked male

N.C. Man Protests 'Sexually Explicit' Abercrombie Ad

RALEIGH, N.C. -- A North Carolina man is protesting an advertisement at one of the nation's most popular clothing stores.

Jimmy Stopper said a sexually charged advertisement at a Raleigh Abercrombie and Fitch should be removed.

The ad is inside Raleigh's Crabtree Valley Mall.

On Saturday, Stopper and a group of picketers protested outside of the Triangle Town Center. Each demonstrator wore a white shirt displaying the name of a Web site, www.MovethePicture.com.

"Yeah, there's a 10-by-8-foot sexually explicit photo in the mall area," Stopper said. "Little children are being exposed to it. It's a man pulling off his pants almost completely, and the mall refuses to move the picture." :eyes:

http://www.wxii12.com/news/17079601/detail.html#-

:thumbsup:

low riding jeans with nothing showing except the body which is in good shape naturally, working for Abercrombie. Like you said, Europe gets a laugh as they are still laughing at us over the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction. Idiots have the Ashcroft syndrome, remember him covering the works of art at the capital.

most embarrassing things associated with American culture in decades.

And yea, the Janet Jackson controversy was also a joke.

Yup, so true.

*sniff sniff*

homophobia

about all of the nekked athletes he/she is subjected to trying to get quotes after the game.

:spray:

CHILDREN don't have to see them."

Seems more suggestive than "explicit".

What a bunch of babies! Way to give Abercrombie / Fitch tons of free publicity.

All right..I'll do it...

}(

:eyes:

I had some holier-than-thou street preacher tell my kids - to their faces - that they were going straight to hell (with no chance of redemption) for no other reason than the fact that they are bi-racial (I'm Caucasian, my wife is Ottawa-Chippewa). Later that same summer, the same street preacher was arrested at a local public beach for trying to cover up women sunbathing in bikinis. A couple of the women he was covering up told police that he groped them in the process. He hasn't been seen since...can't imagine why.

Best response yet.

they actually pixelate out the lower half of the photo-and there's nothing there! Why not protest torture? Female KBR employees being gang raped and murdered? The illegal war in Iraq? People starving to death around the world because of grain prices? Geez!

The stuff you mention is REAL/actually HAPPENING

The guy in the poster is just, well, 'a PICTURE of a guy on a cardboard poster'.

If you don't care for it (and frankly *I* don't)....DON'T LOOK/PAY or GIVE IT ATTENTION. Advertisements are inherently meant to attract attention, then interest, then sales......if a marketing campaign doesn't 'do' those things, it's a great big 'FAIL'

The subject guy in the OP is just plain stoopid by drawing MORE attention to this ad campaign ~ that's EXACTLY what the 'marketeers' of this campaign WANT/HOPE for!

The 'subject guy' in the OP has been either 'duly played' OR it's all a part of the A/F ad campaign strategy (which I would not consider to be outside the realm of 'possibility').

^ considering that such is a 'possibility', that's all I will say on the matter.

Think about it.
M_Y_H ;-)

:rofl:

:hide:

Or he will go to hell, and it makes him want to be with Ted Haggard. And sex is only for procreation and it is dirty even then. So you must not look at anything that will make you think impure thoughts or God will cut your naughty bits off.

Or he is just jealous.

:9

and

:loveya:

and

:thumbsup:

male is good looking.

How refreshing.

P.S. You might have a little gay in you. HA! j/k

I *have* experienced some localized discomfort recently.

:P

when interviewing Obama?

This crazy homophobia in our culture is absurd. And another thing, I've made out with another guy once or twice and frankly I find it to be no big deal just like when two girls do it. But again, culturally that's taboo for some stupid reason.

continue to lead the way with their "who cares if you're gay" attitude. :thumbsup:

That was my first thought. Homophobia, big time.

Honestly, he has way more clothes on him than the average female underwear model in a store display.

:dilemma:

Who can tell...

Methinks the man protest too much.

i was jsut gonna say the exact same thing. he's upset because the picture makes him feel funny in his private party.

Carly

They would probably want to put a shroud over Michelangelo's David if it was put on display there.

There is a difference between regular nudity and sexually explicit nudity.

There's no shame in the human body, especially a fit one.

Puritanism is alive and well in the US of A. God forbid any of those poor repressed souls ever visit Europe.

didn't write the plays arguments. I am convinced Michelangelo did not make that statue. It was clearly made by a woman.

:hi:

It's just that the penis on "David" is proportional. If a man had made that statue it would be hanging to the knee.

Nah, it would prolly be the same proportion.

The sculptor would just lie about it being bigger to his friends. lol

Also, I'm a woman but the statue doesn't turn me on, probably because I'm a lesbian.

}(

convenience. ;)

Me? I'm just jealous I don't look like that anymore.

How un-Christian of them.

Oh, you meant those feelings.

I like men who are not big muscle men, but are fit and skinny like that...

Therefore, it is unoriginal and people should been offended for that reason alone.

advertising campaigns.

In fact, I think they traditionally show a lot more skin than Calvin.

Top UK Olympic medal hopefuls pose naked for photos

:eyes:

I would never buy anything from those stores anyway. They should keep that picture on the inside of the store instead of in the window.

Thanks for the picture - great way to start a Tuesday morning.

it looks like a Ken doll in low riser pants, but it is a nice pic...pecs ahoy!
Carly

"So despite the fact that the store constantly bombards you with the image of the shirtless male, Abercrombie still maintains a “No Shirts; No Service” policy."

I've never been in one of these stores, so the pictures that show the store is basically a paean to shirtless men is especially funny considering they were kicked out. They even have a mural for God sakes.

It lies just as almost all ads do. The implication is that you buy our jeans and you will look like this. Calvin Klein says wear our over-priced flavored alcohol and water and you'll get laid. These are lies and the advertising world treats you like an idiot from the get go. We're just so used to it.

Abercrombie and Fitch have made a killing in pushing the envelope and that's why they do it. Every time they get called to the carpet, their stock goes up.

Now THAT'S why I don't like it, the nudity aspect is offensive to the extent that it's supposed to make me jump by it's 'provocativeness'. They're trying to use nudity as a mental cattle prod. It's insulting. I know everyone does it, that's why I hate advertising.

But to those saying this is no big deal at all, well I think context is everything. Imagine being at a sales meeting and the guy takes off his shirt and starts tugging his pants down while talking about how to stop slagging sales figures. I doubt anyone would say, 'hey, it's just the human body.' This is MEANT to be provocative and this guy didn't enjoy being provoked while he was shopping, which he apparently sees as a formal activity. Is he a homophobe? Maybe, maybe not. Not enough info. Being from the South doesn't automatically make you one. Adding men to the equation that women have been under for years is not necessarily progress.

Advertising, like tolerance in drugs, has to increase the provocativeness to achieve the same effect. What will this ad be in ten years, an eight foot picture of a penis with a belt hanging off?

Finally, are there better ways for this guy to spend his protest units? You betcha.

the same clothes our hot models wear, and look how good they look in them.

So you should buy our clothes and look cool and hip and wear what the pretty people wear.

I don't see anything wrong with it.

Calvin is a top fashion designer. Like Armani and Hugo Boss and Prada.

I don't think anyone believes they're going to get laid by buying the cologne.

Some people like to buy designer stuff.

I also don't see anything wrong with it if you've got the money.

But back to A&F .. I buy their clothing because I like it.

Not because I feel I'll look like one of their crazy good looking models.

And I think most people feel the same way.

shakers and movers of this capitalist society are themselves self-proclaimed christians, but they like their money and these are the very people in a lot of cases with this type of advertising. My point is the hypocrisy that is in our country. Remember the huge flair-up over Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction. I think this one tops it all. They are going to have this type of advertising because first, the age group it is aimed at and secondly because it works just as they claim negative ads work in politics. Their job is to as in this case, sell jeans. You can buy their catalog in London but you can't buy it here.

Look at all the problems we have regarding alcohol, sex, don't teach my child sex in school but the parents don't want to talk about it at home. I would say that this country seems to be obsessed with sex, violence and drugs. We just need to be more honest with ourselvs and do a better job with our youth. Its no wonder they have a hard time making sense of it all.

A lot of mixed signals we give our youth. I really can't think of any harm this ad will bring to anyone; don't see where it has crossed the line anywhere.

Does that make me want to buy A&F clothing? No. But I see nothing wrong with the ad as such, no more than, for example, if you look at my avatar, Michelangelo's statue of David, which actually was one of the very first works of art which I remember finding sexually arousing.

So I don't understand your way of firmly putting the ad at arm's length. Obviously, if that's how you feel, that's how you feel. I just don't understand it.

With that said, if they had naked chicks attached to his arms, I would almost certainly go buy those jeans.

:P

:evilgrin:

Sorry, I do appreciate that you were trying to make a serious point, but I just couldn't help myself.

:spank:
sw

I have young kids, and I doubt they'd notice that. If they did, I doubt they'd say anything or think anything of it. Kids are far more okay with nudity than adults are. This isn't about the kids but about the men who feel funny when they look at it and worry their wives feel the same way.

Jimmy Stopper uses that phrase, but I do not think it means what he thinks it means.



Sid

:crazy:

shoulders if they ever went to the beach in Rio where all the guys where Speedos.

Can you imagine?!!1

The jeans, I'll skip

:rofl:

That looks about the same; smooth, plastic, and nothing in the crotchal area.

just 'cause it makes me feel bad for eating that whole cake by myself last night....

We can always email them and tell them that Jimmy Stopper is a complete idiot.

That would look nice in my bedroom :evilgrin: the picture or the model...

But as an ad, it's definitely uses a philosophy that I don't care for. The jeans (which take up maybe 5% of the image?) could be K-mart brand for all we know. The ad isn't selling a product, it's selling a fantasy. I know it's a common tactic, and definitely used more often against women, but this approach has just always been off-putting to me. I don't want to buy an image, and I certainly won't pay a premium for one. I want a pair of jeans that is comfortable, durable, and maybe even looks good on me. By the looks of that picture, the jeans were an afterthought.

fantasy or an image?

If people want to spend their money on that, then so what.

You don't and that's what great .. you're not forced to.

You have the option of buying a pair from K-Mart or Target or Old Navy or wherever.

I just don't understand the kinda resentment.

If you read my post, you'll see I simply spoke for myself. I fail to see where you're finding resentment in what I said.

did say you're put off by it.

I'm curious why you care how other people decide to spend their money on clothing.

Show me where I said anything at all about other people. I said that I am put off by it.

To satisfy your curiosity as to why I care how other people decide to spend their money on clothing--I don't.

Good to hear.

I am not crazy about that sort of images in malls. Half-naked women or men. As for the "art" aspect of it, people who want to see the art go into the museum where presumably they know what they will be looking at. If the family goes to the mall, it doesn't necessarily expects a photo of a half-naked man.

i pay as much as 500 for a pair of jeans i want.

Why would you do that?!

and i don't want generic.

...good for you?

They're showing pictures of me in their stores without my permission!

;)
give or take 20lbs

did it all of the sudden get hot in here?

wow is that nice:9

:)

Where the hell are the clothes they're advertising? The picture doesn't bother me, but I do have to question the marketing concept...unless they're advertising the belt buckle.

That body is perfect.
I couldn't achieve that with centuries of training.

and anyone have a face pic of him.

but for a different reason.

I love you, Bruce Weber. :)

:)


Bruce Weber ©

it must say something for the quality of their clothing that even the models can't stand to have them on for 30 seconds.

But an over 18 male...oh the HUMANITY!!

the Sistine Chapel????? OHMYGAWD - just look at all the naked people on the ceiling!?!

I think the ad is beautiful.

some months ago (Lynnhaven Mall)...same store, same situation (but slightly different photo)...In fact, police in the mall actually made the store REMOVE the posterboards on some guy's complaint over what his kid was forced to see...Of course, the AF had their lawyers call the mall and city the next day with some unpleasant words and harsh threats...It briefly made national news, and out of sheer embarassment (and the fact that they were dead wrong), the mall allowed AF to put the poster back up...

I lost track of what this thread was about after I saw that picture...

Is there some controversy? Why is it ok for ads to show half-naked women everywhere but not one naked torso of a man?