How does the Czech Republic feel toward nudity? How would the locals react to Abercrombie & Fitch ads? Would A&F adds be too sexual??
Most probably there will be no problem with A&F adds. Czechs are with nudity in advertisements much more at easy then Americans. BUT This poster was "banned" in Vsetin but you can find it on every second corner in Prague: http://www.themuchagallery.cz/images/pravy2.gif
I looked over internet and I didn't find any Abercrombie&Fitch ad with real nudity. What about this ad calendar from Czech flooring company: http://www.ikaros.cz/images/200004/plakat.jpg I believe, Czechs are very tolerant toward nudity (maybe it have something with lack of religion). For example, breasts are allowed in TV even during day.
When I was in CR, every gas station I went into had Porn mags on the front counter where Americans keep candy and gum. They mags had nudity on the front cover. So there was no escaping the mags. If you wanted to pay for your gas, you were seeing some naked people. My 12 year old son about flipped out. He couldn't believe it.
To eso: They had some problem with their catalog recently, here is the link to the article about it in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A&F_Quarterly It looks like these catalogues are worse then Bravo (that magazine for teenagers) :shock: TO dzurisovak: They are exposed to it not only in gas stations! It will not do them well when we would try to pretend that such things do not exists but when they can see visible displayed porn mags in every shop which sels mags and news then they would think that porn is normal. It is BIG problem.
The thing that I don't understand about the Abercrombie ads is this: why display naked people to sell clothes? It seems a bit strange to me. Personally, I don't really have a problem with nudity. Everyone has a naked body under their clothes; it's not so big a deal as some make it. And about the Abercrombie ads that got so much hooplah: For me, personally, it's the fact that Abercrombie degraded women. They made t-shirts that said "Who needs brains when you have these?" (These referring to breasts.) I find messages like that offensive, not the nudity.
Yes, it's kind of offensive, but on other hand, probably it's not offensive for all women, when the company is able to sell it?
There are advertising posters by Dermacol (a Czech cosmetics company) all over Prague, promoting their body shaping line. One of the posters shows a naked butt. Avon had a campaign against breast cancer last fall and I remember a poster showing breasts. Honestly, I don't know what's wrong with showing a naked body. As long as it's not pornographic or degrading, I don't see a problem. It's hard to say without having seen the ads. I did an image search on Google and found a couple of A&F ads showing naked people, but no ads with a sexual connotation. How about to attract attention and create publicity? Aren't we talking about Abercrombie & Fitch right now?
Dana, you've definitely got a point! Eso: Oh, I'm sure it's not offensive to all women. I just dislike the notion that a company with influence over young people can and would send a message like that. But then again, free speech, right?
The thing that bothers me is that A&F's target audience is Middle School children. It's almost like they said to themselves, "Oh child need to have sex at a younger age so lets shove it in their faces and see if that helps." I'm all for free speech but when people start being irresponsible and push sex on minors, that's when more and more laws come into play to protect those minors and we start loosing our free speech. Companies need to use common sense. If they don't, the government will come into the picture and do it for them. And the last thing we need is the government telling us what to do and how to do it.
dzurisovak, I agree with everything you've said. And it's precisely why I'm anti-A&F. And to be honest, I doubt the government cares about A&F. I remember, a few years ago, the kids store of Abercrombie had a shirt instructing kids to skip class. All the company does is give people bad values and inappropriate clothes.
Hi, For my 2 cents or 200 cents, I agree w/ what many people say. To the point of comtradiction :lol: . I don't agree w/ the type of store that A&F is. Aside from the recent t-shirt contro, it's overpriced, cheap material that cost the company probably $1, at the most, to make. Some little Asian girl sweated her butt off to make some low-rise jeans that looks ugly on an overwieght, spoiled tween who's waist falls down over the alleged waist band, ugh! I agree w/ the posts that say it's silly to advertise clothes w/ naked or half naked people. Like Dana said, it gives the company publicity. Personally, I think it makes the company look like they have low self esteem in their sales. About nudity not being that big of a deal as long as it's not pornagraphic or degrading. I must agree that if it was targeted to adults it would be less shocking than the recent Victoria Secret store displays where the maniquins were dressed in lingerie and posed in S&M poses, lesbianism and just plain 'ol uncomfortable if thay were real humans. Regardless of which company, who is the biggest demagraphic in the malls? Teen and tween girls. I was just a baby when all the feminism was around, but it seems that historically things are worse for girls and women since feminism. Well I guess i got to spout off for the day. Bye 4 Now
I think companies like A & F welcome reaction from the mature section of society. They know fully well that if parents don't approve of something then the youngsters will think their items are 'cool' and will buy. I think their advertising is calculated and clever but i don't agree with it.
The government doesn't care about A&F but parents do. And when enough parents put pressure on our representatives, they start taking an interest and feel the pressure to act on it. That's when we start loosing freedom.
Eh, I don't know about that, but it depends on how you define "worse". Are women's lives more complicated? Almost certainly. I know my life now is much more complicated than my grandmothers' lives at my age (not my mother's, but she was never one to choose the path of least resistance), and maybe my level of happiness isn't as high as they would have said theirs was at the time. However, I don't think that I'm worse off than they were. In fact, I truly believe I'm better off. I'm free to leave my country by myself, live by myself or with whom I choose, work outside of my house even after I get married, and most people can agree that my personal life is my own business. There were two studies mentioned in the online magazine The Slate that pertain to this issue. One is just a blurb, so I'll copy it here (hope I'm not breaking any copywrite laws :shock:: More men than women are sexually satisfied, according to a worldwide survey of people aged 40 to 80. The average difference, country by country, is 10 percentage points. Other findings: 1) "Substantial majorities of people who are married or who have a partner remain sexually active throughout the second half of their lives." 2) Enjoyment of sex correlates with gender equality; "two-thirds of adults in Western nations reported their sex lives were very to extremely satisfying," whereas in China, Japan, and other conservative Eastern countries, "Procreation is the rationale for sex," and many women "characterize sex as dirty, as a duty, something they endure." Interpretations: 1) Gender equality correlates with national development, so maybe people in relatively equal countries enjoy sex because they have better health and information. 2) "When mama's not happy, nobody's happy." Obviously, I'm with interpretation 1. Here's another that basically says conservative homemakers describe themselves as happier than "liberated" working women. It makes sense though, if you expect nothing and receive very little, of course you're going to be happy: your dreams are more than fulfilled. When you enter public life, i.e. life outside the home, you encounter all sorts of problems and choices, whether you're a man or a woman; the only difference is that only men have faced these problems and choices traditionally. The modern (Western) woman, in my opinion, wants to have it all - career (no, make that successful career) and family too - while the modern (Western) man is still trying to get over the shock of the sexual revolution and women's liberation and doesn't know what the heck he wants, or is supposed to want. If a woman's life is "worse" because she has more choice, doesn't it follow that black Americans' lives are worse because now they're free? It's an extreme example, I admit, but there is some similarity. When people are locked into gender roles, they don't have much choice about how their lives go, although a man has more choice than the woman who can only hope to "catch" a man to support her. A slave doesn't have any choice at all, and I'm sure slaves were "happy" when they were well-treated in the same way the typical housewife of 100 years ago was "happy". Think about it, they didn't have to make any important decisions, their only responsibilties were to do what their lord and master said...some life, huh? I can think of one legitimate beef with the effects of feminism, and that is that it allowed women's traditional role to be almost completely devalued. I consider myself a feminist, but if a woman wants to stay at home with her kids and cook and clean and provide a good home for her family without many outside distractions, she should be allowed to do so, nay, she should be encouragedand supported in her decision. Unfortunately, feminism has taken the road of promoting women by making them fit into the traditional man's world, and trying to sweep domesticity under the rug. Personally, I would not choose to be a housewife. I would not stay home with the children. I don't care for children at all, and I will figuratively rip the head off of anybody who tries to tell me that is my place. But if somebody else enjoys that life, I say more power to them because the evolution of society should bring respect for everybody, not just the people who make money. Shoot, I'm straying way off topic. :roll: Let me try to redeem myself... As others have said, there's a difference between pornography or sexual imagery and just plain nudity. Besides that, children have been sexualized for centuries, at least female children. I've been told the age of consent in various US states was once 12, although that really applied to marriage, not sex itself. In fact, in my home state the age of 12 is still on the books when applied to marriage. Girls have always been exposed to sex, it's just that now it's not with their husbands, who were perhaps a decade or more older than they were, but with some idiot from their school who barely knows what sex is himself. Hmm, looking at than last sentence, maybe that is a step backwards that our oversexed society is taking.
Ceit, I was talking mainly in the commercialism sense. I don't believe that 50 years ago females would wear t-shirts degrading themselves. There were many names associated w/ girls and women who would try to entice a male by acting stupid and being skanky. It seems that nowadays a man will either like a woman or respect her. But it doesn't seem like they are able to do both. He likes her if she sleeps w/ him and not respect her. Or he will respect her if she doesn't sleep with him and not like her. It seems as though feminism has confused both males and females. Since the 60's girls have been told to "be one of the guys." That works in theory. But does it work in reality? Females are hard wired in a certain way, males are hard wired in a certain way. Men see sex as a physical release while women equate it with love. I used to go the clubs when I was younger and I would see girls getting drunk and fawning all over some guy she never met before that night. Some of these girls were my friends that I would go to the club with. They would tell him how wonderful he was and laugh at every stupid thing he would say. These guys would actually fall for this crap :shock: and ! Then they would turn to me while I was ignoring them and ask, "What's wrong, are you sad or mad, why aren't you laughing?" I would look and say, "I only laugh when something is funny!" The girls would end up going back to his place. Then next Saturday she would come back to the club and think he was her boyfriend. He would ignore her and play the same game w/ someone else. Who do you think she got mad at, the man who played her or the new "chickie poo"? The new "chickie poo" of course. After all, a man can do no wrong :roll: . Now every man just loves it if 2 girls get in a cat fight over him. I guess my point is which is the cause and effect; feminism, commercialism or just stupid people? Also, where are "Sheehanites" when some married women in the middle east has her head cut off for alleged adultary? Where are the feminists when a 12 year old girl in Africa is forced to have female circumcision, just so that she doesn't enjoy sex? Oh they're all over the place when the US wants to go into these places. How many people know that the blonde bimbo stereotype in the old post war movies was actually a tongue in cheek joke against the Nazis? I had seen a documentary on Jewish influence in old Hollywood and the narrater had said that Jewish producers and directors had come up with the Marilyn Monroe and Jayne Mansfield ideals to throw in the faces of the oppressors who had the idea of blonde hair and blue eyes as somehow smarter and superior. I know I got a little off topic, but I could go on and on.
It seems as though feminism has confused both males and females. Well, some people are easily confused when they have choices. Both men and women have more options now, and not everyone is comfortable with that. It's so much easier to be told what your place is, what your role is, etc., rather than having to actually make decisions for yourself. Since the 60's girls have been told to "be one of the guys." Really? I must not have been listening. :lol: What I heard was, "Do what you think is right for you, even if it's not popular, or traditional, or some guy might not like you for it." I think I must have had a different antenna than you did. I used to go the clubs when I was younger and I would see girls getting drunk and fawning all over some guy she never met before that night. Gypzy, I hope that since then you have found some more mature people to hang out with. Boys and girls both are encouraged to compete for sexual partners, only in different ways. If you accept that this behavior, however, is the way it is (we're "hard wired" for it) then you're suggesting that we're simply victims of biology (physiology?) and I just can't accept that. I don't have to behave like an idiot to "win" a man if I don't choose to and I'm not sure the man who'd fall for this would be much of a prize worth winning. I guess my point is which is the cause and effect; feminism, commercialism or just stupid people? So, feminism, by giving women choices, causes them to act like silly geese around men? I think I missed a step here... There have been people who acted stupidly to attract the opposite sex for a long time. I'm not sure we can blame feminism for that one. Also, where are "Sheehanites" when some married women in the middle east has her head cut off for alleged adultary? Where are the feminists when a 12 year old girl in Africa is forced to have female circumcision, just so that she doesn't enjoy sex? Oh they're all over the place when the US wants to go into these places. Actually, feminists are behind most of the groups that are actively working against such practices. I'm not real clear on your "Sheehanite" reference here, but if you look at the work (the constructive things that are being done) to end female genital mutilation, you'll find feminists, not women who want to go back to the alleged "good old days" when dad and then hubby took care of them and they didn't have to worry their pretty little heads about those icky old problems. Feel free to return to those days if you like, but keep in mind that having the choice to not do so is because some brave women stood up and said, "Enough is enough." Personally, I know that I'm indebted to those women. As a first-generation college graduate, as a professional in a formerly male-dominated field of work, and as a woman who is "child free" by choice, I owe those women a lot and I remind myself of this regularly. Susan
Susan's post says pretty much everything I'd want to say. I meant to add this in my last post, but it kind of got away from me: women who long for pre-liberation days are like those young people in ex-communist countries who think those times weren't so bad after all. I knew some exchange students from Eastern Europe in college and every once in a while they would say, "Maybe things were better under the Communists when everybody was guaranteed a job." I don't think they really wanted a return to Communism, they just didn't like the anxiety of trying to find employment. Same thing with the anti-feminists, I don't think most of them want to be chained to the stove, barefoot and pregnant, all their lives, they just don't want to be expected to succeed in business and home life to be fulfilled. About those mammary celebrating T-shirts, there's nothing new in females being valued solely for their bodies. Isn't it true that in times past the only thing of value a woman could produce was sons? When the Industrial Revolution came around and poor women had to take jobs outside the home, weren't they paid half a man's wages only because they weren't men? I only mention this to illustrate that outside of reproduction women were not valued. And in the upper crust of society it was even more obvious. The best families would parade their daughters who had reached marriageable (that is, fertile) age in the best parties in the best cities hoping to snag a wealthy son-in-law, essentially selling the girl off to the highest bidder, and they certainly weren't showing off the young ladies' personalities. Seeing some little snot, or some big snot, prancing around in a shirt glorifying her physical attributes is distasteful to those of us who are proud of our intellect, but it's nothing new.
