Let's do the issues here.
When you see a window-display and HOPE that your children never see it--or worse, see it and start asking you quesstions--that's pornography.
A more strict definition (but not necessarily complete) is that pornography reduces men or women to 'sex toys,' or "objectifies" them--makes them objects, rather than people.
A couple in Wauwatosa have heroically quested to force Mayfair management to order Victoria's Secret to take down their window-display of, ah, lightly-clad women. Some of that cladding looks vaguely like stripped-down leather goods, which brings up a whole 'nother problem...but nonetheless, the couple is taking the heat.
Why? This society has been overtaken by the "non-judgmental." Some of this is fine--one should not judge a person strictly on appearance, for example. But this rule has been taken to the extreme--so that we are now "evil" if we actually DO render a judgment based on far more than appearance: the reality.
Ad the reality is that those windows are filled with porn.
Mayfair should order Victoria's to fix it, or paper over the windows.
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
stripped-down leather goods? You obviously haven't been to Mayfair... ever.
It's not like the store clerks are walking round in nighties. You would see nothing less at a public pool or beach.
Your ignorance saddens me.
In your first paragraph, you allege a falsehood. I've been to Mayfair--and I also knew the man who was Mayfair/Southgate's general manager from roughly 1965-1990--a period of great growth for Mayfair.
The growth was accomplished without porn in the windows, by the way.
Been there recently, too, but not gawking.
In your second paragraph, you equate a shopping mall with "the public beach."
I missed the sand, the water, and the sunlight, eh?
In your third paragraph, you came to a conclusion without the benefit of any facts.
In your entire post you have not refuted my thesis.
So I can conclude that you are not capable of rational argumentation.
I never meant it as an argument.
All I'm saying... is that there is no leather in the window. You haven't even been to Mayfair to look at it.
Your attempts at intelligence are laughable.
Keep up the writing!
That all being said... I do undertand your argument. Some people could find it offensive.
My kid has seen mom in her undies a few accidental times. If he ever asked me what those women were wearing... I'd probably say "smaller/air-cooled undies."
Every mall has a Victoria's Secret and I think that was the whole point... Victoria's "secret" behind the pink glass.
I personally don't see it as porn or even dangerous for my child. He has seen a few naked mannequins in his brief time on this planet. It didn't affect him too much.
But... I think my Victoria's "Secret" and your issues with the windows have the same result.
Tom, had you actually READ my post, you would note that I said "..it looks LIKE....stripped-down..."
You understand simile? I know full-well what is and what is NOT leather. In the meantime, your score on the intellectual scale remains near zero.
2) At the point when 'your kid's' curiosity becomes prurient interest (it may be a few years from now), it's porn.
But all that tells us is that for the vast majority of men who view the display (that is, men over the age of 10 or so), it's porn.
Feed your kid any sewerage you wish. In the meantime, I insist that YOUR preferences do not pollute MY air.
Um... no. I really don't get it.
Just out of curiosity (back to the original argument)... when is the last time you have been to Mayfair?
The original argument was whether the VS display was porn.
You don't get it---that's for sure.
That was the original argument?
Mannequins dressed in their undies turn you on? OK.
I personally like redheads but to each their own.
Have a good weekend.
Ah, another DU-a-troid displays his intellectual prowess.
I am unaware of that term.
Nice blogsite for those who don't get it.
aha... this explains a lot.
I don't have any interest in political squabble.
Try visiting Mayfair sometime. They have a lot of interesting stores now.
Post a Comment