This weekend, Virginia Beach police commandeered giant photographs in a local Abercrombie & Fitch clothing store. City Code Section 22.31, makes it a crime to display “obscene materials in a business that is open to juveniles.” One of the pictures shows several bare-chested boys running through a field wearing jeans. The one in the font’s jeans are at half-mast, exposing a substantial portion of his dime slot. The store had been asked to take the photographs down several times before but didn’t comply. Is showing a kid’s butt crack in a larger-than-life-sized picture a bit strange? Yes. Obscene? We’re not sure, but Virginia Beach, the city that tried to ban public cursing, is.
Virginia Beach police seize photos from Abercrombie store [Hampton Roads] (Thanks to Pat and Zakarth!)
More From Consumerist
-
Sprint To Roll Out 4G LTE Network To 100 Cities Over Coming Months
-
Why Doesn’t Abercrombie & Fitch Sell Larger Sizes For Women?
-
Abercrombie CEO Sorry That People Didn’t Like When He Said Plus-Size People Don’t Belong In His Clothes
-
23 Things Debt Collectors Are Not Allowed To Do
-
Abercrombie Kids Can’t Count To Three, Exists Outside Of Reality
@no.no.notorious:
@friendlynerd:
@Benstein:
@Keter:
Shut up, shut up, shut up.
If you’re against the first amendment, haul your sorry asses off to Syria, China, Cuba, Singapore, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, or any of the other countries that tell you exactly what you will and will not find decent, indecent, appropriate, and inappropriate.
The one thing I feel you don’t have the right to speak out against in this country is the First Amendment. There’s a reason it stands above the rest of the Constitution. You want a theocracy, go live in one.
@probablyawkward: “Do women find this sort of thing hot? I’ve always wondered.”
Yes, some of us do find this sort of thing hot. I’m too old to shop at A&F (not to mention the loud music gives me a headache), but I always enjoying looking at their posters when I go by one.
I agree that it looks like the kids in this picture are on their way to go skinny dipping. It kind of makes me wonder if the folks in VA Beach would find Norman Rockwell’s “No Swiming” painting (and magazine cover) obscene. It features younger boys than this on a trip from skinny dipping and the center boy’s clearly carrying, not wearing his clothes.
@man-or-llama: Really. No one buys Victoria’s Secret over age 21.
Charges have been dropped, by the way. Apparently the deputy city attorney said it’d be too hard to prove the display would “appeal to prurient interests, have no redeeming artistic merit and be offensive to the prevailing standards in the community,” which is required in order for the ad to be considered obscene.
WON’T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!! LOL!! Half naked people are evil, I tells ya, Eeeeeevil!!!!
Next on the VA Beach council’s To Do list:
* Cross out all the “naughty” words in the dictionary.
* Apply “fig leaf” tape on all Renaissance paintings prints
* Remove “offensive” characters and situations from The Bible
* Roam local beaches and forcibly dress any shirtless males found there
…
Culture is merely the average of smaller cultures.
Government is designed to represent the needs of the culture is represents.
A local government represents a local culture. If a culture deems such images reprehensible then they have every right to disallow it.
I am appalled at the ignorance towards cultural relativism in these comments. It truly appears that those crying ignorant are truly the ignorant ones themselves, believing their values must be universal because their culture is for lack of a better word, god, meaning infallible.
Personally I think the over objectification and promotion of sexual promiscuity of our youth is extremely problematic leading to a more hedonistic society. And historically the over emphasis of the individual compared to the needs of society at large has always lead to the demise of that culture. Because such hyper individualism means there is no culture to be had.
A&F encouraging teenagers to be sluts is of course not the ultimate cause of the collapse of society, but it certainly is not helping.
Once again I just have to repeat the amazing amount of ignorance that those who have a god complex have shown over this. Who are you to interfere with the doings of another culture? Especially when they in no way personally harm that of your own.
@teapartys_over: Isn’t that why you file a lawsuit first to have the rules clarified, instead of thinking you’re the one who makes those decisions? Good way to find yourself in expensive trouble.
So…why is this indecent when it’s perfectly okay (for some reason) to show completely naked children on TV? (diaper ads, baby food, etc) If the images shown on TV were found on someone’s computer it would be child pornography. It’s time we start getting that trash off the air!
@rg: Because reasonable people are smart enough to understand that not all nudity is pornographic (or even erotic or sensual).
The A&F poster probably doesn’t fall under most people’s definition of smut, but it’s not meant to be innocuous either. It’s clearly meant to suggest some level of sexuality (I mean, A&F has always been about sexy, if not outright sexuality).
Yeah, you can argue all you want about the line where “suggestive” becomes “obscene”, but to compare seminude photos of young, nubile men and women to a baby in a diaper is the height of dumbfuckery.
But it’s okay to see cleavage on chicks? Why not a little male butt cleavage (I mean, come on, that IS a pretty nice arse!)
I once worked in a retail music store that prominently displayed a poster of the cover of Nirvana’s Nevermind (yes, there is a penis in the picture). The poster was on the wall for years. Thousands upon thousands of customers saw the poster and didn’t say a word. One day, a customer stopped me and said, “that’s child porn — you have to take it down”. Really, the only appropriate response was my pithy reply: “Lady, you’re crazy”.
Abercrombie and Fitch: where children go to buy clothes designed to appeal to pedophiles.
@friendlynerd: gay-hate motivated??? How the hell did you derive that???
Is outlawing ‘plumbers crack’ next???
@Galls:
If you don’t like it, don’t shop there.
You have absolutely no right to tell someone else what they should or should not find offensive. If it offends you, there are plenty of ways to not see it.
This is just a bunch of religious nutjobs again attempting to force their views on the rest of us.
@RvLeshrac:
Along the lines of your previous comment: (“You have absolutely no right to tell someone else what they should or should not find offensive”) — you have absolutely no right to tell them they need to leave the country for having a different interpretation of the first amendment than you.
Your second statement is just as asinine — to suggest that the singular topic that the 1st amendment does not apply to is the first amendment itself?
Though I disagree with them as well, I welcome their contributions to the discussion. Part of living in a country with freedom of speech is that the people you disagree with also have that freedom. Live with it.
@waxigloo:
My wording wasn’t quite strong enough, on reflection.
They certainly have a right to say whether or not they find it offenseive. They do not, however, have any right to tell *you* what *you* will and will not find offensive. Disagreeing on your opinion is one thing, but ordering someone to think like you (as these people are seen to do) is something else entirely.
I have nothing wrong with them finding it offensive. They can picket the store. I don’t care. They do not, however, have any right to force the store to stop displaying the poster. If they don’t want to see it, they should stop looking at it.
To sum it up, “we’re” not forcing them to look at it, but they want to force “us” to take the poster down.
@RvLeshrac:
“There is nothing wrong” etc etc.
@waxigloo:
Oh, and… err… the First Amendment of the constitution is the very *core* of this country. It is the one principle that stands above all else. The only (*only*) way you’re “against us” is if you disagree with the basic rights of speech and expression.
The rest of the constitution is malleable. The First Amendment, however, is chiseled in steel, from the “T” to the “.”, and was written in language that cannot be misinterpreted.
god, butt cleavage is the new black