So when are they going to Victoria's Secret and taking down their shit?

Seems a little gay-hate-motivated, cause let's face it - A&F is more than a little gay.

As a Hampton Roads resident, I will say Myra Obendorf (mayor of VB) is insane. Not hard to believe she used to be a kindergarten teacher. It is sad/hysterical going to the beach and seeing the no profanity signs.

Sounds like Virginia Beach has zero crime, since the city is even bothering with this. Government sucks sometimes.

It doesn't help Abercrombie's cause that their "catalog" is legendary for the lack of clothing in it.

The irony to me is that for whatever reason, baby's bare asses are socially acceptable while some dude showing plumber's crack is a tragedy.

it depends how old the boys are in the picture.

to me, they barely look 18

I hate censorship as much as the next guy, but since I hate A&F more, I'm on board.

I can see those annoying kids that work there getting all pissy about it. "Dude, bra... don't take our posters. Seriously, weak dude."

I'm just wondering why they bother putting any women in the pictures.

It's hotter than most porn I see so that might qualify it as obscene.

I can't specify what "obscene" is, but I know it when I see it. .

Quite frankly, this isn't obscene. Inappropriate? Yes. But certainly not obscene.

@friendlynerd:

Juveniles don't frequent Victoria's Secret as much as they do Abercrombie & Fitch.

I don't know, looks like the guy is slowly stripping off his clothes.

Anyone notice there's what seems to be a naked woman on the left side of that picture? It looks like our 3 boys just got done taking turns with dear old Daisy there.

I have never understood the premise of using naked people to advertise a clothing store.

I have heard that what is considered obscene is determined by community standards & are quite subjective. One community's "obscenity laws" can differ greatly from another's. The only time they seem to be brought out to use on borderline cases (such as this) is when some miserably uptight local government SOB (or a church group/leader) wants to get something done about what they THINK is obscene to them personally. Or when you piss off a cop & he looks for creative ways (in the law) to find something to charge you with.

We have some local nutjob church groups in league with local government officials in Kansas & missouri attempting to get rid of all so called "smutshops" that they dont particularly approve of.

@jrdnjstn78: Do you go to the same mall as I? When I frequent a Victoria's Secret, it's usually full of 15/16 year old girls. (Pretty much the same age range at A&F - but I couldn't say for sure. The cologne scent they pump out fills the the area to the point of vomit-inducing so I've never actually been in one.)

this from the city that passed an ordinance banning any drinking of alcohol outdoors, including your own backyard.

To be deemed obscene something has to be completely devoid of "scientific, political, educational, or social value." So says the Supreme Court. I imagine you could argue this has social value.

@jrdnjstn78:

Maybe there are fewer 14 year old girls wearing too-tight sweatpants with PINK emblazoned on the ass where you live. There are quite a few here.

I have a good friend who is a child molester and he says A&F is the best place to pick up young teenage boys who were certifiably straight but started to experience gay fantasies after they saw these photos.

The question is, when summer rolls around, will the VB Obscenity Squad patrol the actual beaches?

I've been to VB, and the flesh display is wayyyyyyyy worse than anything on that billboard.

Depends. If the cops pulled you over with this picture in your car and can send you to jail for underage porn then they need to pull the posters...

European, born and raised, I've seen stuff MUCH, MUCH more seductive than this without raising an eyebrow... This action, to me, shouts hypocritical, religious, prude BS!

What is so offensive in seeing a part of this guy's crack?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Supreme Court says pornography is anything without artistic merit that causes sexual thoughts, that's their definition, essentially. No artistic merit, causes sexual thoughts. Hmm... Sounds like...every commercial on television, doesn't it? You know, when I see those two twins on that Doublemint commercial? I'm not thinking of gum. I am thinking of chewing, so maybe that's the connection they're trying to make. -- Bill Hicks

@harumph: If that's true, it's not enforced. There are plenty of bars/restaurants that serve outdoors, you just can't leave the property. VA Beach wants to market itself as family friendly fun, but these days the kids on the beach are waaaaay more naked that the guys in that picture. Now get off my lawn.

@econobiker: But it's not porn, is it?!?! What, by your definition, constitutes porn?! Seeing a part of a butt crack ir PORN?!?!

@stanfrombrooklyn: You, definitely, need new friends...

gee,the vb people oughta get a life.........

I've heard that Virginia Beach is a pretty straitlaced place. I think they do have beach patrols and don't allow thong bikinis.

I wonder how much the naked woman on the left side of the picture had to do with the decision to classify it as obscene?

How come the dude's not wearing any underwear? Or has he readied himself for some action with the boys?

The so called "indigineous" nudity they had on the Travel Channel last night was alot worse than that pic for A&F! Everyone, even the children were walking around naked. Aren't there standards for that? I haven't quite figured out why it is OK to show naked people on TV or in magazines, etc, as long as they aren't NAKED WHITE people.

Personally I find the constant and bloody gory violence on TV alot more offensive than seeing a bit of nudity. One isn't really much better than the other but the violence is more upsetting.

Why don't they apply the same standard to their beaches? Oh that's right, because they'd lose all their tourist money. So, they're all for morality, but when it impacts their bottom line, then they look the other way.

It's funny, this whole thing is sort of contrived. Evangelicals get their panties in a bunch, they get lots of money and support from their wingnuts to stop the immorality. A&F gets all sorts of publicity about the controversy and more teens come in because it's "forbidden." A&F can wrap themselves in the flag and talk about "free speech" when they really only care about generating more publicity and more money.

FYI- I'm on A&F's side here-regardless of their motive. I don't think this is considered obsene under SCOTU decisions which use a community standards approach and a reasonable person safety net.

I think Virginia Beach's real motivation in demanding the removal of these posters was to curb the possibility that other, uglier, men would think it's the latest fashion and start bearing their own butt-cleavage.

You think these kids look under 18? Go take a look at some kids who are ACTUALLY in high school and not actors in crappy TV shows targeted to high school kids. Actual high school kids look like babies, slightly doughy, definitely not chiseled.

I can't sympathize with them over this because they were asked to take it down. Multiple times. You can't just ignore that sort of thing without going to court to get an injunction; there are channels. A&F thinks the law doesn't apply to them. A&F is wrong.

It's OK to disagree with a law but just ignoring it gets you charged instead of making it go away.

you can see some sort of wrinkled fabric suggesting shes wearing maybe short-shorts. with the shading you cant tell if shes wearing a top or not. I guess if you interpreted the picture as a depiction of three boys finishing a sexual encounter with the girl then It could be obscene but thats reading a bit into it. just the crack itself is hardly obscene.

The last time i was at virginia beach there were rough waves that were breaking at about knee to waist height. The lifegaurds were freaking out on anyone who went out further than thigh height. So in essence you had to stand in the breaking waves of a rough surf. Not really sure what their plan was but seemed stupid to me.

It's virginia beach. I'm not surprised.

It wasn't obscene. The law is too vague, they shouldn't have applied it. The level of "obsenity" varies from one to another.

For instance, I think that every toys r us displaying Pokemon toys should be shut down. I'm offended by them.

@Buran: just because some prude walks into your store and asks you to take something down does not oblige you to do so. i used to live in virginia and the numbers of prudish evangelicals is off the charts. if i owned the store i'd tell them to go fuck themselves.

@stanfrombrooklyn: "I have a good friend who is a child molester..."

I don't know how many stories I've tarted with this exact same line.

Ahh, memories...

@jrdnjstn78: While I agree there are young girls in there ALL the time, ANYONE can see the posters when they walk by the store and it's in a mall that juveniles frequent.

@no.no.notorious: so they're probably 13. That's how models work...

@Buran: I'd guess that it was a calculated move, actually. Corporate legal weasels got together with the PR types and decided it would look better if the city forced the removal of their marketing images, then A&F would appear to be the aggrieved party in the press on the issue.

There were a bunch of people who tried this against a Victoria's Secret store in Indianapolis last year. It was the OMG think of the children ploy.

We have religious nuts around here trying to shut down Lodgenet (they provide in room entertainment for hotels - games, movies etc), jack the tax on booze 300% and super restrict adult stores.

I like the idea of rounding up all these people and forcing them to live just with each other somewhere so they will quit bothering everyone else and they can start taking out their frustrations on each other.

@smoothtom: Yes, thank you. Take a look at your local high school one of these days. The kids look like your idea of 13.

@bohemian: I think that several years ago in my town (Birmingham, AL), people successfully lobbied to have one of our local VS stores put their posters more toward the inside of the store so that children/impressionable adults could not see them as they walked by.

I don't think it's that they're boys that caused the problem but rather that the models seem too young. A&F has gotten in trouble for risque shots of teens in the past and they're also the ones who first started marketing thongs to eight year olds; you'd think they'd pull back a touch from the borderline images of teenagers. Idiotic as Virginia Beach tends to be, I can't fault them for taking down the signs when there's a teenage ass hanging out and the store had refused point blank to do it themselves.

@DeltaPurser: It is not my definition of porn, but the arresting officer's and district attorny's definition of porn that matters. Once you are arrested you have to prove that you are innocent to the government employees whose jobs are to prove you guilty. They do not pay for your lawyer if you have financial means to do so...

I'm torn between my hatred of unreasonable censorship, and my hatred of A&F, Hollister, and basically any teenage shit-eater who thinks that shopping there makes them better than anyone else.

We are talking about the same state where some municipalities tried to find people for posting political signs on their own private property, until the ACLU sent them a very strongly worded letter, siting massive amounts of case law as to why it would be unwise to try to enforce these ordinances.

Would somebody please put out a memo letting people know that by wearing an AF shirt does NOT, I repeat NOT, make you look like one of their models... I'm amazed at the uglies who put on this stuff and then strutt around thinking they look good... Truth is, if you're size 36 and over, you should NOT be shopping there. Period.

@machete_bear: Wow. Someone needs to ease down a bit.