Typical racy Abercrombie & Fitch photo displays caused a stir in Virginia Beach last week, earning the manager obscenity charges after shoppers complained.
After reading the articles, I expected to see a guy's butt hanging out and a barely covered nipple, but once I found the pictures, they looked pretty tame. I think I've seen more bits of butts and breasts on display on a single stroll down Palm Walk. "Nip/Tuck" commercials have more "nudity" in them than that.
Besides, a photo of a woman not wearing any visible clothing isn't very good marketing for a store that sells clothes.
Luckily, the obscenity charges are being dropped, but I had a hard time believing that the posters generated enough complaints that they were seized from the store.
Courts say that for an image to be obscene, it must show sex or a "lewd display" of the genitals, according to an ABC News report on the issue.
The images are sexy, which is different from obscene, but so are many other advertisements, such as those for Victoria's Secret. Commercials for exercise equipment that show unclothed male torsos and bikini-clad women could also be put on the same level if judged by the amount of bare skin.
I don't understand what the big deal is about nudity. As far as female nudity goes, I have all those parts, so why should I care if I see them? With males, we rarely see more than a naked upper body, but even if the whole body is on display, I've seen it before, and I'll see it again.
The only time I do have a problem with nearly-naked bodies in advertisements is when they're airbrushed and edited to the point where an impossible human figure is displayed for viewers to compare themselves to. The impossible figure is the wrong part, though, and not that there's bare skin showing.
On the other hand, our society also has an issue with violence, which I think is much more understandable. Nudity doesn't always have to mean something sexual, but violence is always negative, and usually unnecessary.
Even with violence being frowned upon, it is still allowed to appear much more often than nudity and in places where younger audiences have access to it. Intense violence can still appear in PG-13 movies, which younger audiences often attend, but nudity seems to only appear in R-rated movies.
We tend to see much more violence on TV than nudity. Sexuality still exists in the media, but even when sex is portrayed on TV, we don't see much, if any, of the participants' bodies.
Our country may have its priorities mixed up in what we think is worse for our children. We shouldn't be afraid of our bodies, which is what seems to be the case.
Nudity doesn't always have to be sexual. We're born naked, and therefore it is natural to be naked, but it's definitely not sexy then. We don't have to make naked bodies sexual. In many cultures, breasts aren't considered to be sexual. Genitals are more often perceived as sexual and are more commonly thought of as sexual across cultures, so censorship of anything below the belt is understandable.
Taste does need to be taken into account; pornographic images whose purpose is solely for sexual stimulation and pleasure would fit in the obscene category, but nudity alone isn't "lewd," especially when done in a tasteful manner, and shouldn't be considered objectionable.
Sex also isn't necessarily bad, as everyone does have sex at some point, or at least everyone exists because of sex. Kids will need the birds and the bees talk eventually. We might as well not make sex any more confusing than it already is.
It would be scary to have generation of kids desensitized to the type of violence seen in movies, especially when it's glorified. Yet I don't see a more casual display of the human body causing issues but instead allowing people to appreciate the body instead of fearing it.
Monique has never been in A & F but imagines there are half-naked clerks assisting customers. E-mail her with the inside scoop at:
