# Partial nudity and other advertisers on the right hand side



## pcunite (Nov 20, 2006)

I have been away from Ask Andy's for a good while. Stopping by I see that we have new forum software and things seemed to be going strong. That is good! Something that really shocked me was the ads on the right hand side showing women in revealing clothing, sometimes not wearing a shirt at all, showing their back, and partial breasts.

To be considered a gentleman do I have to look at this? I don't want my wife and children seeing these types of advertising while I browse this otherwise respectful site.

I thought the goal behind Ask Andy was about being on a higher plane of thought? I can see all types of nude women in a just a few clicks, I don't think we need it here. I only want to look at my wife's breasts, they have places on the Internet for sharing everyone' else's.


----------



## joenobody0 (Jun 30, 2009)

pcunite said:


> I don't want my wife and children seeing these types of advertising while I browse this otherwise respectful site.


I agree. It's totally tasteless and renders this website essentially not work safe.


----------



## nosajwols (Jan 27, 2010)

Agree here as well. It is totally not appropriate for the spirit of this website (gentlemen), plus it makes the site a little risky for work. I have been attending the site much less these days almost entirely because of the ads.


----------



## pcunite (Nov 20, 2006)

joenobody0 said:


> I agree. It's totally tasteless and renders this website essentially not work safe.


Good point, I work for myself or otherwise I would have probably been in danger of being fired... at least in the US anyway.


----------



## shatal (Oct 20, 2008)

Agree with OP.


----------



## Racer (Apr 16, 2010)

The ads don't bother me in the slightest.

If your concern is that non-work-related web content may cause you problems at your work, I suggest you not surf the web while working. Problem solved.

In order to solve issues with ads at home, you can use a free browser add-on such as Adblock Plus (which works with Firefox) to block ads you find annoying or offensive. All you have to do is install Adblock Plus, then click on the banner or sidebar ad area, and it will prevent ads from displaying on your screen when you visit the site. Doing this is much more effective than trying to get the website changed to suit your individual concerns.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

pcunite said:


> I have been away from Ask Andy's for a good while. Stopping by I see that we have new forum software and things seemed to be going strong. That is good! Something that really shocked me was the ads on the right hand side showing women in revealing clothing, sometimes not wearing a shirt at all, showing their back, and partial breasts.
> 
> To be considered a gentleman do I have to look at this? I don't want my wife and children seeing these types of advertising while I browse this otherwise respectful site.
> 
> I thought the goal behind Ask Andy was about being on a higher plane of thought? I can see all types of nude women in a just a few clicks, I don't think we need it here. I only want to look at my wife's breasts, they have places on the Internet for sharing everyone' else's.


Well then the obvious solution is to upload pictures of your wife's breasts to Andy's advertisers, so they can use the pictures in their ads.

Sorry I couldn't resist. And yes I agree with you. This isn't a personal swipe at anyone but I think the current ads attract foot fetishists and very few other people.


----------



## YoungClayB (Nov 16, 2009)

Agree completely. I often check AAAC while at work and having someone see these ads over my shoulder is NOT a good thing.


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

Yeah, the partial nuduty really annoys me. I demand some full nudity!


----------



## paul winston (Jun 3, 2006)

I have noticed those ads, and never gave them a second thought. The concept of "sex" selling in the USA is a given. I think we are overly body conscious in the USA. I learned this lesson at the age of 17. ( I am now north of 70). A friend and I spent the summer of 1955 bicycling around France. The world was safer then. My parents did not thing there was a problem letting me "tour'. One day we were on a beach in the south of France. At the end of the work day - a little after 5:00 - men and women arrived at the beach. There were no changing facilities. The new arrivals went to a side and took off their clothes and put on swim suits. My friend and I were shocked. No one else was. This wasn't a nudist beach- everyone on the beach and in the water was wearing swim suits. After talking to young Europeans at the Hostel where we were staying for the night, and thinking about it, I came to accept that we were exhibiting "American Prudism." I have never been that way since.
Paul Winston
Winston Tailors
www.chipp2.com
www.chipp2.com/blog/


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

Agree, they're risque and prevent me from surfing the forums in public.


----------



## alphadelta (Oct 2, 2007)

The simple solution:

https://adblockplus.org/en/


----------



## kev777 (Jul 14, 2009)

To be honest and serious for a moment , although by no means a prude, i dont access AskAndy while the kids are up due to the ads. I just think that the ads here demean the site and it surprised me greatly when they started appearing. I also understand that i can change my operating system or downlaod and start using adblock or both etc etc but that really isnt quite the point. For me personally i wouldnt have thought that in order to browse and partake in this forum i would need to do that. (Sigh)


----------



## BCPilotguy (Oct 10, 2008)

Perhaps the only women's clothing advertisers we should allow are the purveyors of burqas. 

I have yet to see anything on this website that is anywhere near to being inappropriate, nor anything that one wouldn't find on a billboard in any major city. A woman's back is hardly anything to get worked up over! It's not as though they're advertising for pornography or anything like that.

I think that Andy should continue to run these ads that allow him to keep this excellent resource up and running.


----------



## triklops55 (May 14, 2010)

I don't mind the ads at all. I look forward to seeing the beautiful blonde in that underwear ad.
Anyway, Andy's gotta pay the bills right? He could also ditch the ads and start charging forum members. Would that be better for all?


----------



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

Thank you for your thoughtful suggestions. We've taken care it it.

Ask Andy is now and always will be a family friendly site! (including the shoe porn!) :icon_smile:


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

Andy said:


> Thank you for your thoughtful suggestions. We've taken care it it.
> 
> Ask Andy is now and always will be a family friendly site! (including the shoe porn!) :icon_smile:


Thank you sir!


----------



## Fraser Tartan (May 12, 2010)

Haven't seen any ads that couldn't be used on a billboard in a major city. Don't know what the fuss is about.


----------



## Jake Genezen (May 27, 2010)

The objection seems to be at the partial nudity of women - not men. It's okay for men to pose in underwear, but not women?


----------



## joenobody0 (Jun 30, 2009)

Thanks Andy.



triklops55 said:


> I look forward to seeing the beautiful blonde in that underwear ad.


I don't come here to look at women in their underwear. There are innumerable better and more appropriate places to access such imagery.


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC (Sep 21, 2007)

I guess we better have the PC police scrub the whole site to make sure that there's nothing that might possibly offend anyone. All that will be left will be a blank screen, but at least we can be sure that no one will be offended.


----------



## joenobody0 (Jun 30, 2009)

PatentLawyerNYC said:


> I guess we better have the PC police scrub the whole site to make sure that there's nothing that might possibly offend anyone. All that will be left will be a blank screen, but at least we can be sure that no one will be offended.


Or maybe we can just settle on getting rid of the shots of dudes and chicks in their underwear?


----------



## pcunite (Nov 20, 2006)

I should make myself clear that I am not here to create trouble. I just want to know if I still fit in, perhaps I don't. An hour ago or so I saw an ad with a women in which her breast and nipple were clearly visible behind a super thin top. Where I live they won't let you in the door dressed like that at any restaurant or otherwise public place.

Ask Andy's does not have to be family site, it just needs to state what it is and I'll make up my own mind. My post was just how things had changed from what it used to be. I personally don't want to be associated with a website that showcases nudity. I'm not better than anyone here, just making mention of something I've noticed.


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC (Sep 21, 2007)

joenobody0 said:


> Or maybe we can just settle on getting rid of the shots of dudes and chicks in their underwear?


Well, if they offend you of course we have to get rid of those! But why stop there?


----------



## pcunite (Nov 20, 2006)

PatentLawyerNYC said:


> Well, if they offend you of course we have to get rid of those! But why stop there?


It is not about getting ride of offensive ads, it is about *standards*. Is it okay for people to walk down the street nude? Maybe one day it will be. For now being proper, means being clothed.


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC (Sep 21, 2007)

pcunite said:


> It is not about getting ride of offensive ads, it is about *standards*. Is it okay for people to walk down the street nude? Maybe one day it will be. For now being proper, means being clothed.


What is the difference?


----------



## pcunite (Nov 20, 2006)

PatentLawyerNYC said:


> What is the difference?


You can't please everyone, you have to have some inner sense of what is best for your own world. Andy has his own personal opinion of quality. It is what gave him the passion to create this website. Of course there are laws for people who don't have any restraint.

Right or wrong, there is a very common understanding that covering up at least part of our bodies is the right thing to do. By having visible nipples on this site Andy was inadvertently changing the tone of this site.

Andy was (is) about clothes, not about nudity. Andy is (was) about standards, not what is currently in vogue, because what is vogue today is sometimes pretty silly to most of this sites members. If I want to look like GQ, I would visit that site. Of course it is fun to talk about the rights and wrongs of it all.

I don't want this site to cater to my whims... Andy needs to do what is best for him, his staff, and advisors.


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

I'm with the OP. The advertisements don't bother me (it's easy enough to ignore the sidebar), but they do limit my visits to the forum.


----------



## Mr. Mac (Mar 14, 2008)

pcunite said:


> I have been away from Ask Andy's for a good while. Stopping by I see that we have new forum software and things seemed to be going strong. That is good! Something that really shocked me was the ads on the right hand side showing women in revealing clothing, sometimes not wearing a shirt at all, showing their back, and partial breasts.
> 
> To be considered a gentleman do I have to look at this? I don't want my wife and children seeing these types of advertising while I browse this otherwise respectful site.
> 
> I thought the goal behind Ask Andy was about being on a higher plane of thought? I can see all types of nude women in a just a few clicks, I don't think we need it here. I only want to look at my wife's breasts, they have places on the Internet for sharing everyone' else's.


+1. Ditto.


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

Hey! I like the partial nudity.:icon_smile_big:


----------



## Jake Genezen (May 27, 2010)

pcunite said:


> there is a very common understanding that covering up at least part of our bodies is the right thing to do.


Only in some cultures.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Jake Genezen said:


> Only in some cultures.


 In the Judeo-Christian tradition, since Adam bit the big one.


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

I have no problem with nudity, but those ads are just "cheap".


----------



## Jake Genezen (May 27, 2010)

Ironically, Eve is the guilty party. Perhaps the women striping is a reaction to that. Perhaps not: traditionally _patriarchal_ society has determined what women can and cannot do.


----------



## DocD (Jun 2, 2007)

Ironically, until reading this thread I never even noticed the ad of concern. When I visit this site I'm focused on the particular topics, and not the ads (much to the dismay of the advertisers), so maybe, just maybe this whole issue is being over-emphasized.


----------



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

But it is rather difficult to sell underwear without showing the underwear, and all clothing items show better on a human!


----------



## JerseyJohn (Oct 26, 2007)

I guess I haven't paid a lot of attention, but I don't remember seeing anything that one wouldn't see in Elle or Glamour - hardly porn mags.


----------



## roman totale XVII (Sep 18, 2009)

Hail the New Puritans!

A true gentleman not pursuing an agenda would have dealt with this via a PM to Andy. Not via a thread draped in cod open discourse...


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

Subscribed


----------



## rbstc123 (Jun 13, 2007)

Sex sells. It's a fact. We all get it. That being said, I commend you Andy for making the decision to remove the ads from the site. I'm sure it was not an easy decision and I respect it. Kudos.


----------



## El_Abogado (Apr 21, 2009)

What a sad day. Political correctness has diminished AAAC. Andy, please reconsider. The advertiser used images that are far less overt in their sexuality than the images found in mainstream fashion magazines sold across the country in grocery stores. To the OP and his ilk, I say: "Man up." The ads are tasteful and not in the least demeaning to women or visitors to the site. Only certain segments of the globe share your view and they tend to enforce their patriarchal, misogynistc approach with the burqa and hijab.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

I'm the least puritanical person I know, but the ads were not appropriate. Especially over on the Trad forum where the preferred underwear has a flap in the back. I'm glad they've been replaced.


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

^^^
+1 Trip.


----------



## frosejr (Mar 27, 2010)

I've still got the nip shot on my screen right now.

EDIT: I still get this chick too.


----------



## Mr. Mac (Mar 14, 2008)

roman totale XVII said:


> Hail the New Puritans!
> 
> A true gentleman not pursuing an agenda would have dealt with this via a PM to Andy. Not via a thread draped in cod open discourse...


The way I see it, what with this being a forum and all, the OP did exactly the right thing: he posted it on the forum and discovered a lot of men who agree with his viewpoint. Andy apparently agreed - at least in part and for reasons unknown - and the admittedly minor issue was resolved.

Hopefully those of non-puritanical persuasion can still feel comfortable in our new sexuality-oppressing, quasi-theocracy here at AAAC.

Now, back to the clothes....


----------



## David Reeves (Dec 19, 2008)

that one of her full frontal with see through underwear was a bit too on the nose wasn't it? I think the Kabbaz adverts look a bit american apparel to me. Nothing wrong with that but doesn't seem to fit here or with Alex's product IMHO.


----------



## Mr. Mac (Mar 14, 2008)

El_Abogado said:


> To the OP and his ilk, I say: "Man up." The ads are tasteful and not in the least demeaning to women or visitors to the site. Only certain segments of the globe share your view and they tend to enforce their patriarchal, misogynistc approach with the burqa and hijab.


When we Judeo-Christian, puritanically-prudish misogynists "Man up" and enforce our opinion, we do so by simply asking politely.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

Jake Genezen said:


> The objection seems to be at the partial nudity of women - not men. It's okay for men to pose in underwear, but not women?


Maybe its someone else's objection, but my only objection is that its not public viewing friendly. I don't need random people, coworkers, co-students, potential gf's, etc wondering what I'm looking at as people in underwear flash quite noticeably on the right hand side of my screen.

Actually, I wouldn't mind if the pictures were on the top. Then I could easily scroll down a few lines to cover it up.


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

Mr. Mac said:


> The way I see it, what with this being a forum and all, the OP did exactly the right thing: he posted it on the forum and discovered a lot of men who agree with his viewpoint. Andy apparently agreed - at least in part and for reasons unknown - and the admittedly minor issue was resolved.
> 
> Hopefully those of non-puritanical persuasion can still feel comfortable in our new sexuality-oppressing, quasi-theocracy here at AAAC.
> 
> Now, back to the clothes....


I agree entirely with Mr. Mac.


----------



## ATLien (Jan 6, 2009)

Andy said:


> Thank you for your thoughtful suggestions. We've taken care it it.
> 
> Ask Andy is now and always will be a family friendly site! (including the shoe porn!) :icon_smile:


Andy - With all due respect, I think you should have NOT changed this. The adds showed partial nudity (and by no means pornography). So what? There is no reason for assuming that the sight of a naked or half naked body is harmful to anyone (no matter if "anyone" is 7 or 70 years old) - this is the way we look naturally.

If someone's is so puritan and afraid of nature that they cannot tolarate the natural look of the human body I strongly recommend that they lock themselves and their children into a basement. Or move to Saudi-Arabia where everything is wrapped up politically correct in a beautiful black cloth.

Regarding the use of AAAC at work: I think your employer does not pay you for surfing a fashion and style forum in the first place!


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

roman totale XVII said:


> Hail the New Puritans!
> 
> A true gentleman not pursuing an agenda would have dealt with this via a PM to Andy. Not via a thread draped in cod open discourse...


+1....and boy o' boy do I wish I had typed that first. Spot on and perfectly put, r/t!


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

pcunite said:


> I don't want my wife and children seeing these types of advertising while I browse this otherwise respectful site.


Then why don't you go back to your little house on the prairie.

Andy, cannot believe you caved on this. Did any of the above prisses send you a check to make up for lost revenue?


----------



## pcunite (Nov 20, 2006)

This is what is showing up on my computer as I read this thread. Andy has not caved, I don't want him to cave. I want him to do what his best. He can't do that with out our help. If everyone is okay with the following ads (shown below) then you will be doing your part to change the nature of this site.

I very often get asked by younger men about my style, and how to dress nice. I tell them to go to this site and read up. It is what helped me, Andy personally has helped me! But I will not continue to send young men to this site if this is what they are going to see. I also can't continue to come here myself.

You can not have a decent conversation with a nude woman standing in the room, and expect young men and girls to just not notice the nude woman. *AskAndyAboutClothes.com, your not wearing any clothes.*

To those of you approving these ads, you need to state your cause for keeping them, not trying to insult my online persona. It is a waste for your cause. The advertiser using these images also may not be aware of how they are perceived and this is a chance to help them as well.


----------



## pcunite (Nov 20, 2006)

One more thought I would like to convey. A nude woman's body is very special and an extremely powerful thing. It is like a loaded gun. Many good things can be accomplished with that power. But which of you gentlemen would leave a loaded gun on the coffee table? Pictures of nude women and men can have very negative consequences, like breaking up a marriage, or getting someone fired.

Improperly handled and young girls can feel worthless, young men can misunderstand the beauty and respect a women should receive. You don't just toss around that kind of power without understanding its effects. You don't just play around with a loaded gun.

These ads don't give us a chance to understand what to do with them. This site is not about that. We don't know what to do when suddenly a nude person walks into the room. That is not the purpose of AskAndy's.

Finally, I am in no way speaking negatively about women and their rights, or about this advertiser. Very often an advertiser does not understand their own ads, they hire firms that suggest what they should do. So the company showing these ads is not understanding their effect. This is your chance to help them with that.


----------



## Jake Genezen (May 27, 2010)

Again, why is there no issue with men wearing underwear but there is with women?

Also, the loaded gun analogy is disturbing: what, women are seductive femme fatalee, and only lead men down the road to perdition? Woman corrupt men? Woman in underwear corrupt men? Women wearing socks corrupt men? What century are we in?

Any hardback clothes catalogue has similar pictures in, and is 'exposed' to family members flicking through it.


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC (Sep 21, 2007)

roman totale XVII said:


> Hail the New Puritans!
> 
> A true gentleman not pursuing an agenda would have dealt with this via a PM to Andy. Not via a thread draped in cod open discourse...


Precisely.....


----------



## ATLien (Jan 6, 2009)

pcunite said:


> One more thought I would like to convey. A nude woman's body is very special and an extremely powerful thing. It is like a loaded gun. Many good things can be accomplished with that power. But which of you gentlemen would leave a loaded gun on the coffee table? Pictures of nude women and men can have very negative consequences, like breaking up a marriage, or getting someone fired.


You compare a naked person to a lethal weapon? Well it is sad to hear that you are so afraid of the natural shape of the human body. However, this completely distorted view of nature should not force Andy to censor the website and loose advertisement revenues. If you are afraid of nature you should simply lock yourself in a dark room.



pcunite said:


> Improperly handled and young girls can feel worthless, young men can misunderstand the beauty and respect a women should receive. You don't just toss around that kind of power without understanding its effects. You don't just play around with a loaded gun.


We are talking about a picture of a woman wearing underwear. If this threatens the well being of young women and the development of young men, I strongly recommend to immediately close all swimming pools, beaches, take swimming contests out of the olympics,...



pcunite said:


> These ads don't give us a chance to understand what to do with them. This site is not about that. We don't know what to do when suddenly a nude person walks into the room. That is not the purpose of AskAndy's..


Well understanding these ads is fairly uncomplicated. However, if you don't get them I tell you what they are trying to say: BUY THIS UNDERWEAR FOR YOURSELF, YOUR WIFE OR ANTBODY ELSE - JUST BUY IT. By the way - Just because you don't know how to react if a naked person enters the room, does not mean that this is an issue for everybody else. But just in case that you are ever confronted by a naked body in your life, try something like making a joke...or a compliment...or just don't say anything.



pcunite said:


> Finally, I am in no way speaking negatively about women and their rights, or about this advertiser. Very often an advertiser does not understand their own ads, they hire firms that suggest what they should do. So the company showing these ads is not understanding their effect. This is your chance to help them with that.


And maybe they understand the effects of their ads very well and you just don't get it...in my optinion you have a very distorted view of what is natural and normal and I am sick of more and more censorship due to puritans like you.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

pcunite said:


> ...I will not continue to send young men to this site if this is what they are going to see. I also can't continue to come here myself.


Bye. And my best to you and your "young men".


----------



## pcunite (Nov 20, 2006)

ATLien said:


> And maybe they understand the effects of their ads very well and you just don't get it...in my optinion you have a very distorted view of what is natural and normal and I am sick of more and more censorship due to puritans like you.


ATLien,
Maybe your opinion will win and we can have completely nude people in ads on this site. Just showing the breasts seems a bit restrictive does it not?


----------



## David Reeves (Dec 19, 2008)

pcunite said:


> One more thought I would like to convey. A nude woman's body is very special and an extremely powerful thing. It is like a loaded gun. Many good things can be accomplished with that power. But which of you gentlemen would leave a loaded gun on the coffee table? Pictures of nude women and men can have very negative consequences, like breaking up a marriage, or getting someone fired.
> 
> Improperly handled and young girls can feel worthless, young men can misunderstand the beauty and respect a women should receive. You don't just toss around that kind of power without understanding its effects. You don't just play around with a loaded gun.
> 
> ...


Have you ever fired any shots in anger?


----------



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

Good discussion here! A variety of opinions and that is an excellent thing.

And in my view none of them wrong! 

In order to please everyone, I will put up nude photos of myself! :cool2: But to date, I can't find anyone who will take the photos! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## pcunite (Nov 20, 2006)

David Reeves said:


> Have you ever fired any shots in anger?


No, and thankfully have never been in a situation where I needed to point it at a person.


----------



## David Reeves (Dec 19, 2008)

pcunite said:


> No, and thankfully have never been in a situation where I needed to point it at a person.


Indeed you are a puritan.


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

I'm reminded of the Brooke Shield Calvin Klein jeans ads that disturbed so many old ladies in the 80's. "Nothing comes between me and my Calvins".

I don't know if Calvin Klein is still selling jeans, but it seems we still have fussy old ladies. I think the OP might be much more comfortable in Iran where they share his puritanical views. :icon_headagainstwal


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Andy said:


> Good discussion here! A variety of opinions and that is an excellent thing.
> 
> And in my view none of them wrong!
> 
> In order to please everyone, I will put up nude photos of myself! :cool2: But to date, I can't find anyone who will take the photos! :icon_smile_big:


I express no opinion on the underlying issue, but I will say, Andy, that you are handling it with grace and wit. Well done.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

This should not be an issue at all
You should not be doing personal surfing at all at work so it should not be an issue of being acceptable to your employer. Do personal surfing on your own time and your own computer.
You are responsible for your own kids so tell them to go away if you are doing something you would rather they not see. You are in charge, not them.
Your wife might actually be looking for some of the items advertised so you might try going to the site advertised and buy something. The ads are the reason you have free access here. 
While Andy wants this to be a family friendly site I suspect that when the discussions have MY Little Kitty t-shirts as the hot topic, viewer stats could suffer. It should be for more mature individuals.
Finally, I see more of the good stuff in every day life than I do in the AAAC ads. There is not a single nipple in sight so we are not yet in the PG range. Someone fix that. If we are to be accused of being an adult site, we might as well enjoy the benefits.


----------



## 10gallonhat (Dec 13, 2009)

Peak and Pine said:


> Bye. And my best to you and your "young men".


LOLLL


----------



## Wildblue (Oct 11, 2009)

I haven't had any issues with the advertisers here. I won't clamour to bring anything back, but I will say to Andy that I don't think he needs to restrict anything that has appeared so far.


----------



## DocD (Jun 2, 2007)

Country Irish said:


> This should not be an issue at all
> You should not be doing personal surfing at all at work so it should not be an issue of being acceptable to your employer. Do personal surfing on your own time and your own computer.
> You are responsible for your own kids so tell them to go away if you are doing something you would rather they not see. You are in charge, not them.
> Your wife might actually be looking for some of the items advertised so you might try going to the site advertised and buy something. The ads are the reason you have free access here.
> ...


I believe that this hits the nail directly on the head. I also feel that this entire "discussion" really has to be taken into perspective and has gone way out of control. I've now seen the ads (though as previously stated didn't notice them until this thread), and was not _personally_ offended, and wonder what those who are offended do with their children, wives, etc., when they are walking down the street and see scantily clad women, or go on vacation and see women in tiny bikinis that reveal significantly more than the ads on this site???

Do you apologize to your children or wife? Do you quickly cover their eyes or turn them away? Do you feel "dirty" after they were exposed to a woman in a bikini?

Sorry, I saw nothing remotely pornographic about the ads on this site, but just like ANY site that has material that you find offensive, the answer is to simply click off that site and move on. I believe if you have to explain to your wife, significant other or child why there is a picture of someone in underwear on the computer screen, there are other deeper issues of concern. If there was a scene depicting a sexual act or full frontal nudity, that's a different story.

And I agree with others regarding surfing the web while at work.....but I'm not your employer.


----------



## joeyb1000 (Feb 24, 2010)

+1 for partial nudity


----------



## Kenneth Hill (Aug 31, 2008)

I will weigh on the side of not offensive, but also, is not an appropriate advertisement for this website. Double checked with my wife (not a prude). She concurs that the above pictures would raise questions as to what website I was really on.


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

*Cover Your Eyes-Richard Avedon Photo content-Scarry!!!!!*

Thanks to this thread, I now have a new screen saver.


----------



## joenobody0 (Jun 30, 2009)

Kenneth Hill said:


> *I will weigh on the side of not offensive, but also, is not an appropriate advertisement for this website*. Double checked with my wife (not a prude). She concurs that the above pictures would raise questions as to what website I was really on.


People have gone crazy on this topic. For me, the above quote sums it up perfectly.

Just because there are worse ads in Maxim doesn't mean these ads belong here. Most people dress like a slobs, should we do that too?


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

beherethen said:


> I think the OP might be much more comfortable in Iran where they share his puritanical views. :icon_headagainstwal


I like your strategy for silencing dissent: name-calling without resorting to names. In Iran, the individual doesn't get to question what is appropriate. On a public forum, the visitor has the freedom to ask the question. I think you'd be more comfortable in Iran where the power brokers don't have to deal with questions, expressions of opinion, etc.

So basically this stuff is fine because sex sells, but we shouldn't be disturbed because these adds don't rise to the level of PG. Which is it?

And then we get somebody guiding us concerning what we should be doing with our computers at work. I say, you should quit meddling in other people's private affairs: that is between the individual and his/her employer.

Seems like Andy wants to respond to his clients. That's just good business.


----------



## ATLien (Jan 6, 2009)

beherethen said:


> Thanks to this thread, I now have a new screen saver.


Hot - my wife agrees (she already allows me to look at pictures of other women - isn't she generous?)


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

pcunite said:


> This is what is showing up on my computer as I read this thread. Andy has not caved, I don't want him to cave. I want him to do what his best. He can't do that with out our help. If everyone is okay with the following ads (shown below) then you will be doing your part to change the nature of this site.
> 
> I very often get asked by younger men about my style, and how to dress nice. I tell them to go to this site and read up. It is what helped me, Andy personally has helped me! But I will not continue to send young men to this site if this is what they are going to see. I also can't continue to come here myself.
> 
> ...


That's just cheesy, you know, trying too hard. I'm pretty sure there are more subtle ways to sell a product. I don't really care if it's on the site or not, but it shows insecurity and inferiority complex. Such ads are acceptable in Europe, but guess what, we're in America! Now, the snake picture that a certain member posted, that's just sick :icon_scratch:! Why would someone want to stare at a mentally retarded woman being eaten by a snake?! Please keep this forum "classy" and "trad". Thank you!


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

P Hudson said:


> .
> So basically this stuff is fine because sex sells, but we shouldn't be disturbed because these adds don't rise to the level of PG. Which is it?


As an adult American (we have the First Amendment here), it can be PG or XXX, I'm not disturbed by it. 
If it were an ad that might be seen as racist such as this Australian cheese product, I might be a bit disturbed, but would not attempt to impose my enlightened views on others.

https://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa62/beherethen/racism-****-cheese.jpg


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

beherethen said:


> As an adult American (we have the First Amendment here), it can be PG or XXX, I'm not disturbed by it.
> If it were an ad that might be seen as racist such as this Australian cheese product, I might be a bit disturbed, but would not attempt to impose my enlightened views on others.
> 
> https://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa62/beherethen/racism-****-cheese.jpg


As an adult American, I find it amusing that you imply a greater enlightenment than another culture precisely because OUR poor treatment of another group renders a term offensive to US that isn't even remotely linked to race in another place. Then again, one of the main current social discussions in Australia, which is far more tolerant of nudity than the US, is the exploitation of women.


----------



## David Reeves (Dec 19, 2008)

camorristi said:


> That's just cheesy, you know, trying too hard. I'm pretty sure there are more subtle ways to sell a product. I don't really care if it's on the site or not, but it shows insecurity and inferiority complex. Such ads are acceptable in Europe, but guess what, we're in America! Now, the snake picture that a certain member posted, that's just sick :icon_scratch:! Why would someone want to stare at a
> mentally retarded woman being eaten by a snake?! Please keep this forum "classy" and "trad". Thank you!


This is not America. This is the Internet.


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

David Reeves said:


> This is not America. This is the Internet.


I thought America created the internet :icon_smile_big:.


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

David Reeves said:


> This is not America. This is the Internet.


----------



## Bartolo (Mar 2, 2009)

ATLien said:


> Hot - my wife agrees (she already allows me to look at pictures of other women - isn't she generous?)


So long as the ole ball n' chain allows it!


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

I've just come to a sobering realization. I was going to ask my wife's opinion of the pix, but I'd be more embarrassed explaining why I'm on a site devoted to men's clothes than why I'm on a site with risque pictures. Same goes for work.


----------



## Bartolo (Mar 2, 2009)

P Hudson said:


> I've just come to a sobering realization. I was going to ask my wife's opinion of the pix, but I'd be more embarrassed explaining why I'm on a site devoted to men's clothes than why I'm on a site with risque pictures. Same goes for work.


I think that you're on to something -- AAAC is a "dirty little secret" that some readers want a bit dirtier by the addition of nipple views. Andy did the right thing by nipping it in the bud (pun intended).


----------



## ATLien (Jan 6, 2009)

camorristi said:


> That's just cheesy, you know, trying too hard. I'm pretty sure there are more subtle ways to sell a product. I don't really care if it's on the site or not, but it shows insecurity and inferiority complex. Such ads are acceptable in Europe, but guess what, we're in America! Now, the snake picture that a certain member posted, that's just sick :icon_scratch:! Why would someone want to stare at a mentally retarded woman being eaten by a snake?! Please keep this forum "classy" and "trad". Thank you!


Well my dear friend you may very well be in America, but that does not apply to every member in this forum. It might be hard for you to believe, but the INTERNET can be accessed also from places outside of the US. Shocking isn't it? Hence, the question why American morality standards should apply rather than European ones? However, since probably the majority of members is really American, let's go by the location of the forum founder - the wonderful state of California home to spledid beaches full of .... oooopsi beauties in bikinis.

P.S.: I don't really think that the snake ate the girl in the picture. so don't worry too much.


----------



## Dragoon (Apr 1, 2010)

I don't have a strong opinion either way but I would miss the blonde Zimmerli model.

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...9-Totally-distracted&daysprune=-1#post1101587

I did ask my wife's opinion about said advertisement and she deemed it obnoxious. We shall have to agree to disagree.


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

camorristi said:


> Why would someone want to stare at a mentally retarded woman being eaten by a snake?! Please keep this forum "classy" and "trad". Thank you!


The "mentally retarded" women is Brooke Shields. The photographer was Richard. Avedon, who did many Vogue covers and won awards and was considered one of America's best photographers. Sounds "classy" to me. The standards in urban centers like West Lafayette, IN may differ.:icon_smile:


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Honestly, I agree with the posters who say that you should get back to work instead of posting on internet forums during your work hours.


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

beherethen said:


> The standards in urban centers like West Lafayette, IN may differ.:icon_smile:


Classic ad hom, but what does me going to school in WL, IN has to do anything with the topic? I'm not even from this area, I grew up and have lived in PA, MA, NJ, NH, and FL, plus I've traveled to 28 counties worldwide. I'm sorry I don't share your fashionable views. :icon_smile: And for a future reference, no one is made out of straw. You keep bringing this up for some reason.


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

camorristi said:


> And for a future reference, no one is made out of straw. You keep bringing this up for some reason.


I don't recall *ever* having brought up the subject of straw. The conversation does remind me of a famous riddle however

What's the difference between West Lafayette, IN and East Lafayette, IN?

The architects in West Lafayette tend to place the out houses in the right hand side of the back yard, while East Lafayette architects tend to favor the left. :icon_smile:


----------



## cdavant (Aug 28, 2005)

I miss the girls already. Couldn't they come back as a sticky?


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

beherethen said:


> The "mentally retarded" women is Brooke Shields.


Actually, it's not. It's Nastassia Kinski.


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

beherethen said:


> I don't recall *ever* having brought up the subject of straw. The conversation does remind me of a famous riddle however


I thought it was his gentle way of saying, "straw man, meet ad hominem". Then you told a joke about where he lives.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

FWIW, I asked my girlfriend about this just now and she found nothing wrong with the ads. She was just confused that a bunch of straight men would get offended by them, given that you see as much at the beach and many other places.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Yeah, I mean, you see women wearing sheer underwear walking around in public all the time.


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

Jovan said:


> FWIW, I asked my girlfriend about this just now and she found nothing wrong with the ads. She was just confused that a bunch of straight men would get offended by them, given that you see as much at the beach and many other places.


You might be missing the point here, *NO ONE* said anything about being nude or wearing a bikini at the beach. This has nothing to do with being a straight man either (really Jovan , you know better than that), it's about class and traditional & conservative fashion. You asked your girlfriend the wrong question, I also agree that there's nothing wrong about the ads (I think they're cheap, but I don't care) but is this the proper place for such ads? by this place I mean an upscale trad forum. And I'll say this again, they're not offensive, just "cheesy" and "trying too hard".


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Yeah, I mean, you see women wearing sheer underwear walking around in public all the time.


All the time, everywhere :icon_smile_big:. Clever sarcasm sir!


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Not my words, sir. I just thought a woman's point of view might be valuable here.


----------



## Mr. Mac (Mar 14, 2008)

Are there any other mole hills we can turn into mountains around here? Good grief.

The ads in question are relatively new (at least I don't recall seeing them years ago). In the years when the ads were comparatively tame I don't recall any of our readership asking for more provocative advertisements.

Now after a few ads appeared that some people object to, all hell has broken loose and members of the forum are spewing all sorts of bizarre and unreasonable vitriol.

I didn't care for the ads nor did I think they added anything positive to the site. At the same time I didn't have a real issue with them. But when someone else mentioned it, I agreed.

I am not neanderthal, unenlightened or uneducated (I'm actually a pretty smart guy). I wasn't raised in a cave or in a little house on the prarie. I'm not misogynist, patriarchal, puritanical or prudish. _Nor_ do I consider those who disagree with me to be smut-peddlers, perverts or sub-par members of society. I think we simply disagree.

I hope we're all reasonable enough to remember that the sword of open-mindedness and free thinking cuts two ways.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

You can argue about how things should be until the cows come home, but on the more objective standard of how things _are_, those ads are inappropriate. Whether the medium is print, television, or even internet, you'd have a hard time finding anybody in the mainstream that would run them.


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

I agree with jovan and his superfine lady. The ads are unobjectionable. Mildly distracting at times, but altogether no big deal!


----------



## ATLien (Jan 6, 2009)

PedanticTurkey said:


> You can argue about how things should be until the cows come home, but on the more objective standard of how things _are_, those ads are inappropriate. Whether the medium is print, television, or even internet, you'd have a hard time finding anybody in the mainstream that would run them.


Firstly, if something is lawful is objective, if something is appropriate is 100% subjective and depending on the view of the individual observer. So much about semantics.

And yes - I agree that GQ, Esquire, ABC/NBC/CBS/ESPN would not run this - but not because of partial nudity, but rather due to low picture quality and because the advertiser is most likely not able to afford these channels. Don't believe me? Well pick up the current issue of any style magazine and have a look. Or consider NBC - they happily ran a show which was solely based on beach bunnies with barely cover fake boobs bouncing up and down Malibu beach.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

camorristi said:


> I thought America created the internet :icon_smile_big:.


LOL. Well actually, that was Al Gore...who also, BTW, is rumored top have invented the paper clip and I for one am pretty sure the essential design of the paper clip is erotically driven and arguably, obscene! My gawd, Al Gore must be a pervert?


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> LOL. Well actually, that was Al Gore...who also, BTW, is rumored top have invented the paper clip and I for one am pretty sure the essential design of the paper clip is erotically driven and arguably, obscene! My gawd, Al Gore must be a pervert?


Al Gore took *credit* for inventing the Internet but

https://www.tech-faq.com/who-invented-the-internet.html

Pervert? Well he did spend a lot of time with the Clintons :icon_smile:


----------



## Grenadier (Dec 24, 2008)

I would like to have Mr. Kabbaz' ads back. Mr. Kabbaz offers a much better product than Paul Fredrick and, as an added bonus, the advertisements are titillating.


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

Glad to see the ads are back and that the site owner didn't cave to a few out-of-touch prudish views posted here. I kinda doubt that those who worry about getting busted at work should be surfing non-biz-related stuff there anyway. And the loaded gun nonsense? Gimme a break. Keep the ads comin'...


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> You can argue about how things should be until the cows come home, but on the more objective standard of how things _are_, those ads are inappropriate. Whether the medium is print, television, or even internet, you'd have a hard time finding anybody in the mainstream that would run them.


I see similar ads often in mainstream publications. I don't see these particular ads but that is because they are for upscale items that the mainstream shopper might think too expensive. However your comment about objective standards are without any foundation. Advertising standards are set on an individual basis which presumably reflect the marketing demograqphic of that particular publication.
If I read between the lines, you have expanded your personal beliefs to the level of some mythical rule of thumb for the entire clothing industry worldwide. I hate to have to point this out but your opinions are your own but have no relationship with reality.
In fact I doubt they are even your own standards. You are expounding a position just to cause dissent. They are not objective comments, they are not standards, they are not factual. They are simply rhetoric to inflame your fellow posters. 
However this is the internet so I do not hold you to the standards I set for my own living room. On the other hand I don't have to take you seriously... anywhere.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

1. They are advertising clothes!
Of course they are going to show the items in a way that they hope will draw the attention of possible purchasers. 
2. We are buyers and users of some of the items advertised and buyers and gifters of some of the other items. 
We saw the advertisements either directly or as a result of this attempt at censorship.
3. Some of us will now remember the brand names, the retailer and that girl's naval until the day we die.
The ads did not cause this but the censorship rants did.
4. The ads were effective, placed in an appropriate forum with an appropriate audience. 
This was a marketing success thanks to the ads and the objections to the ads.

Conclusion: This was a marketing success and a textbook example of censorship backfiring all in one neat little package. I am impressed and am just waiting to start dating a girl with the same general structure to buy her some of this stuff.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Country Irish said:


> I see similar ads often in mainstream publications. I don't see these particular ads but that is because they are for upscale items that the mainstream shopper might think too expensive. However your comment about objective standards are without any foundation. Advertising standards are set on an individual basis which presumably reflect the marketing demograqphic of that particular publication.
> If I read between the lines, you have expanded your personal beliefs to the level of some mythical rule of thumb for the entire clothing industry worldwide. I hate to have to point this out but your opinions are your own but have no relationship with reality.
> In fact I doubt they are even your own standards. You are expounding a position just to cause dissent. They are not objective comments, they are not standards, they are not factual. They are simply rhetoric to inflame your fellow posters.
> However this is the internet so I do not hold you to the standards I set for my own living room. On the other hand I don't have to take you seriously... anywhere.


Well, all right--time to put up or shut up. Show me some of these ads. Let's see some MSM nipples.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

pcunite said:


> This is what is showing up on my computer as I read this thread. Andy has not caved, I don't want him to cave. I want him to do what his best. He can't do that with out our help. If everyone is okay with the following ads (shown below) then you will be doing your part to change the nature of this site.
> 
> I very often get asked by younger men about my style, and how to dress nice. I tell them to go to this site and read up. It is what helped me, Andy personally has helped me! But I will not continue to send young men to this site if this is what they are going to see. I also can't continue to come here myself.
> 
> ...


OK, since you asked, I will state my reason for preferring that ads with images like these remain on this site. Specifically, I am referring to all the images in the left column, and the top image in the right column. I'd like those images to remain because from time to time, I read things that make me want to launch into crude verbal assaults. When I start feeling that way, all I have to do is look to the right and I calm down... :icon_smile_big:


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

So to sum up to this point:

(1) if you don't think the ads are appropriate to this site, then you are a prude/puritan engaging in censorship;

(2) if you don't think the ads are work appropriate, then you really must gain wisdom about how you use your computer at work.**

Did I get that right?

**Somehow, the non-censors have more insight into my work environment than I do despite their inability to even name the place, while I have worked there (including stints as department head) for almost 15 years. I find this notion, repeated by so many, to be both ridiculous and ironic, coming from those who are basically telling people to mind their own business even as they tell them how to conduct their business. Of the two points above, the first--name calling--strikes me as the more rational argument.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

pcunite said:


> No, and thankfully have never been in a situation where I needed to point it at a person.
> 
> 
> David Reeves said:
> ...


I don't think you understand what "puritan" means, David Reeves, if you think the fact that pcunite has never fired a gun in anger, and is thankful about that, means he is one.

That being said, in general, I disagree with pcunite's opinion regarding the ads. I have no problem with any ad I've ever seen here.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

As long as pornography sites advertise waistcoats and plus-fours in their ad-space I suppose I have no objection. Until then I'd just ask that these ads be isolated to the Fashion Forum with the rest of the vulgarity.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

camorristi said:


> Please keep this forum "classy" and "trad". Thank you!


Personally, I find words like "trad" to be more disturbing than the ads in question, or the image of the woman with the snake.

Now just out of curiosity, camorristi, after you learned that the woman/snake photo was taken by a respected photographer who "did many Vogue covers and won awards and was considered one of America's best photographers", did your opinion of the photo change at all? I didn't mind the photo to begin with, but that knowledge would not have changed my opinion. I never switched from hating to loving something after I found out that the person responsible was famous or respected.


----------



## snakeroot (Aug 30, 2008)

Hi, I'm from the Trad Forum. You're currently running an ad for TS Lewin which contains clearly visible shoulder padding, lubricious waist suppression, darts and even a ticket pocket. 

I demand this filth be removed at once!!!!!

Regards,


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

PedanticTurkey said:


> You can argue about how things should be until the cows come home, but on the more objective standard of how things _are_, those ads are inappropriate. Whether the medium is print, television, or even internet, you'd have a hard time finding anybody in the mainstream that would run them.


The standard of "how things are" and whether or not something is "inappropriate" are opinions, and as such, are not objective at all. They are subjective. It is your _opinion_ that the ads are inappropriate. There is no objective measurement you can apply that rates the ads "inappropriate" on some graduated scale.

And as for what advertisers can get away with in mainstream ads, look at some of the ads and commercials for Axe bodywash for men.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

This entire situation could be easily solved by the following means. First, I presume that since the ads appear randomly, there is a list somewhere of ads to display, and the message board software randomly chooses one from the list to display. The solution would be to create two separate lists. Then, put a user-settable option in the User Control Panel, something to the effect of displaying all ads, or only "Safe for Work" ads. Then, depending on that setting, the vBulletin template that displays the page would use one list or the other accordingly.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

Maybe just a slider control where you can set your level of advertising smut.

And I wouldn't call Axe Body Wash ads to your defense. The point of coming here is to hold one's self to a higher standard than a horny 14 year old.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Trip English said:


> Maybe just a slider control where you can set your level of advertising smut.
> 
> And I wouldn't call Axe Body Wash ads to your defense. The point of coming here is to hold one's self to a higher standard than a horny 14 year old.


My statement about the switch is based on my experience as a former writer of modifications for vBulletin software. The slider concept, while cute, would be much more difficult to implement than what I proposed.

As for the Axe ads, I wasn't calling them to my defense. That comment was made in rebuttal to what I quoted from PedanticTurkey, who effectively stated that one would have a hard time finding someone in the mainstream media who would run ads like the ones being questioned here. In bringing up the Axe ads, I was pointing out that his statement is, in fact, wrong.

If you want to argue holding one's self to a higher standard, fine, go ahead and argue for that. But do so accurately and without resorting to ridiculous, erroneous, and easily-disproven claims. Don't try to claim that what is or isn't appropriate is an objective standard; appropriateness is subjective opinion. And don't claim that you can't find stuff like this in mainstream media, because it took me all of one second to think of just the Axe ads to disprove that claim.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

JJR512 said:


> The standard of "how things are" and whether or not something is "inappropriate" are opinions, and as such, are not objective at all. They are subjective. It is your _opinion_ that the ads are inappropriate. There is no objective measurement you can apply that rates the ads "inappropriate" on some graduated scale.
> 
> And as for what advertisers can get away with in mainstream ads, look at some of the ads and commercials for Axe bodywash for men.


That's just nonsense. It's not "subjective" to say that you don't see women in sheer underwear in mainstream advertising. It's a statement of fact -- a provable true or false assertion -- pretty much the opposite of subjective. And I watched a couple of those axe body wash commercials -- didn't see any nipples.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

PedanticTurkey said:


> That's just nonsense. It's not "subjective" to say that you don't see women in sheer underwear in mainstream advertising. It's a statement of fact -- a provable true or false assertion -- pretty much the opposite of subjective. And I watched a couple of those axe body wash commercials -- didn't see any nipples.


Please re-read what I wrote and think about it again (spend an extra few minutes on that step this time around). I never said that whether you do or don't see women in sheer underwear in mainstream advertising is subjective. What I actually said is that determining whether something is appropriate or not cannot be objectively determined. It is a subjective matter. Appropriateness is not measured by how many other similar ads exist, or don't exist.

Even a statement like "you don't see women in sheer underwear in mainstream advertising" isn't entirely a factual statement. Maybe _you_ don't see it; that doesn't mean that _nobody_ sees it. What is sheer? As an adjective related to textiles, the OED says it means, "Thin, fine, diaphanous." What is "thin", what thickness is the cutoff between thick and thin? It's not defined, so it's subjective. What is "fine"? Again, subjective. What is "diaphanous"? Well, again going by the OED, that means, "Permitting the free passage of light and vision; perfectly transparent; pellucid." Are _most_ articles of clothing that are typically considered to be "sheer" perfectly transparent? Are any of the garments in any of these ads perfectly transparent? No, they're not. If they were, there would probably be more of an outcry regarding them than there is now, in fact. So to be *pedantic* about it, "sheer" doesn't even really apply. Finally, what is "mainstream advertising"? What is "mainstream" for that matter? Do you monitor all forms of what you personally consider to be mainstream? Do you monitor them 24/7? If you don't, how can you say what is or isn't seen there? Again, _you_ may have never seen something that can't be clearly defined, but that doesn't mean someone else hasn't.

About the Axe commercials, aside from the lack of any actual nudity, they can be considered to be borderline soft-core pornographic, with thinly-veiled hints of hard-core pornographic acts. All subjective opinion on my part, of course. And also in my opinion, some of those ads are _worse_ than any of the ads in question here, not based on how much of the body they reveal but on what acts are being suggested by the performances in the ads. Some of those ads I might agree are borderline inappropriate for prime time advertising on major broadcast networks.

But the ads that are in question here and now, on this website, with this audience, I don't have any problem with.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Smarmy ads for "E.D." pills run on virtually every NFL, MLB and PGA telecast, and nobody says nothin'. I have seen finger wagging, holier than thou discussions of performance enhancing drugs cut to a word from their sponsors, Viagra and Cialis.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

You're not pedantic; you're just wrong. Sheer underwear are transparent. You're doing the same thing the others in this thread have done--"what's transparent, it's not 100% see through, therefore it's not transparent." It's not just tedious, it's dishonest. Like I said, you can argue about what sheer "should" mean until you're blue in the face, it doesn't change the fact that no one would run those ads. They are, objectively speaking, out of the mainstream -- because they are inappropriate. It doesn't matter whether you think they should be or not.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

JJR512, two (million) wrongs don't make a right. That you can find sexual imagery in all ad mediums may prove one point by one poster incorrect, but doesn't put you on the right side of the issue. By throwing all the sex, violence, and vulgar language into every advertising endeavor just because it titillates the target in ways oblique to the intended effect, we're doing a disservice to all.

Those ads did not make me think that AK was selling a dynamite product. Though I've become aware of Mr. Kabbaz' reputation as a tailor little by little, I've found his professional reputation and the images in those ads completely at odds. Had I been exposed only to the ads I would have assumed he was a 30 year old talentless sleaze who had to resort to crotch shots and side-boobs to sell a shoddy product. He's clearly better than that, but judging just by those ads you'd never know it. 

My statement about a higher standard was simply that any frequent participant on these forums can probably rattle off their own mini mission statement about why they come here. It probably refers directly to self improvement. So it would be nice to have just one or two little places on the internet where I don't have to look at loose women clutching their chests. 

(And whoever made the point about Avedon, those pictures are no effing Avedons)


----------



## welldressedfellow (May 28, 2008)

Well as I start reading the page, I see an ad with a woman wearing a rather transparent tank top and nuttin' else. To quote Ranfield in "Dracula: Dead and Loving It" : "I didn't see anything, I didn't see anything." (A moment later): "I saw everything."


----------



## David Reeves (Dec 19, 2008)

JJR512 said:


> I don't think you understand what "puritan" means, David Reeves, if you think the fact that pcunite has never fired a gun in anger, and is thankful about that, means he is one.
> 
> That being said, in general, I disagree with pcunite's opinion regarding the ads. I have no problem with any ad I've ever seen here.


double entendre.


----------



## Freddy Vandecasteele (Oct 28, 2005)

Like it or not the advertisments are still there .
Nobody is forcing anyone to come to this forum,
If you don't like it leave it. There are many other.
I love it.
Freddy Vandecasteele


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

PedanticTurkey said:


> You're not pedantic; you're just wrong. Sheer underwear are transparent. You're doing the same thing the others in this thread have done--"what's transparent, it's not 100% see through, therefore it's not transparent." It's not just tedious, it's dishonest. Like I said, you can argue about what sheer "should" mean until you're blue in the face, it doesn't change the fact that no one would run those ads. They are, objectively speaking, out of the mainstream -- because they are inappropriate. It doesn't matter whether you think they should be or not.


The underwear in question are translucent, not transparent. I'm not arguing about what the word "sheer" _should_ mean; I _told_ you what it _does_ mean, according to the most respected dictionary of the English language in existence. As such, I consider the matter beyond dispute. You may feel free to waste your time by disputing it as much as you wish, of course, but such efforts will be quite futile on your part.

Your statement that nobody would run those ads is also quite wrong. Someone already is running those ads; that's what the original complaint was about. Best not to say that nobody would do something while in the middle of a conversation that got started on the basis of a complaint about someone doing that very something; tends to make you look foolish.

You are right about one (and only one) thing, though. The ads in question _are_ out of the mainstream. Your _reason_ behind that statement is wrong, though, even if it led you to the right conclusion. Being in the mainstream or not has to do with where they are placed, not whether or not they're inappropriate. They are out of the mainstream because where they are placed (AAAC) is not a mainstream website; it's a niche website, a specialty site. As such, the prudishness of the mainstream doesn't necessarily need to be applied.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Trip English said:


> JJR512, two (million) wrongs don't make a right. That you can find sexual imagery in all ad mediums may prove one point by one poster incorrect, but doesn't put you on the right side of the issue.


It's nice that two million wrongs don't make a right. It really is. I never said it did, though, so I have no idea why you're addressing these comments to me. If I didn't write it, then as far as you should be concerned, I didn't mean it. All I did was ask that the argument be debated on actual valid points. A claim so easily disproven isn't worth bringing into the argument. Anything else you got out of that is entirely your own creation.


----------



## Bartolo (Mar 2, 2009)

Trip English said:


> Maybe just a slider control where you can set your level of advertising smut.


I'm working on a version where the slider control varies the length, diameter and darkness of the nipples. I think that you guys will like it a lot.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Freddy Vandecasteele said:


> Like it or not the advertisments are still there .
> Nobody is forcing anyone to come to this forum,
> If you don't like it leave it. There are many other.
> I love it.
> Freddy Vandecasteele


Although I agree with your general opinion about the ads themselves, I don't feel that the "if you don't like it, go somewhere else" theory is the best way to manage a forum. The OP has a valid right to voice his concerns.


----------



## Mute (Apr 3, 2005)

Much ado about nothing. This is a *men's* forum, not a namby pamby forum.


----------



## Bartolo (Mar 2, 2009)

Mute said:


> Much ado about nothing. This is a *misogynistic men's* forum, not a namby pamby forum.


fify.


----------



## blue suede shoes (Mar 22, 2010)

Bartolo said:


> I'm working on a version where the slider control varies the length, diameter and darkness of the nipples. I think that you guys will like it a lot.


Can you invent one that makes her boobs smaller or larger? I would like that very much. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

JJR512 said:


> The underwear in question are translucent, not transparent. I'm not arguing about what the word "sheer" _should_ mean; I _told_ you what it _does_ mean, according to the most respected dictionary of the English language in existence. As such, I consider the matter beyond dispute. You may feel free to waste your time by disputing it as much as you wish, of course, but such efforts will be quite futile on your part.


"Transparent," "translucent" and "sheer" are words that are used to describe various points on a continuum of opacity. To properly use the words you need _context_, and that ain't in your dictionary. Well, it might actually be--look it up before you post again. Context includes the relative baseline -- what you're comparing it to, i.e., what you're talking about. Suffice to say with underwear the baselines aren't lead and glass. So stop waiving that dictionary around purporting to correct me. Just give me a break.



> Your statement that nobody would run those ads is also quite wrong.


Is it, really? I still haven't seen any nipples.



> Someone already is running those ads; that's what the original complaint was about. Best not to say that nobody would do something while in the middle of a conversation that got started on the basis of a complaint about someone doing that very something; tends to make you look foolish.


That's really clever. Well, not really. It's just annoying.



> You are right about one (and only one) thing, though. The ads in question _are_ out of the mainstream. Your _reason_ behind that statement is wrong, though, even if it led you to the right conclusion. Being in the mainstream or not has to do with where they are placed, not whether or not they're inappropriate. They are out of the mainstream because where they are placed (AAAC) is not a mainstream website; it's a niche website, a specialty site. As such, the prudishness of the mainstream doesn't necessarily need to be applied.


There's a non-sequitur if I've ever seen one. Though I'll give you that -- there are a few niches where they run ads with nipples. Just a few, though. One more time: nobody else would run these ads. It's a pretty hard fact to confront, so I see why you're trying to change the subject with all this nonsense.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

JJR512 said:


> It's nice that two million wrongs don't make a right. It really is. I never said it did, though, so I have no idea why you're addressing these comments to me. If I didn't write it, then as far as you should be concerned, I didn't mean it. All I did was ask that the argument be debated on actual valid points. A claim so easily disproven isn't worth bringing into the argument. Anything else you got out of that is entirely your own creation.


I'm confused then. So you're not arguing any particular point, just nitpicking posts? God I'd rather look at privates.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Is it, really? I still haven't seen any nipples.


There are nipples visible in the ads here, which is what the OP is complaining about. The ads here are what I was referring to, which you should have been able to tell by the-can you guess which word I'm about to write next?-*context* of the rest of the paragraph. I guess you were so concerned about context when writing your previous ridiculous paragraph that you totally forgot about it this time.

I guess that's about enough time wasted on you. If you need further clarification of anything I've said, consult a kindergarten teacher. Heck, even a kindergarten student should suffice.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Trip English said:


> I'm confused then. So you're not arguing any particular point, just nitpicking posts? God I'd rather look at privates.


I've already made my opinion on the matter known. Debating sometimes includes refuting or disproving points made by the other side.


----------



## Freddy Vandecasteele (Oct 28, 2005)

Of course any body as right to object
What people do not realise is this is a business.
Who host this forum, no ads no forum.
Nothing is free on the internet,
You want some free advise on clothing you have to look on some ads

The guy who started this as a problem
I just love to meet one of this girls.
Freddy Vandecasteele


----------



## Mr. Mac (Mar 14, 2008)

Still going on this one, eh?


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

JJR512 said:


> I guess that's about enough time wasted on you. If you need further clarification of anything I've said, consult a kindergarten teacher. Heck, even a kindergarten student should suffice.


Nice use of the Greco-Roman tradition of argumentation. I'm immediately reminded of Aristotle's _Ars Rhetorica_ x.14.3: "when all else fails to persuade, condescension will win the opponent over."

Well, ok. That isn't an exact quotation.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I'm currently debating in my head whether to take this thread into the Interchange or not.

I'll sleep on it.


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

*For the love of God, please guard your eyes*

You'd best move it to the Interchange or maybe delete it all lest people be exposed to filth like this










To prevent this I suggest all the people that object to the banner ads take up a collection and run a banner ad something to their own liking-like Mennonite formal wear or some such. Ads pay for the forum and I'm sure the people who want to remove the ads, are willing to finance the loss of revenue. :icon_smile:


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

beherethen said:


> To prevent this I suggest all the people that object to the banner ads take up a collection and run a banner ad something to their own liking-like Mennonite formal wear or some such. Ads pay for the forum and I'm sure the people who want to remove the ads, are willing to finance the loss of revenue. :icon_smile:


In response to comments like this as well as what was similarly, though much less coherently, said by Freddy Vandecasteele, I feel compelled to point out that nobody is suggesting a removal of all advertisements. Oh, I'm sure that most of us, possibly all of us, would prefer a completely ad-free environment, but my interpretation of the OP's complaint, and of those who agreed with him, was just that they would prefer to see _different_ ads. In other words, having ads is fine, as long as there is no partial nudity or scantily-clad women. I think everyone understands that ads generate the funds required to operate this website.


----------



## Mute (Apr 3, 2005)

Bartolo said:


> fify.


So you've been brainwashed by the feminazis as well I see. Have fun in namby pamby land where naked or near naked woman are verboten.


----------



## joenobody0 (Jun 30, 2009)

Mute said:


> So you've been brainwashed by the feminazis as well I see. Have fun in namby pamby land where naked or near naked woman are verboten.


At least you didn't imply he was gay. This topic is really bringing out the "inner jerk" of this forum.


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

I don't have a real strong opinion on the ads one way or the other.

If there's anything on this site that would make me strongly not want to visit it... it's this thread.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

joenobody0 said:


> This topic is really bringing out the "inner jerk" of this forum.


No, Joe, not so.

This thread is the best. All my favorites are here. Almost everybody I ever wanna read has showed up. Even I'm here. This is great. I love stuff like this.


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC (Sep 21, 2007)

joenobody0 said:


> At least you didn't imply he was gay. This topic is really bringing out the "inner jerk" of this forum.


Bring out the inner jerk? That sounds _awfully_ kinky and is something that probably needs to be censored.


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

JJR512 said:


> In other words, having ads is fine, as long as there is no partial nudity or scantily-clad women. I think everyone understands that ads generate the funds required to operate this website.


I was going to respond with the only person who uses the phrase "scantily-clad women" is Mr Burns from the Simpson's. I then thought maybe I was being too hasty (as is sometimes my want), so I did a web search on the phrase and learned that scantily-clad women cause earthquakes and we certainly can't have that.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...en-cause-earthquakes-Iranian-cleric-says.html


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

*Not So Fast*

Further evidence about scantily-clad women resulted in "Boob Quake", which calls into question the cause and effect relationship of scantily clad women and earthquakes. Sorry you have to watch an AE ad to see the Boob Quake video.
I suppose such ads are a necessary evil.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

beherethen said:


> Further evidence about scantily-clad women resulted in "Boob Quake", which calls into question the cause and effect relationship of scantily clad women and earthquakes.


Those chicks just weren't good looking or scantily clad enough, obviously.

I would suggest moving the experiment to Night Shift in Baltimore, MD!!


----------



## OldSchoolCharm (Apr 12, 2010)

I would have replied sooner, but I stopped comming to the forums once the ad's of the underwear went up. I am not a prude, and I decided that I did not want to read the forums while those pictures were up. I did not want to look at a guy in underwear while reading a thread about brook brothers. It lacks class.


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

OldSchoolCharm said:


> I would have replied sooner, but I stopped comming to the forums once the ad's of the underwear went up. I am not a prude, and I decided that I did not want to read the forums while those pictures were up. I did not want to look at a guy in underwear while reading a thread about brook brothers. It lacks class.


So you stopped coming (spelled with one m) to the forums and then magically discovered this thread, without coming to the forum. Sounds like an act of divine intervention. :icon_smile:

The following is offered without comment or editing

Nothing sums up the Victorians' freakish attitudes on sex as the notion that they were aroused by cabinetry. The author Matthew Sweet has shown that this fanciful story actually began with an English tourist in the United States. In 1837, a pompous Captain Frederick Marryat visited a seminary for young ladies in Niagara Falls, where he was astonished to discover the piano legs sheathed in "modest little trousers." These covers, a local guide confided, were necessary to preserve the "utmost purity of ideas" amongst the impressionable young girls. On another occasion, a Yankee girl told Marryat that even _saying_ the word leg was considered too risqué in America; "limb" was preferred at a pinch. Captain Marryat dutifully recorded these factoids in _A Diary in America_.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

beherethen said:


> On another occasion, a Yankee girl told Marryat that even _saying_ the word leg was considered too risqué in America; "limb" was preferred at a pinch. Captain Marryat dutifully recorded these factoids in _A Diary in America_.


WC Fields must have read that for some of his material!!


----------



## FrontHeadlock (Dec 1, 2009)

Lol, this thread is awesome.


----------



## cdavant (Aug 28, 2005)

I'm not sure progress is made by going from soft porn to shoe (and sock) porn. I suspect some viewers will be offended by the fact that some of the socks are blends--something not quite kosher there... and the socks leave a lot of knee exposed. I'm a doctor, so I am used to seeing knees uncovered but they may be more than some can stand.


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

cdavant said:


> I'm not sure progress is made by going from soft porn to shoe (and sock) porn. I suspect some viewers will be offended by the fact that some of the socks are blends--something not quite kosher there... and the socks leave a lot of knee exposed. I'm a doctor, so I am used to seeing knees uncovered but they may be more than some can stand.


This is a very real concern as demonstrated by


----------



## Mute (Apr 3, 2005)

cdavant said:


> I'm not sure progress is made by going from soft porn to shoe (and sock) porn. I suspect some viewers will be offended by the fact that some of the socks are blends--something not quite kosher there... and the socks leave a lot of knee exposed. I'm a doctor, so I am used to seeing knees uncovered but they may be more than some can stand.


No....I'm pretty sure the problem is the gratuitous display of tweed.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Those chicks just weren't good looking or scantily clad enough, obviously.
> 
> I would suggest moving the experiment to Night Shift in Baltimore, MD!!


That place is the only place of its kind to which I have ever been. Although I can't compare it to other similar places, I can say I very much enjoyed the time I spent there. They played good rock music, not dance or club music. And the female staff were generally impressive. They didn't look like sluts or crack-whores, and for the most part, they didn't look overly fake or seem like they were trying to be super-glamorous or anything.

However, it was the early/mid 1990s when I was there last, so I have no idea what it's like now...I would have no objection to going back and checking up on the place, though!


----------



## Finian McLonergan (Sep 23, 2009)

With any luck, this thread will alert surfers to the availablilty of Adblock Plus, a superb free browser extension which you can use to selectively eliminate advertisements.

Just install, right-click on the offending ad, and you'll never see ads from the site that served them again. Even better, subscribe to easylist, and remove all ads from English websites, period. Flashblock is another invaluable free add-on that nixes all Flash-based ads.

If this thread stimulates you learn how to eliminate ads from your surfing experience, whether selectively or globally, then it will have served its purpose.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

I doubt anyone disagrees that the ads are "risque" at a minimum. Being risque, they border the not safe for work or public viewing. That is the root of the complaint.

The ads however are a necessary piece to keep the site running. They are not explicit, and they generate revenue.

Placement of the ads is really the issue.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

JJR512 said:


> ...and for the most part, they didn't look overly fake or seem like they were trying to be super-glamorous or anything.


That would be a tricky look to pull off wearing only shoes!!


----------



## ashie259 (Aug 25, 2005)

I don't have any objection to the ads, nor do I think they detract in any way from the authority of the site. Actually I'm amazed that anyone would get their knickers (sorry) in a twist about something so... tame.


----------



## El_Abogado (Apr 21, 2009)

pcunite said:


> One more thought I would like to convey. A nude woman's body is very special and an extremely powerful thing. It is like a loaded gun.


Awesome. Maybe you need to work on trigger control, or something.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> That would be a tricky look to pull off wearing only shoes!!


Well, I meant with makeup and hair-dos, really. Also, I don't like the "wearing only shoes" look...never did anything for me. I don't recall if they were wearing any footwear, though, but that was many years ago that I was there last.


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> I doubt anyone disagrees that the ads are "risque" at a minimum.


*I doubt it* and I don't think the term "risque" (even if it's still in use outside this thread) as a pejorative term. BTW for those who find them "risque" and offensive, according to Answers.com the correct name for phobia of underwear is snickophobia. This will give your therapist somewhere to start. :icon_smile:


----------



## David_E (Apr 18, 2010)

There is nothing in the slightest vulgar about the adds. I say keep the adds and lose that holier-than-thou attitudes.

There is nothing wrong with the partially or wholly nude human body if presented in an artistic fashion.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

beherethen said:


> phobia of underwear is snickophobia.


I only suffer from skid mark snickophobia!!


----------



## Bartolo (Mar 2, 2009)

Is AAAC a "family-friendly" site? I appreciate that the 'can I view it at work' standard brings into question whether the workplace is a proper place to view any non-work-related content.

But what about the gent sitting in the living room of the family home, while the children are around. Certainly there is much internet content that is "family friendly." Where does AAAC aim to be on this scale?


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Woulda, your Baltimore comment set off a reverie about the seedy bars of Baltimore Street, back in the day, and The Gayety. I remember the characters who sat in the balcony with newspapers on their laps being referred to as "the gentlemen of the press."


----------



## 1400pennave (May 23, 2009)

Since when was the word "gentleman" synonymous with "wussie"? Is the human body not created by the God we all celebrate? Are we saying that he is imperfect? How dare you?


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

While I agree with you, unfortunately we have to deal with others' opinions.  I would hesitate to say that a gentleman is not one simply because he doesn't share yours.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

The Rambler said:


> Woulda, your Baltimore comment set off a reverie about the seedy bars of Baltimore Street, back in the day, and The Gayety. I remember the characters who sat in the balcony with newspapers on their laps being referred to as "the gentlemen of the press."


I thought I saw this fall out of your pocket...


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

This thread has the taint of the book burning book banning citizens of the fanatical religious right saving our children from the decadence or moral turpitude of Catcher in the Rye and To Kill a Mockingbird... 

....oh yes- and the taint of fascists that attack anyone with a different opinion. (thanks Joe.:icon_smile_wink


:devil:


----------



## joenobody0 (Jun 30, 2009)

blairrob said:


> This thread has the taint of the book burning book banning citizens of the religious right saving our children from the decadence or moral turpitude of Catcher in the Rye and To Kill a Mockingbird.


It also has the taint of fascists that attack anyone with a differing opinion.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

beherethen said:


> I think the KKK had such outfits but they were mainly white and what would you wear after Labor Day?:icon_smile:


Such rules are generally relaxed in the South due to the warmer climate sometimes exacerbated by standing nearer smoldering embers.


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Such rules are generally relaxed in the South due to the warmer climate sometimes exacerbated by standing nearer smoldering embers.


It is precisely such relaxation that has led to our current moral abyss. It starts with underwear ads and people relaxing their standards near the burning cross and ends Sodom & Gomorrah. There is much trouble here in River City.:devil:


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

1400pennave said:


> Is the human body not created by the God we all celebrate?


In my belief, no, it isn't. The human body is something that evolved into its present form naturally. So be careful with your use of the word "all". I may not share the same religious beliefs that you do, but I am still a person. And since I also happen to agree with your apparent opinion on the issue this thread is about, you might not want to be so quick to alienate me.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

I shed a small tear when I realized that I had not contributed to this fine thread. Panties, Jesus, and camorristi suspended (did that happen here?)! Has anyone been called a Nazi yet?

And now I have to look at thin, unshaven men from "Smart Turnout."


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC (Sep 21, 2007)

Pentheos said:


> I shed a small tear when I realized that I had not contributed to this fine thread. Panties, Jesus, and camorristi suspended (did that happen here?)!


I too am wondering about the suspension of Mr. Cam......


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

PatentLawyerNYC said:


> I guess we better have the PC police scrub the whole site to make sure that there's nothing that might possibly offend anyone. All that will be left will be a blank screen, but at least we can be sure that no one will be offended.


Well said sir.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

The ads never bothered me at all. I'm a man so looking at beautiful women is natural and a pleasure. The PC police on crusade again is it?

Blimey!


----------



## McKay (Jun 13, 2005)

I think there is distinction to be made among people who are sensitive about maintaining decorum, people who don't want to be seen looking at pictures of mostly-naked women on the Web, and those unfortunate souls who have succumbed to political correctness. The last-named group don't seem to be the ones opposing the ads.


----------



## jimmyfingers (Sep 14, 2010)

David_E said:


> There is nothing in the slightest vulgar about the adds. I say keep the adds and lose that holier-than-thou attitudes.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with the partially or wholly nude human body if presented in an artistic fashion.


Nicely put +1


----------



## Mr. Mac (Mar 14, 2008)

STILL going on this one, eh?


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

I think it's interesting that there's a prevailing opinion among some that _any_ aversion in _any_ scenario to viewing partial female nudity is prudish.


----------



## McKay (Jun 13, 2005)

Trip English said:


> I think it's interesting that there's a prevailing opinion among some that _any_ aversion in _any_ scenario to viewing partial female nudity is prudish.


That's the direction I was going. It's possible to dislike the ads on some other basis that political correctness or prudishness.


----------



## Jake Genezen (May 27, 2010)

McKay said:


> I think there is distinction to be made among people who are sensitive about maintaining decorum, people who don't want to be seen looking at pictures of mostly-naked women on the Web, and those unfortunate souls who have succumbed to political correctness. The last-named group don't seem to be the ones opposing the ads.


A good point. 

[_aside_]I have to note, too, that 'political correctness' was in fact engineered by the political right as a straw man. They blamed the political left for it, and then continually blew wind at the straw man - much in the same way that the public do. It helps the political right to usher in dubious policies that discriminate against minorities and the oppressed (it happening in the UK presently under David Cameron). And if anyone kicks up a fuss, they get slammed for being in the 'politically correct' brigade.


----------



## El_Abogado (Apr 21, 2009)

Jake Genezen said:


> A good point.
> 
> I have to note, too, that 'political correctness' was in fact engineered by the political right as a straw man. They blamed the political left for it, and then continually blew wind at the straw man - much in the same way that the public do. It helps the political right to usher in dubious policies that discriminate against minorities and the oppressed (it happening in the UK presently under David Cameron). And if anyone kicks up a fuss, they get slammed for being in the 'politically correct' brigade.


That's "straw person". We don't appreciate your phallocentric approach, which afterall was responsible for the adverts that brought out courageous members (no pun intended) to valiently protest the objectification of womyn. If you truly were concerned about the plight of the oppressed and the war that white European males have waged successfully to keep down womyn, people of colour, and those who are differently styled, you would immediately apologize to all here.

In all seriousness, your post is irrelevant and stupid. Bringing in David Cameron and conservatism into a thread about whether or not to show adverstisements of women in various stages of dress, or undress, adds nothing to the discussion save demonstrating what a boor you are. Bravo, bravo!


----------



## Jake Genezen (May 27, 2010)

El_Abogado said:


> In all seriousness, your post is irrelevant and stupid. Bringing in David Cameron and conservatism into a thread about whether or not to show adverstisements of women in various stages of dress, or undress, adds nothing to the discussion save demonstrating what a boor you are. Bravo, bravo!


Yes, you're right that it is irrelevant - but so have the majority of the posts to some degree. In saying that, I do think some of the sentiments have been interesting in one way or another. 

The reason I mentioned (the origin of) political correctness is because this thread has illustrated how political correctness is used as a red herring; my reference to PM Cameron serves to illustrate the real effects of such use in a wider context. I should have put an [_aside_].

Has anyone seen the suits of the leader of the opposition, Ed Miliband? He reveals about 3 inches of shirt cuff ...


----------



## Mute (Apr 3, 2005)

Who gives a crap about PC? I'm just sick and tired of having everything we can or cannot say/do/read being dictated by the most over-sensitive and easily offended people. You don't like what you see? Don't freaking look at it! Suck it up.


----------



## Jake Genezen (May 27, 2010)

Mute said:


> Who gives a crap about PC? I'm just sick and tired of having everything we can or cannot say/do/read being dictated by the most over-sensitive and easily offended people. You don't like what you see? Don't freaking look at it! Suck it up.


That's the whole point of 'political correctness' and why it was engineered: it's a political 'troll', a straw man (sorry, 'person'). If you try to highlight some genuine discrimination the reply is similar to the sentiment quoted above - or it gets sidetracked onto the whole issue of political correctness, which is precisely what has happened in this thread (way before I mentioned it).


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

*Good Bye*

This is my last post on AA. I'm sick of the prudery and PC. I'll never visit this forum again. I wish you all have fun trying to mimic the 19th century.


----------



## jhcam8 (Aug 26, 2008)

I personally didn't object, but now that you brought it up it was distracting and I think that it did bother me on some level. Kudos to Andy for a prompt fix.


----------



## Tim Correll (Jul 18, 2005)

Mr. Mac said:


> STILL going on this one, eh?


+ 1

As pathetic and sad and even embarrassing as it is (which is to say, significantly so), some topics are bound to be horribly over-discussed, unfortunately.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Paraphrasing (badly I fear) the late, great Winston Churchill, "Never have so many, demonstrated so clearly...we need to get a life; we really need to get a life!"


----------



## 1400pennave (May 23, 2009)

You are definitely correct. I should have never made the assumption of "all" people believing in GOD. My argument is that if we are born naked then what are we ashamed of? Is creation/evolution somehow flawed?


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

1400pennave said:


> You are definitely correct. I should have never made the assumption of "all" people believing in GOD. My argument is that if we are born naked then what are we ashamed of? Is creation/evolution somehow flawed?


Reminds me of a conversation I once had with a co-worker, who had said he didn't like pierced ears. He said that if God had intended for us to have pierced ears, we would have been born with pierced ears, but since we're not born like that, modifying our bodies to suit our whims was in defiance of God. To all this, I replied, "Well, if God wanted us to wear clothes, we would have been born dressed!"

Seriously, though, I agree with your argument and see the point of your question. I think that might be one area that religion answers better than science, though. From what I recall of the Bible, Adam & Eve went around naked and thought nothing of it, until the Apple Incident for which one of the punishments is that God gave them modesty. So that's the religious explanation, I'm not sure what the scientific one is. If I had to guess, it'd be that since wearing clothes (simple animal skin wraps) was often necessary for practical reasons, it became unusual for a person to be undressed, and _unusual_ came to become taboo. But that's just an off-the-cuff hypothesis and doesn't really address why it's not taboo for the non-sexual areas of the body to be uncovered in certain public situations (beaches).


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

^^^^
Damn Taboos! Maybe some of us want to go naked once in a while.:devil::crazy::biggrin2:


----------



## Racer (Apr 16, 2010)

ZachGranstrom said:


> ^^^^
> Damn Taboos! Maybe some of us want to go naked once in a while.:devil::crazy::biggrin2:


Visit Sea-Tac and go through one of their full body scanners. You can be naked without taking your clothes off.


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

Racer said:


> Visit Sea-Tac and go through one of their full body scanners. You can be naked without taking your clothes off.


Wow......They have the full-body scanners now. Cool!(Jumps in car to go to Sea-Tac)


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Racer said:


> Visit Sea-Tac and go through one of their full body scanners. You can be naked without taking your clothes off.


LOL. Not wait just a darn minute, fella. Those scanners were not put there to provide for your entertainment. They were put there for the scanner operator's entertainment!  It would perhaps be entertaining for an exhibitionist going through the scanners but, that's a whole other thread...probably located in another of the sub-fora, the Interchange perhaps? :crazy:


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

^^^
Yeah, I think they have their own group. Right next to the sock garter crowd.


----------



## SueST (Jul 23, 2010)

Pentheos said:


> I shed a small tear when I realized that I had not contributed to this fine thread. Panties, Jesus, and camorristi suspended (did that happen here?)! Has anyone been called a Nazi yet?
> 
> And now I have to look at thin, unshaven men from "Smart Turnout."


As a Smart Turnout employee who was on the brochure shoot - I can assure you both models are in fact cleanly shaven sir... and if you think they are thin - you should have seen some of the other men at casting 

I'll let you get back to discussing nudity now gentlemen - always a pleasure.

Sue


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

I haven't been around much, but it's not because of the soft-porn hosiery ads.

The ads aren't "offensive." They're showing articles of clothing being worn by models. If I were to buy a garment for myself or for a lady, I would want to know just how transparent it is. I once bought a yellow linen shirt that so clearly showed my chest hair that a co-worker said she thought I was wearing a brown undershirt.

The ads are "not safe for work." They attract unwanted attention from co-workers and managers who assume that the text on the web site is of a similar nature to the pictures.

I recently provided someone the link for the web site of Kiki de Montparnasse, which sells not only revealing lingerie but actual sex toys. Needless to say I didn't even do the search to locate the exact address at my office.


----------



## coltboy75 (Nov 11, 2009)

I do not like the ads running on the right side of the page. They do not fit the spirit of the forum.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

I've never considered the ads to be offensive or distasteful. As a matter of fact, I found some of the pictures pleasing. However, if the majority of AAAC members have a problem with it and Andy and his sponsors don't mind toning things down, that's fine with me too.


----------



## BespokeMex (Nov 13, 2010)

coltboy75 said:


> I do not like the ads running on the right side of the page. They do not fit the spirit of the forum.


What spirit is that?


----------



## David Reeves (Dec 19, 2008)

when your David Reeves you have no fear of body scans.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

coltboy75 said:


> I do not like the ads running on the right side of the page. They do not fit the spirit of the forum.


What would you like to see there? Remember AAAC is a free ad supported forum.

All the ads I see on the right side of the AAAC forum pages are mostly for clothing and clothing accessories...things like Brooks Brothers, Hanger Project, Smart Turnout and Astor and Black. IMO they fit in very well with the spirit and feel of the forum. Certainly much better than the usual generic 'Ads by Google' for Chinese stuff, I normally see on many forums.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
LOL. Well, since you asked I rather miss the gals, giving themselves a self-study in the floor length mirror! They rather dressed up the place, methinks...say wot!


----------

