On two separate treks into Manhattan, I came across two AX stores that had questionable window displays.
The first store, which is right across the street from St. Patrick's Cathedral, had posters of half naked couples. Not only are the photos suggestive, some had undertones of homosexuality as well. These posters are large and clearly visible to children, churchgoers, and tourists leaving St. Patrick's Cathedral.
I came across the second store this past weekend while riding the "express" bus back to Staten Island. In that store's window display were three male models - with chiseled physiques - wearing nothing but underwear, apparently part of AX's underwear campaign. Not unexpectedly, a large crowd had formed outside of the windows.
It's interesting to see that AX finds their window displays to be appropriate and inoffensive.
Yet, this begs the question, if this is appropriate, is this dress code acceptable at their corporate headquarters? Do vice presidents at AX come to work in nothing but underwear? Do couples frolic in their cubicles half naked? Do the board members of Giorgio Armini Group hold meetings in skivvies and bras?
To be fair, many corporations require their employees to wear formal business attire - so would showing up to Armani staff outings, picnics, family days in underwear be appropriate?
The answer to these questions is undoubtedly "no". So why do the directors of this chain feel it's appropriate to have such photos across the street from the symbolic center of the Catholic faith? Why is it appropriate to have men in underwear standing in store windows, for children to see?
One could argue "Well, when you go to the beach this is what you see" - but St. Patrick's isn't on the beach. And if I recall correctly, the other store I mention is on Broadway. Is it appropriate to simply wear underwear in public in NYC, or anywhere for that matter?
And why the chiseled models? Why not feature fat, hairy, balding old men? Why not feature half naked, extra large women in window displays? Or what about featuring suggestive photos of half naked middle aged couples, with fat bulges and all, in these displays?
I'm not here to argue the merits of modesty or what is inappropriate at the beach. But I do maintain that AX's displays and underwear campaign are unreasonable and offensive. After all, if it's unacceptable to wear nothing but underwear to work at Armani headquarters or staff functions, then it's unacceptable to feature such displays that the general public cannot easily avoid.
(Read the rest of this entry to view photos of the displays.)
I took some pictures of the displays with my iPhone. The image of the broadway store is a bit unclear so it's a bit hard to make out...
Across the street from Saint Patrick's Cathedral (one of several such displays):
Live underwear models at the Broadway store:
People can see mannequin's with all the genital detail of a barbie doll in their underwear? Oh no! This terrible sight will surely destroy the children, turning them into sex-crazed monsters!
Quick, fetch the tableleg covers!
Of course those models are going to be based on an attractive physique. Its called marketing. People are more likely to buy clothing they associate with the fit-and-attractive, not the overweight.
POLITICAL EYE RESPONDS:
What a knee jerk, MORONIC reaction. (Pun intended).
I'm just saying these window displays have gone too far.
I'm not sure about you, but most people aren't pysically attracted to manequins. Even so, the public shouldn't have to encounter sensual window displays. If a store wants a sensual display, why not simply keep it inside the store, and not in the window?
As I said, if walking around in underwear and cuddling half naked in cubes isn't acceptable at Armani's headquarters, than it's not acceptable to force it on the public either.
And I understand the marketing aspect - my point is that it's gone too far.
This comment has been edited - original is pasted below.
POLITICAL EYE RESPONDS:
>>Why not? Is a display suggestive of sexuality so dangerous that it must be hidden from public view? This isn't hardcore porn. Its manequins, positioned in the way that the store operator has decided will result in the highest sales.
First of all, I don't think you read my post.
I never raised an issue with manequins, so I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here, because it's not what I wrote about.
One store had window displays contain live models - men in underwear, and the other had larger than life, suggestive photos (quite a few, not just one) right across the street from Saint Pat's.
The point of the article was that these displays and the lack of clothing were not appropriate for general public viewing in Manhattan, nor for Armani's corporate headquarters.
In closing, instead of posting a knee jerk, moronic comment, try reading the post next time. I won't bother responding, since well, I don't want to spend all day on your comments..
-------------------------------------------------------------
SURICOU's original comment:
What a knee jerk, MORONIC reaction."
Interesting... other than capitalisation, is exactly how I might have described your post. Together with a reference to mountains and molehills.
"Even so, the public shouldn't have to encounter sensual window displays."
Why not? Is a display suggestive of sexuality so dangerous that it must be hidden from public view? This isn't hardcore porn. Its manequins, positioned in the way that the store operator has decided will result in
the highest sales. So, unless you can somehow produce an argument that the sight of scantily-clad giant dolls is capable of harming someone, you really have no grounds for complaint.
I can understand trying to hide sex from public view. I can understand hideing pictures of sex. But when it reaches the level of trying to hide manequins that happen to be positioned in slightly suggestive poses that
some people may associate with sex (And some more detail on these poses would be nice - would you mind taking some clear photos when you next pass
that way please?), its going too far.
Im not sure american readers will get the tableleg reference, but it comes from an old Victorian social code - their culture considered it a grave social crime to expose a womans legs, or even ankles, and so strict were
they in enforcing this that even the legs of tables, chairs and pianos were kept covered in some houses - lest the sight of furnature legs should cause the minds of males to wander towards the thought of women's legs and on to
matters sexual.
Abercrombie & Fitch tried something similar a few years back: making its catalog into softcore porn featuring underage, virtually naked men and women in all sorts of sexual-positions, homosexual and threesome suggestive poses. One had to buy that catalog, and many teens did.
...Till the uproar from parents and others came and they were forced to discontinue it.
Suricou, why do you continue to assume incorrect things and attack people here? Even I knew the "models" were live, or the poster would have said mannequins. At the very least, you could have asked for clarification before you rushed to ridicule.
You look rather foolish doing so. And you owe the poster an apology. You're clearly in favor of softcore porn in public, and you clearly just want to agitate here. What for, really? Does it give you satisfaction? A thrill? You give away that trollishness about yourself finally with the "And some more detail on these poses would be nice - would you mind taking some clear photos when you next pass that way please?"
Please, present yourself like a grown person (if you are one) and if you're here to learn, to have intelligent, respectful dialogue, stay, but if you continue to just act the way you've been acting, I for one, say it's close to the old saying, "DON'T FEED THE TROLLS."
There is currently a similar display plastering the streets of 72 and Broadway for an entire city block. It would be one thing if the image was in a magazine. But out on the street, so large, and literally impossible to ignore, it offends those with any sense of shame.
These photos are harmful to our society. Because they take something that should be private and make it such that we collectively start to see it as normal and pase. It is not normal. If we don't speak out against it we accept it as status quo and our collective decency slips just a tiny bit more.
WHAT CAN YOU DO?
If you agree with these sentiments, simply call 311 from inside NY, or 212-NEW-YORK and tell them you'd like to file a complaint about pornography plastered on 72 and Broadway intersection.
My mistake. I misunderstood the post, thats all - I dont know if it has been edited since then, but now I read again it seems more apparent that the reference is to suggestively posed posters rather than suggestively poses mannequins as I had thought.
The mistake might have something to do with me walking past a shop with mannequins in the window every week.
"You're clearly in favor of softcore porn in public, and you clearly just want to agitate here."
Im not in favour of it. Nor am I against it. Really, I think you are just over-reacting. A few suggestive photos are not going to harm anyone.
"These photos are harmful to our society. Because they take something that should be private and make it such that we collectively start to see it as normal and pase. It is not normal."
What is not normal? Sex? I would have thought sex to be very normal, the vast majority enjoy it at some point in their lives. Do you just want to keep it hidden away, and never publicly admitted to happen?
"(And some more detail on these poses would be nice - would you mind taking some clear photos when you next pass
that way please?)
This flippant suggestiveness surely paints you as one who's in favor of softcore porn in public. I daresay I was not the only one who thought so.
Nina already told you what is not normal: "Because they take something that should be private."
Read what people wrote, instead of making feeble attempts to be provocative again. Very cutesy, SR. You must be rather young to think this is a good use of your time.