it said 'with the support of the store manager'. those were my feelings until reading that though.
Vicar pulls down Playboy stationery display
- Thread starter lucifers angel
- Start date
it said 'with the support of the store manager'. those were my feelings until reading that though.
if the owner of the store (or someone high enough up the chain if its somewhere like Big W) had disagreed with the products they wouldnt BE there. It said the ASSITANT store manager BTW so he should be charged just the same as the perp.
As for the Playboy bunny itself hell, it comes in 1 and 2 with elmo amongst popularity for P-platers (thanks for reminding me about that codanblad).
I wonder how many primary school kids could actually aford to PAY $50 for a pencil case (playboy is expencive, i know my partner loves them and anything with the bunny costs upwards of $50) so i highly doubt it was actually aimed at kids (and even if it was its a BUNNY FOR FUCK SAKE). More likly is that the sesimie street stuff (or whatever "cute" cartoon caricters they were) was being aimed at the 16+ market too
People really need to get over this fear of sex
As for the Playboy bunny itself hell, it comes in 1 and 2 with elmo amongst popularity for P-platers (thanks for reminding me about that codanblad).
I wonder how many primary school kids could actually aford to PAY $50 for a pencil case (playboy is expencive, i know my partner loves them and anything with the bunny costs upwards of $50) so i highly doubt it was actually aimed at kids (and even if it was its a BUNNY FOR FUCK SAKE). More likly is that the sesimie street stuff (or whatever "cute" cartoon caricters they were) was being aimed at the 16+ market too
People really need to get over this fear of sex
Bells
Staff member
You're missing an important point. Even the people at Playboy accept that the placement of the objects were inappropriate, nor did they authorise that they be placed in the children's aisle:
A spokesman for Playboy said: "We were surprised to discover that Playboy stationery has been so inappropriately positioned. Playboy's target audience is 18 to 34-year-olds so we clearly did not authorise or approve the placement of our product next to such well-known children's characters. We will be reviewing this situation immediately."
It was not marketed to or for little kids. The items are targeted at 18 - 34 year olds.
No one really cares how much the items cost and whether the little kids could even afford it. At the end of the day, everyone involved agreed that it should not have been placed in the children's section. It might be just a pink bunny, but what that pink bunny represents is not exactly appropriate for 5 to 12 year olds. Hence why Playboy magazines are never placed anywhere near the kids magazines in newsagents or bookstores.
no we shouldn't, some people have people to protect against sexual perversions, and sexual predators, like children,
To complete this image, he would have to be masturbating.
That's how I'll imagine him anyway.
I don't think children have the maturity or discipline to be sexual predators. Not successful ones anyway.
i meant the adults who are the sexual predators, sex is not a toy to ge what you want,
That's all they do. Porn. "The content on Playboy TV is more explicit than the soft core content of its magazine. Although initially broadcasting soft core programming (with any hardcore footage edited out) Playboy TV in recent years has begun showing sex acts including penetration, stopping short of any money shots." (Wikipedia)
Ah, but the cute little bunny! How can we have a problem with kids looking at the cute little bunny, so what if it's synonymous with some rather mechanical sex acts, and desensitizes kids to the dark side of the company?
Desensitizing your kids to the logo of a Porn company is good parenting? Does Porn discuss safe sex, show the risks of teen sex, disease, and pregnancy? No, it's idealised sex, and kids need to know the dangers, trying to make it all fluffy and acceptable and sticking it on a pencil case doesn't clean it up in actuality. Bunny logo = 70's sexism and hard core porn, it cannot be separated.
I don't invite people into my house, nor can they just wander in, so that idea is rather a straw man.
Public decency is something we should all uphold, and I have a problem with the amount of stuff kids get exposed to, so I fully support this guy. The playboy logo is synonymous with hardcore porn, and is not for kids. Playboy admitted that, but here you are championing something they admit is a mistake. Hell, maybe you know more than the owners of the company about how they market themselves, ....
DUH! Does porn give kids a good sexual education? Talk about the risks of disease, and pregnancy? No, it's idealised, often not respectful, and not for kids.
It's not about fear of sex, but fear that kids will accept Porno as reality, and not be fully aware of the responsibilities that come alongside sex.
We all like a good shag, but as adults we have to understand that once, we were kids, and unaware of such things, and when we were made aware, it shouldn't have been by watching some guy with a nine inch cock slamming it into a woman with fake tits while calling her a bitch. See the difference? That is what this logo symbolises, hard core porn, and pardon the pun, all that comes with it.
well phlogistician nothing could be worse than the idiocy that comes out of the churches and the idiotic "abstance league" ideals.
So how do we make sex an acceptable topic to discuss so we can actually HAVE the nessary discussions about sexual health?
Anything which undoes the stigma around sex is a good thing, thats why im a HUGE surporter of things like sexpo even if it is comertialised.
But thats beside the point (and this is to bells to).
The point is it is criminal damage and the idiot should be charged. If he wanted to protest he is well within his rights to stand OUTSIDE the store and shout that they are depraved or if the store management agreed he could stand INSIDE the store and protest but he CANT DAMAGE PROPERTY!!!!!
I was lissioning to bendon nelson putting his foot in his mouth again tonight but that doesnt give me the right to punch the idiot in the mouth. You should know that bells, he had no right to tare the display down no matter how many people agree with him.
Bells whats next?
Setting fire to sex stores because they "lead to abuse of kids"?????
Would you accept that?
How about burning down Mososcs because some muslims are MIGHT commit terioust acts?
Or burning down the vatican because there policies have caused 1000's to get aids in africa and asia?
Criminal law is there for a reason (in general anyway, i would never suggest that anti gay laws were good)
So how do we make sex an acceptable topic to discuss so we can actually HAVE the nessary discussions about sexual health?
Anything which undoes the stigma around sex is a good thing, thats why im a HUGE surporter of things like sexpo even if it is comertialised.
But thats beside the point (and this is to bells to).
The point is it is criminal damage and the idiot should be charged. If he wanted to protest he is well within his rights to stand OUTSIDE the store and shout that they are depraved or if the store management agreed he could stand INSIDE the store and protest but he CANT DAMAGE PROPERTY!!!!!
I was lissioning to bendon nelson putting his foot in his mouth again tonight but that doesnt give me the right to punch the idiot in the mouth. You should know that bells, he had no right to tare the display down no matter how many people agree with him.
Bells whats next?
Setting fire to sex stores because they "lead to abuse of kids"?????
Would you accept that?
How about burning down Mososcs because some muslims are MIGHT commit terioust acts?
Or burning down the vatican because there policies have caused 1000's to get aids in africa and asia?
Criminal law is there for a reason (in general anyway, i would never suggest that anti gay laws were good)
Do you mean 'abstinence'? And what has that got to do with this case? The guy reacted as a parent, not because of his faith. Please pay attention, oh, and learn to spell!
Do you think hardcore porn will ever be that medium, and fit for kids?
And porn referring to women as 'sluts' and 'bitches' is that thing which improves the public image of sex in your mind is it? There is no stigma around sex, btw, but rather more about how it is portrayed. Even hardcore christians like to fuck under the right circumstances.
Except both Playboy and the store admit the placement was wrong, and the store are not pressing charges, because they were in error.
He didnt destroy anything, but he threw some stuff off the display. Don't make this out to be more than it was.
Yes he did, and it would have been up to the courts, and a jury of his peers to decide if that action was justified or not. I think you'll find the public would have agreed with him, had it gone to court.
Last edited:
Bells
Staff member
How exactly does Playboy discuss or promote "sexual health"? Is it sexually healthy for young children to view their material and see men with digitally enhanced penises and women with over inflated boobs involved in a wide array of sex acts?
Of course. But even things like sexpo have an age limit on who can enter. I understand it is 18+? Why do you think that is Asguard?
You have again missed a vital portion of this story. Here it is again:
So, he decided to take a stand and threw the offending merchandise from shelves in the York branch of Stationery Box, after getting the full backing of the store manager.
The store manager knew he was going to do it and had given him the authority to protest in that manner.
Why didn't he have the right? It was his manner of protest and he had the full support of the store manager. The people at Playboy don't seem too upset by the manner in which he protested. Their reply to the controversy was to say the items should never have been placed in the kids section in the first place. They too thought it was "inappropriate" that they were placed next to kids items.
Aren't you taking this a little too far?
What does an adult's only sex store, that has limits on who can enter, have to do with this story?
You do realise that Playboy agreed the placement of those items were highly inappropriate. They aren't complaining that the Vicar pulled them down. They are complaining that it shouldn't have been there in the first place.
So please tell me, what does burning down houses of worship have to do with any of this? Do you think people will start acting like vigilantes and raze everything in their way? The Vicar in this case had a valid point. Even Playboy agreed with him that it was "inappropriate" for those items to have been there.
Yes, criminal laws are there for a valid reason. But the Vicar's actions were not criminal. He staged his particular protest with the full knowledge and understanding of the store manager. He didn't just walk in and start tearing those things off the shelf without anyone knowing he was going to do it. He approached the store manager first and after he got approval, he then staged his protest. So, what exactly is criminal about his actions?
Nice to see that some priests can come out from behind their cloistered walls to fight the corruption and moral decay that is rampant in society.
Bells was the store manager the store owner?
If he was and he agreed why didnt he just either move the stock, put it behind the counter or send it back to the manifacture as he saw fit?
maybe because no matter what his rank is (and as i said im sure it said ASSISTANT store manager) he didnt have that right. My brother is a store manager for Dick smiths, now if a coustomer says to him "i hate this brand of TV because they are SHIT and im going to smash them as a protest" and he says "go ahead i agree with you" do you think he is LEGALLY in the right? or is he as guilty of criminal damage as the guy who did it?
I can garentiee woolworths wouldnt accept there stock being destroyed phisophically, and nor would there shareholders because after all thats who owns the property. Not whoever is the store manager.
phlogistician you have just proven why i never want to go to whatever country you live in. Thats not justice thats mob rule, if a gay guy gets bashed and the jury happens to be full of fundimentilist christans do you think it would be JUSTICE for that guy to be aquited even though assult is against the law?
How about if after 11/9/01 if people had gone out and shot muslims in the US and the defence said "well you should aquit my cliants because they are just terrioust scum and should be shot"?
If he was and he agreed why didnt he just either move the stock, put it behind the counter or send it back to the manifacture as he saw fit?
maybe because no matter what his rank is (and as i said im sure it said ASSISTANT store manager) he didnt have that right. My brother is a store manager for Dick smiths, now if a coustomer says to him "i hate this brand of TV because they are SHIT and im going to smash them as a protest" and he says "go ahead i agree with you" do you think he is LEGALLY in the right? or is he as guilty of criminal damage as the guy who did it?
I can garentiee woolworths wouldnt accept there stock being destroyed phisophically, and nor would there shareholders because after all thats who owns the property. Not whoever is the store manager.
phlogistician you have just proven why i never want to go to whatever country you live in. Thats not justice thats mob rule, if a gay guy gets bashed and the jury happens to be full of fundimentilist christans do you think it would be JUSTICE for that guy to be aquited even though assult is against the law?
How about if after 11/9/01 if people had gone out and shot muslims in the US and the defence said "well you should aquit my cliants because they are just terrioust scum and should be shot"?
Bells
Staff member
He didn't destroy the stock. The threw them on the floor, away from the children's display area. And he did so with the full support of the store manager. He didn't set fire to them, stomp on them, break them, smash or damage them in anyway. The article states he simply threw them on the floor, away from the children's display area in the store. It was a protest and one that was allowed by the people who manage the store. If you have issues with how he did it, you are quite welcome to express your displeasure with the store owner or manager.
You are blowing this way out of proportion.
Bells for starters the second part of my post was aimed specifically at a comment by phlogistician about wether the guy would be found guilty if a case had procided. I was in no way comparing murder or assult to criminal damage.
As for the issue i have with the protest its not up to me to deal with any damage, loss or aditional expences (like the cost of paying the staff to clean up the mess that they would otherwise not have had to do). That is up to the store OWNER (or CEO and share holders if it was a listed company). My issue is with the atitudes right here in this thread and there are more risks associated with this sort of "protest" than wether a kid is going to mestake the playboy bunny for something apropriate to children
Say for instance that someone had sliped on one of the pens he threw on the floor, would he be willing to compansate that person? Say someone broke there NECK slipping on the pens, would he be willing to take a manslaughter conviction because of it?
Ok none of this happened but it could well happen next time. This is in NO WAY a good precedent to set for a sociaty. If you want to protest go ahead, stand on the street and get signitures, write to pollies, wave plackards, fill the whole of fed square (or where ever you are) with protestes against the "evil playboy empire" if you wish but do it in a way that doesnt potentually damage someone elses property or put lives at risk.
As for the issue i have with the protest its not up to me to deal with any damage, loss or aditional expences (like the cost of paying the staff to clean up the mess that they would otherwise not have had to do). That is up to the store OWNER (or CEO and share holders if it was a listed company). My issue is with the atitudes right here in this thread and there are more risks associated with this sort of "protest" than wether a kid is going to mestake the playboy bunny for something apropriate to children
Say for instance that someone had sliped on one of the pens he threw on the floor, would he be willing to compansate that person? Say someone broke there NECK slipping on the pens, would he be willing to take a manslaughter conviction because of it?
Ok none of this happened but it could well happen next time. This is in NO WAY a good precedent to set for a sociaty. If you want to protest go ahead, stand on the street and get signitures, write to pollies, wave plackards, fill the whole of fed square (or where ever you are) with protestes against the "evil playboy empire" if you wish but do it in a way that doesnt potentually damage someone elses property or put lives at risk.