MY friends said its true, sometime like last year, but I havent seen it or heard of it anywhere else.
Go type “abercrombie nudity” (without the quotes) into Google and you’ll get a bunch of sites about the nudity in question. Here is what one of them, smartgirl.com, had to say about it:
Welcome to the SDMB and thank you for bringing this to our attention. I will have to do further research into this issue to determine the nature and extent of the threat this poses to traditional family values.
There is another question here. I haven’t seen the more recent A&F mags but I have seen many others. I would not describe any of the models as being nude according to the generally agreed upon definition:
Many of the models are shirtless, some are pantsless (but have boxers or skivvies on). Are they nude? Is it possible to be partially nude? Isn’t that like being partially pregnant or partially decapitated?
And if it is possible to be partially nude, can we not reasonably translate that with not being fully dressed? If so, then what the hell does “not fully dressed” mean? That I’m wearing pants & shoes but no shirt? Or that I’m wearing a shirt & pants but no socks? Since when was that ever a crime?
Many of the photos I remember seeing in the A&F mag are of people playing vollyball, or frolicking at the beach. Do people really not expect to see scantily clad models in these pictures?
Wait… it’s those damn fundies again isn’t it? :mad:
When I hear the word “nudity” I think of “the exposure of any part of the body normally covered by the kinds of bathing suits most Americans wear in public.” So a shirtless man is not “nudity,” but a topless woman is. I think “partial nudity” is so vague as to be almost meaningless, though. On “NYPD Blue” they show people that are quite naked, but you can only see their butts, and they call it “partial nudity” in the pre-show warning. So maybe it means “you don’t see the genitalia.”
As for “not fully dressed,” I think it means either that you’re “nude” or “partially nude” as explained above, or that you’re in your underwear or a bathing suit.
Although I’m obviously making this up as I go along, if you need me to testify in front of the Supreme Court as a nudity expert, you know where to reach me.
AF sent me a catalogue a couple years ago that had a foldout of a bunch of guys running by, naked, really and truly naked, but holding a shirt or something in one hand blocking any full frontal shots. Rear shots were left unguarded. Never thought much of selling clothing by showing naked guys, but apparently it works. Actually, I’m wearing A&F pants right now, now that I think about it.
Incidentally, is it me, or do the A&F catalogues seem rather like soft-core gay porn at times? Is this a sign that society is becoming more open minded?
It’s not just you. I haven’t seen any of their catalogues, but if you do a web search on the subject you’ll find plenty of family-values types ranting and raving apoplectically about how A&F are forcing hard-core gay pornography on our teenagers, etc. I have no interest in gay pornography, but I’m glad if it pisses off the right wingers that much.
I recall when the controversy first started, the catalog had an article and a picture (partly clothed) of Jenna Jameson, the famous porn actress. That would tend to get people watching the catalog, for various reasons.