I refer you again to the title of this thread.
So half of the OP’s complaint is daft, and the other half got resolved as the charities found other sponsors? I’m practically erect with rage.
Honestly, those of you saying “oh, but there’s no nudity” - would your employer really be happy for you to have a 5 foot pinup in your office? Would you really win the argument with your boss by pointing out the lack of actual genitalia? Sometimes it seems people round here fall over themselves so much to be more-enlightened-than-thou that they forget we live in the real world.
Incidentally, Smugglers’ Notch, one of the resorts that asked its employees not to use the boards, advertises itself as “#1 for Family programs in North America”. Sounds like Playboy pinups are exactly the sort of thing they want their instructors sporting, then.
Right between the waist and upper thigh.
Are we looking at the same picture? The one in Gaudere’s link? I’m talking about the girl in the pink tank top on the far right. I see two butt cheeks and an asscrack. Don’t you?
It’s like"hey I remember wanking to that girl!".
The fact that some people actually managed to rustle up a whole protest is faintly hilarious, mind you. I particularly liked this photo of an apparently grown woman carrying a sign saying “I am a child, not a Playboy bunny.”
If the OP had led with the stoopid protest (100 people, according to one of the gallery captions), the response might’ve been more positive. But then again, I find the fact that nutters are offended by scantily clad women even less surprising than the fact that family businesses don’t want pinups at work. They’re just idiots, chill the fuck out already.
Agre with Contrapuntal here – I see a complete ass.
Not that I’m complaining. But I can see some parents doing so when they have to explain this to their Impressionable Youngsters while waiting in line at the lift.
(“Daddy – I can see that lady’s bare tushy.”
“Shh. Don’t point.”)
I see one complete cheek, a crack and a partial cheek. That’s part of an ass.
The third board on the first pic in the gallery (standing in front of the tennis net) is Cheryl Bachman IIRC. If it’s the same pic as her centerfold, there’s visible nipple going on there too.
The thing is, of all the snowboards I’ve ever bought, after you put the bindings on and start boarding you can barely see anything on the board itself. It usually gets so covered in snow that it’s irrelevant anyway. I also don’t see anything offensive about it. It sucks that the slopes banned their employees from using them, but they were pretty obviously pressured into doing so by prudish idiots in the first place. And as far as the “would your employer be happy with a 5 foot pinup girl in your office” thing goes, from my experience the work culture at an office and the work culture at a ski resort are hardly comparable. YMMV.
Burton is continually striving to push the envelope and create controversy because they are indeed mainstream. In the past several years they’ve tried to be edgy and regain the street cred they’ve lost over the years. It’s not new and they were hoping to create controversy like this. They’ve done it in the past when they offered a reward for boarders to film themselves poaching runs a the remaining 4 (now 3) ski areas that don’t allow boards. This is exactly the reaction they tried to create.
Frankly, there are lots of custom boards that would get an instructor or patroller told to swap their equipment or go home. The self-mutilation and moderately explicit graphics are not really new; the ski areas have dealt with this before.
There was a case a few years back when Rossignol created a ski that had a semi-hidden graphic of a woman getting her throat slit. I think it was the Scratch. It created quite a controversy, and essentially got those skis pulled in the US.
I hear ya, man! I actually have 3 of those centerfolds from back in the day.
All right, all right; assuming for the sake of argument that ski resorts are completely different to any other place of business, how about we use our intelligence and try and think what might be in the interests of a company that explicitly advertises itself as a family tour operator. If you were running a place specifically trying to attract parents and small children, what would you want on your employees’ boards?
If you can say with a straight face that you would be fine with large pictures of naked ladies, well, my hat’s off to you; you are either excellent at poker, or are the former operator of the shortest-lived chain of creches since Gary Glitter’s Krazy Kiddy Emporium.
Sure, if she could type.
Being local to the issue, I think the public outrage at the very existence of these boards is a bit over the top. However, snowboarding is a mainstream commodity, and the ‘rebel’ image that maybe was real once is now just a thin veneer of marketing used to make companies money. If family is where the money is for the mountains, then the snowboard + apparel industry is going to feel pressure to be family friendly. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with this; it’s just the inevitable conclusion when something counterculture becomes mainstream (when the rebels doing the evil deed become parents raising kids and working in cubicles).
There’s clearly something wrong when someone has to describe what an ass looks like.
Playboy was hot stuff in the 1960s, but by the 1980s pretty much everyone I know regarded it as kinda quaint.
Yeah, it was yesterday!
I think this was more of the issue that the OP brought up instead of the one of employee dress code that everyone else seemed to latch onto.
I saw this rant as much angrier about the whining and bitching that people are doing than the fact that some ski areas have banned their employees from using them. Maybe it’s because to describe the people complaining, he used whining (1) little (2) candy-ass (3) cunt-douche (4) God-damn (5) fuck-nugget (6), and moron (7). To describe the ski areas setting up employee dress code, he used exactly… 0 insults.
All that said, I agree that businesses should be able to dictate employee dress code. I just don’t think that was the main thrust of the OP. Let’s read for comprehension before responding.
Agreed. But it’s just annoying (old argument warning) to see people so up in arms about the amount of nudity you might see on Fox during prime time.
I thought “vintage pin-ups” meant art like Vargas Girls and the like. THEN you could find tasteful, yet slightly risque snowboards, I suppose. Or maybe say, I don’t know, Betty Grable, or someone like that?
At the very least, these boards are insanely tacky.
It is. I mentioned the “dress code” thing as more of a side note. I know there really aren’t that many protesters in the overall scheme of things, but they are very vocal, and it seems every damned day there is a news story, and a half-dozen letters to the editor, all of which say the same basic thing:
“These are offensive to women and what if a poor child saw it?”
Well…no, they aren’t offensive to women. If these are offensive, I’d hate to see what those people would do if they found out about actual porn.
As for the children angle…Christ, you gotta cut the umbilical cord at some point! Look, at most it’s just an ass. If a child asks his mommy or daddy “why is there a lady’s bottom on that snowboard” just tell them it’s because that particular person liked that particular snowboard. It’s not like it’s full-on hardcore porn.
Excellent marketing ploy by Burton – on target and on time for the new season sales.
Pathetic in terms of what the images convey, but excellent if disgusting marketing.