Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by jerrysfriend, Aug 2, 2004.
Very well put Andrew.
"Religion is the opiate of the masses."
In various senses that rings true.
Why all the brouhaha over such an apparent piece of fluff? This is the New York Times folks, not the Episcopalian Gazette. If you truly find this offensive, then perhaps your worldview is narrower than you might think. Stick with the Disney Channel, or The Adventures of G.W. and His Band of Merry Neo-Facsist Born Again Nationbuilders.
If the latter had their way (God forbid), Church & State would be as one and the NY Times would cease to be, among other intimations of a return to a less enlightened era (the Dark Ages were not thusly named due to their being a time of great cultural, scientific and humanistic advances. Beware the Dry-Drunk Apocalypse.)
Sorry, I didn't mean to hijack the thread. I suppose I just got carried away
To all the above: This is a style forum, let's try to keep that way.
Now back to your regular bickering.
OK Guys- underwear has turned to religion. Let's get back to the thread...
Is anyone else disturbed by seeing the topic title "sexy underwear" at the top for the past 2 days?
In all truth, I would rather see that Title and a religious discussion than a Religous Title and a discussion about underwear But as steve has eloquently mentioned... Like the Elevators in Hospitals state regarding patients, "This is not the place" JJF
I'm a little surprised that during this whole conversation, no mention has been made of Benneton's controversial advertising. Their constant use of politics, sex, violence, and other controversial issues in their print ads has done them more harm than good over the years, I believe. Then take a look at Abercrombie & Fitch. Their use of the words "boy candy" on their pre-pubescent girls' underwear enraged parents of pre-pubescent girls like myself, who found that the limits of ANY decency or moral standard had been overstepped all for the sake of a buck. Advertising is always going to be "controversial" in some sense, in order to be noticed or heard (says me, the worldly and wise copywriter). But when it becomes potentially damaging or dangerous (as I fully believe Abercrombie's product was), I think we have a responsibility as humans to use some wisdom. As a professional in field, I deplore the bastardized use of exploitive advertising. It gives a bad name to those of us who have quality products to offer with honest value. NOW then. I don't mind the article in the NYTimes. It wasn't shoved down my throat, and wasn't espousing or advocating a particular message. I could choose to read it or not. What gets ME riled is when one forum is manipulated for gain in another (i.e., the examples I've just mentioned, or constant political speeches at Academy Awards presentations, etc.). You wanna' sell suggestive toddler girls underwear? Find a good porn site; I don't wanna' see that crap used in the general public arena.
Good post, quill.
Coming from you, whose posts and opinions I always enjoy reading, I appreciate it.
I'm betting jesus was a man-thong guy.
(Steve B. @ 04 Aug. 2004, 10:23) OK Guys- underwear has turned to religion. Let's get back to the thread...
I'm betting jesus was a man-thong guy. Â
do you think his underwear was ... ahem ... (here it comes, quill HOLY??
Why, faustian, do I detect that I may be getting a reputation 'round these parts for bad puns? (perhaps we're neck-and-neck in that race ) Well, seems I should be..."cross"...at you for that Jesus joke (ouch.). But this is one to savior...er...savor.
I am very much amused that not a single one of you understood what jerrysfriend's point was. Having read many of his comments before, I have little doubt that when he does make an observation on style, he is being very serious about the matter.
Recall that he made a comparison between articles in the Times on men running around with their shirttails hanging out and young boy ads and products for slutty underwear. These articles appeared in the leading newspaper of record in the United States.
No one really believes that the articles describe the great tradition of men's style handed down to us over the last hundred years or more. One can hardly imagine George Frazier writing about these matters in Esquire magazine. Yet, our leading newspaper, one of the repositories of the tradition, seems to believe this kind of trash deserves our consideration. Does anyone really believe that? These are not matters that involve substantial people, and they really have nothing to do with style or a sense of style.
I agree with jerrysfriend. The New York Times continues its slide into oblivion.
Separate names with a comma.