Thankfully, the article quotes a council member voicing the same concern that I had when I heard of this. Kevin Rider says "It would give people an absolute blanket to lay over anything they didn't like…You have to be careful legislating morality." Sheesh! That’s an understatement.
While this doesn’t explicitly deal with intellectual freedom, passing this resolution sure seems to set a dangerous precedent. It seems like it would give residents more boldness to come into libraries and demand that a certain book be hidden, or demand that art galleries and museums remove artwork that doesn’t support their view of a “wholesome environment”.
Like a lot of things we talk about, though, I do have some conflicting views. There certainly are a lot of “sexually charge images” on display in public places that, frankly, offend me. To take an example from the article, one of the parents “spearheaded a campaign last fall to remove lingerie-clad models from Victoria's Secret windows at Clay Terrace Mall. The protest garnered national media attention, and resulted in the store replacing the mannequins' lingerie with pajamas.” I find Victoria’s Secret’s advertising to be salacious and inappropriate. If I had children, I’d be probably be uncomfortable walking by their. I just don’t think that demanding they put pajamas on mannequins is the best solution to the problem.
3 comments:
I like what you said about Victoria's Secret and their mannequins. I don't find them offensive in their lingerie but I do have a problem with how they are dressed from the standpoint of how perfect and thin these mannequins are. They become "role models" for young people (girls and boys) that tell them how a body should look in order to be beautiful and ACCEPTED. And this warped way of thinking starts earlier now. My nine year old niece already talks about being fat and how a certain pair of pants makes her butt look. In fact, she started that kind of talk at 6. It's sad and scary because it sets a dangerous stage for eating disorders.
I agree that having a community ban on "immoral" and "improper" images is not the answer. And changing the mannequins into pajamas isn't either. For me, it would have to start with our concept of beauty and how we can redefine those ideals so that children grow up with healthy and SAFE esteems.
**I know the issue of this blog was the Carmel community but I had to comment on the mannequins and this insane idea we have about beauty in this country.***
Wow, this was really interesting. I start to get scared any time I hear about people trying to be the moral compass for an entire population. That's a world I don't want to live in.
Anyway, it's funny you bring up Victoria's Secret because I recently read an article about how they are trying to change their image. Apparently the people in Carmel aren't the only ones fed up with the really sexy image Victoria's Secret has created for itself. Due to a decrease in sales that they believe is because of their too sexy image, they are going to try and be a little less provocative. Here is a link to the article http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23445460/
I am fascinated by the knee-jerk reaction of some individuals to immediately turn to legislation when an issue arises. Perhaps it seems an easier alternative than speaking with one's children at home. We do seem to exist in a society that bombards children and adults with sexually-charged images and distorted role models. As a parent, I make a major effort to discuss these things openly and in some ways it makes me sad to think that my daughter is more critical about life than I wish she were. But then I think of myself at her age and wonder if I wasn't too sheltered. Who knows what the perfect medium is???
Post a Comment