Androgyny pornographic

I can see B&N's point of view. They have a hundreds of stores and it's not worth their time to explain to every person who complains, "Look, it's a guy."
 
Not out on display, evidently. It's the hair that upsets them, too much on head and not enough on chest. What I find amazing is that there are no posted comments, none! :eek:
 
I wouldn’t have given it a second look. It looks like you’d expect a cover of an artsy fashion magazine to look. Did the customers suffer shocks when Vogue and everyone looked like ads for death by heroin?
 
So let's have topless women without "opaque plastic" too. What's the big deal? Who is threatened by this? Will the kiddies be damaged by seeing some skin? Our culture sucks. Everyone has access to more porn on the internet right now than all of human history produced up to now, but we can't chance to see an aesthetic photograph?
 
I wouldn’t have given it a second look. It looks like you’d expect a cover of an artsy fashion magazine to look. Did the customers suffer shocks when Vogue and everyone looked like ads for death by heroin?
THIS.
 
Maybe people who become hysterical when their gender bias's are challenged should be wrapped in plastic.

Ah well, another example of the fact that neo-Puritanical value systems are alive and well in America.

I don't get it - should a guy like that simply not be allowed to exist? What about Hermaphroditicism, is that pornographic?

/editorial.
 
Obviously, I don't know B&N's sensibilities as a company, maybe they are prudish, but I *think* the problem B&N is having is not that it might be confused with a topless woman, but that it might be confused with a topless female teenager. I think, as BronzeAge suggests, that makes this more a matter of avoiding the headaches of having to explain and argue and prove things to prudish or shocked/alarmed customers who jump to conclusions than, perhaps, prudishness on B&N's part.
 
Back
Top