Thursday, January 28, 2010



Sexual message offends as T-shirts labelled 'rape chic'



More Leftist degradation of moral standards in the name of "art"
"Retail chain Roger David has defended its decision to sell T-shirts depicting naked and bound women which feminists have decried as offensive "rape chic".

The shirts are part of the retailer's Blood Is The New Black fashion line.

One shows two near-naked women with a strap covering their eyes, and the other, based on a picture by American photographer Dan Monick, shows a young woman in a distressed and dishevelled state with a gag imprinted with the word Hollywood across her mouth....

Staff at Rodger David's head office in Melbourne declined to speak to The Courier-Mail yesterday. However, the retailer defended the T-shirts in a statement on Facebook, saying Blood Is The New Black gave artists a chance to display their work. "Art is meant to inspire and educate, and the meaning and interpretation is left in the hands of the viewer - we are here to inspire ideas, not mediate or control them," the statement says.

Source

Feminists are protesting but so should conservatives, I think. If the various protests cause people not to buy the shirts, that would be the best outcome.

22 comments:

Bobby said...

It's a brilliant work of art, it expresses what happens to the aspiring artist who goes to Hollywood. Offensive? I think it's more offensive to wear the t-shirts representing butchers like Mao and Che Guevara. At least this t-shirt is a thought provoking piece.

Anonymous said...

"Brilliant work of art"? Will you say the same thing when the next shirt comes out, depicting a child being raped? You have an odd way of thinking Bobby. You can bet this garbage would be banned if the female was wearing a Crucifix.

Anonymous said...

I always love when leftist crap comes back to bite them in the ass

Bobby said...

"Will you say the same thing when the next shirt comes out, depicting a child being raped?"

---I will not say the same thing because children are innocent beings who shouldn't be harmed or exploited in any way. The woman in the t-shirt however is an actress, she got paid to pose, it's a different standard.

"You have an odd way of thinking Bobby. You can bet this garbage would be banned if the female was wearing a Crucifix."

---In the marketplace of ideas you can buy pretty much anything unless its against the law.

In the 80s Madonna for example did a video of her seducing a Saint and later on you see burning crosses around her. MTV eventually banned the video but I'm sure you can find it on youtube or buy it on eBay.

Conservatives should defend freedom even when they don't like what freedom does. If you don't like the t-shirt, don't wear it. Frankly, I'm more offended by the Che Guevara t-shirts which glorify a monster than by this t-shirt which critiques the way women are treated by Hollywood.

Art comes in many forms. Larry Flynt once did a magazine cover that feature a woman going through a meat grinder. Disgusting? Perhaps, but it made a point about female exploitation.

Depicting Obama as Hitler is also offensive, but it makes a point about how Obama is a socialist and how his comrades hate dissent.

Personally, I would never wear any offensive t-shirts because when I leave the house I'm not interesting in debating my fashion choices with the passerby, however, if my fellow man or woman chooses to wear something controversial I will defend his or her right no matter how much it offends me.

beaglescout said...

Bobby confuses liberty with libertinism. This is fairly commonly done. Liberty does not consist of people doing whatever they want. It consists of people acting freely within the constraints of their rights, the responsibilities they have earned for what they have done previously, and their duties descending from their place in an ordered society. People living in an ordered society have the duty to not promote criminal and offensive acts (among other duties). Rape is a criminal and offensive act. Therefore the wearer has a duty not to wear it. Note that I specifically reject claims that artists have the right to express any idea they damn well want. That is a post-modern idea that descends from the Frankfurt school and other cultural Marxists whose mission was to destroy Western civilization from within. You will note that despite their communist sympathies they did not produce the same style of art that soviet artists produced. This was because their role within western society was different from the role of soviet artists. Their role was to uglify and degrade western culture. The soviet artists' role was to glorify soviet culture. Both artists are communists, or communist sympathizers, but they see the purpose of their art very differently. Don't be fooled by the artistic saboteurs into thinking that ugly art is actually beautiful. They were never honest about their intentions.

Bobby said...

"Bobby confuses liberty with libertinism."

---So should we jail Rush Limbaugh for playing "Barrack the magic negro?" I don't think so. Liberty and libertinism go hand in hand, you can't have one without the other.

"People living in an ordered society have the duty to not promote criminal and offensive acts (among other duties)."

---You realize that's the excuse liberals use when they wage war against O'reilly, Beck, Hannitti and all the others at Fox News, right? One man's offensive is another man's opinion.


"Rape is a criminal and offensive act."

---Yes, actual rape is. But a porn movie that simulates rape isn't rape, a t-shirt that portrays a bound woman isn't rape, nor is rape to make horror movies like "The Last House on the Left." Art is not reality, killing people on games like Grand Theft Auto or Hitman isn't the same as killing them in real life.


"Note that I specifically reject claims that artists have the right to express any idea they damn well want. That is a post-modern idea that descends from the Frankfurt school and other cultural Marxists whose mission was to destroy Western civilization from within."

---Glenn Beck had a special on Marxism. One of the first things the Cuban commies did was ban the music of The Beatles. Che Guevara himself saw rock and jazz as "imperialist music."

Communists have always hated art, they would never tolerate the antics of Maplethorpe or anyone else. Hugo Chavez himself has condemmed 1-900 numbers and sexual programing themselves. In the commie world art is only useful to serve the ideals of the party, so unless you're painting a portrait of Stalin, they're not going to like you very much.

Hitler himself, a national socialist which ain't that different from communism except they lack internationalism, said the following:

"As for the degenerate artists, I forbid them to force their so-called experiences upon the public. If they do see fields blue, they are deranged, and should go to an asylum. If they only pretend to see them blue, they are criminals, and should go to prison. I will purge the nation of them."

Now you see why we must tolerate offensive t-shirts? It's better to be offensive in a free society than to live in family-friendly dictatorship.

Use the Name, Luke said...

Since there was such a debate over this, I thought it might be helpful to track down the actual image being debated. It turns out to be the one on the shirts John included in his post. You can see a larger image here.

I don't see anything more disheveled about this girl than what you might see just walking down any street in America. In other words, she just looks casual, except for the "Hollywood" gag, which isn't even much of a gag. Nor do I see anything remotely sexual about it, let alone suggesting rape; that is, unless seeing an average looking girl dressed in casual, non-suggestive clothing suggests rape.

While I wouldn't buy a T-shirt like that, I just don't see what's supposed to be so offensive about it. It looks like exactly what it's claimed to be: a comment on the Hollywood system.

Anonymous said...

"Now you see why we must tolerate offensive t-shirts? It's better to be offensive in a free society than to live in family-friendly dictatorship."

Is it really? Just how much freedom do you actually have? When you stop and analyze it, it's much less than you think.

"Freedom is like pure, clean water, in that, it is neccessary for our way of life. But don't forget what too much water can do."

Bobby said...

"Is it really? Just how much freedom do you actually have?"

---Enough freedom to watch the kind of legal pornography that would make Pat Robertson vomit. Enough freedom to go to Kentucky or Las Vegas and fire machine guns.

I love this country, this is the kind of country where you can be a goth, wear a satan t-shirt, go to school dressed that way and chances are you'll get away with it.

This country celebrates individuality, whether you're vegan or a hunter, a commie or a conservative, a pagan or a Christian, you have the right to be yourself provided you don't impose your lifestyle on others.

So, if you want to wear an offensive t-shirt, go ahead.

"When you stop and analyze it, it's much less than you think."

---There is room for improvement but unlike other countries, our first amendment makes no mention of public morality.

Anonymous said...

So, if you want to wear an offensive t-shirt, go ahead.

And of course, the reverse is true as well. If I want to say that you are a moronic idiot for saying a picture like this is "a brilliant work of art" then that is fine. At the same time, there is no restriction on economic pressure on stores and people that believe that being offensive is a good thing.

It is part of the selfish "I am important - screw you" attitude that many people worship these days.

our first amendment makes no mention of public morality.

Miller v. California.

Bobby said...

"And of course, the reverse is true as well. If I want to say that you are a moronic idiot for saying a picture like this is "a brilliant work of art" then that is fine."

---Yes, that is your freedom. And if I want to say you're a wannabe fascist that wants to impose his morality on other people, I can say that as well.


"At the same time, there is no restriction on economic pressure on stores and people that believe that being offensive is a good thing."

---Not for lack of trying, I can tell you that.


"It is part of the selfish "I am important - screw you" attitude that many people worship these days."

---Yet Ayn Rand, who is a hero among many conservatives, advocated selfishness and individualism:

"Achievement of your happiness is the only moral purpose of your life, and that happiness, not pain or mindless self-indulgence, is the proof of your moral integrity, since it is the proof and the result of your loyalty to the achievement of your values.
Ayn Rand "


Do not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives.
Ayn Rand

Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).
Ayn Rand

It only stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master.
Ayn Rand

See? The most Ayn Rand would do against an offensive t-shirt is express her opinion. If you want to boycott that store, fine, but don't tell me that we have to pass yet another law to prevent society from seeing offensive t-shirts.


"our first amendment makes no mention of public morality.
Miller v. California."

---Miller v. California was about obscenity. Besides, if you own a porn company you can do almost anything provided the performers are over 18, a warning about the materials is provided and no animals are involved.

Anonymous said...

---Not for lack of trying, I can tell you that.

You confuse "freedom" and "responsibility."

---Yet Ayn Rand, who is a hero among many conservatives,

Thanks for the laugh.

See? The most Ayn Rand would do against an offensive t-shirt is express her opinion. If you want to boycott that store, fine, but don't tell me that we have to pass yet another law to prevent society from seeing offensive t-shirts.

Did I miss where someone proposed a law against this tee-shirt? Oh wait, this is just another fabrication on your part.

---Miller v. California was about obscenity.

Which is part of public morality.

Bobby said...

You confuse "freedom" and "responsibility."

---Is it irresponsible to wear a t-shirt that offends other people?


"Thanks for the laugh."

---So now you say conservatives don't like Ayn Rand? I don't know if Glenn Beck counts as a conservative, but he certainlly loves Ayn Rand and John Stossel did a whole show on FBN dedicated to her.


"Which is part of public morality."

---Define public morality for me, because I'm completely clueless about the subject.

Tell me where does personal freedom start and where does public morality begin.

You know what I don't support? Protestors who commit vandalism, including rabid sports fans that celebrate a victory or defeat by destroying cars and burning stuff. When it comes to lawlessness I say shoot first, ask questions later.

But when it comes to just t-shirt a little tolerance for the sake of our democracy is in order. George W. Bush is a great example of someone who tolerated dissent beyond the call. Seriously, if he can meet with a bitch like Cindy Sheehan twice, you can fight for the first amendment rights of a t-shirt designer.

Anonymous said...

---Is it irresponsible to wear a t-shirt that offends other people?

Weren't you the one that came up with a scenario where a person walked into a biker bar, said something offensive to a biker and got the snot beat out of him?

---So now you say conservatives don't like Ayn Rand?

Once again, you have a problem with reading skills.

---Define public morality for me, because I'm completely clueless about the subject.

Wait a sec, you first said it wasn't about "public morality" and now you are "clueless about the subject?"

Do some research about subjects before demonstrating your ignorance.

Bobby said...

"Weren't you the one that came up with a scenario where a person walked into a biker bar, said something offensive to a biker and got the snot beat out of him?"

---I never said people don't get offended and violate the law because of it. All I say is that we have the right to wear controversial stuff, the first amendment isn't limited to books.


"Wait a sec, you first said it wasn't about "public morality" and now you are "clueless about the subject?"

---I was interested in hearing your definition. I have my own views on the subject. Of course, I am "clueless" because I'm more concerned with INDIVIDUAL freedom than whether the majority disapproves of a shirt.

Freedom is an important thing, the ravages of prohibition continue to exist today in the form of the ATF persecuting southerners who brew moonshine. The last thing we need is more prohibition in the areas of free speech.

Let the marketplace of ideas reward and punish the products as they see fit. If the shirt is crappy, it won't sell, few people will wear it, and it will go away. If there's a market for that shirt then it should be sold. If others react violently towards people wearing the shirt they should be prosecuted for violating the civil rights of those simply trying to express themselves through fashion.

Even Pat Robertson, a committed Christian, defended the rights of Pagans in the military.

"After viewing a 700 Club report on a rally held by the Military Pagan Network in support of religious freedom in the military, the Reverend Pat Robertson gave the following endorsement: "I'm not worried about a little coven of Witches...Rather than suppress us all, we might give them freedom."
http://www.milpagan.org/media/july_1_1999.html

I doubt Pat Robertson likes paganism or any other religion other than Christianity, but in his wisdom, Robertson understand that to protect freedom you sometimes have to defend things you don't like.

Anonymous said...

---I never said people don't get offended and violate the law because of it. All I say is that we have the right to wear controversial stuff, the first amendment isn't limited to books.

No, you were trying to claim that there is no responsibility for the exercise of freedoms.

Also, did someone claim that there was a First Amendment issue here? For a tee shirt in a store in Australia?

---I was interested in hearing your definition.

So this statement was another in a long set of lies from you:
---Define public morality for me, because I'm completely clueless about the subject.

You have the freedom to lie. No one will have to say anything in response to see that you are a liar.

Freedom is an important thing, the ravages of prohibition continue to exist today in the form of the ATF persecuting southerners who brew moonshine.

You are kidding, right?

The last thing we need is more prohibition in the areas of free speech.

I'm sorry, did I miss the part where anyone was looking to prohibit any speech? Did I miss the part where anyone was looking to make it illegal to wear the shirts in question?

Did I miss Dresden being the same city as Berlin?

Let me see.... no... no one has proposed governmental intervention in Australia or in the US where the shirts are made, so I guess that throws you argument out the window.

Dresden is still not Berlin.

And you still continue to lie and fabricate things in a pitiful attempt to "justify" your position.

"Same as it ever was....."

Bobby said...

"You are kidding, right?"

---No I'm not, the ATF has persecuted southern families that have been brewing moonshine for generations. Of course, you don't care because liquor is probably beneath you, right? You ought to watch The History Channel once in a while, you know? There's lots you can learn there and it only takes an hour, less if you have a DVR.


"I'm sorry, did I miss the part where anyone was looking to prohibit any speech?"

---Well, you started discussing public morality, so I don't know where you want to go with that. If public morality matters then the t-shirt should be banned, right?


"And you still continue to lie and fabricate things in a pitiful attempt to "justify" your position."

---It's so much easier to attack me than to defend public morality, isn't it?

Here, check out the link of the shirt Luke provided.

http://www.bloodisthenewblackstore.com/store/sc_images/products/7764_large_image.jpg

Even if public morality exists, this doesn't violate any puritan codes people might hold dear.

The movie posters of Captivity where a lot worse.

Here, take a look:
http://www.slashfilm.com/2007/03/20/captivity-billboard-banned/

Only difference is that commercial speech has never enjoyed the same status as free speech.

Here are two bus shelters that also got banned.

http://daveibsen.typepad.com/5_blogs_before_lunch/images/2007/03/21/20070320112809990002.gif

And you know what? If I made those posters into a t-shirt they would be a hell more controversial than an innocent Hollywood gag.

Anonymous said...

---No I'm not, the ATF has persecuted southern families that have been brewing moonshine for generations.

And Washington put down the Whiskey Rebellion. Your point?

You ought to watch The History Channel once in a while, you know?

To see shows like "We The People?"

---Well, you started discussing public morality, so I don't know where you want to go with that.

Actually you brought it up when you made the statement at 5:26 and said "There is room for improvement but unlike other countries, our first amendment makes no mention of public morality." You raised the issue first and now that you have been caught lying about it, you lie about who first raised the issue.

If public morality matters then the t-shirt should be banned, right?

I'm sorry, did anyone here say that the shirts should be banned by the government? I asked this before and you didn't answer because this is just another case of you lying and fabricating things to try and justify your position.

---It's so much easier to attack me than to defend public morality, isn't it?

I don't have to defend something that you said you know nothing about. It would like talking about differential equations to a four year old.

Furthermore, no one will or should have to defend lies and fabrications that are made by someone like yourself. If anything, you should have to defend why you believe that lying and fabricating things is morally acceptable but that would be too much for you. The defense against lies is truth but since you don't like or deal with the truth, it is foreign to you.

Here, check out the link of the shirt Luke provided.

Of course, if you actually read the article you would know that there is more to this than just the singular shirt. However, since you don't read and the truth doesn't matter to you, you frolic off in a meaningless direction.

Here are two bus shelters that also got banned.

Do I really have to bust you up over this one as well? The ads WERE NOT BANNED. Let me repeat that. THE ADS WERE NOT BANNED.

Read your own source. The ads were pulled by the company that paid to put them up after complaints.

Now, are you really that stupid to think that companies ban their own work product? What would give you that impression?

In other words, you lying little twit, who "banned" the ads?

Did the government?

No.

Did the billboard companies?

No.

Did the cab companies?

No.

Did the bus companies?

No.

THE COMPANY PULLED THEIR OWN ADS.

Only in your stupid little, myopic, selfish world would anyone believe that an ad pulled by a company is "banned."

Get a dictionary.

If I made those posters into a t-shirt they would be a hell more controversial than an innocent Hollywood gag.

Notice the relative morality in your statement.

Oh wait, you don't see things like that.

Dresden become Berlin yet?

Bobby said...

Look annonymous, just tell me what do you want to do regarding the freaking t-shit, ok?

You clearly don't like it so what the hell do you want to do about it?

Debating with you is a real exercise in futility.

Dresden is not Berlin? I gave up that thread long ago.

Anonymous said...

Look annonymous, just tell me what do you want to do regarding the freaking t-shit, ok?

I already have told you.

That is what you can't grasp.

You never read what is said and only go off on tangents. You make crap up to try and prove a point that doesn't exist.

Debating with you is a real exercise in futility.

Why? Because I see through your lies? I see that you never address the real issues and always want to go off on some moral relativism statement of "look what happened here..." or "look what my liberal friends did here...." or "look at what the Nazis / Hitler did here....."?

It is futile for you because you are exposed for the intellectual fraud and moral coward you seem to be.

Dresden is not Berlin? I gave up that thread long ago.

Of course you did. After you made up a claim saying that Dresden and Berlin were the same city.

You lied then just as you continue to lie now.

Liars hate people that rely on truth.

It frustrates them.

Which is why you are frustrated now.

Bobby said...

"Of course you did. After you made up a claim saying that Dresden and Berlin were the same city."

---I never made that claim, I only assumed both cities had a subway system, you later proved me wrong and I dropped the topic.

Whatever, if you don't want to talk about the t-shirt and its implications, I have no reason to debate you.

Anonymous said...

---I never made that claim, I only assumed both cities had a subway system, you later proved me wrong and I dropped the topic.

So on a topic about Dresden, you say that the citizens could avail themselves of protection in the subways like Berlin and that isn't comparing or making a claim that the two cities were similar?

Your "dropping the topic" is just another case of you ignoring that you were wrong. That is what you don't get or understand.

Whatever, if you don't want to talk about the t-shirt and its implications, I have no reason to debate you.

We have talked about the tee short and exposed your hypocrisy and ignorance on the subject.

Typically, you just "ignore" what contradicts your lies and fabrications.

Which is exactly what you have done in this thread.

Same as it ever was.