Abercrombie & Fitch: The catalog will be back!

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | December 5, 2003

[nickcarraway]

In an unprecedented move this year, Abercrombie & Fitch removed its catalog from their 650 stores. As I saw early reports this last week, there was something in my head that hoped it was for the right reasons. Certainly it is important that the offensive "Christmas Field Guide" – which promotes group sex to junior-high, high-school and college-aged kids is actually unavailable. But the response by Abercrombie & Fitch officials is telling – and the stakes are being raised.

I first heard about the catalog's removal from stores when I organized yet another covert attempt to purchase a catalog from an Abercrombie & Fitch store a day before Thanksgiving.

One store employee said: "You know we had a whole bunch of them right here on the checkout counter – let me ask the manager to see where they got put ... we had so many of them and now they're not here."

As I waited for the manager to return, I noticed on a table separate from the checkout counter a tabletop full of the new "NOW" perfume. "I didn't even know they did perfume," I thought to myself.

"We don't have them anymore sir," came the reply. "And in terms of why, the corporate office didn't say – only that they were to be removed immediately. Which is odd because we had so many of them."

Since no reason had been given – and because I did not know yet if it was nationwide – I decided to watch carefully for news of the catalog's removal. By the day after the holiday, knowing the masses would be in the stores, the catalogs were suddenly unavailable nationwide. In my opinion, this was due to the fact that thousands of people in New York, Illinois, California and the rest of the nation were becoming aware of the "Group Sex" magazine.

If people knew about it, went into the stores to try to find it and complain to management that they would boycott their stores unless something was done about it, it would make life easier on the clothier if they pulled it altogether. Which they did.

By the early part of this last week, news dribbles of what had happened began to get out. Most of the headlines read similarly: "Clothier pulls racy 'Group Sex' Christmas magazine due to outrage."

The only problem is, by the middle of this last week, the company is finally speaking out and thrusting its proverbial middle finger to the protestors – even though the efforts of my web-log and radio show on the East Coast have produced upward of 23,000 families signing the online petition or placing phone calls and officially boycotting the retailer; and even though – as Anne Morse reported in her column for National Review – employees at the Abercrombie & Fitch headquarters in Ohio confirmed they were getting 300 calls per hour threatening to boycott. Company officials insisted on saying the "outrage" left no impression on the company whatsoever.

In fact, Hampton Carney – Abercrombie & Fitch spokesman – said the reason the catalogs had been pulled was to "create room for the new line of 'NOW' perfumes." (The same perfume that was already displayed in the store when I had visited Abercrombie & Fitch the day before Thanksgiving.) Carney claimed that space near the checkout counter was limited in the stores and so they needed the maximum amount of room for their little half ounce bottle of perfume. The store I had been in did not have the perfume on the checkout counter at all, but instead had given it its own table space on the store floor.

But Carney took it one step further ...

"Our spring quarterly will be back in stores mid-January and everyone will see that there's no change in our editorial policy," Carney said. Carney went on to explain that what he meant was that all of the sexualization of young people, all of the mentality that says your kids need group sex, and all of the nude kids acting out in sexual ways in the magazine be it hetero-, homo-, or multi-sexual would still be on the table.

It is for this reason that the boycott of Abercrombie & Fitch must not be paused, but rather be stepped up. For if the clothier insists on rejecting the concerns of parents, then parents across America have the right to reject Abercrombie & Fitch.

On my web-log, there is an easy link to the "STOP Abercrombie & Fitch" petition drive near the top of the page on the left-hand sidebar. If picking up the phone is more your style, call 888-877-7723.

As I mentioned in this column several weeks ago, Abercrombie & Fitch has placed a "grand wager" – a wager that you will not care enough about your children to speak up. By dumping any of their stock that you may own (symbol: ANF), by avoiding their stores and purchasing your Christmas presents elsewhere for the holidays this year, and by politely letting them know why you are doing so, you will prove them wrong.

And since they seem to be digging in for the long-haul, "let us not grow weary in well doing!"

[Hodar]

Again, some people defy reason. Remember not that long ago we had Benetton's using murderers to sell their products. The result was massive outrage and chain stores (JC Penny) dropping their line.

I don't know if they are still in business or not; but they seem to have taken one heck of a beating from their customers. I have no intention of buying their product ever again. Looks like A&F wants to charge down the path pioneered by Bennetton.

[Helms]

I was tempted to let your statement stand as I do not pornsurf. I do however recognize how children are being sexualized just to sell clothing. Personally I think we should all go naked to save on money and status concerns. I have included another pic from their website for your apparent titillation.

[Helms]

I believe it was a British company that specialized in rugged expeditionary wear for sportsmen and has morphed into a Hyannis-port Kennedyesque symbol of our decadent affluence. It is so preppy that if I were that age again I would be wearing farm clothes to school just to mock its marketing gestalt.

[Heyworth]

A&F's sales are more likely down because they've saturated the market and are perceived to be on the expensive side. American Eagle Outfitters and, to a lesser extent Old Navy are giving the same style for a lower price. The other problem is that they've been unable to come up with "the next thing." An A&F store changes very little from season to season, and they never really put anything on enough of a sale to get excited about. (i.e, ten percent off a $50 pair of shorts). People start to catch on that there's no reason to go into the store--the stock is the same and the prices are the same. For these reasons and others, they've also suffered a brand backlash among teens, but much more from an anti-marketing "no logo" mentality than any protest about the sexual imagery in the advertising.

[Heyworth]

By the way, copies of the banned issue are fetching $60-$100 on ebay right now.

[GOPcapitalist]

I don't know enough about this catalogue debate to comment on it but I can tell you one thing: Anybody who is stupid enough to shop at a store carrying new clothes that are intentionally designed to look like used clothes yet are sold at new premium level prices has serious issues unto him or herself.

[Hodar]

I think you are correct. One can basically get the same style clothing that A&F sells, cheaper at Old Navy, American Eagle Outfitters, or at a similar store. For the kids who 'do' get cash with which to buy clothes, one would expect that the kid would rather have a lot of nice clothes rather than a few Brand Name clothes.

I doubt that the decrease in sales is due to conservative outrage. I think that most (not all; MOST) Freepers would not shop at A&F even without the magazine controversy. I believer you are correct, the novelty of A&F has worn off; so kids are shopping at other stores who offer more, for less.

[Great_Dame]

Hi Hatteras, if you have a question about the catalogue just go into one of their stores and look at the giant pictures on the walls. There is no clothing to be seen on any of the models. Its pretty blatent.

[Great_Dame]

13% if the kids who buy their clothese there are no longer buying clothes there due to severe (STD) illnesses.

you forgot to mention the rest of them that are now in maternity clothes!

[Heyworth]

I have to give A&F credit, though, for actually selling pretty good clothes, from a simple quality standpoint. I also have to be impressed with their ability, after five years at it, to consistently make social conservatives rise to the bait of their catalog and give them some free "edge" credentials.

From a purely business sense, the story of how Limited stores bought the Abercrombie and Fitch name at the old sporting good joint's "going out of business" sale and turned it into what it's become is a masterpiece of branding and marketing.

[Lizavetta]

Public Service Message:

For those of you with daughters who are desperate for places to buy modest clothes for your girls, I have found wonderful things at thrift stores and yard sales. Several weeks ago at an elementary school rummage sale I got a grocery bag full of shorts, shirts, pants, swimsuits, and dresses for my 7 year old daughter for $3.50. All of it was used but in great shape, fabulous colors, all cotton, no slogans sexual or otherwise.

[Cicero]

Yes, A & F used to be veddy, veddy upper crust. They have a long, long reputation to lose.

Matter of fact, we still have one of those old A & F combination walking stick / shooting seats in our umbrella stand at home. You fold it out, stick the sharp end in the ground, and sit back on it whilst you wait for dogs to flush the pheasants out of their covert.

[ladyinred]

I saw some of the pictures on a local news program and I was just stunned! I can't believe we have sunk so low in this nation that a company like this would feel it is acceptable to publish this kind of filth in it's Christmas catalog!
I have signed the petition gladly, but it sounds as though they are so arrogant they don't care. In your face smut with young kids!

[Kenny Bunk]

God am I old.

Abercrombie and Fitch used to be a store where you could buy a canoe, a shotgun, fly rods and gear of the very highest quality, tents, and really great tweeds. If you were headed for the moors and a bit of shooting, or out on safari, this was your first stop. It was sort of an LL Bean for rich people with refined taste. It was a real highlight of a trip to the pre-third-world New York City, which, my children, used to look like an American city. Honest.

[Lady Eileen]

Bump...Thanks for the post and the info.

[gathersnomoss]

I don't recall those as being pads when I played football.

[little jeremiah]

Yeah! Good looking naked people, why that could lead to sex, sex people enjoy, and really enjoying sex is bad, because dumpy looking people in bad clothes don't generally enjoy sex that much and that ain't fair! In fact, anyone getting more sex in more orifices than a church lady in saggy stockings and sensible shoes

You know, until I read your astute comments I was a social conservative who thought that morality and virtue had some place in a free republic.

But now I see that I was wrong, and real freedom means orgies, sodomy, promiscuity, and bestiality. Heck, what's wrong with necrophilia? I mean, the corpse can't possibly mind! And bath houses and swingers' clubs? Who needs last names - or even first names? I spit on age of consent, too! Yeah - sex pleasure, it's the goal of life, and nothing else matters. You are so right.

And anyone who disagrees with us is an uptight Talibanite!

[Clemenza]

Yeah, a VERY EXPENSIVE (most expensive in the USA) "Third World" city.

The "A&F" look was taken by the Gays in NYC for their own a few years ago.

BTW: New York has not been part of "America" (at least "Middle America") for over 100 years. Its gotten nicer in the past ten years though (thanks Rudy!).

[Nicomachus]

To quote Beatrice Hall in her book, The Friends of Voltaire (1906), "'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'"

I don't want this post to be rude sarcasm, I just want to see if you folks can accept an opposite point of view. The Abercrombie and Fitch catalog may be lewd and indecent to some people, but it also reflects a very real part of human nature. If this were not so, these acts, such as group orgies, masturbation, etc., would not exist. It would not appeal to people. Period. What bothers me is the fact that none of you shop there. None of you have to see these things. You see these stories on the news and cry outrage, yet you are not exposed. Fox News, the wonderful bastion of Fair and Balanced. Ha! That's an oxymoron if I have ever heard one. You go "undercover" seeking this material, to prove something though I know not what. If you don't want to see the nudity, then DON'T BUY THE CATALOG. If you don't want your children seeing it, BE RESPONSIBLE PARENTS. Any child can get his or her hands on hardcore porn. The 7-11 argument doesn't hold true. Underage children buy porn at gas stations all over the country. Abercrombie targets a college age crowd. Young children and high school children don't truly understand such things. Sure they know what sex is and they know they want it. They just don't understand the decisions, the level of responsibility that comes with sexual activity. If you don't want the soft-core catalog to fall into your children's hands, hold the store responsible to maintain legal integrity. Don't let your teenage sons and daughters shop there. It is your responsibility to educate your children in moral values. I respect your right to say it is foul and trashy, I happen to disagree. What I don't respect is your claim to have the right to deny ME what I choose suitable for myself. In effect, that is what you do. The name of this site is FreeRepublic, but I see nothing free in what you say.
"It is always to be taken for granted, that those who oppose an equality of rights never mean the exclusion should take place on themselves" Thomas Paine,"On First Principles of Government," 1795.


"God forbid that any book should be banned. The practice is as indefensible as infanticide." Dame Rebecca West

[little jeremiah]

I dsiagree with your premise of what freedom is.

You are saying, in essence, that freedom means: freedom to be an animal in behavior. Freedom to have ay pornography you or anyone else desires. If pornography (in your world) is fine and should be freely available, then (by your logic) ANY kind of pornography should be ok, too. So what if you don't like snuff movies? So what if you don't approve of child pornography? [Or maybe you do, I'm assuming you don't just for the sake of argument and to give you the benefit of the doubt.]

There'a plenty of people who do like ultra violent sexually explicit movies and get turned ony children having sex with each other or with adults. Just because you [theoretically] don't approve of it, why you should your uptight morality and limits prevent other people from having what is natural enjoyment to them? Or pornography involving animals and people? Bestiality - it's just another flavor of sex, along with masturbation, gourp orgies, and so on. The same goes with necrophilia, the corpse can't complain and could even have written in his or her will that it would be ok with him or her. And if pornoraphy about such acts is fine with you (and if you say it isn't, you are being a hyppcrite) then surely the acts themselves should be legal and socially acceptable. Those (according to you, few and uptight Talibanites) who don't approve of all of the above just shouldn't do it.

And on the same wave of logic, (since you equate the concept of "freedom" with untrammelled license to act like an animal), such no holds barred sexual freedom surely should expand to the public streets. Because some brands of sexual aberrants (sorry, my use of perjorative words snuck in) must have their sex acts in public in order to get their thrill. Who are you to deny them? And those who are attracted not only to seeing kiddie porn but want to act it out? There are plenty of apologists for child+adult sex in academia and professional psychological circles.

By your logic, "freedom" means that society should allow limitless sexual activity, there should be no rules, laws or prohibitions on anyone's sexual whims, tastes, or behaviors.

(By the way, how old are you? Usually people have these kinds of ideas in between, say, 12 and 16. I had such ideas myself (although I never even thought of things like bestiality, child adult sex and so on) in my early teen years, especially after reading the crap book "Stranger in a Strange Land". So I assume that mentally and emotionally you are an adolescent.)