Posted on 07/29/2004 11:01:22 AM PDT by dennisw
By Val MacQueen
FrontPageMagazine.com | June 15, 2004
Sloggi, a women’s underwear manufacturer owned by Triumph International of Zurich, Switzerland, is allowing itself to be strong-armed down the path to corporate dhimmitude. It placed its billboards, which granted, demonstrate a slightly obsessive interest in the female derriere – after all, how many variations can a thong have, especially when viewed from the rear? – near two mosques in English cities, and at many other locations throughout Great Britain. The photos feature four or five women, facing away from the camera toward cartoon flowers, wearing nothing but a thong and a sunhat. One model holds a watering can. The caption is: It’s stringtime … Despite the fact that Sloggi had legitimately rented the billboard space and was not showing or promoting anything illegal, the mosques in the vicinities demanded that the offending posters be removed. According to Britain’s Sky News, the mosques complained to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), which ruled the ads were unlikely to cause widespread offense in general, but it urged Sloggi to be more careful in the future. By any normal dealings in a democracy, this would have been the end of it. The company would have been irked by the ASA’s officious advice about being more careful in the future, but it would probably have avoided renting billboards for its underwear close to mosques, just to avoid the hassle. And the complainants would have let it go and waited until the natural span of those particular posters was over. But not the mosques of Greater Manchester and Leeds. Insufficient respect had been paid to Islam. This is a traditional tactic of the Islamic march to domination. One fight at a time, one street at a time, one billboard at a time, one school at a time, one book at a time, one TV news report at a time. Islam must always be acknowledged to be above Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and other ancient religions. The eventual state whereby Christians and Jews acknowledge Islam’s authority and superiority is called the dhimmitude. Dhimmis will be invited to convert to Islam, but if they do not, they will be allowed to continue to practice their own religions, although with restrictions, and they must profess submission to Islamic laws. Shamefully, Sloggi is marching down that road. According to The Yorkshire Evening Post, “Earlier this year, Muslims in Bradford [another city] ripped down a copy of the Sloggi thong poster which had been put up near one of their mosques. Why? And how about the rest of the neighborhood to whom Islam is beyond irrelevant and who also might find the ad offensive? According to The Daily Mail, which thoughtfully provided its readers with a click to enlarge the image of the offending poster, the ad campaign only attracted two complaints – the two from mosques in the north of England, which claimed the advertisement could corrupt young men and women of their faith. In a later ruling, June 9, the ASA changed its mind and agreed with them and, for the first time in its 40-year history, banned a poster from being displayed near places of worship. The Daily Mail reports: “Media clean-up campaigners reacted furiously, however, because the restriction applies only to mosques. They pointed out that it resulted from just two complaints - from mosques in the North of England - while leaders of Christian churches have complained about lewd advertising for years.” (Yes, but the advance of Islam is … one tiny fight at a time … Calls to worship Allah five times a day broadcast over amplifiers attached to the four corners of mosques forced on those who do not believe in this god, in Dearborn, MI … sharia law to mediate civil disputes for Muslims in Ontario … one tiny triumph at a time, in the march to dhimmitude …) John Beyer of the pressure group MediaWatch, said, “'There is no reason to believe that people attending a mosque would be any more or less offended by this poster than someone attending a church, or out shopping or taking their children to school.' He added, 'Christians are upset by this kind of public advertising. I know the ASA has been contacted about just these concerns for many years, yet it has done nothing. While we are delighted that Muslims are not going to be offended on their way to the mosque, the same rules should apply to Christians going about their daily business. 'Christian sensibilities are just as valuable and valid as those of Muslims.'” Hark! The dhimmitude advances.
“A spokeswoman for Triumph International said: ‘We had our posters taken down as soon as we realized they were causing some offense. In future we will ask our poster company to make sure there are no mosques in the vicinity of any advertisement like this.’”
I've been to Europe, and it is indeed, worse. But we're just going on the same road, a bit slower. As for your snide remark about sex addicts, I say you're still in the denial stage. ;-)
I like the one 3rd from the left best.
It only seems worse cause you are used to US. Over there its no big deal. Its all in your head :]
As for your snide remark about sex addicts, I say you're still in the denial stage. ;-)
Don't project your issues on me :>
They should be ignored, and repealed.
I am not picky. They're all good.
That one offends me the most too.
One beneficial side effect on the War on Terrorism is that it will associate Mrs. Grundyism with profound evil, in much the same way that the legacy of Nazi Germany associated genteel anti-Semitism with profound evil.
She offends me a lot!
At most this poster is mildly titillating and sexy, but it is certainly not even bordering on being "soft porn." This may stun you, Pyro7480, but I think that poster IS moderate.
As for relating the word "toxic" to this ad - well, we obviously have a different idea as to what constitutes poison or toxicity.
For the record, although the fact I defend this poster and consider it harmless might make me a "sex addict" in some folks eyes, I do not consider myself to be a sex addict (though my girlfriend may argue differently.)
Post #17: Many of us are sex addicts, whether we realize it or not.
Post #21: As for your snide remark about sex addicts, I say you're still in the denial stage. ;-)
Who's accusing who, here?
Maybe "moderate" by 2004 standards, but pornographic by more eternal standards...
I rest my case.
There seems to be some uncertainty on this issue. Obviously, we need a larger image to study in detail so that we can get to the bottom of it.
This just confirms that a few centuries ago, the Atlantic acted as a diffusion filter through which sheeple did not readily pass. An unfortunate side effect of modern technology was to degrade this effect.
Then you are simply defining deviancy downward. If this is not soft-porn, then what is? Full frontal nudity? Actual penetration? S&M?
The bottom line (no pun intended), is that bodies that are naked all except for nipples and pubic areas, erotically posed, ARE soft porn. Four naked female bottom's lined up in a row are intended to be highly erotic. If you did not take it this way, then the developers of the advertisement would be deeply disappointed.
I find that what many people consider to be "soft porn" or no porn changes drastically when their 8 to 13 year old sons or daughters are alongside them viewing the...er.. event. Also, it's one thing to ban pornography in it's various forms, and it's another to ban PUBLIC pornography in any form, which can be viewed by innocents.
Innocents deserve the chance to remain innocent, until their parents can introduce mature topics at an appropriate age. My children, for example, learned all the glories of oral sex at a very young, precocious age, because of a pornographic, sex-addicted President who sullied his office.
That's why words such as "soft porn", "porn", and "hard core" must mean something more than "I like it", "I like it a lot", and "I freakin' love this sh*t so leave me alone you prude!!". Words create laws, and good laws protect innocents.
SFS
No cleavage, no skirt above the knee, etc.
Post #19: Heh. TMI!! Post #23: Don't project your issues on me :> I rest my case.
Yea. #19 was in response to your post #17: Many of us are sex addicts, whether we realize it or not. Sounded like a cry for help to me. And post #23 was in response to your post #21 where you accused me: As for your snide remark about sex addicts, I say you're still in the denial stage. ;-).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.