Dear Editors- I just received the August 2004 issue of CA featuring Sharon Stone. I was very pleased, as I read the table of contents, to see many articles that would help me understand the areas of the cigar world that are still new to me. As I turned the pages I came across a full page ad for the Mandalay Bay Hotel in Las Vegas. I was shocked to see a woman standing in a pool topless. Although it was only her profile, the ad was lacking modesty, which I believe is the greatest characteristic of CA. As a member of our great nations military I have to be very careful, especially these days, in what I read or look at in the workplace. I have great pride in having my latest copy of CA accompany me to work and have a clear conscience in leaving it face up on the desk, free from fear of being turned in for "offensive" reading material. Many people in the office are being reprimanded for reading the other leading non-pornographic, male entertainment magazines that are available today. I would hate to see my beloved CA slowly moving in that direction. Your magazine has too much other valuable and interesting features to need those kind of advertisements or articles to help it move it off of the racks. CA is a minority in it's own world I know, but I would like to encourage you to keep up the great work in producing a very high quality and upright periodical that we all can be proud of. Thank you very much for 2 fantastic years of great information and entertainment, I look forward to many more.
Sincerely, SSgt Drew Neuman U.S. Air Force
Very Sincerely, Drew Neuman
Posts: 8 | Location: Bossier City, LA USA | Registered: June 22, 2004
I received my issue in the mail last night, and got to the page with the Mandalay Bay advertisement. It did EXACLTY what it was designed to do. It caught our attention.
You felt compelled to write to the editor about it, and I felt compelled to visit the Mandalay Bay website and see what it was all about (they now have a topless pool).
I think the whole world is a little uptight as it is. If a little nipple is the worst thing we see in a magazine; that is not so bad. Try looking at the graphically violent photos in Time.
I agree with ya Jason... People are so uptight and "PC" now I can't stand it. If a nipple is going to cause people to shake their heads and turn their back then this nation is certainly headed for disaster. We've got U.S. citizens being beheaded in the middle east and broadcast over the internet and people are concerned about a magazine add showing a nipple!!??? my god......
Posts: 136 | Location: Scottsdale, AZ | Registered: May 03, 2004
I agree as well.....NOT THAT BIG A DEAL.......I have always found the magazine to be tastefully done. I would challenge anyone having a problem with this to go and pull any magazine off of the rack that isn't a comic book and see if there isn't some borderline photos in them. Most magazines out there will have something inside that might be offensive to some people. Maybe not every issue but certainly at some point. This is just nit-picking in my opinion.
I'm an a$$ man myself, but the guy has concerns. He likes his CA and wants to ensure it stays off the "taboo" list. Seems like he was only trying to make a point.
Anybody been at that topless pool? I'm going to LV next month for a week. I should like at the reservations. . . .
-Matt
Posts: 40 | Location: Dallas, Texas USA | Registered: June 15, 2004
In my last post I said I was shocked to see the ad, not horrifically offended. Trust me I like my T&A as much as the next guy, just not in my cigar magazine. I subscribe to CA for what it is, not for what society thinks makes up a good magazine. I admire them for not selling out thus far and would just like to see them succeed without having to that's all. You guys are great and thanks for all the replys. I look forward to discussing issues with you all again.
Very Sincerely, Drew Neuman
Posts: 8 | Location: Bossier City, LA USA | Registered: June 22, 2004
I'll back you on this. The last thing I want to be viewed as is some polictically correct prude, however, this ad just doesn't belong in CA in my opinion.
The first thing I did was send an email to the editor to voice my opinion. In fact, the only reason I registered in the forum was to see if this was being discussed.
Here is one paragraph from my letter...
-With one ad, Cigar Aficionado went from being a coffee table magazine proudly displayed in my house to something I now must hide in my office away from curious eyes. I have 3 small children who don't need to see that and a wife who doesn't understand why I like your magazine so much as it is.
The ad was effective. The pic was of a topless woman, big deal. I'll bet more than one of you that is complaining, has surfed the net looking for nudity, or porn. It is a print magazine, it makes its money from advertisers. I found it to be a different ad than I'm used to seeing in cA, but it is a tasteful pic, and not intrusive or offensive. If you don't like it, flip the page.
I like the ad, so I perused it for a few moments. I do the same for other ads that catch my attention, that is the purpose of ads. On the other hand, I think golf is a waste of time, money, and real estate, so I skipped the article. You are allowed to do the same.
If anyone lets the Politically Correct Nazis intrude on their own thoughts and actions, so be it. They never had me, never will.
Good job, cA!!!
"If Milli Vanilli fell in the woods, would someone else make a noise?"
Posts: 3569 | Location: Tombstone, AZ | Registered: October 24, 2002
I've seen the picture and I think that it's beautiful. This is an adult magazine dealing with an adult topic and children really shouldn't be paging through it in the first place. If you think this is bad, pick up Glamour, Cosmo or those other fashion rags and you'll really get an eyeful.
[This message was edited by WonderBoy on June 25, 2004 at 06:17 PM.]
I agree with Wonderboy, this is a men's adult magazine. If you're that hurt by a picture of a beautiful woman topless, then tear the page out. Problem solved.
Posts: 155 | Location: Denver, CO | Registered: June 01, 2002
I think anybody here who is worried about their children seeing this woman, in her natural glory, is all wet. How far have we come as a society that we have to cringe whenever we see a photograph of the human body, as it was made by our creator, and wonder how we are going to explain it to our children.
This ad is a PERFECT example of gloryifying the human body for its own sake. Granted, it is designed to be titillating (pun only half-intended) to draw the attention of the male reader, but there is NOTHING pornographic whatsoever about this ad. It is simply a picture of a beautiful woman in all (or at least some ) of her natural glory. I can't think of a better way of delineating healthy nudity from harmful pornography by allowing this picture to be seen by children.
It's the 21st century, folks. Time to wake up.
One way to know if a woman really loves you? If she'll HAVE your dog.
S.N.O.B. #1023 - Duppy Conqueror
Posts: 2518 | Location: Connecticut | Registered: October 15, 2002
Thank you to everyone who replied. And again no one was "hurt" by the ad and I do realize there are other magazines that allow ads that are much more liberal than this. That is what I think makes CA such a good one is that they don't stoop. I don't think we need exposure to sex in EVERY aspect of our life, that's all. Everyhting has it's place. Want sex, subscribe to Hustler. Want cigars, subscribe to CA.
Very Sincerely, Drew Neuman
Posts: 8 | Location: Bossier City, LA USA | Registered: June 22, 2004
I have to agree with Drew. This particular type of advertising does NOT need to be in this classy magazine. They could have accomplished the same idea without nudity. If you think those of us who oppose it are "all wet" start researching hostile work environment law. This is the exact type of thing that will get someone in trouble for having an otherwise great magazine at the office. The magazines content is otherwise not "Adult" in the manner of pornographic nor pseudo pornographic like Maxim. Like it or not PC rules the work environment and the country (were you not around during the whole uproar during the superbowl? You may not have agreed with it but a lot has changed because of it! (reference Radio)) That is exactly what I don't want to see happen to this magazine. Cigar enthusiasts have enough problems with PR. The last thing we need is making a classy magazine look bad. If you want your "human body in all its glory" subscribe to Playboy and leave it around for YOUR kids. I was fully aware that Mandalay Bay had a topless pool and when I became aware of it on my last visit I actally hoped that they would not use it as a marketing gimmick! So, in summary, those of us that are against this ad are not "all wet," "PC whiners" or whatever insults you used above. We merely want CA to continue to do well and be allowed to have it freely hanging around our houses and workplaces! So, editors, if you are reading, please use better discretion in the future! Sincerely, Greg Rosellini, M.D.
Posts: 15 | Location: Sacramento, CA | Registered: May 09, 2002
quote:Originally posted by Drew Neuman: I don't think we need exposure to sex in EVERY aspect of our life, that's all. Everyhting has it's place. Want sex, subscribe to Hustler. Want cigars, subscribe to CA.
That's twice that you mentioned sex in your last post. I did not see any sex depicted in that ad at all. There was no intercourse, no foreplay, and considering the young woman was photographed by herself there wasn't even the hint of masturbation. This is what bothers me the most about people with your mindset, Drew, and I don't mean to offend.
One of the biggest problems our society has in this regard is our so-called "morality." Far too many of us, like you Drew, equate nudity with sex no matter what. You do not seem to make any healthy distinction between the nude human body and sexuality. All the lines have been blurred by negative programming. There is no difference to you - nudity=sex, sex=nudity, and it's all "dirty," inappropriate, and potentially offensive. I find that very troubling. Whatever happened to the nude body being a thing of beauty to be admired and glorified? Again, not trying to attack you, just stating my points.
And Greg, you don't seem to understand the point I am trying to make here at all. You state " If you think those of us who oppose it are "all wet" start researching hostile work environment law." Well, I don't need to research anything. I know that kind of horribly PC law exists and that is precisely what I am rebelling against. To think of the possibility that in reading my magazine in the workplace, when somebody might happen by, see the Mandalay Bay ad, get offended, and report me to upper management, is very disturbing. We're kowtowing to the lowest common denominator with these laws - creating an endless loop of headaches and misery for what? For someone who was taught that there is something unclean and distasteful about the nude human form? This is precisely the type of person we need to be protected against.
Please! This was a plain breast in a men's magazine. Not even worthy of more than a "oooooh, nice nipple," flip the page and get to the cigar reviews. Big DEAL. Europeans are laughing their asses off reading this thread.
One way to know if a woman really loves you? If she'll HAVE your dog.
S.N.O.B. #1023 - Duppy Conqueror
Posts: 2518 | Location: Connecticut | Registered: October 15, 2002
quote:Originally posted by Greg: (were you not around during the whole uproar during the superbowl? You may not have agreed with it but a lot has changed because of it! (reference Radio
Here's my post from the Superbowl uproar, Greg. Hope this sheds a bit more perspective on my argument. You should do a search on "Janet Jackson" and read the threads. Very good points made there by lots of people.
Anyway:
rastacat Member posted February 02, 2004 11:54 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have been reading through the whole string of arguments here, and I have to agree with most of you to a point. Although I have no kids of my own, I very much look forward to the day when I am a father and, in my late 30's, have given quite a bit of thought as to the way I want to raise my children. I almost married a woman with a small child of her own, and I was very much a father figure to him and would indeed have been a second father to him had I actually gone through with it and married her. Indeed, he was not mine, and to those who would argue that I have no true experience in parenting, I would have to agree. Nonetheless...
I don't think nudity in and of itself is any big deal. I agree with those who say that those who make such a big stink over nudity in this country are far behind our European counterparts who are much less uptight and have a much healthier attitude about it in general. Sunday's peep show, in the end, is just a blip on the radar that will soon fade into oblivion, and ten years from now the game will be remembered for what it truly was - a great game in the history of a great American tradition. Like Met said, it was just a tit.
But nobody seems to be making a distinction between general nudity and the fact that there is a big difference between healthy nudity and unhealthy nudity, for lack of a better word. I hope you get my drift. What Timberlake and JJ executed was the ultimate cheap shot, played out for sheer shock value and publicity. What a sad message we are sending to our children when the magic and wonder of human sexuality is reduced to a cheap titty shot during halftime of the most-watched sporting event in the history of the world. It was trashy, vulgar, and entirely inappropriate in ANY context.
I would much rather have my children, at the appropriate time in their development, watch a well-done scene in a movie that depicts a couple truly in love with each other having passionate sex, so we could discuss it together. Or as BigSmoke said, have my kids catch me and my wife in the nude and make no big deal about it. I want to teach my children a healthy attitude about nudity and sex. The human body and human sexuality are the most beautiful things in the world when they are glorified in the way they are meant to be, not cheapened and degraded into such a despicably twisted form as we witnessed on Sunday. That's not sex - it's just plain trash.
My two cents. And to keep this cigar-related, I am enjoying a great Cubita SMS Perfecto with some Talisker right now. And for the record, I thought that nipple adornment on Janet was pretty damned wild.
Let a fresh wind tear through your soul, swallow your sorrow and deliver you whole - Like a breath of summer in a winter land blowing rhythm so simple, hearts can easily understand.
) of her natural glory. I can't think of a better way of delineating healthy nudity from harmful pornography by allowing this picture to be seen by children.
