OK. I am going to chime in on this one. Seeing that no other female on this board has, I thought I would put in my two cents. (Yes, I am a subscriber.)
1st. It is a beautiful ad. The girl is beautiful and the picture is tastefully done or at least as tasteful as you can put in a magazine without having to put warning lables on or put a special cover over the magazine, etc.
2nd. Is it for CA? The magazine is SUPPOSED to be a magazine for men. Did they hit the majority of their target audience with the ad - YES. There are some undertones that are at play here as well. Some think that CA (in it's current format) is more about Aficionados than Cigars and that there are more articles about luxury items or lifestyles than cigars.
I would say this. It really is a slippery slope and it does seem that lines are being blurred as to what is considered "exectable" and what is considered "not exectable". And who is to say/judge/draw the line?
If you felt uncomfortable or offended by the ad, let CA know - you are a paying customer (provided you subscribe) and as a responsible magazine, they should listen.
S.N.O.B. #1004.69 Official Groupie #2 and Wacco's problem.
Posts: 1307 | Location: Indiana | Registered: May 01, 2003
Since sports and business coverage seemed to eclipse cigar news in the last two years, my subscription has lapsed, so I have not seen the add.
The question I have is: what is at the core of the picture? Is it about sex, or is it about beauty?
I have seen beautiful, tasteful pictures of nudes (photographs and paintings) and I have also seen trashy pictures of women with enough clothes to be considered "decent". I do not have kids, but I can tell you that I would feel far more comfortable viewing the first with my wife by my side than the second. The expression on her face, the setting, and the position she is in does far more to sexualize the image than whether or not she has a top on.
Perhaps if you are deciding on the moral qualities of a picture simply based on how much clothing is (or is not) in evidence you may want to consider if that is really a comrehensive way to evaluate it.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Posts: 1168 | Location: Geneva | Registered: May 03, 2002
I have it from a reliable source that the photo and some of the copy for the infamous ad was not to be used for Mandalay Bay, rather it was part of a recruitment flyer for the Computer Science Department of Rennselaer Polytechnic Institute. The second shot showed her in the same garb playing Dungeons and Dragons in a dorm room with some of the CSD's finest students.
===== +++ ===== "Buster wants to fish"
Posts: 184 | Location: Saline, MI | Registered: May 29, 2002
I am amazed that so many do not see this as a big deal in that it is a slippery slope. Obviously there were other ads from Mandalay Bay that got the same point across without the breast shot thus allowing many of us to have it in our offices without "fear" of a hostile work environment hit. Heck, I cannot even access Maxim or Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition at work even if I wanted to as they are blocked sites to prevent the whole hostile work environment legal crap. I am happy that many here want to "bring on the fight" I hope you have the time and money (for a lawyer) to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court if need be. The rest of us, I guess, are, in YOUR opinion, too weak to put up such a fight. CA could easily do without the nudity and pick a different ad in the future!
Posts: 15 | Location: Sacramento, CA | Registered: May 09, 2002
CA posting this pic is not a slippery slope....I highly doubt that next month well see the other breast and the month after that we'll see a bare ass and finally around christmas there will be another chick in the pool with her.......Im sure Marvin and Gordon know that they're pushing the envelope and wouldn't push it further......
I'm sorry but I think its funny how some of you guys get so worked up over this.....Not to sound condescending but I know there are more pressing issues in my life than a tit in CA.....
The most logical and grounded post in this thread came from Don Juan who said "it's a tit get over it"
These days you all have alot more to worry about than your kids picking up CA and seeing a breast....
MrR
"It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood"
Posts: 261 | Location: philly | Registered: June 06, 2004
I guess I have a stress free life then because this type of thing and your apathy toward it do worry me. I do NOT need CA pushing the envelope when cigars in general are already on the American PC chopping block. Let's not give people MORE amunition to hate CA by adding nudity (nudity-"devoid of a conventional covering" per Merriam Webster) to the magazine! "It's just a tit get over it!" why should I even have to have it in my magazine to begin with. I subscribe to CA to read about cigars and various aspects of what one could have if they have money to burn(islands, jets etc.) i.e. the good life NOT to see topless women. If I wanted that I would subscribe to Playboy. At least for now, people actually do READ the articles in CA.
Posts: 15 | Location: Sacramento, CA | Registered: May 09, 2002
Greg, if it hurts your feelings that much, then don't buy the Magazine. You also said you read the mag to see some of the good life. Maybe it's just me but a topless woman is part of the good life. I agree with MrRogers. I enjoy this Magazine and I will continue to enjoy CA. Congrats for not being so PC with the Magazine.
Posts: 155 | Location: Denver, CO | Registered: June 01, 2002
IF CA continues to use this line of advertising they WILL loose my subscription! I hope that it does not come to that. I enjoy the magazine and would like to continue reading it but without having to worry about advertising that prevents me from being able to read the magazine at work or around the kids at home. WHY does CA feel the need to push some of us into this decision to have to pull our subscriptions because they want to push the envelope on advertising. It is NOT necessary and only subtracts from an otherwise fine publication that ordinarily adds some legitmacy to the enjoyment of cigars.
Posts: 15 | Location: Sacramento, CA | Registered: May 09, 2002
Greg, I suppose we just have different points of view when it comes to topics such as this.....First off, I couldn't possibly care less about what is PC and what isn't......this country's already disgustingly PC in all aspects......Second, you say that this womens tit in CA gives non-cigar smokers more ammunition to hate us? WHO CARES!!!!!! I smoke cigars for my enjoyment, I could care less what anyone besides my loved ones thinks of that......Not to sound harsh, but I learned a long time ago, Don't worry about what people think of you and your vices because they really don't....
Finally, and not to sound harsh again, but you don't HAVE to buy the magazine......so if its such a big deal, don't.....otherwise rip the page out and use it to light your smoke
MrR
"It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood"
Posts: 261 | Location: philly | Registered: June 06, 2004
I gotta agree with him cigar chic. Having a woman in my life who is willing to bare her breasts while I'm around ABSOLUTLY POSITIVILY makes my like 'more gooder'....
"A Cigar is a Banana for the Monkey in your Soul." - CIA Angel Switters -
I smoke cigars for my enjoyment, I could care less what anyone besides my loved ones thinks of that......Not to sound harsh, but I learned a long time ago, Don't worry about what people think of you and your vices because they really don't....
