If "Bite Me" T-Shirt was offensive, how about this one...

Was it Frank that had the bad experience in Walmart where he was told
to leave the store because he had an "offensive" T-Shirt? We all know
the one...it has a Royal Coachman and the words "Bite Me" on it.

Well, Mr. Walton...how do you explain this?

http://feministing.com/archives/008226.html

--
Bone

On Dec 12, 10:59 am, Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Well, Mr. Walton...how do you explain this?

http://feministing.com/archives/008226.html

That's one of those things that's simutaneously wrong and sadly
reflective of social norms on many fronts. Hard to believe (well, I
guess not) that it's offered at the nation's largest retailer.

Joe F.

"rb608" wrote in message
...
On Dec 12, 10:59 am, Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Well, Mr. Walton...how do you explain this?

http://feministing.com/archives/008226.html

That's one of those things that's simutaneously wrong and sadly
reflective of social norms on many fronts. Hard to believe (well, I
guess not) that it's offered at the nation's largest retailer.

Joe F.

In an age in which people tend to work hard at finding offense it pays to
take a moment and reflect on the possibility of missed innocent
interpretations. Haven't been able to find one here after several hours.

Wolfgang

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:18:54 -0800 (PST), rb608
wrote:

On Dec 12, 10:59 am, Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Well, Mr. Walton...how do you explain this?

http://feministing.com/archives/008226.html

That's one of those things that's simutaneously wrong and sadly
reflective of social norms on many fronts. Hard to believe (well, I
guess not) that it's offered at the nation's largest retailer.

Joe F.

I saw nothing on the underwear or the label thereon that indicated size
or for whom it was intended. The _website_ brought "adolescent girls"
into things, saying it was in the "junior" department." As anyone who
has ever shopped for a (adult) female can attest, "junior" has nothing
to do with age and moreover, looking at the hanger as well as making a
fair guess that the price tag and hang tag aren't the size of a postage
stamp, I'd say that they would be a bit large the average 10-12 y.o.
girl and appear more the size appropriate for a female of adult size.

And moreover, while the "2.96" pricing is "Walmart-ish," there's no
_proof_ that they are actually being hawked there to _anyone_ - again,
one must take the website at it's word. Admittedly, I find it much
easier to believe that Walmart would (knowingly) have such and market it
to college-aged and twenty-something girls then I would they would
attempt to (again, knowingly) sell them to "adolescent girls."

And finally, I'd offer that if they are intended for over-18 gals,
whoever came up with the logo obviously doesn't know much about
women...if they did, the panties would say "Who needs THEIR OWN credit
card..."

TC,
R

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 17:35:45 -0600, wrote:

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:18:54 -0800 (PST), rb608
wrote:

On Dec 12, 10:59 am, Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Well, Mr. Walton...how do you explain this?

http://feministing.com/archives/008226.html

That's one of those things that's simutaneously wrong and sadly
reflective of social norms on many fronts. Hard to believe (well, I
guess not) that it's offered at the nation's largest retailer.

Joe F.

I saw nothing on the underwear or the label thereon that indicated size
or for whom it was intended. The _website_ brought "adolescent girls"
into things, saying it was in the "junior" department." As anyone who
has ever shopped for a (adult) female can attest, "junior" has nothing
to do with age and moreover, looking at the hanger as well as making a
fair guess that the price tag and hang tag aren't the size of a postage
stamp, I'd say that they would be a bit large the average 10-12 y.o.
girl and appear more the size appropriate for a female of adult size.

And moreover, while the "2.96" pricing is "Walmart-ish," there's no
_proof_ that they are actually being hawked there to _anyone_ - again,
one must take the website at it's word. Admittedly, I find it much
easier to believe that Walmart would (knowingly) have such and market it
to college-aged and twenty-something girls then I would they would
attempt to (again, knowingly) sell them to "adolescent girls."

And finally, I'd offer that if they are intended for over-18 gals,
whoever came up with the logo obviously doesn't know much about
women...if they did, the panties would say "Who needs THEIR OWN credit
card..."

A little follow-up: My SO and I were in a Walmart this evening (Ocean
Springs, MS) to pick up a few groceries and I had mentioned this to her
over dinner, so we went looking for them. Yep, Walmart sells 'em and
they say "If you have a Santa Claus" on the ass. And if they are
intended for "adolescent girls," someone is doing a _really_ bad job in
both placement and sizing. They were in the "sexy lingerie" (lace
thongs, push-up bras, etc.) section - there was no "junior" department
for such, just all (adult) sizes, from about Angelina Jolie to about
shudder Rosie O'Donnell. Moreover, my SO, thankfully familiar with
sexy skivvies, informs me that there is no such thing as "juniors" in
underwear because "junior" refers to a cut of clothes (ala "misses,"
"petites," etc.), not an intended age of the wearer - that much I sorta
knew from shopping for her. And she informs me that "juniors" or
whatever name underwear makes no sense. She further informs me that my
78 YO, 5' 10" 125 lb. stepmother probably wears "junior" in a lot of her
casual clothes. OK, I'll take her word on those details.

As an aside, about the most "risque" thing that we saw being hawked to
"adolescent girls" (in a totally separate "Girls" department) was a tank
top with a (fully-dressed, but dolled-up) cartoon girl with the logo
"Bratz" on it, mixed in with the "Hello, Kitty" pyjamas and various
other decidedly unrisque stuff. While the "Bratz" thing is probably not
the best image for any child, male or female, anyone who would find it
"sexy," even on an adult, has some REAL issues.

R
....and BTW, the Walton family has, for all intents and practical
purposes, nothing whatsoever to do with what is or isn't on the shelves
at Walmart, good, bad, or otherwise...

On Dec 12, 9:44 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 17:35:45 -0600, wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:18:54 -0800 (PST), rb608
wrote:

On Dec 12, 10:59 am, Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Well, Mr. Walton...how do you explain this?

http://feministing.com/archives/008226.html

That's one of those things that's simutaneously wrong and sadly
reflective of social norms on many fronts. Hard to believe (well, I
guess not) that it's offered at the nation's largest retailer.

Joe F.

I saw nothing on the underwear or the label thereon that indicated size
or for whom it was intended. The _website_ brought "adolescent girls"
into things, saying it was in the "junior" department." As anyone who
has ever shopped for a (adult) female can attest, "junior" has nothing
to do with age and moreover, looking at the hanger as well as making a
fair guess that the price tag and hang tag aren't the size of a postage
stamp, I'd say that they would be a bit large the average 10-12 y.o.
girl and appear more the size appropriate for a female of adult size.

And moreover, while the "2.96" pricing is "Walmart-ish," there's no
_proof_ that they are actually being hawked there to _anyone_ - again,
one must take the website at it's word. Admittedly, I find it much
easier to believe that Walmart would (knowingly) have such and market it
to college-aged and twenty-something girls then I would they would
attempt to (again, knowingly) sell them to "adolescent girls."

And finally, I'd offer that if they are intended for over-18 gals,
whoever came up with the logo obviously doesn't know much about
women...if they did, the panties would say "Who needs THEIR OWN credit
card..."

A little follow-up: My SO and I were in a Walmart this evening (Ocean
Springs, MS) to pick up a few groceries and I had mentioned this to her
over dinner, so we went looking for them. Yep, Walmart sells 'em and
they say "If you have a Santa Claus" on the ass. And if they are
intended for "adolescent girls," someone is doing a _really_ bad job in
both placement and sizing. They were in the "sexy lingerie" (lace
thongs, push-up bras, etc.) section - there was no "junior" department
for such, just all (adult) sizes, from about Angelina Jolie to about
shudder Rosie O'Donnell. Moreover, my SO, thankfully familiar with
sexy skivvies, informs me that there is no such thing as "juniors" in
underwear because "junior" refers to a cut of clothes (ala "misses,"
"petites," etc.), not an intended age of the wearer - that much I sorta
knew from shopping for her. And she informs me that "juniors" or
whatever name underwear makes no sense. She further informs me that my
78 YO, 5' 10" 125 lb. stepmother probably wears "junior" in a lot of her
casual clothes. OK, I'll take her word on those details.

As an aside, about the most "risque" thing that we saw being hawked to
"adolescent girls" (in a totally separate "Girls" department) was a tank
top with a (fully-dressed, but dolled-up) cartoon girl with the logo
"Bratz" on it, mixed in with the "Hello, Kitty" pyjamas and various
other decidedly unrisque stuff. While the "Bratz" thing is probably not
the best image for any child, male or female, anyone who would find it
"sexy," even on an adult, has some REAL issues.

R
...and BTW, the Walton family has, for all intents and practical
purposes, nothing whatsoever to do with what is or isn't on the shelves
at Walmart, good, bad, or otherwise...

Great report, good to know. You should follow this comment up on that
site.

Best,

Bone

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:04:22 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer
wrote:

On Dec 12, 9:44 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 17:35:45 -0600, wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:18:54 -0800 (PST), rb608
wrote:

On Dec 12, 10:59 am, Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Well, Mr. Walton...how do you explain this?

http://feministing.com/archives/008226.html

That's one of those things that's simutaneously wrong and sadly
reflective of social norms on many fronts. Hard to believe (well, I
guess not) that it's offered at the nation's largest retailer.

Joe F.

I saw nothing on the underwear or the label thereon that indicated size
or for whom it was intended. The _website_ brought "adolescent girls"
into things, saying it was in the "junior" department." As anyone who
has ever shopped for a (adult) female can attest, "junior" has nothing
to do with age and moreover, looking at the hanger as well as making a
fair guess that the price tag and hang tag aren't the size of a postage
stamp, I'd say that they would be a bit large the average 10-12 y.o.
girl and appear more the size appropriate for a female of adult size.

And moreover, while the "2.96" pricing is "Walmart-ish," there's no
_proof_ that they are actually being hawked there to _anyone_ - again,
one must take the website at it's word. Admittedly, I find it much
easier to believe that Walmart would (knowingly) have such and market it
to college-aged and twenty-something girls then I would they would
attempt to (again, knowingly) sell them to "adolescent girls."

And finally, I'd offer that if they are intended for over-18 gals,
whoever came up with the logo obviously doesn't know much about
women...if they did, the panties would say "Who needs THEIR OWN credit
card..."

A little follow-up: My SO and I were in a Walmart this evening (Ocean
Springs, MS) to pick up a few groceries and I had mentioned this to her
over dinner, so we went looking for them. Yep, Walmart sells 'em and
they say "If you have a Santa Claus" on the ass. And if they are
intended for "adolescent girls," someone is doing a _really_ bad job in
both placement and sizing. They were in the "sexy lingerie" (lace
thongs, push-up bras, etc.) section - there was no "junior" department
for such, just all (adult) sizes, from about Angelina Jolie to about
shudder Rosie O'Donnell. Moreover, my SO, thankfully familiar with
sexy skivvies, informs me that there is no such thing as "juniors" in
underwear because "junior" refers to a cut of clothes (ala "misses,"
"petites," etc.), not an intended age of the wearer - that much I sorta
knew from shopping for her. And she informs me that "juniors" or
whatever name underwear makes no sense. She further informs me that my
78 YO, 5' 10" 125 lb. stepmother probably wears "junior" in a lot of her
casual clothes. OK, I'll take her word on those details.

As an aside, about the most "risque" thing that we saw being hawked to
"adolescent girls" (in a totally separate "Girls" department) was a tank
top with a (fully-dressed, but dolled-up) cartoon girl with the logo
"Bratz" on it, mixed in with the "Hello, Kitty" pyjamas and various
other decidedly unrisque stuff. While the "Bratz" thing is probably not
the best image for any child, male or female, anyone who would find it
"sexy," even on an adult, has some REAL issues.

R
...and BTW, the Walton family has, for all intents and practical
purposes, nothing whatsoever to do with what is or isn't on the shelves
at Walmart, good, bad, or otherwise...

Great report, good to know. You should follow this comment up on that
site.

Perhaps I should, but I've no interest whatsoever in doing so.

TC,
R

Best,

Bone

Halfordian Golfer wrote:
On Dec 12, 9:44 pm, wrote:

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 17:35:45 -0600, wrote:

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:18:54 -0800 (PST), rb608
wrote:

On Dec 12, 10:59 am, Halfordian Golfer wrote:

Well, Mr. Walton...how do you explain this?

http://feministing.com/archives/008226.html

That's one of those things that's simutaneously wrong and sadly
reflective of social norms on many fronts. Hard to believe (well, I
guess not) that it's offered at the nation's largest retailer.

Joe F.

I saw nothing on the underwear or the label thereon that indicated size
or for whom it was intended. The _website_ brought "adolescent girls"
into things, saying it was in the "junior" department." As anyone who
has ever shopped for a (adult) female can attest, "junior" has nothing
to do with age and moreover, looking at the hanger as well as making a
fair guess that the price tag and hang tag aren't the size of a postage
stamp, I'd say that they would be a bit large the average 10-12 y.o.
girl and appear more the size appropriate for a female of adult size.

And moreover, while the "2.96" pricing is "Walmart-ish," there's no
_proof_ that they are actually being hawked there to _anyone_ - again,
one must take the website at it's word. Admittedly, I find it much
easier to believe that Walmart would (knowingly) have such and market it
to college-aged and twenty-something girls then I would they would
attempt to (again, knowingly) sell them to "adolescent girls."

And finally, I'd offer that if they are intended for over-18 gals,
whoever came up with the logo obviously doesn't know much about
women...if they did, the panties would say "Who needs THEIR OWN credit
card..."

A little follow-up: My SO and I were in a Walmart this evening (Ocean
Springs, MS) to pick up a few groceries and I had mentioned this to her
over dinner, so we went looking for them. Yep, Walmart sells 'em and
they say "If you have a Santa Claus" on the ass. And if they are
intended for "adolescent girls," someone is doing a _really_ bad job in
both placement and sizing. They were in the "sexy lingerie" (lace
thongs, push-up bras, etc.) section - there was no "junior" department
for such, just all (adult) sizes, from about Angelina Jolie to about
shudder Rosie O'Donnell. Moreover, my SO, thankfully familiar with
sexy skivvies, informs me that there is no such thing as "juniors" in
underwear because "junior" refers to a cut of clothes (ala "misses,"
"petites," etc.), not an intended age of the wearer - that much I sorta
knew from shopping for her. And she informs me that "juniors" or
whatever name underwear makes no sense. She further informs me that my
78 YO, 5' 10" 125 lb. stepmother probably wears "junior" in a lot of her
casual clothes. OK, I'll take her word on those details.

As an aside, about the most "risque" thing that we saw being hawked to
"adolescent girls" (in a totally separate "Girls" department) was a tank
top with a (fully-dressed, but dolled-up) cartoon girl with the logo
"Bratz" on it, mixed in with the "Hello, Kitty" pyjamas and various
other decidedly unrisque stuff. While the "Bratz" thing is probably not
the best image for any child, male or female, anyone who would find it
"sexy," even on an adult, has some REAL issues.

R
...and BTW, the Walton family has, for all intents and practical
purposes, nothing whatsoever to do with what is or isn't on the shelves
at Walmart, good, bad, or otherwise...


Great report, good to know. You should follow this comment up on that
site.

Best,

Bone

....and, above all else...tell them the "bone" sent you. g

jeff

On 12 Dec, 16:59, Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Was it Frank that had the bad experience in Walmart where he was told
to leave the store because he had an "offensive" T-Shirt? We all know
the one...it has a Royal Coachman and the words "Bite Me" on it.

Well, Mr. Walton...how do you explain this?

http://feministing.com/archives/008226.html

--
Bone

Whether one finds that offensive is really a matter of attitude and
perspective, and it could be argued that it is a joke that will not be
seen in use, except by the wearer. It merely reflects social norms and
perceptions. Unfortunate though many of these may be.

On another note, could you ( or anybody) please explain why "bite me"
is considered offensive? I thought it was just some sort of throwaway
phrase, but obviously it is more than that.

TL
MC

"Mike" wrote in message
...
On 12 Dec, 16:59, Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Was it Frank that had the bad experience in Walmart where he was told
to leave the store because he had an "offensive" T-Shirt? We all know
the one...it has a Royal Coachman and the words "Bite Me" on it.

Well, Mr. Walton...how do you explain this?

http://feministing.com/archives/008226.html

--
Bone

Whether one finds that offensive is really a matter of attitude and
perspective, and it could be argued that it is a joke that will not be
seen in use, except by the wearer. It merely reflects social norms and
perceptions. Unfortunate though many of these may be.

If the underwear were designed.....and sized.....for adults, what you say
would be true and unarguable. In this case, yes, someone COULD argue that
it's a joke. Try telling jokes concerning adolscent girls in a similar vein
at the next party you attend. Then come back and offer insights on social
norms.

On another note, could you ( or anybody) please explain why "bite me"
is considered offensive? I thought it was just some sort of throwaway
phrase, but obviously it is more than that.

It's generally considered to be a variation on "blow me," which I will
assume requires no further explanation.

Wolfgang