Skip to comments.Underwear packaging reportedly recalled from Walmart after Cullman pastorís complaint
Posted on 07/25/2010 5:55:57 AM PDT by notsofastmyfriend
CULLMAN A local pastors complaint about a brand of underwear being sold with pornographic pictures on the packaging at the Cullman Walmart reportedly led to a recall of the product.
Frank Boren, pastor of New Hope Christian Center Church of God in the Springhill community, said he noticed the questionable underwear package while shopping at the store in May.
I was in there shopping for some underwear one day, and looked at the mens pictures on the packaging, he said. On a few of the packages they were very pornographic in the way they were dressed, in skimpy underwear, so I went to the manager and asked her if she thought it was inappropriate to be displayed.
After filing a few more complaints in the following weeks, Boren said the questionable packaging eventually disappeared from the stores shelves.
Cullman Walmart store manager Nancy Valentine said Borens concerns were forwarded to the corporate office, and an eventual recall of that packaging was likely the result of similar complaints.
A customer was upset about the picture on the underwear packaging and we sent his concerns to the home office, she said. I believe there was a recall on that product packaging later on.
Boren said he wanted to thank Valentine and Cullman County Sheriff Tyler Roden for their assistance in the matter.
When asked about his role in the reported recall, Roden said he listened to Borens complaint though the issue mostly fell to the discretion of Walmart officials.
He was concerned about the packaging on some of the mens underwear being too revealing, in his opinion, to the point that he thought it was pornographic, he said. This gentleman voiced his concerns about that.
I am an artist. And I love to look at most of it. My great Aunt worked at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and I have visited many museums. My most cherished memory is looking up at the Pieta when, as a kid, I visited the world’s fair.
Just took a couple of art history classes, and piecing some info together, I wondered just this morning if some of the art found in Rome, funded by the church, wasn’t child porn. We’ll never know, until judgment day, and all things can be used for evil or good, but there is a time and place for thinking about consequences.
I wonder what kind of porn laws Jesus will enact when He brings peace to the world and puts children first before whatever currency is used even if He asks for a fair tythe of 10%. Just a thought.
That's not what he says to me. He must not think you're old enough to hear the truth yet.
I knew there was some reason I never entered that store!
Why do you say that? Looks like you’re looking for something controversial to write. I notice some pornographic advertisements of women and I’m enthusiastically heterosexual. Anyone might notice porn, even if it’s of their own gender.
It’s not the underwear, it’s the ‘package’.
I demand this tread be pulled if you cannot provide the pictures. LOL
ROFLOL, first time I’ve seen that one, very, good!! LOL
Yes. Thankfully from 140 miles south. :-)
Come OUT foul demon!!!!
On the one hand- what need is there to show you how underwear look? If the buyer is wearing any they KNOW how they look-right? If you’re not built like the package model, the picture is misleading anyway. Is frustration a factor here?
Does the pastor wear underwear but not look at them?
On the other hand- seeing what you’re buying isn’t bad.
What’s dangerous here is that ANY image can ‘offend’ for some reason; does that mean no image of a product is safe? How about CHILDRENS underwear? Pictures of toddlers in Barney underwear might be a pedophiles dream! The pastor would have a better case complaining about that!
I’m not for salacious advertising,and huge posters would be over the top, but who sees the package images? People shopping for underwear, which is inherently suggestive. So should underwear move to ‘under the counter’ sales, brown paper packaging?
The hypersensitivity bothers me more than the underwear pictures. ONE man complains and a corp. recalls something? Would that work for any of us?
And if it was because of his religious affiliation, does this mean WalMart will react the same way to a Muslim’s offense? Since they are offended by everything civilized, what will that mean for retail shopping?
The manager quite possibly does know that, and since you ar familiar with the area, I'll defer to your judgement. OTOH, the Wal-Mart chain is huge. To bend for a single person who complains about a product's packaging is silly. Perhaps the complaint should have been to the manufacturer.
Precisely! ONE person gets packaging pulled?
What if a Muslim walks into every store in the nation and does this about one thing, or many things? Think they won’t?
If you can’t say ‘no’ to one pastor, ( who isn’t going to threaten you with violence) how are you going to say no to Muslims doing this en-masse?
They won’t. Result- control. Wal-Mart is STUPID to have done this. If it’s a company wide policy, they’re in for big trouble.
Now she can be ashamed of being seen in Walmart! Don’t thank me yet.
Watching a woman's butt jiggle(not juggle)like jello is not offensive or gross to me or, I would bet,to most men. If you find it gross I would suggest you turn in your man card, if you are a man, if you are female then I can understand your statement.
Disclaimer: If we were talking about Rosie O'Donut or a similar shaped woman I would reconsider the gross part. CZJ type(and ordinary looking) women can jiggle all they want in my presence and I will not feel offended.
To each his own. Somebody needs to take the fat ones off our hands!
An oil "painting" that consisted of thick muddy smudges of paint with straw stuck into it, that displayed no creative or artistic talent didn't qualify as art in my opinion. Unfortunately someone thought Anselm Keifer's nonsense was "art". "Piss Christ" is not art. A 2' X 2' square of aluminum painted white, titled "Issue" is not art. But that's my opinion.
I also had an instructor tell me that I was technically more talented at drawing and painting than he was, but I'd never be a "real artist" doing what I wanted to do. That was his opinion.
Whose definition of pornography do we use? Mine? Islam's? Cotton Mather's? Larry Flynt's? Who gets to be the pornography czar?
LOL, I couldn’t take drawing 2 because of having to draw nudes! It is against my religion and the LOGIC behind it is corrupt. If I can draw (I hated using charcoal but loved the final product) a drape without knowing what is behind it, or an unopen geode - I truly can draw a human with their clothes on. I believe it is the liberal agenda to break down the morals of the artists one foothold at a time, hardening hearts of flesh into stone. (I had a student model tell me it was about maturity and I am about 40 years older than she. LOL) I don’t care if Michaelangelo or whoever studied cadavers, its more about technique. Those who would want to discover the best way to paint would also want to know all they could about everything or be obsessive compulsive.
My graphics design professor told me to paint because I made everything so complicated and it had to be true to life. I was doing a simple cartoon of David & Goliath and actually used photos of the valley in Israel and tried to keep the clothes relative to their time, etc. Someday I’ll finish it, or just paint it! That is why I love photography. Painting is so time consuming.
As for defining porn, I think we should do what Paul did when confronted by someone weaker than he in regards to eating meat sacrificed to idols.
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.