Previous Entry | Next Entry

rt snags


Laura asked me to wait until after the event to post this stuff. So, here we go.

The Hyatt took down the display a few hours after it was put up last Thursday. The man in charge of the decision met but refused to talk to Laura. His reason for taking it down? This picture was too risque:



Here are some of the covers and bookmarks that he didn't consider risque.











While I do think the RT Booklovers Convention was great, I am disappointed with how this situation was handled. Laura should have been told about the situation earlier, and the display should not have been moved.

On the bright side, I love how the other RT attendees pulled together and offered to display some of the Manlove promos on their tables. I don't quite believe Hyatt's claims of diversity and wonder about RT's, but I liked the people I met at the convention.

Comments

( 12 comments — Leave a comment )
[info]yourbob wrote:
May. 2nd, 2007 08:50 pm (UTC)
The only thing I see is the words. The words in the others, at least that I can see) are not essentially saying "f... me".
[info]julesjones wrote:
May. 2nd, 2007 09:27 pm (UTC)
I'd say that a picture of a naked woman kneeling in a submissive posture with her hands tied and her arse in the air, and the title "Pure sin", has words that are essentially saying "Fuck me".
[info]yourbob wrote:
May. 2nd, 2007 09:36 pm (UTC)
Point taken.
[info]rainkatt wrote:
May. 3rd, 2007 02:49 am (UTC)
What I saw was that it's OK for women's bodies to be used, but possibly not men's (unless they're touching a woman). Because otherwise, there's just not that much difference in the images. I'd personally find the "Pure Sin" one much more on the edge than the one that was taken down. And still with the wow and sort of wishing someone had taken the hotel management on right there, although I might not have, myself, depending on circumstances.
[info]rainkatt wrote:
May. 3rd, 2007 02:59 am (UTC)
I must apologize--forgot to tell you I'm here via a link from [info]julesjones.
[info]muneraven wrote:
May. 3rd, 2007 01:54 pm (UTC)
You gotta be kiddin me
It's just the same double standard . . .why is anyone surprised? full-frontal female nudity in movies isn't uncommon in "R" rated fare, but when was the last time you saw a full-frontal of a man on the big screen? This is the norm: naked women are okay but naked men are not. The same standard applies whether we are talking nearly naked or fully naked . . .our culture is much more comfortable with objectifying women than men.

I am fine with all this from a viewership standpoint. I'm a lesbian and naked men are only appealing in a sort of academic way. But I've been wondering for YEARS why straight chicks aren't up in arms about the inequity.

And if you all hold a march for more male nudity, I will fully support you.
[info]tharain wrote:
May. 6th, 2007 09:35 pm (UTC)
May I just say...WTF?

Asshats
[info]l_prieto wrote:
May. 6th, 2007 10:19 pm (UTC)
I am disappointed about the poster and how Laura was treated, but I can't forget that they left other things up, including Jet's Heaven bookmarks (which are gorgeous but hot).

Next year, I'm thinking we should put post-its over the naughty bits on all of the m/f, m/m covers and see if we can PC things up for people ;)
[info]tharain wrote:
May. 6th, 2007 11:38 pm (UTC)
Except for the patriarchal double standard bull willingness of our society to be fine with naked women and not naked men, I'd say that "Pure Sin" is a lot -- a lot -- more racy than the other.

I'm thinking we should put post-its over the naughty bits on all of the m/f, m/m covers

How about post-its shaped like fig leaves?
[info]l_prieto wrote:
May. 6th, 2007 11:55 pm (UTC)
Make them violet and we have a plan ;)
(Anonymous) wrote:
May. 18th, 2007 11:57 pm (UTC)
http://www.imprintitems.com/postitnotes/postitdiecutpads

They've got purple and ultra grape.
[info]l_prieto wrote:
May. 19th, 2007 12:05 am (UTC)
Awesome! Thanks :)
( 12 comments — Leave a comment )