Nuns get tshirt taken off the shelves in Arnotts

qt3.14

http://thedailyedge.thejournal.ie/arnotts-1975066-Mar2015/

Good work as usual from the bored nuns outfit of Ruhama. It's amazing how people react to even a softly worded criticism these days. Arnotts falling over themselves to apologize for any offense.

Bit of an overreaction surely. I've seen tshirts with a lot worse on them.

Edit: For anyone who doesn't know, they're largely an offshoot of one of the orders of nuns responsible for magdalene laundries, so take any idea that they're actually concerned with women with a large grain of salt.

nokia69

the Ruhama bitches don't have much to do since their Magdalene laundries closed down

todders

I'm more disgusted that they associated pole dancers with prostitutes.

nokia69

todders wrote: »

I'm more disgusted that they associated pole dancers with prostitutes.

I agree, pole dancers are a waste of money

The_Valeyard

An adult male and young kid at a pole dance? Why would someone wear that? Kinda creepy.

Pherekydes

todders wrote: »

I'm more disgusted that they associated pole dancers with prostitutes.

They're concerned with the objectification of women.

I don't think Ruhama is run by nuns, either.

DubiousV

Would love to know what Arnotts were thinking? Who's the target consumer?

Lollipops23

DubiousV wrote: »

Would love to know what Arnotts were thinking? Who's the target consumer?

Topman used to stock waaaay worse than that back in the day.

I remember a male friend wearing a shirt that said "To be Taken Orally Overnight" with a little red X on it. This was circa 2005 and there was no uproar.

the dark phantom

Of course Arnott's had to do the Irish on it by apologizing and removing the 'offending' items, Lick asses that need to grow balls. The Nuns should have been told where to stick it.

Del.Monte

Pretty tasteless ****e and typical of the sexualisation of everything for a quick buck.

mikom

qt3.14 wrote: »

http://thedailyedge.thejournal.ie/arnotts-1975066-Mar2015/

Good work as usual from the bored nuns outfit of Ruhama. It's amazing how people react to even a softly worded criticism these days. Arnotts falling over themselves to apologize for any offense.

Bit of an overreaction surely. I've seen tshirts with a lot worse on them.

Edit: For anyone who doesn't know, they're largely an offshoot of one of the orders of nuns responsible for magdalene laundries, so take any idea that they're actually concerned with women with a large grain of salt.

Another focking quango that receives government/taxpayer funding.
Money well spent policing t-shirts.
I see they missed the "if found return to the pub" ones.
Knob heads.

MonsterCookie

Eh...the tshirt is ****ing tasteless...end of.


Would those who are objecting feel differently if it was the parent of a young child that objected? Is it just the fact that it was some penguins that objected that is causing such ire???
Glad to see arnotts have seen sense.

ceadaoin.

In fairness that is pretty tasteless and only an idiot of the highest order would consider wearing it. In fact, it's disgusting and I'm glad it's been removed.

bjork

I don;t know who thought this would be a good idea
A T-SHIRT SHOWING a Dad and his two sons watching a pole dancer




I'm glad it's removed

the_monkey

Makes me wanna go out and pay for some whore to lash one into ..

RobAMerc

bjork wrote: »

I don;t know who thought this would be a good idea
A T-SHIRT SHOWING a Dad and his two sons watching a pole dancer




I'm glad it's removed

while I agree its awful, if someone is stupid enough to wear it they should be allowed, I dont see how it directly offends anyone, and if some company is stupid enough to stock it they should be allowed ( read forced to loose a packet on it and have to give it away )

K4t

If anything, it's offensive towards men..

eviltwin

It's a horrible creepy looking yoke but they shouldn't have had to remove it.

bjork

RobAMerc wrote: »

while I agree its awful, if someone is stupid enough to wear it they should be allowed, I dont see how it directly offends anyone, and if some company is stupid enough to stock it they should be allowed ( read forced to loose a packet on it and have to give it away )

Call me old fashioned but mixing children and porn situations is weird and creepy.

Anyone who bought these should be put on a register and the purchasers in Arnotts added on it aswell

eviltwin

bjork wrote: »

Call me old fashioned but mixing children and porn situations is weird and creepy.

Anyone who bought these should be put on a register and the purchasers in Arnotts added on it aswell

What kind of register ?

bjork

eviltwin wrote: »

What kind of register ?

A cash register :pac:



Only joking>>One that would involve them being monitored

Tin Foil Hat

I feel a bit weird finding myself on the same side of an argument as that awful bunch of Victorian prudes. Who the fukk okay'd a t-shirt with a large picture of small children at a titty bar?

K4t

eviltwin wrote: »

It's a horrible creepy looking yoke but they shouldn't have had to remove it.

Nobody forced them to remove it; they chose to.

eviltwin

bjork wrote: »

A cash register :pac:



Only joking>>One that would involve them being monitored

For buying a t-shirt?

RobAMerc

RobAMerc wrote: »

while I agree its awful, if someone is stupid enough to wear it they should be allowed

They are still allowed order it online or wherever else stocks it.

Lots of people shop in Arnotts, and wouldn't like to feel they were financially supporting these tee-shirt manufacturers in some way.

+1 for Arnott's for responding in this way.

eviltwin

K4t wrote: »

Nobody forced them to remove it; they chose to.

They were put under pressure to remove it.

Shrap

eviltwin wrote: »

It's a horrible creepy looking yoke but they shouldn't have had to remove it.

Yeah, it's properly gross. It's just as gross towards the men and children (worse, eww) depicted leering at the woman as it is towards the woman depicted dancing in sexy gear for money though. In all fairness (and I am disgusted by the whole industry), it's not as if lapdancing doesn't exist. If a person is tasteless enough to think lapdancing is fine and dandy, it's not a huge stretch to think they'd be fine about wearing the t-shirt. But I'm not out there picketing lapdancing clubs, so why would I boycott the t-shirt?

Boskowski

The tshirt may be tasteless but a lot of things are. And really it's not that bad. If we only accept things nobody will ever get offended by the world would be a pretty dull place. Id nearly buy that BECAUSE. People need to chill the fk out.

K4t

eviltwin wrote: »

They were put under pressure to remove it.

Great isn't it, democracy in action.

mikom

If anyone is still interested.......... http://www.chunkclothing.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=29&products_id=729

They also have a "my first methlab" one.......... http://www.chunkclothing.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=29&products_id=724

Reoil

It's a ****ing **** t-shirt to be fair, so I think they did us a favour.

Del.Monte

Boskowski wrote: »

The tshirt may be tasteless but a lot of things are. And really it's not that bad. If we only accept things nobody will ever get offended by the world would be a pretty dull place. Id nearly buy that BECAUSE. People need to chill the fk out.

You're right of course we should have no restrictions on anything at all - complete anarchy is the only way. Is there any type of image on the shirt that you think might be going too far?

c_man

K4t wrote: »

Great isn't it, democracy in action.

When was the vote?

Boskowski

Del.Monte wrote: »

You're right of course we should have no restrictions on anything at all - complete anarchy is the only way. Is there any type of image on the shirt that you think might be going too far?

Very little to be honest. What's your problem with the tshirt anyway?

Tarzana2

Lollipops23 wrote: »

This was circa 2005 and there was no uproar.

Is there uproar now?

Shrap

Del.Monte wrote: »

You're right of course we should have no restrictions on anything at all - complete anarchy is the only way. Is there any type of image on the shirt that you think might be going too far?

Perhaps one that is against the law, at least? Let's start there eh? Last I checked, lapdancing was legal. Children watching lapdancing.....I don't know. That could be the decider....



Edit: Just realised of course that my bf has the most disgusting t-shirt I've ever seen, which has been passed among his friends with equally sick humours (and then disallowed by their partners). It goes like this: http://rlv.zcache.ca/necrophilia_tshirt-radb4840ee30d487cabc0e9d1b5e7d33e_va6lr_324.jpg

K4t

c_man wrote: »

When was the vote?

1937

bjork

Shrap wrote: »

Perhaps one that is against the law, at least? Let's start there eh? Last I checked, lapdancing was legal. Children watching lapdancing.....I don't know. That could be the decider....



Edit: Just realised of course that my bf has the most disgusting t-shirt I've ever seen, which has been passed among his friends with equally sick humours (and then disallowed by their partners). It goes like this: http://rlv.zcache.ca/necrophilia_tshirt-radb4840ee30d487cabc0e9d1b5e7d33e_va6lr_324.jpg

Do you not find it strange your boyfriend is "pretending*" to want to be like Jimmy Saville?


* I hope he is pretending and it is not a statement of fact


I'd check under the bed for a scrapbook of his hero

Shrap

Boskowski wrote: »

Very little to be honest. What's your problem with the tshirt anyway?

Well my answer would be that it's a depiction of children being taken to a lap dancing club as if it's a rite of passage for all men. Making it offensive towards both men and women. However, we don't have the right not to be offended.

Nodin

Shrap wrote: »

Well my answer would be that it's a depiction of children being taken to a lap dancing club as if it's a rite of passage for all men. Making it offensive towards both men and women. However, we don't have the right not to be offended.

Actually its a satire of a ladybird book, which is the joke. Much like the alternative titles to childrens books eg "You're different, and that's bad".

Shrap

bjork wrote: »

Do you not find it strange your boyfriend is "pretending*" to want to be like Jimmy Saville?


* I hope he is pretending and it is not a statement of fact


I'd check under the bed for a scrapbook of his hero

Well, as I have just stated that I don't have the right not to be offended, I won't spend much time on your disclaimer that you *hope* my boyfriend doesn't molest dead bodies.

Suffice it to say that he wears it (actually, it may have disintegrated by now) for work, under his chainsaw gear, and rotates the offending article between other similarly cheap-ass t-shirts mainly inherited from my sons when they've got too worn out for them to be seen in.

Hope that clears up your daily mail moment for you.

Boskowski

Shrap wrote: »

Well my answer would be that it's a depiction of children being taken to a lap dancing club as if it's a rite of passage for all men. Making it offensive towards both men and women. However, we don't have the right not to be offended.

You have the right to be offended but other people have the right not to be offended or not give a damn.

Why does this even need being spelled out?

Clearly nobody advocates for children to be taken to a pole dance club. The tshirt's sole purpose is to offend - mildly. The tshirt is aimed at the 'serial offended' and it seems to hit the spot as they duly oblige.

strobe

Pherekydes wrote: »

They're concerned with the objectification of women.

I don't think Ruhama is run by nuns, either.

They're concerned with men wanting to have sex with women full stop. They don't approve of it. Read some of the stuff they put out. They're complete wackos.

Shrap

Nodin wrote: »

Actually its a satire of a ladybird book, which is the joke. Much like the alternative titles to childrens books eg "You're different, and that's bad".

Yeah, the apple-cheeked smiling kiddies would creep anyone out regardless of the message, in this day and age. Always was a bit disturbed by the ladybird pictures.

Shrap

Boskowski wrote: »

You have the right to be offended but other people have the right not to be offended or not give a damn.

You misinterpreted me. I said, and I quote

However, we don't have the right not to be offended.

Jake Rugby Walrus666

I disapprove with their right to say it, but I will defend to the death what they say.

Boskowski

Ye that escaped me. It still puzzles me a bit and I'm struggling to get what you're trying to say.

Boskowski

Jake Rugby Walrus666 wrote: »

I disapprove with their right to say it, but I will defend to the death what they say.

Wasn't that quote the other way around?

K4t

Boskowski wrote: »

Clearly nobody advocates for children to be taken to a pole dance club. The tshirt's sole purpose is to offend - mildly. The tshirt is aimed at the 'serial offended' and it seems to hit the spot as they duly oblige.

Some might.

Jake Rugby Walrus666

Boskowski wrote: »

Wasn't that quote the other way around?

Come on dude - lighten up

Shrap

Boskowski wrote: »

Ye that escaped me. It still puzzles me a bit and I'm struggling to get what you're trying to say.

Well, lots of things offend me. People believing in angels who spout crap (as I see it) about how something "was meant to be" or how "it's god's plan", for example. I find that offensive to hear, but I don't have the right not to hear it.

I similarly don't have the right not to see something that offends me, like a t-shirt that gets on my nerves because it's designed to offend.