Cavalli Underwear Offends

[Lena]

excuses guys but i may need to remind you... rder:
please stay on topic on fashion & religious symbolism and avoid going into spiritual/faith discussion which will not lead us anywhere

CAVALLI’S BOO-BOO: The Hindu customers of Harrods in London are demanding the store remove part of Roberto Cavalli’s collection from their shelves. Customers are outraged by Cavalli’s depiction of the god Krishna on innerwear pieces in the collection. “As a result of several calls from customers, the decision has been made to remove the items from sale — and they will no longer be available,” said a statement from Harrods, which also apologized to customers who were offended by the designs. Cavalli, meanwhile, sent a letter of explanation to the Hindu Council of Great Britain. “The fabric produced by Roberto Cavalli was designed to celebrate Hindu culture and not denigrate it. [It was] a completely innocent idea on our behalf, and something we very much regret.” — Nina Jones

from wwd

*of course he needed to apologise on the use of this fabric

 

[softgrey]

i have been completely on topic this whole thread...it's all relevant to the reason why the panties are or are not offensive...depending on one's religious beliefs...one cannot discuss one without the other...

today i saw 'pope' soap and buddha soap...
i once bought a jesus night light as a gift...

imo...i could say they were tacky...but who's to say what's right and what's wrong?...

opinions of right and wrong will vary based on individual beliefs...no one should be governed by someone else's beliefs...religious or otherwise...live and let live...

i might choose not to wear the offending garment out of respect for another culture...but imo..it has to be my choice...i don't want the decision made for me ...

*as far as cavalli apologizing...he'd have to wouldn't he...for business reasons...don't want to alienate the buying public...

and banana...i wouldn't exactly call this the downfall of western civilization...there are far worse crimes against humanity being committed everyday...all in the name of religion...this is definitely not where i would choose to draw the line...

 

[Lena]

nothing personal softgrey, it was a general note while starting getting into religious/non religious beliefs

*no offence for Jesus night lights, Madonna t-shirts, budha soaps, you name it.

*hope you all understand that the problem came up on the use of the
Hindu religious print on specific innerwear.. that's all, no need to
get too worked up on this topic.

*just trying to avoid a heated religious discussion that may have
nothing to do with fashion, c'est tout

 

[softgrey]

Originally posted by Lena@Jun 14th, 2004 - 1:44 am
nothing personal softgrey, it was a general note while starting getting into religious/non religious beliefs

*no offence for Jesus night lights, Madonna t-shirts, budha soaps, you name it.

*hope you all understand that the problem came up on the use of the
Hindu religious print on specific innerwear.. that's all, no need to
get too worked up on this topic.

*just trying to avoid a heated religious discussion that may have
nothing to do with fashion, c'est tout

merci bien... ...je comprends...

 

[Lena]

Originally posted by softgrey@Jun 14th, 2004 - 7:47 am
merci bien... ...je comprends...

 

[paprika_hiccup]

Originally posted by banana@Jun 14th, 2004 - 1:01 am
Personally, I think that freedom of expression is highly overrated. I doubt when etched that into the constitution centuries ago that it would be used for these purposes. I can think of many forms of expression that should not be allowed or censored and I think you can too. Is that against the rights of those who want to see it? At some point someone has to say enough is enough.

Why don't you tell me what you think about this at a later date, when its YOUR own beliefs/art/life choices that are doing the offending. I'm pretty sure that you'd be singing a different tune in the latter case.

This is EXACTLY what our "founding fathers" had in mind when the constitution was drafted. The basis for Jefferson's treatment of the idea of religious tolerence can be traced to John Locke in his letters concerning religious tolerence. Jefferson, however, did not include Locke's belief that non-religious should be shunned I, myself, do not partake in organized religion, but I did study religion extensively in college, and I respect the right of ALL people to worship or not worship the god/gods/goddesses of their choice

I thought I had quit this thread already- but condoning censorship ?


Cavali has the right to produce any kind of underpants he desires. The citizens of the world have the right to speak out against them. Alot of neg press and they will be put out of production and an apology for their insensitivity may be issued. The "someone" that should say "enough is enough" is you, as an offended consumer. Do something- speak out against it. There are many ways to express your dissent. Or do you want a book of "DEFINITIVE STANDARDS FOR DRESS AND BEHAVIOR" printed up by a few politicians who you may or may not have voted for, and distributed to every man, woman, and child?

BTW- I can think of NO forms of artistic/personal expression that "should not be allowed or censored". I think statements condoning gov't mandated censorship are so scary. It would lead our world into a future that I find absolutely terrifying.