Shame on Somerset!

What jerks! Out of 76 malls, they’re gonna be the prudes that cave to the fundies. I’ll be driving to Twelve Oaks next time.

Great Post Brandon,
Thanks for bringing this to our attention, I have tweeted this post to my almost 2000 twitter followers. Can you get the specific names of folks who made the decision?

This post should be spread to everyone we know

“We’re a diverse crew”

As are the people on the right who go to church – not all of us are prudes or against the LGBT community.

I just hate the knee-jerk reaction to immediately bash the right wing when something like this happens.

I understand that there are families that shop in the mall, but you cannot even tell that they are condoms when walking by. This is 2009, the display is for a great cause and it is terribly sad that Somerset has banned it. The fact that this is the ONLY store that was forced to take it down shows how behind the mall management is. I hope that Mr. James Prescott is happy with his constant harassing for the display to come down–karma can be a bitch.

I find the fact that Somerset would ban this display to be truly disheartening. Just when one believes that America has shed the prejudices surrounding AIDS/HIV and that there is a chance for real sex education in this country, you know one in which kids are educated about sex… a mall determines that a heart made of condoms is too controversial for the public to handle. I am extremely disappointed.

I heard it was because they were strawberry flavored.

Thanks for all of the comments, everyone. I agree with Matty D — declining to comment is a very wimpy/ cowardly way to react to this issue. It signifies that they’d rather bury their head in the sand than address the issue directly. Their web comment page says that they’ll respond within 2 business days — I’ve heard nothing back. (Not that I would — they apparently ignored the Detroit News and the Detroit Free Press). I do love the Apple Store, though… How to reconcile this!?

PS: anonymous — I laughed out loud when I read your comment re strawberry flavor!

If gay activists could tweak their message, framing this as an issue of freedom rather than dwelling on equality, they would certainly get more conservatives on board. They would sway still others by doing as Catherine Thienmann did in pointing out that advocates of gay marriage understand and upload the obligations of the institution, including monogamy.

In short, they needed present unifying message based on ideas, the political idea here being freedom, the social, responsibility.

Too many on the left, however, would rather appeal to interest groups, as if the gay movement were part of some vast coalition of the oppressed. Minority groups thus become their allies, while conservatives their adversaries.

http://www.gaypatriot.net/category/conservative-ideas/

I’m sorry but you don’t have alll the information. It’s true that the red foil heart in the window looks nice; however, I know people that work at the mall- and I also saw the display.

The problem is that at THIS Armanis there was NOTHING in the window nor in the store that indicated it was a display for HIV/AIDS awareness or education.

There may bei nfo at other Armanis—but NOT at this one…

The store was also giving condoms away to all ages—including young people. Parents were upset and contacting management because their children received condoms.

People couldn’t see the connection between Armanis and condoms! How could they without a sign or info packet of some sort?

I believe the reception and outcome may have been different if the display was identified as HIV/AIDS prevention and education. Also, if the condoms were not available to anybody under a certain age—unless with a parent. Certainly not out in the open…for anyone to take or ask about.

The bottom line is there is nothing controversial about condoms. They are thin sheaths of rubber used for centuries to protect people from STD’s and unwanted pregnancy. If you enjoy celebrating Valentine’s Day and its focus on romance, you cant leave out the part about responsibility.

Perhaps Mr. Prescott understands correctly that an advertisement which utilizes condoms only serves to promote promiscuity, which has always been a major factor in the AIDS epidemic. I think it is quite foolish to think a condom display comes with no sexual innuendo, and that is why Mr. Prescott has made the right decision.

As for “hiding in his suite”, as you say, Brandon, why should he volunteer to endure your accusations of bigotry? Those arguments are so very tired and worn out.

Again, Kudos to Mr. Prescott.

Mr. Prescott is a coward because he chooses to advocate for traditional values?

I’m sorry Brandon but this display is DIStasteful to many. Why is yours the only opinion worth consideration?

For the sake of argument, let’s just say that Mr. Prescott agrees with me that the display is distasteful, then what will you say?

New low, Flez. Looks like somebody does need a lil education … And some charm school. Aids is a gay disease? Nope.

And here’s the deal. Somerset is choosing to ban what it finds distasteful – versus this website letting you espouse your views which it may or may not find tasteful. Sir, I find them very distasteful and – the comment on promiscuity — offensive. Shame indeed.

Touché

I’m just now reading all of this for the first time. Forgive me if I missed this detail throughout the comments, but what does the text below the original image (left side) say?

My original thoughts too are that Somerset should have put out a press release regarding the issue. Like many if not all businesses, are in somewhat of a panic mode in response to the economy. If their reason for removal of the display was simply a concern that it would offend and detour any portion of their clientele; that is their prerogative. For all of us the visit Somerset, we know they are aware of their image and work hard living up to that image. In this case, they fell short. They advertise, decorate, keep the mall annoyingly clean and so on. An hour of their PR teams time to create a release would have helped avoid conversations like these which put a negative light on the mall.

Most mall stores are classified into types based on the mall size/demographic/store type and so on. At Somerset, many stores are flagship due to the upscale nature of many of the original stores. What I’m getting at…I would have been interested to see the original display at this store specifically compared others (like 12 Oaks which usually didn’t get flagship stores when I used to work there). I just wonder if the message was a little more aggressive/risque than the simpler displays. That’s just me being curious!

Hi Julie and Lonni — thanks for stopping by and offering your thoughts — both new perspectives here.

Julie — I think your comment illustrates the most frustrating thing about this whole issue — we’re debating in a bit of a vacuum here because the management at Somerset has been silent for almost a week now. Maybe you could bury your head in the sand and hope that an issue would go away 10 or even 5 years ago, but in the era of Google and social media, if you refuse to put out information, people will assume the worst (or best). And the unanswered charges/ assumptions linger out here on the internets. I didn’t know about the flagship/ non-flagship situation. Until I hear otherwise, I’m still assuming it was an overly-careful decision based on ignorance and bad taste– again, this is the ONLY mall out of 76 to censor this display. And, even if I didn’t like the display, I’d support their right to have it up — we’re not talking porn or blood here. Letting a mystery man (James Prescott) be our arbiter of taste?

Lonni — yes. Unfortunately in 2009 we still have people who think that this is a gay issue. No one raised gay versus straight here in the post or the initial comments — some people assumed because condoms and HIV/AIDS awareness were involved it must be a gay issue. This is very sad thinking. I have my doubts that it’s based on a lack of information — I think the roots are in prejudice and fear.

Thank you both for your thoughts!

Granted I don’t live in Detroit, but I have a hard time figuring out why this was a big deal.
A) It’s a big heart (fine for all age groups),
B) Even if young kids see it, what a great way to start an open discussion with your children about safe sex. Even if you believe in abstinence, safe sex should ALWAYS be part of the discussion.
C) Condoms are used by all people — gay and straight– for the prevention of ALL STDs, and to prevent pregnancy.

I’m disheartened to see a discussion of condoms become a discussion of gay rights. Everyone should use them. And, Lonni is totally correct–the largest growing population of HIV+ people is heterosexual women.

If nothing else, you have to give it to Armani for starting an open exchange of information. They were probably trying to open some teenage eyes to condoms and how they can be “cool”. More stores should take that on as a purpose.

Great post, Brandon. I agree with Carrie – how is a display of condoms necessarily related to AIDS, or to homosexuality? While condoms and the color red might trigger thoughts of AIDS awareness, it seems to me that the display was a broader attempt to link the romantic imagery of Valentine’s Day with intentions to practice safer sex. We’re bombarded with messages about love, romance and, implicitly, sex at this time of year, and Armani Exchange had the right idea in making the connection between V-day and protected sex. Additionally, condoms do not, and should not, draw immediate connections to gay sex – condoms should be used by all sexually active people to protect against all types of STDs.

That said, HIV diagnoses are on the rise in Michigan among those aged 13-24, gay and straight. The incidence actually doubled among teens aged 13-19 between ’01 and ’05. Detroit has by far the highest HIV rates in Michigan. Assuming that Armani Exchange’s target clientele falls within this age range, their displays are a courageous, tasteful and socially responsible way to deliver a message of healthy sexuality. I look forward to hearing Somerset’s response, and I won’t be shopping there until we do.

Lizzie, I know we do not live in a perfect world. But a viable society must uphold a viable standard of moral ethics. Societal ideals are important. A public heart shaped condom display throws those standards to the wind in my opinion.

Can you tell me what you meant when you used the words “enforced monogamy?”

One of the greatest bosses once said to me…..”It’s just advertising.” Messages from ads are simple. And the AX’s ad had a simple message…. Feb=v-day=lovin=remember love with w/ a rubber. AX targets a younger demographic who may not have monogamy in their lives yet.

Ads are also meant to provoke emotion….so this one is clearly a success in our blog….and compared to whats out there its pretty tame.

Want condom ad with a little more directness to it…..youtube the durex ad. you’ll know it when you see it.

Flez, the problem with your ideas about moral standards, is that you only care about YOUR moral standards. Congratulations on being in a monogamous relationship and not needing to use condoms–that’s great. But, that’s not true for everyone. And all we’re saying is that if you’re going to have sex, protect yourself.

I think it’s funny that you say “No one is suggesting we force anything on anyone.” It seems that’s EXACTLY what you’re doing, but suggesting everyone should follow YOUR moral standards.

To each their own, but if you’re going to dip into more than one pool, then use an inner tube.

Why do I have the distinct impression that Flez is not a regular Somerset shopper?

Taking away other peoples’ rights? David, I don’t want to do this and I don’t know where you’re getting this ridiculous accusation from.

What I do think is that there is NO SHAME in declining a condom advertisement in a public mall. I have taken exception to the title of this thread and have been ostracized up and down for it. You people are all up in arms about some mall manager’s decision. I happen to think he made the right decision.

I like hearing Eric Brown’s comments in post #43. I hope he is also referring to the individuals who publicly feel it’s okay to comment on another person’s character by calling them a “coward”.

I’m sure I’ve been guilty of the sort as a webmaster to a local site since 2006. However one day I just woke up not wanting to get sucked into what I call the “Blogger’s Angst” anymore. The day you wake up feeling that everyone on this planet “owes” you an explanation for something that may or may not have happened, is the day some self reflection might be in order. I know this all to well, as that day came to me not so long ago when I began questioning why I felt “entitled” to the answers for all the “whys” I wondered about.

This is all probably a little too deep, but all I need to remember is that everyone has family and friends they go home to everyday. I imagine the Internet has made life for certain people an uncomfortable place. A place where they might read critical things written about themselves, that they may or may not have been a part of, or they may or may not have had the power to do what they expected.

I’m not so much into the blogging scene anymore, so this is pretty much it for me…

Brandon,

This thread was poisoned by your hostility in the very title you chose, “Shame on Somerset”. If “this got a bit heated” as you say, it is because you were the first to put your thumb in someone else’s eye – that of Mr. Prescott. You (and others) act as if any support of his decision to forgo the condom display is evidence of some discriminatory character flaw or Neanderthal mentality.

Why can’t you see that Prescott is in a no-win situation? It is obvious that he cannot please both you and I with any decision he makes, yet you call him a coward because any perception contrary to your own is just backward and plain old unacceptable.

With all due respect, you need to recognize that you have provoked this little spat with your own judgmentalism; and also that individuals can make choices and decisions which run contrary to your own ideals, and this does not mean that they aren’t acting in good faith.

I know you don’t agree with my support for Mr. Prescott’s decision, but do you respect my right to feel this way? I wonder.

Don’t let the haters getcha down , Brandon. Sounds like Fles wouldn’t be happy with any progressive ad campaign that challenged his sensitive feelings.

I for one am proud of you all being willing to make your opinions public and share issues like this with us- I probably would have missed this story otherwise. Keep up the good work. Happy Valentines to all – don’t forget the condoms if you’re gonna have fun later, kids!!!!

oops, forgot to post my name above

From Brandon:” I stand by my opinion that it was shameful for a mall to censor what one of its tenants wanted to display — a display intended to raise awareness about AIDS/HIV issues.”

It gives me pause that out of everything being said on this topic, THE FOCUS has been on censoring something that is meant to further AIDS awareness. Enlightenment may be the purpose at other centers; however, I don’t think it was at Somerset.

I SAW the display at the store. Armani, the tenant, DID NOT POST ANYTHING indicating the display was to raise awareness for AIDS/HIV issues.

Anyone seeing the window of the store would think it was a display of condoms on Valentine’s Day and nothing more; something to get attention and publicity!

I’m sure other malls also received complaints. Perhaps Somerset is more sensitive to customer requests?

With the above said, I ask the same question someone on ROSO asked. (I’m a reader-not a poster) “What does a trendy store selling clothing in a family mall, have to do with condoms? They sell clothes-not protection.” There were condoms in the window- and also openly being given away inside.

Something also to think about: , I worked at a mall in Arizona for many years. When it comes to a controversial decision being made—it is not the mall management that does so-but the owners. If a mall manager were to make a big decision like that–their job would be on the line. If they were to respond on their own—their job would also be on the line.

Maybe Prescott can’t say anything? Just my thoughts being put out there. If hands are tied-it’s crappy being the mall manager! What does Armani say?

I also applaud you for your response to #66 when you stated, “I regret calling someone I don’t know a “coward.” It was over the line and I apologize for that — we don’t know who made this decision”. Having once worked in an upscale mall myself–I can empathize with his position!

Flez, Brandon, and others:

This definitely has been an interesting debate we’ve all engaged in over the past few days. I think this is the great part of blogs–we can all share ideas and opinions with people that I might otherwise never “meet”. Everyone is entitled to their opinions–that’s one of the beautiful things about living in the U.S. And, as a blogger, Brandon is entitled to giving his opinion on news stories (that’s what separates him from other news sources, like newspapers, who are charged with just printing the facts). And, along the same lines, so is Flez entitled to give his opinion on Brandon’s post.

Whenever you talk about AIDS, sex, and condoms, there are going to be heated discussions. These are topics that people feel strongly about on both sides, and clearly we all need to feel strongly enough about them to take the time to blog. I think we just all need to remember that we can express opinions in respectful ways, and if any of us dish it out, we also need to be able to take the heat that may come back.

Thanks, Brandon, Flez and all for making this a very interesting discussion over the past few days. It’s one of the reasons I enjoy reading this blog–many differing people coming to the same place to share their opinions.

- Carrie

Kids seek a new lease for ‘Rent’
The Detroit News

TAYLOR — It’s billed as the school-friendly version of the hit Broadway musical “Rent,” but its portrayal of homosexuality, drugs and HIV have proved too racy for administrators of this Downriver city.

Parks and Recreation officials dropped the ax on the spring-slated show

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090228/METRO/902280392

Is this an act of cowardice too?

Why does this decision to deny high schoolers the opportunity to take in some benign, gay friendly theater illicit such a tame response from you, Brandon, when you were clearly outraged at the removal of a condom display in a public mall?

Why do you call Mr. Prescott a “COWARD” for the decision he’s made, yet in this case you don’t assign negative character qualities to the decision makers – you don’t even address them.

“Oh, that’s too bad.”

Gosh, have you been bowled over by a wave of tolerance, or what?

Thanks for reporting such a cool story. I had no idea that people who shop at Armani Exchange wear condoms.