Bookstores and Responsibility

[b etor]

I don't mind the sex book area at the B&N here.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
If they want to stock things of this nature, have it in another area totally. Other people's beliefs and values are no more important than mine. You'll notice, I didn't say burn it all. I said, I have my rights.

It appears they did, but someone brought the book from that place and put it somewhere's else. I don't think that's the bookstore's fault.

[q=Ben Kenobi]By the same token they should offer a warning somewhere in their store that they sell explicit materials.[/q]

I thought that was common knowledge for B&N and Borders' stores? There are always relationship and sex help books that have some explicit stuff (descriptions or naked pictures).

[Seedle]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Having previously worked at a Barnes & Noble, I can tell you that the only pr0n carried by the company is in the pages of magazines like PlayBoy, which are always sealed (or should always be) and kept out of reach of children.

Maybe that was true when you worked there, but it isn't anymore. The photography section has naked people books (rarely sealed.) While I'll grant that I don't recall any that had sexual conduct, they are at least as graphic as Playboy (often these books are collections from Playboy, actually) and sometimes more so. Some of the manga/comics have a graphic panel or two as well, but it would admittedly be hard to just stumble on those rare panels, and there certainly isn't any hentai or anything. Though come to think of it, the art section does have a "how to draw erotic manga" book (that sucks.)

[Asher]

Originally posted by LordShiva


Yes, teh "right to not see ghey stuff" as enshrined in teh Bill of Rights

Seeing a dude's dong forces gay views on you

Stop whining. If you don't like it, don't go to their store.

What do people like this do when going to a gym or a pool change room?

Kids see dongs all the time. It happens. Seeing them in some book on a table doesn't rob them of innocence.

Do this guy's son not have a dong or something? Like it's shocking?

[Ben Kenobi]

I thought that was common knowledge for B&N and Borders' stores? There are always relationship and sex help books that have some explicit stuff (descriptions or naked pictures).

Shouldn't be the responsibility of the customer. If they have them, they should inform folks before they go in.

[Asher]

Yes, putting up signs at B&N saying "We've got boobs inside" will certainly deter underage people from seeing boobs.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Shouldn't be the responsibility of the customer. If they have them, they should inform folks before they go in.

Of course its the responsibility of the customer. Otherwise, you are forcing places to put every little dumb ass thing someone could possibly complain about (what's next? a warning that they have books about gay people?). What ever happened to a little common sense?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Of course its the responsibility of the customer. Otherwise, you are forcing places to put every little dumb ass thing someone could possibly complain about (what's next? a warning that they have books about gay people?). What ever happened to a little common sense?

Once, when I was in America, I saw a notice on a window that I was opening that said "OPEN WINDOWS CAN BE DANGEROUS".

This was just one in a series of pathetically moronic warnings that were obviously the result of lawsuits.

I'll give it five years before bookstores have notices on the doors saying that some books may discuss homos or screwing or homos screwing.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Seedle
Maybe that was true when you worked there, but it isn't anymore. The photography section has naked people books (rarely sealed.) While I'll grant that I don't recall any that had sexual conduct, they are at least as graphic as Playboy (often these books are collections from Playboy, actually) and sometimes more so. Some of the manga/comics have a graphic panel or two as well, but it would admittedly be hard to just stumble on those rare panels, and there certainly isn't any hentai or anything. Though come to think of it, the art section does have a "how to draw erotic manga" book (that sucks.)

Dude, there's no porn at B&N. Yeah, there are pictures of breasts, but there's no porn.

[Patroklos]

What do people like this do when going to a gym or a pool change room?

Its a reasonabl expectation. Seeing explicit nude images in B&N is not. If 711 can keep their smut sectioned and covered I see no reason why B&N can't.

I have no problem with B&N having that stuff, but it should be in a clearly marked section. As far as I know this is normally the case, this manager is just a douche.

[Seedle]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Dude, there's no porn at B&N. Yeah, there are pictures of breasts, but there's no porn.

I was basing my definition of porn on your post:

Originally posted by Lorizael
the only pr0n carried by the company is in the pages of magazines like PlayBoy

If you define Playboy as porn, B&N has multiple instances of porn, both on the magazine rack and in the book racks. If you feel Playboy's content is just naked ladies and not really porn, then, as far as I know, there isn't any porn at B&N.

My opinion: People have a right to know about there sexuality, so sexuality books = alright by me. And books/mags that are just nudity for the sake of nudity: Also alright by me. What the hell is so wrong with naked people? Saying it's wrong to like to look at naked people of the gender you're attracted to is like saying it's wrong to smell food you like. And if you find the human body aesthetically pleasing outside of sexual interest, more power to you, look at both sexes then. And if a kid is too young to be interested in naked people, well, read the beginning of this sentence, they're not interested in naked people, and will only take real notice if you make a big deal out of it.

Originally posted by Mr Snuggles
Yes, putting up signs at B&N saying "We've got boobs inside" will certainly deter underage people from seeing boobs.

QFT And who decided that teens shouldn't see boobs? Preventing teens from seeing boobs doesn't prevent them from thinking about them, and it doesn't actually prevent them from seeing them. Even if you somehow kept every image of a breast from your child(ren), there is this place called reality, where there are females, and these females have breasts, and some of these females will take off their tops. I suppose you could lock your kids up, or isolate them in some way, but, to me, enforced isolation seems much more harmful to a child than a picture of breast.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes, putting up signs at B&N saying "We've got boobs inside" will certainly deter underage people from seeing boobs.

Who said the intent was to deter them? It could easily be construed as advertising.

[Ben Kenobi]

Of course its the responsibility of the customer.

No, it isn't.

Otherwise a customer would have to do things like try to figure out what ingredients there are in food.

Businesses should express clearly what it is they sell, and if Barnes and Nobles feels it increases their bottom line to stock in porn, then they should advertise it. If Barnes and Nobles is afraid of advertising it, then perhaps they shouldn't stock it at all.

Otherwise, you are forcing places to put every little dumb ass thing someone could possibly complain about (what's next? a warning that they have books about gay people?).

I don't think a warning about explicit material is an unreasonable burden, and I don't see why a business would refuse to tell the truth, unless it is they are ashamed of the books they sell.

What ever happened to a little common sense?

I think it's common sense, if you are selling explicit material to make sure the customers are informed.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Who said the intent was to deter them? It could easily be construed as advertising.

What is the point of a "warning" if not to deter? It was the implication.

[Ben Kenobi]

What is the point of a "warning" if not to deter? It was the implication.

What's the point of putting accurate labels on food ingredients?

The intent is to inform the customer what they are selling.

If you believe it should be caveat emptor, then you should also support the removal of food labels.