Front Sight Mailbag Letters

[Mistral404]

I just started to read my Front Sight. I read the first two letters about the SVI ads.

I just can not believe there are folks out there with such smut in their minds.

Finch calling the ad pornography is ludicrious. Then tryig to tie a cause and effect explanation is bad science and he should know better. Again it shows how a few slightly higher educated folks can use their "credentials" as universal authority on the matter. If he thinks that innocuous ad is pornography and he is in the business of helping sexually dysfunctional people perhaps he is in the wrong business or providing mis-guided help.

How about the many men out there who are "NOT TRIGGERED" by such visual stimuli.

I know that the offended are more likely to write a negative letter than those who were not offended. I hope Dave Thomas et.al., do not use the narrow minded views of a few to speak for the majority.

Sorry for the rant. I really hate narrow minded folks--yep, I know I am narrow minded about my narrow mindedness.

As a last note: perhaps if he met the model he would come away with a different opinion.

Edited January 6, 2007 by Mistral404

[Merlin Orr]

With all respect. I think this post is a bad idea. Let it go.

[blkbrd]

I am sure this is going to get locked or go away even though he is right on.

The ad wasnt smut, or porn or anything but a great ad aimed at the base of USPSA, that would be 16-80 year old men with a heartbeat.

[EZ Bagger]

Again it shows how a few slightly higher educated folks can use their "credentials" as universal authority on the matter.

Knowledge does not equal wisdom.

[KentG]

I wonder how those folks feel about the Dillon monthy.

I liked the ad and didt see it as that bad. Heck you can see the same in the sears catalog.

[chuckbradley]

I almost didnt even comment for obvious reasons. I tend to agree with Merlin. I wasnt offended by the picture but I did have a gut feeling it didnt belong in the front sight. It wasnt porn but it was a large, highly detailed , high resolution picture that was rather vivid. It did stop and make you look. I wonder about its effectiveness to this group. We are more concerned how products work as well as the cost, availability and durability. Instead i think it reflects the character of the advertiser and if thats the image they want to portray its their right. I just think it would have been more appropriate in Guns & ammo and American Handgunner than in an organizations official journal.

Edited January 6, 2007 by chuckbradley

[ErikW]

I'm surprised the female USPSA shooters haven't spoken up about it. There they are trying to get respect in a male-dominated sport and one of the major USPSA sponsors is pushing its wares with a bikini-clad babe. Kinda sad that SV marketing to USPSA members in the USPSA house organ is no better than EAA marketing to general shooters in the gun rags.

[Tom D.]

They are a California based company after all.

[flyingchange]

Every time I get a Dillon catalog I think, "I am obviously not their target market." Same with this ad.

[LPatterson]

Someone please point me to the ad/ads that everyone is commenting on because I have gone back through the last 3 issues and I can't find anything that I can't find in a Wal Mart sale flyer or day time soaps.

It would be nice if TV and advertisements went back to the 80's style then I wouldn't have to answer my granddaughters questions of what is erectile disfunction or a 4 hour erection. Of course the kids didn't get to watch the Victoria Secret's show that I taped & have watched twice. Clothes didn't look like that back in the 50's & 60's when I really cared.

I am sort of like the dog that chases cars but if he catches it he still couldn't drive it.

Edited January 6, 2007 by LPatterson

[Chriss Grube]

Typical knee jerk reactions to blame a behavior on some trumped up BS like a picture, or gun. I guess no more free beer after nationals cause somebody might become a drunk or fall off the wagon? What next no posting times because someone might feel inferior in their shooting ability? Last time I checked this was still America...you know the land where if you don't like something turn the page or the channel. I thought the gun world would be the last place PC showed up...could I really be wrong? Nah!

[L9X25]

Interesting that few have noticed or commented on the picture at the bottom of page 3 (Stunning Guns), yet the SV advertisment has raised so much controversy.

While SV is clearly trying to sell guns, parts and shirts with their advertisments, they are also a major supporter of this sport. Front Sight generates considerable revenue by SELLING those advertisments and SV has pretty much been a fixture in the magazine.

If we are going to eliminate images that might be offensive to some members, are we going to allow Julie G., Athena, Sharyn or others to appear in Front Sight ever again?

Should we eliminate pictures of young males wearing shorts to appear in the magazine ... we can't descriminate by gender can we? We ARE trying to increase the membership of MALES too aren't we? It might bother me that Chris Tilley, Eric G. and Taran B. are all better looking and better shooters ... how can my fragile ego cope with this?

[BSeevers]

I haven't even seen the pic and I know I like it.

Sure you can have an opinion but complaining about stuff like that? Guess the Shakers really didn't go self-extinct

Edited January 6, 2007 by BSeevers

[Sharyn]

I didn't see this topic last night or I would have commented. I just received my Front Sight yesterday and The Psychiatrist's opinions were a little over the top. Having said that, I agree with him only on the perspective that the ad doesn't belong in the magazine. I agree a bit more with the perspective of the letter published just before his.

I sort of disagree with the comparison to the Dillon catalog. They choose to advertise that way in THEIR catalog. It doesn't really bother me. I know what's going to be in that catalog and I don't peruse it.

As for those who are referring to the general media for support of this kind of advertising... I don't think TLC or Discovery Channel run Victoria Secret or Enzyte (for natural male enhancement!) commercials.

I noticed the bikini/undie clad SV/Stunning Guns ads and they bothered me a little... not necessarily offended, but bothered. The same way I felt with the "welcoming girls" at this year's Open/Production Nationals. The difference here is blatantly obvious when you evaluate the responses to such actions. There were more pictures of the "welcoming girls" than people shooting. When guys make comments like "my wife is going to shoot me!" YOU KNOW THE LINE HAS BEEN CROSSED!!! I really don't have a problem hanging out with the guys at Hooters after the matches... I know what to expect when I go there. It just really shouldn't be mixed in with USPSA.

In all honesty, from a female perspective, it makes me feel alienated. You can tell me I'm too sensitive, "get over it" or whatever, but I'll guarantee you that this sort of thing will push female shooters away... and at the very least, discourage some new female shooters to participate.

USPSA is not the boy's locker room. Bikini/undie clad ads just don't belong... and they didn't even bother to put on the required 3 belt loops, SHEESH!

You ALL know this would be a different story if Jake's Green Thong Hotness graced Front Sight. And, although I designed the Front Sight cover and even emailed the mock up to El Prez himself... it never even made the cutting room floor.

[BigDave]

t was a large, highly detailed , high resolution picture that was rather vivid. It did stop and make you look.

It looks like the ad agency did an outstanding job, no?

[L9X25]

You ALL know this would be a different story if Jake's Green Thong Hotness graced Front Sight.

Sharyn,

I would not be offended if "Jake's Green Thong" made it in Front Sight, even if you did an "Al Gore package enhancement" on it. I personally have no interest in that and would never give it a second thought.

Leo

[Sharyn]

I'm glad to hear that, Leo. If everyone had your perspective this would be much more simplistic.

If we are going to eliminate images that might be offensive to some members, are we going to allow Julie G., Athena, Sharyn or others to appear in Front Sight ever again?

Wow! thanks for mentioning me. I didn't see this earlier in your post. I should hope that no images of Julie G., Athena or myself are ever offensive to anyone.

I don't think the real issue is 'offensiveness', I think it's more about appropriateness.

[DJPoLo]

... and they didn't even bother to put on the required 3 belt loops, SHEESH!

How funny - That's the exact same thing I thought when I first saw it!

-Chet

[L9X25]

Wow! thanks for mentioning me. I didn't see this earlier in your post. I should hope that no images of Julie G., Athena or myself are ever offensive to anyone.

I don't think the real issue is 'offensiveness', I think it's more about appropriateness.

Ok, I'll reword it ... I would hope that a photo of you ladies would never be deemed inappropriate, simply becuase you were attrative young ladies.

Better? or are we going to get into a discussion between violence in a movie and gratutious violence. Nudity or gratituous nudity? If we allow the fringe minority to determine appropriateness, we will be eliminating all photos. Then we will move on to discussions of topics that some find inappropriate.

[GentlemanJim]

I am so happy that women shooters come and play the game.

Some of them are so awsome...I wish I could shoot like that!!

I would support the ads only because of the PC point.

I would not want to hurt anyones feelings and if I were personaly involved I would tone them down to a little more modest level.

Jim

[chuckbradley]

I think you will find its more than a fringe minority. Making that assumed fact up to make a point is not right. I will not say its not a fringe minority as a matter of fact but my guess (properly qualified opinion) would be its not a fringe minority.

Nevertheless i think some have misunderstood the position taken. What I see mostly is that it is a sense of not being appropriate for the organizations official journal. Its fine for Dillons own catalog, its fine a publication that is out to sell copies and advertising but even they will draw the line at some point. There is a line, whether you like it or not. Different publications put that line in different places. If you dont think there should be any lines then maybe it would be ok to you to include hard porn in the magazine, if thats not ok with you then you also have a line. Now Home & Garden magazine can choose to include hard porn in their magazine if they want to and people have the choice to buy it or not. We already have those choices and nobody is trying to censor it out completely. There are those of us who just think this type of ad isnt appropriate for our journal. Dont condemn those people for that belief as we wont condemn you for thinking hard porn shouldnt be allowed either. If you think hard porn should be allowed in the journal then my argument is pointless , I am assuming you would take that position.

Let me make this clear- I do not think the ad in Front Sight is hard porn. I only used that to make a point.

[Sharyn]

Ok, I'll reword it ... I would hope that a photo of you ladies would never be deemed inappropriate, simply becuase you were attrative young ladies.

Better? or are we going to get into a discussion between violence in a movie and gratutious violence. Nudity or gratituous nudity? If we allow the fringe minority to determine appropriateness, we will be eliminating all photos. Then we will move on to discussions of topics that some find inappropriate.

I think there's a definitive difference between clad and scantily clad. I disagree with your "all or nothing" perspective.

Do you burp and fart at the dinner table? Regardless of who it offends, it's inappropriate. The difference isn't semantics, it's the perspective I'm chosing to defend on the issue. Some of the "non-offensive" positions appear to be thinly veiled under a First Amendment defense. That's so absurd and that's where "offensive" and "inappropriate" are distinctly delineated.

The attractiveness of the subject isn't inappropriate. I don't think anyone, including the "fringe minority" is offended by an attractive individual. There are rare ads that feature unattractive people. "USPSA Gone Wild" would attract a market, for sure... but is that where we, as a whole, want it to go? Sesame Street is not going to broadcast the Sex Ed episode. Like I said, I'm not grossly disturbed by the ads, but a line has to be drawn somewhere.

In male dominated sports, it's difficult to avoid the Boy's Locker Room type discussions... but that is precisely what makes many of us females feel alienated and uncomfortable. It's not about our fragile egos, low self-esteem, frail emotions, fat ass or any such nonsense. It makes some of us feel unwelcomed. Would you rather we leave the sport?

[TRNinTX]

I have tried to stay out of this discussion since my wife is one of the persons that wrote a letter (it is not one of the published ones) to Dave Thomas. You will find no stronger supporter of the shooting sports than BJ's mom. She agreed that it would be good for me to take a full year off and travel with BJ in 2005. Dave approached us at Area 4 and thanked her for her commments and said that she was not the only person who had commented on the ads by far.

As Sharyn and Chuck have already said, it is about being appropriate in our membership publication. I guess I am fast approaching the "grumpy old man age", but I wonder how many of you have shown your wives or girlfriends the ads and asked their opinion.

My 3 year old grandaughter watched the Shooting USA program featuring Julie last night and said, "When me grow up, me will shoot on TV like that girl". I would hate to think that she picks up our membership publication at 13 or 14 and were to see one of the ads that have been discussed and I say "Yeah, that's us, that's what we're all about!". I'm not sure that would send a very strong signal of being welcome.

And BTW, I don't think "male enhancement" ads belong in the NRA magazines either

[boo radley]

I really don't have a problem hanging out with the guys at Hooters after the matches... I know what to expect when I go there...

...food that would gag a vulture, the repairmen that were supposed to fix my heat-pump, and the recognition that there are prettier women, likely wearing skimpier clothing, around any university town?

(Nothing otherwise to add to the thread, but Hooters touched a nerve).

Edited January 7, 2007 by boo radley

[jhgtyre]

Can you say:

out of a