Front Sight Mailbag Letters

[CaseyJ]

Can you say:

out of a

<img src="http://www.arkive.org/media/B6472F29-22F3-4486-9920-DB3064A703A4/Presentation.Large/ large-European-mole-emerging-from-molehill.jpg" border="0" alt="IPB Image" />

+100

could you be any more right?

[Nik Habicht]

Would you rather we leave the sport?

No --- Absolutely Not! That said ---- you ladies likely have some educatin' to do, and we likely have some learning to do.......

[chuckbradley]

I think this may apply to some on both sides. When there is a mole hill where it isnt appropriate there is nothing wrong with pointing it out and trying to keep those moles from making more hills, allot of hills eventually make a mountain.

Can you say:

out of a

<img src="http://www.arkive.org/media/B6472F29-22F3-4486-9920-DB3064A703A4/Presentation.Large/ large-European-mole-emerging-from-molehill.jpg" border="0" alt="IPB Image" />

[L9X25]

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.

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.

I never called them a fring minority, I just stated that we should not allow a fringe minority to determine what is, or is not, offensive or appropriate. Funny how you can "make up" you rebuttal but challenge my alleged "made up" assertions.

Do you burp and fart at the dinner table? Regardless of who it offends, it's inappropriate. .

I personally feel that burping and farting at the dinner table is offensive AND inappropriate.

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?

Are you still talking about the photo in question or have you moved on to other topics?

[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.

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.

I never called them a fring minority, I just stated that we should not allow a fringe minority to determine what is, or is not, offensive or appropriate. Funny how you can "make up" you rebuttal but challenge my alleged "made up" assertions.

I agree with you that we should not let a fringe minority determine policy.

In the context of the post, and others before, the remark implies we are letting just that happen and it is what you were arguing against. If you dont think it s a fringe minority then why did you include that statement in your post? Sorry if I picked up on an implication that wasnt meant. Since you didnt mean to imply that then you agree its not a fringe minority and we are not letting them decide policy.

I did not make anything up , I qualified what i said by saying it was my opinion. The statement you made implied it was fact in this situation. Otherwise it wouldnt have even applied to the discussion so I took it that way. Sorry I read that into it.

[BritinUSA]

It's all about what is and is not appropriate. Compare the ad from November/December to the one in January/February.

The first picture is selling sex, period.

The second picture with the same lady has her wearing jeans, holster and gun. The second picture is more appropriate. If I want to look at sexy women in their underwear I can hang around outside Victoria's Secret, I don't need, want or expect to see that in USPSA official magazine. It is un-necessary.

The second picture (Jan/Feb) sells guns. SVI want to sell guns, if they want to sell sex then by all means they can go rent out women someplace, just don't do it in a magazine that is read by a wide cross-section of people, including juniors.

Compare the first ad to the Glock ad from January/February 2006. Julie and Dave, nice pose, action pictures down the middle, it sells guns, it indicates to the reader that the guns are for both men and women and it looks classy.

The SVI ad from Nov/Dec just looks kind of slutty; We want to encourage more women to take part in this sport, this sort of thing actively discourages women. They will feel that they are not competing against men in a sport, but that they are competing against an image. This is really bad. Men and women are different, we have different attitudes. We look at this picture and like it, women look at it and go, "ugh" !

There's nothing wrong with pictures of women shooting guns, but none of our female shooters turn up at a match wearing a sweatshirt and a pair of panties with some belt loops sewn in.

The greeter girls at the USSA Nationals were attractive, well dressed and very nice to look at, the reaction from some of the guys at that match was quite frankly, pathetic. If you have to worry about what your wife will think then chances are you're doing something you should be ashamed of.

We need to show our sport in a positive light; If SVI et al want to use pictures like these then they can have them on their web-sites and on their brochures, we (USPSA) should take the higher road.

This is my 2 cents.

[kimel]

+1 BritinUSA with one exception. Although you are certainly allowed to have your own opinion.

If you have to worry about what your wife will think then chances are you're doing something you should be ashamed of.

Not necessarily. Some wives are incredibly protective because they are insecure due to their own issues. My wife allows me to look but not touch. She realizes that the day I stop looking she probably needs to call EMS and/or the mortician.

If SVI want's to run those ads there are publication where they are appropriate. Maxim, Playboy, FHM, etc. In fact, they SHOULD run them in those magazines! Somehow, I doubt Playboy will let them being as they are rather rabidly anti-gun. Not sure about Maxim or FHM.

[jhgtyre]

There's nothing wrong with pictures of women shooting guns, but none of our female shooters turn up at a match wearing a sweatshirt and a pair of panties with some belt loops sewn in.

The girl is wearing a bathing suit. If you look at the picture again you might notice the presence of a tie on the right side. I showed the pictures to my wife and both of my daughters. All of whom shoot. They all thought the letters in Front Sight were way off base. So I did approach the mole hill and chose to look beyond it.

-ld

[Sharyn]

The girl is wearing a bathing suit. If you look at the picture again you might notice the presence of a tie on the right side.

I didn't (and don't care to) take the time to look close enough to notice the presence of a tie and that doesn't necessarily make it a bathing suit or undies. Regardless, undies are no better/worse than a bathing suit and vice versa. First impressions are very important, especially in advertising.

I personally feel that burping and farting at the dinner table is offensive AND inappropriate.

Point being... burping/farting and sexual desires are natural. The degree to which each is offensive or are inappropriate is dependent on the individual, the environment and the circumstances. Social norms and mores depict our views and reactions to each occurrence.

Like I said, I wasn't necessarily offended by the ads, but I do feel they've surpassed appropriateness. My tolerance level (or degree of offense) for the explicitness hadn't been reached or I'd have mailed a letter and/or called Mike Voigt myself. However, I do feel that it is time for me to speak up.

Are you still talking about the photo in question or have you moved on to other topics?

I don't understand your question. I'm simply saying that these are the types of things that may push women away from the sport for the reasons I've described (and not others such as our own insecurities, etc.)

---- you ladies likely have some educatin' to do

I'm TRYIN'!

I've been asked a bajillion times, "Why aren't more women involved?" and I'm telling anyone that wants to know, this sort of thing is part of the reason. If USPSA portrays a Boy's Locker room type of environment by including "Pin-Up" ads, many women will feel unwelcome. As I've mentioned, every individual has their level of tolerance.

Sure, SV may create an outstanding, quality advertisement and be targeting an 18-80 y/o male market... but why limit themselves by alienating others? It's just unnecessary. How many of you actually PURCHASED anything from SV because of the ad? I'm just glad I chose STI.

From my medical professional perspective, I agree that The Psychiatrist made a mountain... but I certainly wouldn't consider the underlying topic a mole hill. The Psychiatrist will likely disagree with me.

[SiG Lady]

Hey, did someone REMOVE my post...??!!

[1911user]

Hey, did someone REMOVE my post...??!!

Probably here ( http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?...mp;#entry495795 ) in the other thread on the same subject.

Edited January 8, 2007 by 1911user

[BritinUSA]

The girl is wearing a bathing suit. If you look at the picture again you might notice the presence of a tie on the right side.

The tie doesn't imply a bathing suit. It may be a bathing suit it may be undies, there are undies with ties on them. I've seen undies with ties... so there

... The degree to which each is offensive or are inappropriate is dependent on the individual, the environment and the circumstances.

+1

Context is everything and this ad in the context of a professional shooting association is in-appropriate.

I've been asked a bajillion times, "Why aren't more women involved?" and I'm telling anyone that wants to know, this sort of thing is part of the reason.

I don't doubt it. The ad may seem inconsequential but it really isn't. It's about seeing the other perspective. Call it getting in touch with your feminine side or whatever. I was honestly stunned when I saw that ad, I still am. It's just wrong.

[ErikW]

I just stated that we should not allow a fringe minority to determine what is, or is not, offensive or appropriate.

Female USPSA shooters are a "fringe minority."

When a bikini bottom and a T-shirt are common attire for any shooting sport, then the ad will be appropriate.

[Brundoggie]

Gotta go with Sharyn and some of the others here, while not "offensive" or pornographic the ads are inappropriate in a membership publication. Further, they reflect badly on the company that chose to run the ad.

That being said, lets not overreact, please. They were a bad idea, not the fall of mankind.

[jhgtyre]

That being said, lets not overreact, please. They were a bad idea, not the fall of mankind.

+ infinity.

-ld

[rubberneck]

There must be something wrong with me because I read that issue cover to cover and couldn't recall the advertisement when I read the complaints in the most recent Front Sight.

It may not be popular to say but I think we are better than that. We buy guns because we love to shoot and we love our sport, so I guess I really don't understand SVI's need to run an ad like that. I am not a prude in any way shape of form, I just think that ad (the one with the young lady in nothing but her shirt and panties) was in poor taste. While we all know the shooting sports are male dominated you can't ask women to embrace the sport while running ads like that in their membership publication.

YMMV.

[XRe]

To correct a post at the top of this thread, SV is in Texas, not California...

There must be something wrong with me because I read that issue cover to cover and couldn't recall the advertisement when I read the complaints in the most recent Front Sight.

The first shirt listed on this page of their catalog has the same model in the same outfit: http://www.sviguns.com/store/?indx=1

Compare the ad from November/December to the one in January/February.

The first picture is selling sex, period.

The second picture with the same lady has her wearing jeans, holster and gun. The second picture is more appropriate.

+1. Actually, the Jan/Feb ad ran previously, as well.

Chuck's comment about the ads demonstrating something about the character of the company involved strike a chord with me, as well. I don't know Sandy, and what little business I've done with his company has been positive (I ordered an ITS trigger insert). If I were to base an equipment choice off of their respective ads, I'd be picking STI - the SV ads suggest to me that they're more interested in fluff than substance, and fluff doesn't win matches... (obviously, their equipment is capable - I'm shooting one of their frames, as well, but I didn't have the gun built, so I didn't make the choice). STI's ads (for the contingency program) show that they care about the sport, to me - still nothing about the substance of their product, but it suggests that they might provide good support for folks using their product.

This is not a comment on those companies - but a comment on their marketing choices.

To summarize - Nov/Dec bad.... Jan/Feb... good by me...

[vluc]

I don't shoot SVI's so I don't pay attention to their ads.

[Sgtsvi]

I worked the Infinity table during the Nats and I can attest to the fact that there was no shortage of people helping themselves to free posters of the ads in question. We spend a lot of time and money in a sport that is not considered PC by the general public. I understand there has to be a limit to what is published in FS magazine but I cant see where the Infinity ads were in poor taste. Those who consider the ads to be "porn" need to petition the water parks to put up solid fences around the facility so we are not subjected to the smut as we drive by the park. A fence would also help control our sexual triggers so we dont wreck our cars when we get stirred up in a frenzy trying to get to our destinations.

[rubberneck]

I understand there has to be a limit to what is published in FS magazine but I cant see where the Infinity ads were in poor taste.

I have a lot of respect for female shooters. It must be very hard to show up at a match for the first time knowing that 99% of the people there will be men.

A lot of those guys will be great about it and treat that woman as an equal. At the same time there are going to be those guys that every club has that can't find it in their hearts to respect a woman. I guess that is the price that women have to pay to play in our sport. It isn't right but I have seen it enough to know that it is real.

Now you have a woman that has the stones to show up and compete in a male dominated sport and put up with all the BS that must go along with it and after a while she starts to feel like she fits in. That is until she gets the official publication from her sports governing body that has overtly sexual advertising in it. No better way to remind her that she is still in the minority than by running an ad like that.

SVI is a better company than that. They will sell guns regardless of what type of advertising they use regardless of how many posters you guys gave away. That is why IMHO it was in poor taste. Having said that, those that get themself tied up in knots about it being porn and causes people to fall into sex addition need to get out more.

[XRe]

Well put, rubberneck...

[Sgtsvi]

In defense of Sandy and his company I am sure this reaction was not his intent. The models that were hired were professional and well paid from what I have been told. I am sure he also did not intend to activate some sexually troubled shooters trigger. I do think that refering to the look of the models as "slutty" is a bit of a reach. I have shown the ads to my wife, who is getting her degree in communications art design, and she felt they were done in good taste. There are female shooters in my shooting club that have not taken any offense to the ads either. This thread is entirely subjective and can be argued for years so we will never all be in agreement on the taste of the ads in question.

just my .02

[JFD]

I didn't see either ad as being offensive, but the SV ad was useless to my wife or me. The calendar ad was buried, very small, and ignorable. I don't buy trashy calendars, so I didn't "see" it. Same goes for my wife. The SV ad was another ad I didn't "see" because a woman in her underpants hasn't made me quit flipping pages since I was a teenager. Replace the model with a shooter I've heard of and I'd be much more likely to check it out. Adding a Limited gun would have grabbed my attention for sure.

According to my wife, the model (fully dressed or not) was enough to insure she ignored the ad completely.

The ads that will end up costing me major money because they get my wife's attention would be the STI ad on page 45 of the "offensive" issue, or the Millennium Custom ad on page 38, or the Brazos ad on page 68. Perhaps the SV ad would indeed be more effective in Guns & Ammo.

[John Heiter]

I'm all about seeing some scantily clad women... but I have to admit that it does bug me when advertisers use sex so blatantly in an effort to induce men to buy a product that is by itself totally non-sexual. They weren't exactly saying "our guns are technically superior" with that ad and don't tell me SV is worried about increasing their t-shirt sales either. It wasn't porn but it probably was pushing it a bit for a publication like FrontSight. Looks to me like SV saw that because they went a little more conservative with the next ad so I give them credit for that at least.

Ads like this bother me because they are so obviously designed to appeal to a mans most basic instincts first. Did I look at the ad, heck yes and more than once, but am I going to go out and buy an SV because I now subconsciously associate their products with hot chicks in bikinis? I'd like to think I'm not that primitive but advertisers apparently don't give me that sort of credit and it's kind of insulting. Advertising used to be about selling the products but these days the goal seems to be more about the popularity of the ad than the product.

[zhunter]

OK, I have TRUDGED through this entire thread. What a waste of my time.

First of all, I am a single male that did not even take notice until this thread brought the AD to my attention, so I guess it was not that bad!!!!

I think that some people just want to control what goes on in our country, which is based on FREEDOM of CHOICE. USPSA and the advertiser in question have the CHOICE to run the AD. YOU, as a reader, have the choice to ignore it if it offends you. I respect the time and sacrifice our brothers in arms today and in the past have made to ensure that YOU have that choice. Many of the same people that are up in arms over an AD in our USPSA publication would have a freakin' FIT if Roe V. Wade was overturned by a conservative Supreme Court. They would say that they were having their freedom of choice taken from them.

Please people, get real.

NOW, for the nudity/pronograhy thing. I will admit, I am a little more indulgent than most of you on the forum, but please. First let me say, I majored in Psychology, so I know a little bit about this stuff too. And Nudity and Pornography are two TOTALLY different things all together. Nudity is a naked human body, PERIOD!!!!!! Pornography is something sexual in nature or an actual sex act. NEITHER of these were present in Front Sight!!!!!

Having spent most of my adult life living/traveling outside of the United States, I can say without question, we live in the most puritan country I have ever visited, and I have 62 countries to my credit so far. It is sickening to see what we are willing to watch on TV, killing and maiming repeatedly!!! But, God forbid if there is nudity or something sexual. Sex and nudity are part of everyday life, KILLING and MAIMING are NOT!!!!!! WE are totally backwards from where we should be headed. Take a step back and look at what is broadcast to our kids on a regular basis.

People who are sexual addicts, as the letter writer categorized them, will act on their urges whether they see a scantily clad woman or not. Just the same as an alcoholic will have a drink if the mood strikes them. Some people with addictions give in, but don't have the right toblame outside influences for the behavior.

OK, I am done!!!

Edited January 8, 2007 by zhunter