Page 23


Charney, has at least four sexual-harassment lawsuits filed against him. I am surprised and discouraged by the lack of leadership and integrity that the Seven Days publishers are exhibiting here. A blanket policy of noncensorship just does not make sense in some cases involving advertising, including this one. Melanie Brotz BURLINGTON

Shame on Seven Days for choosing to run the current full-page ad by American Apparel depicting a young woman naked from the midriff down and provocatively posed with a ski pole. What are you thinking? Are your advertising decisions made by women —Pamela Polston and Paula Routly, are you there? — or adolescent boys? What message does this send to your readership, a good portion of whom are young college-age women and men? As the mom of a 6-year-old boy, and a media literacy educator, I’m not asking for censorship, just some common sense, principles and responsibility. I expect better from Seven Days. Suzie DeBrosse COLCHESTER

11/29/10 9:03 AM


I’m a loyal reader and I found that ad bad enough that I just put the paper back down on the newsstand this week. American Apparel ads generally push the limits anyway, but this was too much. I know you know better. You are a great read with fantastic content and thoughtful contributors. I know the newspaper industry is hurting, but, please, these “ends” simply do not justify the means. Rachel Stampul BURLINGTON

I’m all about supporting the first amendment, and I think your publication fairly gives voice to both sides, even if you don’t agree with it. I have to say, though, that you can exercise discretion about what you choose to print, as those choices do affect your image. The choice I am referring to is the American Apparel ad that appeared on the back cover of your recent edition. It is a poor choice for the back cover of a widely distributed, revered, respected publication. If this ad does anything, it suggests that you support this marketing scheme and I would be surprised if I were the only one you heard from about this. I’ve already ranted to the company directly that this ad campaign is exploitative, it’s disappointing and, quite simply, it’s stupid. But there is a responsibility you hold, too, and it might be in your best interest to make better choices that serve your local public better — at least for the back cover page. I think it appropriate to have standards, your publication has displayed that they exist in the past, but this ad sadly suggests there are none. Margaret Estey SOUTH BURLINGTON


Full time cosmetology classes start in January! Monday, Thursday, 8-7PM *Ask about our FLEXFriday schedule!*

We FREE have barbering students! HAIRCUTS We••are offering $8.50 clipper with any color servicecuts •• all through December! throughout the month of June!

(All student work performed by instructor-supervised students)

Are you eligible for financial aid? Give us a call! LETTERS 23


6h-CounterPoint120110.indd 1


I think it’s irresponsible of Seven Days to publish an advertisement that so clearly degrades women and girls. I think it contributes to teen girls feeling that they have to be sexy and skinny to have worth. It’s time for Seven Days to take a stand in favor of women and girls’ positive self-esteem and drop the American Apparel ad. Katie Berk

The American Apparel ad on the back cover of the most recent Seven Days is really inappropriate, unless you guys plan on publishing an equally pantless man looking foolish while suggestively holding a riding crop next week. In that case, the ad is just typical AA drooling- base idiocy. And please don’t tell me to take it out on AA and not on you. AA’s clothes suck, and their ads are empty-headed trash. If they want to shape their brand that way, that’s their call. Publishing them is yours. This isn’t about nudity, so don’t even go there. Juliet Buck





Imagine my surprise, as I sit on my couch at home, in the company of my 5- and 8-year-old boys, to find a girl with no pants on the back cover. I’ve always felt that American Apparel has pushed the limits in their advertising. But this goes too far. I felt like they were basically flipping me the bird, reveling in their own controversy. And now I feel Seven Days, by printing the ad and accepting AA’s money, is doing the same thing. Screw you, readers. We got paid, so who cares what kind of shit they want to sell. Look, if Seven Days wants to position itself as an alternative weekly for adult audiences only, do it. But don’t offer it free at the local supermarket or YMCA, for any child to pick up and take home. And don’t flip me the bird. I pick up your paper because I do enjoy some of the writing and food reviews. The main story was awesome. This ad just sucked. I expect an explanation. As a regular reader, I feel betrayed. Michelle Hobbs

I know American Apparel ads have drawn flak before, but, good Lord, a picture of a half-naked woman with her arms bound just seems beyond all reason. What are you thinking? Sharon Snow

Find more letters online at 3v-Obriens111710.indd 1

11/24/10 1:06 PM

Seven Days, December 1, 2010  

Vermont’s Dance Scene Takes a Big Leap; DJ Craig Celebrates 20 Years; Hipsters Congregate in New Church; Wylie Garcia Addresses…the Dress

Seven Days, December 1, 2010  

Vermont’s Dance Scene Takes a Big Leap; DJ Craig Celebrates 20 Years; Hipsters Congregate in New Church; Wylie Garcia Addresses…the Dress