Tasteful sure, but consider the possible symbolism. I see this more as legal business possibly trolling haters with art which can have many meanings just as much as adult gadget store blesses neighborhood with art.
I used to know this guy who once got away from his mom as a kid and walked into a brothel. Oddly enough, nothing terrible happened.
…well okay, he was pretty obsessed with sex, but we were teenagers.
###From the people who called the cops and social services on your kids walking home from school, comes:
###The biggest ado about nothing this decade.
###Starring such luminaries as Concern Troll, Preacher’s Wife and guest starring Busy Body With No Life, in a whine for the ages!
###Coming soon to everywhere, always. See it or you’re a paedophile.
Why not simply call it an “erotic” book store, rather than the horribly euphemistic “adult”? Problem solved!
The semantics of this stuff bother the hell out of me. It appears nearly universally understood that the things sold in these stores are not “sex” in themselves, but rather substitutes for sex, meaning that they are for (mostly) masturbation. This is a deliberate legal grey area in most places, where children are legally prevented from sexual activity. Yet masturbation is still classified as a sexual activity, despite common knowledge that children can and will do this. So why can’t a kid buy a vibrator or a fleshlight since they are for solo use? This has always made my brain hurt.
Sure, it might attract kids… and? Will they be at higher risk of being hit by cars as they stand in the parking lot admiring the mural? They clearly won’t have any interest in what’s inside the store. Are they afraid they’ll be at risk by being in vague proximity to the kind of sicko, pervy adults who are interested in such deviant things as s-e-x?
It is one of those Star Trek logic bombs and actually supposed to make your filthy liberal thinking head asplode…
Good people just see it as judgy and waste no cycles in analysis.
with the sign that says Taboo adult books?
So put the beaver is some black leather and everything will be fine
What I need to know is whose feet are those?
“The vibrant, cartoonish work depicts a female feeding a purple beaver an apple. And an apparently unrelated foot.”
Local paper’s poll over 90% ok with it. No story.
I guess. But what if I am “conserving” sex-positive traditions instead of prudish ones?
This might be a contradiction in terms! I have no place for “judgy”.
I might not need to understand it as such, but leaving it deliberately obscure doesn’t help us in drafting household policy. When the consensus of people in the health field is that something is normal and healthy, yet non-expert legislators say it is a problem for “reasons”, I call shenanigans.
The people who are concerned should just be glad they didnt hire the guy tat Erlich hired for the pied piper logo.
The anatomy is a little dubious, but I think they’re supposed to be the girl’s feet.
Yeah, she’d have to be freakishly flexible to get her feet up in the air like that.
…oh, I see what they did there.
A “little” dubious? I think she’d need an additional set of joints to manage that particular position.
Was anyone able to pry a kid away from their smartphone long enough to ask them what they thought about the picture?
They probably weren’t able to find their token “kids don’t like sex” specimen, so opted to not use the other interviews.