Kip does a good job discussing why the photo shouldn’t have been taken*, so I’d like to talk about why it was. One of Kip’s commenters defines VA Beach as “Falwell and Robertson country” to explain the over-sensitivity to even the tiniest hint of semi-nudity. I grew up in the VA Beach area, and I’m currently in what IS Falwell country. I can speak with some authority when I say that it’s inaccurate to refer to the area as either. Jerry Falwell held influence in only a relatively small geographical location, and it certainly didn’t stretch across the state to Hampton Roads. While Pat Robertson is actually based in VA Beach, his influence (while greater than Falwell’s) doesn’t have the same kind of regional sway. I see that difference easily every time I go to visit my parents and am surprised to hear the word “ass” used on the radio (it’s censored here) or pass by a Hooters restaurant (plans to build one here faltered after Falwell’s crew all but stormed City Hall with pitchforks and torches). The reality is that Hampton Roads is one of the liberal hot spots in VA (you got HR, Richmond, and Northern Va).

So why are the religious right (undoubtedly the complaining customer would put themselves in that group) making a fuss in a not so religious right-wing area? I think we need look no further than Huckabee’s numbers in the primary. The reign of the religious right is faltering and collapsing. These types of displays are nothing more than the cries of a petulant child, unhappy because they aren’t getting the attention they want. I really think, on some level, bouts of faux outrage like this are simply an attempt to flex some muscles and try to appear relevant while the rest of society is moving on. I think we’ll be seeing more of them in the coming months, and then they will fade to be born again (pun intended) another day.

Of course I’d be remiss not to note that, in my opinion, this photo wasn’t singled out for the quarter inch of crack showing, but rather for who owned that quarter inch of crack. While it doesn’t touch much of the A&F imagery, this image is fairly homoerotic. The female is all but cropped out of the frame and we’re presented with three attractively-built shirtless men, one of whom is either in a state of undressing or re-dressing. Had it been a more evenly mixed group, perhaps with a female’s waistband drooping ever so slightly, would there have been the same complaint? Perhaps (see the above paragraph), but I also think there’s a good possibility that there wouldn’t have been. Anti-gay bigotry has long been the basis for such a double standard in imagery (nude woman=art, nude man=porn), and nowhere is anti-gay bigotry more at home than among the religious right. It’s an area where they’ve been bolstered by the successful passing of a number of anti-gay legislation. If these types of thing really are desperate grabs for the power they are so quickly losing, you can bet they will focus their efforts around gay-related media.

*Update: Upon re-reading, perhaps I should clarify that Kip discusses why the photo should not have been taken from the store, not why it should not have been shot.