Quantcast
Utah

Utah mom says shirts in mall display are 'indecent,' buys them all

Comments

Return To Article
  • Alpine Blue Alpine, UT
    Feb. 18, 2014 3:15 p.m.

    One person can indeed make a difference for the good. Bravo Judy Cox for standing for the right.

  • Mike in Sandy Sandy, UT
    Feb. 18, 2014 3:38 p.m.

    She is giving the store even more publicity. She would have been better off shopping elsewhere.

  • Curmudgeon Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 18, 2014 3:39 p.m.

    Brilliant strategy. A reverse boycott. Buy up all the inventory. Increase the merchant's profits. Take away the agency of other members of the community. Publicize it. Send a message to PacSun. What message? These T-shirts are in (steamy) hot demand!

    What's to keep PacSun from shipping 1,000 more shirts to the Orem outlet to meet the apparent demand and generate more sales and profits?

    Now that this story has gone national, I wonder how many people have visited the PacSun website or a local PacSun store to see what they missed and maybe get their hands on what Mrs. Cox has now turned into a hot item. Way to go, Mrs. Cox. You have accomplished the exact opposite of what you intended. PacSun thanks you from the bottom of their evil heart.

  • Vala Johnson Harlem, Montana
    Feb. 18, 2014 4:00 p.m.

    Good for this Mom! Why should we stand with our hands in our pockets while our children and grandchildren are being brain washed? This type of marketing is NOT harmless.

  • Heidi T. Farmington, UT
    Feb. 18, 2014 4:03 p.m.

    "City code prohibits anyone from putting "explicit sexual material" on public display. The city defines that as "any material that appeals to a prurient interest in sex and depicts nudity, actual or simulated sexual conduct, sexual excitement,..." What wording of this law says to me is that the "city" has power to define what is sexual material. Money over morality?

  • niners SAINT GEORGE, UT
    Feb. 18, 2014 4:03 p.m.

    Calm down lady!

  • Oatmeal Woods Cross, UT
    Feb. 18, 2014 4:09 p.m.

    Interesting way of combating indecent material, buying it in bulk and then returning it later. It would cost the store trying to restock and make keeping inventory difficult. No arguing, no picketing, etc. The stuff just suddenly isn't available. Then it is. Then it isn't. Then more comes in. Then it is. Then they are overstocked and have to sell at a loss.

  • Laura Ann Layton, UT
    Feb. 18, 2014 4:20 p.m.

    Good for you, Mom! I just looked online at their website and if the t-shirts you bought were what I saw, I consider them to be soft porn.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 18, 2014 4:21 p.m.

    Presumably the return policy is for people who buy stuff in good faith and then for what ever reason change their mind. Since this doesn't apply here the store might decide not honor the return for her.

    That would have occurred to me before I bought the clothes. Were I her, I would be on 'pins and needles' hoping I would get my money back.

  • Linda M Huntersville, NC
    Feb. 18, 2014 4:25 p.m.

    What an awesome thing to do!!! Instead of just complaining she did something about it. Very impressive!!

  • waikiki_dave Honolulu, HI
    Feb. 18, 2014 4:30 p.m.

    Utah mom seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill.

  • WACougar SAINT GEORGE, UT
    Feb. 18, 2014 4:44 p.m.

    She buys $567 worth of shirts that she plans on taking back, just so the store cannot sell them? Better be careful, I don't think thats legal, or moral...its basically stealing. If people look at that shirt and want to buy it, who is she to ensure they can't?

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Feb. 18, 2014 4:53 p.m.

    A noble act but a waste of time in the long run. You can't hide the immoral world from your kids unless you raise them on the moon. The real key is to teach your kids values ...."we teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves" Joseph Smith.

    by the way...who has $500 extra bucks to buy up shirts anyway??

  • happymomto9 Saratoga Springs, UT
    Feb. 18, 2014 4:55 p.m.

    buying is "vote" to the company. you may keep other kids from wearing them, but you just told the company to make more.
    definitely return them!

  • Instereo Eureka, UT
    Feb. 18, 2014 5:06 p.m.

    If only we could buy our way out of all problems.

    I guess one starfish at a time makes a difference to the starfish but I think in this case it's better to make your stand as an individual or a family. Since this stand was so public, it kind of reminds me of the part in the Bible where people prayed to be seen.

  • fowersjl Farmington, Utah
    Feb. 18, 2014 5:10 p.m.

    Judy Cox, you are a hero! I applaud your courage to stand up and have your voice heard. I have gone into stores and complained many times about displays, but never had the moxie to buy the display to get it out of the way! Mothers everywhere need to protest the displays in malls, stores, etc., and have our voices heard. Let's care about what our children see, wear, and are exposed to! Thank you again, Judy!

  • Nan BW ELder, CO
    Feb. 18, 2014 5:16 p.m.

    I commend this mom for her actions. If more people would speak out against inappropriate products, media productions and related items, it would make an impact. I'm glad there is an article about the issue. Thank you for the article, and thank you to a mom who really cares.

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    Feb. 18, 2014 5:19 p.m.

    Good for Judy Cox. If PacSun won't respect community standards, the community doesn't have to support them.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Feb. 18, 2014 5:19 p.m.

    If your stated purpose is to return the items I wonder if it isn't a stretch to say you 'bought' them?

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 18, 2014 5:22 p.m.

    "These shirts clearly cross a boundary that is continually being pushed on our children in images on the Internet, television and when our families shop in the mall"

    YOUR boundary Mrs. Cox. We all don't live by your same standards, and not all of us are offended by the human body. They can and will make more of those shirts and put them back on display. Also, you just gave the store and designer a whole bunch of free advertising.....

  • FineDay Provo, UT
    Feb. 18, 2014 5:41 p.m.

    I hate the "soft" porn my kids see at the mall.

  • Raymond fan Olympia, WA
    Feb. 18, 2014 5:42 p.m.

    Good for you, Mom! I have had the same feelings many times but this woman showed her disgust with the only thing that gets real attention - her money. I hope PacSun and other retailers sit up and take notice that they shouldn't disregard common decency - especially in Orem, Utah!

  • speed66 Heber City, UT
    Feb. 18, 2014 5:46 p.m.

    Hilarious and a clear demonstration of deceit. She intends to return them at the end of the "return policy". Her actions are all about being noticed. If she really cared she destroy the shirts. If there were no market, the shirts wouldn't be there in the first place. Despite the self-righteous Orem slogan, freedom of speech/expression is far more important than any rooty-tooty "I know better than you" attempt to determine how people dress.

    But, by all means, squeeze your moral fist tighter...that always works well with the youth. Have to go buy something at PacSun..just to protest of course.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Feb. 18, 2014 6:03 p.m.

    So I took a look at the PacSun website. The t-shirts are no different from others, except they are more artistically decorated. I like them. I think I'll buy a few hundred myself...

  • Adirondack Cougar Loon Lake, NY
    Feb. 18, 2014 6:06 p.m.

    Curmudgeon,
    PacSun will be surprised when all the shirts are returned, and if more arrive I hope they are bought and returned 60 days later. And repurchased and returned 60 days later until the season is over and then SunPac will have a real problem, 1,000 + shirts and no takers.

  • Mrs TAP Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 18, 2014 6:22 p.m.

    Judy Cox is my heroine today! I would have lodged a complaint, also, but wouldn't have thought to purchase the offending material. And, unless the store, specifically, states under what policies items can be returned, she did nothing wrong! I am behind her 100%. Boy, I would have hated to take a teen-age son or grandson past those display windows!

  • Larry Chandler CEDAR CITY, UT
    Feb. 18, 2014 6:24 p.m.

    Why is an 18 year old man letting his mother buy his clothes? Seems to me this is a setup for therapy for him. This store has sure gotten a lot of publicity from this stunt. The whole chain will now sell lots more of them. Maybe even to people in Orem. You don't like what a store sells? Buy elsewhere. Other people may have a different opinion and want to buy what they choose.

  • LovelyDeseret Gilbert, AZ
    Feb. 18, 2014 6:35 p.m.

    I like the protest. Buy the shirts and return them in 60 days. They should have another display up by then.

    Mrs. Cox is a hero, and is making Utah more family friendly.

    I will now protest PacSun store and refuse to buy anything from them.

  • Kings Court Alpine, UT
    Feb. 18, 2014 6:35 p.m.

    Thank you, Judy, for removing temptation from our midst so we can make it back to our heavenly father someday. You were a real warrior in the pre-existence, and now you are furthering your spiritual brother's work here on earth.

  • mmare39 salt lake city, UT
    Feb. 18, 2014 6:42 p.m.

    Oh brother! Does she know that by buying them it generates in their system that it was a "hot" seller and to make more of them, design something like it for next season because it was a great seller? Everyone doesn't have to share the same values, extremists are the problem today.."we teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves" Joseph Smith.

  • Oatmeal Woods Cross, UT
    Feb. 18, 2014 6:41 p.m.

    Instereo,

    Yeah, the stand was public. But so were the t-shirts.

  • Mister J Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 18, 2014 6:56 p.m.

    What's next buying up all the coffee at Starbucks every day?

  • JT4 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 18, 2014 7:15 p.m.

    Interesting way to address the problem. I also feel it is likely ultimately counterproductive, because the company could very easily send more shirts. The question is, what method would have been better? I would really like to know, because I too would like to combat these companies that go out of their way to help the world deteriorate even further.

    For what it's worth, I also went to the website to check out the T-shirts. There was at least one there with wording on it that I should think could very easily be removed even in more permissive states on the basis of the wording's meaning.

  • NewAgeMormon Draper, UT
    Feb. 18, 2014 7:16 p.m.

    Judy, you are a superhero. Quick, go buy up all the cigarettes and alcohol in Provo before anyone else can get at them.

  • Way of the Warrior Arlington, WA
    Feb. 18, 2014 7:26 p.m.

    If only we could control (or pressure, or bully, etc.) other people into submitting to live according to our "moral" code could this world be a better place...sigh, for some reason this line of thinking sounds so familiar....and yet I could've sworn we all rejected it once before...

  • 1984! SAINT GEORGE, UT
    Feb. 18, 2014 7:32 p.m.

    This is definatley doing more harm than good for her cause. We wonder why pornongraphy is worse in Utah? Maybe becasue mom's like this make such a huge deal out of it.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Feb. 18, 2014 7:44 p.m.

    A lovely gesture. Thank you.

    But, unfortunately (and as others have pointed out) this actually sends a "buy" signal to the company to make/buy more of them.

  • DaveRL OGDEN, UT
    Feb. 18, 2014 8:17 p.m.

    This has to be the dumbest thing I have heard in sometime. Her reasoning and method is both out of touch and borderline illegal - buying something with no intention of really honoring her purchase is theft of services. Plus she seems to think she speaks for everyone. If you don't like a store's product don't shop there. I've seen Pac-Sun stuff, I wouldn't wear it but is far from pornographic.
    It amazes me that ultra conservatives scream about their rights but refuse to recognize the rights of others. Hypocrisy knows no bounds.

  • Benjamin Heward Orem, UT
    Feb. 18, 2014 8:27 p.m.

    I think it was a great idea... a way to send a message to all the companies to watch what they are trying to market to utah county. It would be better that no one would buy these at all... then the store would get a real loss, everytime, and stop selling the junk. But, instead, they will not relent, and unfortunately there are people out there that think it is kewl to be sexually unintelligent by wearing these shirts. If the store does not take them back, then she should go forward with a stronger strategy.

    I do not think it is immoral to fight immorality. Forcing the store to take a loss is, in a way, theft. But, distributing sexually explicit items to children comes at a much higher cost to society than a few lost dollars in a store.

  • xert Santa Monica, CA
    Feb. 18, 2014 8:28 p.m.

    Wow, what a hero. She buys the shirts, gives the company tons of publicity, promotes herself and then she's going to take them back after the 60 day period to get her money back. She's made a statement all right. If they refuse to give her the money back because she got too much self righteousness on the shirts while keeping them at home, it would serve her right.

  • Utah Mama Orem, UT
    Feb. 18, 2014 8:35 p.m.

    Thank you Judy Cox for your efforts to keep our community clean. You have inspired me to be more bold in expressing my dislike for inappropriate advertising to store management and explore other ways to help keep pornographic and inappropriate images from the eyes and minds of innocent youth. You are a remarkable mother.

  • a bit of reality Shawnee Mission, KS
    Feb. 18, 2014 9:03 p.m.

    If I were SunPac, I wouldn't accept the return.

  • Daughter of God slc, UT
    Feb. 18, 2014 9:15 p.m.

    I know she had good intentions but you can't combat pornography by buying it.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 18, 2014 10:02 p.m.

    It's hilarious how many people are celebrating this. Even people on this comment section who would have never given Pacsun a second thought, or had never even heard of it, went to the website to see the shirts. Guess what? Young people are doing to same thing. I guarantee Pacsun has already made money because of this stunt, regardless of weather she returns the shirts or not. Well done Judy. You cut off the head, but two more grew back in it's place......

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Feb. 18, 2014 10:06 p.m.

    So she purchased the shirts and intends to return them at the end of the return deadline for the now very publicly stated purpose of disrupting this business. Sound more like fraudulent then righteous behavior. This store would well be within its right to refuse the return.

  • benny02 slc, ut
    Feb. 18, 2014 10:10 p.m.

    Im going to be buying some clothing for my child at Pac Sun...

  • benny02 slc, ut
    Feb. 18, 2014 10:11 p.m.

    Who made this woman the morality police? What may be offensive to her may not be to others and vice a versa.
    What Judy did is give Pac Sun nationwide publicity.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 18, 2014 10:18 p.m.

    Victoria's Secret must be thinking "please walk by our store, please walk by our store".

  • benny02 slc, ut
    Feb. 18, 2014 10:28 p.m.

    Hey judy the liquor stores are full of booze...go out and buy all it.

  • niners SAINT GEORGE, UT
    Feb. 18, 2014 10:33 p.m.

    Judy...If this shocks you to that extent, then you had better not ever let your kids near a computer, mall, cell phone, store or even school for that matter....You are with your 18 year old son, who I suppose is about to go on a two year mission possibly out of the US, and you won't let him look at a public display? I have a feeling that young man is in for a rude awakening.

  • bw00ds Tucson, AZ
    Feb. 18, 2014 10:35 p.m.

    There is a difference between Starbucks coffee and soft porn or porn of any kind. She is not "pushing her morals" any more than those companies and others are pushing their morals onto us. Which they are. It goes both ways. She just decided to do something about it.

  • B ob Richmond, CA
    Feb. 18, 2014 10:39 p.m.

    I can see why Ms. Cox would be angered and take action. But I agree that this action may cause more curiosity and interest in the images than would be otherwise. But, I don't have a better idea, either. I just avoid the mall and window displays, stand in front of magazine covers in check out lines so my kids don't see them…avoid the evil as much as possible.

  • jeanie orem, UT
    Feb. 18, 2014 10:44 p.m.

    Good for Judy Cox. Maybe her method was not the most effective with regards to the store, but what she did do effectively was demonstrate her willingness to do - something - and not just shake her head and walk by. It takes guts to stand for morality knowing you will likely paint a target on yourself for the mockers to fire at. I admire her conviction to act and I support her opinion.

  • oragami St. George, UT
    Feb. 18, 2014 11:14 p.m.

    There is nothing pornographic about the shirts. This effort will do nothing but make the very people you try to "protect" desire these shirts even more.

    Why are so many LDS people so incredibly obsessed with modesty and sex (gay or straight)? How about working to solve a real problem like childhood poverty, slave labor, corporate fraud, discrimination, human rights abuses, genocide, mental illness etc.? What a distraction this crusade is.

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    Feb. 18, 2014 11:16 p.m.

    While she may plan to buy up more shirts when they get them in stock again, the fact that she's already announced her intent to return them after sixty days gives the store sufficient justification to refuse to sell any more of them to her. It's a store; not a lending library.

  • jaredw007 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 19, 2014 12:49 a.m.

    So let me get this straight, this concerned mother claims to be all about protecting the innocence of our young teens so much so that she openly admits to committing an act of dishonesty and abuse of a company's courtesy to prove some point? In this regard, she's no better than people who buy expensive outfits to wear to a party with the tag hidden so they can return it to the store the next day.

    Here's a suggestion for Sister Cox (I'm assuming she's LDS), you worry the spiritual welfare of your own children and I will worry about the spiritual welfare of mine. While your actions may have come with the best of intentions, it goes against some of the core tenets of what it means to be a latter-day saint. If we raise our children right, we won't have to resort to extreme measures because we know that they will have the moral agency to choose not to patronize places that sell indecent clothing.

  • Janet Ontario, OR
    Feb. 19, 2014 1:05 a.m.

    I hope she never wanders in to Spencer's Gifts or Frederick's of Hollywood. @@
    I accidentally walked into Spencer's one day while in animated conversation with two grandchildren. After about five steps, we stopped dead still, turned on our heels and walked out. They couldn't wait to tell my daughter! We laughed it off, and they are still good, moral young people. It never occurred to me to buy out the store just to teach everybody a lesson!

  • LiberalJimmy Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 19, 2014 2:45 a.m.

    What actually was the image displayed on the shirt? Not that it matters. Don't like. Don't buy. Would that not classify as less government?

  • Jamescmeyer Midwest City, USA, OK
    Feb. 19, 2014 7:19 a.m.

    This is an interesting story, but it makes me think a little bit. When I was younger, I didn't really understand -why- exactly modesty was such a big deal, and most youth in the Church probably relate to that. The subtlety of gradual sense erosion and a true, matured sense of self presentation hadn't yet devloped in my mind, I was focused entirely on a seemingly arbitrary, outward-focused view of it: "What's so special about the knees?"

    But if this store chain thinks it's profitable to sell clothing of poor taste even in a place like this, maybe that's worth considering. If most of the people here are decent, then most of the people here shouldn't be buying these clothes, and then the store wouldn't bother selling them, as they'd be unprofitable.

    So dress modestly! It may seem arbitrary and prudish now, but one day you'll understand.

  • Nan BW ELder, CO
    Feb. 19, 2014 7:28 a.m.

    To those of you who think that taking a stand in this manner is either dishonest or counterproductive, what would you suggest? There is no way to defend the "right" of Pacsun to sell "soft porn" shirts. This is not at all the intent of free speech. We need to fight immorality, and if her actions cause even one product buyer at Pacsun to evaluate his or her priorities, it is worth it.

  • K Mchenry, IL
    Feb. 19, 2014 7:41 a.m.

    Though shall not steal comes before though shall not covet.

    I agree with others that it is theft. In theory you "rented" over a dozen shirts that in all likelihood would have sat on the hangers at the Provo store, only to return them in hopes that the store will take a loss selling them on clearance. They still will sell them, or end up donated and worn by someone. By buying the shirts you actually did something supportive not disapproving of the design.

    Imagine if you ran a store and someone "rented" every girl/women sports shirt because they are immodest and neck to wrist should be covered with nothing form fitting and every pair of shorts, shirts, dress, capris that didn't reaching the floor? Only to return them and then your next stock came in and the items returned need to be moved fast out of the store on clearance or through donation? And since there was no supply your former customers are shopping elsewhere. Everyone has a notion of what is immodest.

    It's at best dishonesty, a lie. A sin. At worst theft? You are causing and encouraging others to do financial harm.

  • jeanie orem, UT
    Feb. 19, 2014 8:02 a.m.

    @ Jaredw007 - It is part of the core tenants to teach our children to make correct choices AND publicly stand for what we believe. It is easy and safe for you to hide behind "just teach your kids and leave everything else alone" but it is only half of what we are taught as LDS people. You don't know this?

    Why is it that we are ok with descerning when it is appropriate to advertise smoking, drinking and chewing tobacco so it has the least impact on our youth, but exploiting our natural sexual drive is fair game and vehemently protected?

    We put helmets on our kids and pad them up to their eyeballs before we send them out to ride their bikes or skate boards, but we cannot touch anything having to do with sexuality? When we consider the amount of money made (for the few) and the lives ruined by the sex industry and those using sex to sell their merchandise, a mom cannot say or do anything but teach her kid quietly at home? Ridiculous.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Feb. 19, 2014 8:08 a.m.

    Won't selling out the inventory encourage the merchant to stock even more?

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Feb. 19, 2014 8:17 a.m.

    Will she be lurking at swimming pools and beaches with the Biddy Nation Patrol, this summer?

    Soft porn? Some people are to easily titilated and so attach sex to everything they see.

    God didn't create us in his image because he was embarrassed by the human body.

    May I suggest the "Burqa's on the Beach" as an alternative to Pacsun.

  • sayswho Hurricane, UT
    Feb. 19, 2014 8:54 a.m.

    There is no law that says that a business has to accept returned items. If I were the merchant, I would simply explain our "no return" policy on those items to her and then quickly place the same items from the stock area back into the store windows for her to buy again. If I can get her to buy them five or six times, I will have made a nice profit thanks to her. And,also thanks to her, I have lots of publicity that I didn't have to pay for, and possibly I will get more people to buy those items, too. Maybe, I will even be able to expand my enterprise so that it will be twice as big as before she entered it. Now that you mention it, maybe I should check it out. SMOOTH MOVE!

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Feb. 19, 2014 9:01 a.m.

    @nanbw

    for the sack of argument we will accept for a moment that the shirts are "soft porn," to address your clams that it is not free speech. The supreme court has ruled very decisively 8-0 in Hustler vs Faldwell that it is indeed free speech. I do not like the way they depict women n these shirts, I have taught my children how such depictions objectify the human body but it does fall under free speech and they have the right to sale it and iI have the right to not buy it and teach my kids why. What I do not have the right to do is buy the products with the intent to wait tell the last minute to return them in order to disrupt their business, that is fraud.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 19, 2014 9:57 a.m.

    thanksfully we can disagree on what the definition of pornography and indecent are. Thankfully we don't have to follow what many in Utah want the world to believe.

    Its interesting to note that what the average woman in Utah wears to church would be considered very inappropriate and indecent in other countries - so its all relative.

    This lady has her opninion and that's fine

    And I hope the store continues business as usual since they and their other customers are entitled to their opinion and don't need to have their hands tied by those who claim to be the sole authority in determining what is appropriate and what is not

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    Feb. 19, 2014 10:00 a.m.

    This judgmental woman has admitted in the article she is basically engaging in fraudulent activity. She did not purchase the garments in good faith; she purchased them solely to deny others the ability to purchase them for 60 days.

    SunPac should have a copy of her fraudulent plan that she publicized at their cash register standing by when she comes in on Day 60, show it to her and tell her she is being denied the return due to her public confession of engaging in false pretenses.

    And then be sure to point out to her the brand new window display of the same t-shirts as she departs...

  • Allen Salt Lake valley, UT
    Feb. 19, 2014 10:56 a.m.

    Interesting! Let us know, DN, what happens when Judy returns the shirts.

  • Oatmeal Woods Cross, UT
    Feb. 19, 2014 11:00 a.m.

    What sort of outcry there would have been if the t-shirts degraded a religion or homosexuals rather than degrading women? In today's world, it would have been frontpage news and she would be acclaimed as a hero.

    Freedom of speech includes the right to protest things you find offensive. But I suppose if the offended society is conservative, it does not matter.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 19, 2014 11:17 a.m.

    Oatmeal, Although I agree it if had degraded a homosexual it would have been front page news, your argument falls flat because a significant portion of the population disagrees that these shirts degraded women. Its your opinion they do, but the opinion of many people(including women) that they do not.

    So sorry, it was a good attempt at an anology but doesn't hold up. Try again

  • riverofsun St.George, Utah
    Feb. 19, 2014 11:44 a.m.

    This individual has many years of travel and lots of work ahead of her.
    We have all seen this done before. It's a little bleep in the media for a couple of days.
    Perhaps was her spur of the moment thought?
    Obviously she did not think it through. She must form a long range plan now to put a dent in the evil see seeks to destroy.
    She could contact Mitt Romney. He could provide the monetary part necessary for her to continue in her quest.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Feb. 19, 2014 12:06 p.m.

    The article leaves out a lot of facts. In an interview yesterday on KNRS she said that the problem was the fact that they were putting the offensive shirts in the display window for their store. Had the shirts been in the store and not on display in the front window, there would not have been a problem. However, as it has been pointed out, they may have violated the decency laws.

    So, if she had walked by a Spencer's or Victoria's Secret it would not be a problem, unless they were putting their sexually suggestive items out in their display windows.

  • shadow01 Edwardsville, IL
    Feb. 19, 2014 12:09 p.m.

    I hear you folks out there in Deseret do a lot of this buying stuff with the pure intent of returning it later just to save a buck.
    Of course the purpose of this is to save a child and ensure they have no opportunity to exercise their agency and decision making skills.
    It doesn't help much in shopping skills either, especially if the merchant decides to throw in a hefty restocking fee.
    Put your talents, time and efforts to better use by picketing the store, writing the home office , contacting your representatives, petitioning the voters and hoping Orem isn't inundated by ACLU thugs screaming about 1st Amendment violations or having some activist Federal Judge unilaterally decide your decency laws are unconstitutional.

  • RichisLDS Brush, CO
    Feb. 19, 2014 12:20 p.m.

    Way to impose your values on the rest of society. What ever happened to agency? It's wrong when the gays do it, but perfectly ok when the LDS folk do it. Hmmm, double standard much? If you don't like the clothes the store sells, don't shop at the store! You have the right and obligation to teach your youth about such things, and allow them to define their own standards and make their own choices. Same with everyone else. You can choose not to buy such things, and you can choose to be offended by such things, but you do not have the right to take away the choice of others and define what is morally right or wrong for them.

  • Basketballgirl75 Provo, , UT
    Feb. 19, 2014 12:58 p.m.

    Good for this mom! I saw pictures of these shirts on CNN and was extremely shocked. We need to stand up to indecency in our communities.

  • K Mchenry, IL
    Feb. 19, 2014 1:06 p.m.

    Redshirt, it doesn't make it right because her objection was the fact it was in the display window. It just tells her not to set in the store, not buy the forbidden articles. If violated decency standard call the officials. I don't see why the store out the display down. Just order any from their website with free shipping to the customers home.

    I for one like 30-60-90 day returns. That way if I get a gift from a family member they can buy it before the birthday and I have time to exchange it after receiving it if it is the wrong size. Stunts like this, and wearing an item of clothes only to return it after the event will get stores to shorten their return policies. Bad for all.

  • UU702 Layton, UT
    Feb. 19, 2014 1:17 p.m.

    This would have been far more powerful and perhaps effective if the 15 minutes of fame weren't so overwhelming. TV, Radio, internet. I guess just telling mall mangement that you'll be shopping somewhere else until the display goes away is too anonymous.

  • Ronald Uharriet SWun City, Ca.
    Feb. 19, 2014 1:17 p.m.

    We preach free agency to choose from doing right or wrong.
    We preach Judge not lest we be judged. Leave the judging for God.

    Apparently these are only words that we really do not believe.

    My question is this: Why can’t we do what we believe is right, and teach
    our family members that which we believe is the right thing to do,

    and give all others their free agency to do or not do that which they feel
    meets their own needs and truly judge not.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Feb. 19, 2014 1:18 p.m.

    @redshirt

    " they may have violated the decency laws."
    then she should have contacted the proper authority rather the take the law into her own hands and remove evidence of the crime she claims was happening,

    "So, if she had walked by a Spencer's or Victoria's Secret it would not be a problem, unless they were putting their sexually suggestive items out in their display windows."
    have you ever walked by wither of these stores, their displays are no less "suggestive" then the store in question.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Feb. 19, 2014 1:56 p.m.

    This is like a real,modern adoptation of Don Quioxte's famous attack on windmills.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Feb. 19, 2014 1:58 p.m.

    I don't know exactly what the t-shirts look like that were bought up at the store, but looking at the company's website and guessing, I would dare say that the sketchy shirts would be rarely worn in public. If someone wants to shock, then this effort won't stop that (it probably encourages it). Ignoring the shirts actually is more productive. And, if anyone, of any age, including a 18 year old son, wants to look at whatever, it is a no-brainer to get it on the Internet and other widely available sources (I'll bet he has at least peeked out of curiosity). She makes a stand, which is fair, but the results won't be what she wants.

  • Ronald Uharriet SWun City, Ca.
    Feb. 19, 2014 2:10 p.m.

    What’s wrong wioth this picture:

    1. I don’t like something, so no body should be able to do that which I do not like.
    2. I do not approve of something, so nobody should be able to do that which I do not approve
    of.
    3. I inturprete certain scriptures of the Bible in certain ways, so anyone that has a different
    interpretation of what is printed in the Bible is wrong.
    4. If my moral standards is different from your moral standards, your moral standards are not
    as good as mine.
    5. If you do not believe as I do, you are wrong.

  • Ronald Uharriet SWun City, Ca.
    Feb. 19, 2014 2:19 p.m.

    I know a (Lady) in the state of Washington, that enjoys her own power tricks.

    Once she upseated a Whole City Council along with it’s Mayor.

    The power she felf from that removal of government officials was far more rewarding to (her) than the (pain) felt by each member of the council and by the Mayor and by all of their children and grandchildren, friends and extended familys, (which was great).

    The same (Lady) also told falsehoods, regarding a member of her own family, when she did not get her way in a dispute. Of course, all was done, by this (Lady), in the name of doing something for the good of all.

    I hope this purchase made in the Orem department store was not the same kind of power trick just done for recognition. It is not only hurtful, but shameful if done for praise and rocognition.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Feb. 19, 2014 2:44 p.m.

    To "K" does it make it right that the store was possibly in violation of local ordinances against sexual displays?

    To "Tolstoy" I don't go to the mall very often, and on the occasions that I do go there I don't spend much time. However, if things were as she claims they were, it sounds like the shirts were worse than what Spencers or Victoria's Secret shows in their windows.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Feb. 19, 2014 4:29 p.m.

    So what we have then is a women who has admitted to an intention to defraud this company and who has removed evidence from what she considered to be the scene of a crime.

    @redshirt
    So you have no personal reference to speak of and are basing your opinions on a women that has shown such poor judgment?

  • dan76 san antonio, TX
    Feb. 19, 2014 5:06 p.m.

    FineDay
    Provo, UT

    " I hate the "soft" porn my kids see at the mall."

    Then why do you allow them into the mall?

  • rhayes POCATELLO, ID
    Feb. 19, 2014 6:45 p.m.

    geez by buyin up there entire stock of shirts you have done nothin but sell them, the simple thing to do is not shop in the store. You can control what you see at home and insde your family unit, but morals are interpeted differently by people. Is it truely right to force your way of life and views on another human being?

  • NeilT Clearfield, UT
    Feb. 19, 2014 8:24 p.m.

    It appears the real problem is the corporate office. If they weren't aware that Orem is a conservative religious community then they are living on another planet. Why can't the store manager take the display down? Sounds like the corporation is trying to micro-manage their stores and not let their local management have any responsibility. Not a company I would want to work for. Are they an offshoot of Abercombie and Fitch?

  • shamrock Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 19, 2014 9:13 p.m.

    "Buying" (or more accurately, borrowing) all those t-shirts was foolish; that just tells the store's computers to order more shirts and her publicity ensures there will be buyers for the extra shirts, too.

    I wonder why Mrs Cox didn't simply discuss the issue with own friends and family. I suspect most of them (including her 19-year-old son) have already seen plenty of pictures of provocatively-posed young ladies in skimpy swim suits. If Cox wanted to organize a petition or something similar, fine, but really, the best approach is to not buy the t-shirts or patronize the store, and to persuade your friends to do the same.

  • A Guy With A Brain Enid, OK
    Feb. 19, 2014 10:36 p.m.

    Went to the website. Saw the shirts.

    Good for this woman. There's no way I'd let one of my kids even think about wearing a shirt like that. Yes, there are certainly more overt, immodest pictures out there, but it is totally, 100% inappropriate to put these on shirts that are marketed to KIDS.

    Not. Cool.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Feb. 19, 2014 10:36 p.m.

    @shamrock
    So you think that a large national corporation based in another state should no what a tiny market like Orem's political leanings are and alter thier corpriate brand to match it? You also think that they should allow each store manager to determain what the public face of the company is? I must be living on another planets as well then because that does not seem reasonable.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Feb. 19, 2014 10:39 p.m.

    Sorry that last comment was directed at nat t not shamrock.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Feb. 20, 2014 7:46 a.m.

    To "Tolstoy" since when is it bad judgement to do what you can do to remove sexually provocative displays from a window where small children can see it?

  • Bored to the point of THIS! Ogden, UT
    Feb. 20, 2014 8:18 a.m.

    Although I own stock in that company, I think the shirts are offensive as well.

    Please go buy all of them to get them off the racks.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    Feb. 20, 2014 9:02 a.m.

    So... In about 60 days I should drop by the Orem PacSun to get some racey t-shirts on clearance? Great news, I can get some to wear and some to give as gifts! Thanks!!

    Meanwhile, why is "morality" always about sex, and never about honesty in business dealings?

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    Feb. 20, 2014 9:16 a.m.

    @Stormwalker: "Meanwhile, why is "morality" always about sex, and never about honesty in business dealings?"

    I have never seen a group of people more obsessed with sex than the LDS crowd.

    I suspect it may have something to do with dogma-driven repression of normal healthy human emotion and physical expression.

    But that's just speculation.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Feb. 20, 2014 11:21 a.m.

    @redshirt

    I would say other then admitting to a plan to defraud the company, removing evidence from what she believed to be a crime and vigilantism against what she believed to be a crime I guess she used pretty good judgement.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Feb. 20, 2014 12:53 p.m.

    To "spring street" how is she defrauding the company? She will not gain anything, and she is going to be returning according to the company's return policy.

    If she had not purchased them, does that mean that anybody buying those T-shirts would be removing evidence? Can't the picture that she took with her phone be used as evidence since the lawyers are still looking things over to determine if laws were broken?

    Is what she did illegal in any way? Do you also call the neighborhood watch people vigilanties? Is this that much different than a neighborhood watch? She didn't try to punish them on her own, she is leaving that up to the police. She didn't force the store to comply with how she interpreted the law.

    The irony here is that so many liberals are attacking this woman yet they fully support the lawlessness of the OWS and other protestors that break laws. She has not broken any laws.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Feb. 20, 2014 2:20 p.m.

    @redshirt

    as to your first question yes it is fraud because her stated puppies was to remove the product so it could not be sold and return it at the last minute to attempt to keep it off the shelf.

    As to your second question she would be guilty because she believed there was a crime being committed and she removed evidence, others that went not the store that did not see or believe a crime was being committed would not have knowingly removed evidence.

    As to your third question if a neighborhood watch person takes the law not their own hands and tries to stop a criminal instead of call the police then yes by definition that is vigilantism and outside the scope if neighborhood watch. The moment she decided to take the law into her own hands instead of call the authorities she crossed the line.

    As to your last comment, two wrongs do not make a right and does not justify criminal behavior.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Feb. 20, 2014 2:35 p.m.

    To "spring street" did she break any law. You claim that she has broken laws, yet she has not broken any laws.

    If she is guilty of any criminal behavior, please cite the laws that she has broken. Don't just give your opinion, tell us what municipal or state laws have been broken by this woman. I would bet that you can't.

  • USAlover Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 20, 2014 3:03 p.m.

    I bet she loves the attention.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Feb. 20, 2014 3:07 p.m.

    @redshirt
    As I and other have stated above fraud, tampering with evidence (removing evidence) and vigilantism for starters. If you would like the exact criminal code I am sure you can look it up.

  • K Mchenry, IL
    Feb. 20, 2014 5:33 p.m.

    Redshirt. If would bother me more that the town I lived in had a sexual display guideline. But if there were such a regulation and I felt it was being violated I would contact the board that makes the regulation.

    Now she has "soft porn" in her home where her children, including the impressionable adult child she went to the mall with, can see them. She has given an interest free loan to a company that exploited a woman. Brilliant.

  • dan76 san antonio, TX
    Feb. 21, 2014 12:28 p.m.

    Alpine Blue
    Alpine, UT
    "One person can indeed make a difference for the good. Bravo Judy Cox for standing for the right."

    Nan BW
    ELder, CO
    "I commend this mom for her actions. If more people would speak out against inappropriate products, media productions and related items, it would make an impact. I'm glad there is an article about the issue. Thank you for the article, and thank you to a mom who really cares."

    holdtotherod
    Plano, TX
    "Way to go Judy. Modest is hotest."

    Your message will go further when it's spelled correctly..."hottest".

    Vala Johnson
    Harlem, Montana
    "Good for this Mom! Why should we stand with our hands in our pockets while our children and grandchildren are being brain washed? This type of marketing is NOT harmless."

    The retail world does not carry product without an expectation of sales. I'm told this store has sold similar product in this mall previously.

    If the above folks are so concerned about exposing their kids to similar product why frequent malls?

  • Rebel ,
    Feb. 21, 2014 1:13 p.m.

    She must be a great lady. I hope her husband and children knows that. I would welcome an opportunity to meet this lady.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 22, 2014 12:22 a.m.

    @ Rebel

    This lady is all about forcing people to live according to her personal beliefs. Tyranny is NOT great....

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Feb. 22, 2014 7:56 a.m.

    If the "owner" decides to return the product inside the companies return policy, the reason for returning doesn't matter. A refund has to be given. This was a brilliant strategy. Let them get overstocked and then they lose money. That would be a bigger message to the company than someone buying all the shirts.

  • nomad3 FARMINGTON, UT
    Feb. 22, 2014 10:35 p.m.

    It is true that in the universe of capitalism this battle may be a difficult one to win, but this mother's son or her son's peers are never going to doubt the effectiveness of this teaching strategy.

  • Demo Dave Holladay, UT
    Feb. 24, 2014 2:26 p.m.

    When I don't like the merchandise in a particular store, I shop somewhere else. But that's just me.

  • K Mchenry, IL
    March 13, 2014 10:53 p.m.

    Didn't violate any laws. Just her personal morality. And perhaps those of others. The shirts on display would not be taken down according to the city council. Why is there no follow up here?

  • David Lloyd-Jones Toronto, 00
    April 3, 2014 2:02 a.m.

    Buying stuff with the intention of returning it later looks dishonest to me.

    -dlj.