Reformed Whores band to Redskins: Your name is way more offensive than ours
from the WA Post:
The man who makes Edible Crotchless Gummy Panties and Midget-Man Condoms has a few thoughts about the Washington Redskins? latest legal argument.
Yes, as a strong free-speech advocate in an industry that regularly leans on the First Amendment, Nick Orlandino wants the Redskins to enjoy continued trademark protection. And yes, as a longtime NFL fan, he also thinks they should keep their name. But he would prefer they leave his Anal Fantasy line out of it.
?I?m still laughing about it,? said Orlandino, the CEO of Pipedream Products, manufacturer of a wide variety of novelty and bedroom products, some of which you?ve never even imagined. ?I think Daniel Snyder?s a lunatic,? Orlandino went on. ?I think he?s the Trump of the NFL. Get your own house in order. What are you pulling us into this [mess] for? We sell a good product at a fair price. It?s got nothing to do with the Redskins.?
Well it does now, in a way. As The Post?s Ian Shapira reported this week, Washington?s most recent legal strategy includes the ?Take Yo Panties Off? defense, with the team citing a wide variety of ?startling? and possibly offensive trademarks while defending its own. The team argued that these trademarks do not convey any perception of government endorsement, that the United States is not implying approval of Dago Swagg clothing, Booty Call sex aids, or Dumb Blonde hair products.
But that filing also nudged a whole bunch of businesses into the public arena, where they could trade elbows with the Redskins. It also raised a whole bunch of questions. To wit:
What?s wrong with Edible Crotchless Gummy Panties?
Some of the examples cited by the team are obviously outrageous, and many cannot even be published here. But some of them I didn?t get. Like Edible Crotchless Gummy Panties, for example. I mean, underwear is not possibly offensive. Neither is gummy candy ? especially not the delectable peach flavor. So how is combining them into a trademarked item even remotely ?startling,? to use the team?s word?
?I was shocked,? Orlandino agreed. ?It was more descriptive than it was offensive. Now, I make an item called [whoa whoa whoa WHOA, not on this Web site, sir]. That could be construed as offensive.?
I mean, whoa. Go wash your eyes out with soap. Just in case.
What do the Reformed Whores think about all this?
Well, the comedy/country musical duo ? once barred from an appearance on a Disney property due to their name ? loves the free publicity. But like Orlandino, they?re not thrilled about being lumped in with the Redskins.
?I?m offended that they would say that our name is as offensive as their incredibly offensive slur,? said Katy Frame, a Montgomery County native and one of the Reformed Whores. ?That?s crap. No. I don?t accept that.?
?We?re not as bad as that, for sure,? agreed her partner, Marie Cecile Anderson.
Frame, as it turns out, went to school in the District, and was vaguely a Redskins fan, out of local pride. But her understanding changed with time, and she began thinking ?that?s not okay ? they can change it, they can grow up.? Her band?s name, she said, is meant to play around with gender roles and women?s issues; their lyrics include frequent riffs on women?s rights, empowerment, sex and love. This is not comparable, she argued, to a billion-dollar business warding off a group of aggrieved Native Americans.
?We?re using the name to bring light to women?s issues, so it actually serves a purpose beyond just offending people,? she said. ?C?mon. It?s not the same. It?s not the same. They?re trying to defend this horrible name, in a way that?s just getting ridiculous.?
?There?s just a big difference,? Anderson added, ?between racist and funny.?
from the WA Post:
The man who makes Edible Crotchless Gummy Panties and Midget-Man Condoms has a few thoughts about the Washington Redskins? latest legal argument.
Yes, as a strong free-speech advocate in an industry that regularly leans on the First Amendment, Nick Orlandino wants the Redskins to enjoy continued trademark protection. And yes, as a longtime NFL fan, he also thinks they should keep their name. But he would prefer they leave his Anal Fantasy line out of it.
?I?m still laughing about it,? said Orlandino, the CEO of Pipedream Products, manufacturer of a wide variety of novelty and bedroom products, some of which you?ve never even imagined. ?I think Daniel Snyder?s a lunatic,? Orlandino went on. ?I think he?s the Trump of the NFL. Get your own house in order. What are you pulling us into this [mess] for? We sell a good product at a fair price. It?s got nothing to do with the Redskins.?
Well it does now, in a way. As The Post?s Ian Shapira reported this week, Washington?s most recent legal strategy includes the ?Take Yo Panties Off? defense, with the team citing a wide variety of ?startling? and possibly offensive trademarks while defending its own. The team argued that these trademarks do not convey any perception of government endorsement, that the United States is not implying approval of Dago Swagg clothing, Booty Call sex aids, or Dumb Blonde hair products.
But that filing also nudged a whole bunch of businesses into the public arena, where they could trade elbows with the Redskins. It also raised a whole bunch of questions. To wit:
What?s wrong with Edible Crotchless Gummy Panties?
Some of the examples cited by the team are obviously outrageous, and many cannot even be published here. But some of them I didn?t get. Like Edible Crotchless Gummy Panties, for example. I mean, underwear is not possibly offensive. Neither is gummy candy ? especially not the delectable peach flavor. So how is combining them into a trademarked item even remotely ?startling,? to use the team?s word?
?I was shocked,? Orlandino agreed. ?It was more descriptive than it was offensive. Now, I make an item called [whoa whoa whoa WHOA, not on this Web site, sir]. That could be construed as offensive.?
I mean, whoa. Go wash your eyes out with soap. Just in case.
What do the Reformed Whores think about all this?
Well, the comedy/country musical duo ? once barred from an appearance on a Disney property due to their name ? loves the free publicity. But like Orlandino, they?re not thrilled about being lumped in with the Redskins.
?I?m offended that they would say that our name is as offensive as their incredibly offensive slur,? said Katy Frame, a Montgomery County native and one of the Reformed Whores. ?That?s crap. No. I don?t accept that.?
?We?re not as bad as that, for sure,? agreed her partner, Marie Cecile Anderson.
Frame, as it turns out, went to school in the District, and was vaguely a Redskins fan, out of local pride. But her understanding changed with time, and she began thinking ?that?s not okay ? they can change it, they can grow up.? Her band?s name, she said, is meant to play around with gender roles and women?s issues; their lyrics include frequent riffs on women?s rights, empowerment, sex and love. This is not comparable, she argued, to a billion-dollar business warding off a group of aggrieved Native Americans.
?We?re using the name to bring light to women?s issues, so it actually serves a purpose beyond just offending people,? she said. ?C?mon. It?s not the same. It?s not the same. They?re trying to defend this horrible name, in a way that?s just getting ridiculous.?
?There?s just a big difference,? Anderson added, ?between racist and funny.?
