Victoria's Secret - OH THE HORROR!

[mongo]

Pornography Comes To The Mall
October 6, 2005 – Traditional Values Coalition’s Executive Director Andrea Lafferty is taking on Victoria’s Secret at the Tyson’s Corner Mall in Virginia. The lingerie store has just put on a display of half-naked and sexually suggestive mannequins. The theme of the display is sadomasochism and lesbianism.

Mrs. Lafferty went to Victoria’s Secret and took numerous photos of the window display and inside the store. The displays inside the store show women laying next to each other in lesbian-like poses. One mannequin was tied up with ropes in an S&M pose.

<snip>

She continued, “Victoria’s Secret has pushed the envelope so far, where can they go next? Live sex acts in their windows? I’m totally outraged by this brazen display of sadomasochistic pornography in a mall,” said Mrs. Lafferty. “This should be a place where I can bring my son and not be offended by mannequins dressed in sadomasochistic outfits or laying in suggestive poses.”

The Washington Post has reported on this pornographic assault on shoppers at the mall. Victoria’s Secret’s display of partially naked women is part of their marketing campaign and the goal is to spread this to 1,000 stores throughout the U.S.“Unless we make our voices heard to Victoria’s Secret, they will spread this to malls around the country,” said Mrs. Lafferty. “We should not have to fear going shopping at a mall—yet Victoria’s Secret is turning malls into the equivalent of strip joints.”

More laughs from our friends at the traditional values coalition here http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2455

Except it would be funnier if they weren't serious.

[Arkana]

1. Wow, these people will stop at absolutely nothing

to "purify" the country of "temptation."

[ray of light]

196. actually I agree with them. The sexually posed manequins are not

appropriate for malls.

If people like you wish to have those poses, then let them be at the back of the store instead of at the front.

Give people a choice of what they want to expose themselves and their children to.

I, personally, find the poses offensive and demeaning AND I would not want my children to have to see those mature poses at such a young age.

Read more at this link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1828663&mesg_id=1834254

[Taverner]

251. Ummmm okay

The bus leaves for Heritage USA in five, will you be on board?

[MADem]

254. That was kinda mean

Hey, people have a right to decide what they want to show their kids--it does not make them fundy freaks.

And putting the display inside the store would probably be the more responsible thing for this GOP company to do...but hey, they like the controversy...

I suppose with foreknowledge, one could walk around the malls in such a fashion to avoid the displays, but it really is a question of common courtesy....and free media coverage of the controversy.

[Taverner]

259. If were so worried about "the CHILDREN"

Then why is it violent video games are played RIGHT IN FRONT of the store? Go to a gaming shop, there will be a first person shooter game played to draw kids in.

Personally, I think we should just deal with the reality that sex and violence exist, and prepare our children accordingly.

And I do have kids...

[MADem]

260. That is a separate issue, and a valid one, but unrelated to this one

For the record, my comment was specifically directed at YOUR comment that the complainer should take the bus to Heritage. You essentially accused her of being a fundy nut because she had a problem with this issue--not very democratic of you, frankly.

In the big tent, we can disagree without being disagreeable.....

[guruoo]

332. Simple: Don't take your kids there....

So they call this s&m?
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/vs/
Jeez, talk about a sheltered life!

[MADem]

333. My point was that it was

MEAN to accuse the previous poster of being a fundy freak ready to board the bus for HERITAGE because she disagreed with the VS window concept.

Democrats have more tolerance for differing opinions...at least that has been my experience. Calling someone a fundy because they do not share a particular view about what was acceptable viewing for their kids is...uh, what's the word...a bit intolerant, perhaps???

As I said elsewhere, one can disagree without being disagreeable. And name-calling is just not nice.

I have no impressionable young children, so the issue does not apply to me. I just found the attack a bit unseemly.

[guruoo]

337. Yeah, i suppose your right....

but i wouldn't take it that seriously,
especially on a Friday night.:toast:

[ray of light]

345. Thank you for your defence

Particularly since my comment was not made in an inflamatory way. That first poster is the type of person who shoves people towards voting with the republicans since.

Additionally, he missed the key word in my original statement--"CHOICE". I didn't say, as a fundie might, "Get rid of it from the mall altogether." What I said is move it back so that people have a CHOICE.

And I agree with your word choice of his behavior, "Intolerant" and agreed with your whole comments.

Thanks

[Arianrhod]

382. Then why did RoL threaten to join the fundies over this? n/t

[ray of light]

387. Because of this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4995721&mesg_id=5004304

[ray of light]

388. and this one too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4995721&mesg_id=5004389

Because look at how my polite comment was flamed. If my viewpoint can't be shared without getting sarcasm and a great big 'get lost--go to Heritage and don't go to malls' comments then why should I cast my vote with people who show no respect to the other side. Which, IMO, is the same thing as the overboard-Christian-fundies do to this side!

And even your comment in which you posted "agreed" seemed to shooooo me away from the "evil malls" where I'm trying to dictate no sex-sells stuff.

Frankly, at malls, they have a lot of sexual innuendo and lots of bare naked ladies, (and a few men too), BUT where explicit sex and S&M are concerned, I do have a right to ask that the main portions of the mall be clean of that explicit detail but that the inside of the store can have whatever they'd like.

[Arianrhod]

392. Well, I disagree with your willingness

to throw over everything you believe in over one incident.

Just sayin'. . . .

[ray of light]

393. well, that was to make a point to the poster who told me to go to

heritage.

Because I'm over here fighting for our side every single day of the week! (I prefer to think of it as the side of light--the enlightened side!) And I spend 20 hours or more a week canvassing. I spend time working on blogs to learn things so that I can be more effective in my canvassing. I spend time doing and talking to many many people to try to help improve our country.

So, when a person, like that person, "flames" me...(s)he has no idea IF the person who he sent to heritage may bring a whole group of peers with him.

As I posted, I was polite (in both threads) and my opinion deserved to be said even if someone disagrees. They could have chosen to disagree with me...maybe presented a discussion to help me understand why they feel the way they do, instead of a "get lost".

And when you're fighting to get progressives elected, it doesn't make much sense to tell people on your own side to hit the road.

Thanks for your polite conversation and concern though. And truthfully, I may be a prude on Victoria Secret type things, I am a big progressive on other issues: war, environment, economy, national health care, etc...

[tavalon]

261. You do have a choice

Don't go to malls. They're evil purveyors of capitalist slime anyway. I haven't been to one in years, maybe over a decade. I don't miss them.

[Arianrhod]

351. Indeed.

If people are so offended by the decades-old mantra of the advertising conglomerates that "sex sells", then they shouldn't be wandering about, gawking, in the Gomorrah of sales outlets. Don't they have better things to do with their lives than selling their souls to purveyors of goods? </sarcasm>

The Apostle Paul stated that, if a particular behavior offends one's spiritual or moral state, then that person should not engage in that behavior. But, he continues, NO ONE has the right to tell ANYONE ELSE that THEY should not engage in it. (Romans 14. In particular, see verse 14, "I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.") This is what it means to be "non-judgmental". This is what it means to be "spiritual".

And no one has the right to infringe upon my spiritual freedom--regardless of what their personal hang-ups may be.

[ray of light]

374. ah...so asking that a sexually explicit thing get moved to the back

offends you?


The CHOICE isn't take it or shove off. The CHOICE is COMPROMISE. WE will have our xrated show in the back or middle of the store AND we will STILL have our show. NOT the opposite, We're doing it our way so get lost.

It's like a movie...you have a choice of going to see a violent or xrated movie--BUT you don't make people walk through the violent or xrated shows to GET TO the one they want.

Maybe I will go join the fundy camp! AND maybe I'll simply use my vote to keep you all here in your not so big tent suppressed forever.

I love how you attack people who have different views from your own. Keep it up and you'll never win. Maybe it's time you realized that and stopped blaming the candidates and instead realized the sarcasm and namecalling doesn't create an environment for progressives to win.

[Arianrhod]

381. I would be more inclined to discuss this with you

if you toned down the self-righteous rant a little bit.

[leanin_green]

366. Frankly, I'm just tired of having this crap thrust in my face!

I mostly object to the whole S&M motiff. I object to it more on spiritual grounds than moral ones. It's just all so sad to me really.

Further, if I was with my grandson and we saw that and he asked me about it. I'd use it as an opportunity. But, I'd rather pick my times for such opportunities. Such is the nature of our times. :dilemma:

[Moxygirl]

375. Actually the sexually posed manaquins ARE appropriate for the mall, as

they are displayed in a PRIVATE setting. If you don't want to see them then don't go to the mall. Geez!

[Tesha]

212. Why is anyone surprised that a *RED* company is selling sex?

After all, isn't this the basis of much of the (alleged) entertainment
that comes out of Fox. Rupert Murdoch's company? So Victoria's Secret
has figured out that kinkiness sells, and alls fair in commerce, right?
If it makes a buck, they're okay with it!

Democrats have sex.

Republicans buy sex, or obsess about it when they can't.

Tesha

[spooky3]

257. Newsmeat: contributions by Wexner, CEO of Limited Brands

http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?st=OH&last=wexner&first=leslie

red as can be

[babsbunny]

265. Yep, it makes the Freepers feel kinda funny in that special area

when they see stuff like this, then they feel disgusted, and go home and watch porn, and well you know the rest.

[guruoo]

334. Sometimes they can't wait that long...

[FreedomAngel82]

311. Yep

All they talk about is sex, sex, sex. :eyes: They're so obsessed and have serious problems.

[neuvocat]

2. Does she want a re-creation of Abu Garib instead?

These people that obsess over "porn" never think twice about violence.

[KingFlorez]

3. A word of advice to the "values" people

Mind Your Own Business

[cynatnite]

4. For photos go to this link:

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/vs/

Well, I can see both sides of this. As a woman, the display is degrading, but on the other hand this IS Victoria's secret. I don't buy common sense underwear there ;)

I know exactly what sort of store I'm walking into and why.

[GreenPartyVoter]

8. Meh. I guess I am ok with the pics as far as free speech but they

make me feel like a crappy asexual being. I can't wear anything from that store and pull it off.

[cynatnite]

22. When I shop there, I get things that make me feel sexy...

I want to feel that way and Victoria's Secret really does a good job of providing the kind of things I like...and my hubby, too, I should add :smoke:

I can understand some points of view concerning the displays, but the one that probably has got some of them worked up the most is INSIDE the store and not in the window. I thought the window ones were rather tame actually.

[GreenPartyVoter]

55. I weigh twice as much as any VC model. What looks good on them

is a disaster on me.

Oh well. :)

[cynatnite]

68. about the same here..

I love sexy underwear. Call it a fetish :smoke:

[LisaL]

112. I imagine most women weight twice as much as any VIC model.

[TankLV]

101. So do I and I'm a guy! Besides, those teddy's make my butt look big!

[Kurovski]

327. The right bustier makes almost anyone look fabulous!

No matter the weight or, ahem, gender. I bet it could even help turn Karl Rove into a pretty little thing, and just in time for him to make friends and influence people...in prison.

Have we learned nothing from The Rocky Horror Picture Show?

[JoMama49]

132. sorry folks, i have to agree with the values coalition on this

one. that store is slimy and scuzzy -- isn't anything sacred any more?

[femrap]

263. Just to be fair regarding the objectification of people....

I sure wish they would have a male mannequin with a big, fat hard-on standing in the window wearing a teeny weeny g-string.....then I could take all my boyfriends there....I could look longingly at that big old hard-on and fantasize just like the men do when they go past Vic's place...

Then could we have an S & M window display where the male mannequin with the big hard-on is tied up and the women mannequins have whips and chains!

Let's objectify everyone at the mall!!!! Let's teach all the little children about S & M at the mall! That would be sooooo cooooool.

I just feel it would be fair to make EVERYONE unhappy with their bodies...not just the women, OK?

Oh and he would have a 6-pack ab...and a great jaw line.....and long lush hair that women love to run their fingers thru....

Gee....why is it that these Repug CEOs only objectify women? I think I'll write Wexner and show him how he could really increase profits!!!!

[Warren DeMontague]

308. "Then could we have an S & M window display where the male mannequin...

...with the big hard-on is tied up and the women mannequins have whips and chains!"

NOW you're talkin'. :evilgrin:

[incapsulated]

14. Well, that's a lot tamer than I was expecting

Meh. Where's the whips and ropes and shit?

:shrug:

[Raster]

37. shit's a different fetish.

[incapsulated]

44. Ha, ha. n/t

[CatholicEdHead]

26. Pic of Lady that is complaining is in the third from the top

The background behind the manniquin is a mirror, you can see her with her camera.

[mshasta]

51. is just a freaking doll......

[Taverner]

256. EXACTLY

Anyone who can be offended by plastic dolls needs a reality check IMO

[Pepper32]

339. I know, I don't get the problem. Mattel sells dolls to their kids

and I bet they have no issue with letting them dress up Barbie.


WEIRD.

[radwriter0555]

113. "...any publicity is GOOD publicity!" that's the standard motto in the PR

game.

[Taverner]

255. Why do you find sex degrading?

Just wondwering....

It seems anytime someone isn't seeing vanilla sex, they consider it "degrading"....

[Warren DeMontague]

313. I've discovered that some people even find vanilla sex degrading

And some people have way too much time on their hands.

[knitter4democracy]

267. I agree.

The manniquins are posed much like how the models are in the ads, so I don't see much of a difference.

I don't take my kids into VS, and I don't leave the catalogs around, either. It's not like they don't know the human body, but they don't need to be sexualized at their young ages. The easiest thing is just to avoid.

The "worst" displays did seem to be further back in the store. The ones in the window weren't that bad.

[freeplessinseattle]

268. Is that it? I don't see the problem personally

unless a child would be traumatized by seeing a plastic nipple. as a woman I really don't see the degradation here. Personally I'm not into S&M, but some people are, maybe if a male mannequin was in bondage instead?

as far as the "lesbian" nature of the two mannequins together, geez louise, they're at least a foot away from each other, it looks more "artsy" to me than anything else. porn is in the eye of the beholder I s'pose.

[Warren Stupidity]

270. So the pictures reveal that there is nothing revealed.

Lets see - VicSec sells ridiculous underwear that is meant to be sexy in a sort of Playboy mentality way. That is their business. They have a store in a mall and in their display window they have their products, the Playboy-sexy underwear, displayed on dummies.

:wtf:

There is no nudity. 'Partially naked women'??? - actually that would be a dummy with clothes covering all the naughty bits, not that a dummy actually has any naughty bits mind you. Maybe one of the dummies is revealing a bit of dummy nip, maybe not, hard to tell from the pictures, but I think the close up is meant to SHOCK us with dummy nipple. There is a lot of dummy ass being displayed - but you can see ass-in-thong, real ass-in-thong not dummy-ass-in-thong, on tv, at the beach, hanging out of those low-rider jeans, thonged-ass is all over the place. Partially naked??? - lets just put the burkhas on the gals and be done with it. Isn't that where we are going anyhow?

Don't like what is in the window - don't shop there. We've lost our fucking minds.

[NuttyFluffers]

331. that's it? where's the BDSM? work me up over this? please...

wacky trad values coalition needs a good working over with a gas powered strap on before they go mouthing off about vanilla nonsense like this. honey, please... i've seen worse hanging off the mag rack when walking into my local 7/11, and i ain't about to start banning slurpees.

[DancingBear]

5. This is ALL OVER the local news here in noVA

Big story in The Washington Post, all the local newscasts have "interviews" with "concerned shoppers", etc.

Same old crap - "what about the children?", "I shouldn't have to look at pornography in a store window", etc.

Kudos, however, to the really attractive blond who said she'd probably buy something. :) :)

P.S. It was nice to meet you in D.C.!

[mongo]

32. Nice to meet you too

DC was a blast! Hard on my feet, by fun.

[ObaMania]

42. Yeah, I saw the story in WAPo either yesterday or today re: VS @ Tyson's..

.. I work at the Reston Town Center and will need to go check out their VS to see if they have provocative window displays happening!

On another note, I don't remember people getting their panties in a wad (no pun intended) years ago when Frederick's of Hollywood had their "racy" displays in the mall stores.

America is certainly going backwards under fundy-influenced rule.

[Gabi Hayes]

72. DAmn! I knew I shouldn't have moved away

[bettyellen]

6. good, there are too many little brats scurrying around stores anyway

and they don't have any cash. kids and their parents are spending their lives in front of the tv or in the mall when they should be out relating to their peers, in an age apprpriate way, of course.

:popcorn:

[FreedomAngel82]

316. Speaking of that

here not too long ago the town made a new rule that kids can't lounge around the mall. They have to be there to shop. I remember when I was in high school (this was 1997-2001) in the later years me and my friends would go to the mall and we'd shop and hang out and then go back to my house or one of their's and we would see tons of people on Friday nights after football season is over just hanging around outside or inside. No shopping or anything. Now the mall isn't quite so crowded when I go there.

[TlalocW]

7. Why would you bring your son to a lingerie store?

That's just weird.

TlalocW

[cynatnite]

11. My six year old came with me when I bought some perfume there...

No big deal. It's not like 'Intimate Treasures' where anything goes.

I do love the store.

[mongo]

38. People bring their kids into my store all the time

Usually couples, or single moms who are dancers.

Our front room is all lingerie and hosiery, nothing explicit.

All the good stuff is in the back behind a curtain.

[stevedeshazer]

9. Oh my goodness gracious!

The horror!

[Deja Q]

10. What. no pictures? I mean no proof = no moral fiber.

[LisaL]

16. Why not just visit the mall?

[Fountain79]

349. There's a link...

On the article where they will show some of the pictures.

[LisaL]

12. Those mannequins are in the malls. Little children are walking by.

I don't think it's appropriate at all-to have a gigantic semi naked woman in a window when parents and children go by.

[DancingBear]

20. Just yesterday, a child walked by those very manneqiuns

He/she immediately became a transvestite. At age 6.

Shit happens.

<sigh>

[Raster]

89. Like this?

[Warren DeMontague]

174. That six year old has bigger problems than transvestism.

For one, he looks just like Tim Curry.

[Zhade]

294. LOL!

That was hilarious!

:rofl:

[Pepper32]

338. ROFL

[cynatnite]

25. My six year old begged and begged when he saw one of those...

well, it was for a new PS2 game and not the thin attractive half naked mannequin. :)

[mongo]

53. yeah

and Walmart's spring circular for swim wear is child pornography too...

[IndyOp]

252. The last time I looked at a back-to-school clothes ad

I nearly FREAKED. Young elementary school girls (1-2-3 grade) in midriff tops and black lacey see-through tights. Don't blame Victoria's Secret for selling products to adults, when Walmart is selling 'sexy' clothes to little kids.

:puke:

[TankLV]

102. And yesterday you thought it was no big deal that a diabetic 10 year old

boy had his IV pump tubes ripped out!

Yeah - we all care what you think honey!

[LisaL]

110. You seem to care what I think. For instance, you remembered

my old posts.
How sweet.

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[radwriter0555]

114. Why? What's going to happen?

What affect will it have on the children?

[Maddy McCall]

117. They aren't WOMEN. They are PLASTIC.

[Tesha]

224. Kinda like Republican women? (NT)

[Pepper32]

342. Well, now I kinda see why they are so upset

:rofl:

[Warren Stupidity]

272. Now they are gigantic semi naked plastic dummies! Oh No!

Get a grip wouldja? Those freaking dummies and they are not even naked dummies.

Define 'semi naked'. This is fascinating.

[OzarkDem]

297. For those who don't have children, reconsider your comments

It always amazes me how peoples' opinions about these things change once they have children of their own.

Sort of like Madonna refusing to let her kids watch tv or listen to smutty music.

[OzarkDem]

299. VS Owner Wexner is a big donor to Repubs

http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?NumOfThou=0&txtName=Wexner&txtState=OH&txtZip=&txtEmploy=Limited&txtCand=&txt2004=Y&Order=N

[Warren Stupidity]

356. Madonna is not demanding censorship of what you watch.

How you raise your chidren, within accepted parameters,is up to you. What you cannot do, in a free society, is impose your standards on the public sphere. Don't like your children seeing this that or the other? Scurry past. Don't let them watch. Stop thinking it is ok to impose your standards on the rest of us.

By the way I have three kids, they've turned out just fine, and I don't run them through life with blinders on.

[Sydnie]

13. How long before VS gets a visit from the FBI porn squad?

What you can see in a VS is nothing. Now, Fredricks of Hollywood, there's some wild stuff! :rofl:

[TlalocW]

15. We need to email the Traditional Values people

And ask where we put in our credit card numbers to see the really hardcore stuff on their website.

TlalocW

[chalky]

61. LOL!

:rofl:

[woodsprite]

17. As a parent of a 5yo and a 12yo, I think it was

too much to put them in their front window display. If it was in the store, then that was fine. I wouldn't take my 5yo or 12yo inside with me. But I would *NEVER* admit to the fundies that I thought they might have *SOME* merit because as in all things, they go WAAAAAY overboard.

That display, if it was in the main hallways (and it did look like some were) would keep me from going down that wing of the mall with my kids. Didn't say it would keep hubby and I out though. :)

[mongo]

75. If seeing a skimpy outfit on a manequin

is so bad for your kids, then why is it that in Europe, where there is nudity on TV and magazines and on Ads on the sides of busses, etc. -

they have a lower rate of teen pregnancy than us, lower STD rates among teens, etc?

Really you would do better to make it be no big deal to your 12yo, than to make it a prohibition.

[flygal]

99. Because in Europe they EDUCATE their friggen children

and give them credit for having half a brain at least :) Had to agree with you though - as the mother of two small girls in Germany - it's true. You see it all over and yet they have the most amazing family values here.

You always see families out together on Sundays and with up to six weeks vacation they have plenty of time to spend together. They also have condom ads all over and available in bathrooms.

I don't like seeing women used as torture victims as much as the next guy, but I don't see that in the display.

[Mutley]

193. These people don't realize that

by making sex such a taboo thing that they are only piquing the curiosity of their children. That combined with the fact that some of these people refuse to educate their children on how babies are made and how easy it can be to contract an STD, and there is the problem. You don't see European children being traumatized by the images they see all the time. I wish Americans could learn from Europeans. For such a "free country" we sure are uptight.

BTW... I've always thought it would be great fun to own a porn shop! ;)

[Cats Against Frist]

213. The "grand canyon" lies between a healthy sexual attitude

and induction into sleazy pornography narratives, objectification and dehumanization. No?

[Mutley]

219. I don't mean let your kids watch hardcore porn.

I certianly didn't say, or imply, that. I responded to what mongo said about children in Europe being exposed to nudity on a regular basis, and they have a much healthier sexual attitude than most Americans do.

[FreedomAngel82]

320. Exactly

I think the thing is that over there sex seems to be treated as a natural thing which it is. They educate them about it and how to protect themselves etc. and don't say "it's the devil!!!!" :eyes: But here sex is seen as such an evil thing and anything representing sex. And when you're a kid and you're told something is bad it does make you more curious, especially when your parents don't tell you why that thing is so bad. All they say is "this is bad so stay away" and no reasoning as to why you should.

[Arianrhod]

383. When I was in the Army stationed in Germany

back in the 80s, there was a billboard campaign advertising women's pharmaceuticals. The ad showed a very pretty young woman in athletic shorts, putting on a pair of running shoes. The tagline said: "Nowadays, the only time women get on their knees, is for their health."

I bet the TradValues guys would have a fit over that one. . . .

:)

[triguy46]

197. This may not be the silliest, but one of the silliest...

Prudery has never been a successful strategy. If your kids are that sensitive to overpriced lace/nylon/silk, I would suggest that you lock them up at home.

[Zhade]

295. There are public nude beaches where sometimes people FUCK.

Right out in the open.

Kids don't seem to be dying left and right from AIDS there, do they?

Only here would plastic dummies be considered a threat to kids.

[radwriter0555]

149. TRASHY LINGERIE. There is a store in LA that we had no choice but to sit

and stare at, if we wanted to go a certain way after picking up the kid from school.

It was a forever light too. And there it sits, in all its stripper glory, across from a famous strip club, right on La Cienega near Beverly.

Cut out nipplies, nurse uniforms, devil girls, butt cut outs, crotchless panties, and so on. The window displays changed every couple of weeks and MY weren't they CREATIVE!

So my kid and I stared at their window displays for probably, about 8 hours total over the past 6 years.

Sometimes we'd comment, sometimes she'd ask questions. We had a couple very frank discussions about strippers and dancers, and I didn't editorialize too much. I gave her enough information to make her own opinions up. We did call it the hootchy window, but we were never offended, we were amused.

That's the difference. Healthy sexuality and knowledge isn't sinful or evil. It's just sexuality and knowledge.

It's just trashy fashion and tacky chicks and the men who are willing to pay ridiculous amounts of money to see them, suckers!!!!

It's just clothes, or the lack thereof. No crimes are committed, no morals are subverted. It's just stuff.

[sadiesworld]

181. Ya, what tacky, ugly lingerie

was my first thought on seeing the pics upthread. I haven't been to a V.S. in a few years but they used to have such pretty things. These outfits look like the trashy Fredrick's of Hollywood crap we used to laugh at.

[Kurovski]

329. I think that lingerie would look better if the mannequins

weren't so angular and scrawny.

It kinda bags and bunches on their plastic frames.

[Warren Stupidity]

274. Not been out shopping much, huh?

I am astounded that there are people here complaining about semi-naked (what ever that means) mannikins in clothes stores. There have been semi naked mannikins in clothes stores for decades. Heck, if you are very patient, you might even get to see TOTAL FRONTAL MANNIKIN NUDITY when the display person starts reorganizing things. Luckily it turns out that Mannikins don't actually have any sexual equipment - just suggestive bulges - otherwise it seems that some people would have cranial explosions.

[Liberal In Texas]

18. Damn! I was just at that mall in Tyson's Corner a few weeks ago, I guess

I missed it!

[Ioo]

19. I just saw the images, these people need to get laid....

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/vs/

[cynatnite]

29. Sex is still a dirty thing with these people...

I never laid any ground rules about sex with my daughters. I told them how it all worked, educated them on birth control, told them there are guys who think about it ALL the time and to watch out for them...especially the ones who says 'I love you'. :eyes:

I gave them advice. The rest is their decision and I think I've educated them well. They are smart intelligent girls.

[Liberal In Texas]

30. Really. I was expecting more! Some people should get lives.

Maybe get a hobby. Perhaps learn how to use that digital camera better.

[Ioo]

36. I saw them, and now I think it has turned my un-gay...

man those were some hot plastic chicks

[deutsey]

378. That's it? Yawn...

That's pretty innocuous. :shrug:

[mikita]

21. so THAT'S Victoria's secret !!.....

mannequin orgies!!

:evilgrin:

[texanwitch]

27. Maybe the mannequins come to life after the store closes like on the

old Twilight Zone episode.

[incapsulated]

34. See, now *that* would be an interesting remake...

What would these mannequins do with a week in the real world?!

:wow:

[edwin]

66. But, doesn't the real world ...

... make you wanna be a plastic mannequin every now and again (and again and again)?

[Redstone]

23. What harm is there in a little kinkitude between friends?

Never hurt anyone.

Except for, maybe, the odd rope burn or two.

Redstone

[Raster]

24. I got news for you Andrea, your son probably REALLY liked the display.

Unless of course he's "that way." In that case, I suggest International Male or an Abercrombie & Fitch catalog.

And just to keep this in perspective, THEY'RE MANNEQUINS. Meaning PLASTIC and ARTIFICIAL! And if your precious little boy is REALLY jeopardized and traumatized by mannequins dressed in VS undies, you've got much bigger problems to worry about.

[woodsprite]

35. Yes, I know mannequins. My MIL has 4 in her house.

Policeman Paul standing guard at the front door with a fake rifle. Heather, his wife, who stands in the corner of the living with her fake fur stole, skirt hoisted up showing a garter belt w/ holster and gun. Brenda, dripping in jewels and wearing a silky dress and pumps, sitting on a chair in the living room. And Polly, an 8 yo girl who must be Heather and Paul's daughter. They must have adopted since our family went to their wedding just 2 summers ago.

When we went to the mannequin wedding, complete with invitations for 80 (really was a reunion) and a wedding cake, my daughter said "Grandmom is REALLY wierd!"

Had to agree with her. Did I mention that they are the fundies I often speak of.

Think I should send her the link to the pics so she could get some "posing" ideas?

[Raster]

40. Absolutely. Let me know if she likes them. I may have some she might

REALLY like. Share the love, baybee. I mean, really, how festive.

:smoke:

[TlalocW]

28. Feh. Kids are undoubtedbly exposed to far worse

Just from television commercials than the mannequins in the windows. Their molded plastic naughty bits are covered, and one of them is more covered than anybody on Baywatch. Of course, she's wearing a corset, which is just naughty naughty naughty.

Sheeesh. If you don't like it, don't shop there. Obviously they're not marketing to you and feel that they're going to get more business from lesbians, people into bondage, etc. than from fundy prudes like Mrs. Lafferty.

TlalocW

[LisaL]

39. It has nothing to do with shopping there. I don't shop there.

But anybody who goes by is subjected to this, because they put these gigantic pictures and mannequins on displays in their front windows.
If they kept it inside, it would be one thing. They don't. And those malls are places where people go with their little kids.

[Raster]

43. Watched any prime-time TV lately? How about the Swimsuit edition?

Checked out an A&F catalog? Puhleeze. Plastic people with molded non-genitals wearing faux-ish bondage drag.

[LisaL]

77. With a TV, at least parents can somewhat monitor what young kids watch.

[cynatnite]

50. This attitude is why sex is considered to be dirty...

I was taught the same thing while I grew up and I felt so repressed by it. I said fuck it and during my single days I did a lot of it. It was a revolution for me and I became freer as a result.

With my daughters, they've seen stuff like this and we made a point in this house to be open about it and to discuss sex. I never laid any rules for them when it comes to sex, but you can bet they sure as hell got an education as far as taking care of themselves and to be careful.

Sex isn't dirty and I wish more parents would realize it's not a bad thing when children know about it.

[Raster]

58. Children have to be taught sex is dirty. Just like they have to be taught

to hate. Don't teach 'em it's dirty and don't make a big deal out of it. Once sex is approached for what it is, places like VS which make a fortune sensationalizing society's sexual hangups don't need to exist. I swear to Jeebus, for such an overly overt sexual society, we are such titty babies when it comes to bodily functions.

[LisaL]

76. So, let me ask you-if a video store decided to have a hard core

porn display in their window, you would be o'key with it?
I mean, let it all hang out, right?

[mongo]

80. There is just a tad bit of difference

between a skimpy outfit on a mannequin and HC porn.

[LisaL]

82. Some people don't think so-look at the post #81.

She thinks it's a great idea.

[cynatnite]

84. I said I don't have a problem with it...

You should try answering my posts if you disagree with me.

Society has treated sex as a dirty thing that only certain people should do. If the wrong people do it or aren't married, they are horrible because of it. Women are called whores and sluts over it. Men? Well, the harshest word for them would be womanizer and that's treated as a good thing.

I don't have a problem with HC porn being on display in front of my daughters because they know what sex is. They know what it's about and they are educated on it and taking care of themselves. I don't tell my children wait until marriage because I think it's bullshit. Half of all marriages fail in this country. What's the difference?

If my six year old saw it and asked questions, I'd answer them in a way I know he could understand that fits his questions.

I hate the way sex is treated in this country. It should be discussed openly and honestly...most especially with children.

[mongo]

97. Your kids are going to turn out great

I can tell when the fundies 18yo kids are in the store. They act like jack-asses (especially the boys).

You know that when you keep your kids away from all sexual influences in our culture that the first thing they do when they turn 18 is run into my store and buy a movie. But first they act like jack-asses in my back rooom. God help me if they find the gay section - they always have to tell their freinds how they would KILL any guy that came on to them.

However, when you daughters come in I'm sure they will be laughing at some of the titles (which is fine), but not saying "oh that's gross" to their friends. If I'm lucky, I'll get to sell them their first toy.

Gotta go home for the night! Been here since noon.

[mongo]

85. Now you're putting words into other poster's mouths

Geesh.

[TankLV]

106. And yesterday you thought it was no big deal that a diabetic 10 year old

boy had his IV pump tubes ripped out!

Yeah - we all CARE what you think honey!

Such selective outrage is very telling!

[Zhade]

298. That's the second time you've brought that up.

I missed that thread - what happened?

[TankLV]

373. Lizzy thought it was no big deal and the boy should get over it.

A substitute teacher thought a boy had a cell phone when the low insulin indicator started beeping - so without asking any questions, he simply went over to the boy and ripped it away - tubes and all.

Lizzy had been arguing with may posts that this was no big deal and we were too being too harsh in our criticizm of the asshole who did it.

And now she feigns "concern" for the little children of this horrible circumstance of underware clad maniquins in a mall.

The hypocrisy is simply astounding to me.

[cynatnite]

81. I really wouldn't have a problem with it...

Society placed these rigid notions and attitudes that sex isn't good. It's passed on down to the kids and I don't believe it's a good thing.

Sex is a natural part of humanity and we shouldn't treat it in the extremes that many do. It's either, sex is only for marriage between a man and woman or outside of that it's a dirty thing that nobody should do. Those are extremist ideas, IMO.

Sex is a part of us and we should accept that. To place these restrictions on people is harmful, IMO. I don't believe in it and I never will. My daughters know the score and they are well educated. There are no ground rules when it comes to sex. They are smart and I trust them to make the right decisions for themselves and their bodies. So far they have because we are so open about sex in this house.

[Raster]

90. no, I would not. Inside their store, Okey Dokey

[TankLV]

105. Give it up with your phoney "concern" all of a sudden.

We know where you're comming from, and we aren't fooled by you.

[LisaL]

122. Why are you referring to yourself as "we"? That's not a good sign.

[TankLV]

138. Everybody but YOU, for the mentally challenged like you, it seems!

You're all by yourself "honey"!

You're opinion is as worthless as any other repuke's.

[Warren DeMontague]

128. I'd have more of a problem with, for instance, a gun store display

than I would with what is shown in those pictures.

Mannequins in lingerie- as much as they may piss you off- are not the same thing as a "Hard core porn display" in a video store.

Although I worked for a video store, once upon a time, and I can tell you that the people who are LOOKING to be offended by a 'hard core' anything will positively tear the place apart to find it, no matter how discreetly it is presented.

[LisaL]

150. I have yet to see a gun store display in the mall.

Complete with big giant guns and bloody corpses, I imagine.

[Maddy McCall]

173. Do you live in the south?

They're here. Yeah, complete with big giant guns and posters of deers after being shot. Go shopping in Gatlinburg, TN at the Mall on Parkway, for instance.

[MADem]

258. Hell, I've been in WALMARTS where they have 'em!

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/catalog.gsp?cat=170083&path=0%3A4125%3A4155%3A170080%3A170083

[incapsulated]

57. I don't like it for old fashioned feminist reasons

But to single out VS for this would be unfair. The objectification of women is so pervasive in our culture and the media that getting worked up over plastic women in mildly sexy poses seems almost silly. Espcially if you have a tv in your home.

But I understand where you are coming from.

[Raster]

60. Hey it's not just women anymore. We're starting to sexually objectify

both genders, and you just gotta ask yourself "why"?

[incapsulated]

67. Because...

We've lost any sense of purpose, meaning or idealism in our culture and instead focus on superficialities and mindless diversions?

Well, that's my theory. :)

[Raster]

69. works for me. time for this species to exit stage left.

[RepublicanElephant]

83. bingo!

...it's a basic human respect issue, not a morals issue.

how many guys would like to see replicas of their daughters in those windows?

[Warren DeMontague]

177. They're mannequins. If you think they look that real, you might want

to visit the Lenscrafters, a little further on down the mall.

I guess I'm one of the people who still holds old-fashioned values like to each his or her own, and if something offends you, don't buy it, watch it, or -if it's a store- patronize it.

[femrap]

269. So is feminism 'old fashioned' now? I hate how these images

of women affect young girls....they are all dieting by the age of 10. They hate their bodies because they don't look like an airbrushed model. Those images affect you all your life....the biggest crime a woman can commit in this culture is to get FAT...ain't that right 'progressive' guys?

I think the guys back in the '60's and '70's had it more together regarding exploitation of women than the guys today....it's as if a women's body belongs to everyone but her....I really think the guys today need their consciousness raised...

I still believe if we objectified the males more, maybe some of these supposed 'progessive' guys would GET IT....They are so unenlighened today....

College campus counselors are hearing about the guys not being able to have 'real' relationships with women....cuz the 'real' ones are just 'bad porn stars.'

[Zhade]

300. "ain't that right 'progressive' guys?"

That is COMPLETELY unfair, and sexist.

I, for one, have only dated HEAVY women. Not by seeking them out, but just by happenstance.

You should chill on the generalizations.

[femrap]

321. Are you heavy, by happenstance?

So I am the unfair one...the sexist one? Look at our culture...take off the blinders.

Just what sort of happenstance attracts you to these women?

All I am saying is that I know a lot of supposed 'progressive' guys who have a problem with treating women as equals. I expect the slights from the pugs...but sometimes they give women more credit than the Lefties...

Hey, it's the last socially acceptable discrimination left...those sterotypical, narrow, and oppressive gender role models are alive and well...more stringent than in the '70's. At least men back then would question their attitudes and have an open and honest dialogue. Today...I'm the one who is unfair and 'should' chill.

You should do some introspection....btw, one doesn't date the same type of people by happenstance. It's just a coincidence? Come on. Be honest with yourself. What is it that you like about heavy women?

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LisaL]

107. And the relationship between the two

obviously completely unrelated cases would be what? Care to explain how a diabetic boy (by the way, I don't think he is 10 years old) is related to semi naked mannequins in bondage? Is there any similarity between the two cases I am not aware of? Is there a particular reason having an opinion about one case should determine my opinion about another case, cause for the life of me, I can't figure out what the hell it could be.
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[TankLV]

120. It shows how phony you are - your utter lack of concern for that boy,

and your phony outrage for this non-issue.

You are a truly a piece.

It shows where your REAL concerns lie - in nonsense, and not actual suffering and REAL ISSUES!

Give it up "honey" - you're an embarrassment!

[LisaL]

140. If this is a non-issue, then WTF are you arguing about this?

Who exactly do you think you are to decide what is an issue and what is not?

[Maddy McCall]

121. Because you keep throwing up "the children" in your argument. At least...

today you do.

It's about consistency.

[TankLV]

141. Thank you. Somebody who recognizes phoneyness, too!

[Warren DeMontague]

175. yes, how silly of them to confuse self-righteous moralizing

under the ever-popular cloak (used by would-be virtue cops everywhere) of "protecting the children"

With PROTECTING ACTUAL CHILDREN.

[Maddy McCall]

115. What's so offensive about the mannequins in the window?

I think they are almost artistically beautiful. You think they are offensive. That's were we part on the issue.

Still, who's values determine what business can and cannot display in their windows? They're just freakin' mannequins, and they have clothes on. When you go to Macy's, do you shield your child's eyes if a salesclerk is changing the clothing on a mannequin? It's an inanimate object. Just plastic.

[Warren DeMontague]

178. Because if there's one subject that gets control freaks of all stripes

worked into a rich, foamy lather, it's SEX.

Must. Be. Stopped!

[Pepper32]

336. Right, isn't Barbie plastic?

Kids take the clothes on and off her all the time.

However, Barbie has had her share of controversy as well.

Appeals Court Gives Naked Barbies Thumbs Up · MarketingVOX
http://www.marketingvox.com/archives/2004/01...gives_naked_barbies_thumbs_up/

<snip>
Mattel has a long history of mounting lawsuits over Barbie parodies, including a hilarious early Website of Barbie dolls in sexually compromising positions. They also sued Canadian stripper and nude model Barbie Doll Benson in 1999 over her domain name, insisting that it infringes on the Mattel trademark. The stripper, who'd been dancing under that name for 16 years, won.

Mattel's lawyers must be a really busy bunch because a Google search for "nude Barbie" turns up 229,000 results, which will be online forever. Even About.com's doll collecting blog has a recipe for a Barbie cake with a nude Barbie in the middle.

LMFAO!!




The latest - single - Barbie sports a bikini top and a deeper tan


Additional reference
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3357965.stm

[stillcool]

31. Burkas anyone?

[Ready4Change]

33. Link locked up my Firefox.

This was reported on local news channels. Shots of the stores displays showed some pretty tacky, classless arrangements, and some views which, from a childs line of sight, would definitely test whether little Bobby has entered puberty or not.

IMO, they should have been further back in the store, not in the front windows. Then again, many of my friends think I'm a big ol' prude. :)

[Cats Against Frist]

41. Here's my opining

I think that people should be free to spout off whatever bullshit they want. Trust me, I didn't go onto read the whole article -- but if they're not advocating for the government to step in, then what's the harm of starting a letter-writing campaign and voting with their dollars?

I hate Victoria's Secret, because of their "what is sexy" campaign, and the whole idea of women dressed up in lace and satin stuff for sex is a narrative that just grosses me the fuck out, but it's up to VC and the consumer.

If it were me, in the mall, and I took my kid, and he saw something like that, I'd just say, "son, you're going to encounter a lot of this prurient, sensationalist bullshit, that will attempt to entice you to stereotype and degrade women and their femininity, as well as titillate you with a buffet of constructs for a society that thrives on power imbalance, and hope that you fall for it. I hope that, when the time comes, you and your sexual partners will see each other as humans, and not caricatures of humans, and that your sex life be healthy, open and beautiful."

And he's four.

I get as sick of these people as anyone else -- not so much when they criticize porn as when they criticize high art (Piss Christ/Mapplethorpe/Postmodernism, etc.), but if they want to make hay, let them. They might not like taking their kid to the mall and being faced with something like that. If I were a different kind of parent, I might not, either. When they ask for gov't intervention, however, it's time to get the guns.

[Raster]

Bless you, and pass the guns.

[mongo]

63. Damn. Didn't know they were cutting into my market

for "prurient, sensationalist, bullshit" :rofl:

[CardInAustin]

74. Well....

I think the mannequins in the bed was a little over the top. But this is really much ado about nothing.

The funny thing is that you could have a store with guns and ammo and these people wouldn't think a thing of it. But something that smacks of sex is horrible.

You know the statement that we are all naked underneath. Sometimes I wonder if these people really are.

[mongo]

78. Let me get this straight

I get as sick of these people as anyone else -- not so much when they criticize porn as when they criticize high art (Piss Christ/Mapplethorpe/Postmodernism, etc.), but if they want to make hay, let them.

so then a man with a bullwhip (or whatever it was that got mapplethorpe so much press) up his ass = high art

But a woman having sex with a man in a video = prurient, sensationalist bullshit.

Ok. Makes sense to me...

[Raster]

86. depends on what the bullwhip looks like...

:hi:

[Cats Against Frist]

87. Of course -- it makes perfect sense

It's all about the "rhetorical structure," of the narrative, the subtext, the composition, and the irony (usually). Look, mongo, I know what you do and sell, and I support your right to do it, and I support the rights of the people who come to your store, and buy your stuff, and whatever it is that they wish to do with it, after they take it home.

Before my "sexual narrative" was disrupted by postmodernism, I, myself used to patronize such things, participate in S & M, fantasy, orgies, powder and shave and silk myself up like an pre-pubescent Valentine's bunny, watch two guys bend a couple of blonde asian women over an ironing board to get myself hot, write non-consentual erotica -- whatever. I know what it's all about -- I've been there, done that, and to each his own, but, as long as people have the right to pursue disturbing sexual narratives, I have the right to speak about the psychological damage that they can do, the dehumanization and objectification therein, and, really -- the silliness.

Technically, the whole sex fetish/porn/rape/s & m/lingerie movement is one giant art installation -- only the participants don't get the irony -- and it wouldn't work, if they did. Please allow me to deconstruct...

[mongo]

230. Now I'm really confused

I thought I had you pegged, but I guess not.

[Maddy McCall]

239. Thanks for your testimony. Now we understand your aversion.

It's personal.

[CitrusLib]

207. Victoria's Secret bit the dust in the early 90's. I used to work there.

In fact, I worked there for 7 years - from 1987 - 1994.

The last 3 years were spent working for two sexually harassing assholes. Not quid pro quo, but hostile work environment. I had one boss ask me if I'd ever done it with a man with no legs and this was said in a loud voice while I was on the phone to a District Sales Manager.

The next boss I got was going through a nasty divorce and I had to hear him pine for his wife until he started screwing a part-timer. Then I had to hear what type of bras she wore and was shown where they had sex in his office.

When I complained, nothing was done. I finally left. Had I been older and more savvy (I started right out of college and this was right as companies were starting to roll out anti-harassment training), I'd have raised holy hell.

Their product has gone down the toilet over the years and it is such a far cry from the quality and selection available in the late 80's that it's not worth even going into one of the stores any more.

The poster who said Victoria's Secret hates women is not entirely correct. I think by their management style (at least what I endured), their advertisements and now their in store marketing, it's patently obvious they have no respect for women.

Does anyone remember how the stores used to look? Rich mahogony furniture pieces and vintage Victorian print wallpapers and paint color? Marble floors and patterned rugs? They changed the style to shocking pink bordello in the mid 90's and that was the final nail in their coffin for me. I hate the place. Granted I'm biased due to experience. :evilgrin:

[cynatnite]

209. The store here is nothing like that...

It's decor is very tasteful and the products are wonderful. Everytime I've gone in there it's always women working and they have a very wide selection for all sizes.

I never felt like they hated women or were doing anything to demean them. It's came across to me like they are putting out items that would make us feel good. At least that's been my perspective.

[tallahasseedem]

215. You know I was just thinking that same thing the other day...

I had a friend who was a assistant manager there in the early 90's. Back then it was a "coveted" job and everyone wanted to work there. I went in there not to long ago and I was pure trash. Unhelpful workers and it was completely cluttered and generally unclean. Definately not what it used to be.

[Maddy McCall]

238. And your kid would respond, "Huh?"

[Kailassa]

279. Dressing up and role-playing

are a whole lot of fun provided they are expanding your options rather than confining them. And being different to your usual self can help you learn new things about yourself, which can lead you to a better understanding of others.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

45. Isn't that the store where the senators have their personal shoppers

buy things for their mistresses?

[Liberal In Texas]

46. There's another mall not far from that one in Tyson's Corner that has S&M

mannequins displayed in the outdoor windows. I'm surprised the woman didn't go after that one. Oh, VS is a large chain. Maybe she hopes to get some $ out of them.

[Gabi Hayes]

73. Fresh Fields? I used to go there when it was Natural Foods, or whatever

they called it then

[Liberal In Texas]

306. It was maybe a mile from the BIG mall, on the highway. A strip center

maybe. Leesburg Pike, as I look at the map again.

I was noodling around to have lunch before I took my rental back to Dulles and fly back.

There were a bunch of stores where I bought a newspaper and considered sitting down and eating. As I walked around the shopping center, I saw a store with a bunch of S&M displays. Pretty blatant, right on the outside sidewalk.

Now, I don't really care if I see it or not.

There were people sitting around at cafe tables in the afternoon in business clothing. It didn't seem to bother them. But there it was. Much worse that VS.

About a mile from the "offending" store. Why didn't she go after them?

[Jacobin]

47. I never have understood, what IS Victoria's secret?

I mean, is it like a state secret or something?

[incapsulated]

48. I could tell you, but I'd have to kill you...

And dress your dead body in crotchless panties as a warning to the others.

[TankLV]

108. Don't forget the nippleless bras!

And DON'T FORGET POLAND!

[Binka]

186. Got WOOD?

Hey I want to give you a big HUG for putting an annoying sanctimonious disingenuous long time tro er um DUer in a "tizzy."

:loveya:

[Cats Against Frist]

217. LOL! n/t

[Raster]

49. Victoria's secret is that in our horribly repressed society, underwear can

be eroticized to the point it's a multi-billion dollar industry.

[Jacobin]

59. I thought it might have to do with what is

under Victoria's undergarments. Like maybe h/she is a trans sexual.

But that's just a guess, so don't quote me on that.

[Raster]

62. who could tell with that plastic molden faux genitalia?

[LisaL]

79. Her underwear. It's an open secret.

[PassingFair]

88. Shhhhhhhh!

Cheap shit at outrageous prices.
THAT'S the secret!

The danger is that young people might confuse fetish (and I believe that all that satin and lace crap qualifies as a fetish) with real sexuality, which has NOTHING to do with crotchless underwear and push-up bras.

If a man showed up in my bedroom dressed in black lace, I'd definitely be watching him for other problems.

Women are not packages to be opened, and I resent the characterization of us as costumed sex objects.

[Name removed]

228. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

234. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kailassa]

281. One of the things I most enjoy about being female

is having all these options when it comes to clothing. It is fun to play the part of a package being opened. It's fun to try a lot of other things too. I'm in my 50s and still happily experimenting and learning. There is so much pain and fear and strife around that we should celebrate every healthy chance we get to make this world a happier place.

[Liberal In Texas]

289. Good for you. !!! n/t

[PassingFair]

390. What part of being "female" requires costumes?

Do we spring from the womb ensconced in lace?
I am happily female without extraneous trappings.

When kids are made to feel that sex is ABOUT costumes and play-acting, they are setting themselves up for a life of fetish and necessary set pieces. Ugh.

[spanone]

52. Burn the mannequins at the stake !!!

[chalky]

54. Oh no! I just clicked on the pervy-picture link! Do you think the FBI

will be coming to get me in their new "War on Porn"?

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/vs/

[neuvocat]

64. Did you have impure thoughts?

Remember: you must tell the truth so that you can help your government to help you.

[chalky]

70. Of COURSE not. My thoughts were very pure.

:evilgrin: VERY.

[Raster]

71. depends. what are you wearing?

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

56. Good luck - VS is not some little independent adult store

with no resources or legal retainers. VS is owned by Limited Brands, Inc., which also owns Express, Bath & Body Works, The Limited and Henri Bendel. They're traded on the NY Stock Exchange.

Located in Columbus OH, Limited Brands is not a wild, off-the-cuff kind of company like Benetton, which got flak for its controversial ads. Every risk they take with their brands is a heavily researched, calculated risk backed by the promise of big returns on investment. That means they are not concerned about general reaction to a few little ropes and a couple girls kissing. They know what their consumer thinks.

It'll be fun watching these yappy little dogs chasing this big-bucks bus.

edit: typo

[KoKo]

91. Yes....but where does it end? If they want to look like an "Adult Store"

in the middle of a Mall where everyone looks and parents who don't feel what is displayed is appropriate...what about the rights of those who don't like it as opposed to those who don't care, or think its great?

If you're going to be in a public place I think you have some obligation to try to hit a middle. If all the shoppers in that area catered to skimpy clad manniquins in shop windows there wouldn't be a problem. But, they don't.

So, in this case whether the protestors are Religious Evangelicals who follow Falwell or Lefty Vegans who just don't want their kids to bother them with annoying lifestyle questions when they are trying to shop...it seems that some consensus of what should be on display in "PUBLIC PLACES" should be open for discussion. :shrug: It does offend some people to see half dressed manniquins in malls when they have to walk by.

I actually did see a VS display this weekend in NC and was kind of "put off" by it. I felt like it was advertising the clothes that would be seen in Porn Movies. And, it wasn't just VS...there was a store across from it with even more "eyepopping" clothes that weren't to wear at night or as undergarments. "Undies" passing for daywear? Undies that are on manniquins designed to attract voyeurs?

I think it's a "taste problem," for some and folks who don't like it should be able to protest it. It's the American Way...isn't it?

[LisaL]

98. And most of their models in photos

have either no bra or no panties. I mean, they are selling underwear, not soft porn. Then at least put some underwear on these women!

[Warren DeMontague]

179. So is the problem with the displays? the photos? the store? the concept?

How much of what Victoria's Secret does do you actually believe should be done away with, in your mind?

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

328. Where did you get the idea they sell underwear?

They don't sell underwear. They sell aspirations.

In fact very few companies sell products and services anymore. They sell lifestyles and personalities. It is the only way to distinguish a brand in a cluttered parity category, and one of the few ways to retain consumer loyalty.

Example: P&G sells both Pampers and Huggies. Why does one company sell two brands of disposable diapers? Each one is targeted to appeal to a specific kind of mom. Pampers are marketed to appeal to the first-time mom, the I'm-going-to-do-everything-perfectly-for-my-precious-angel mom. Huggies are for the mom who has a couple of kids, who know that babies don't break that easy and the faster they become independent ("I'm a big kid now") the easier her life will be.

Underwear is practical, with reinforced tummy panels and comfortable padded straps. Victoria's Secret does not sell underwear. They sell dreams. One woman's soft porn is another woman's dream.

Edited for the inevitable typo

[Zhade]

305. I'm offended by Christian bookstores.

Seriously, I hate those damn stores. Creepy as the hell I don't believe in.

Should I thus demand that no Christian bookstores be allowed in the mall?

There's no fundamental right to shop in a mall, and people shouldn't be buying shitty slave-produced crap from them anyway, IMHO.

[Warren DeMontague]

315. The Catholic Church has produced some SERIOUS S&M over the years

Torquemada was one sick bastard.

[sakabatou]

65. Whine, whine whine.

If you don't like it, don't shop there. Yeesh.

[LisaL]

94. If it's about shopping there, they should have

their enormous, humongous pictures of semi-naked women inside. They don't. These photos and plastic mannequins are on display in their front windows, where people that have no intention whatsoever to shop there are still subjected to it.

[Straight Shooter]

92. Back in the pre-Dubya days when I dated Republicans ...

... those guys just couldn't get it up unless I was wearing my VS lingerie and strutting around with a whip.

This woman has no clue how important Victoria's Secret is to those Repub men.

:sarcasm:

[cynatnite]

93. Check out Walmart's undies and jamies...

I just remembered they have on display...hangers, not mannequins, some pretty racy stuff.

Where's the outrage there? :sarcasm:

[LisaL]

95. Racy staff from Walmart?

For whom? A white trailer trash girlfriend?

[Mandate My Ass]

103. Don't expose your kids to mannequins in underwear by any means

A white trailer trash girlfriend?

Expose them to your class hatred instead.

[LisaL]

109. It was a joke. I was reffering to a thread that went "poof".

:eyes:

[mongo]

233. Walmart sells racy panties to kids

I've seen panties for 7yos with cherries on them, etc for sale.

Now that is trashy. Vicky's Secret is just a lingerie store.

[Mandate My Ass]

96. Jeebus, that's barely risque. If you wanna hate VS, hate em for the prices

Sheesh, you could go broke in there for one bra and panties set.

There are much better places for soft porn and sexy undies AFAIC.

[radwriter0555]

119. I hate them for the lacy thongs that chap my ass cheeks. But I do love

their bras.

and their annual sale RAWKS. I always stock up then.

Their jammies are excellent.

One tip though; never buy a thong that's a size too small.

OUCH.

[cynatnite]

129. I luv jammies! VS jammies rock!

Can't do thongs too well and I LUV the bras, too.

[VADem11]

100. I've actually seen it

and it's not extrememly bad but I can see how others would react. To me, the old laction and window of the store was fine. The window is pretty tame compared to the inside but they are changing it so I don't think it'll be a major problem.

[Maddy McCall]

111. I don't see anything wrong with the mannequins in the window.

I think they are sexy. So what? I don't think this qualifies as pornography.

The mannequins inside the store--well, you'd have to go in there to see them, wouldn't you? It's no one's fault but your own if you are easily offended and you drag your kids inside a lingerie store.

Cripes, these people just spend their time looking for something to offend them.

[LisaL]

118. First of all, those windows are huge. Everything inside the store

is pretty much easily seen from the outside. And second of all, at least around here, they have very large photos of women that are missing either bra or panties on display. And yet they are selling underwear.
If they are selling underwear, then why are these women missing it?

[Maddy McCall]

124. So, don't let your babies window-shop at Victoria's Secret.

It's really that simple.

[LisaL]

133. What do you propose I do? Put blind folds on them as we go by?

[cynatnite]

135. Educating and talking to them about it might be a good start...

hiding it from kids doesn't do them any favors. It's there and it always will be. You want them to figure it out on their own? If not, talk to them, educate them and be honest with them. That works far better than getting offended at something that can be seen just about everywhere.

[Maddy McCall]

136. No. I suggest you walk by, point at those evil mannequins. and...

tell them what filthy women do. That'll promise them healthy sexual development.

Or, you could walk by on the other side of the mall plaza and not make a big deal of it.

[LisaL]

148. I am sorry if I don't feel like explaining S& M to children because

of a huge giant display in the mall.
And WTF should I take a detour in a public place? How about they keep their crap inside, where the people that actually want to see it can do it, and people that don't want to see it don't have to?

[cynatnite]

151. So you don't feel like explaining to children when they have questions...

That's called lazy parenting.

It's a display to try and sell something. How simple is that? You don't have to make a federal case out of it and can move on. If they say what, tell them. What's the problem here?

Kids wouldn't have issues with sex if the parents didn't act like it was a dirty thing children didn't have a right to know about.

But if you prefer kids to get their education from the TV or their friends at school, go right ahead.

[LisaL]

161. What are they trying to sell? A naked woman?

Cause the models are missing their underwear.
I don't think in any of the photos the woman actually has a full set on.

[cynatnite]

165. Why does it matter whether they are wearing anything or not?

Kids are going to see this stuff all the time. The media in general makes sure of it.

It's up to me as a parent to educate my kids in regards to this and other issues about sexuality.

Getting worked up over this is a waste of time, IMO.

[Maddy McCall]

168. Amen. It's lazy parents who gripe about what's "out there".

Parents who invest time in raising their children are aware that "objectionable" stuff is out there, and they take the time to help their children navigate through it.

You can't police the world. You CAN raise your children with wisdom, though.

[cynatnite]

170. I gripe about what's out there all the time...

But I know when it comes to sex and other issues that go with it, I have to do my job as a parent.

Well said, Maddy :)

[Maddy McCall]

171. Lord knows, you can't keep it away from your children...

the best strategy is to be a participatory parent. Spend your time educating your kids instead of protesting the local Victoria's Secrets. You know?

[Maddy McCall]

167. As I said before, fantasy and illusion.

Nasty comment deleted. Wouldn't want to "offend".

[Maddy McCall]

152. The mall may be a "public place" but it's privately owned...

and evidently, the complaints like yours are very few and far between.

If you're allergic to perfume, you stay away from Bed and Bath.

If your an asexual prude, you stay away from Victoria's SEcret.

Not that hard to understand, is it?

[Cats Against Frist]

221. WTF? You're just a cornucopia of false dilemma and hot-headedness

I agree with you about lazy parents & people who shelter their children, and said as much, above -- but I also don't think that because you find the narratives that are present in this kind of sexuality trashy, damaging, silly, dehumanizing or objectifying, that you are an "asexual prude." That's fucking ridiculous.

VS is selling a "narrative," and it's the same narrative that is sold in rape porn and sex chat rooms, all across the Internet -- imbalance, objectification, woman as "present," etc., that have colloraries in the other more harmful dalliances that we carry out -- crime, abuse, sexism, racism, pedophilia, brutality, violation, and carry over into our real lives. This IS the plastic, consumer sexual narrative, like a shiny, red Coke can, or a handbag that Paris Hilton might carry -- indulgent, fake, removed, oblivious, patronizing, irresponsible.

Unfortunately, I didn't make this up -- only a hundred years of feminist literature has criticized these sexual narratives, and, until the third-wavers (don't rape me, just loooooook at me) came along, this argument was well-known. It has also been expressed by other posters in this thread.

There is a healthy human sexuality that lives both outside fundie Puritainism and the crotchless panty crowd, and it doesn't mean one is a prude -- it just means that they may not have gotten shoved into one of the two dominant "boxes," that rule our culture.

[Maddy McCall]

229. You have GOT to be kidding.

Victoria's Secret does NOT sell the same narrative sold in rape porn and sex chat rooms. It sells lingerie, usually shared between adults in healthy relationships.

I agree with you about the last century of feminist literature. I received my MA in women's history and have studied it extensively. However, the fallacy of your argument is that the "narrative" that Victoria's Secret sells is unhealthy.

Victoria's Secret, to my knowledge, does not sell ball gags and riding crops. It sells pretty satin underwear. It's up to every woman to determine if that pretty satin underwear falls between the two extremes you mention. To me, it's healthy. To you, it's unhealthy. Thank god you don't have the right to decide for me and other consumers of VS underwear what is healthy and what is not.

[Cats Against Frist]

350. I'm glad you have a background in feminist studies,

so, yes, you are familiar with what I'm talking about. Then, you also know that there are scores of treatises written on the very thing, about which I'm speaking. The "lingerie" thing has a DEFINITE critique -- woman as package, replacing the human with an "icon," etc. -- some of the things that go along with it, especially shaving, have a very gross pedophiliac critique -- to me, though it's not in the same league as some of the other stuff, overall, it falls into the same category -- and it's completely different, in my opinion, from an organic, mutual, humanistic relationship, based on love, emotional commingling and body equality.

You say my worldview is insane -- possibly. I don't know that the above is attainable, or sustainable -- this, too, relies on narrative, and it is a narrative that is sorely missing from our society.

And you say that it's "personal," -- well, maybe it is. After scores of sex partners and the dalliances I described, in other threads, perhaps that consumer sexuality has always left me with a bad taste, and has created, between me and my largely consumer-sexed partners, a film that cannot be breached. And maybe I'm sad, and maybe I'm still looking for something whole, and good, and right, and not based on these common or cliche or silly narratives.

You can do whatever you want -- but I was largely, in my original post, critiquing your wild assertion that if you didn't want to participate in, what I see as a sexual slave trade, that you're an asexual prude

[Kailassa]

282. Have you never wanted to sit on your honey's knee

in naughty underwear and BE a present for him? Us women have a lot of conflicting messages and instincts in this regard, and we're never going to understand them by reading treatises on them. Playing has always been the most effective way to learn.

[LisaL]

326. Somehow I never wanted to do that in a mall. Go figure.

[Cats Against Frist]

346. Yes, I have, until I realized that it's fucking gross and degrading n/t

[Sgent]

159. Not a public place

Windows in malls (at least indoor malls) are not public places.

[marions ghost]

188. the Mall

is the center of the social scene in every American town, especially since the old city centers were killed off by them. In that sense they are very public places (never mind who owns them). To pretend otherwise is not realistic. In many areas, there are no alternatives.

[Cats Against Frist]

222. Modern American shopping malls are the distant children

of the French Arcades, which were literally public streets, with shopfronts, that were enclosed by barriers or even glass ceilings. You are right -- the shopping mall is, in a sense "the public street."

[Maddy McCall]

236. Still, modern malls are privately owned. You don't have to travel...

through a mall to arrive at a destination in your city. You make the choice to walk through the front door--or not to walk through the front door.

Even though the public visits them, malls are privately-owned venues, and making comparisons to French Arcades does not them public make.

[Cats Against Frist]

245. Oh, I agree -- and I absolutely agree that people have the choice

of whether to go there, or not. Please understand, that, no matter my critique of VS, I still believe that it is their right to advertise what they want, and the consumer has the their right to participate, or not. These things are best solved by letter-writing campaigns and boycotts, etc. If a group of concerned citizens attempts to pressure, through influence and publicity, a business to do or not do something, I believe it is their right, as well. Just as I believe that the business has the right to tell them to fuck off, if they don't want to change their marketing strategy.

I was speaking metaphorically of the arcades and the public street, which, I think, is somewhat relevant to the discussion. Someone else, in this thread, posted an extraordinarily lucid suggestion about compromise, consensus-building, etc. -- I think the metaphor of the "public street," and the shopping mall is apt.

[Warren Stupidity]

275. poke their eyes out. it is the safest course. nt.

[cynatnite]

126. It's a lingerie shop and doesn't strictly sell underwear...

I don't get the problem you have with this.

[Warren DeMontague]

123. Right. One wonders how many of these people expressed outrage at Bush

and Rumsfeld for the very REAL, SICK, and EVIL S&M show they're putting on -still- in places like Gitmo and Abu Ghraib.

Naughty lingerie and consensual sex between adults will be the downfall of us all!

...but supporting blood-soaked war on people for a pack of lies is "Patriotic".

[YouthInAsia]

125. jesus...wouldnt want her son to get a hard on. GOD FORBID

[NNadir]

127. Who did the research for them on the subject?

[progressivebydesign]

130. Why are we championing Victoria's Secret? They hate women!

I honestly think that Victoria's Secret is about as anti-woman as you can get in retail. Not only do they use models for their catalogs that have been studied and found to be 10% below what is considered anorexic weight, they computer adjust them to look slimmer and either surgically or virtually enlarge their busts.

They promote a sick and dangerous body type and use women's bodies to sell products in the most creepy way. They used to have pretty products and good promotions.. they have slipped into Walmart style pornography.

Sorry, but mannequins portraying S&M in a shopping mall is ridiculous. What exactly are they selling? KY-Jelly? Or clothing?

[LisaL]

134. Exactly.

I couldn't agree more.

[Maddy McCall]

139. So, is your anti-VS argument now that they are misogynistic?

I thought it was "for the children."

Or do you just agree with anyone who disagrees with people defending the right to free speech?

[LisaL]

143. Does it have to be about one issue only?

I don't think it's appropriate to display what is basically soft core porn in a shopping mall. I don't understand why they models are semi naked if their purpose is to sell underwear. I don't think children and even adults should be subjected to something some people might find offensive. If they want to have these mannequins, and whatever, they should keep them inside and not subject people who don't want to see it to having to see it.

[Maddy McCall]

145. No, of course not. It's just the first time I heard you mention...

misogyny.

And VS doesn't just "sell underwear." Every bride in the world goes to VS to buy a bustierre for her wedding night, because VS also sells illusion and fantasty.

Illusion and fantasy are not necessarily misogyny.

Again, I say, if you don't want to see the mannequins, don't look the direction of VS when you walk by. Isn't the store in the same location everytime you visit the mall? Then avoid it. It's no big deal, unless you make it one.

Edit to add: I know you'll nitpick my "Every bride in the world" statement. That's hyperbole, but most people get the point.

[LisaL]

153. Their displays are so giant and enormous, it's impossible to

miss them. Why do they have to have such giant displays? Do they think people won't find them unless their displays are at least twice the normal size? Or that nobody would go into a store unless there is a giant picture of a semi naked woman on the wall next to it?

[Maddy McCall]

155. Wow. You are really fixated on this.

As a parent, I find ways to navigate through things I find objectionable for my children without forcing everyone to cede to my ideas of what is right and just.

Why is that so difficult for you to do?

[cynatnite]

156. Oh, come on...giant semi-naked women??

Who cares? Walk your kids over and show it to them. Point to it and say..."There's a giant half naked woman. Any questions?"

If there are, answer them. If not, move on and don't sweat it.

[Maddy McCall]

160. No one is forcing you to go to the mall.

If it's so offensive to you, shop somewhere else.

Geez, people like you need to find something to do instead of telling everyone else what is acceptable and what is not.

:eyes:

[LisaL]

162. Hmm. Maybe you should take your own advice, cause you

don't seem to have any problem telling me what I should find acceptable.

[Maddy McCall]

166. Oh, please. I'm saying that if you don't like it, don't shop there.

If you don't like a movie on pay per view, don't buy it.

If you don't like a Big Bacon Cheeseburger, eat at McDonalds instead.

No one is forcing you to "expose" your children to this. If you don't like it, don't go there.

Why is that so difficult? I'm not telling you that you have to like it. I'm just telling you that you can't force other people to curtsy to your whims just because you perceive yourself as more moral than others.

Period.

[Name removed]

142. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

144. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Maddy McCall]

146. It's against DU's rules to tell someone you are putting them on ignore.

Since we're all into rules and everything. FYI.

[LisaL]

147. Hmm. I haven't seen that in a rules.

But suppose it is. How about telling someone I will ignore all his/her posts from now on? That should satisfy the rules, no?

[Maddy McCall]

154. Whatever. You're all into Ps and Qs. Just thought you might want...

to obey the rules.

[triguy46]

195. We must hide sexuality from our children!!!

This is our last chance to maintain purity and virtue!!!

[Maddy McCall]

137. I'm no anorexic model type. But I feel sexy as hell in my VS lingerie.

If they're anti-women, why do they carry sizes up to 20? I don't wear a 20, but it's available.

If they are anti-women, why do I feel so damned sexy as a woman when I wear my VS underwear?

[triguy46]

206. Could this be the thing (thong) that unifies our country???

Regardless of this woman's prudery, VS is the melting pot of the mall, old, young, male, female, freeper, DUer. All united in VS!! Obviously there is a common thread (not many mind you), but they do know what many, many people like.

[MADem]

335. I would think if everyone had a hunk of dental floss up their asses

it might make some of us a bit cranky...which does little for unity, I imagine!

[Cats Against Frist]

223. Because you've been sold a narrative, probably your whole life

What you do with it is your business -- but that's why. Constructs.

[Maddy McCall]

231. LOL! My MA is in Feminist History.

But I'm not a militant who wants to destroy everything that has a tint of femininity to it. I, like Mary Wollstonecraft, realize that relationships are based on mutual respect, and that in every relationship, there are two halves that make up a whole and those halves aren't necessarily the same. You would be wise to have absorbed Mary's words.

I was like you during my coursework. And shortly after. But your worldview is insane.

Further, your deep need to "analyze" people who defend Victoria's Secret tells us more about you than about those you seek to analyze.

[Kailassa]

283. You're really so sure

that no-one would like this sort of underwear just because it made them feel good about themselves? :silly:

(Edited because the crotchless knickers cut off the blood-flow to my brain and I lost my ability to spell.)

[Warren DeMontague]

314. The idea that anyone who enjoys stuff you don't must be sick/brainwashed

is a construct, too.

[Cats Against Frist]

348. Dude

Why can't I have an opinion, or offer up an opinion for discussion? I think, repeatedly, in this thread, I'v reiterated that I don't wish for the government to step in, or for people to be restricted from following their desires/fetishes/passions etc.

I don't think that anyone is "sick or brainwashed," except for freepers -- and, you're right, everything that we learn is a construct. But there's a heck of a difference between offering up an opinion for discussion, and calling in the billy clubs to shut down VC.

I don't have anything against people, personally, for their extracurricular activities -- and, as I said, in another post: I used to love that stuff, until I began to think about it, in terms of dehumanization, objectification and replacing the human with icon. This is a common feminist critique, and is, generally, part of the chain of critical thinking that we're always begging freepers to do, to "come around." What's so wrong with taking something apart, and looking at its pieces?

[mongo]

355. The problem is

That even if you think it should be legal, and that people who engage in activities you no longer "approve" of, when you go into the rhetoric - "of dehumanization, objectification and replacing the human with icon"

All that you are doing is enabling the religious right in a campaign for censorship.

As far as your personal views, are you not just replacing one set of oppressive values for another?

[Warren DeMontague]

364. Nothing.

I'm merely, gently, in a friendly fashion, suggesting that constructs like "common feminist critiques" can be taken apart and looked at critically, as well.

[marions ghost]

204. Yes Victoria's Secret has sunk low...

their stock must be dropping.

The problem with this is not so much that anybody will see it and it will offend-- the problem is that teenage girls and young women will model themselves on visions of S&M practitioners with anorexic body types. This is not healthy and promotes insecurity about sexuality more than anything else. What says 'sex object' better than mannequins strapped up like this? (Read the post above about the person who was involved with this industry and it's degrading effects). We get all of our information about the culture now either from screens or from such commercial displays. To argue that this display is 'not real' and that it has no effect on behavior is not taking into account the way information is absorbed these days.

This is not about promoting sexual freedom. This is a cynical form of commercial exploitation. It is about slick marketing of overpriced costumes -for women only- in a society obsessed with sex. Of course that cannot be restricted but people who don't want to see this in their face in a 'family-oriented' mall shouldn't have to. It's too provocative. There is an easy compromise here. Keep this inside the store, not in the windows. That's all. They'd still sell enough of the junk. (I have no problem with nudity in advertising whatsoever, but this isn't nudity--it is erotica). I have no illusions that enough parents will see this as negative for their daughters' self image --to stop them from shopping there. But if you restrict certain movies for kids, you'd have to restrict this.

[Warren Stupidity]

276. I'm in favor of freedom, how about you? eom.

[really annoyed]

277. Do they "hate" women?

I think you are far-fetched here. A skinny woman in a lacy bra does no harm.

The main face of VS, Adriana Lima, is well-loved by both men AND women.

VS has an objective to sell "sexy" products, and their ads reflect that. It's called "business."

[progressivebydesign]

131. double posting. n/t

[FM Arouet666]

157. She is sooooo HOT......

They are correct, I have descended into the world of sadomasochism. Curiosity forced me to drive to the mall today to see first hand how Victoria Secret was trying to subvert our minds.

Suddenly, like a lightning bolt, I was struck with the torrid stare of this plastic nymph. I must have her! I screamed. I snatched my leather and chain clad love tool and dashed out of the mall.

I now live in a self made S&M hell. She stands over me, scantily clad, poised to burn my flesh with her erotic whip. Handcuffed to the bed, my head covered in leather with a zipper slit to breath through, I can only ponder how my life has descended into this darkness.

The horror, the horror.

[cynatnite]

158. ROFLMAO!

I can't stand it!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Maddy McCall]

164. Not as hot as this one. I think I have to become a lesbian now.

All because of the lesbian sado-masochism at Victoria's Secrets. Or I could just shut up, buy the outfit and some satin cords, and tie my husband to the bed tonight for some wild crazy sex.



Or I could just STFU and shop somewhere else.

[Name removed]

163. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Maddy McCall]

169. BTW, here she is.

See her in the reflection of the mirror behind the mannequin?

[LynnTheDem]

172. Ya know she breathes hard as she goes through books looking for

any *GASP!* dirty words, too.

No wonder the USA is so fucked up.

[TlalocW]

216. Not only is this promoting all the things Lafferty is talking about

Lesbianism, sadomasochism, etc. but we can add Lafferty's voyeurism fetish that she tries to hide from the other ladies in her church group to the mix as well.

TlalocW

[greyl]

176. "sadomasochistic pornography?" Mrs. Lafferty is making it up.

Her description is either deceitful exaggeration or delusion.
Look at the pics:
www.traditionalvalues.org/vs/

[baron j]

183. I know. I'm disappointed.

I also took a look at their website. Scary stuff! Their hatred of gays is chilling. And what's with the whole 'Anti-God Left" comment on the side? Which God are they talking about? They always seem to forget freedom of religion.

[RoyGBiv]

187. Terminology: More than you want to know ...

When encountering criticisms like this one, I've often seen the term "sadomasochistic" applied when I can't even see a hint of it anywhere. I've assumed for a long time this is either due to ignorance, intentional sensationalism, or both. It may still be, but I was reminded of something else the other day while overhearing a conversation between some of my fundamentalist relatives who were all outraged about something they'd seen on the TeeVee.

To many of these self-styled moral crusaders, masturbation is self-abuse. I remember this from childhood myths, but I had thankfully purged it from my consciousness a long time ago. What I hadn't considered before was an extension of the logic, which is what my relatives were then doing while plotting to get Cinemax banned. Apparently, any manual or "unnatural" manipulation of the sexy bits is abusive, which would make mutual masturbation both a masochistic activity for the receiver and a sadistic activity for the giver; ergo sadomasochistic pornography could be a term applied to a suggestion of sexual relations between two members of the same sex.

To provide a recent example of this in practice, I read an article some time ago regarding the Michael Jackson trial that referred to his abuse of the child involving "sadomasochistic torture." I remember thinking at the time I hadn't heard that particular charge before and, if true, went far beyond the twisted things of which I knew he was accused. Thinking back on it now, the context I remember suggests this is precisely what they were talking about.

[Warren DeMontague]

180. Shit, where's H.L. Mencken when you need him?

"Puritanism: the nagging fear that someone, somewhere, may be having a
good time." --H. L. Mencken

[Rainscents]

182. I can't believe this country... I went to Australia few years ago and

they show people having sex on TV and no one make big deal out of it. Only in America! Best advice is to educate your children's and never tell your children, sex is dirty! I always told my kids that, sex is beautiful when you are with right person and sex comes with respondsibility. My kids are 26 and 24 and they have no kids of their own. I truly blieve, when the kids are well educated about sex, they less likely will have kids at young age.

[sepia_steel]

185. Agreed!

I was fortunate not to, but all my younger sibs had kids WAYYYYYY too young. I will not be repeating my mother's mistake.

[sepia_steel]

184. I haven't been impressed with VS lately

but those new things are hot!

As far my kids seeing it, I hope they do. And I hope they know by that time that it is okay to ask me questions (because doubtless they will have seen worse things, like poeple dying for a pack of lies). I refuse to hide the real world from them. Breaking the stigma by explaining thins is the only thing that removes the confused, displaced feeling that I had as a kid when I first stumbled onto dirty magazines at my local convenience store.

Ignoring sex in this country is one of the reasons it is so f**ked up to begin with. My mom tried to sheild me from those things, and instead of the confidence and empowerment that comes with understanding, they had power OVER ME and scared me, because she wasn't there when I DID run into it.

They're going to see it. Explain it, show them that it's nothing to fear. Problem solved, and no sexual hang-ups later in life.

[Kaylee]

189. How old are your kids....

I think most of the posts here assume the kids we are discussing are 7 and over. What about my 4 year old daughter. I'd like to keep her innocent for a little while longer, before I need to explain why that woman is crawling on her hands and knees wearing next to nothing in the mall window.

I'm not a prude (ask my hubby) and have been known to receive unlabelled packages in the mail. However, give me a chance to explain when I think she is ready, not when a store mannequin forces me to. <<RANT ON>> I am so tired of this type of "objectification" of women being pushed on my little girl. Even on the Disney Channel most shows past the Dora the Explora age are so superficial. This boy "that", my new shoes "this". UGH. It's all about looks and popularity. Once I would like a show for girls about something meaningful or at least educational without all the Bratz-type pouty lips and attitude. <<RANT OFF>>

[cynatnite]

190. I'm talking about kids of any age...

If they're old enough to ask questions, they're old enough to know the answers. That's not to tell them the mannequin in the store window is an example of women being used and demeaned for money or whatever.

Tell them what their little minds can handle. I don't see the purprose in making a huge deal out of it at all. Kids ask questions, answer them and move on. If they're really curious, they'll ask more or they'll forget about it when something else gets their attention.

[Kaylee]

192. And I don't understand the big deal about .....

putting it inside the store. It is one thing to have underwear on mannequins. It is another thing to have lingerie on mannequins in suggestive poses. Just show the clothes, not the sex that goes with the clothes.

You're right, my daughter more than likely wouldn't even notice the display and could easily be distracted with another subject. But let me put it this way... I would not crawl across the floor in front of her wearing daddy's valentine's day present, so why would I want a mannequin to show the same thing. Just put it in the store. If I walk into the store, whelp that's on me.

VS got the publicity they were looking for. I will still go there to stock up on underwear during their $3 panty sales or to get more bath gel. My kids will more than likely be in tow and I won't even take a second thought to this episode in time. However, my point is why be so in your face about it.

[cynatnite]

194. Sexual displays whether TV or other forms is already in your face...

It's something I constantly gripe about, but I know I don't have any realistic way of combating it. It seems way easier and more honest, by just talking to my kids about sex and sexuality issues when they have questions.

Plus, these kinds of things are not a big deal in our house. Sex is openly discussed here. I think it's why my kids don't think about or even sweat stuff like this.

It's bad enough sex is still treated like a dirty secret then a conflicting message of letting it all hang out is pushed by the general media. I figure I'm better off talking to my kids about it and being honest with them. It's worked pretty well for us and not a big deal to them either.

Our little boy is six years old and he could care less right now. It's all about PS2, bugs and his daredevil antics that keep me up at night. :)

[Kaylee]

202. We are in agreement....

I make a point to make sure that my daughter does not view sex as dirty or unnatural. As you know, kids our age have already started to "discover" themselves.

My rant is that this is just one more thing in a long list of things. Kids (especially girls) grow up so fast these days. They get a figure earlier, get their periods earlier, and wear clothes that I was too embarrased to wear in my 20's to middle school. I just would like it to slow down a bit.

[sepia_steel]

247. I agree with you on most of that

but I think that trying to 'keep them innocent' can only hurt them and not help them. You don't have to go into tons of detail to give your child a calm explanation. It doesn't matter how old they are, because these things are going to show up when we least expect them. We can't have speeches written and prepared - this stuff will happen randomly.

It might sound ridiculous, but if I knew my kid was too young to understand sex or sexiness, then I'd just tell her these were a crazy form of art(no they're not realistic) - just an exhibit. Their clothes are art. If I react nervously to a half-naked mannequin, she's going to associate fear with that and wonder about it for years. I would ask her if she thought they were pretty and make it a developing conversation about what else she thinks is pretty (it helps to know that, in a world of Bratz toys and Babries) and then we'd keep walking and I'd ask her what else is pretty. It's be a good way to help her associate with REAL beauty and not marketing.

About the superficial shows and toys - I couldn't agree with you more. I see commercials all the time that make me cringe. I HATE those damn Bratz dolls. And all those commercials that make a child feel like they're nobody without that product. UGH!!! I would not even own a television if my husband did not have to have it to do work.

[NorthernSpy]

191. tens of thousands of displaced disaster victims are living in shelters...

... and bodies still lie rotting and unrecovered in parts of New Orleans. People's houses are being marked for bulldozing. Many -- maybe even most -- people in the disaster area have lost their jobs. It will take a great deal of struggle to protect the right of the survivors to go home again.

And in the midst of all this, the "values" people think that a stupid underwear display is a priority target for activism?

[B3Nut]

211. Ding ding ding ding.

That's a big thing that soured me on the whole fundie thing...I'd hear sermon after sermon about this crap, but stone silence about issues dealing with taking care of people, which was so bassackwards from what Jesus taught it isn't even funny. Kinda showed them up to be hypocritcal frauds. Ya know fundies, going around with a chip on your shoulder and a pinecone up your ass doesn't make you a better human being. You could try, oh, feeding the hungry, looking after widows, you know, all that liberal stuff Jesus was so busy doing. Kinky mannequins in a window don't destroy families. Poverty and rampant corporatism do.

Todd in Beerbratistan

[pointblank]

198. *SIGH*

Can we just line these people up and shoot them already?....Of course not, what am I thinking?????????????? :sarcasm:

Seriously, how about we just give these freaks their own state and be done with it. They can have, say Montana, and they can set up Jesusland there and live their smut free, boring, god fearing lives and leave the rest of us logical people alone. Done. End of story. Problem solved.

And then the rest of us, the majority, can get on to dealing with more important issues like, oh lets say poverty, homelessness, real crimes, Bush, PNAC etc.

[newportdadde]

199. I wish my big life problem was mannequins like Mrs. Lafferty.

I'm sure those in NO and those in Iraq wish there biggest problem was mannequins as well.

[triguy46]

208. an ironic LOL n/t

[gauguin57]

200. I care that Victoria's Secret is a RETHUGLICAN compay.

It's owned by Limited Brands, which gives 84 percent of its political contributions to the Pugs.

http://www.buyblue.org/node/1332/view/summary

I no longer shop at Vicky's or at Bath and Body Works (also a Limited company)

[LisaL]

323. Isn't it a hoot? Seems VS has no problem supporting

republicans, while some here feel the need to protect VS from republicans, since apparently only republicans can not understand how important it is to have these mannequins in the mall. Some here are down right proud to buy underwear from VS too. All that money will sure come handy when VS wants to make it's next donation. LOL.
:sarcasm:

[nonconformist]

201. I'm the mom of two boys, ages 10 and 7

I have no issues with this.

I'm far more concerned with gratuitus violence and hate speech harming my children than some plastic manniquins in lingerie.

[Roland99]

203. "lesbian-like poses"?? AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!

Are these mannequins engaging in some 69? Some carpet munching going on?

:rofl:

:rofl:

[Roland99]

205. Hey! WAIT A MINUTE!!! Are these guys in a homosexual-like pose?

They almost look like they're holding hands while walking!!

[TlalocW]

218. What's more disturbing than any of this

The mannequins, the poses, the sado-masochism, the gayness of those two dudes, is that there are people out there who will be lingerie with large feathers come out of the ass.

Think of the children! Won't someone think of the children! Yesterday it was wearing their pants down around the bottoms of their asses to show their boxers or thongs. Today it's panties with feathers come out the ass. Tomorrow it's putting live chickens in your pants! Is this what we want for America?

TlalocW

[BuelahWitch]

235. Honey don't knock it till you've tried it!

:D

[Bridget Burke]

210. What a lot of fuss over a few giant Barbie dolls!

Victoria's Secret is a business. Will they lose money over the display or not?

I notice the linked story includes the Victoria's Secret website so readers can find their local store. Then they are invited to complain to VS & threaten the mall with a boycott. Manufactured outrage at something the reader would never have seen if she had not clicked on the scandalous photos.

The Traditional Values website is quite a treat. Hey, they've got a link to:

www.christian-underground.com/

[mtnsnake]

214. Fuck Victoria's Secret. They're one of Bush's favorite supporters, &

for their monetary support of him in past elections, the company's President and CEO, Grace Nichols, has been rewarded by Bush with a seat on his ACTPN Committee (Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations). How nice. The people behind Victoria's Secret are as right wing as it gets! Besides, I don't even bother looking at their catalogs anymore that they send to my wife, ever since they stopped showing nipples in them!!

[sepia_steel]

248. that's another reason I don't go to VS eom

[yellowcanine]

220. Mrs. Lafferty took PHOTOS???? To show to her friends so they could

exclaim, "How terrible! But look at this one here - it is even more suggestive! And what about this one? Tsk tsk!"

[Joanne98]

262. Christians look at dirty pictures alot. To investigate it, of course.lol

[julialnyc]

225. Aren't they wearing the clothes from the Moulin Rouge MTV music video?

It looks like they are wearing the same outfits as Christina Aguillara, Pink, Maya and Lil' Kim in the mtv video.


I see plenty of little girls dressed up like Britney Spears (jeans so low that their thong.... which they shouldn't be wearing... shows).

How are some mannequins in a display window going to push kids intrigue beyond what they see every day when their lives are saturated with mixed messages. Brittney talks about being a virgin while she dry humps someone half naked in her videos.

At least with VS they are selling their product which is much less confusing than much of what's sold to kids through tv, videos, movies (not to mention commercials that warn of 12 hour erections).


In Europe soap ads on tv have naked women.Yes,it is done in a way that the woman is a sexual object (as most models are sold by the product they promote) but it's straight forward (and because it's not the forbidden fruit you don't have the same obsession)

[Finder]

226. My observation...

Victoria's Secret just got millions of dollars of free advertising right before the holidays.

Gotta love those PR types...

The VC in my local mall is nothing like the one mentioned. Then again Fredericks is on the same floor so the sexy manniquins are there already.

[mongo]

242. Free advertising

Maybe I need to spice up MY store windows....

[dogday]

227. All I know is when they show their

commercial, my husband goes stupid and deaf..... He loves them long legged woman in their bras and panties....

[Theres-a]

232. Lesbian-like poses?

:wow:

[BuelahWitch]

237. But WHERE are the sadomasochistic sex acts?

:shrug: All I see is some woman in her undies bending over to adjust her shoe. Does that mean every time I bend over in my undies I'm committing a s/m sex act? Gee, I didn't know I was having so much fun!

[Maddy McCall]

240. They read into it. They inject their own fears into what they see.

You are right. Nothing I saw has anything to do with S&M. But if you are a Xian Fundie who's on the patrol to seek out things that you don't understand, but which look EEEEEVIL, then you can see S&M in the ketchup dispenser at McDonald's.

[BuelahWitch]

243. Thanks for clarifying that

:hi: I thought maybe I was missing something and needed an edumacation on S&M, something like "Hooked on Riding Crops"...

[triguy46]

241. deleted, sorry

[pitohui]

244. why don't they ever do this at my victoria's secret?

i have to go to caesar's forum shoppes to see the real good s/m winged angel bondage lesbian victoria's secret!

[edbermac]

246. Why not show J Edgar Hoover in some lingerie?

He was a cross-dresser, though I don't know how slutty his wardrobe was...

[Javaman]

249. There is so much wrong with Mrs. Lafferty, I don't know where to begin?

"The displays inside the store show women laying next to each other in lesbian-like poses."
What is a lesbian pose?

“This should be a place where I can bring my son and not be offended by mannequins dressed in sadomasochistic outfits or laying in suggestive poses.”
Ummm, mrs. lafferty (the name alone...) what do you have in mind for your son?????

“We should not have to fear going shopping at a mall"
With or without Victoria Secrets, I fear shopping at the mall to begin with.

this woman is in essance, an asshat.

[triguy46]

250. With the upcoming redesign of DU...

We may need a "General Discussion: Lingerie" section.

[paineinthearse]

253. Mannequins in bondage! WOOHOO!!!! nt

[femrap]

264. I expect a bit more from liberal/progressive men when it

comes to Women's objectification. I can understand the pugs who think they are entitled to oppress anyone....but the Dem guys seem so hypocritical on this....

Backward....and unenlightened....nevermind, disrespectful.

Take your young daughters to Vic's place and show them what YOU want them to grow up to be.

[really annoyed]

271. Maybe they don't see it as oppression

Some women actually see it as a form of (gasp!) liberation. And I don't see anybody here wanting their daughters to grow up like a VS model. The ads have one objective.... To sell clothing for normal women to feel sexy in.

The VS models don't see to have a problem being objectified. Adriana Lima (the main face of VS) is well loved by both men AND women. She seems to enjoy her job - and the millions she makes from it.

VS is a business, and they use advertisements that are appropriate to their objective of selling lacy bras.

I'm the world's biggest prude, and I have no problem with this. I would probably just laugh if I saw such a display. The VS at my local mall is very tame.

If you think VS is offensive, you should check out fashion advertisements for couture clothing.


There are bigger moral problems we have to teach our children about... VS is low on that list.

[femrap]

286. I see this as objectification of women....we're just here to be

eye candy....and if she ain't got the curves, then well....hey, hag...go get me a cup of coffee.

I've seen the bulemia and eating disorders start when girls hit their teenage years...they have major problems w/ body image because they don't look like models. These young women come to realize that they are valued as sexual objects...their personalities mean nothing, their brainpower is unimportant....you gotta be sexy...that's all girls are worth to this culture. Big Biz makes tons of money off of this....TONS!!! Cosmetics, clothing, plastic surgeries, diet industry....the less self-esteem women have, the more they SPEND trying to get it....think about it.

Society has a mighty big double standard on women today....much tougher than when I grew up. At least, I didn't have to get breast implants as a graduation gift.

I would just like to see the boys be objectified a bit....maybe then they would realize how uncomfortable it is....like I said, I would love to see a male mannaquin at Vic's with a big, fat hard-on, 6 pack abs, great jaw line, with a great ass in a hot little g-string.....oh yeah!!! But no, we don't do that cuz we don't want the boys (who run all of these Big Bizes) to feel insecure about their 'masculinity.'

Why don't guys wear tight jeans???? Just why is that? Thankfully I got to enjoy that fashion for a few brief years....look at what the guys wear today....baggy pants and t-shirts to their knees...???

I think it is important to teach daughters that they have more VALUE than merely being physically attractive and 'sexy.'

Go look at the clothes they are selling to little girls today....shit, it looks like streetwalker outfits...but the Big Biz Boys are making money selling it...this culture makes me sick sometimes....W's Big Biz Buddies making little girls look like sluts...and mothers are dressing their 'sweethearts' in this crap...great way to raise an strong, intelligent, confident, young women....right...

[Name removed]

288. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kailassa]

291. LibInTexas, ugly? You really want to start throwing insults around?

Are you suggesting only a beautiful woman can have a valid opinion? Well that's fine with me, as long as you can be mature enough to see that all women are beautiful. I'm no looker, but I have fun. For all you know femrap might be gorgeous. And if she's ugly as sin, does that make her point of view any less valid? Look in the mirror before you go insulting others.

[Liberal In Texas]

301. Apparently the mod agreed with you. Have a nice life. n/t

[Kailassa]

304. Well thank you for your kind wishes, and the same to you, I'm sure.

[Liberal In Texas]

307. Hey. I don't wish anybody here on DU ill will. If I disagree with you,

it happens. I try not to get into pissing matches with DU'ers because we are pretty much after the same thing. I might, on occasion, be a bit drunky or opinionated. My bad. I will apologize right now.

One of the nice things about being a progressive or liberal is that we don't always agree. We are a wide open bunch of people who sometimes piss each other off.

If I offended...I am sorry.

Friends?

[Kailassa]

343. On condition that you agree with

at least one of these statements. Femrap is not altogether wrong and this discussion is richer for her contribution. Because when it comes to sexual matters, the more positions we can take the more satifying the conclusion should be. :pals:

[Warren DeMontague]

290. "I would just like to see the boys be objectified a bit..."

I would just like to see the boys be objectified a bit....maybe then they would realize how uncomfortable it is....like I said, I would love to see a male mannaquin at Vic's with a big, fat hard-on, 6 pack abs, great jaw line, with a great ass in a hot little g-string.....oh yeah!!! But no, we don't do that cuz we don't want the boys (who run all of these Big Bizes) to feel insecure about their 'masculinity.'

Fair enough, set 'em up.
Wouldn't bother me a bit.

[really annoyed]

309. You've never seen an A&F ad.....

By A&F, I am talking about Abercrombie and Fitch... Have you seen what they do to young men in their ads? Not to mention high fashion ads that treat men as servants to powerful women. Believe me, it does swing both ways. A&F is a contant target for conservative Christian groups.

I'm very involved in the fashion community, so I pay attention to what is going on in advertisement. It's all about business and promoting an image. That image is not going to be politically correct or liberal-friendly. It's about selling a product.

However, this advertisement is hardly ever directed at children. It is up to parents to guide their children on what is right or wrong.

As far as I'm concerned, if a woman chooses to be a VS model or support the products, they are not being objectified. Feminism is about choice, not suppression. If you choose to do something, you are not being objectified. You forget that women are a huge part of this "male" culture - not only that, they CHOOSE to be part of this culture.

If you want a child to be raised with morals, that's up to you. VS isn't going away. My parents managed to three children with morals in a harsh world - I'm sick of parents blaming outside forces.

I appreciate your comments and understand where you are coming from though.

[Cats Against Frist]

353. Bull. Shit.

Why don't you just send Laura Ingraham in here to provide your opinion for you. The "liberation" thing is a bunch of horseshit, cooked up by third-wavers, i.e. to excuse the fact that they want to be "feminist" but aren't strong enough to subvert the male-constructed image of woman.

And there are no bigger moral problems that dehumanization and objectification.

[smoogatz]

285. ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....

Wake me up when the lecture's over...

[femrap]

312. ya sound just like that close-minded pug that lives

in the wh.

[Warren DeMontague]

317. I think the self-righteous, crusading, moralistic tone of certain others

in this thread sounds MUCH more like the guy in the White House, actually.

[femrap]

324. Just trying to bring attention to the last socially acceptable

form of discrimination out there....let's keep the gals' bodies displayed for all to see.

Do you guys ever question your attitudes about women? Ever do any introspection? Ever have an open and honest discussion about how your daughter might feel about being looked upon as an object? Or are you just too cool and manly for such endeavors?

You consider my caring that women be treated as real people as opposed to sexual objects as crusading? GOOD. I didn't want you to dismiss my strong feelings and intentions on this matter.

Hey, if you are against war.....accepting women as humans ain't too far a reach from there.

[Warren DeMontague]

340. Accepting women as humans includes not censoring them

just like it includes not censoring expressions, sexual and otherwise, of other consenting adults.

[femrap]

362. They're mannequins....in a mall...a public place....directed to be

placed in S & M and lesbian positions by a Corporation run by a very wealthy republican. What will he think of next? Hey, why not put bags over their heads and make the portrayals of the women even more impersonal and objectified? Maybe Vic can get Howard Stern as a spokesman!!! Way cooooool, man.

I could give a rat's ass what consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes...in their cars, SUVs, on their property rolling in the mud....That is none of my business...and I'm glad it's none of my business! I DON'T CARE.

What I do care about is the Big Biz portraying women as objects....it's insulting to use women's bodies as advertising...our culture is so sick when it comes to women's bodies...it seems to be fixated at an adolescent stage. We sure could learn a few things from European cultures.

And if progressive men are truly so progressive and do not believe in humiliating people, then I would think they could understand my and some other women's views on this.

You all got very upset and disgusted about the sexual humilation of prisoners in Iraq...of course they were men....but it's OK to portray women in a store front window in a mall to be ogled at, sneered at, and humiliated with s & m?

If prisoners in Iraq deserve our respect, so do women everywhere.

I am wondering why the photos of the Iraqi women prisoners have not been shown to the public...?

[Warren DeMontague]

363. I wasn't upset about the Abu Ghraib pictures because they involved MEN

...actually, you're right- there is quite a bit of evidence to say that the stuff we didn't see involved women (and possibly, appallingly, children... We may find out soon) I can tell you what it means, because the images we did see were what is known in CIA parlance as a "limited hang-out".. i.e. they knew some bad revelations were coming, so they let some of it out in the hopes that it will staunch the flow of the REALLY bad stuff. What it means is that the general public is believed to get less upset by images depicting the abuse of men than it is by the abuse of women and children. (And on a visceral level, as far as abuse of women and children being more upsetting, I agree, although I think ALL abuse is unacceptable) Clearly, when right-wing pundits, the same ones who will argue 'til they're blue in the face that the images don't need to be released, are confronted with accusations like Sy Hersh's as to what the rest of that stuff contains, they will invariably go "Prove it. Show me the pictures." They know unless the public is forced to confront that stuff, they won't believe it happened.

But my point is, my problem with Abu Ghraib is entirely the fact that it was done with my tax dollars, in the context of an illegal, immoral war, and-here's the real rub- it was NON-CONSENSUAL. I think it's safe to say that Mr. Nude Iraqi held on a leash by Lynndie England wasn't some kinkster getting off on power exchange with his dominatrix- he probably would have much preferred to be back in Fallujah or wherever. Similar material, involving consenting adults in a non-occupation prison setting, wouldn't really bother me.

And the idea that you can compare ANY of that stuff to the "S&M", "Lesbian" (did you actually look at the pictures?) lingerie display involving mannequins is, in my book, patently absurd. If you don't like the way Victoria's Secret dresses their mannequins, get your own store and your own mannequins. If you really believe that the point of the VS display was to "ogle at" "sneer at" and "humiliate" all women (actually, mannequins) and not to sell sexy lingerie, perhaps you should bone up on your Elanor Roosevelt, one of the finest humans of the 20th Century, who said "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent"

You talk about how there should me male mannequins, objectified, put in kinky S&M poses (even though the poses in the pictures really. aren't. that. kinky) Hey- I agree. What's good for goose, gander, etc. I'd have no problem with that. Of course, I live near San Francisco, where the "visual objectification" (as you would put it, presumably- I don't have a problem with aesthetic or erotic presentations of sexy humans, of either gender) of buffed men is pretty commonplace. Neither have I freaked out, been humiliated, or had my self-image pummelled into nothingness. I think it's kind of cool living around such diversity, even if it's not my bag. I have no problem with how people choose to get off, or even if companies use sex to sell stuff. It's been that way since the beginning of time, and it's not about to change. When the demographic in question being sold to is gay men or hetero women, you can be damn sure they will use buffed, tan guys with hard six packs to sell stuff, and bully for them. Free country.

You talk about "Learning a few things from European Cultures", and I agree- they're not nearly as hung up about sex as we are, and you can pretty much turn on regular tv in many of those countries late at night, and get soft core porn. (You think they don't dress up mannequins in sexy lingerie in, say, Italy?) So you're absolutely right, this country would be much better off if we, like them, weren't so uptight around all this stuff.

[LisaL]

325. Well, VS must love that guy in the White House.

[Warren DeMontague]

341. Well, a significant portion of his base won't be happy until we're all in

chastity belts and burquas.

And they're the folks who've initiated this "crusade" against these horribly offensive mannequins in lingerie.

[LisaL]

358. VS displays offensive mannequins in lingerie and heavily donates

to republicans. Don't fool yourself. They don't give a shit about your fantasies.
If they thought showing a woman in burka would bring them profit, that's what you would see on display.

[Warren DeMontague]

365. Whoa. You mean they're a company that sells stuff people buy

for profit? So they can make money?

Imagine that.

As you may have guessed, I don't really give a shit about the "offensive mannequins" that aren't really all that offensive... but actually, the fact that they donate to the GOP could conceivably be a genuine factor in preventing me from shopping there.

Guess I'll just have to get my kinky S&M lingerie needs filled at COSTCO, from now on.

[smoogatz]

344. ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....

[Cats Against Frist]

354. Thank you, dear -- the "la la la la la I can't hear yous" say a lot

about the resistance to what you're saying. Thank you for your contribution, and you could really see the ugliness come out -- they are just proving your point. Not only do all women have to be decked out like a curio cabinet offering, only "beautiful" women can have opinions.

Rock on.

:yourock:

[smoogatz]

367. Actually, I'm pretty sick of being told that I shouldn't enjoy looking

at scantily-clad (or unclad) women, or images/representations of them. I expect to be lectured about the evils of lust by the fundie nutjobs--they're nutjobs, after all. But I sort of expect progressives to be smart enough to realize that men are wired to respond to visual stimuli. It's silly to try to politicize it; it's even sillier to pretend we're all being insufficiently liberated if we admit that yes, we like to look at attractive women wearing lacy undergarments. Big deal. So yeah, wake me up when the lecture's over--I've been hearing it since the late '60s, and it's still just the flip-side of the prudery coin.

[Cats Against Frist]

368. It's just very telling how people try to shut down the critique

either by insisting that the criticizers are "taking it personally," are "ugly dykes," or that they basically have no functioning genitalia.

I'm not lecturing anyone on the "evils of lust," and it's being disingenous to say so. I put forth an argument, numerous times, and the responses have all either been whiplash indignation or strawman arguments (you want to infringe upon my rights -- hardly, I'm a libertarian). I have yet to see someone intelligently address what is a critique, that, as I've said, unfortunately, I didn't make up, but is well documented within feminist literature.

I don't expect you to DENY that you like looking at representations of women who are either naked, or dressed in frilly garb, I expect you (people) to rebutt my argument about exactly WHAT it is that you're looking at, why, and why that person is in whatever clothes or pose that she's in -- and have a fairly intelligent conversation about the possibilities.

[smoogatz]

369. Been there, done that.

I was around when this discussion started, back in the late 60s. You haven't really made an argument of your own in this thread that I've been able to see--you're just tossing around the standard feminist-victim code--women buy frilly panties from VS because they're buying into the male construct of female sexuality, which is based in objectification. To which my response is--duh. Give the lady a freaking cigar. My point is that objectification is a hardwired male response--it's an integral part of how we get turned on. Yes, I know, this is the essentialist argument you've been taught to reject (hardwiring doesn't exist, unless you're gay, in which case all bets are off); but it turns out that like all male primates, we human men respond to visual stimuli in selecting a mate--and we rely on visual stimuli to tell us when the available females in our troop are ready to do the monkey, as it were. Since the backsides and genitalia of human females--unlike the gibbon--do not glow rosy red when they are in estrus (I know, human females don't do estrus, more's the pity), human females who are interested in mating have evolved the tendency to don frilly panties in hopes of attracting an acceptable hombre. For further evidence, note that gay men objectify each other like crazy (and don't have to apologize for it), and plenty of lesbians wear sexy lingerie for their partners. All kidding aside, I do worry that a great many progressives aren't having nearly as much fun as they should be. Further, I should note that my wife would be very upset if I stopped objectifying her, knowing what she knows. Which is plenty.

[Cats Against Frist]

372. And I've said at least twice that I didn't make up the critique --

-- it's critical theory 101, so, why are you trying to score points off of "my not making my own argument?" Your hostility and harsh responses are telling, believe it, or not. And I don't care what you and your wife need to do to or what narratives you need to create -- that's the point -- the carbon-copy "crotchless panty" bullshit narrative bores the hell out of me, and seems, to me, to be cliche and silly -- at its LEAST harmful -- and downright damaging, at its most harmful. If you and your wife need that -- I'm not trying to stop you, but I don't think that replacing my partner with a common or cliche character or icon is that exciting, or sexy.

For the record, I also don't think that homosexuality is necessarily genetic, and I don't agree that people have anything more hard-wired into them, except for hormones. In other words, our bodies know that we need to "do it," but the narrative is all up to the constructs. It just happens that this whole lingerie/fetish/pornography narrative that we're talking about is mass-marketed -- it's bad enough that 20,000 people across America have your same couch -- they also have your same foreplay.

[smoogatz]

376. I'm not hostile. I'm bemused.

The human "narrative" is 6.5 million years old. It's much more surprising that 20,000 people have the same couch than that they have the same foreplay, if you ask me. Turns out that human arousal is not much subject to critical theory 101, or the stale English Department politics of the late 20th century. Though if that's what turns you on, of course, more power to you.

[Hello_Kitty]

377. Once a man pulls out that "men are wired that way" b.s.

You can pretty much forget an intelligent conversation about anything relating to gender. He's basically saying he has no intention of examining his motivations or attitudes toward women.

(And I love how men are visually wired while women are wired to cuddle or whatever the fuck it is we're "wired" to do that doesn't involve men having to look good. Yah right :eyes: )

You're right about the way they try to shut down critique here. The so-called liberal sexists are more afraid of feminist criticism than they are of Focus on the Family, that's why they try to equate you with them when you simply question why there have to be so many sexist and degrading images of women. I think it's because people like the woman trying to shut the VS display usually elicit laughter while a feminist posing a valid argument about the same display (and not even trying to ban it, mind you) will often cause people to think about it differently and maybe not find it as enjoyable. A lot of the so-called progressives here want to objectify women guilt-free, thank you very much, so don't dare challenge them. Free speech apparently works only one way in some corners of DU.

[smoogatz]

379. What nonsense.

I'm certainly not trying to "shut down" anyone or any argument. You're as entitled to your opinion as the day is long--I just happen to find it tiresome and moderately risible. You want to talk about objectification as a construct? It's existed in every human culture that's left a visual record of itself. If that's not evidence of hard-wiring, I don't know what is. And neither do you, apparently. That said, of course I don't think our culture's hyper-sexualized, hyper-commercialized obsession with skinny, submissively posed female bodies is healthy or a good thing. I never said it was.

On edit: My point here is that critiquing the mechanics of male arousal--which has a strong visual component, whether you like it or not--is just silly; it accomplishes nothing, except to alienate the very people you're trying to convince. Your assertion that men should feel "guilty" for objectifying women is, from my perspective, absolutely no different from the fundies' assertion that we should feel "guilty" for thinking impure thoughts--both of these little guilt trips are rooted in dogma, not in an informed understanding of human sexuality. Critiquing the exploiters of the mechanics of male arousal is another--and entirely valid--tactic. Failing to see the difference between the two is evidence of a kind of rigidity of thought that's unbecoming in a progressive.

[wtmusic]

394. Racism has also existed in every human culture

as has torture, murder, and oppression. As civilization "progresses" we ostensibly rule out the behaviors which we deem most odious. For this reason I'm not sure you can pull that out of the hat to validate VS's policy, which obviously some here consider odious.

I agree with you though, and am playing the devil's advocate. Society will always draw a line at what level of offense will be tolerated. IMO if you feel this kind of thing is offensive you will have to learn to live with it, because it will never go away.

btw excellent, well-thought out post. :thumbsup:

[Warren Stupidity]

357. Eh?

Oh - you are one of the Dworken-style feminist types who think that we should cleanse the land of filthy sluttish pornography so that women will no longer be oppressed. However you have made a bit of a logic error here. For example - I wholeheartedly support victoria's secret's right to display dummies in their windows wearing their products - and I find their products ridiculous, unsexy, stupid, and ugly. Here is one of the 'Dem guys' you so blithely condemn, and yet you haven't even taken the time to understand our argument. It is an argument against censorship, an argument in support of the right of free speech, and you are just going to tar us with the stupid male chauvinist pig label without even considering what we have to say. I feel used. I feel objectified. And yet I support your right to make a colossal fool of yourself.

[LiveWire]

266. Good for them...

Lesbians and S&M freaks are people too!

[jmowreader]

273. And Mrs. Lafferty wasn't escorted off the premises?

I don't know about Tyson's Corner, but every mall I've ever been in (it's a bunch) has a sign on the doors: "No Photography Permitted In This Mall."

And as for this "partially naked women" thing: isn't that what Victoria's Secret mannequins ALWAYS look like?

[pitohui]

278. of course they allow photos & here's one of mine

i guess i won't try to claim i've been in a "bunch" of malls but i've been in the most famous (caesar's forum shoppes at las vegas) & photographs are encouraged there & in all the nice malls i've visited there like venetian, aladdin desert passage, etc



i'm not sure this includes every aspect of anorexic winged angel lesbian bondage s/m lingerie modeling...but i tried!


:-)

[Kailassa]

287. Enlightening pic,

I never realised that a hysterectomy slash had become a fashion item. ;-)

[pitohui]

292. hey something for every kink and fetish in that photo!

:-)

[Warren DeMontague]

319. There is NO WAY you could have real sex with those wings on.

even if she's on top.

[pitohui]

352. depends on your definition of real sex

kneel, slave! :-)

[Warren DeMontague]

370. Now, see, I don't have a problem with that

And I'm not even a mannequin.

[tonekat]

280. LOL, beats the heck out of the Talbot's window!

I live not to far from Tyson's, thought I saw a teaser about this story just before switching to "The Daily Show" last night.
Hey, if it upsets the people who want to police what we see, it's fine with me!
Think I'll go to the mall. You have to understand, DC and it's environs are "Planet Dowdy".

[bee]

284. yes. VS should send a healthier message to the

impressionable minds of Americas children. You know, more like all the department stores do. Head? Arms? Legs? Nah... just a pasty dismembered female torso. THOSE are the kinds of images we want pliable minds exposed to. :sarcasm:

[Zhade]

293. Strip joints? They're FUCKING MANNEQUINS!

These people are insane.

[Warren DeMontague]

296. Wait. These people are fucking mannequins?

Damn, they ARE sick.

[Kailassa]

302. They would probably like to be,

but no, they are only photographing them.

I'm referring to the original photographers only, not Pitohui.
Darn, that still sounds bad. :blush:

[Warren DeMontague]

303. Just imagine the chafing

or on second thought, don't.

[FreedomAngel82]

310. Why is she taking her son to Victoria's Secret??

:eyes: My brother won't even go to the bra section at WalMart and he's twenty. This is ridiculous.

[Warren DeMontague]

318. Well, what size bra does your brother wear?

Maybe WalMart's not the right store for him.

[Historic NY]

322. Humm.... freepers are into pantaloons, corsets and bodices............

must not show any skin.....

[Pepper32]

330. We must stop the mannequin terrarist.

They seek to corrupt our minds with their plastic breast. She really needs to lighten up. How is it any different from seeing a half-naked Barbie?

[opihimoimoi]

347. Where is this Place. I wanna go see...are there large crowds?

[LisaL]

359. Yes, you have to stay in line for hours and hours.

:sarcasm:

[opihimoimoi]

360. DAMN...LOL :o)

[dave123williams]

361. Oh; yeah - Victoria's Secret just turns EVERYBODY off.

WHO'S GOING TO PROTECT THE CHILDREN??!!???!!

[hedgehog]

371. Point 1. Victoria's Secret is a latecomer with this

There's a store at our mall that shows the latest NYC styles. Apparently, every woman in NYC is a professional, if you catch my drift.

Point 2. Nothing leads to more family fun than healthy laugh at these over the top displays. For example, one child suggests that a certain new bra is revolutionary because it allows jiggles but not bounces. Another credits the stars of a certain televising show about witches with the "power of 6". The best fun to be had is watching a soft porn ad and trying to figure out exactly what is being advertised - shampoo? water softeners? snack bars?

[Seansky]

380. Sorry to say this, but the fact that so many DUers (including me) open

and participated in the thread explains why the marketing strategy. Bad publicity is good one at some point. Now so many of us that don't go to malls know about it....

[donheld]

384. Meanwhile Mr Lafferty is probably

with some dominatrix getting his butt beat. :eyes:

[Name removed]

385. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

386. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[smoogatz]

389. His point is that he likes what he likes

and it's impolite to deconstruct his erotic response as if it was a "text." It's not--it's his life. But I agree with you about the binary thing--there's a lot of space for improvisation between Brazilian wax and 70s bush.

[SunDrop23]

391. Whoa...I need to get over there immediately! That sounds HOT!!!

LOL