Tuesday, October 18, 2005

Victoria's Secret Plan To Destroy Humanity

I never knew underwear could be so insidious.

That is, until G. Tracy Mehan III pointed it out to me.

Right there amidst the new restaurants, a 16-screen theater, Baby Gap, Talbot's Kids, and other outlets targeting young families and teenagers, were new window and floor displays, compliments of Victoria's Secret, entitled, "Backstage Sexy." According to the local NBC affiliate, it featured "bare-bottomed mannequins in provocative poses and suggestions of bondage." They were tarted out with rhinestone garters, fishnet stockings, and feathery thongs.

There were also two female mannequins lounging on a bed (one was removed after the first wave of protests). The Washington Post described a scene in which "one scantily clad female mannequin crawling toward another who reclined on a left hip and leaned back on both hands." All this was in immediate proximity to hordes of teenagers who were mall-walking in the newly expanded shopping center.
Naked Mannequins!!!! The Horror!! The Horror!!!

Make sure the kids leave the room:

Ok, just kidding. The mannequins "III" is so amped up over look like this:

They're Fake, and they're spectacular

Finally, A Girl Who Won't Leave Me

Don't Turn Away... I Won't Bite.. Hard.

"III" writes: "Slut ware" was the term used by one father, who noted that the "feathery-thong-clad mannequin bent over as if she were adjusting her spike heels."
You mean, this one?

The NBC article reported this resident's words:

"I've already tried to get security to arrest them for indecent exposure and I've talked to the managers in there," said Tim Cutler. "They don't care. They're just more happy they're getting the exposure and the marketing."
I checked, and was outraged to find out there are no laws on the books preventing mannequins from going out in public dressed in only lingerie. In fact, I was shocked to find there aren't any laws governing mannequins- AT ALL!! How could this happen? Why do the rules not apply to these "mannequin people?"

I went to a local Victoria's Secret to find out.

My interviews with the mannequins were short. Well coached by their lawyers, i'm sure, they refused to answer any of my questions. Something to hide underneath that lycra and nylon? This reporter, for one, thinks so.

I spoke with the store manager, who tried to assure me the mannequins are not a threat.

Manager: "They're not real. They're plastic."

Me: "They're corrupting our youth."

Manager: "How?"

Me: "They're showing their hoo-hahs and uh-ohs."

Manager: "They don't have hoohahs and uh-ohs, they're all plastic."

Me: So is Pamela Anderson.

Is Pam A Mannequin Person??

These mannequins need to be stopped before they corrupt our youth. Girls may start to think that wearing something other than white cotton granny shorts is ok. Who knows, they may even think it's alright to spice up a boring marriage with a little display of crotchless panties.

We all saw what happened in Italy when Michaelangelo's David was first displayed at the Coliseum Mall. All the guys started going naked. Is that what we want?

Clearly, teenagers are going to look at these "fake, plastic" mannequins and assume that they should copy them. Next thing you know, they'll be bending over to fix their shoes and start lying on couches. What has happened to our ideallic 1950's America, when the streets were clean and there weren't any problems at all??

A simpler time

"III," (who's name doesn't sound elitist at all), writes: "As a father, I spend a fair amount of time intercepting commercials, mailings, and unsolicited shower gifts generated by and purchased from this purveyor of provocative undergarments.
Alliteration aside... "shower gifts?" How old is this man's daughter? He's intercepting her baby shower gifts? I hope I'm misunderstanding this.

But obviously he's doing the right thing. I intend to gouge out my daughter's eyes to make sure she can't see anything that may convert her into a slut. That's true parenting.

As "GTM III" gets more riled up, he says, "How Dare They...":

Reflecting on this degradation of the moral ecology, in former Confederate territory at that, it is worth reconsidering many of the old libertarian bromides. Victoria's Secret's outrages may not be crimes, but neither are they victimless. You have to be some kind of Cartesian, mind-body dualist to think that what people think, say, or otherwise communicate has no impact on how they behave, use, or abuse their own bodies. If ideas have consequences — for adults, children, and families — it is time to challenge those ideas, championed by Limited Brands and Victoria's Secret, and enabled by landlords, mall owners, and feckless consumers.
Beautifully written. Someone owns a Thesaurus, and a dusty old book about Rene Descartes. The nerve of Victoria Secret moving into A FORMER CONFEDERATE TERRITORY with this filth. Don't they know Confederates are morally superior? What did Confederates ever do that was immoral? Nothing as bad as Liberals and that Clinton blow job thing.

"III" makes the great point that ideas are evil. So we shouldn't have them. Or, we should have his ideas, and not ours. This seems like a better alternative to thinking rationally. A ration person might think, "THEY'RE PLASTIC!!! AND ITS JUST UNDERWEAR!!!!!!" But those people should be killed before they make the Theory of Evolution a constitutional amendment.

He continues:

The family is the paramount human society which is threatened by the licentiousness (there is no other word for it) promoted by businesses such as Victoria's Secret, Hollywood film studios, breweries, and Super Bowl promoters.
Note: the thesaurus lists "wantoness," and "proligacy" as other words. But you know who wrote the Thesaurus: That's right. Baby Killers.

Super Bowl Promoters??? At first, I was perplexed. But obviously "III" is referring to the fact that many football players have wives that wear Victoria's Secret.

"III" hopes that the consumers of Virginia will force VC out of business. I don't know why it hasn't gone out already. I mean, it's just so morally objectionable, it's hard to believe they're doing great business. If everyone's complaining... who's buying?

My guess? The mannequin population.

In summation: We need to stop these mannequins, before it's too late, before we find ourselves in a nuclear wasteland fighting off evil cyborg mannequins with lasers for eyes.

Scared? You should be.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.


Chef Bouillon said...

While I would like to commend you for the wittiness of the writing in this blog, you are completely wrong. (half giggle inserted here, I'm not being viciously serious but I am serious).

While obviously mannequins dressed as skanky hos is not the most pressing issue in our society, don't you think the mere fact that VS thinks it is completely acceptable to put up a window display in a mall where there is plenty of "jailbait" around is a bit socially unconscious? You can't seriously believe that society has gotten better in the last 60 years with the advent of the "sexual revolution", can you? While I'm all for amping up someones sex life (at home!) I certainly do not condone thrusting that amping in front of impressionable teenagers, especially at a place where their parents drop them off to be safe.

That's all. If you want your daughter/wife/sister/mother to be wearing crotchless panties, suggest it to them in the privacy of your home. Keep the crotchless panties in a drawer when company is over (unless they are there for an orgy, of course) and spice up that marriage on your own time.

Adam said...

Thank you for your comments, chef. My snarky writing aside, I do see your point of view. Stores should certainly adhere to a certain community standard of good taste. So I agree the display was "socially unconcious," in the way that it showed little regard for the area's more conservative nature.

However, I've always been unconvinced by the "impressionable youth" argument. It assumes that teenagers will automatically mimic what they see, like a bunch of mindless apes. And while the MTVification of teen culture may seem to support that, in the real world, a Victoria Secret display has far less bearing on a teenager's mindset than the more important influences in their life: their parents, families, and friends.

Parents, to some extent, have become reliant on television and malls to be their child's source of entertainment, and as defacto babysitters. If they're so worried about their "impressionable" children, why leave them unsupervised?

The answer-- There's a level of trust established when a parent drops their kid off at a mall. Not a bond of trust between the parent and the mall (which should never be expected), but between the parent and their kid. The parent trusts that their kid will be able to make good decisions on their own, decisions based on the things they've learned at home, in church or synagouge, and in school. Parents trust their kid won't spend $300 dollars on a handbag, or shoplift bracelets from a store. If all it takes to turn a good kid bad is a flash of plastic thigh, unencumbered by a flimsy piece of synthetic fabric, then what kind of parenting has been done? What kind of kids do we have?

I don't advocate public sex, or orgies. And you mentioning my mother in crotchless panties made me vomit a little-- and probably will put me into therapy. But it's also naive to think that putting underwear out of view from "jailbait" is going to change their sexual behavior. Puberty is nature's blow against innocence. Sexuality is something that naturally emerges... it's inevitable that teenagers will be curious about sex. What do we teach them? That it's something to be ashamed of? No. Do we teach them to go out whoring? No. We teach them that it's something special to be shared by two people in love (for the religious, two married people in love). I don't see how a display of lingerie necessarily negates this message.

You are right. No one wants underwear shoved in their face (Well, some might). But while it might make some of us feel uncomfortable, the harm it does to society is suspect. There are things all over that objectify women, degrade women, promote casual sex and sexual depravity. I don't think that sexy underwear is part of that problem. Britney Spears is.

Thanks again for your comments. Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to go see that therapist.

Visitor Map: