Thursday, July 17, 2008 - Posts
-
sponsorship
I once tried to rationalize spending more than $40 on a set of unmentionables to my mother and less-fashion-inclined little sister.
"Look, if I don't have quality underwear, what else do I have?" I recall saying.
My sister told me I was being ridiculous, and that I was wasting my money. My mother suggested in no uncertain tones that the only thing my purchase would accomplish would be to secure my role as an eager-to-please trollop. "That underwear is only made to be seen," she said.
These women, whom I love dearly and who routinely purchase their undergarments in packs of 10, successfully shamed the pants off me.
I understand the source of complaints against lifestyle advertising like Victoria's Secret's, which perpetuates the idea that "sexiness" is mostly about showing off for someone else. Making purchases purely for the sake of seduction seems tacky and compliant. Futile, too, when, as my family was eager to remind me, I'm usually the only one who notices.
But that's just the point.
I'm well aware that buying into the whole "I can't live without this bra" line is completely offensive in a few very obvious ways. But honestly, I do enjoy spending money on and wearing underwear that I find appealing. And I don't think I'm being duped by advertisers. I'm a smart, successful, and informed woman who has managed to secure a disposable income, which I'll spend as I choose. I happen to enjoy knowing, privately, that beneath my day-old jeans and college sweatshirt are garments about which I'm more enthusiastic.
I suppose that if I were to press the issue with own my high-school-age sister, who is only now beginning to form opinions on the subject, I think she would agree with you, Lucy and Amaka, that sexiness is best characterized by confidence and good health. But confidence includes standing behind the consumer choices that make you happy.
As I read it, the Very Sexy campaign's demarcated punctuation speaks less to a lower standard for feminism than a greater appreciation for women who'd rather not feel sorry about dressing up for themselves.
I do agree, however, that the "Behind every very sexy woman is a Very Sexy ® Bra" catchphrase is a little off. Behind my very sexy bra is a very sexy woman. And that's not something for which I'm going to apologize. Period.
-
sponsorship
I once walked into a Victoria's Secret when they were running some campaign or another, and a saleswoman waltzed right over to me and purred: "Hi there. Can I help you find some sexy little things?" I was tempted to tell her that what I would like were some frumpy big things, but instead I just said no and walked out. It was my fault, after all, for having entered in the first place. I've since avoided Victoria's Secret like the plague. When I took my 13-year-old sister shopping for a new bra a few weeks ago, she pouted when I refused to set foot inside.
That my sister, who is barely high-school aged, considered Victoria's Secret a prime shopping destination speaks to the company's marketing strategy. In 2004, Victoria's Secret launched its PINK line, which is marketed directly to tweens and teenage girls. PINK is that brand that makes those icky sweatpants with giant lettering that hordes of teenyboppers slum around in, as they bare their bellies and panties. PINK also appeals to this younger crowd by offering too-cute hoodies, fake college logos on their clothing, and free stuffed animals with purchases. To me, this is an obvious ploy to get young shoppers interested in the even raunchier stuff in the store sooner. Growing up Victoria, or something. Certainly a company has a right to push its clients into push-ups, but the approach strikes me as a little trashy.
Before I'm dubbed completely puritanical, none of this is to say I object to "sexy little things." I just take issue with a company whose chief mission is to sexify its shoppers, no matter their ages. Amaka exercised restraint when she neglected to mention the Very Sexy ® Bra's tagline: "The classic seduction begins with lingerie. Behind every very sexy woman is a Very Sexy ® Bra." I've done some seducing in my day, and I'm pleased to report that such a garment is not a necessity.
-
sponsorship
The latest development in Victoria Secret's inspiring e-mail solicitation campaign comes in the form of a subject line: "The Bras You Can't Live Without. Period." My sister forwarded it to me with the accompanying note: "After reflecting on this subject line, I understand now why some portend that feminism is dead."
I'm struck by how resoundingly the death toll sounds, illustrated by the boldness of these lame advertising campaigns.
It's the "Period" addendum that gives the tagline its je ne sais quoi. Not that I am surprised, coming as it does from the same company that brought us such inventive names for their different bra lines as "Very Sexy". If the lingerie-seller's home page is any indication, in the world of VS, young college-bound girls hop off to campus wearing thigh-high rugby socks, a pair of underwear, a belly shirt ... and a cute pink hoodie. You know, because it is autumn after all, and it gets cold. So while your exposed buttocks and navel chill in the fall wind, you can be sure that you're covered from head to midstomach-ish; from toe to lower thigh. A VS girl is sexy and sensible, it seems.
I really wonder about Victoria Secret's vaguely dire world view. Take for example another VS subject line from February: "What is Sexy? TM ... New! Very Sexy ® Low-cut Push-up." Oh! I had been wondering what sexy was ... I thought it had something to do with confidence or being healthy. Thank you for clearing up my confusion. Question: What is sexy? Answer: You Spending Money on This Bra.TM
If they are going to shamelessly push their wares upon my person, I'd appreciate a little more creativity. Where are the days of subversive advertising? Is it me, or is Victoria's Secret doing a really sloppy job when it comes to fooling me into thinking a $40 bra will turn me into an impossibly hot Brazilian, accent not included?
Read more "XX Factor" entries on Victoria's Secret.
-
sponsorship
Most of the time, the Constitution doesn't let employers refuse to hire people on the basis of religious conviction. This has the comforting ring of a bedrock American freedom. But lately, it's being manipulated. First by pharmacists who say they refuse to dispense emergency contraception on the basis of their religous beliefs. And now by the Bush administration, which this week ordered family-planning clinics who receive federal grants not to refuse to hire nurses and other medical staff who object to abortion "based on religious beliefs or moral convictions." And not just surgical abortion, but “any of the various procedures—including the prescription, dispensing, and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action—that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.”
There's some serious accordionlike expansion of categories going on here—from objecting to abortion based not only on a religious belief but on a presumably secular moral one. And from D and Cs to emergency contraception. Worse, however, is the way in which the administration's directive feeds into the conflation of religious freedom with the idea that people have a right to a job even if their religious beliefs mean they can't do it. What does a nurse who objects to abortion do in a family-planning clinic? Sit out the procedures she was hired to help with? Hang protesting posters in the waiting room? I don't get it.
There have always been exceptions to the idea that employers can't discriminate. If you need to be Christian or Jewish or Muslim to fill out the four corners of a job description, then you can be denied the position if you're not. Example: An evangelical college can interview only Christians for the post of president. A synagogue can hire only Jewish Hebrew-school teachers. This isn't discrimination, in any legally recognizable sense of the word. Here's the family-planning parallel: If you are a nurse who feels she can't assist at an abortion or give a patient the emergency contraception the doctor prescribed, it doesn't matter whether your refusal is for religious or moral reasons or because you're not in the mood. You can't do the job. Maybe the Bush directive allows for this, in the sense that it's only protecting job candidates who could object to abortion and do the work that's required anyway. They also presumably wouldn't hang graphic posters of fetuses in the waiting room. I hope that's the right interpretation, anyway.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?