Don't Stop the ACLU

Sunday, April 23, 2006

The politics of underpants

A group calling itself the American Decency Association has an ongoing public denouncement campaign against Victoria’s Secret. Victoria’s Secret is a specialty clothing store specializing in women’s undergarments and sleep apparel (a.k.a lingerie).

From americandecency.org:

Victoria's Secret distributes a magazine which [sic] is essentially soft porn … Their sexualized advertisements in wall and window displays in malls across America are seen by millions of American children everyday.

First, the good news: at least the group is being civil about it. They’re launching letter-writing campaigns calling up their congressmen and generally respecting the democratic process, which I appreciate.

But soft porn? Victoria’s Secret? Really? That sounds a little harsh to me. I’ve seen plenty of VS ads, and not a single one of them contains a sex act or even a naked person. All I see are women (usually posing alone and never posing with men) in their bras and underpants and miscellaneous pajamas, nighties, bathing suits, etc. If you see pornography when you see a woman in a bra, I think that says more about you than it does about the bra-wearing woman or the photographer or the company that hired them to sell the company’s bras.

Think about that. What, exactly, does it say when a fully grown adult person thinks a woman in her underwear is pornography? Don’t try to tell me it says the adult is an especially moral being. I know lots of very moral religious people, and they’ve all been to the beach, but I’ve never heard one declare the bikini pornographic.

It’s something else. If anything, it feels like a perversion of religion to be so ashamed by the vessels that carry our souls.

Not to mention, excuse me, but this is a store catalogue we’re talking about, like the ones they give out at Wal-Mart and Sears. Victoria’s Secret sells underwear, so their models model the underwear. If I am a woman and I want to buy a dress or a pair of jeans, I look through catalogues that contain other women wearing the jeans and dresses. Why are bras so different? See if you can tell me without using the words “moral” or “values” or “decent” or any synonyms or derivatives thereof.
posted by Maven Swift at 11:38 PM

3 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Step 1 - Steal underpants.

Step 3 - Profit.

April 29, 2006 1:55 PM  
Blogger beervolcano said...

Why stop there?
Since when is plain nudity pornographic?

If I go to a nude beach or camp or do whatever in the nude with say my girlfriend and we take some pictures of ourselves doing ordinary things, is this pornography?

Nope.

May 01, 2006 5:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

FIRST: victoria secret DOES portray completely NUDE women on their mall windows at their perfume stores
SECOND: whether it is pornographic or not, people who go to the mall should have the freedom to walk in front of every store without having their rights infringed upon. children, particularly, should be protected from images that, because of their immaturity, can be confusing (not to mention distorting - as the models create unrealistic expectations of the woman's body)
THIRD: if you choose to go to a nude beach that is great for you: you know what you are going to see, you have the choice to bring or not bring your children there. local malls should be family friendly, not the equivalent of nude beaches.
I SAY: victoria secret should have modest photos on the outside of the store, and all the nudity they want inside. that way, people who want to see it, have the FREEDOM to walk in, and those who don't want to see it, or don't want their children to be exposed to it yet, have the FREEDOM to go to the mall without worries.

February 12, 2007 9:05 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home