posted
Really? I've seen the mannequin lying on her side at every Victoria's Secret I've been to. It's sexy, but I don't think it's anything new. And is that one in the store window? It looked like it was inside the store, where the others looked like they were in the window. I've always seen that particular mannequin along one of the walls inside the store.
The "Captain Morgan" pose. There's a Captain commercial with random people standing with one foot raised, and a voice says, "They've all got a little Captain in 'em."
quote:Anyways, while Victoria's Secret may mostly sell everyday bras and panties, they do have a very wide selection of lingerie that obviously isn't intended to be worn for long periods of time. Or under clothing. I think they have more of that than they do everyday stuff, really.
Actually, I have been continually disappointed in their variety and selection *in the store*, to the point that if I want lingerie, I don't go there.
But when they have their clearance sale, I might pick up a few cotton bras and panties. I occasionally buy a bridal shower gift there. I bought a bathrobe there once. Luv it.
It's *not* where I go for what they advertise most: sex play.
quote:Victoria's Secret bras are too pointy, anyway. [Razz]
You think so? I've had the opposite feeling about their bras. *squish*
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with you, beverly. I have never found anything at VS that I considered mature enough to be sexy. Pink nighties with leopard spots and fuzzy trim don't count as mature.
Posts: 1903 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
bev: I don't know what size you wear, or the bras you buy, but it might depend on the size. I have a small chest, and it seems like most bras for smaller sizes are pointy, so I avoid them because I don't feel like trying out the Madonna cone boob look.
posted
I am pretty dang small (IMO, anyway). Maybe it was the style I bought. But they made me look flatter with flesh squished on top--not flattering.
Edit: They were the on-sale cheaper cotton bras. I'm too much of a tightwad to buy the pricy ones.
Is it just me, or do VS bra's run small? I admit, it was flattering to fill a bra size that would normally be loose on me.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems to me the proof is in the results. This display is simply a matter of "pushing the envelope" further than it has already been pushed.
I see 11 year old girls in school wearing thongs and low rise pants with the waist rolled down, and lacy bras with either see-through or low cut tops, so that the bra (etc.) is on display.
This is like the cigarette companies claiming that Joe Camel wasn't intended to advertise to children. Victoria's secret is doing just that; trying to establish a clientele among children who are too young to understand where the judgement should come from, and why.
We're in a time when society is becoming increasingly aware of how much damage children suffer at the hands of molesters, who use the same techniques to desensitize their victims to inappropriate behavior. They call it "grooming." VS and Fredericks are complicit in that grooming. In my opinion, VS is the worse of the two.
Don't get me started on "Baby P.h.a.t."
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was under the impression that much of the argument against Joe Camel was that he was a cartoon character. I don't see how this is catering to children. Frankly that judgement needs to be instilled into children before they are old enough to wear anything from Victoria's Secret.
Posts: 1458 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to say, I definitely consider the parents more at fault than the retailers when I see kids in those clothes. I mean, sure, they shouldn't make those clothes for kids. But if no one bought them, they'd stop.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote:So, sex is natural and there's nothing wrong with it, but showing sex(uality) around children is somehow 'wrong' because of a matter of 'taste' that everyone knows is true.
To clarify what I wrote above, this sentence does not correctly paraphrase what I meant at all. "Showing sexuality around children" is so vague that it is impossible for me to tell you if I think it is wrong or right. Surely you agree there are some ways of "showing sexuality" that are inappropriate for children, even as I'd agree there are some ways that are wholly appropriate and heathy for children. Where the line falls is always going to be a gray area because what is appropriate changes with age and with each person's personal idea of propriety. In a public place, it's courteous to err on the side of caution. In an area where children (of all ages) are likely to be present, I think it is in poor taste to display "brothel-esque" tableux. I don't have to justify this at all because I'm not calling for consequences of this perceived offense to my sense of propriety. I'm simply expressing my opinion, which I have as much a right to as anyone.
Actually, your reply seems to confirm my paraphrase as accurate. What your reply seems to be saying is that you don't know what sexual things are inappropriate for children, or when they're inappropriate, but they're out there, whatever they are. Don't you see the problem with the logic of this?
To answer your assumption
quote: Surely you agree there are some ways of "showing sexuality" that are inappropriate for children, even as I'd agree there are some ways that are wholly appropriate and heathy for children.
I don't know. Showing sexuality is completely different than having sex. While I would certainly agree that having sex can be dangerous, how is 'showing sexuality' dangerous? I think they are two different things.
Let me say that it is odd to be having this conversation with a gay person. Don't you want to be able to show your affection with your SO? Don't you ever want to get married? Your arguments are basically the underlying ones used to make any display of gay affection wrong and dirty. If we let gay people show affection, then this is dirty because it's dirty. It's dirty because we say so is not sufficient reason for censure, don't you think? Don't you want people to give reasons as to why they need to condemn what you feel is right for you before they condemn you or your ideas? I would think so, so I'm confused why you make make excuses for the knuckleheads that 'know it when they see it'.
Sure, it's 'understandable' to have certain tastes and to not want to see others doing what you find distasteful. That's human nature.
What's not understandable, and should not be excused, but rather condemned, is jerks shutting off others from enjoying the same freedom of expression that they have.
If the above was too personal, let me know and I'll delete it or retract it. It just seems like you and others are kind of saying 'whatever' because you think it doesn't really effect you. But if I/we don't stand for something like VS, then where does it end? At some point, don't we have to say why? Why let the most prurient parts of society determine what can and cannot be shown in public? Why isn't it polite that they get along with everyone else rather than everyone else walking on egg shells around them? America is a big country and she can accomodate almost everyone, as long as they don't hurt others.
Glenn,
quote: I see 11 year old girls in school wearing thongs and low rise pants with the waist rolled down, and lacy bras with either see-through or low cut tops, so that the bra (etc.) is on display.
Here's something the girls know that you apparently don't: dressing in a sexually provocative manner does not mean that they don't value love and don't understand that they shouldn't screw. So they want to 'look bad'. Big deal. It's the same thing as mohawks and tattoos and piercings. Teens have been visually rebelling for a million years. The mohawks of yesterday are the thongs of today. *twirls finger in air*
quote: We're in a time when society is becoming increasingly aware of how much damage children suffer at the hands of molesters, who use the same techniques to desensitize their victims to inappropriate behavior. They call it "grooming." VS and Fredericks are complicit in that grooming. In my opinion, VS is the worse of the two.
posted
I consider these mannequin displays less sexual than the enormous posters of supermodels in lingerie that are usually hanging in the windows of Victoria's Secret stores at the local malls. You know, like the ones leaning so far forward the only part of the bra they could be advertising is the straps?
quote:Originally posted by pH: I don't get it. Victoria's Secret ALWAYS has mannequins in underwear in the windows. Why is this a big deal?
And since when does a store display constitute "showing graphic sexual acts to children?"
-pH
I think that last part was directed at me. If you follow the conversation, you'll note that I wasn't saying that the VS was showing "graphic sexual acts to children". I was using that phrase to illustrate that there is a line somewhere going beyond which nearly everyone will agree is wrong. I then went on to illustrate that this line shifts depending on the individual and: 1. You can't expect everyone to agree with you on where that line is. 2. Those who draw the line more conservatively than you are not necessarily overreacting just because their line is more conservative.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
About what we consider shocking or not... When I went in Australia, I've been totally scandalized when, shopping in a supermarket, I saw on display a magazine cover saying that inside was the good method for (I'm sorry and edit if it's inapropriate) a blow job. Now I don't consider myself as prude, but the mere idea to shop my my children one day and that they see that and ask, very innocently, what is a blow job makes me shiver.
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Here's something the girls know that you apparently don't: dressing in a sexually provocative manner does not mean that they don't value love and don't understand that they shouldn't screw. So they want to 'look bad'. Big deal. It's the same thing as mohawks and tattoos and piercings. Teens have been visually rebelling for a million years.
Did you see many eleven-year-old boys with mohawks?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
First, I wish you had (or still would) attribute the last two quotes in your post. Since they come on the heels of a direct quote of and reply to me and don't mention anyone else, it really reads like you're continuing to quote me. Those are definitely not my words.
As for your reply to my post, again, you don't seem to be reading what I'm writing. I haven't said anything in favor of censoring VS. In fact, I've written quite the opposite. I think they have every right to do what they have done. What I don't agree with is the implied "So the rest of you prudes need to shut up and shop elsewhere if you're scared of a little boobie."
quote:Don't you want to be able to show your affection with your SO? Don't you ever want to get married? Your arguments are basically the underlying ones used to make any display of gay affection wrong and dirty. If we let gay people show affection, then this is dirty because it's dirty. It's dirty because we say so is not sufficient reason for censure, don't you think?
Do you believe that in order for me to be morally consistent in my desire to be able to hold hands with Chris, or put my arm around him at the movies I have to also advocate the freedom of two guys to walk around the mall wearing seat-less chaps and no pants and lasciviously rubbing each other's bare behinds? Based on your reply after my attempts to clarify my previous posts I have to entertain the possibility that this is indeed exactly what you're asserting. If so, I disagree. I think in every society there is a line of decency beyond which it is counter-productive to cross. Is this line really something "everyone just knows"? No, although they may tell themselves it is. However, people do and will continue to flirt with that line because that is one of the best ways in modern society to get attention. (Not alway good, productive, or welcome attention, but that's the risk you assume when you are pushing the line). Is it un-reasonable to react negatively when you perceive someone has crossed the line of decency? I don't think so, in general, though not all reactions are resonable for all perceived offenses.
Should we, as a society, allow pushing of that line? Sure. I'm for almost un-fettered freedom of expression, but I also believe there is a time and place for everything. I think gay porn should be available. I don't think I should be able to buy it from Wal-mart. I think I should be able to make love to Chris, even if it involves sodomy, but I don't think we should be able to do that in the town square. I like to hold Chris's hand. I think I should be allowed to do that anywhere. I like to make out with Chris, too. I think it would be in poor taste to do so in a shopping mall.
I believe public sexual expression is a continuum with "Ok to do whereverthehellIwant" on one end and "Illegal to do in public" on the other end. The middle is a gray area where things aren't and shouldn't be illegal but become increasingly in poor taste to display publicly the closer you get to the graphic end. Where specific acts fall on this spectrum is determined by society (de facto).
I don't want to live in a society where sexual expression of every kind is forbidden in public. I imagine an overwhelming majority of people in America feel this way. I also don't want to live in a society where people are constantly having sex on the sidewalk in front of my house. I imagine most people in America feel this way, too. I'm perfectly willing to discuss with these people how best we can build a society between the two extremes. I fully recognize that sometimes there will be disagreements. That's why we have a Bill of Rights and a SCOTUS.
quote:Sure, it's 'understandable' to have certain tastes and to not want to see others doing what you find distasteful. That's human nature.
What's not understandable, and should not be excused, but rather condemned, is jerks shutting off others from enjoying the same freedom of expression that they have.
OK, again nowhere have I advocated anyone's right to shut off anyone else's freedom of expression. What I've been advocating is the idea that while we all have the right to the same freedom of expression, we don't have a right to dictate public reaction to our method of enjoying that freedom. I haven't moved at all into what people should be doing about it. (Though for the record I did say that I wouldn't have a problem if the mall asked VS to tone it down. I still feel that way. We can discuss that if you want to.)
Also, I appologize in advance if any of this seems snarky. It's not meant to. I am carefully choosing my words so as to not be misunderstood. Sometimes I think I can come across as snarky or pedantic when what I'm aiming for is precision. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tangental to the rest of the conversation, bev and brinestone, I'm wondering if the VS stores in your area just don't stock the "sexier" product lines that the rest carry. Because while they do have some "everyday" type bras in them, usually, the vast majority of the merchandise in most VSs around here is not practical for everyday, and not meant to be worn under clothing. And yes, there is some of the cutsey leapard print with pink fur trim crap, but most of it is more of what I think you're calling mature. It's still not the sleaziest store in the world, but there is quite a disconnect from what you're describing and what I think of as their normal merchandise.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I consider these mannequin displays less sexual than the enormous posters of supermodels in lingerie that are usually hanging in the windows of Victoria's Secret stores at the local malls. You know, like the ones leaning so far forward the only part of the bra they could be advertising is the straps?
Reminds me of a controversy over a particular VS poster in my local area years ago. The woman was topless and covering her boobs with her hands. This was for a bra sale.
I figure if you are selling bras, you ought to show the bra on the model. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
ElJay, they do sell some, I just am always disappointed in the selection and variety. Maybe that is a trait of high-class clothing stores to begin with. I wouldn't know, because usually I am too cheap to shop at those.
But when I walk into a VS store and fully half of it seems to be devoted to nothing but different kinds of bras (and I'm not there to shop for "just bras"), I get pretty bored.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
First, I wish you had (or still would) attribute the last two quotes in your post. Since they come on the heels of a direct quote of and reply to me and don't mention anyone else, it really reads like you're continuing to quote me. Those are definitely not my words.
Pardon. I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth or anything. I had assumed that since the thread was open and everyone could see who posted what that it would be clear who had said what. I'll make it more clear.
quote:
As for your reply to my post, again, you don't seem to be reading what I'm writing. I haven't said anything in favor of censoring VS. In fact, I've written quite the opposite. I think they have every right to do what they have done. What I don't agree with is the implied "So the rest of you prudes need to shut up and shop elsewhere if you're scared of a little boobie."
I understand that you say that you're not in favor of censoring VS, but the point seems to me to be confused in your posts. You don't want to censor VS, but you do believe there are things that children shouldn't see. You do believe that there is a line out there somewhere. So, in support of this mythical line, you seem to be saying that you support those who want to censor the VS display. You don't condemn them or say they are wrong to do so. Why don't you, if you believe that what VS is showing isn't wrong?
quote: quote:Don't you want to be able to show your affection with your SO? Don't you ever want to get married? Your arguments are basically the underlying ones used to make any display of gay affection wrong and dirty. If we let gay people show affection, then this is dirty because it's dirty. It's dirty because we say so is not sufficient reason for censure, don't you think?
Do you believe that in order for me to be morally consistent in my desire to be able to hold hands with Chris, or put my arm around him at the movies I have to also advocate the freedom of two guys to walk around the mall wearing seat-less chaps and no pants and lasciviously rubbing each other's bare behinds? Based on your reply after my attempts to clarify my previous posts I have to entertain the possibility that this is indeed exactly what you're asserting. If so, I disagree. I think in every society there is a line of decency beyond which it is counter-productive to cross. Is this line really something "everyone just knows"? No, although they may tell themselves it is. However, people do and will continue to flirt with that line because that is one of the best ways in modern society to get attention. (Not alway good, productive, or welcome attention, but that's the risk you assume when you are pushing the line). Is it un-reasonable to react negatively when you perceive someone has crossed the line of decency? I don't think so, in general, though not all reactions are resonable for all perceived offenses.
And my point in this particular thread is that it doesn't seem to be reasonable to censor the VS display. It's not reasonable or right to support those who do so. Can they? Sure. Should they? No.
Though you might find that kissing in public is in poor taste, I hope you would advocate for gay people to at least be able to do so without inviting a storm of shock and dismay and outrage wherever they go.
quote: Should we, as a society, allow pushing of that line? Sure. I'm for almost un-fettered freedom of expression, but I also believe there is a time and place for everything. I think gay porn should be available. I don't think I should be able to buy it from Wal-mart. I think I should be able to make love to Chris, even if it involves sodomy, but I don't think we should be able to do that in the town square. I like to hold Chris's hand. I think I should be allowed to do that anywhere. I like to make out with Chris, too. I think it would be in poor taste to do so in a shopping mall.
I don't understand why what is o.k./healthy in private becomes wrong/harmful in public.
I believe public sexual expression is a continuum with "Ok to do whereverthehellIwant" on one end and "Illegal to do in public" on the other end. The middle is a gray area where things aren't and shouldn't be illegal but become increasingly in poor taste to display publicly the closer you get to the graphic end. Where specific acts fall on this spectrum is determined by society (de facto). [/quote]
Yes, this is why supporting the line is really nonsensical to me. Like anyone is going to be ale to stop the finger shakers of the world from bitching and moaning.
What makes more sense is to add your voice to the public debate in support or condemnation of a particular act or acts.
quote: I don't want to live in a society where sexual expression of every kind is forbidden in public. I imagine an overwhelming majority of people in America feel this way. I also don't want to live in a society where people are constantly having sex on the sidewalk in front of my house. I imagine most people in America feel this way, too. I'm perfectly willing to discuss with these people how best we can build a society between the two extremes. I fully recognize that sometimes there will be disagreements. That's why we have a Bill of Rights and a SCOTUS.
Yep, and that's why we should ask why it makes to condemn or censure certain acts.
quote: quote:Sure, it's 'understandable' to have certain tastes and to not want to see others doing what you find distasteful. That's human nature.
What's not understandable, and should not be excused, but rather condemned, is jerks shutting off others from enjoying the same freedom of expression that they have.
OK, again nowhere have I advocated anyone's right to shut off anyone else's freedom of expression. What I've been advocating is the idea that while we all have the right to the same freedom of expression, we don't have a right to dictate public reaction to our method of enjoying that freedom. I haven't moved at all into what people should be doing about it. (Though for the record I did say that I wouldn't have a problem if the mall asked VS to tone it down. I still feel that way. We can discuss that if you want to.)
I hope you see the disconnect in the last sentence here from 'I haven't said anything in favor of censoring VS.' or 'nowhere have I advocated anyone's right to shut off anyone else's freedom of expression.' Again, the fundamental question that you haven't answered is why KarlEd. Just to support the principle of the line in the sand? Why in this particular instance is it right for VS to have to tone down what they are displaying.
quote: Also, I appologize in advance if any of this seems snarky. It's not meant to. I am carefully choosing my words so as to not be misunderstood. Sometimes I think I can come across as snarky or pedantic when what I'm aiming for is precision.
Likewise for myself, too. As far as I'm concerned, we're cool. It's just the usual cumbersome dance of hammering out a clear message and understanding the other person.
Also, let me say that from looking at the pictures, I am one of those who doesn't see anything more racy there than what you see at the beach.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:And my point in this particular thread is that it doesn't seem to be reasonable to censor the VS display
To have the display only visible to people inside the store means that anyone can see it if they so desire, but not everyone has to see it. Victoria's Secret's freedom of expression is not being prevented, and people aren't being prevented from viewing it. So how is this censorship?
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, in support of this mythical line, you seem to be saying that you support those who want to censor the VS display. You don't condemn them or say they are wrong to do so. Why don't you, if you believe that what VS is showing isn't wrong?
First of all, no one (unless I really overlooked something in the articles) is trying to censor the VS display. A whole bunch of people are expressing their distaste, and some have said that VS shouldn't have the display there, but the article didn't mention anyone actively trying to get the display removed, did it? Therefore my support of someone's right to criticize or to express their distaste does not equate to a support of censorship.
I said I would support the decision of the mall if they asked VS to tone the display down. Why? Because the mall is their business. If they felt there was sufficient damage to business in the mall because VS was creating an uncomfortable atmosphere for their clientel, why should they not have the right to regulate that? On the other hand, I would support the mall, too, if there was a boycott and they said to the boycotters "We respect VS's right to display their wares in this manner".
I would not support governmental censorship of the display in question.
quote:I hope you see the disconnect in the last sentence here from 'I haven't said anything in favor of censoring VS.' or 'nowhere have I advocated anyone's right to shut off anyone else's freedom of expression.
The mall has the right to censor displays on its property. This is not, in my opinion, shutting off VS's freedom of expression. VS has the right to print their ads in any magazine that will carry the ads, or to have the public display in any other mall that will allow it. If a mall decides the display is too racy, it isn't any more curtailing freedom of expression than it is for Ranger Rick to refuse to publish the print ads.
quote:I don't understand why what is o.k./healthy in private becomes wrong/harmful in public.
Across the board? No exceptions? You'd support orgies in the streets? Masturbation on public busses? Are you saying that there is no line anywhere?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Though you might find that kissing in public is in poor taste, I hope you would advocate for gay people to at least be able to do so without inviting a storm of shock and dismay and outrage wherever they go.
I think gay people should have exactly the same right to express their sexuality as everyone else. I have no way to prevent shock, dismay, and outrage except by education and example. Do you believe that shock, dismay, and outrage should be censored? Do you think I should advocate their censorship?
Would you support a group's right to boycott VS to get them to remove the display? Would you support a gay rights group's right to boycott a company with anti-gay business practices?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is ridiculous. A lingerie store has mannequins in their display dressed in...wait for it...lingerie!! What a scandal! Quick ye' Puritans, back to the boats!!!
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: First of all, no one (unless I really overlooked something in the articles) is trying to censor the VS display. A whole bunch of people are expressing their distaste, and some have said that VS shouldn't have the display there, but the article didn't mention anyone actively trying to get the display removed, did it? Therefore my support of someone's right to criticize or to express their distaste does not equate to a support of censorship.
I will give you that no one has yet made the move to shut the display down. Even so, you still can't say that their distaste is wrong and ill-founded?
quote: I said I would support the decision of the mall if they asked VS to tone the display down. Why? Because the mall is their business. If they felt there was sufficient damage to business in the mall because VS was creating an uncomfortable atmosphere for their clientel, why should they not have the right to regulate that? On the other hand, I would support the mall, too, if there was a boycott and they said to the boycotters "We respect VS's right to display their wares in this manner".
This display shouldn't cause people to not shop at the mall. That's the kind of society that I'm advocating for. You seem to be advocating for a society where a naughty display is good reason for boycotting, etc.
quote: I would not support governmental censorship of the display in question.
Censorship doesn't just come from the government. Had this discussion before with others. Censorship is not just de jure, but de facto.
quote: quote:I hope you see the disconnect in the last sentence here from 'I haven't said anything in favor of censoring VS.' or 'nowhere have I advocated anyone's right to shut off anyone else's freedom of expression.
The mall has the right to censor displays on its property. This is not, in my opinion, shutting off VS's freedom of expression. VS has the right to print their ads in any magazine that will carry the ads, or to have the public display in any other mall that will allow it. If a mall decides the display is too racy, it isn't any more curtailing freedom of expression than it is for Ranger Rick to refuse to publish the print ads.
While I agree the mall can do that, I don't think it should need to do it. It is curtailing freedom of expression if the only things that can be shown in a public forum are those that aren't objectionable to the majority, or at least a significant enough minority.
quote: quote:I don't understand why what is o.k./healthy in private becomes wrong/harmful in public.
Across the board? No exceptions? You'd support orgies in the streets? Masturbation on public busses? Are you saying that there is no line anywhere?
The usual standard of consensual adults/no harm. Since I don't consider what amounts to bad art or 'ugliness' to be harm, I don't believe such should be banned from view. In any case, my question was in reply to your statement below. I think you should support your statement, not me. Why not in the town square? Why not in public? What makes it wrong in public but not in private?
quote: but I also believe there is a time and place for everything. I think gay porn should be available. I don't think I should be able to buy it from Wal-mart. I think I should be able to make love to Chris, even if it involves sodomy, but I don't think we should be able to do that in the town square. I like to hold Chris's hand. I think I should be allowed to do that anywhere. I like to make out with Chris, too. I think it would be in poor taste to do so in a shopping mall.
quote: I think gay people should have exactly the same right to express their sexuality as everyone else. I have no way to prevent shock, dismay, and outrage except by education and example.
Which I would assume means you would say that when people are shocked and outraged that they would be wrong to be so and that you would advocate for your ability to be gay, so to speak, in public?
quote: Do you believe that shock, dismay, and outrage should be censored? Do you think I should advocate their censorship?
Come on, Karled. Those are silly questions. As mentioned above, it's not like you can stop it.
I think the way I look at it is that this display and others that show sexuality openly should fall in the same category as, say, Precious Moments figurines or glow in the dark pool playing dog faux velvet posters. Sure, it might be ugly and a violation of good taste, but is that really reason for anyone to not shop at a mall or boycott the mall? I don't think so.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is ridiculous. A lingerie store has mannequins in their display dressed in...wait for it...lingerie!! What a scandal! Quick ye' Puritans, back to the boats!!!
I would have no problem whatsoever if it was the regular, headless, armless mannequins just standing there dressed in lingerie that they usually have. That's not the point.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
SS, I don't think there is an easy answer. There are a lot of people who feel as you do, that there doesn't need to be a line except where harm begins.
But I think KarlEd's point is that a lot of people's "line" is placed more conservatively, and that it isn't wrong to respect that. In fact, respecting that can work well as "enlightedned self-interest". Respect what people find offensive, and your business is more likely to succeed. Shock value and negative publicity might make you a quick buck now, but in the long run, does it pay off? Or does it hurt business? I suspect the latter.
On the one hand, I can appreciate the desire to radically change society. But people need to realize that sudden, radical changes can cause serious problems.
Some say that there shouldn't be separate public men's and women's restrooms. But to change that suddenly right now would make me (and many others, I imagine) very uncomfortable. Is it right to force people to feel uncomfortable? How important is it? Do the benefits justify the effects? These are hard questions to answer. They are not scientific.
I appreciate it when companies respectfully listen to the feedback of their consumers and consider it. When Carl's Jr. made a racy commercial featuring Paris Hilton, many people complained. The company was obnoxious about it, basically saying, "That's your problem, prudes, and we don't care". I really don't think that is good for business, and I personally don't respect that sort of response.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Even so, you still can't say that their distaste is wrong and ill-founded?
Distaste is an opinion and I don't think it's wrong to have opinions.
quote:You seem to be advocating for a society where a naughty display is good reason for boycotting, etc
I think some people in the article mentioned that they personally would not shop there because of that display. You don't need any reason to decide whether you want to shop somewhere.
quote:It is curtailing freedom of expression if the only things that can be shown in a public forum are those that aren't objectionable to the majority, or at least a significant enough minority
But the mall does have the right to make any decision they want regarding what they own. Would you expect to be able to start using profanity and detailing graphic sexual acts on this forum? Of course not. Why not? Because this belongs to OSC and he has the right to decide how it's used.
quote:I don't believe such should be banned from view
Once again, no one mentioned anything about banning it from view. If the display is visible only to people inside the store, anyone can still view it if they desire. That is not banning and cannot be considered restricting freedom of expression.
quote:Sure, it might be ugly and a violation of good taste, but is that really reason for anyone to not shop at a mall
Absolutely. There are many products I don't buy even though I don't have a good reason not to buy it. I think I have the right to choose what I purchase.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I was under the impression that much of the argument against Joe Camel was that he was a cartoon character. I don't see how this is catering to children.
Nope, the argument was that the tobacco industry actively targets children as "replacement clientele." Chewing tobacco ads placed in comic books, point of sale tobacco ads placed at eye level for children, but which can be barely noticed by adults, etc. The fact that Joe Camel was a cartoon was not coincidental. And this is not conspiracy theory, a few industry executives suddenly got a case of conscience and testified that children were distinctly targeted.
quote:Here's something the girls know that you apparently don't: dressing in a sexually provocative manner does not mean that they don't value love and don't understand that they shouldn't screw. So they want to 'look bad'. Big deal. It's the same thing as mohawks and tattoos and piercings. Teens have been visually rebelling for a million years. The mohawks of yesterday are the thongs of today. *twirls finger in air*
Ah. That explains why we have to check the stairwells and bathrooms for girls performing oral sex on boys. It's because they value love and know they shouldn't screw. /sarcasm
Those girls that want to "look bad" are generally emotionally deprived. They do what they find will work to get them the attention they crave. I've mentioned it before, but I knew a girl who started prostituting herself at the age of 12, and other girls looked up to her as a role model.
*boggle* yourself. If you can't tell that this is unhealthy behavior, then I don't want you near my children.
quote: I have to say, I definitely consider the parents more at fault than the retailers when I see kids in those clothes. I mean, sure, they shouldn't make those clothes for kids. But if no one bought them, they'd stop.
Does this argument apply to cigarettes too? Sure I know parents that buy this stuff for their kids, but I also know that some girls take their outer clothes off on the bus and carry them around in their backpack so their parents won't know what they wore *under* their clothes.
Double income guilt is a powerful thing. I've seen kids walking around with hundreds of dollars, because it eased their parents' conscience over the fact that they aren't there for their kids. I imagine buying inappropriate clothing is the same thing.
Then there are the 25 year old mothers of 12 year old girls who dress like their children. Wonder why.
You can't put all the blame on Victoria's Secret, Jordache was pushing the same envelope 30 years ago. *Their* parents thought tight jeans were cute because they were "just a little racy." What will the next generation accept?
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:To have the display only visible to people inside the store means that anyone can see it if they so desire, but not everyone has to see it. Victoria's Secret's freedom of expression is not being prevented, and people aren't being prevented from viewing it. So how is this censorship?
quote:Sure I know parents that buy this stuff for their kids, but I also know that some girls take their outer clothes off on the bus and carry them around in their backpack so their parents won't know what they wore *under* their clothes.
And why do 7 and 9 and 11 year olds have that kind of spending money? And why don't their parents check what they're wearing before they leave for school? And why don't their parents know what is in their closets?
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I imagine kids can be extremely clever and secretive when they want to be. They may even be borrowing the clothes from a friend and it never comes home from the school locker.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, that's something that parents can't control. But they CAN know who their kids are hanging out with. If my daughter was friends with girls who dressed like that, we would be having serious talks about modesty and respecting your body. Every day.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Those girls that want to "look bad" are generally emotionally deprived. They do what they find will work to get them the attention they crave. I've mentioned it before, but I knew a girl who started prostituting herself at the age of 12, and other girls looked up to her as a role model.
This totally makes sense to me. Young girls don't understand the perversions in the minds of many older males out there. All they know is that they are getting attention. When they are already starved for it, they will do anything to get more. It is easy for a person in such a position to get used.
That is *why* we need to protect children from certain kinds of sexual messages. They honestly are not prepared to deal with the "game".
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KQ, I'd like to think that I would be a very good parent in those regards as well. But I understand that even with the most dilligent, best-intentioned parents, kids can "go wild". I went through a bit of that, and my parents did a great job.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
But when I see most of these 7-year-olds dressed like Britney Spears, their mothers are usually dressed in a remarkably similar fashion, or else in very expensive clothes. I've asked some of them (when I worked with them) where they got a certain outfit, etc., and the answer was almost always, "My mom took me shopping for it" or, "My aunt gave it to me for my birthday."
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KQ, no denying that a lot of that look the kids have is fully supported by their mothers. I wonder if they mind when their daughters hit puberty and boys come on to them?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:what age do you guys think IS appropriate to start wearing thongs and the like?
It depends. I know teenage girls who wear them because they're more comfortable in them, or they like them, but don't wear clothes on the outside that show them off. It's fine for teenagers to wear fun underwear if no one can see it.
As for people seeing it? I'd say that should wait until you're married, but that's just me.
On to non-underwear, provocative clothing: I'd say if you're not selling, don't advertise, and you shouldn't be selling until you're an adult.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:From what I've seen working with these girls, their mothers often think something's "wrong" with them if they're not dating by age 12 or so.
It's really scary.
no kidding. My 12 year old is constantly asked who she likes or who she wants to go out with.
She tells me that boys are stupid and why would you want to go somewhere with them anyway.
She actually said, no kidding, that she'd rather go to a movie with me, because then we could talk about it afterwards.
In Natalie's opinion boys are immature, have no concept of personal hygiene and think of nothing but sports and impressing their friends by acting goofy. Those were pretty much her exact words.
I agree with kq on the thong deal - some girls actually prefer them and I know for a fact they're very popular among the dancers and gymnasts because they don't show out the back of your leotard.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:bev: But what about those who wear thongs for reasons that are entirely non-sexual?
Little revelation about me: I never wore a thong until after I was married. My above rule is for me, not anyone else. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: On the one hand, I can appreciate the desire to radically change society. But people need to realize that sudden, radical changes can cause serious problems.
Beverly, I'm not trying to radically change society. In my perfect world, the public square would function more along the lines of a port of call where many different cultures blend together and exchange goods, services and ideas, rather than be a place where only certain ideas and goods/services are welcome.
That said, I'm kind of burnt out on this thread. So, I'm not going to get into an argument about whether or not the observations various people have made about children/tweens/teens are accurate or not.
Thanks for the exchange of views.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beverly: I appreciate it when companies respectfully listen to the feedback of their consumers and consider it. When Carl's Jr. made a racy commercial featuring Paris Hilton, many people complained. The company was obnoxious about it, basically saying, "That's your problem, prudes, and we don't care". I really don't think that is good for business, and I personally don't respect that sort of response.
Personally I would think quite highly of any company with enough integrity to take a stand like that. We do not have Carl's Jr. here, but if I ever see one and need a place to eat, I may well pick them. Don't like it, change the channel, or turn the box off and read a book. They might have lost your business, but they might have gained mine.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
