X Close

What’s wrong with lingerie? A progressive rebrand at Victoria's Secret forgets one thing: sex

Model Lily Donaldson at a Victoria's Secret Fashion Show (Photo by Taylor Hill/Getty Images)

Model Lily Donaldson at a Victoria's Secret Fashion Show (Photo by Taylor Hill/Getty Images)


June 24, 2021   7 mins

Victoria’s Secret has long been the embarrassing uncle of the underwear world, a dinosaur ambling across the lingerie landscape in a threadbare 1990s-style slip nightie, a relic of both a culture and a consumer model that no longer exist. Its catalogue, a boon to teen boys in the pre-digital age whose dads were too square to have a stash of Playboys, was discontinued in 2016. Its biggest attraction, a runway show that aired on cable TV and featured a stable of anatomically improbable models wearing prosthetic angel wings, was cancelled in 2019, after a multi-year ratings plummet. Its perfumed retail stores are shopperless tombs, anchored to decaying malls that nobody goes to anymore.

It was the internet wot done it: as enterprising startups began to offer affordable, personalised underwear options that catered to customers of all shapes and sizes, Victoria’s Secret could only linger in the background like a reminder of the bad old days, with its narrow range of sizes, unimaginative designs, and bras aiming solely to shove the wearer’s breasts in the direction of her chin. “Lift and separate”? Strapless underwires? Okay, boomer.

But now, like so many 1990s-era properties steeped in cultural nostalgia, Victoria’s Secret is trying to reboot itself for a new and enlightened age — clipping the wings of its Angels and hiring a new cadre of spokesmodels who better represent the diverse tastes of the modern consumer. The new squad, who will not just model and promote the brand but serve as advisors to its majority-female board, includes actress and UNICEF ambassador Priyanka Chopra Jonas, plus-size model and activist Paloma Elsesser, and trans swimsuit model Valentina Sampaio. In other words, Victoria’s Secret has traded its stable of unattainably gorgeous models for a set that is no less gorgeous but also has the proper politics. Its most famous, and most unexpected, new model is Megan Rapinoe, the all-star soccer player who was named FIFA’s best player of the year in 2019.

For a brand that has always shamelessly catered to the heterosexual male consumer, strategically airing its runway show and debuting its new collections just in time for Valentine’s Day, as boyfriends rush to lingerie stores en masse in search of gifts, the hiring of Rapinoe as a spokesmodel is like a hot poker to the eyeball of the male gaze. The new face of Victoria’s Secret is a tough-as-nails athlete and longtime gay rights activist, married to a women’s basketball player. And while she did once famously show up to an award ceremony wearing formal shorts and an oversized blazer with nothing underneath, she’s not generally known as an icon of either fashion or femininity.

But of course, that’s the point: Rapinoe is as far as it’s possible to be, in aesthetic and public persona, from the leggy, lacey look of the Angels era. And she is therefore the perfect choice to spearhead Victoria’s Secret’s awokening, at a time when straight men — and, by extension, the women who want them — are being pushed to the cultural margins.

In an interview with the New York Times, Rapinoe decried the old Victoria’s Secret for being “patriarchal, sexist, viewing not just what it meant to be sexy but what the clothes were trying to accomplish through a male lens and through what men desired.” Worst of all, Rapinoe said, the brand “was very much marketed toward younger women,” which she described as “really harmful.”

Rapinoe, for obvious reasons, does not particularly care what guys think about her underwear (or, one imagines, anything else.) But the young women who desire men — as in, the vast majority of young women — might question the notion that they were harmed by the existence of lingerie designed to appeal to their intended sexual partners. If you want to attract men, it stands to reason that your choice of undergarments might be at least sometimes influenced by what they consider sexy. (And vice versa; one might even argue that buying your underwear with an audience in mind, if you have one, is only polite.)

But the contemptuous dismissal of men, and their tastes and opinions and desires, is as trendy in our present moment as the lace bralettes that have replaced the underwire bra as the lingerie du jour (and like those bralettes, it doesn’t suit everyone.) The broader tendency is to treat any desire for men like a character flaw, a burden, an embarrassment. The writer Indiana Seresin invented the term “heteropessimism” to describe this phenomenon — an excellent coinage that’s nevertheless overbroad in its implied gender neutrality, when the sense of heterosexuality as something in between a cursed affliction and a personal failing is almost exclusively held by women. To be horrified by one’s own sexual orientation, and every possible expression thereof, is the side effect of a culture that flattens everything from personal relationships to aesthetic taste into a political framing: if you like men (as most women do), but men are trash (as every good progressive feminist must surely agree is true), then what’s a girl to do?

Whatever she wants, modern feminism tells us, as long as it’s not conventional. And so the new lingerie model is defined by how much she differs from the old, bad, “Angel” ideal: from the fresh-faced and un-photoshopped girls of Aerie to the 81-year-old bodybuilder featured on Athleta’s blog in a midriff-baring sports bra. It’s not just about smashing outdated beauty standards; it’s about rejecting an entire mode of feminine existence as embarrassing and passĂ©.

It’s not a coincidence that the hottest brand for young women by far is Rihanna’s Savage x Fenty line, where not just the models but the clothes themselves purport to be a flipped bird to all things boring, basic, and heteronormative. Its models come in every possible shape, size and skin tone. The lingerie evokes queerness and kink, bondage and burlesque; it’s daring and dark and occasionally bizarre; it wants to be something bigger and more important than just underwear. The Fall 2018 runway show was Fashion Week’s biggest bombshell event, heralded by critics as “moving, empowering — spiritual, even” in its “unapologetic celebration of women,” a claim echoed by the brand itself: “Savage X Fenty celebrates fearlessness, confidence and inclusivity,” says the website’s About section.

This isn’t about the products, which are not different by design than any other underwear; it’s pure branding, of the most persuasive sort. The Savage x Fenty wearer stakes a claim on a desirable, cool identity, one that makes her fundamentally more interesting than the boring straight ladies who wear other, more conventional brands (that the Savage x Fenty wearer may well be heterosexual herself is irrelevant.) If Victoria’s Secret catered to the male gaze, then Savage x Fenty explicitly rejects it: this lingerie, we are told, is not for men.

Men, it must be said, would be surprised to hear this. As much as the Savage x Fenty runway show might read as subversive to fashion insiders, it is still, at the end of the day, a bunch of beautiful women walking around in complicated, gorgeous lingerie; to imagine that straight men would not enjoy this is frankly ridiculous. They’re not that picky.

But men don’t matter; they are the subject but not the object of Savage x Fenty’s siren song. This message is for women, malleable and impressionable creatures that they are, who are expected to follow the latest identity directives just like they’re expected to follow fashion trends: heterosexuality is boring, heterosexual desire is embarrassing, and dressing with any thought of appealing to men is a gross offence against feminism.

Never mind that these directives create their own set of pressures and impositions, or that what makes a woman (or anyone) feel sexy is inextricably bound up in cultural expectations and societal standards that govern our notion of what sexy is. Never mind that a woman who has dressed for herself is far more likely to be wearing comfortable underwear (or none at all) under her clothes than a complicated set of garters connected to a bondage corset connected to a pair of fishnet leggings with no crotch. What is the practical difference between this fearless, confident, inclusive Savage x Fenty body harness, and the 2003 Victoria’s Secret runway getup worn by Heidi Klum, featuring a “matching white choker, sort of like a dog collar,” which a scandalised writer at the New York Times described as “not just retrograde but practically unimaginable”?

The most obvious answer is simply that one of these items is currently on sale for $32 — from a company that knows the value of wokeness in a millennial consumer market. In a world where young women are particularly anxious not to be seen as less-than-perfectly progressive, Savage x Fenty is here to assure them that unlike the bad old offerings of its patriarchal forebears, this dog-collar-resembling piece of lingerie is fierce, feminist, and on the right side of history — and so are you.

This marketing model, which Victoria’s Secret now seems to be attempting to cash in on, may have begun as a needed corrective to the notion that a woman’s only value is in her sexual attractiveness to men — a poisonous idea that we were wise to dispense with. But lingerie is not just underwear; it is made to package a woman’s body in a way that is all form, no function. These garments serve no purpose but to make us pleasing to somebody’s eye.

Who is served by the notion of underwear that rejects the male gaze, even when its wearer might like nothing better than to be seen wearing it by a man? Who is served by Megan Rapinoe’s assertion that marketing such a thing to young women is not just immoral but harmful, that it feeds an impulse which ought to be stifled? Who is served by the increased stigmatisation of male desire as inherently predatory, dreadful, traumatic in its very expression — and what are young women to make of the message that not only should they not want men, but that they should mistrust and fear them? Perhaps it’s no surprise that the current crop of young people are dating less, and having less sex, than the generations prior.

At a moment when the corporate world is plastering every available surface with rainbows to assert its support of sexual minorities, the world’s heterosexual women are getting a different message: that desiring men is not ordinary and healthy, not genuine passion stemming from an innate orientation, but something to be apologised for, and at least performatively resisted if not actively suppressed. The tragedy is that some will try to do this, and feel ashamed when they can’t. The irony is that what’s bad for us is very, very good for selling us things.

All of this is by design. Nobody makes an easier mark for the woke industrial complex than a young woman convinced that she’s bad and broken and can only get better — morally, spiritually — if she buys the right products. Our misery is their profit margin. The unhappier you are, and the bigger the void inside you, the more you’ll spend to feel validated — which the brands are only too happy to do for you, at an affordable price. Forget the male gaze; forget men, period. Forget the things you want, those frustrating intangibles, like intimacy and love. Just think, ladies, of how sexy and empowered you’ll feel when you’re sitting at home alone in your lingerie, buying still more lingerie to feel sexy and empowered in.


Kat Rosenfield is an UnHerd columnist and co-host of the Feminine Chaos podcast. Her latest novel is You Must Remember This.

katrosenfield

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

53 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Sharon Overy
Sharon Overy
3 years ago

I’ve commented before that I’ll be very relieved if my sons grow up to be gay – they’ll be able to avoid the ridiculous minefield of trying to interact with young women these days.

The comment has since been deleted without notice or explanation. I thought this site was better. I shall be cancelling my membership.

Tom Lewis
Tom Lewis
3 years ago
Reply to  Sharon Overy

It does exactly “what it says on the tin”, Unheard

Graham Stull
Graham Stull
3 years ago
Reply to  Sharon Overy

I’ve upvoted you simply as a a statement to the moderators that if they violate the principles of free speech, they make themselves irrelevant to those of us who have abandoned more established media platforms for precisely that reason.

Fennie Strange
Fennie Strange
3 years ago
Reply to  Graham Stull

Me too GS – I’ve looked for an email address for any of the UnHerd team to tell them directly, but no luck. So let’s just hope they read comments like yours and pay attention to them. Is there a Moderation Policy statement anywhere on the site? If there is I haven’t found it.

Fennie Strange
Fennie Strange
3 years ago
Reply to  Sharon Overy

Sharon – please don’t leave! I always enjoy and uptick your your comments. You are not the first to be puzzled by the random nature of the moderation on UnHerd (I suspect a rogue algorithm that automatically rejects ever 53rd comment). Hang in there – my deleted post reappeared after a day or two, yours may too!

Sharon Overy
Sharon Overy
3 years ago
Reply to  Fennie Strange

Thank you for the kind words, Fennie. I’ll hang on a bit to see if there’s any rematerialisation.

I think the ‘moderation’ is human – my post disappeared after it had been visible for a bit of time and had been upvoted, so it wasn’t an algorithm picking out spicy language.

Katharine Eyre
Katharine Eyre
3 years ago

Oh goodness if a man ever bought me something from Victoria’s Secret (either of the traditional or reformed variety), I think I’d start reassessing the viability of the relationship, post-haste.
If, however, he bought me the perfect mountain-climbing knicker (soft, breathable and doesn’t cut into the inside of your thigh after 5 minutes) or the ultimate sports bra (gives the right support but doesn’t result in a rotator cuff injury when you try and take it off) – I’d be his forever.

Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
3 years ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

I feel that a man should not comment on this section but I will try to be good.
There seem to be a lot of different women in the world and some seem to want to attract men by showing off their bodies. A young girl close to me use to go around in very scruffy clothes until she fell for a young man and then she changed completely – make-up, nails, hair, clothes and (almost) teeth. She is clever, was not brought up to be ‘girlish’ (sorry if that is offensive) and follows the ideas of the world; in fact, she is woke.
Isn’t this idea of attraction of opposite sexes the thing which stops the human race from dying out?

Katharine Eyre
Katharine Eyre
3 years ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

Yes, indeed – there are girls in all shapes sizes and attitudes. Women should be able to dress as they please, including wearing highly impractical and itchy lace undies if that’s what they want. The only time I would say “ladies – really???” is if clothes, hair, makeup, nails etc. are being changed not to please themselves and feel good but primarily to please a man (or partner of another gender). I don’t think this is very empowered behaviour.
It’s nice to know your other half thinks you look nice and desires you and making an effort is a sign of respect for them. The line I draw is when I don’t feel comfortable or think I look good. A while ago, my other half saw a floaty floral dress in a window of a shop and said he thought I’d look nice in it. Apart from the fact that I was at least 15 years too old for said dress, I’m pretty athletic and not at all girly and would have looked terrible in it. I said: “nope, sorry!” and we walked on. I bought a lovely sea-green number with a pleated skirt from Hallhuber instead. He likes that too 🙂
P.S. comment away. I’m pretty hard to offend!

Last edited 3 years ago by Katharine Eyre
Caroline Watson
Caroline Watson
3 years ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

There are two sexes; male and female. Some people want to attract one or the other, some both. There is no such thing as ‘gender’.

michael stanwick
michael stanwick
3 years ago

It is an interesting concept. I remember hearing somewhere that gender – as in a set of expressed behavioural (in the broadest sense) traits you identify with – is something that is negotiated between you and others during its development and subsequently. It is not something you proclaim and expect others to adhere to merely because *you* proclaim it.

michael stanwick
michael stanwick
3 years ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

…. my other half saw a floaty floral dress in a window of a shop and said he thought I’d look nice in it. 
Did you ask him why he thought you would look nice in it?

Katharine Eyre
Katharine Eyre
3 years ago

I did but he’s not really the kind of guy that can explain things like that very well. It was a sort of a: “I just like it.” We’re definitely not d’accord on the concept of being too old for certain clothes. I think women are a lot freer than we used to be – long gone are the days of 40+ women being consigned to twin sets and Birkenstocks, thank goodness. However, there are certain things that scream “mutton dressed as lamb”. Wearing hotpants when you are over the age of 25: the risk that you’ll look awful and trash your own dignity is too high. Unless you are Amanda Holden that is. But the truth is, most of us aren’t. Dress for the body you have, not the one you want would be my advice for all women.

michael stanwick
michael stanwick
3 years ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

When he said that, did you just say “Nope, sorry!”?

Katharine Eyre
Katharine Eyre
3 years ago

Yes. Any objections?

michael stanwick
michael stanwick
3 years ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

No, should there be? I was asking a polite question since you put the exchange out there and you have replied in a terse manner. I wondered why your reply to your husband was terse and if there was more of an interesting perspective to it.

Al M
Al M
3 years ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

“I did but he’s not really the kind of guy that can explain things like that very well. It was a sort of a: “I just like it.”

Thank you. It was both gratifying and reassuring to read this. I guess you know this full well, but most heterosexual blokes’ brains are wired up this way.

michael stanwick
michael stanwick
3 years ago
Reply to  Al M

Speak for yourself mate. But I get your tongue-in-cheek tone of it.

Michael Richardson
Michael Richardson
3 years ago
Reply to  Al M

Actually, the universe is wired up this way. The “I like it but I don’t know why” and the “I don’t like it because” phenomenon is the day-to-day equivalent of falsification in science (theories are never proven, but they can be falsified), or problems in class NP in mathematics (difficult to solve the problem, but easy to verify a putative solution).
Call me a nerd …..

Katharine Eyre
Katharine Eyre
3 years ago
Reply to  Al M

I do and that’s why I didn’t press him on it. And he didn’t press me at all when I said “nope, sorry not happening”. We just walked on and had some beers and went home and all was good.

Penny Adrian
Penny Adrian
2 years ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

I’ve always considered dressing sexy an act of sexual aggression. It’s as if a female baboon could inflame her buttocks at will.
Dressing sexy is fun, and I’m a little sad that I’m too old now to do it effectively (although my husband insists that I am “hot” and gorgeous, but that’s only because he loves me).
It’s fun to strut your stuff and it’s titillating to get wanted male attention. Women should be free to do this without being accused of hating themselves and being slaves to men.
There is a big difference between enjoying looking sexy and feeling as if you have to look sexy to have any value. It’s a hard line to navigate, but it can and must be done, because young women have always enjoyed expressing their sexual aggression by flaunting their sexiness the way a male peacock flaunts his beautiful tail.
 

ralph bell
ralph bell
3 years ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

Since I thought designer female lingerie is generally very expensive and often bought by men for there own satisfaction and as a seduction technique on valentines or a birthday, surely these brands will put themselves out of business?

Al M
Al M
3 years ago
Reply to  ralph bell

You beat me to it there and yes, I expect these brands will bomb fairly soon. It’s not a one-way thing either, but I do appreciate that the author is addressing how this is marketed at women. I suppose also that the (not uncommon) scenario of a woman asking a man to ‘buy me some nice underwear’ has been conveniently ignored by the marketers.
Both men and women often take pleasure in looking good (and yes, pleasing) for their ‘other halves’, from dressing up to attend the theatre or opera, to what you might do when you get back home and everything in between.
I don’t expect to sit on the sofa drinking beer in a string vest, pants and slippers while a woman parades around in skimpy outfits. That WOULD be sexist!

michael stanwick
michael stanwick
3 years ago
Reply to  Al M

Who is being sexist and why?

Al M
Al M
3 years ago

The beer drinking slob on the sofa, you mean? I suppose it all depends on context and consenting individuals. Presumably there are women somewhere who have a fetish for such a scenario, in which case all are happy (unless the man prefers gin, for example). I’ve yet to meet such a woman, but then it’s not a likely topic for conversation on a first date.

If you forked over sufficient Luncheon Vouchers, I’m sure the late Cynthia Payne could have catered to male enthusiasts, in which case it becomes a business transaction.

michael stanwick
michael stanwick
3 years ago
Reply to  Al M

Perhaps. My point was that it was assumed to be sexist even though no info was given regarding the motivations of either party.

Judy Englander
Judy Englander
3 years ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

Agreed Katharine! I’d also add that I’m horrified with the young women’s and girls’ underwear offered over the last twenty years or so (g-strings and semi-bondage etc). Why would they want to look like pr*st*t*t*s? What sort of dehumanising, objectifying message is that sending? Not to mention how grossly uncomfortable and impractical such underwear must be. We don’t seem to have moved on from corsets.
In terms of attraction I suspect the author is right. Men seem to find most underwear attractive. In Victorian times they found illicit photos of women in heavy-duty corsets a turn-on. Perhaps it’s the secret beneath the clothes* that makes the difference …
*ie outer clothes

Last edited 3 years ago by Judy Englander
Katharine Eyre
Katharine Eyre
3 years ago
Reply to  Judy Englander

I agree about what young girls are being sold these days. I think it was Zara who offered a t-shirt a few years ago for girls aged 10 or so which had “Sell me candy” emblazoned across the front. Dreadful.

Al M
Al M
3 years ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

What’s worse is I imagine that more offence might be taken at the unhealthy food aspect.

michael stanwick
michael stanwick
3 years ago
Reply to  Judy Englander

Perhaps it’s the secret beneath the clothes that makes the difference 

That is a pretty accurate observation in my estimation.

Last edited 3 years ago by michael stanwick
Judy Englander
Judy Englander
3 years ago

Good, glad I got it right!

Judy Englander
Judy Englander
3 years ago
Reply to  Judy Englander

Not in the least, Michael. I was pleased that in your opinion my observation was accurate. It’s always nice to get something right.

Richard Sutton
Richard Sutton
3 years ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

Made me giggle…

Jon Redman
Jon Redman
3 years ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

There’s a rule about giving gifts of clothing to women, which is that you should only buy a woman stuff they could try on in front of you. I have never met, dated, or slept with any woman who wanted to try on underwear in front of me, and therefore – except where directed to something specific, and apart from souvenir T-shirts – I’ve never bought underwear for any woman.
I have not had any complaints about this policy.

Jon Redman
Jon Redman
3 years ago

If you persistently insult your customers they will find another supplier.
When Gillette started lecturing its customers on how to be male, featuring ads in which black males teach respect for women to white men, I was offended enough to stop buying their stuff. I found another supplier and I’ve never knowingly spent any money on a Gillette product since. I don’t need any woke sermons from a bathroom toiletries company, thanks.
Moreover, as the male in a household with three females in it, I get to influence what shaving products they use, and they don’t use Gillette either. So that’s four customers lost.
The same will happen here. If a company that makes women’s smalls thinks its customers need lectures on why surgically and hormonally mutilated men are actually “women”, and gives them the impression that VS can’t tell the difference, then women will, I guess, find another supplier that can.

Al M
Al M
3 years ago
Reply to  Jon Redman

My greatest frustration after that Gillette advert was that I didn’t buy their overpriced products anyway and was therefore denied the pleasure of binning them.

Stephen Rose
Stephen Rose
3 years ago

Sadly, I think this assessment is pretty accurate. I don’t think a truce is going to be called anytime soon. Sport seems like retreating to a neutral corner, where you can admire another’s body for its fitness of purpose . Men have retreated to cycling, football and the model railway in the loft. Women have their pleasures, I shan’t commit the sin of naming them as I will be accused of misogyny, patriarchy etc,as a heterosexual man I realise my all too real limitations.

Hosias Kermode
Hosias Kermode
3 years ago
Reply to  Stephen Rose

One of these, I can assure you, is following football, in order to admire very fit young men.

Caroline Watson
Caroline Watson
3 years ago

The issue, which isn’t even discussed, is the inclusion of men who believe themselves to be women. If men want to dress up in ‘female’ clothes, that is up to them but they should have their own shops, their own fitters (the ones in female shops must be female) and their own changing rooms.
There is nothing wrong with companies making and selling female lingerie for women who want to look good for themselves or other women rather than men. Lingerie for men who dress up as caricatures of women is a wholly different and separate market.

Hardee Hodges
Hardee Hodges
3 years ago

caricatures of women” – often carried to the extreme in that community. I often imagine that they might see females in a totally different way and model themselves as they imagine women. Those who wish to ‘pass’ tone their dress to near normal.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
3 years ago

In other words, Victoria’s Secret has traded its stable of unattainably gorgeous models for a set that is no less gorgeous but also has the proper politics. Seriously?

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
3 years ago

It’s the ‘no less gorgeous’ that rings hollow.

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
3 years ago

I spent this week in NYCity after a year in the countryside. It’s clear that women in this town could give a rat’s-ass about what they look like. Regardless of figure size, most are prancing around in a Kim-Kardashian-leotard look, gym clothes, sweats etc – letting it all hang out, the good, bad and ugly. There is no sense of ‘allure’ even at nighttime, forget ‘femininity’. That said, in my short week here, I’ve learned that recent generations of young men, a number of whom were given adderol for ADHD whilst in school amongst other drugs to ‘contain or calm’ them, could now be suffering from ED (erectile dysfunction). Another acquaintance, a gay male therapist in his mid-30’s related that many young women aren’t interested in sex which he attributes to ‘jack hammer’ sex they’re treated to by men who’ve been feasting on readily available porn, hence the ‘no one is having sex in this generation’ meme. Not to mention, the leftist political agenda stateside which rejects just about anything that has to do with ‘human nature’, usually largely unalterable characteristics of being male/female and human, yet which the left insists can be ‘reconstructed’ away.
So regarding, VS and its new campaign to totally disregard ‘the male gaze’, a fashion executive at a cocktail party, related that the company has been behind the ball for quite some time in acknowledging changing mores and this is their ‘catch-up’ effort which in her estimation is too-little-too-late. Needless, to say, I can’t wait to get back to the countryside.

Michael Richardson
Michael Richardson
3 years ago
Reply to  Cathy Carron

Similar in the UK, to be honest, except that on this side of the pond, they “could not give a rats arse”. Same meaning though 🙂

Hardee Hodges
Hardee Hodges
3 years ago
Reply to  Cathy Carron

Perhaps the inability to create more like those you describe could be a positive note.

John Montague
John Montague
3 years ago

Men, it must be said, would be surprised to hear this. As much as the Savage x Fenty runway show might read as subversive to fashion insiders, it is still, at the end of the day, a bunch of beautiful women walking around in complicated, gorgeous lingerie; to imagine that straight men would not enjoy this is frankly ridiculous. They’re not that picky. Absolutely correct. Nail being banged on head. Bewildered a little – but not picky.

Hardee Hodges
Hardee Hodges
3 years ago

When I saw VS decide to change direction to boost sales, I had thought they understood the market and had wise advisors. My late wife thought their goods were ‘cute’ but overpriced and rarely in her size. A glance at Savage x Fenty line suggests they have a size for nearly anybody and I hope their clothes fit well and survive the wash. We stopped watching their shows years ago because she didn’t enjoy shopping in their stores. M&S were fine and Macy’s as well with what she liked to buy. She liked the Triumph line in Europe but found the line hard to buy in the US.

Dan Gleeballs
Dan Gleeballs
3 years ago

Deleted

Last edited 3 years ago by Dan Gleeballs
Penny Adrian
Penny Adrian
2 years ago

I’ve always considered dressing sexy an act of sexual aggression. It’s as if a female baboon could inflame her buttocks at will.
Dressing sexy is fun, and I’m a little sad that I’m too old now to do it effectively (although my husband insists that I am “hot” and gorgeous, but that’s only because he loves me).
It’s fun to strut your stuff and it’s titillating to get wanted male attention. Women should be free to do this without being accused of hating themselves and being slaves to men.
There is a big difference between enjoying looking sexy and feeling as if you have to look sexy to have any value. It’s a hard line to navigate, but it can and must be done, because young women have always enjoyed expressing their sexual aggression by flaunting their sexiness the way a male peacock flaunts his beautiful tail.

Joshua Marquis
Joshua Marquis
1 year ago

The writer says it best:
 Forget the male gaze; forget men, period. Forget the things you want, those frustrating intangibles, like intimacy and love. Just think, ladies, of how sexy and empowered you’ll feel when you’re sitting at home alone in your lingerie, buying still more lingerie to feel sexy and empowered in.”

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago

Sadly, as a man, I had to bin my women’s lingerie when refused an interview , albeit decades ago, for The Household Cavalry…

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago

BUT… woman’s tights are a godsend on cold shooting and Hunting days, as they were on exercise on Brecon…

Ian Guthrie
Ian Guthrie
2 months ago

The politicization of sex has been so tedious. I doubt many men ever bought anything at Victoria Secrets. Our wives and girlfriends did and they looked great