From: kdyer@MtHolyoke.edu (Kristy K. Dyer)
Subject: Victoria's Secret
Organization: Mount Holyoke College
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 01:08:20 GMT


I just finished reading my latest batch of mail, and I'm very
upset by the _Victoria's Secret_ catalog. Something is different
about this season's catalog, and after thinking about it, the
last few seasons as well. Some vague but important support I used
to see in them is now unfortunately gone.

What's disturbing is the change in poses of the models --they
have begun to look more and more like their playboy counterparts.
The women have gone from lounging meditatively, comfortably in
their underwear (which admittedly I don't do very often), to
looking more like "ready and willing" sex objects.
They have developed the stereotypical "sex-hungry" women look --
the mouth open, back arched, glare through the eyebrows. More
disturbing is the men's section, newly expanded. It seems like
now it's men who are clients; buying for themselves, and buying
for women.

And it's really too bad because there are so few places today
where women's sexuality is dealt with, without being exploited.
It's such a touchy issue. For so long the road to safety, and
success for lay in denying the body, dressing modestly, and never
ever admitting to hormonal impulses.  But it was plank bound to
trip us up because it is contrary to human nature. Women have
hormones and are physically attracted as well as physically
attractive. 

On the other hand, as much as I feel I have a right to a sensual
or sexual appetite, the opposition to exercising that right is
formidable. A women who admits to her sexuality becomes
"pornography".  Female sexuality is only something a man enjoys
from afar, as a spectator. A sexual woman loses her importance as
a person. She is important only as she entertains men. Her body
is not for her to appreciate -- it's for them to admire. And it
is not only inconvenient and demoralizing to be objectified -- it
is dangerous. This is a country where rapists get off because
"she asked for it" -- when asking for it often means the jury
thought she was too attractive, too sexual, that the skirt she
was wearing was too short. It's a dangerous game. Either you deny
you are human, or you deny your human rights.

Which is where Victoria's Secret came in. Unlike Fredricks of
Hollywood, Victoria's Secret was an "acceptable" place to shop
(according to my mother!). It was a place for a woman to buy
herself lingerie -- she didn't have to wait for "that special
someone" to present it to her. And in comparison to other
catalogs of the same genre, the models looked comfortable, the
clothing was reasonably comfortable as well as attractive. By
portraying women buying for themselves, for their own enjoyment,
and as women rather than centerfolds, Victoria's Secret made a
quiet but effective statement. That a beautiful women is not any
man's toy. That expressing your sexuality doesn't make you a
slut. That sexuality did not necessarily have to be a
exploitation of women by men.

But things have changed. There is a surprising number of men who
receive Victoria's Secret -- and not to check out the cotton
terrycloth robes. Admittedly it is more attractively laid out
that the bra section of the Sears catalog. But unfortunately
Victoria's Secret has changed to follow the money. And that's
left me feeling high and dry -- caught between the 'virgin' and
the 'whore' -- just where I didn't want to be.
 

--
Kristy Dyer__________________________________________kdyer@MHC.mtholyoke.EDU
Newsgroups: soc.women