Victoria’s Secret: Very Sexy or Very Scary?

Happy Friday, readers, how’s every little thing?

I’m great. Hot Latin Boy is going to be spending the evening being a Positive Male Role Model to a handful of his nephews who are in duress and need male bonding time (using MY best-seats-in-the-house tickets, I didn’t really want to see the most exciting and highly-anticipated match of the season anyway. Worst thing is it was my stupid idea. Man, I wish someone had told me sooner that human empathy was a sexually transmitted disease, I could’ve vaccinated when I went in for cholera and typhoid) so I’ve got a whole glorious Friday to myself and as soon as I clean the kitchen –by which I mean set fire to it or let one of the six hundred women who ring my doorbell every afternoon offering to clean my house actually put soap to scrubbie– I plan on running as far amok as five hours of sleep and a quarter tank of watered-down gas will take me.

The other day, superfantastic reader Katydid sent me an email about this image:

It appeared on Wednesday as an advertisement for the Victoria’s Secret Very Sexy collection in the advertising sidebar of your very own Manolo for the Big Girl, like this:

Katydid wrote:

Was enjoying your latest blog entry when my attention was completely captured by the Victoria Secret model featured in an ad on your site. I attached a pic of how it was displayed on my monitor. She may be the thinnest model I have ever seen and to me the image is disturbing!

I was compelled to share with you.

 

First of all, thank you Katydid and everyone else who has written over the years about potentially problematic advertising.

I’ve mentioned before, Manolo and I have relatively little control over what advertisements Glam.com or Google run. A few years ago we were bombarded with fake Louboutin sites and then it was all diet programs, what a mess.

The funny thing is, Victoria’s Secret Angel Candice Swanepoel (I’m 99.9% sure that’s Candice Swanepoel) is a pretty healthy, curvy model as far as models these days go.

In the picture she’s got her legs forward, her pelvis and bottom tilted back as far as it can go and is leaning forward from the waist. It’s an old modeling trick which even your pal Plumcake is not above using once in a while. She’s also being photographed from above, which is also very slimming.

Oh, and let’s not forget for a second all the photoshopping that went into the final image.

Here’s another shot of the South African model, taken from one of the Victoria’s Secret fashion shows:

See? Fairly generic run-of-the-milkmaid male fantasy fodder.

She would’ve been a hot non-threatening blonde in the 1950s and is a hot non-threatening blonde now. Sure, she might’ve actually had a little more in the way of pubic hair and a little less in the way of bizarre metal waist contraptions, but hey, maybe not.

The thing is, I bet a model with her body shape who wanted to go into haute couture runway modeling would be told to lose weight.

Of course it’s just another mixed message courtesy of the fashion and beauty industry. If you want to wear the best clothes, you have to look like a model! If you want guys to think you’re sexy you have to look like a totally different model!

Gosh, it’s almost as if they WANT to make us confused and insecure so they could sell us products designed to make us feel less ugly. Haha, no of course not, because that would be insidious and twisted!

(sigh)

In my fantasy world, there would be room for the bouncy beach babe, the androgynous waif, the size 10 girl next door, the voluptuous plus size model and the just plain round on the runway. All ages, all heights, all colors and all orientations.

Maybe I’ll start holding my breath riiiiiiight NOW.

4 Responses to “Victoria’s Secret: Very Sexy or Very Scary?”

  1. Jophiel March 9, 2012 at 9:37 pm #

    Hi Miss Plum,

    “In my fantasy world, there would be room for the bouncy beach babe, the androgynous waif, the size 10 girl next door, the voluptuous plus size model and the just plain round on the runway.”

    Who would make up your ideal runway lineup? It’s futbol season, so maybe a set of 11?

    Thank you!
    J.

  2. Debs March 9, 2012 at 11:56 pm #

    I’m always conflicted by the Victoria’s Secret (shiksas). (Google if not Jewish). Maybe, this is modern burlesque, the models as actresses (for the runway shows), both sexes can enjoy the spectacle and it’s commmerical (Fashion Show sponsored by Grey Goose Vodka’s new flavor —-Skankolicious!).

    But skinny girls don’t usually have big, round breasts that defy gravity. All the models have the same type of body (as you stated). So, it seems aimed at men to suggest a particular type of ideal. It’s theatre, but I’d never go for a guy who likes it.

  3. Pamici March 10, 2012 at 12:51 am #

    Apropos of nothing, I’m so very glad you are still amusing and informing us now you’re ensconced at Villa Plumcake. I was very worried life and distance would take you away from us. I have nothing more to add.

  4. wildflower March 12, 2012 at 3:10 pm #

    It amazes me that Victoria’s Secret is as financially and culturally successful as they are, considering that their products are crap. They use crappy materials and have crappy workmanship. And their shows? What in Heaven’s name are those things the models are wearing alongside the lingerie? That metal thing around Candice Swanepoel’s waist up there is a perfect example. It’s not attractive at all, to either gender, and she’d advertise that bra and those underwear much better without it. What in holy heck IS it?

    One thing I’ll give them props for though is that the models are encouraged to look lively and joyful and even happy *together*, like a gang of girlfriends. No catty beeyotch-faces here!