How Victoria's Secret censored a burgeoning anti-rape social media campaign


69 Responses to “How Victoria's Secret censored a burgeoning anti-rape social media campaign”

  1. Napalm Dog says:

    I have to ask Cory;  Do you believe Victoria’s product encourages and/or excuses rape?

    • Gilbert Wham says:

       Why, exactly?

      • Napalm Dog says:

        Because under the circumstances so far FORCE has accused Victoria’s of encouraging/ok’ing rape. If I were Victoria’s, I’d be throwing everything I had at them…

    • nowimnothing says:

      Underwear with the slogan “sure thing” may not encourage or excuse rape, but it sure as hell does not help.

      • Napalm Dog says:

        No it may not, but I believe saying a woman dressed in a way that says “She was asking for it” is wrong too. To some the way Linda Carter was dressed as Wonder Woman is empowerment, to others it’s just plain sexist. FORCE picked Victoria’s to stage their protest, it was Victoria’s that reacted. Why is everyone shocked?

        • wysinwyg says:

           Who is shocked?

          • Napalm Dog says:

             It looks like FORCE is…

          • wysinwyg says:

            Again, that’s part of the game.  If you’re not going to hold VS responsible for their part of the game I don’t see why you’re going to do so for FORCE.

            You said: “If I were an entity accused of such things…I’d do anything and everything…” Well, FORCE is also an entity with an agenda. Why are you shocked that they’re taking measures to pursue that agenda?

        • nowimnothing says:

          Correct, there is no excuse for rape. But that is not the story here. Sexy clothing can be both empowering and sexist. FORCE was trying to promote their belief that those particular slogans on underwear marketed largely to teens were more sexist than empowering. Victoria’s Secret could have chosen to defend their marketing or to apologize. Instead they tried to silence FORCE through other means.
          Since that is the story and not the strawman you posited above, there is no reason for Cory to respond.

          • Napalm Dog says:

            It will be very unfortunate for FORCE and their cause if it has be ascertained they have stolen imagery and code from their website to post their own. Is this a kick to the gut of free speech or simply a company defending its content? I personally can’t help but see what FORCE has done as being an accusation of the heaviest sort. Otherwise Force might have approached them as Breast Cancer Awareness has many organizations and built something instead of trying to tear it down…

          • wysinwyg says:

            This characterization of FORCE’s actions seems way over the top to me.  They seriously fucked up their message by violating trademark and stealing code from the VS website — you can be as bullshit as you like about that since they were clearly in the wrong there.  But I’ve already explained to you why FORCE’s accusations in general are reasonable and you agreed with me.

    • wysinwyg says:

      I think the argument is that they encourage and/or excuse a culture wherein: 1) a woman’s value to society is predicated on how physically appealing she is to the men around her, 2) the onus of “not getting raped” is put on women who are highly encouraged to dress provocatively (see (1)), and 3) blame any woman who is sexually assaulted or raped for “asking for it” — perhaps because she was wearing Victoria’s Secret so we all know what kind of girl she is.  No acknowledgement her of (1), whereby the woman was encouraged to dress that way to be taken “seriously” in the first place.

      It reinforces the idea, way too prevalent already, that women are playthings for men, and yes that mentality does encourage rape.  And if you were ever taken to court for an alleged rape and you could establish that the young woman was wearing undies that had “sure thing” printed on them it would help your chances of getting found not guilty considerably — and those chances were already pretty good.  So yes, this could quite plausibly be used to “excuse” rape as well.

      • spoonipsum says:


        • wysinwyg says:

          Nice edit.  To answer those questions which I caught: 1) I have no problem with Victoria’s Secret selling underwear.  Selling underwear with “sure thing” and “unwrap me” printed on them seems pretty irresponsible to me; I think they should be legally entittled to do so, but I think I should also be legally entitled to point out that it’s irresponsible.  Same with marketing that underwear to teens.

          2) People should absolutely dress however they want.  But let’s not pretend people are dressing up however they want in a cultural vacuum — clothes send messages and different people interpret those messages in different ways.  This can be dangerous, especially when it comes to provocative clothing and questions about consent.  Acknowledging that our society encourages women to dress provocatively while at the same time blaming provocatively dressed women if they’re raped or sexually assaulted is pretty reasonable, I think.  I’d like to live in a society where women dressing sexy isn’t a political issue, but unfortunately that’s not the society we live in.  Try not to shoot the messenger.

          3) There is no conceivable way in which this post “blames the victim.”  I was answering Napalm Dog’s question by saying what these particular items of apparel have to do with encouraging or excusing rape, and I think my answer was a fair one.  I said nothing on the subject of whether Victoria Secret’s trademark was violated.  On that score, I think this group way overreached; a recognizable parody would have been ideal.  Stealing the CSS from the VS website is completely bullshit.

          FWIW, I think I’m capable of having a conversation about this stuff without starting a flame war, but your pre-edit comment was pretty inflammatory. Both sides have to be willing to listen before any reasonable conversation can happen, OK?

      • Napalm Dog says:

        While I understand all that, it’s still a fine line. If I were an entity accused of such things as what you just described I think I’d have to do everything and anything to remove that association, at the very least…

        • wysinwyg says:

          In that case, what VS is doing is counterproductive.  They know FORCE can get the message out pretty effectively about what VS is doing to shut them down; VS could have been much more effective by seeking public rapprochement with FORCE, insisting that the violation of trademark was out of line but that VS still understand’s FORCE’s concerns and is looking forward to working with them to better address women’s issues in the future.

          Doesn’t have to be sincere, just a convincing PR offensive along that line.  Using DMCA and trying to take out FORCE on the sly is just bad tactics.

          For the same reasons you don’t want to blame VS for doing this, you can’t blame FORCE for fighting back (although you can still blame them for a very sloppy trademark violation).

      • Ashley Yakeley says:

        “It reinforces the idea, way too prevalent already, that women are playthings for men, and yes that mentality does encourage rape.”

        Being a plaything for others is an important part of many people’s sexuality, which in turn is an essential part of their humanity. It does not encourage rape.

        Someone who says “I am your plaything”, “I am available to you”, “Sure thing”, “Unwrap me”, “Shut up and fuck me now” is not encouraging their own rape. Wearing these messages does not encourage rape. Selling clothes with these messages does not encourage rape. Being a huge slut and shamelessly advertising it does not encourage rape. Sexual availability is not rape.

        Not listening to or caring about other people’s inconvenient decisions about their own bodies and sexualities is what encourages rape.

        • wysinwyg says:

          Again, this is the way I would like the world to be, but it is not the way the world actually is.  I hear what you’re saying and if people could sexually objectify themselves voluntarily without affecting others I would be completely for it.  It would be wonderful to live in a society where everyone could feel so free to express their sexuality.

          But that’s not this world.  In this world, women really do get raped and/or sexually assaulted, and this is often justified or excused on the basis of what that woman was wearing, or on more general expectations of how women are supposed to behave.

          Like I said below, there is a tendency in this society to objectify women: to treat them not as people capable of making the decision to be a sexual object or not, but simply to treat women as sexual objects.  This unfortunate tendency is in conflict with my very sincere desire that everyone should be able to express themselves including dressing as sexy as they want to. 

          It’s a confusing and unfortunate situation.  As I’ve already said, I don’t like it and I didn’t make it this way.  I don’t really see what there is to argue about here.  If you really don’t think revealing clothing (among other things) is frequently mistaken for consent then I’d have to conclude you’re really naive and/or sheltered.

          • Ashley Yakeley says:

            “In this world, women really do get raped and/or sexually assaulted, and this is often justified or excused on the basis of what that woman was wearing, or on more general expectations of how women are supposed to behave.”

            And the proper response to that is… to discourage women from “dressing like sluts” (in the words of a Toronto police officer)? To protest anyone who sells such slutty clothing?

    • PhosPhorious says:

       I certainly wouldn’t have thought so. . .  until VS reacted so harshly to an anti-rape campaign.  It seems to me they chose which side they were on in this situation.

      • Napalm Dog says:

        Hmm, I don’t think it’s particularly ok to shut down good work for good causes. But what about BAD work for a good cause? Rape is a seriously harsh subject right now, down to just USING the word in a different context. Just as The Oatmeal. That said, associating Victoria’s with rape brought out big legal guns. The victim in this case is probably the right message, not FORCE.

  2. mccrum says:

    This is an important lesson for any governments who want to limit free speech…

  3. Brainspore says:

    I’m having a difficult time telling from the links, but did this campaign actually use copyrighted images/ads and just change the slogans? Or did they actually pose as Victoria’s Secret? Some side-by-side screenshots would be helpful.

  4. Emo Pinata says:

    And once again a good cause goes off the deep end in the eyes of anyone that might be swayed.

    • Christopher says:

      On the plus side this is still giving some attention to the fact that Victoria’s Secret is marketing underwear with provocative messages. 

      Whether the creators of the parody website went too far, whether they overstepped the bounds of fair use, may be an issue, and I suspect  Victoria’s Secret would like to pretend it’s the only issue, but I hope it will be subordinate to a larger discussion of the implications and influences of telling young girls they should wear underwear that says “Sure Thing” and “Unwrap Me”.

      • Baldhead says:

        Victoria’s Secret has essentially been all about provocative messages from it’s beginning. Arguably they’ve been a strong force in the idea that women can actually enjoy and want sex- something that was somewhat foreign to society’s thinking back in the day, and something at odds to the idea that women are just playthings for men. It does play into the thought processes of those with that attitude however, to a degree. Gonna go with both sides being a bit douchey here.

      • IronEdithKidd says:

        …Victoria’s Secret is marketing underwear with provocative messages. teenage girls.


  5. hugh crawford says:

    “FORCE had purposefully launched PINK Loves CONSENT immediately prior to the fashion show to capitalize on the publicity surrounding the event, which attracted nearly 10 million viewers. ”

    That pretty much meets the definition of trademark dilution when it could have so easily been fair use parody. The cut and paste code and graphics doesn’t help their case either.

    It would have been so easy to be on firm legal footing yet they screwed it up so badly I can only think that getting shut down was a PR stunt.

  6. NicoleLeeWhite says:

    Another neat campaign I heard about recently, which met with a “bad-tempered” response from the sponsor, was this activist’s satirical response to an American Apparel contest seeking a “bootylicious” plus-sized model.  ;)

  7. Lobster says:

    Guess now we know what Victoria’s Secret is.

  8. Xof says:

    Regardless of the legalities of it, this was an enormous PR own-goal on the part of Victoria’s Secret. They could have scored immeasurable goodwill and free publicity by embracing this, rather than trying to stomp on it.

    • Brainspore says:

      I dunno. A message that boiled down to “you’re absolutely right! Our new product line DOES encourage rape!” probably wouldn’t be a huge PR coup for the company either.

  9. peregrinus says:

    As a parent, grown grey and all, I’d really feel I’d failed if such underwear were my daughter’s garments of choice.

    Because throughout the process of selecting, purchasing / receiving, and putting on these, there is such a no-miss whirling revolution around sexuality and provocation, to herself and any potential viewers.  Wearing them and secretly feeling and imagining about how you’re all sexy like – ugh, save it for my stepmother, she needs it.

    Yes, we all think about sex all the time, and maybe some of us have done it, and when I was a teenager I thought about it even more.  But I knew what decency and integrity were, and the weakened personality that needs to use messages like “sure thing” (for sarcastic laughs, as a seductive tool?) is diminished.

    If my kid’s self-esteem were to have these messages and underlying meaning as its root, I’d be anxious about what was next.  Where does the road lead? Did it start at Playboy underwear for 8 year olds?

    This sort of thing appears legitimate and valuable to teens, overriding safety catches and nurture with a swallowing attraction.  They hype culture, the stage shows, the attention, the wow factor – all good things that have little to do with setting someone up in life to respect themselves and enjoy living without reliance on vague sexy propaganda campaigns.

    What’s wrong with getting on with their lives and wearing Marks & Spencers knickers?

    Besides, my wife once asked me to buy some VS stuff having been allured by the advertising and hype, and rapidly called it cheap and badly made.

  10. Rebecca Bauman says:

    I agree with you that practically instant takedowns without requiring any evidence of a copyright infringement is wrong. Would you be able to link us to any petitions that might be going around?

  11. While the censorship aspect is questionable, I disagree that Victoria’s Secret is promoting rape culture or even negating consent. It appears to me that these slogans on the underwear are a form of consent (or rejections). “no peeking” seems to be saying “no” and sure thing seems to be saying “yes”. I don’t really see the difference between this and other forms of consent. Of course, when verbal consent is incongruous with the statement made by the underwear then a problem is created, but Victoria’s Secret isn’t to blame for that. It just printed something on underwear.

  12. NicoleLeeWhite says:

    One way this campaign makes sense to me is as a way to get people more aware of an odd attitude towards sex that seems to be the norm- like, that women are supposed to act coy/play hard to get/not really know what they want.  Which is awfully condescending, and even worse- it can put women in actual physical danger.

    Words printed on underwear don’t really seem like the core issue at all to me.  Maybe I would even buy the VS panties if I liked tacky, overpriced crap.  It’s more that the ad campaign happens to publicly reflect some very screwed-up notions about women and sex that too many people are probably not even thinking about at all, because it’s just normal.  So the whole kerfuffle with the activist response is just great, because it’s getting people actually thinking about this stuff! (at least, it is here on the internets- I haven’t gone outside in a while as it seems to be snowing and I have hot chocolate here…) 

  13. ComradeQuestions says:

    The key piece of info ignored here is that this group actually pretended to be Victoria’s Secret in announcing “their” campaign, only revealing that it was parody after the fact.  Actually using a company’s trademarks to pretend to be them sure seems like trademark infringement to me, despite the rightness of their cause or the over-zealousness of the takedown action.

    Edit @lasershark: No.

  14. oasisob1 says:

    No. It’s protest and criticism. VS marketing a line of undwear to teens with the words ‘unwrap me’ and ‘sure thing’ seems pretty rape culture to me, and should have garnered plenty of bad press all on its own.

  15. But Victoria’s Secret sells clothing and the parody site does not sell anything.  So there is no way for a consumer to mistakenly purchase anti-rape underwear when they meant to purchase pro-rape underwear. So there is no infringement.
    Their right to free speech ends where the market begins, and outside the market they can say whatever they want, no?

  16. ColHapablap says:

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think you actually need to monetize a piece of IP in order for it to infringe copyright/trademark.  Certainly impersonating another company, intentionally trying to pass yourself off as them, can’t be legal, though DMCA takedowns are likely not the correct way to fight that.

  17. When the IP is the product, it’s definitely illegal to copy and distribute it without permission regardless of monetization.
    But, I don’t think you could apply those rules to the world of panties advertising. If someone is just making an ad about your product or brand, where is the tort? Someone could make a slanderous impersonation, and that might be illegal. But what kind of asshole would call this anti-rape campaign slander? Giving the public an unduly kind opinion of some entity isn’t illegal, so far as I know.

  18. dmatos says:

     It’s not “I like sex” underwear.  It’s “please take my underwear off and fuck me” underwear.  Underwear does not give consent.  A woman does.  This underwear implies unconditional consent, which perpetuates rape culture.

  19. wysinwyg says:

    See my reply to Spoonsimum below.  I hate speaking on behalf of “feminists”, but I’m pretty sure most feminists would be pleased as punch if dressing sexy was not a political act and women were free to dress as they want without consequences.  unfortunately, we do  not live in such a society so stuff like this is a little more complicated than just “Oh, dress however you want”.  While I would like to live in a world where people could dress however they want that’s simply not the world we live in.

    Instead of demanding feminists make up their minds, why not demand that all the victim blamers of the world make up theirs?  My guess: feminists are easier targets.

  20. Crafty says:

    It was the undies that said “Yes No Maybe” and “Sure Thing” that got them riled up.

    “Yes No Maybe” because it makes light of the word “No”, reducing its impact as a serious answer choice.

    “Sure Thing” because it removes the option of “No”.

  21. ethicalcannibal says:

    It’s like all feminists are one single person, with one single message or goal, or one single interpretation of the culture we live in. Silly feminists! Don’t you know you are supposed to be one united front in all your talking points. 


    Seriously, you are missing some boulder sized nuances in this discussion in regards to the culture surrounding the choices women make, and the pressures they undergo. I have never met a self professed feminist that tells a “girl to dress modestly or she’s asking for it”. See: Slutwalk, and the point they make about women can wear whatever they want, and it is not an excuse for rape. 

    The underwear in question implicated some larger concerns about consent. The underwear in question did not say “I like sex! Ask if I’m in the mood!” or “When I say yes, I’ll rock your world”. There were more nuances than that. 

  22. invictus says:

    “But what kind of asshole would call this anti-rape campaign slander?”

    Nothing to do with assholishness, everything to do with money.
    The legal question to be asked is, will this hurt VS’ bottom line? If the answer is “yes,” then they have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to defend their trademark.

    Now, some executives have put their asses on the line for causes they believe in. See Interface, of “Corporation” fame. I suspect those executives haven’t had the cause of choice forced down their throats with no warning. The actions by VS might not have been the most moral ones, but they were pretty much the only legally safe choice given the need for rapid response.

  23. invictus says:

    @wysinwyg:disqus You’re probably right. I doubt that they’d considered such a possibility. Though — from a completely different industry, but one that also struggles with reputational and public image issues — the group might not have been willing to jump into such a partnership. Reputational risk runs both ways, and accusations of selling out are quick to be made among activists. In some cases partnerships like this take months of negotiations.

  24. invictus says:

    “Um……….. I don’t know how to break this to you”

    I do like the mental image, Antinous. But my point is that VS’s actions were not in any way uniquely assholish (emphasis on “uniquely”) but rather wholly the product of corporate law, with at most a slight tilt towards assholishness produced by an excess desire for covering one’s ass.

    I’ll wager no one outside of Legal was even involved in the decision to smack down FORCE, and Legal is most certainly not going to be authorized to instamagically change corporate policy and offer a hand of friendship and understanding to an activist group.

  25. invictus says:

    You’ve managed to both remove agency from the underwear and grant it right back, in two consecutive sentences. Or does underwear secretly crawl up your legs and force you to wear it?

  26. wysinwyg says:

    Actually, I’ve already argued in this thread that this was an irresponsible course of action with respect to shareholders.  VS could have dealt with the trademark infringement AND gotten some good publicity out of publicly reaching out to FORCE about this.  Instead they ended up getting a bunch of bad publicity for going gunning for an anti-rape group.  This isn’t to say VS wasn’t in some sense justified in what they did, just that it’s not the most responsible course of action if they were trying to keep stock prices high.

  27. Antinous / Moderator says:

    Nothing to do with assholishness, everything to do with money.

    Um……….. I don’t know how to break this to you, but there’s frequently both correlative and causative relationships between those two. And the occasional reacharound.

  28. wysinwyg says:

    It’s tricky to talk about.  I don’t know any feminists who aren’t pro-individual autonomy, including people wearing what they want to wear.  On the other hand, we live in a society that sexually objectifies women.  There’s tension between these two ideas because the exercise of individual autonomy (say, in choice of clothing) can reinforce the sexual objectification, which in turn reduces the autonomy of all women, including those who don’t necessarily want to be considered sexual objects.

    Again, it’s not like feminists or people agreeing with some feminist ideas made the world this way and it’s not like any of us like the world this way.  We’re just trying to find good ways of dealing with it.  Panties stamped with “Sure Thing” doesn’t seem to me a great way to deal with it.

    Note that no one is trying to make the underwear illegal or anything. Some people are just suggesting maybe “Sure Thing” and “Yes No Maybe” printed on underwear aren’t great messages to be sending young women. They’re pretty much the opposite of “empowering” when you think about it so I fail to see where the accusations of hypocrisy come in. Although I do understand they’re a perennial favorite among people who would rather believe there is no merit whatsoever to feminist ideas.

  29. invictus says:

    There’s a time and a place for thoughtful discussion on this subject. Unfortunately, seeing how Friend Moderator has already removed the original comment upthread, this is neither the time nor the place.

  30. wysinwyg says:

    Wait, you’re telling me I shouldn’t be thoughtfully discussing the subject because someone else entirely said something flamebaity and got deleted for it?  Why shouldn’t I thoughtfully discuss the issue again?

    You asked a question and I answered it. What’s the problem?

  31. invictus says:

    I’m saying I won’t spend time writing up a detailed reply because this thread is now at a higher than normal risk of being nuked.

  32. Antinous / Moderator says:

    The original comment was prima facie offensive.

  33. wysinwyg says:

    You’re willing to devote time to making bullshit non-arguments like the one above but not to really establish or defend your opinions.  I’m not impressed.

Leave a Reply