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?

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.

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…) 

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.

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.

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.

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

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

..to teenage girls.

FTFY

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?

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.

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.

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.

/sarcasm

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.