Victoria’s Secret? This Pointless $32 Waist Wrap.
Every time I am having problems, I go into Victoria’s Secret and realize just how much worse things could be. What if I believed in that pink and white gendered sex fairy? Recently, it felt as if Victoria was testing me to see if she could obtain some of my cash for a $32 muffin-top revealer that serves no functional purpose, and would probably look lumpy and strange in any context.
It’s hard to put into words just exactly the kind of hyper-gendered scandal this store perpetuates on American women, but I will try. First of all, the color scheme, pink and white, is enough to send any little girl into Barbie land–a bad place in the mind reserved for hairless bodies and male fantasy. The “helpful” women in the store are all dressed in conservative black slacks and blazers, in strict contrast to the brightly colored underwear adorning the translucent mannequins aka torsos without faces, arms, legs or substance.
While the store does sell underwear, what is mostly being sold is sex, or hope of sex. People may come to “spice things up,” to “rekindle,” “impress,” or buy gifts guaranteed to make a recipient feel she could be more attractive. Even the gift certificates in this place, marked with the phrase “I Do,” carry a social message: now that you are married, get sexy. You will obviously need lots of help to do this.
In its “Sexy Little Fantasies” category, Victoria’s Secret infantilizes women while sexualizing them; “Sexy Little Santa Baby” may be the best and most ridiculous example of this. Shhh don’t tell…it’s Victoria’s Secret.
The store positions itself using the idea of the “secret” to imply that if you are a woman, there is always something missing, something hidden, something without which you are less than ideal. However, if we want to get critical about Victoria’s Secret, it has become rather evident that her secret is to make women feel like they aren’t feminine enough and then sell them femininity, as if it can be bought. She’s a smart lady.