Thursday, February 14, 2008

The Opposite of Sex

This NY Times article supports my belief that Victoria's Secret is trying too hard to actually be sexy:

"Subtleties of eroticism can turn the banal into the fantastic, but Victoria’s Secret has not made its money by being subtle. Its apparent formula for mass-marketing fantasies is to turn the erotic into the banal.

Like a porn star with too many memoirs, Victoria’s secrets are pretty much overexposed at this point. “Ahh, whatever,” Victoria says. “Let me let you in on a little something, girls. You want sex? Hit the guy real hard with blunt sex objects.”

VoilĂ : Eros demythologized. All double entendres reduced to one big fat entendre for your retail convenience.

The Victoria’s Secret near Herald Square is a slick, two-story mega-sexopolis, catering mainly to the boudoir needs of angry tourists. If Siegfried & Roy ever wanted to start a Nevada chicken-ranch-plus-amusement park — a stretch-lace and animal-print McDonaldland of acceptable corporate erotica for the family casino crowd — this would be the ideal jumping-off point.

Valentine’s Day is a big deal for this chain that regards itself as the answer to the question, “What is sexy?” Victoria’s Secret is, to this holiday, what Toys “R” Us was to Christmas: your one stop for totally unimaginative shopping."

Go read the rest here.

I think that Victoria's Secret is like the Paris Hilton of lingerie brands - it's overexposed and a caricature of what is supposed to be sexy.

*I'm slightly ashamed to admit that I like some of the clothes and shoes in their catalogs - but the items I like tend to be created by other brands and just sold by Victoria's Secret, e.g. Calvin Klein swimwear and Nine West shoes, so it doesn't really count, right?

No comments: