I’m not a women, but I am sure there are about 3.5 billion reasons women might enjoy, wear, or not wear lingerie.
5 Likes
me, or the article? ;_;
Abercombie
5 Likes
Yes, of course. So sorry. It’s only 7:54 AM where I am, and apparently I’m not yet woke.
3 Likes
I’ll have to share that with my daughter. Thanks!
3 Likes
I believe it’s called “photoshop”!
5 Likes
4 Likes
Man, I read the headline and immediately thought, “This is just stupid and wrong.” But now that I’ve looked at the pictures, I just feel like a bad person.
5 Likes
True, true, true. That’s where the “explain” part comes in (and all that that implies). That said, I’m guessing (as might have the lingerie makers) that Disney (although, historically, very quick to go after those who infringe on their intellectual property) will try to be as clear as possible re their own concerns, yet still – as a family-oriented business – handle things in a way that does not support the sordidness attached to this affair or create more drama than what’s absolutely necessary.
Then again, looking at the – ahem – artfulness of the lingerie, I question the quality of the maker’s decision making process and their general mindset when they decided to ‘princess-up’ their lingerie.
1 Like
I suspect it would go one way in the US where a Disney-soaked jury would decide, and perhaps the other way in England where a judge who probably wishes his kids had never heard of Disney is asked “in what way can clothing aimed exclusively at adults be confused with the clothing of characters in cartoons aimed at children?” - remember how the Samsung v Apple case ran on and on in the US, whereas in England it was dismissed in short order by a judge asking sarcastically how it was that a product which had such apparent excellence of design and function as to make it unique, could so easily be confused with what Apple were calling a cheap knock off. Generic is generic.
(There was also the case of the opposite: Chrysler brought out a copy of a Bentley right down to a very similar radiator badge. A Bentley spokesman observed that nobody who might actually buy a Bentley would be taken in for a moment by the imitation. I.e. no possibility of confusion to a potential customer, no case.)
6 Likes
15 Likes
[quote]Then again, looking at the – ahem – artfulness of the lingerie, I question the quality of the maker’s decision making process and their general mindset when they decided to ‘princess-up’ their lingerie.
[/quote]
I think it’s a carefully weighed business decision, much like Chinese counterfeiting game. Rack up interest with something the public loves - the easy target for artists and designers is Disney. It’s everywhere, Etsy, Instagram, Pornhub…
When the heat gets a little too much to bear, then the company ceases before a serious lawsuit comes to fruition, and unloads any remaining knockoffs to an Alibaba retailer or similar clearinghouse.
2 Likes
I recall a communications class on media (largely focused on media literacy) wherein we spent quite a lot of time discussing Disney, the Mickey Mouse copyright extension, and a lot of the tropes found in their movies. At least one student got angry over the discussion to the point of tears. I think it’s possible that this was the first time she’d been confronted with the idea that a story she enjoyed could be flawed in such a way.
(As an older student I particularly enjoyed the class. I think the teacher and I were the only ones that had even heard of “Song of the South,” let alone seen it.)
As for the lingerie sets … I know quite a few “littles” from the kink community. At first, you’d think a Disney princess lingerie set would be perfect for some of them, but after seeing the pictures, I think these try way too hard for (conventional) “sexy” and not enough for Disney. Most of them are really kind of boring.
Nope, not even close. Even if you take this as “lingerie is worn for one’s partner,” this is still way off, if only statistically. I enjoy lingerie not just for what it does for my partner(s), regardless of their gender, but also for the way it makes me feel. I’ve heard many other people say the same thing, again, without consideration of their gender.
12 Likes
When did it become shameful to do nude modeling?
1 Like
A former colleague who went into the [Anglican] ministry reported that at the first class on the Bible, the lecturer had demolished any idea that there was any support in the actual source material for Creationism. Several of the students had near-hysterics. He said that there literally was weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth while the rest of them looked on in astonishment.
5 Likes
13 Likes
If you mean that it exists to titillate men, I disagree. Although there is heavy marketing of that angle, because nothing sells like insecurity. Good lingerie is basically just comfy clothes to chill in, regardless of how some fetishize it. Bad lingerie (like these Disney-themed ones) exploit the fetish element by pushing wares which don’t look comfortable nor robust enough to last being worn for more than a few minutes.
If you mean that lingerie is technically unisex, but only marketed towards women, I would tend to agree. What is difficult though is that the same difficulty in finding nice (or any) lingerie which complements a broad chest and hips, and thicker limbs actually affects women as much as it does men. Because the more “fashionable” clothes are designed and offered to be, the more likely they are to cater only to those women who have a very idealized slender-slightly-curvy body type. Women have just as difficult a time finding flattering lingerie if they are more than about 5’6", or more than 140 LBS.
2 Likes
The URL calls that an “article”, but it reads more like an opinion-piece. Their policing of other people’s clothing with shame-wagging and appeals to modesty isn’t cool. Surprise - people buy and wear clothes which they think look good.
Still, maybe young girls will think the thongs are cute. Maybe they’ll think they’re fun. What do I know? I am not now, nor have I ever been, a young girl.
But thong underwear – rather a straight male fetish object, wouldn’t you think? – for prepubescent girls?
Nice way to contradict themselves within five paragraphs. But since it reads like a stream-of-thought impassioned screed (and I should know!), I am not surprised.
What I think happens is culturally is that it is “OK” to slut-shame children, because even 100 years after Freud people refuse to process that children have a sexual component to their identities. They like to be appealing to themselves, and each other, not unlike any other peer group. Since children supposedly have no sexuality of their own, are “blameless” and “innocent” (whatever that is supposed to mean), the blame gets passed on to others for catering to them. That is the slippery semantic slope between the innately sexual and that which has been sexualized by others.
The motives of the author are laid bare here:
I have never thought of 10-year-old girls in this way. I do not want to think of 10-year-old girls in this way.
Basically, they count upon a culturally compartmentalized framework for knowing who it is safe to ogle. That’s the same reason why clothing tends to be gendered. If one finds oneself lapsing into a sexual daydream about a person of “the wrong category” as dictated by some mores or conditioning, one needs to either accept responsibility for one’s desires - with the possible shame and self-loathing - or pass the blame onto others for not having dressed in such a way as to make one’s desires easier to manage. That is what slut-shaming is all about. Un-ironically trying to pass the buck of sexual self-regulation.
2 Likes
Now that you’ve seen these lingerie sets, you can no longer in good faith interact with the Disney princesses.
But the gist was that printing “eye candy” on a ten year old’s underpants contributes to the culture that encourages girls to value themselves by how sexualized they are.
1 Like
