Victoria’s Secret Has a Fan and His/Her Name is Anonymous!

by Bella Rum

Have you ever noticed how those who leave negative comments always have names that rhyme with rhinoceros?

I guess I was a little too preachy in yesterday’s post for some folks. *chuckle* I seldom receive a negative comment. I think this blog is too pablum-like to stir anyone’s ire.

I’ve never had such traffic on Cul-de-sac. It was not about my short commentary. It wasn’t terribly thoughtful or insightful or cutting. The post was little more than a list of symptoms for starvation. I’m sure the traffic was a result of searches for Candice Swanepoel’s “skinny photo.”

It is ironic that a post about women starving themselves to work in an industry that demands an unreasonable standard, and doesn’t give a hoot about its models or its customers gets so many hits. It’s also ironic that the industry thrives because of women. It brings new meaning to the phrase slave to fashion.

Of course, average women don’t purchase the clothes that come down the runway in Milan or NYC, but we may buy a new bra at VS. High fashion trickles down to the retail stores we frequent, and in the end, it’s almost impossible not to participate on some level.

I won’t even go into how these fashions are interpreted for tween girls, but you can read an insightful post that Mary wrote at Flat Rock Creek Notebook – Latest Trends in Noncompliant Church Garb. Much of the clothing for young girls is about the sexualization of children. We’ve been slowly desensitized by the industry. Do you remember how shocked we all were when we saw those photos of JonBenét Ramsey in beauty pagents? Now we see that trend in everyday fashion for children.

Perhaps the post was too in-your-face, but I don’t think it was even close to that. I could have said so much more. I stand by the post and there you have it.

I’m going to have to create a new category for all these rants I’ve engaged in recently. How about soapbox or bully pulpit, or simply foaming at the mouth?

Advertisements