Category Archives: hell (other people)

Skarlet and the Bunny go to the Mall, wherein they find much ado about nothing

[ed note: like everything prior to 2006 on this site, this one dates back to punkprincess.com, as you probably guessed from the title. Quoted articles are from the Washington Post but I’m having trouble finding the links again. The post goes on an excessive length because a linkback from washingtonpost.com had provoked an exciting series of exchanges between readers in the comments – sadly now lost]

Victoria’s Secret renovated their storefronts and placed provocative mannequins in the windows. Outrage ensued and a protest, boycott and picketline were announced for the day. This made the Bunny and I….really want to go shopping.

So today the Bunny and I spent 5 hours at Tyson’s Corner Mall, without a single incident. Actually, that’s not entirely true.

Our plan was to meet for coffee before the mall opened, scope out Victoria’s Secret and then prowl the mall. When I first arrived a woman in the parking lot asked me, “What time do you open?”

Having sex on the brain, I couldn’t quite grasp the meaning of her question. It seemed rather presumptuous. I stared at her for a moment and then asked for clarification. Turns out, she wasn’t propositioning me at all. She thought I was a MAC cosmetics counter girl and she wanted to know what time the store opened. It was odd. Odder still, since there isn’t a MAC at Tyson’s.

At any rate, we wandered the whole mall and saw many, many luridly dressed mannequins in “suggestive” poses. No one seemed to have a problem with any of those. Not even the ones at the stores specifically targeted at teen and pre-teen girls. Not even at the department store (was it Nordie’s or Lord and Taylor?) where the lingerie section and children’s sections were 3 feet apart (I measured while the Bunny took photos of the mannequin in the thigh-highs and thong thrusting her hips at the children’s mannequins across the aisle).

The window displays of teen/preteen-oriented retailers like Wet Seal (all g-strings on sale!) or Delias (nothing sexual about preteen lowrider jeans with the crotch bleached out!) may not be displayed in a manner that mimics the suburban ideal of a sex shop, but they’re not selling little girls images of ice cream and puppies.

The forbidden is appealling and sex sells. In the case of Victoria’s Secret – sex and a little safe controversy? That’s just got to just be a shareholders (wet) dream.

So far there’s been only a marginal stockprice increase today, and I doubt that’s about this one isolated incident. Limited sales overall are down 2% from last year at this time (even excluding the stores impacted by the hurricanes). If they can fan the flames of this a bit by taking the controversy nationwide, maybe get a boycott going in time for the Christmas shopping season, they could turn things around in no time.

At least for the Tyson’s store, a shot of cheap loud publicity has worked in the short term. There was a long line (52 people when I counted, again while the Bunny took pics) behind a velvet rope of shoppers anxious to enter the store. There was one protestor that I saw. She was holding an index card sized sign that read, Smut Peddlars.

Smut peddlars? They sell underwear. Just like the store directly across the hall from them, Gap Body. And just like at least 2 dozen other stores in that same mall. Abercrombie and Fitch, which has been targeted for years for selling thongs for pre-teens, is also right across the hall – next door to Baby Gap.

Since the initial fracas, the mannequins at VS have now been reposed, but the window displays themselves are not contextually especially racy. The interpretation of the clean, minimalistic, windows at VS as anything like a redlight district is truly in the eye of very imaginative beholders.

The store itself isn’t really even very eyecatching. Had there not been such a crowd they needed a security guard, it would have blended in with the rest of the stores. The store is actually in an area of the mall with a narrow hallway, since the center of that hall is open-air (a railed off opening looking downstairs). Across from the store and on the other side of that opening, the store isn’t really that noticeable. In the bright lights of the mall, the neon isn’t all that eye-catching.

Yes, the windows look more Fredericks than “traditional” Victoria’s Secret – but why isn’t there an outcry about the racy window displays in the Pentagon City Frederick’s store? It’s been there forever and those windows are clearly visible from their prominent corner location and often feature mannequins in highly suggestive poses. The problem at Tyson’s seems to be that they hit a nerve – negative attitudes about the suggestion of girl-girl action with no male participant or viewer as presented in the original displays. Remember, lesbian sex for male voyeuristic pleasure is good.

Lesbians running loose on their own are bad, bad, bad.

Write that down, it will be on the quiz.

As we wandered the mall I made the Bunny stop and eavesdrop on the most promising debate I overheard but the women expressing their outrage were refusing to even go see the windows. Their minds were made up. It turned out to be a boring conversation so we moved on. They’d been told that the window displays heralded the end of civilization and that was good enough for them.

The “what about the children!” hysteria, whether concious or not, sounds mor like a cover. If it offends you personally, say so. Hiding behind “the children” is ridiculous. If they’re too young to be out on their own, then you control where they go and what they see. Those windows only become “dirty” to children when someone tells them they are. You don’t have to take psychology to figure that out. What’s the surest way to spark a child’s interest in something? Tell them it’s bad or wrong or evil and make a production over it. Come to think of it, this is the best way to spread hysteria among adults, to boot. There must be a hundred things a day that society pours into your child’s brain that are confusing or strange to their little minds. And what you tell them how you react, makes much more of an impression than the initial object or image.

If they’re old enough to be at the mall on their own, well, then there’s nothing at the mall they haven’t seen on network TV.

Still don’t like it? Vote with your dollars. Take your business elsewhere. Ban your children from the property. It’s a mall, not the (direct) product of your tax dollars. Hell, if you want to make a ruckus, knock yourselves out, but don’t claim to speak for everyone. Be honest, admit that you personally are offended, that’s your right. Just like it’s my right not to be offended.

Can you imagine what great publicity huge protests would be? The Victoria’s Secret image was getting a bit stodgy and dull. The “fashion show?” A bit of a non-issue these days. The catalog? Costing them a fortune to print and not really boosting their sales much, apparently. A boycott would be a real shot in the arm. Make the place hip and sexy and (safely) transgressive again. You can’t buy rebranding like that. A boycott would be akin to the RIAA slapping warning labels on record albums – which made any album with a parental warning sticker automatically better in the eyes of your average kid.

The show’s over folks.

Time for everyone to go find a new way to teach their kids that female sexuality is bad.

That is, when all is said and done, what’s at stake here: an image of women’s sexuality that is threatening to the straight and narrow. Unless you’re threatened by women, insecure about your own sexuality, or think women are by nature dirty there’s not a lot left to say.

I am not defending the Limited. In fact, I think that the warped body images the Victoria’s Secret catalog pushes are, well, warped and unhealthy. It pains me to defend this company in any way shape or form. But think about it – it’s interesting that when they present women as fluffy pink sex kittens or angels clearly meant for male pleasure it’s a-okay. But make the mannequins lifelike and, quite frankly, powerful and aggressive looking, and it’s suddenly a problem. The problem isn’t the company’s, it’s the viewers.

Tyson’s boosted their traffic (and branded themselves as being highly moral and sensitive to the public), Victoria’s Secret gets tons of free advertising, and capitalism trundled forward. Everybody wins.

I can’t believe I’m defending Victoria’s Secret’s image of women, gender, and sexuality.

The world has turned inside out and the apocalypse is certainly nigh.

I need a drink.

more reasons to be concerned about dog people

Dogs are wonderful. I love dogs. It’s their owners I worry about. Neuticles and
doggles and jog a dogs, what more could your dog need?

Maybe your dog needs a vintage mink sleigh bed.

Our neighborhood has the requisite barkery to ensure the local pooches get fresh and organic treats, which is apparently very important to animals who consider catpoop a delicacy.

Del Ray’s yappy hour is only a few years old, but the one at the Holiday Inn in Old Town has been going on twice a week for years (decades, I’m told, but have never verified this).

holiday cheer

Sometime in the not-so-distant past someone made a snide and off-handed remark about how easy and boring my job must be and then went on to ask how I could keep from becoming brain-dead after so long working in a library, going so far as to suggest that librarian’s salaries are a waste of tax dollars.

I have a fun job and a great boss. Some parts of it can be very tedious, but it’s never the same two days in a row. It also requires critical thinking, diplomacy, and social skills – it’s not mindlessly sitting at a desk staring into space or reading a book all day. I’ve had the job for ten years now and there’s always something new to learn. Could I do with fewer meetings? Sure, who couldn’t?

I kept trying to say as much, but the person said, “Yeah, right,” in a really snide way each time. I don’t like the person so I blew it off, but it pissed me off all over again this morning when a coworker was talking about her intense dread over going home for the holidays because her family is incredibly shallow and only values money, brand names, consumer goods. A group of us tried to cheer her up, pointing out how their constant sneering at her job and inability to form opinions on other people based on anything other than the brands they wear is a pretty pathetic form of arrested development and she should view her time with them as an important cautionary tale, or maybe a reminder of why she lives far away.

But I’m about to digress into a generalized tirade about rude, materialistic and judgmental people, when the original post was supposed to be about, oh, wait, rude, materialistic and judgmental people.

So yeah, I get it that there are people who don’t respect the choices of anyone other than themselves. They don’t understand I have actual responsibilities and a staff to supervise. I have a lot of flexibility – but I also have to work early, late and on weekends. I got 2 free college degrees courtesy of this job and I have no student loan debt. I get loads of vacation and I can have lunch or coffee with Husband every single day if I want to. I work with some annoying people, but I also work with some of the greatest people in the world.

Plus, my office is cold and dark, except when it’s really hot. Wait, why is that a good thing? I don’t think it is so I better quit while I’m ahead.

What I’m saying is, happy holidays and don’t let your family drive you insane. Instead of taking the bait, try this: paste a Mona Lisa smile on your face and just stare intently at them no matter what they say to you.

Reply, “How very interesting,” or “How so?” whenever a response seems to be required. Repeated often enough, these phrases will eventually fill them with self-doubt and discomfort and hopefully they’ll go annoy someone else.

You could also get a jump-start on the New Year’s Resolutionaries at the gym and go burn off that aggression in a way that won’t land you in jail.

Alternately, you could end every sentence with, “…as it is written” while carrying around a copy of Dianetics or some other such tome that spooks your family.

Any one of these approaches should buy you peace and quiet in no time.

Merry Christmas!

Lifestyles of the Rich and Stupid

This post is part of the corrupted archives restoration and includes the old comments as text at the bottom of the post. Sorry if this is confusing.

What’s that? You’re still using Johnson and Johnson products on your baby? You must really suck or something. I don’t think we can be friends anymore.

After reading a recent article in the Washington Post I’ve seen the error of my ways and will never put such banal products in shower baskets for my new-mommy friends ever again.

“Going Goo-Ga for Kiddie Chic: The New Baby Brand Names: Bulgari, Burberry, Bobbi Brown” explains the rapidly expanding market in chic skincare products for infants.

I think this was my favorite part:

Burberry released its Baby Touch perfume, costing $24 to $38, this year, part of a full baby line, said a New York-based spokeswoman. The company declined to comment on sales projections, but industry sources have forecast $9 million to $17 million in worldwide sales for the first year.
Another firm, Swiss-based Laboratoires Valmont, plans to introduce its four-year-old baby line, Soin de Fee, in the United States next month. The five-item line, which includes $30 Anti Stress Serum and $43 Baby Cream, will be sold in a limited number of spas and salons, said spokeswoman Charlotte Coutrot.

Anti-stress serum? What in the hell does a baby need a 30 dollar anti-stress serum for? I thought we had that covered. I was operating under the silly impression that mushy food, clean diapers, and the act of bobbing around the house making idiotic cooing sounds while contorting your face into equally idiotic expressions were the primary ingerdients in the anti-stress arsenal for your average baby. Clearly, I was mistaken. For starters, I forgot that the babies of the wealthy and foolish are never, ever average.

(newsflash: no matter how well-off you are, your baby still looks like Winston Churchill. Deal with it)

And what need, may I ask, does a baby have for 38 dollars/ounce baby perfume? Babies are supposed to smell like babies, are they not? I guess when you forgo the usual baby-type products for lilac-scented wrinkle creams (hint: babies are naturally wrinkly, they grow out of it) you have to buy special baby-scent so your baby will smell like a baby?

I could take this to it’s logical conclusion by asking if Calvin Klein is working on a special fragrance line called “oatmeal” or “poopy diaper” but I’ll show some self-restraint.

Incidentally, I’ve seen several of these 300 dollar Kate Spade baby bags. (matching stroller only $350 more).After a few weeks they look just as ratty as the 20 dollar ones from Target. It’s probably wrong of me to be amused by this, but it’s probably also wrong to use your child as a fashion accessory. But there again, what do I know?

Posted by skarlet at October 7, 2002 06:00 PM | TrackBack
Comments
I take issue only with the thought that a newborn resembles Winston; I’ve never seen a baby with a cigar.

Posted by: Linkmeister at October 7, 2002 07:24 PM
Sent the link on to Max’s parents. ;)

Posted by: Faith at October 7, 2002 10:45 PM
My son’s feet stink. I just always spray a bit of Acqua Di Gio on them before we head out.

I’m kidding.

Posted by: melly at October 7, 2002 10:58 PM
my son’s feet have smelled really bad since he was just a tiny guy. my daughter was forever sniffing his toesies and saying, they smell like vinegar!

and they did. and that’s ok.

i kinda feel sorry for the designer babies.

Posted by: kd at October 7, 2002 11:32 PM
According to my father, I looked like Edward G. Robinson, not Winston Churchill, when I popped outta the womb. Gee. Thanks, Dad. :P

And what? I still use Johnson and Johnson products for ME. Baby shampoo is the BEST for getting your eye makeup off — washes it all off, and…’no more tears’! Yay!

Maybe the anti-stress serum is actually for them moms? Eek.

Posted by: Jen at October 8, 2002 11:14 AM
Well then Faith you did this to yourself. *giggle* No more quick and cheap baby gifts from Old Navy, you’re going to have to hit the Burberry counter from now on. Don’t come complaining to me! ;)

Posted by: skarlet at October 8, 2002 11:32 AM
$300 baby bags?
Damn. I’m not going to be able to wrap my brain around this concept…
But that was a great article. I can’t wait to see how many of these products they’re still selling in a year…

Posted by: batgrl at October 8, 2002 01:41 PM
$300 baby bags?
Damn. I’m not going to be able to wrap my brain around this concept…
But that was a great article. I can’t wait to see how many of these products they’re still selling in a year…

Posted by: batgrl at October 8, 2002 01:41 PM
Oops…

Posted by: batgrl at October 8, 2002 01:42 PM
I admit that I wouldn’t buy a $300 baby bag. But my sister has two Kate Spade ones and has been making noises about the Burberry one for the past two years.

Of course, she gets all her KS at a deep discount (75% off), so there’s no money thing there. She is a bit of a label whore, though.

The perfume is just as sad as the pet perfume. Some things just don’t go together. I still haven’t read that article, btw, but I did set it aside to send to my sister last week. ggl.

Posted by: bunny at October 9, 2002 06:23 AM
Hello Bunny. And how does your sister get 75% off KS goods? Hmmmm? Sweetie? Darling? Hannukah is approaching and I’m nearly hysterical coming up with an appropriate mother-in-law gift. The DVD sets of the Sopranos are just not coming out fast enough, damnit.

Posted by: skarlet at October 9, 2002 12:41 PM
Bunny’ darling, pet perfume can be a very good thing. Especially when your dog’s new nickname has become Stink Bomb.

Posted by: Faith at October 9, 2002 08:35 PM

t'is not true

It has come to our attention here at Punk Princess Headquarters that you, our beloved readers, are under the impression that we profoundly dislike children. Neigh, dear reader, this is not the case at all.

We love children.

Even spoiled Yuppie children.

It’s their parents we profoundly dislike.
—–