Hot pants
It all makes a sick kind of sense.
Jeffrey Epstein reportedly told women and young girls that he was a modeling scout for Victoria’s Secret. The financier never worked for the lingerie retailer, or even, technically, for its parent company, L Brands. But he had a close relationship with the head of L Brands, Leslie Wexner, assuming an unusual degree of control over Wexner’s assets and personal life, according to reporting by The New York Times. Epstein seems to have exploited his proximity to Victoria’s Secret to facilitate his alleged crimes. According to Alicia Arden, a model and actress, this was Epstein’s ruse when he lured her to a Santa Monica hotel room and assaulted her in 1997. When Maria Farmer, who worked the door at Epstein’s New York mansion, asked why so many young girls were going in and out of his home, she says she was told that they were auditioning to be models for the lingerie brand.
It’s the sexism from both directions thing.
Girls and women are bombarded with messages telling them they have to be hot and gorgeous and fuckworthy, and that they’re contemptible and disgusting if they’re not.
They’re also subject to assault for being hot and gorgeous and fuckworthy as well as for not being hot and gorgeous and fuckworthy.
It totally makes sense that a prolific rapist and trafficker would use catch me-fuck me underwear modeling as a lure for the young humans caught in this stupid trap.
L Brands executives were reportedly made aware, in the mid-1990s, that Epstein was posing as a modeling recruiter for the company. Although they alerted Wexner, he seems to have taken no action. His relationship with Epstein endured, and in 1998 Wexner let Epstein take possession of his palatial mansion on East 71st Street in Manhattan where much of Epstein’s abuse is said to have taken place. Even after Wexner severed ties with Epstein, Victoria’s Secret continued to work with MC2 Model Management, an agency whose owner, Jean-Luc Brunel, has been accused of operating a sex-trafficking operation for wealthy men, Epstein among them. Models from MC2 walked in the brand’s televised fashion show as recently as 2015.
It’s all basically the same thing – an industry based on shaping female humans into fuck toys, and people connected to and raping the products of that industry.
It’s always been about the male fantasy.
Founded in 1977 by a California man named Roy Raymond, Victoria’s Secret was initially imagined as a haven for straight men, something more titillating than the mainstream department-store offerings but less salacious and fringe than sex shops. Raymond told Newsweek in 1981 that he started Victoria’s Secret after having a bad experience in the lingerie section of a department store. The offerings weren’t sexy enough, and the saleswomen seemed uncomfortable with his presence. He wanted to make a place where men could buy provocative, elaborate sexual garments for their wives or girlfriends, and he opened the first store with the help of a $40,000 loan from his relatives.
Men are weird. “Sexual garments” for god’s sake. Somebody should come up with a line of sexy oven mitts; it makes just as much sense.
To make the store more appealing to women, Raymond invented “Victoria,” an imaginary British woman whom he cast as the owner of the company. In the early days, the mail-order catalog featured letters to customers from Victoria, written in the first person. Raymond chose the name of the boutique and its titular owner from the Victorian era, and modeled the store interiors after 19th-century British brothels. It’s unclear exactly what the “secret” was meant to be: Maybe that “Victoria” had sex, or maybe just that she wore underwear.
I’ve had a few laughs over the years wondering what the secret might be. “Ooooh I have a vagina.” “Oooooh I’m naked under these naughty knickers.” “Ooooh I sit down to pee.”
When The Limited took over the brand, the new chief continued the theme. “Women get a little pip, a little perk out of,” wearing lingerie, Howard Gross told Faludi. Gross, who was the president of Victoria’s Secret from 1985 to 1991, went on to narrate what he imagined to be the inner monologue of a woman wearing Victoria’s Secret garments. “It’s like, ‘Here I am at this very serious business meeting and they really don’t know that I’m wearing a garter belt!’”
laughs hysterically
Yeah no guys that’s you, that’s not us. We’re at that very serious business meeting wishing Bill from Accounting would quit staring at our tits.
What does Victoria’s Secret think about women? It doesn’t think of them very much at all—instead, the company speculates about what men want women to be, and then sells that. The result is a bleak vision of heterosexuality, one in which desire is a one-way street running from male to female, in which all women merely want to be wanted by men, and all men want the same thing from women, namely some combination of malnourishment and silence. It’s a vision of sex in which women are not participants or collaborators or subjects with desires or agendas of their own, but something more like ornaments.
So it’s no wonder that Epstein was into it.
[W]e are kidding ourselves if we do not concede that images like those put forward by Victoria’s Secret enable sexual violence like that which Epstein is accused of. Images of women and girls as thoughtless and hypersexual have contributed to a culture of sexual abuse and impunity, a culture in which men feel entitled to treat the women they desire the way those women have always been depicted: as objects.
If we believe in the power of words and images to shape our minds and our lives, then we must also believe in the power of advertising, the power of the assumptions and messages of that advertising, to inform our behaviors. Although the Victoria’s Secret marketing strategy is not, again, a moral equivalent to the rape and abuse of women and girls, this does not mean that we must ignore the plain reality that the two things partake of the same logic: a logic in which women’s inner lives don’t matter, or in which they are at least much less important than men’s sexual gratification. We don’t know what Epstein thought of the girls he abused, but he perhaps thought of them more or less the way Victoria’s Secret assumed men did.
Since I’m writing a blog post and not a piece for the Atlantic, I don’t feel any need to point out that Victoria’s Secret’s marketing strategy is not a moral equivalent to the rape and abuse of women and girls, because duh, so I can just get on with saying both are part of the same hideous, creepy, mistaken, sinister view of women as mindless lumps attached to valuable genitalia.
I suspect that for men who think like this it isn’t so much that women’s inner lives don’t matter as that they don’t think women have any inner lives, or at least any inner lives other than pleasing men.
I’ve long ago realized that most people don’t think middle aged women have any sort of rich life, inner or outer. Long before that, I was aware that most people don’t seem to think young women, especially young sexy women, have any real inner life.
It’s all animated by the same thing. This, autogynephilia, the lot of it. Sick, self-contained fantasies forcibly projected onto women by men who have no theory of mind for the female sex and don’t care to.
This is pretty goddamn suspicious. Blackmail material, or shared vision of women?
Maybe both?
(It think the “secret” is just that she’s wearing sexy underwear under her clothes.)
The whole Epstein story reminds me a friend of my sister’s. When she was 16 she excitedly told my sister she was offered this big-money modeling job. My sister asked what kind of modeling, and she told her it was private lingerie modeling: A man looking to buy lingerie for for their wives or girlfriends would sit in a private room, and she’d go off to a changing room, put it on, then come in and model it for them so they could see what it looked like.
My sister was like, yeah, this sounds like a really, really bad idea that could go south quickly, and she eventually talked her friend out of pursuing it. I’m sure this sure “job” would have led lead to a lot of weird encounters, offers of money to do extra things, etc. Or worse.
Eh, it doesn’t take much for something to be sexy. I don’t know about oven mitts, but other kitchen wear can be fairly titillating. Aprons, for instance, fill all the aesthetic criteria in terms of what’s revealed, hidden, and hinted at or nearly revealed.
Your sister did a good thing there, Skeletor. Round of applause. (The “or worse” sounds highly likely.)
If you’ve been following the Epstein story, you’ve probably heard mention of John Brockman, the literary agent who helped Epstein cultivate many of his famous scientific friends. A Brockman client writes this account in The New Republic of Brockman and his networking efforts.
The whole thing is not very long and worth your time, but I’ll highlight a few things I found especially interesting.
Shorter version: smart people wanna be rich (or get a taste of that life), rich people wanna (be told they’re) smart. Explains how people like Dershowitz learned that it was in their interest to gush over how brilliant and insightful Epstein supposedly was. Not that this is a terribly novel insight; it’s just interesting to see it play out at this level.
The author (Evgeny Morozov) recounts an email exchange from 2013 where Brockman had apparently passed along EM’s info to Epstein. Brockman explained:
Note the name-dropping, the references to wealth, and the mentions of the “beautiful young assistant from Belarus” and the “well-dressed Russian” foot masseuses.” Brockman is clearly laying out the bait for EM. (He discloses that Epstein “got into trouble” in Florida but is vague about how.)
EM writes back that “I have zero interest in meeting billionaires” and that’s why he doesn’t bother going to the Davos conference. The response from Brockman:
Note the lie about owning Victoria’s Secret. But Brockman’s subtext is clear: ok, the money doesn’t interest you, but did I mention THE WOMEN? (And notice how quickly Brockman goes from pushing the “this billionaire is really smart and fascinating” to “yeah, I totally agree with you that billionaires are dull”? I recognize that move. That’s the old “oh, of course *I* don’t actually think that racist/sexist/homophobic joke was funny, either” ploy.
EM responds: ““A billionaire who owns Victoria’s Secret plus a modelling agency” –> one more reason to stay away actually.” After which Brockman apparently gives up.
You can see how the process works: dangle the bait, and see who perks up and who shrugs. Shruggers like EM, or someone like Pinker who wouldn’t play ball and praise Epstein’s intellect, get culled from the network. People like Lawrence Krauss get invites. I expect that there are circles within circles — some people probably just came to the dinners with fellow intellectuals, while a subgroup got invited to the parties with the young women