Victoria's Secret Doesn't Want To Be Associated With A Campaign About Respecting Women, Issues Takedown

from the no-respect dept

Wed, Dec 19th 2012 1:57pm — Mike Masnick

The EFF has a post up about how Victoria's Secret sent a legal nastygram to an ISP taking down a parody campaign by an anti-rape organization, FORCE, called Pink Loves Consent. The campaign was a parody designed to raise awareness of these issues, by mocking Victoria's Secret's "PINK" line of clothing, that includes underwear that says things like "sure thing" and "unwrap me." The parody campaign replaced those with things like "ask first" and "respect." The page showed what Victoria's Secret could have done to put forth a more positive, more respectful message... and the company's response was to go straight to the hosting company and demand the site be taken down (which it was, though they found a new host who was willing to put it back up). Parody is a key element of free speech -- and issuing a takedown over this seems like a pretty clear attempt to stifle free speech. And, really, it just makes Victoria's Secret look really, really obnoxious. Were its lawyers really so offended by positive messages, rather than pure sexual objectification?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: lingerie, parody, respect, speech, threats, trademark, underwear

58 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Manfred Manfriend, 19 Dec 2012 @ 2:17pm

Can you blame them?
Feminism is pretty toxic stuff theses days! Just look at all the women who've been coming out saying that they are not feminists and do not wish to be associated with feminism! When you've got Katy Perry, Taylor Swift, etc all disassociating themselves from such a movement it becomes the last thing you want your brand associated with...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The dude, 19 Dec 2012 @ 3:00pm
  
  Re: Can you blame them?
  Why do you hate women so much?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The dude, 19 Dec 2012 @ 3:01pm
    
    Re: Re: Can you blame them?
    Bloody system eliminated /feminist logic tag
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - monkyyy, 19 Dec 2012 @ 9:48pm
    
    Re: Re: Can you blame them?
    we love them so much that we cant stop staring :3
    
    anyway, insisting people to ignore what undeniably different(directly related with sex) makes ur credibly suffer on what has minor differences during pre-birth development and puberty but havnt been proven to be different at any other stage(brains, personally, math, etc.) that can be blamed on lingering cultural effects
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2012 @ 6:15pm
  
  Re: Can you blame them?
  Well, that's proof right there that feminism is out of control ... two famous type people supposedly do not want to be associated with it - according to some poster on the internet anyways. Back to the kitchen ladies .. and you had better stop yer backtalkin riight now bitch.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - JEDIDIAH, 20 Dec 2012 @ 10:17am
    
    Re: Re: Can you blame them?
    So called feminists are no less interested in bossing you around. You're just trading one master for another. Both want to control your body, restrict what you do, and control how you think.
    
    That's why some women with a backbone don't like "feminism" and are quite verbal about it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2012 @ 10:56am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Can you blame them?
      I've been seeing a lot of these type of straw feminists these days, who are white undergraduates in women studies, and spend too much time on tumblr 'fighting the patriarchy'. This anti-VS campaign appears to be from just such a group, who yell RAPE, OBJECTIFYING, TRIGGER WARNING!!!! at the single thought of a man near them or of a man even existing on the same planet as them. I'm not surprised Victoria Secret is taking a stance against them.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2012 @ 6:30pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Can you blame them?
      "You're just trading one master for another."
      
      I'm trading - who knew .... lol.
      
      "Both want to control your body, restrict what you do, and control how you think."
      
      Now you are describing the GOP, what a bunch of nuts - right?
      
      "That's why some women with a backbone don't like "feminism""
      
      ... and the rest are invertebrate degenerate slime - and they talk back n stuff, sheesh.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jesse (profile), 20 Dec 2012 @ 1:10am
  
  Re: Can you blame them?
  God damn women asking that men seek consent before sexual contact. So entitled.
  
  I'm with you Manfred. Women need to dissociate themselves from such a movement.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 20 Dec 2012 @ 9:23am
  
  Re: Can you blame them?
  Feminism is toxic? That's news to me. I suspect that you don't understand what "feminism" really is. Hint: it's not the feminist movement of decades past.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2012 @ 2:23pm

Feminists are responsible for the stacking of family courts against men.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2012 @ 6:17pm
  
  Re:
  Yup ... anyone who stacks the courts against men must be a feminazi - amirite Glenn Beck?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - monkyyy, 19 Dec 2012 @ 10:03pm
    
    Re: Re:
    actually yes, *anything* that changes the differentiation of male and female in ways that dont reflect reality, are in fact "feminazi" or the male equivalent
    
    note reality is seems to say one thing on this topic and one thing only, females only get to make 1 child at a time(men millions) and know for a fact whether or not its thiers; AND ALL FOLLOWING LOGICAL CONCLUSIONS FROM THIS(no matter how much the left likes to paint a marx's like family/sex life as healthy it isnt), but nothing more
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2012 @ 5:49am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Actually no, and not just because your comment is difficult to parse.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2012 @ 5:31am
    
    Re: Re:
    *Rush Limbaugh. I don't recall Beck ever using "feminazi"
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2012 @ 5:47am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yeah, but Beck has nazi tourettes.
      It was a toss up between the two.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2012 @ 2:28pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Beck is the guy who said, "I'm a loser, baby, so why don't you kill me?".
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 20 Dec 2012 @ 9:26am
  
  Re:
  To whatever extent that the courts are "stacked", it's more the fault of the men than the women. But I don't see any sign of bias against men for being men anyway.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Art, 19 Dec 2012 @ 2:33pm

Uh actually I'm pretty sure that VS was more upset that people were going into their stores and putting these "parody" underoos out on display next to their real products. I feel like that's an entirely fair grievance to make. The rest of the stuff about the website was secondary to that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2012 @ 6:19pm
  
  Re:
  If VS had put on their "thinking cap" maybe they would've come up with their own undies along the same line of thinking .... ahhh - nah, that would never work.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2012 @ 6:44pm
    
    Re: Re:
    kidding right?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2012 @ 5:51am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      In this case, one needs to think "outside the box".
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 20 Dec 2012 @ 9:29am
  
  Re:
  If that's their concern then they're taking the wrong approach completely. They should just keep an eye on their stores and kick those people out, instead.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2012 @ 2:38pm

Regardles what anyone writes on their underwear, if it isn't written in sequins or neon lights, it's not catching my eye.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 19 Dec 2012 @ 2:57pm

Victoria's Secret should just go ahead and feature Barbara Streisand in their next campaign.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PRMan, 19 Dec 2012 @ 3:02pm

Parody?
Parody that everyone knows is parody is fine. Representing yourself as the trademark-holder in a letter to the press is fraud, and EXACTLY what trademarks are designed to protect against.

The feminist group, while starting from a good place, absolutely is in the wrong here with the way they went about their message.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2012 @ 6:46pm
  
  Re: Parody?
  the first thing I thought when looking at that page was OMGHIDEOUSWTF, the second thing I thought was "wait, this is a victorias secret site? they have vic's logo at the top and all of vic's color schemes... this is no parody, and im an idiot in a hurry.
  
  the third thing I thought was OMGHIDEOUSWTF.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2012 @ 6:47pm
  
  Re: Parody?
  the first thing I thought when looking at that page was OMGHIDEOUSWTF, the second thing I thought was "wait, this is a victorias secret site? they have vic's logo at the top and all of vic's color schemes... this is no parody, and im an idiot in a hurry.
  
  the third thing I thought was OMGHIDEOUSWTF.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 20 Dec 2012 @ 2:53am
  
  Re: Parody?
  You, sir, are a moron. Even in the event they are LAWFULLY right there's a quite clear MORAL component here. Regardless of what anybody says the good course of action would be to get in touch with the creators and form a partnership to spread the word and consequently the brand.
  
  And yes it IS A DAMN PARODY. And it should clearly be fair use. One more reason the current copyright/trademark system is BROKEN.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2012 @ 5:55am
    
    Re: Re: Parody?
    Stuffed Shirt: But it's not parody if I don't like it!
    ... Proceeds to stomp out of the room throwing his toys.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2012 @ 1:00am
    
    Re: Re: Parody?
    I don't think it's immoral to refuse dialogue with a group who just implied you promote rape by selling underwear with stuff written on it (which women voluntarily buy, I might add).
    
    See this is exactly the problem with feminism these days: they want to control what women want and do. Thousands of women will buy these underwear and not feel objectified (or maybe they like being objectified). Either way, women who want to buy these underwear should have the choice to buy them.
    
    But the group behind this 'parody' thinks they should get to make decisions for every women. They give themselves the moral right to condemn the decisions of women who buy these underwear, and they try to make production and sale of these underwear stop completely. On top of that, to do this, they'll argue the underwear somehow promote rape.
    
    And yet you think they have the moral high ground because VS sent lawyers at them?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Varsil (profile), 19 Dec 2012 @ 3:15pm

Well...
As others have noted, the campaign was holding out that these products were actual Victoria's Secret products, which is indeed trademark infringement and buys them into controversy they probably don't want. I think they're hoping they can extricate themselves from the thing gracefully, which is likely a tactical error.

That said, I can see why they don't carry said products. They're in the business of sexy clothing. I can think of many, many things sexier than having a woman slowly peel off her clothing to reveal "NO MEANS NO". At that point I think I'd say "No" and go play some video games instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2012 @ 6:22pm
  
  Re: Well...
  Yeah - uh huh
  
  Your hot pockets are ready dear, come on upstairs and get them while their hot.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 20 Dec 2012 @ 2:55am
  
  Re: Well...
  Considering it is a parody and that I don't think there will be underwear produced with those sayings... Your point?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 20 Dec 2012 @ 9:32am
  
  Re: Well...
  I can think of many, many things sexier than having a woman slowly peel off her clothing to reveal "NO MEANS NO".
  
  Right, because nothing is less sexy than a woman saying "yes" by removing her clothing, particularly if she has no problem saying "no".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - JEDIDIAH, 20 Dec 2012 @ 10:21am
    
    Re: Re: Well...
    No. That's a clear and obvious mixed message and you are better off not going anywhere near that in the current political climate. You are likely to get crucified.
    
    It's an obvious corollary of "no means no".
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 20 Dec 2012 @ 11:42am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Well...
      If a woman is taking her clothes of for me, and reveals a "no means no" message on her undergarments, there is no mixed message. No still means no, and she hasn't said "no".
      
      However, the contrast between the message and it being on clothing I would only see if she says "yes" is what makes it funny. And funny is sexy, too.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2012 @ 6:37pm
  
  Re: Well...
  "slowly peel off her clothing to reveal "NO MEANS NO""
  
  I can imagine the female thought process as you reveal your superman undies.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2012 @ 5:59pm

I only know two women who do not take compliments well one is my mothers Marxist friend and the other was my ex wife.
I'm with VS on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2012 @ 7:02pm
  
  Re:
  If by compliment, you mean "Hey - nice rack!"
  then maybe they have a point.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - monkyyy, 19 Dec 2012 @ 10:32pm
    
    Re: Re:
    people really need to read marx, IF u read his opinion on sex the "Hey - nice rack!" would be perfectly fine for any of his followers; because quite literally he believes sex should be w/o any sort of responsibility and in super happy paradise land, single mothers would be the norm because the state would have free daycare and this would not bring over population or terrible childhoods but would somehow help the cause by getting them into state schools even sooner
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2012 @ 6:00am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Hey buddy, marxist bullshit is down the hall to your left
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 20 Dec 2012 @ 9:35am
  
  Re:
  I call bullshit. There probably aren't more than a couple hundred Marxists in the US today. Odds are very good that your mother's friend isn't one. She might be a liberal, but liberal does not equal Marxist.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2012 @ 7:21pm

They don't like it because Victoria's Secret is about objectifying women.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- monkyyy, 19 Dec 2012 @ 10:37pm
  
  Re:
  *sex
  
  why does everything sex related suddenly sexist
  why doesnt axe with their idiotic ads get this, because they show teenage boys as its a product for teenage boys? how isnt that sexists?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ninja (profile), 20 Dec 2012 @ 2:59am
    
    Re: Re:
    A million times that.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 20 Dec 2012 @ 9:36am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      A million times your million times.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- lfroen (profile), 19 Dec 2012 @ 11:13pm
  
  Re:
  WTF is "objectifying"? Is this a thing?
  I thought they sell women's underwear. Since commercials of products usually include use of those products, one must think that commercials of women's underwear will include some women and some underwear.
  It's not like Ford put girl in bikini in car expo. Minor difference, you know.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Amy Krueger (profile), 20 Dec 2012 @ 12:55am

my husband came back after 3 days of using prophetharry love spell
For 3 months now my husband has been going crazy over my past. Before I was married to him I did some things in my past and I was totally honest with him about it. After we got married that's when it started bothering him. He hit me once because of his anger and has said a lot of mean things to me that i could not stand. Sometimes he will be fine and then another moment he will be mad at me and look at me with disgust.there nothing i can do to help him or anything i can suggest to help myself because i fear for our marriage and my safety, so one day he went out and never came back after 2 weeks he called, telling me that he is no longer coming back home that he wants to look for another lady to marry over where he is, after his call, i broke down in tear, i was heart broken, i was confused, i went into search for help and at the final stage of my search i came across propheharry@ymail.com a wonderful man that has helped many people to save there relationship so when i told him my problem, i was surprise that it took him only 3 days to solve my problem and after that 3 days my husband returned home to me and for the past one week we have been living like husband and wife covered with love, everything is in peace now
Amy Krueger
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2012 @ 6:06am
  
  Re: my husband came back after 3 days of using prophetharry love spell
  Is this a hack-spam?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2012 @ 2:46am

'Were its lawyers really so offended by positive messages, rather than pure sexual objectification?'

probably the only way they manage to get off!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doug B (profile), 20 Dec 2012 @ 7:02am

Disrespectful?
Is it disrespectful to my wife for me to be lusting after her and want her to wear sexy underwear that says "unwrap me"? Is it disrespectful to herself to want to be viewed as sexy and want to wear underwear that tells me to unwrap her?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Buster, 20 Dec 2012 @ 8:58am

Re:
I get the point BUT you have to kind of get the pants off to SEE the message.
Besides, girls wear shirts that almost literally say the same, what's the difference on a piece of clothing you don't readibly see?

Regardless, I expect to see these in Spencers very soon. Oh the fun that will be had.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Deleet (profile), 20 Dec 2012 @ 6:37pm

Male shoppers
Presumably a lot of shoppers of VS products are males, and I imagine that being associated with feminism puts off male customers. I certainly try to avoid in any way supporting neofeminists. For one thing, I don't buy Carlsberg beers, since they women's quotas for the BoD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2012 @ 6:47pm
  
  Re: Male shoppers
  "Presumably a lot of shoppers of VS products are males,"
  
  Less than you think
  
  " I certainly try to avoid in any way supporting neofeminists"
  
  Good for you. You want a medal?
  
  " I don't buy Carlsberg beers"
  
  Who cares other than you?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The dude, 21 Dec 2012 @ 4:35am
    
    Re: Re: Male shoppers
    Obviously a holier than you asshole like you!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2012 @ 1:30pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Male shoppers
      Yup, obviously someone that calls bullshit is an asshole - guess I'd better just shutup because Bubba is mad 'n y'all doan want Bubba ta be mad.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hulu Ny (profile), 29 Dec 2019 @ 10:56pm

Companies Own Issues
If any company doesn't want to associate with any campaign then they have their own interest, why are we here just to make the news on trends...

https://www.huluny.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]