Tuesday, April 7, 2015

Lane Bryant Joins The 'Let's Rewire Men' Craze

By Chris Rossini

If you're not hating males in this day and age, you're apparently not living. Clothing retailer Lane Bryant is looking to cash-in on the trend.

Mashable reports:
Lane Bryant is redefining what "sexy" means, and it doesn't involve angel wings.
The "angel wings" reference is a jab at Victoria's Secret, a company that has identified what men desire to see at scale. In other words, Victoria's Secret wants to sell as much lingerie as they possibly can, so in order to do so, they first have to identify what the market desires most.

They've done it:

Lane Bryant (which sells plus-size lingerie) has an issue with this. They want to "redefine" what "sexy" is.

But there's a problem with that Galbraithian approach. Victoria's Secret didn't "define" it. There is no single definition for what a person finds as "sexy". It's in the eye of the beholder.

However, Victoria's Secret did find out what the mass market of men (and evidently women) think of as "sexy" and consistently supply lingerie at a profit to them.

Lane Bryant prefers Galbraith, so they're going to "redefine" it with their own ad:

Mashable says (and pay attention to the wording):
Lane Bryant's size-positive ad isn't just meant to sell its product; it's part of a much larger debate.
First of all, the words "size-positive" are right out of the progressive lexicon. That's thought-controller lingo.

But what is this "much larger debate" that they speak of? Could it be that the thought-controllers have a problem with people freely choosing what they think of as sexy? You bet they do!
The Lane Bryant #IMNOANGEL initiative celebrates women of all shapes and sizes by redefining society’s traditional notion of sexy with a powerful core message: ALL women are sexy.

I don't think "all" women are sexy. If I did, the word "sexy" would lose its meaning. If someone is "sexy" to me, it also means that someone else is "not sexy" to me.

The progressive thought-controllers have a real problem with me. I choose on my own volition. I discriminate between what I think is sexy and what is not. One of the reasons that I married the woman that I did was because she's sexy to me. Other women were not.

This Lane Bryant nonsense is just one more notch in the thought-controller belt. In the new non-thinking world that these people believe they're creating, you're to be shamed for showing any type of discrimination that isn't approved by them.


  1. Seems whenever people try to go against people's nature, such as in this case where they're trying to convince men that what they think is not sexy actually is by posting pictures of a bunch of fat chicks in granny panties, they inevitably fail. Which is why they so often cross over into the immoral realm of utilizing government to force their subjective opinions on others. For example, France and banning super skinny models and airbrushing photos to make hide imperfections because they believe magazines that do that give teenage girls anorexia.

  2. Chris - I have to disagree with you here. This is not PC - it's great marketing. There are probably more fat ugly chicks buying lingerie than hot ones, and a lot of them have given up on trying to be Victoria's secret models. Sell them something different - that they are sexy in their own right, and you move product. This is the free market at work, not prog-thought.

    Now, it's totally not sexy, from a man's opinion. But say your wife is fat and ugly - better for her to try, and to think she's sort of sexy than be depressed about it and just keep getting fatter Nd uglier.

    1. I agree with you here, RM. Until Lane Bryant starts a campaign to legislate clothing model diversity (or whatever progressive term would apply), then this is just a smart marketing strategy. Not everyone loves the standard model body shape. Attractive women come in all sizes and shapes.

      What Ryan calls " a bunch of fat chicks in granny panties", their admirers would call a group of sexy girls. Lane Bryant is doing what it's directors think will please its target customer base. There's nothing wrong there, since the company produces clothing for women who don't fit the standard model body style.

  3. Of course I have no problem with the free market aspect of the ad. They are trying to sell their own product. However, they are piling onto the rewire men movement as the article states:

    Lane Bryant's size-positive ad **isn't just meant to sell its product** it's part of a much larger debate.

    1. Chris, it's entirely possible that this ad campaign by LB is solely a move aimed towards its customers, who happen to be plus sized women. if you see it as being "part of a much larger debate", maybe you see lingerie ads as porn for men rather than inducements to buy aimed at the company's customer base.

  4. Rewiring men cannot be done, because they've been shaped by 4 million years of natural selection, which is all-powerful. Lane Bryant will fail in its challenge to Darwin.