Blush lingerie. "We mean every."

[Collidascope]

www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2020/we-mean-every/

I think this sums it up pretty well.


"Behold: an advertisement:

I find it interesting because it’ssoin your face,soperverse (not perverted, mind, perverse), so nyah nyah. Saying “we mean every” about aconspicuouslymale male, with beard and hirsute chest and legs, decked out in dainty catch me-fuck me laydeez underwear. They’re not saying it about a man seriously trying to “dress as” a woman or to look like a woman or to convince anyone he’s a woman, they’re saying it about an unmistakable man with a “Fuck you, bitch” look on his face, dressed and posed like a prostitute.

It’s hard to unpick all the levels here. There’s the “you WILL agree that this is a woman” level, but there’s also the “haha obviously this is not a woman but we get to force you to say it is” levelandthe “if you don’t agree that he’s a woman he’ll kick you in the cunt, you cunt” level. There’s the “I will cut you” face coupled with the passivity of the clothes – it jars and it’s meant to jar and the whole point of the jarring is to taunt and threaten and insult and bully women.

And it is, apparently, from a company that makes “lingerie” – i.e. sexualized underwear for women.

There is also the level of “this is what makes someone a woman: wearing chase me-fuck me underwear and adopting a fuck me pose.” That’s all there is to being a woman: sexy underwear and passivity. It’ssodeterminative of being a woman that the hostile threatening male stare is overruled by the stockings.

There’s also the level of “women can’t possibly do this, women can’t not shave and not pluck and not paint and then pose in sexy underwear with hairy legs and a ‘fuck you’ stare, but men can” level. Women have to scrape their bodies clean of every trace of hair, even between their legs, and then draw lines where their eyebrows used to be, but men can just pull the stockings up over the wiry black hairs and then dare us to say a word."

[PuppyLove2000]

@Collidascope

www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2020/we-mean-every/

I think this sums it up pretty well.

"Behold: an advertisement:

I find it interesting because it’ssoin your face,soperverse (not perverted, mind, perverse), so nyah nyah. Saying “we mean every” about aconspicuouslymale male, with beard and hirsute chest and legs, decked out in dainty catch me-fuck me laydeez underwear. They’re not saying it about a man seriously trying to “dress as” a woman or to look like a woman or to convince anyone he’s a woman, they’re saying it about an unmistakable man with a “Fuck you, bitch” look on his face, dressed and posed like a prostitute.

It’s hard to unpick all the levels here. There’s the “you WILL agree that this is a woman” level, but there’s also the “haha obviously this is not a woman but we get to force you to say it is” levelandthe “if you don’t agree that he’s a woman he’ll kick you in the cunt, you cunt” level. There’s the “I will cut you” face coupled with the passivity of the clothes – it jars and it’s meant to jar and the whole point of the jarring is to taunt and threaten and insult and bully women.

And it is, apparently, from a company that makes “lingerie” – i.e. sexualized underwear for women.

There is also the level of “this is what makes someone a woman: wearing chase me-fuck me underwear and adopting a fuck me pose.” That’s all there is to being a woman: sexy underwear and passivity. It’ssodeterminative of being a woman that the hostile threatening male stare is overruled by the stockings.

There’s also the level of “women can’t possibly do this, women can’t not shave and not pluck and not paint and then pose in sexy underwear with hairy legs and a ‘fuck you’ stare, but men can” level. Women have to scrape their bodies clean of every trace of hair, even between their legs, and then draw lines where their eyebrows used to be, but men can just pull the stockings up over the wiry black hairs and then dare us to say a word."

"There’s also the level of “women can’t possibly do this, women can’t not shave and not pluck and not paint and then pose in sexy underwear with hairy legs and a ‘fuck you’ stare, but men can” level. Women have to scrape their bodies clean of every trace of hair, even between their legs, and then draw lines where their eyebrows used to be, but men can just pull the stockings up over the wiry black hairs and then dare us to say a word." - This says it all. Men can just turn up looking like men, stick on a pair of high heels, fondle their own legs and call themselves women. It's a disgrace.

[SirVixofVixHall]

Blush make very simple little bralette things suitable for teenage girls, my 13 and 15 year olds wear them . They must also make more obvious “lingerie” stuff but I imagine their customer base is young twenties and teens. Makes that poster even worse, won’t be buying from them again.

[TheProdigalKittensReturn]

Why can't they just say "we're happy to sell frilly overpriced lingerie to kinky men"? Truth in advertising and all that.

Certainly wouldn't make me buy, since anything designed to fit the individual in that photo is definitely not going to fit me.

[SirVixofVixHall]

Also has Titiana gone from twitter ?

[TheProdigalKittensReturn]

Please tell me the bastards didn't get Titania! Love him.

[Dreeple]

Titania McGrath is still on Twitter.

[Miriel]

It absolutely looks like a parody.

FFS a man who likes to wear lingerie is exactly that. A man. If a company wants to advertise to those men, go ahead, why not?

Calling those men women is both ridiculous and insulting. And nobody can claim to believe it unless they see 'woman' as a cipher, an empty space for men to define and delineate however they like.

[SirVixofVixHall]

I am sure it is not a joke. They are an American “cool” brand. They make women’s underwear. This is along the lines of Thinx and their “men have periods” bollocks.

[Deliriumoftheendless]

Tbh it’s nice to not see a woman in her pants plastered on a billboard.

“We’re just selling pants not objectifying women!”

I’m sure once it takes off all those people with bodies like this will be ok with their bodies being used in this way, won’t they? Won’t be uncomfortable or anything. Because they’ve told us for years we need to be cool with it.

[Deliriumoftheendless]

I of course mean a “woman who meets a certain kind of whitecishetwestern visual ideal”, certainly don’t want to imply the model isn’t a woman. Because of course I haven’t checked their pronouns so I have no actual idea.

[PasstheBucket89]

is this is about trans rights why did they not hire a transitioned MTF model 🤔??

[Bananabixfloof]

@PasstheBucket89

is this is about trans rights why did they not hire a transitioned MTF model 🤔??

Ah silly mistake you assumed the models gender. Tsk tsk ☝️

[SirVixofVixHall]

PasstheBucket because that is passé now. You don’t have to transition at all, because you always had that amazing magical womany essence. The thing now is to keep your genitals, beard and body hair, because it is an INNER FEELING and nothing to do with appearance at all and how dare you assume he isn’t a woman because look, he is wearing womany knickers, and frankly shouldn’t have to bother doing that.

[Collidascope]

Yeah, it's called "widening the bandwidth of what it is to be a woman." Check out the "lesbian" Alex Drummond.

[TheSingingKettle49]

Presumably they’ve cut the knickers to fit the female penis and ball sack in otherwise that could be most unflattering (I’m picturing Simon from The Inbetweeners walking down the catwalk)

[lafemme]

When are we going to see a young woman shaving her non existent beard on a Gillette advert? In a similar way this man is wearing a bra to support his non existent breasts.

[TorkTorkBam]

DH would not be over keen on me wearing sexy time underwear that reminds him of beardy blokes crossdressing. It would rather spoil the mood.

I would worry they were designing for the wrong shape. Now if they had a specific trans line designed to fit a man's body and advertised accordingly I wouldn't see a problem. But if they have shaped those all-women knickers to fit a man's narrow hips and his cock and balls, well, they aren't going to fit me are they?

[HarryHarry]

As someone else pointed out, it’s an advert from 2017. The company hasn’t done anything like it since. Guess it wasn’t very popular.

[Blibbyblobby]

Ah, such a shame. Imagine in a parallel universe:

The poster of a man in sexy lingerie was captioned "for all the beautiful people" or "for sexy men everywhere"

Pips Bunce had won a Man of the Year award in his dress

Stonewall had a T-shirt that said "Some men are soft and beautiful, get over it"

The Woke were campaigning to widen the bandwidth of what it is to be a man.

[SetYourselfOnFire]

@Miriel

It absolutely looks like a parody.

FFS a man who likes to wear lingerie is exactly that. A man. If a company wants to advertise to those men, go ahead, why not?

Calling those men women is both ridiculous and insulting. And nobody can claim to believe it unless they see 'woman' as a cipher, an empty space for men to define and delineate however they like.

This. IDGAF if men want to wear lingerie. It's probably a large market, they should cater to them. I object to the farce that that's a woman or he represents me. IIRC there were a lot of these "sexy" cross-dressing ads in the 90s but they never pretended the models were the opposite sex.

[ByGrabtharsHammerWhatASavings]

I'm pretty sure Gillette did make that advert actually!

[lafemme]

@ByGrabtharsHammerWhatASavings

Really, when was that?

I can only recall their men's razors being advertised by sportsmen.

[ByGrabtharsHammerWhatASavings]

I'm sure they made one last year about a young trans man getting his dad to help him shave for the first time. He was convincingly into his transition though so not an exact match for Mr July on the Blush billboard.

[ByGrabtharsHammerWhatASavings]

m.youtube.com/watch?v=AR-JkiNQ_Ro

[SerenityNowwwww]

I want to buy knickers - I want them shown looking good. Not in some hairy arsed person who looks stupid.