Cite? Details? Oh come on, tell me please!
I’m recording it right now. I won’t be watching for the sex appeal, of course. (Hey, I have a lifetime pass to a site where the women remove their underwear; this penny-ante “titillation” crap stopped interesting me years ago.) It’ll be more curiosity than anything. In particular, I want to see Victoria’s Secret unique vision of what’s sexy. From what I’ve seen of the previews, it’s downright surreal these days. (Somehow, when I picture an angel, the last thing that comes to my mind is “skinny woman in ill-fitting underwear walking listlessly back and forth”.)
I really don’t understand the beef these misguided women’s groups have. These are professional models who know exactly what they’re doing and are getting paid a pretty hefty amount for it. I mean, really, what’s the problem?
Nah, like 90% of the other straight, non-prostitute, women, I decided to skip it.
Because children are more likely to be asleep at 2pm than at 9?
Yeah.
Anyway, anything that has been advertising itself as “beautiful women, very little clothing” is not entirely non-porn-like.
It was opposite The West Wing didn’t watch.
I skipped it too. The internet holds wonders that make the Victoria’s Secret fashion show look like a quilting bee.
Does anyone else here think it was done really poorly, compared to last year? The camera couldn’t keep a single angle for more than two seconds, the musical performances sucked and there was just generally too much hype and not enough showcasing of the actual products. I don’t see how this could have been very successful from either a consumer’s or oggler’s point of view.
amarinth:
They’d be in school.