Another day, another apology from Adam.
Victoria Secret has issued a statement on behalf of its Chief Marketing Officer (CMO) Ed Razek, clarifying the statements of Razek fashion On why the lingerie brand has not cast its trans models and shows a fashion tentpole.
Razek originally said that Victoria's Secret did not Do not need Cast models that are not in line with "fantasy", as he called it, presented by the show. Now, Razek says that the company has never dropped trans models because they just did not do the cutting, not because of their sex. And that Victoria's Secret will "completely impose a transgender model."
If you scratch your head with this circular logic, and wonder if this statement really contradicts the idea that transsexual models are not part of the "fantasy" that Victoria's Secret is trying to show – good people, you're not alone!
Let's break it.
A 70-year-old white man Ed Razek is one of the people who casts the extravagant objectification – the extravagance, which is Victoria's Secret fashion show. With models such as Hadid and Kendall G. A candle in angel wings and Scottish tartan garlands, Victoria's Secret broadcast the show of tall, thin, almost naked women on ABC in December. A spectacular holiday!
Razek recently gave an interview to fashion On the show, on the brand and its place in the lingerie market, which now includes more diverse brands, such as "Fenty" by Rihanna. In the interview, Razek was clear: Victoria's Secret is not everyone's brand, nor should it be. It will continue to promote and provide a very specific body type and single.
"We market to those we sell, and we do not market to the whole world," Razek said.
To this end, Victoria's Secret considered weighing models plus trans-vows at her concerts, but eventually decided against it. The reason for this is that the company must remain true to its brand, to the "fantasy" it sells – which, of course, is "women in physical shape," as Razek described it. And this fantasy does not include a plus size or a transsexual (as Razek calls them) women:
Do not you have to be a transsexual in an exhibition? No, I do not think we should. Why not? Because the show is a fantasy. It's a 42 minute entertainment operation. That's what it is.
It is rare these days to see such a bald embrace and face of truth is obvious if not popular. Why Victoria does not cast models or models plus? Because it's not the thin fantasy she offers. two!
So, naturally, Razek and Victoria Secret were forced to go back to the comments. And to do so, the company issued … very confusing sentence!
My comment about including trans models in the fashion show of Victoria's Secret was insensitive. I apologize. To be clear, we would definitely cast a transgender model for the show. We had transgender models that came to castings … and like many others, they did not do it … but it was never about sex. I admire and respect their journey to embrace who they really are.
Razek says mainly that he and his team did not impose models of transformation because they "did not do it" – that is, they were not the people who were cast on the casting.
Unnamed: Oh, why do you ask? That Razek, who is, as he said, trying to promote the "fantasy" of the brand, saying they did not do it! The models did not fit Razek's idea into the Victoria's Secret model. Unnamed: Ergo, they're not Victoria's Secret models. The deconstruction of this truth from their gender is illogical and honest, nonsensical.
Ed Razek said explicitly that transsexual models do not do so in previous programs because they were not part of the "fantasy" they were trying to sell. So yes, they denied opportunities for trans models in the past simply because of their sex. https://t.co/GiwGkNX7vD
– Rachel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) November 10, 2018
Razek's statement was clear and straightforward. Victoria's Secret "would definitely" cast a trans model if she does the cut. But the negative connotation based on the company's brand and past actions requires it never to make the cut, because it's people like Razek to decide what sexy, what is part of the fantasy. And as Razek once pointed out, these are not transsexual women.
Here's the thing: Let's not let the minds of men like Razek nor the business goals of corporations decide what is sexy.
It would be a "statement" – perhaps even a victory – if Victoria's Secret cast a transgender model in her iconic show program. It would say, yes, you are part of the "fantasy" of what we think is sexy, too. And it can be a lot to many people.
Who is ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? SECRET ?? Fashion ?? SHOW ?? for ??
Because if it is to sell products, it should feature a full spectrum of people who want to buy products. Especially since thin, sexual women are not the only ones wearing fancy underwear. Obviously!
– Anne T. Donahue (@annetdonahue) November 10, 2018
But perhaps this attitude sustains the power of Victoria's Secret, when what we really need to do is continues to oust this authority – reducing its power alongside its fast sales. Courting Victoria's Secret Reception of Trans Models suggests that a company can, does, need the power to decide what is sexy. Why do we still allow them this power?
We know what Victoria Secret stands for; People like Razek, and the dozens of identical bodies they put on their tracks, make it clear. This track can no longer be unremitting of what is sexy.
Who the hell needs Victoria's Secret when we have Rihanna?