Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Carmel Women Tackle Mannequins At Mall

[press release received via email]


A group of Carmel mothers, incensed by what they see as pornographic displays, are turning up the heat on the Clay Terrace Mall (Carmel) and the Victoria’s Secret store located at Clay Terrace. After requesting that Victoria’s Secret change their large display windows to be less provocative, the Carmel women have been met with silence from Victoria’s Secret and lack of action from the mall management. The women have been contacting the store and mall management for over two years and they are angered by the lack of responsiveness they have received.

The Clay Terrace Mall Management has not mandated change since they do not believe Victoria’s Secret has broken any laws, codes or ordinances. Lori Baxter, spokesperson for the Carmel women, disagrees vehemently, citing Carmel City Ordinance (’91 Code, 6-46) 35-49-2-1:

“It shall be unlawful for any person to post in any conspicuous or public place within the City any obscene, lewd, indecent or lascivious drawing, photograph, or picture of an indecent or immoral nature…”

The Carmel women are angry that the display windows that they find offensive are located on the main street through the mall and easily visible to children and teens. They have requested that a reasonable compromise from Victoria’s Secret would involve clothing the window mannequins’ in pajamas, not the scanty, provocative items normally displayed.

“We are trying to raise our children to embrace the virtues of modesty and chastity. We are against displays and windows that objectify and degrade women, as we feel these Victoria’s Secret display windows do.” states Lori Baxter. “We are asking the Simon organization, Mayor Brainard and Victoria's Secret corp. to help us ensure our children and teens are not desensitized and exploited by mature sexualized images. There are studies that state that children exposed to sexual images are more likely to have sex."

Determined to make the Clay Terrace Mall a kid friendly place again, the Carmel women are currently conducting an email campaign directly to Mel Simon of Simon Malls, Mayor Jim Brainard of Carmel, Barbara Schick, Manager of Clay Terrace and Leslie Wexner, owner of Victoria’s Secret. Plans for a boycott and pickets during the important holiday retail rush in December are in the final stages of preparation."

Contact: Jenny DeHeer at 408-5566 or email her at jdeheer05@yahoo.com.

**** end of press release ****

Comments anyone?


IndyChristian said...

Moms... Sometimes money speaks louder than morals. Maybe this could help business people understand something needs to change...

Judging from their stock-chart, Victoria's Secret may soon get down to nothing at all.

Myopic Hawk said...

As a Carmel resident and parent I am absolutely disgusted by this movement to replace responsible parenting and parent-child communications with public censorship.

It all made sense after I came to this site and saw the nick of the poster -- "IndyChristian". What we are seeing, ladies and gentlemen, is the Christian Taliban at work in ths US.

Hopefully Victoria's Secret stands up to this religious-based bullying. Unfortunately it sounds like Brainard and Simon Property Group are going to acquiesce to the Christian Taliban just to get the issue behind them and are going to twist Victoria's Secret's arm.

Available next week at your local Victoria's Secret: Christian burqas in your choice of black or dark grey!

Garrison Steelle said...

Displays in the Clay Terrace store are subject to exactly the same requirements and limitations as every other Victoria's Secret store in every other mall on the planet. Displays are controlled by the marketing department of Limited Brands, not the local store manager. To harass a single store is cruel, ineffective, and a massive display of ignorance.

Perhaps these so-called Christians should reconsider how they are using their time and re-direct their efforts toward any one of the charitable organizations so desperately in need of volunteer help. I'm quite sure the God you claim to serve would be more pleased if you were to actually help someone for a change.

Oh, wait, I'm sorry. This is Carmel we're talking about, isn't it. They don't know the meaning of the word charity because they refuse to accept there are poor people in their own community.

Tasha said...

I am not sure why people have to be so picky like this. Victoria Secrets has done this for YEARS! None of the body parts are showing and the post above me is right. The powers from higher up choose what the windows have in them and not the store themselves. The managers’ only carry out those orders, and manages the store by the company’s expectations. That is totally being unfair to the manager and only targeting ONE store in particular.

To what studies have the proof that links this plastic life size DOLLS to sexual behavior… they are like life-size Barbie’s. Kids these days need better parenting because there sure is a big lack of that... They are going to see stuff like that one way or another. Whether it is on the Internet or TV, you cannot stop EVERYTHING from getting to your teen or child.

Are they going to ban the BEST runway show that MILLIONS of people look forward to every year because some community has a problem??? Um... No, I probably doubt that.

Why don't they use their energy to do some real good for the community? I am speaking as an associate who works there. A friend had forwarded this too me. For those women who read this... MY STORE actually does charity stuff for the community around us??? What are they doing to help out the people who really need it??

Myopic Hawk said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
IndyChristian said...

Editor Note: Let's be clear here. We want community interaction as appropriate -- it's one of the great freedoms in this country. But the point of free communication is positive community experience -- not simply a freedom to deride an opposing point of view.

If you don't agree with something, simply say so and make your best case. But if your best case is simply name-calling and derision, those comments will be deleted.

This is a great community to live in and we want this site to remind folks of that.

volunteer said...

If people had a little more vision and concern for our society they would see how sexual images in our society have contributed to kids having sex early which leads to unwanted pregnancies, heartache of abortion and STD's. STD's are reaching epidemic proportions some of which can kill you. I've talked to counselors that have counseled sex addicts and they say images like VS window degrade women, objectifies them and leads to unrealistic expectations. VS is one seed of many that produces problems but all the sexual images lead to the break down of marriages and single mothers are the leading cause of poverty in this country. So this is charity work. It is trying to reduce STD's and the break up of marriage by creating decency standards for our community!!!

Garrison Steelle said...

If people had a bit more intelligence and foresight they would not attempt to utilize mere anecdotal hyperbole in place of scientific evidence that does not exist. The most recent scientific article of which I am aware, authored by German researcher Eric Moller in relation not to underwear, but to outright pornography, finds that there is no true "spiral of escalation," no "paraphilic behavior, sexual violence or sexual coercion," and void of any negative effects on sexual attitudes.

Anecdotal statements such as, "One therapist told me ..." are invalid and should not be construed as authoritative under any circumstances. By comparison, I'm quite sure it would be possible to secure a person willing to testify, quite likely under oath, that exposure to a severe religious upbringing caused them to react violently to a given situation. Yet, would one extrapolate such testimony to mean that all religion leads to violence? I would certainly hope not!

This is not charity work, my dear souls, but merely an unjustifiable attempt to impose one's religious-based morality upon those who do not share such beliefs. While tactics undertaken here are relatively mild, rest assured that sufficient correlation between this account and those of sects more commonly referred to as "terrorists" exists to a point worthy of some alarm and concern.

Moral teaching based so dependently upon religious belief is very much a private affair, not a public responsibility. As such, please see to your children's instruction for yourself. Should they stray, consider that perhaps it is not society but the basis of the instruction that is fallible.

Myopic Hawk said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Myopic Hawk said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
thankfully not a Carmel Mom said...

Have you nothing else to think about? Why not worry about what your kids are DOING instead of what an intimate apparel store is displaying?

What a ridiculous idea to say that the clothing on a DUMMY is going to lead a child to have sex at a younger age. Too many things factor in to having sex too early -- don't blame it on a clothing store!

You people who agree with Mrs. Baxter have far too much time on your hands! Why not lock your kiddies in the closet until they are 18 -- shelter them from all the world's evil?

If all it takes is a DUMMY wearing underwear to entice your kid to do the wild thing, then sweetheart, you have far more problems than a DUMMY gives you.

Get a clue. Find something worthwhile to do. Why not volunteer for the teen pregnancy council in your community if you are so concerned?

IndyChristian said...

Another Ed.Note: Again, our goal here is "sharing life together". Preferably via positive, uplifting, encouragements of our friends, neighbors and businesses in the community. And at the very least listening to differing points of view. However, name-calling and other forms of abuse don't fit here. Likewise repetitive comments don't make a case any stronger. So please do your point of view justice by stating it in a civil tone.

Rewrite your (fresh) comments appropriately -- and they will be welcome here.

Coroner said...

Controlling what I see, instead of you being the control freak of just your own children makes me very angry... I hope that i can educate your children someday in free thought.

Myopic Hawk said...

"Controlling what I see, instead of you being the control freak of just your own children makes me very angry... I hope that i can educate your children someday in free thought."

You hit the nail on the head -- "controlling". Look at how "indychristian" continously censors comments here.

Thinker said...

I 'm glad to see that these Carmel parents have made a decision to not let their children look at VS windows. That is their choice. But I am an adult, and I do not need them to make decisions for me. I think that there are a lot of other people that feel the same way. I will decide what I look at and what my child will look at. I don't need anyone else to do it for me.

m said...

I don't think that Victoria's Secret is a seed of evil. If you are afraid of your children having sex at an early age and getting STDs due to viewing this display window, this is ridiculous! Maybe if Carmel Schools gave some sort of sex eduction out to their students, then they wouldn't have to be so curious. In my 12 years at Carmel Clay Schools, I had ONE DAY of some sort of eduction involving reproduction of some sort and it was at the age of 11. Or maybe if we had some professional teachers teaching certain "Health" classes, instead of a basketball coach who just does it because he has to. If younger people are more aware of what is going on, what they can do to protect themselves, and what happens and could happen in certain situations, they won't be so curious as to get aroused by some stupid display. It is just clothing. If you would rather spend your time taking down a lingerie display, than being a parent and educating your kids on the right things to do in sexual situations, then go for it! Your kids probably dislike you anyways because you are too high strung to talk to them.

Unknown said...

While I’m sitting here in Clay Terrace, I might as well comment about the story of citizens complaining about the displays at Victoria’s Secret. From a Christian standpoint, I can definitely understand why people would be concerned. I just hope that these people haven’t been giving the local staff a hard time, after all, their corporate office decides what to display in the windows. But let’s see this for what it really is, it’s just underwear people! The woman behind the complaint even complained when they changed the mannequins to pajamas claiming it was “too suggestive.”

To read this rest of this post, visit: http://kiel.graceconnect.net/2007/12/05/let-it-snow/

Myopic Hawk said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Unknown said...

I am in complete agreement. Department stores should also be banned from having mannequins displaying underwear, lingerie, pajamas, and other types of "suggestive" garments. Kids are in those stores all of the time! This is the age of the internet. These types of clothes can be purchased online. I see no need for them to be present anyplace where kids might come across them.

Also, any newspaper or magazine with printed undergarment ads should only be sold to someone 18 years of age or older. Any adult found purchasing a newspaper with these sort of ads for someone underage should be charged with corrupting a minor.

I certainly hope that Carmel High School at least has the decency to keep National Geographic off of it's library's shelves. I think there are unclothed people in there occasionally!

Just my two (or three) cents. :)

P.S. Keep your kids out of the shopping malls too. There is a Victoria Secret with similar displays in every single one. I don't know what parents are thinking these days. The majority of individuals at malls are minors!

Garrison Steelle said...

Keep kids out of malls? Now there's an intelligent response. Not.

This is why the topic is being lampooned and ridiculed all over MySpace. Someone took pictures of Saturday's "protest." What did they get?

1. A picture of a GUY holding a sign saying "innocence lost here." The sign makes the guy look like a complete pervert.

2. A picture of a baby in a stroller next to a sign-toting mom. There's snow on the ground, suggesting complete disregard for the baby's health and safety.

3. One protester brought her children. So much for "protecting" them from the display!

And the pictures are being circulated all over the world.

Happy now?

Cady Driver said...

It is astounding to me how so many critics of this Carmel mom have so completely missed the whole point of what she is doing. You all mock and insult her, but would you have the courage to take the abuse she has taken for an issue? I, for one, think that she is incredibly brave. I mean, listen to yourselves! If one person starts an insult, another jumps in and the whole gang mentality commences. She has a valid point! Sometimes the truth is hard to handle, and people who don't want to face the truth or the consequences, just shout insults and sarcasm. It does not accomplish anything, and even if you don't agree with the Carmel mom, she has guts to stand up to all of you.

Alex said...

Now I finally understand how the native Indians felt when the Quakers came to town...