Victoria's Secret exec apologizes for the "unlikely" anti-trans comment


The second day, another person apologized.

Victoria's Secret gave a message to his marketing manager Ed Razek, clarifying the statements made by Razek fashion why the lingerie brand has not chosen trans models in her temple costumes.

Razek initially stated that Victoria's Secret is not and should not cast models because they are not consistent with the "fantasy" presented by the play, as he called. Now, Razek says that the company has never put in trans models because they simply did not cut, not because of their gender. And the Victoria & # 39; s Secret "definitely chose the trans-gender model."

If you're scratched you've got this round logic and I wonder if this statement really contradicts the idea that the trans models are not part of the "fantasy" that Victoria Secret tries to present – very people, you're not alone!

Let's break it down.

The 70-year-old white male Ed Razek is one of the people who illuminate the largely revealing palosa, which is the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show. Victoria's Secret models include, among others, Gigi Hadid and Kendall Jenner in the Angel's Wings and Scotch Tartan-Embellished Underwear. Celebration gorgeous!

Razek recently gave an interview fashion from the show, the brand and its location to the lingerie marketplace, which now includes more comprehensive and more versatile brands such as Rihanna's Fenty. In an interview Razek was clear: Victoria's Secret is not a brand for anybody, and it should not be. It will continue to promote a very special Hadid-esque body.

"We market to whom we sell and we do not market to the whole world," Razek said.

For this purpose, the Victoria & # 39; s Secret has considered the exhibition plus-size models and trans gender, but in the end decided it. This is because the company must remain faithful to its brand, its "fantasy" selling, which is clear, is "physically fit" women, as Razek described them. And that fantasy does not include plus size or transsexuals (transsexuals like Razek call them) women:

Do not have transsexuals in the show? No, I do not think we should. Well why not? Because the presentation is fantasy. It is a 42-minute entertainment specialty. What it is.

It is now rare to see such a pompous assumption of apparent, if-unpopular truth. Why does Victoria's Secret not illuminate trans or plus size models? Because it is not to sell thin cis-tits-out fantasy. Duh!

So, Razek and Victoria's Secret had to walk naturally. And so, the company gave … a very confusing statement!

My observations on the inclusion of transsexual models in Victoria's Secret Fashion Show unfurled me. I apologize. Of course, we would definitely choose a transsexual model for the show. We've had transgender models castings … and like many others, they did not do it … But it was never sex. I admire and respect their journey to embrace who they really are.

Razek says that he and his crew have not thrown trans models because they did "not" – that is, they were not what people are looking for.

Why do you ask? As Razek, who, as he said, tries to promote the brand's "fantasy", says they did not do it! The models did not agree with Razek's idea of ​​Victoria's Secret models. Ergo, they are not Victoria's Secret models. Separating that truth from its gender is dishonest, honest, absurd.

Razek's statement was clear and honest. Victoria's Secret "definitely" chose the trans model if he did a surgery. But a non-audible consequence of a company's brand and past activity dictates that he will never make surgery because people like Razek decide what is sexy, which is part of fantasy. And as Razek said earlier, it does not include trans-women.

Here's the point: Let's not let men's opinions like Razek or the business's business goals decide what's sexy.

It would be a "statement" – perhaps even a victory – if Victoria Secret had chosen a transversal model in its iconic runway show. It would say, yes, you are part of the fantasy of "imagination". And it can mean a lot to people.

But perhaps this attitude maintains the strength of Victoria Secret when what we really have to do is continue to undo this authority – it reduces its strength alongside its rapidly declining sales. The adoption of the Victoria Secret Secretariat by trans-models means that a company can, is and should have the power to decide what is sexy. Why can we still allow them to gain this power?

We know what Victoria's Secret means; people like Razek and dozens of almost identical bodies that they put on their runways make it very clear. That runway can no longer be a mediator of sex.

Who the hell needs the approval of Victoria Secret when we have Rihanna?

Https% 3a% 2f% 2fblueprint api 2fuploads% 2fvideo downloads% 2fdistribution thumb% 2fimage% 2f85802% 2f96d1addd ba15 4020 9afc c4ae917653e9


Source link