Eeek…Sex! Eeek…Sex! Eeek! Eeek! Eeek!
From our letters to the Get A Fucking Life Editor department…
During a visit to Salt Lake City, just blocks from Temple Square at the Gateway Mall, I was aghast to see in the Victoria Secret’s display window a sexually positioned mannequin dressed in skimpy black underwear with garters and black stockings. I credit them for not including whips and chains, but the implication was surely there for the world to see – including small children and teenagers. A nice little Mormon family outing turned into a lesson on immorality with an explanation to my kids why they should wear their temple garments after they are endowed in the temple.
Why should I be exposed to that lewdness unless I choose to walk into the store? At least then I can walk out if I am offended, but please, don’t throw it in my face. It is sad to see that Babylon prospers so well in Zion, and that apparently no one cares enough to protest the perils of pornography. Well, I’m standing up to protect children from exposure to it.
In my childhood, the public was sheltered from inadvertent exposure to pornography by the use of brown protective wrappers on magazines. What a concept! I live in the country and I don’t get out much. Thank goodness.
I have a question. How is it that a moral woman in a nice little Mormon family who grew up protected from pornography by brown paper wrappers and lives in the country and doesn’t get out much knows about including whips and chains with skimpy black underwear, garters and black stockings?
May 7th, 2008 at 7:55 am
And what exactly qualifies as "sexually positioned" for a mannequin, anyway?
May 7th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
The answer is simple – the only sexual stimulation such repressed people get is when they gossip about the sexual depravity of us gayers (amongst others) which is why they seem to do nothing but gossip…
</bitchmode>
May 8th, 2008 at 7:10 am
LOL!
Excellent point.
Unless they’ve got some l337 mannequins at Victoria’s Secrets, I really can’t imagine it was “sexually positioned”. Those things don’t have enough points of articulation.
I can’t help but wonder whether she would have found a mannequin without any clothes on worse, or not as bad, and why?