Brazil denies reality, considers banning racy lingerie ad

By J. DeVoy

It has not been a good week at Tom Brady’s house.  First the Patriots lost to the Buffalo Bills, perennial failures and four-time consecutive Super Bowl losers, and now Brady’s better half, Gisele Bundchen, might have her ad for an intimate apparel company banned in Brazil.  Sure, she probably got paid already, but it doesn’t auger well for repeat business.

Naturally, feminists are to blame.

Brazil’s Ministry for Women called Wednesday for the suspension of a television ad featuring lingerie-clad supermodel Gisele Bundchen, saying it reinforces the stereotype of women as sex objects. (source.)

On one hand, the Latin world is very machismo and I can see why this would be a concern in some areas.  To the extent women want to work, they shouldn’t have to face constant degradation and criticism.  Although, if they don’t  have to work, that seems like a pretty sweet deal.  I’m still looking for my sugar momma so I can strike out “Have Career” from my calendar for the next 40 years and replace it with something like “do Ketamine and watch Dr. Who.”

On the other hand, it’s an ad, and sex sells.  Sex especially sells lingerie, which exists to encourage sex in the first place.  You can’t really divorce sex from this product unless you have Ben Stein deliver some kind of monologue about the undergarments’ erotic qualities.

The TV ads [depicting Bundchen in lingerie and heels as she explains to her husband that she wrecked the car, exceeded her credit limit, etc.] send a message “that sensuality can melt any man” and “encourages Brazilian women to use their charms… to minimize the reactions of their husbands,” the ministry said. (source.)

Point of information: This is true.  Does anyone seriously dispute this?  One can still be “equal” and play to their strengths.  in fact, this is the kind of approach we should be encouraging with women, as opposed to training them to rationalize every error to be someone else’s fault, and to charge into any disagreement as if it’s a contentious arbitration.  Know what the latter approach has made women?  Miserable.  Baking cookies for your husband before telling him you wrecked his credit is not that bad of a tactic for all involved.  As they say, if you’ve got it, flaunt it.

The Ministry for Women’s argument rests upon flawed logic, assuming that women must choose between “independence”  (which ironically entails working for someone else most of the time) or supplicating their men by acting sweet and feminine.  Both can coexist, and Brazil’s women will not have to choose between having long hair and soft voices or possessing any degree of self-sufficiency.

Economically, the suppression of beauty benefits those who lack it (whether absolutely or relatively).  It’s why middle-aged women hate their husbands watching porn, and obese girls chide skinny ones for looking “unhealthy,” telling their waif peers that they “should really eat a cheeseburger” — or four.  I can understand the desire to maximize one’s market position, especially when it’s held by only the most tenuous grasp.  But don’t gussy it up as being “for women’s own good.”  Just like every other charlatan who screams that some sweeping restriction of freedom is “for the children!” – or just “terrorism!” – the people pushing this agenda are full of crap, and nobody with firing brain synapsis should listen to them.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: