Okay, I'll stare.
La Senza, the company responsible for this, sells about a half billion dollars worth of product to Canadian women every single year. Canada is about one tenth the size of the USA.
Further down the road from where I took this shot, there is another shop whose owner has declared February to be feminist month and has added a definition that explains that feminism is the belief that women and men should be treated equally. That last part is necessary because it's a lie. Everyone knows that feminism had more ambitious plans than that.
As Ann Althouse, speaking of another (but related) issue, asks:
What if women became fully autonomous, empowered individuals and nothing changed? What would that mean?She goes on to answer her own question,
Maybe the unexamined existing culture represents much more of what we want than we expect when we demand power and freedom, but that doesn't mean that power and freedom are not good. You might want to choose the very life that would have been imposed on you if you could not choose. And you can just think about whether that explains Katy Perry, et al.Except that's not right. Go back to the pre-feminist era, when women didn't have power and freedom and you can see that they didn't dress that way. Yes, she is not fully dressed but that underwear is chosen to make a sensation that will be even clearer once she puts her low-cut top and skin-tight leggings on. Some women did dress this provocatively—strippers and hookers, for example—but they did so at the price of being excluded from what was called polite society.
The difference is that, when given power and freedom, millions of young women chose to use that power and freedom dress like strippers and hookers and not be excluded from polite society. No one guessed that was coming, neither feminists nor critics of feminism. Nobody guessed that women craved sexual status to the degree that it is now so obvious they do. This isn't about an "unexamined existing culture" it's about human nature.