Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: John P
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 02:43 PM

Ron,
Who said anything about denying an artist the right to do whatever he pleases? Bob Dylan can do anything damn fool he chooses to, and I'm not claiming the right to regulate him in any way. I just said I don't respect his choice.

And who said anything about hiding sexuality? Where do you get these ideas? I like sexuality, and I like it when it is front and center in our media. I was objecting to the massively pervasive message that women stop being sexually appealing when they pass forty years of age. I stand by my assertion that objectifying women as sex toys helps create a culture where violence toward women is possible and expected. Please note: I'm not saying that women of any age shouldn't be sexual, or sexy, or shouldn't revel in their sexiness, or shouldn't dress in sexy clothes if they want to.

And if you couldn't figure out what I meant when I said that ads don't use adult women, given the context of everything else I said, then you need to work on your reading comprehension skills a bit.

Please respond to what I actually say, not to some strange spin you decide to put on it.

John Peekstok

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 03:05 PM

There is no need to get insulting John. I treated your opinions with respect and I think I am entitled to the same. This is a discussion, not a contest. That was uncalled for.

I did respond to what you said. YOU did not respond to what I was saying when I asked if you weren't being hypocritical to pass judgement on a commercial that you never saw and based your comment on opinions. From your original post, you "imagine" a leering Bob Dylan and make assumptions that the commercial is like the rest based on other Victoria Secret commercials you have seen.

You also said that the models look like "vapid children", yet you admit to not having seen this particular commercial.

I NEVER disagreed with your statements about the portrayal of women, nor did I EVER accuse you of saying that you were hiding sexuality. I'm sorry if my statment wasn't clear or if you didn't comprehend it, but I was trying to say that the sexual revolution enables commercials like this to be possible.   I do disagree with you that the woman is being treated like a "sex toy".

With art we can all make different interpretations, just like Bob Dylan's songs.

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 03:25 PM

I should clarify one thing in my last post.   I do agree with John in the sense that the media overlooks the sexuality of women over 40, and I do think he is right when he says that art CAN promote violence against women. However, I disagree that this is as pervasive as many people make it out to be. In the case of this particular Victoria's Secret commercial, I personally do not see it.

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: John P
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 04:32 PM

Sorry, Ron. I wasn't trying to be insulting, or at least no more than you were when you said "By the way, ALL the models in VS are adults", as if you didn't know what I was talking about. I like discussions, and I dislike competitions.

I hope you can understand why I thought you were saying that I was hiding, or wanted to hide, sexuality. It was the "You can't hide sexuality" that you wrote in a post directed to me that made me think that. I think I understand better what you were saying now.

Yes, one of the things that came out of the revolution of ideas in the 60s was that sex, sexuality, and sexiness can be talked about openly, and shown in the media. Another idea that I took away from that time is that the corporate masters only have power over us if we let them. Sexuality as presented by VS, and by most of the rest of the media, is an example of corporations using the results of the revolution to sell things. But since they only portray a terribly narrow band of the idea, we can see that they don't really get it. They are just pretending to get it in order to make more money. By buying into the definition of sexiness as put forth by VS, we are letting the corporate masters have power over us. Oh, crud, this is way too esoteric and important sounding for a discussion of a silly TV ad. But Bob Dylan, as one of the chief voices of my generation calling for us see a better world, and to not give in to the status quo, loses my respect to some extent when he lends his face and voice to an advertisement, especialy since I'm pretty sure he's just doing it to get some attention. It is even worse that it is an ad for a company that presents women in such a narrow, contrained way. Did you say this was Dylan pursuing his art? Are you sure?

I'd love to actually see the ad in question. None of the web sites I've seen seem to show it. Does anyone know a web site where I can go see it? I'm certainly not going to sit around and watch the TV until it happens to come on.

John Peekstok

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: JenEllen
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 04:41 PM

Victoria's Secret has some kittens in undies in their commercial, but Wal-Mart offered a 10yr old girl a $25 gift certificate to withhold litigation after she had been 'allegedly' fondled by a store employee. Who is sending the wrong idea to women about their sexuality, and given the choice, where would you buy your underwear?

So what if the media overlooks the sexuality of women over 40? There is no way that a woman over 40 is gonna 'out-kitten a kitten' without looking ridiculous. If by 40, a woman isn't secure in her sexuality, there is no outside influence that is going to matter one whit.

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: Strick
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 04:57 PM

You know, this ad doesn't really compare to the music video I just flicked past with my remote control. Real tame by comparison.

Not that I would want to bring any observations about the current state of the music industry into this kind of conversation or anything.

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 05:00 PM

John - peace through understanding!   Aside from being the motto of the old New York World's Fair, I think it fits here.   It is very easy to misread intent and tone in e-mails. It is also easy for the writer (me) to not fully explain thoughts. I thank you for the post and I too apologize if MY words were interpreted as insulting, that was not my intent.

I do see your points John and I know that people consider him to be a "sellout", but I go back to an earlier point that people place too much on Dylan to be a "spokesperson" or hold him up to ideals that he never created. Sure there was an image, but how much of that was open to interpretation? How much did he really create and how much did the media and OUR generation thrust on him? There are numerous examples where he shunned the title of being a spokesperson. In a way, we all fell victims to "corporate masters" by turning Dylan into an idol instead of a great songwriter and performer, which is all he ever was.

I do understand the issues with corporations and people should question the motives.   However, I don't think we should always pre-judge or disregard a commercial just because it comes from a large company. Victoria's Secrets sells bras and panties - they aren't trying to change the world. They want to showcase their product in the best possible light and they aren't taking themselves too seriously. We all try to sell our own product in many ways, and I can't fault anyone for that. Dylan is having fun, he isn't pushing a product that will harm us.    I do respect your views on how the media sells sex, but in this case I personally feel the commercial is different.   Having a beautiful woman in a skimpy outfit is not an invitation to be a plaything and I don't feel the commercial treats it as such.

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 07:27 PM

He isn't leering, John. He's scowling. Looking cynical and tired of the whole "romance" thing...and that is the message in the song "Sick of Love" as well. It's an interesting counterpoint to find in a lingerie ad.

- LH

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: GUEST,i am victoria's secret
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 08:32 PM

i think bob looks bloody great in this video. and he certainly isnt leering. its a contemplative gaze, him thinking, as he does best.
myself, i cant fault the man on much (well, maybe self portrait or empire burlesque eh?) .. "the man has more voices than hats~!" cracked me up..
"i went back to find Isis.. just to tell her I LOVE HERRRR!"
long live bob!

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 10:10 PM

"I don't think any woman who is at all at ease with herself is going to care one way or the other how things are marketed and sold to her, so long as the product itself stands. That was my point."

First off, you shouldn't be trying to represent yourself as if you speak for women, because you don't. You are one women, and I think you'd find a lot of women disagreeing with your statement I quote above.

Second, I care a great deal how things are marketed and sold to me, and I base most of my buying decisions evaluating those things. I also care about who makes the product where, and under what conditions. All those factors go into my buying choices.

Third, advertising just doesn't work on me, because I don't consume like a mindless couch potato.

Fourth, I have never bought from VS and never will because of my objections to the sexist, objectified way they sell. But I do know women who have and who do shop there, but they seem to make a lot of complaints about the quality and durability of the product they wear.

Fifth, the commercials seem tailor made for people who need to be entertained while they are being sold a bill of goods. I find those sorts of people pretty superficial.

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 10:21 PM

JenEllen, I have no idea what age you are, but you sound like a very insecure, and immature woman to me.

Some of us don't by our undergarments, or anything else for that matter, at VS or at WalMart. Jesus, is that the standard we are talking here? Are you married to Bubba?

Look, Bob Dylan isn't sexy--not even on his best day, and certainly not in the age group the commercials are aimed at, most of whom just consider him another over the hill, faded rock star. He is old. Putting an old faded rock star in a VS commercial with women young enough to be his grandchildren is creepy, not sexy, not tasteful, not even edgy. It is just plain creepy in that dirty old rich man, taking a pretty young thing as a sex toy kind of way.

In this commerical, to anyone who isn't into the whole The Bob things, he looks more than a little creepy in the commercial. Scowling to some maybe who don't want to think that is the way most young women are perceiving this commercial. But leering is also the way it is being seen.

Why can't people here just accept the fact that different people will, of course, view this commerical very differently, depending on their age, gender, and their social, cultural, and political sensitivities and sensibilities.

And why is it that there seems to be such a pervasive subtext in this thread of the corporate standard of beauty and sexiness as a legitimate standard anyway?

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 10:25 PM

Superficial? Oh, no doubt they are... :-) But not like you and me, right, Guest? (Heh!)

I avoid and ignore advertising any way I can and I don't normally watch TV. I would've missed this ad entirely if not for Mudcat.

But I enjoy seeing Bob, just because he is Bob and we go back a long way. I don't give a hang one way or the other about Victoria's Secret...but look at all the yacking that ad has inspired! And yes, he's looking thoughtful...certainly isn't leering.

Meanwhile, there is a fascinating interview with Dylan on a thread that has garnered 11 posts up there somewhere. Amusing. Woogie Boogie!

- LH

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 10:40 PM

You know Little Hawk, you have a very annoying tendency to say things like "he's looking thoughtful...certainly isn't leering" as if it were fact. It isn't. It is your opinion. Your opinion is not shared by everyone, hence the 200+ posts to the thread, a lot of which is discussing all the various ways this commercial feeds into the most sexist culture on the planet, the culture of corporate tv advertising.

In fact, a whole lot more of this thread is about the sexism in the commercial, and the sexism of corporate advertising, than it is about Dylan.

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 10:51 PM

Vee need to get Herr Liebenscheiss in here, Guest, to determine chust vat nasty traumas you have suffered at ze hands uff ze vicious exploiters uff vimmen in ze past zat are inspiring all zis concern. Could it be a child-abuse situation percolating in ze old subconscious, perhaps? Hmmmm. Tell me vat you are zinkink about ven ze name uff your fadder comes up, ja? Vell, I sink vee are onto somezink here! Chust relax und let ze deeply buried associations pass sru your mind, ja? Und ven does a soughtful look transmute into a leer??? Und vy? Ja, dis iss gutt stuff...

I sink vee may yet arrive at a major breaksrough in ziss case und even uncover some nasty anti-semitism vile vee are at it! It iss qvite possible zat Victoria's Secret has conspired to embarrass Mister Dylan, who iss, as we all know, a Jew...by compromising hiss public image in ziss horrible fashion. Sink about zat!!!

Doktor Liebenscheiss

(Hey, nameless one...Joan Baez thought Dylan was sexy and Jenellen is light years ahead of you in the maturity department.)

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: dianavan
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 11:22 PM

I haven't seen the ad and I don't care if Dylan is leering or looking contemplative. I do think its a poor performance on Dylan's part and is demeaning to women. I'm disappointed that he would partake in such a blatant sell-out. He obviously doesn't need the money so he must be a greedy bastard, after all. Seems he has caved in to the forces that he urged everyone to defy. He has always been controversial so maybe it was the controversy he was craving. Who knows ... maybe its mid-life crisis gone public.

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: Peace
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 11:44 PM

It may be demeaning to women: Direct that remark to the women participating in the commercial and the people who purchase from VS. And at Bob. If you're gonna use a shotgun, get 'em all, d.

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 11:47 PM

No, it's a joke. Or else it's just a lark. He doesn't need the money. He's doing 100 concerts a year and collecting royalties to the sky.

- LH

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 11:47 PM

It is amazing how people admit to not seeing the commercial and still pass judgement on content. Henry Miller's books were banned with exactly the same thought process.   We also have a government that never saw weapons and went to war. I guess we are all the same.

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 12:40 AM

HEY! Are you sayin' people have to be informed to have opinions??! Is that what yer sayin'? HEY!!! I'M TALKIN' TO YOU! THIS IS THE USA, BUDDY!!! ARE YOU LOOKIN' AT ME? HEY!!!

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: Roger the Skiffler
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 04:16 AM

I don't think a man that age should wear a thong, suspenders and push-up bra!

RtS
(I'll stay with Y-fronts & singlets)

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 07:25 AM

All depends what you mean by a leer - my dictionary gives the definition as sly or lascivious or malign. I'd say that "sly" just about fits that expression of his, and the song pretty clearly rules out "lascivious".

That's why, when I introduced the word into the thread I called it a "sardonic leer" - "bitter, scornful, mocking, sneering, cynical". But with a humourous touch, because he's parodying himself. As he always has been prone to do.

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 08:57 AM

I've been the most outspoken voice in this thread about the sexism being used to sell VS undies by an over the hill rocker. I have seen the commercial, on television, and not as part of a news report, so I think I can speak to the commercial and the context in which it is being shown to hawk VS undies, Ron.

As to the comparison to Henry James, believe me, this commercial doesn't rise to that level of artistry. Not by a long shot. It is crass and demeaning.

Little Hawk, I find it interesting that your perception of a "mature" woman is one who buys into the corporate standard of beauty. Doesn't surprise me of course, because your responses show you to be pretty damn defensive when the "s" word is used in your presence, and I don't mean sex or sexual. You one of the boys who believes there is no such thing?

It's a commercial with an old man and sweet young thing. In US culture, that combination only happens when the old man has money and power, and the sweet young thing wants the money and power, not the old man. So the old man can buy young, greedy, ruthless women and use them as sex toys. That's the deal. That's the misogynist stereotyping going in the commerical. You need stereotypes to sell shit on tv, and this one is tried and true.

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 09:36 AM

Wow! Looks like you are working on a stereotype in your last paragraph guest! In fact, you have used numerous stereotypes in your comments such as "over the hill rocker".

Your interpretation of the commercial is different than mine - that doesn't make either of us wrong. I don't disagree with your thoughts about modern culture using sexism. I do disagree that this commerical is "crass and demeaning".    Watching this commercial does not make treat women as "sex toys" nor incite me to violence.

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: Roger the Skiffler
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 10:01 AM

Was he singing "Lay, Lingerie, Lay"?
RtS
(I'll get me basque....)

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: Peace
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 10:10 AM

GUEST: You HAVE been one of the more outspoken voices on this thread. A no-name voice. If you believe your opinions, why do you fear signing your name? You are a regular--I wonder about your unwillingness to stand up for what you think, other than under the mantle of anonymity. Seems very strange.

Also, your vitriol has allowed you to believe your own press. Little Hawk has often been vocal concerning 'women's issues'--in support of them--, and he has always had the guts to sign his name. Him I can treat with respect, and I do. You? No, because you don't have respect for yourself and your beliefs.

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 10:33 AM

Brucie, I've never been one to approve of anonymous Guests (or trolls), but in this instance I do agree with her (assuming it is a female).   If you read her posts I think you can see reasons why she would wish to remain anonymous and I respect that.

I don't agree with the direction she has taken some of her arguements, but I think we should respect her anonymity in this case.

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: Amos
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 10:33 AM

Guest:

It wasn't Henry James that was being invoked, but Henry Miller. A little closer, I reckon.

I dunno what to tell you about agism and sexism; part of it may be cultural, but part of it may just be the louder voice of genes at work in the mysteries of the universe...at least, I sure don't know how they work!

A

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 11:31 AM

Quite right Ron, it is perfectly reasonable for people to post anonymously whenever they feel thisis appropriate. However adding a label to allow fellow mudcatters to distinguish between different people posting as GUEST in no way reduces anonymity, it's just being helpful. And my impression is that the nameless GUEST in question might well think being helpful is a good idea.

This thread has for some time shown signs of moving on from Dylkanology/Dylanolatry/Dylanophobia to a more genernal discussion about sex and sexism in advertising, and stuff like that. Perhaps it's time this was reflected in a shift to a new thread? (Though of course that would probably mean picking up a few extra nameless GUESTS along the way...)

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 12:17 PM

You have no idea what my definition of a "mature woman" is, nameless one. :-) Let's see...I will try to define a mature woman.

A mature woman is: A woman who is at peace with herself and in charge of herself. She loves herself and she loves life. She is complete in herself and at peace with others. She is sovereign.

Such women are very good people to have around, and society would be lost without them, in my opinion.

I confess that I do not know what this "s" word is that you are referring to. So what is it?

- LH

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: GUEST,Judas Priest
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 12:19 PM

Ron wrote "Guest - I think your daughter needs to get out more if she is reading "pedophile pervert" in that commercial. That is a real stretch to make that connection."


You gotta be kidding Ron - that's EXACTLY how he comes across!!!

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: Peace
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 12:27 PM

Ron: If the purpose of a no-name guest is to take shots at people while remaining 'friends' with those people under another name--no, sir, I think you are wrong. I am not talking about the opinion; I am talking about the two-faced approach to it. Basically, shit or get off the pot. Sorry, buddy, but that's the way I see it. You know who this is from.

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 12:38 PM

It is possible to make comments as a "Guest" and still do it with a made-up name of some kind, such as "Wasted in Wawa" or "smarter than you". That would help a bit, wouldn't it?

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 12:39 PM

Judas, I think you need to make some restitution to Frankie Lee.

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: Peace
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 12:50 PM

Also, Ron, there were three 'anonymous' guests on this thread.

1) brucie pissing off the other two. Mine are obvious one-liners, and the guy pointed them out.

2) A regular guy 'catter who for some reason wanted to remain unknown--he just doesn't disguise his writing style well.

3) A regular gal 'catter who doesn't have the courage of her convictions.

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: Rain Dog
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 12:54 PM

Well this thread has certainly stirred things up.

One of the things that made me smile was the following
"The Dylan connection was established last year when Victoria's Secret creative director Ed Razek sifted through the music of more than 50 singers, from Tom Waits to Luciano Pavarotti, hunting for a tune for an ad featuring a lingerie-clad model with angel wings.

Tom Waits ? The fact that he makes a nice income from suing people who use his music or songs or soundalikes in any type of advert, would tend to exclude him from any future campaign. But if people find Dylan scary,odd or whatever , god knows what they would have made of Waits if he had appeared in the add.

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: JenEllen
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 01:02 PM

Yeowch, Guest...In with the claws, eh sistuh? I am in no way speaking for the whole of womankind, hence the word "I" and not "WE". Anyone who expects the outside world to be responsible for her sensuality/sexuality/spirituality would problably react much the same way that you did. It's very easy to be judgemental when you rely on outside influences for your own sense of being. It's a stupid commercial, fer crissakes. One in a long line of stupid commercials, I'm sure. What bothers me (personally, note the use of the word "me") is the paranoid way that folks are perceiving this ad. I didn't see any guns held to anyone's heads (where would those girls put them? *G*) so what's wrong with thinking "Hey, at least someone out there can look good in that stuff" or "Wow, Bob's on TV" and letting it go at that? When you allow the little black box to define you, or you buy your undewear because Bob likes it, or your oil becuase Denis Leary said to, or your Hanes because you wanna be like Mike? You've got more problems than simply being put upon by an ill-tamed media.

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 01:16 PM

Judas Priest - you can interpret whatever you wish. You gotta be kidding if you read "pedophile" in that commercial. That woman looks like a child to you? Wow. You might also consider looking up the word "pedophile".   

Are you suggesting that someone of Dylan's age only look at people of his demographic?   That is rather bigoted.

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 01:23 PM

Tom Waits would have been WAY scarier than Bob Dylan. :-)

JenEllen's got it right. It's just a "Wow, look at that! Dylan's on TV!" reaction from those of us who happen to like the man...and nothing more than that.

If on the other hand, you don't like him...then it's "Oh, yuck, it's him again! Look at that jerk Dylan selling out on that crass lingerie ad!" I can understand such a reaction from people who already don't like Bob...or who have a rather narrowly defined notion of what is okay for Bob to do and what isn't okay for him to do. Yes, I comprehend what they don't like about the ad.

Opinions and prejudices (for and against). Everybody's got 'em.

- LH

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: JenEllen
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 01:40 PM

Opinions and prejudices (for and against). Everybody's got 'em. Yeah, LH, and people notice the chip on your shoulder WELL before they see what kind of undies you've got on... *g*

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: GUEST,Pedro
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 02:02 PM

I wanted to see what people are saying about this (so I read some of this and there is some good stuff here - thanks)… It was a very surprising thing at first, to see him doing the ad. I have to admit, I was floored. But why? He is promoting his music in it. That isn't unusual. And the inherent sexually; that's purely the Victoria's Secret side of it – sex sells, what a revelation! And females are buying it - not the least of which are 19'ish year old girls. So what's new? What is different, is having a revered personage – a mysterious and famous icon, a father figure lamenting about love gone wrong, to sell the stuff. That is a very odd strategy at first glance. Yet its precisely the eye catching contrast that Ad folks aim for to stand out in this neon nightmare of a culture. As far as Dylan doing it... he's made a career of doing the unexpected - of recreating his persona just when we might think we've got him nailed (yet again). That's just how he is. But I say AHHH, COME'ON NOW, I know ya know about my debutant! - a 19 year old girl who thinks he's creepy… Oh my god! Really? It's just too unbelievable to fathom. That's all. But [they ALL play on the penny whistle, you can hear them BLOW]… THAT IS hardly surprising and its certainly not the least bit enlightening - she no doubt would make the same assessment of him and his detached glare at his adoring crowds while on stage. And to turn the table a few degrees, 19 year olds in general tend to have the MARKET cornered on delusional (CREEPY) thinking. She needs to get real and take a very long and close look around (and in the mirror). That's all. And unfortunately, in this **** hole of an existence, she inevitably will be given the chance, all too soon, to LEARN what creepiness is and what it is NOT. Her opinion MIGHT then someday become worth something... AND, if she's lucky, she could even come to some decent understanding of his work and to appreciate the gifts he has given to us.

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 02:08 PM

True enough, JenEllen, though I have to say this...I attain more grace through my likes than through my dislikes. And that's true of most people.

Pedro - Well said.

"I'll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours"

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: GUEST,me
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 03:05 PM

.

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: Strick
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 03:15 PM

Two nearly random thoughts since this thread won't die.

1) Went by a maternity store because my wife wanted to look for somethings for my daughter who's expecting. We noticed that have thong underwear for expectant mothers. What's up with that? Surely if anyone deserves comfortable underwear it's an expectant mother.

2) Anyone seen the Dairy Queen they're running near us? Guy with his 2-3 year old boy facing forward in a kid carrier on his chest just bought something neat to eat. The kid wants it but Dad won't let him have it. Kid flicks the heel of his shoe up and Dad drops to his knees in pain. Now there's something we can talk about in an ad -- violence directed at parents by 2 year olds.

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 03:50 PM

Ron - bigoted, i don't really think so. Maybe it isn't dictionary term pedophile but it's like watching a dead man leering from the shadows at a 20 year old girl. Bobby is my all time favorite but man, he is losing it!

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 03:56 PM

Ron - I just had the (kind of) hilarious image of Dylan coming to pick my 19 year old daughter up for a date. "Hey Bob, make sure she's home by midnight and don't let her fly around with wings out there in the foggy marsh!" "By the way, love the Vincent look, really cool man"

Thanks, I needed a good chuckle today...this thread slays me.

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 05:14 PM

Guest, we all have to look in a mirror sooner or later!!! Don't late his age scare you.

Leering is a great pastime!!!!

I have to admit, his looks in Masked and Anonymous scared me!!!   He looked like hell! (I love strange movies, but that one put me to sleep.) In the Victoria Secret commercial he was cleaned up at least. I like the Vincent Price look!!

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 05:20 PM

Bob was simply keeping his word when he agreed to do these. remember the 1965 san francisco press conference? Someone asked, " if you WERE to sell out to commercial interests, which one would it be?" bob's reply...

"ladies garments"

it got a laugh then and it deserves a laugh now. nothing wrong with him doing this, IMO.

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 05:23 PM

Yeah. Exactly.

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 05:23 PM

We all sell out. The fact that we are on computers right now shows that we've sold out.

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: GUEST,Pedro
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 07:21 PM

Ron - well put about the computers. Let those who are without sin cast the first Rolling Stones. Besides, I'm not sure what sellin' out even is. But in his career, Dylan has been accused of it so many times, he'd probably actually do it just to check out what its like. Fact is, you firstly have to NEED to sell to "sell out"... other wise you're just doing routine business.

Whenever he passes, I predict there will be "die-hard" fans out here, pun intended, who feel he's just sellin'-out...