Second Style Magazine

The other day Ciera Bergman of Vitamin Ci wrote a provocative post on her blog, which got me (and at least one other person) thinking. Do Second Life designers have to sell sex in order to sell clothes? Ciera writes,

I remember when I first started Vitamin Ci…it was to cater to those people. The people who wanted more clothes on than not…Sure, the quality of my designs have gotten better, but my skirts have gotten shorter, tops skimpier, and pants as low as they can go. Why? Because I started to cater to the bigger crowd, [instead of] the crowd my line was intended for.

In other words, what Ciera’s customers seemed to want was to be exposed, not covered up. Making us draw the conclusion that “if it isn’t slutwear, it doesn’t sell.” Ciera is determined to return to her roots, and has brought out an adorable ruffle shirt and pants combo, called Liz (shown left). While there isn’t any exposed cleavage or midriff in this outfit, it’s anything but frumpy. But, but if Ciera’s premise is true, it won’t sell nearly as well as it would if she had opened the blouse and paired it with a tight mini.

But surely Ciera is not alone in this predicament. I’m curious whether any other designers have had similar experiences. Have you had to increase the sexiness of your line in order to attract a broader audience? Have you noticed a difference in sales between your sexy versus non-sexy items? Or, have you traditionally designed tiny skirts and midriff-exposing tops, only to find that sales went through the roof when you brought your hemline down?

But I’m also curious to hear from SL fashion shoppers. Is the assumption right? Do you prefer that your clothes in SL lean toward more sexy than not? Do you avoid skirts that go past mid thigh or shirts that cover your belly button? Or, have you struggled with finding clothes that are sexy enough or conservative enough for your taste?
In other words, is the ideal SL style, well, slutty? And if it is, I’m interested in your thoughts as to why.