In Nov. 22, Dru Sjodin disappeared while leaving the mall where she worked at a lingerie store.

Three days earlier on Nov. 19, the same store broadcast a program on national television featuring young women wearing only underwear. The show advertised these young women as its “angels.”

Here in the Midwest, maybe we should not be shocked by such a program or surprised that a store can stay in business selling only undergarments. In the winter, we wear lots of them. But if this television show featured women in long johns and thermal tops, it would have probably received as much attention as a hole in the ice while there is still beer in the fridge. These “angels” were wearing only the faintest whispering of unmentionables; they were practically nude.

On that day, I am afraid Sjodin was vulnerable because her guardian angels were accidentally replaced by underwear angels. I do not know how this could happen. Maybe there was a mix-up at central angel dispatch. After all, these two types of angels are similar in many ways.

Each type has a distinctly nonhuman body. Guardian angels have a pair of wings sticking out in back; underwear angels have a pair of things sticking out in front. Still, central dispatch should be able to tell the difference between feathers and silicone.

Neither type eats very much human food. Guardian angels do not eat at all, because they do not need to. Underwear angels do not eat much either, but only because their bodies do not require much energy. Humans must sustain enough muscle to carry around the clothes on their backs, shoes and maybe a watch or pair of glasses if they are big eaters. Underwear angels only need enough energy to carry around a little bit of underwear.

Still, there are more differences between the two types of angels than similarities. One can fly while the other spends hours just learning how to walk. One can work miracles while the other needs help getting dressed. When we are in danger, underwear angels are utterly useless while guardian angels have a prayer’s chance of helping us.

If there was a mix-up at central angel dispatch that day, it would be easy to blame the confusion on the retailer that put this show on television. But underwear angels would not exist at all unless there was a demand for them. Basic economics tells us that.

Most of the blame lies with us, the people who watched that show and countless others like it. When the retailer created these false angels, we could have ignored them. Instead, we showed our thanks by spending money at the retailer’s stores and watching its television shows. It is no secret that they turn young women into sex objects, and that we praise them for it. Those so-called underwear angels are nothing but an ugly objectification of women.

If the sex offender who was arrested is found guilty of harming Sjodin, he is the only person who will go to prison. But as long as many women and men view women as objects, relationships everywhere will suffer and more lives will be destroyed. If conservatives really believe in family values and liberals really believe in women’s rights, these insidious underwear angels would not exist. Instead, the supply of scantily clad women on television and in our culture barely meets demand.

We are the problem. We should be ashamed for sending underwear angels to watch over Dru.

Greg Naylor is an economics senior. He welcomes comments at [email protected]