General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDear Victoria's Secret letter from a father
I am a father of a three year old girl. She loves princesses, Dora the Explorer, Doc McStuffins and drawing pictures for people. Her favorite foods are peanut butter and jelly, cheese and pistachios.
Even though she is only three, as a parent I have had those thoughts of my daughter growing up and not being the little girl she is now. It is true what they say about kids, they grow up fast. No matter how hard I try I know that she will not be the little ball of energy she is now; one day she will be a rebellious teenager that will more than likely think her dad is a total goof ball and would want to distance herself from my embarrassing presence.
Recently I read an article that Victorias Secret is launching a line of underwear and bras aimed at middle school aged children. The line will be called Bright Young Things and will feature lace black cheeksters with the word Wild emblazoned on them, green and white polka-dot hipsters screen printed with Feeling Lucky? and a lace trim thong with the words, Call me on the front.
As a dad, this makes me sick.
http://evandolive.com/2013/03/22/a-letter-to-victorias-secret-from-a-father/
My own letter would read: Have you no shame or is it ONLY about the MONEY? And I guess I already know the answer to that question.
liberal N proud
(60,339 posts)And they have no shame for greed drives their business decisions and their merchandising decisions.
kiri
(796 posts)There is widespread notion that boys and girls do not have sexual feelings. A while ago there was outrage that 5-yr old children in Chicago would learn about sexuality. It is that never-to-be-spoken word masturbation. Children touch their genital areas, explore, and find pleasures. And are curious.
Agreed, they do not present themselves as sexual beings until puberty--well, maybe ignoring flirtations amongst 9-yr olds, where some attractions exist, although not really sexual in an adult way.
Children and adults imagine all sorts of things about themselves and relationships. What has to be learnt is the difference between fantasy and reality in sex. 'Sexy' underwear is not the problem.
It is peculiar that so much of religion and "morality", said to be from a god via a lot of men (many of whom run around wearing dresses and gowns), is concerned about orgasms and who has orgasms with whom.
liberal N proud
(60,339 posts)5 year olds, even 12 year olds don't need to wear clothing that advertises their sexuality.
Let them be children before they have to face the pressures and responsibilities that come with sex.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)liberal N proud
(60,339 posts)proReality
(1,628 posts)shireen
(8,333 posts)Please don't even go there. I don't have kids and I am utterly disgusted by what Victoria's Secret is doing. Anyone with an ounce of empathy, and protectiveness towards kids, childless or not, is repulsed by this horrible marketing campaign.
yankeepants
(1,979 posts)I, too, get very tired of the assumption that because one does not have children one can not possess humanity.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Isn't it a little odd that no one can verify the story outside the texas godbag blogosphere?
Smilo
(1,944 posts)Victoria's Secret is very much into the sexualizing
Go to
https://www.change.org/petitions/victoria-s-secret-stop-sexualizing-our-daughters-with-the-bright-young-things-line
Victoria's Secret: Stop sexualizing our daughters with the Bright Young Things line
Petition by
The Mommy Lobby
The Mommy Lobby believes that young girls are overwhelmed with images that make them believe that their only worth comes from how they look. Victoria's Secret's latest line of lingerie is further promoting the idea that in order to fit it, young girls need to wear skimpy clothing and now underwear that have words like "wild", "call me" or "sexy" on them.
We are simply asking Victoria's Secret show a modicum of respect for our daughter. They have their entire adult lives to be grown up, please allow them to maintain their innocence and youth for as long as possible.
However, if Victoria's Secret continues to market items that are blatantly sexual, we the undersigned have committed to NOT SHOPPING at your store for as long as you continue to do so.
We, the undersigned fed up parents of young people, thank you.
(for more information on how you can make an impact, please visit us at www.theMommyLobby.org)
Tumbulu
(6,292 posts)totally disgusting!
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)to stop that nasty ol' Assault Weapons Ban, too.
Yes, you're right. It's totally disgusting.
It's totally disgusting that people on DU would flog blatant right-wing lies and propaganda, because they're in some kind of crazed panic that victoria's secret is plotting to sell tweens naughty underwear.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Talk about it on social media. Yeah, we know some people wont like it. Who cares?
Freedom worth defending is worth talking about so .
Suck it up cupcake, those people arent gonna be there to defend
YOU when the bad guys break down your door.
On Taxes:
Mommy Lobby's "Connect The Dots"
http://themommylobby.org/connect-the-dots/
"Radical of the day, Saul Alisky"
Seems like an awful lot of the page is under construction, until
Demonaut
(8,924 posts)I have no children but I think this is bad idea in more ways than one
roody
(10,849 posts)a pedophile's dream come true.
Blue Gardener
(3,938 posts)Children do need need to wear "sexy" underwear. God has nothing to do with it. Pedophilia does. Children should not be viewed as sexual, they're children.
tblue37
(65,483 posts)In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)Ms. Toad
(34,086 posts)When kids are in control of their level of "sexiness," a five year old being "sexy" looks a lot different than an adult designing and dressing (or providing to) a five year old in what they believe is sexy. The glamorous dress-up play we spent hours at as kids when I was growing up was our kid version of what looks and feels sexy. Those pictures don't look at all glamorous or sexy to my adult eyes, and that is as it should be.
It is sort of like good family sex education - have good conversations that offer opportunities for questions, answer honestly what they ask, but mostly let them take the lead and don't provide way more than they are seeking at the moment.
And don't give your 5 year old child things which are professionally designed and manufactured adult visions of sexy. Let them envision and create their own version, which is likely to be much more age appropriate.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)It's not even going to fit.
Ms. Toad
(34,086 posts)as in underwear which is designed for what adults find sexy, which has been made to fit children as young as 5. You're either being silly - or you have not been shopping for clothing for little girls in the past decade (at least).
Just do a search for padded bras for 5 year olds...
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)But actually, yeah, umasamatteroffact I do shop for my kids all the time. How about you? I haven't found the Carters or Calvin Klein stuff at Costco, for instance, to be terribly scandalous.
http://www.costco.com/girls-clothing.html
Maybe I'm just shopping at the wrong places?
Of course, since this thread is about Victoria's Secret, the fact remains that they are making and selling "sexy underwear" for adults, and the rest of it is just noise and phony outrage being drummed up by religious right bloggers.
But don't let that stop ya.
catbyte
(34,433 posts)"Call me" emblazoned on the crotch of her thong? What tween needs a fucking THONG? Disgusting. Exploitative. Just.Plain.Wrong.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Do you have a link to the products that you think you're angry about? Are you sure they exist as they've been represented to you? Can you find the place on the victoria's secret website where they're selling "thongs" for "tweens"?
You can't, because this story is bullshit.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Which is what this is.
Did you bother to check the sourcing on this story?
http://theblacksphere.net/2013/03/victorias-secret-is-coming-for-your-middle-schooler/
liberal N proud
(60,339 posts)Victoria's Secret is exploiting young girls, not women but girls.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)In any given day she can be found administering first grade spelling tests, passing on the virtues of hard work and ingenuity to her children, or writing for some of the nations premier conservative organizations like The Heritage Foundation and The Media Research Center.
Raised in the true blue state of Pennsylvania -- home of the bitter clingers -- Amy and her family broke free in 2011 and relocated to the Lone Star State where her husband has helped launch an outreach organization that is revolutionizing the prolife movement.
Amys passions in life include speaking out for the unborn and standing up to an over-reaching government threatening the fiber of our freedom.
Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #102)
Whisp This message was self-deleted by its author.
ismnotwasm
(41,999 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)in an extremely small font, no less... haven't you noticed? This is DU, whippersnappers! Please, have some consideration for the demographics.
Try HuffPo, it has the actual story.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/25/victorias-secret-bright-young-things_n_2950691.html
Which is, this is not a "new line aimed at preteens", it's an advertising slogan for their spring break line which they claim is aimed at college aged women. It also is not "fuck me" underwear, but rather bathing suits and fairly pedestrian items like canvas sneakers.
CrispyQ
(36,502 posts)I hate to say this, but I think it will have more impact from a father than a mother.
Bibliovore
(185 posts)Economically, it may depend on how many of their customers are females vs. males. I'm guessing that in general, more women shop there than men, other than maybe around Valentine's Day.
Auggie
(31,184 posts)some strong parenting skills are going to be called for.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)and say NO if their kid wants pricey undies.
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,681 posts)Yup, they have no shame. Money rules the day, and sex sells.
Euphoria
(448 posts)Wow!
Do not buy VS products. And teach our kids, through our behavior, not to put up with bs and being used as a 'tool'.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)If current customers boycott Victoria's Secret and let them know why, that will send a strong message.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Reflexively over misinformation spread by religious right bloggers who are fans of the heritage foundation, contains little overlap as it is.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)The "Pink" line is allegedly targeting college age women but it's purchased mostly by youngeer teens and even by some tweens. Some of the "Pink" garments are quite similar to the crap in the pastor's letter.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)an [link:http://theblacksphere.net/2013/03/victorias-secret-is-coming-for-your-middle-schooler/|anti-choice, religious right blogger.
]
The point is, victoria's secret makes nasty, NASTY things that encourage nasty, NASTY thoughts... (although, by all accounts, the actual product line in question is not only aimed at college age teens, but fairly tame, including such "scandalous" items as chuck taylor style canvas sneakers) and those nasty things may fall into the hands of children.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)sir pball
(4,758 posts)IIRC they were marketing thongs with matching padded pushup TRAINING BRAS.
I'm all for open healthy adult sexuality but this is just...eeeeew.
Auggie
(31,184 posts)sir pball
(4,758 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)I pray my SIL will be smarter than that, and by "smarter than that" I mean smarter than me.
mainstreetonce
(4,178 posts)My friend's daughter (10 yr old) was taken birthday shopping by her grandma. They went to a store called Justice. It has clothing for girls from about six to fourteen.
She came home with outfits that were all black,sequins,lace and skin tight.
I asked her if she had a special place to wear these outfits. She laughed and said "school"
SavageWombat
(191 posts)Justice has nice clothes too. I never got a particularly inappropriate vibe there.
But if you want to raise your girls to be fashion-obsessed, trend-chasing consumerists, shopping there regularly is a great start.
earthside
(6,960 posts)... to perceive a coarsening of the culture.
This is a good example.
Unlike conservatives, however, most liberals and progressives would not be calling for the enactment of laws to prohibit even a business's right to 'free speech' in their product line.
In my opinion it is not censorship or heavy-handed discipline for parents to interact with their children to stop inappropriate dress (such as this "line of underwear and bras aimed at middle school aged children" .
I wish boycotts were more effective, but on things like this, in the end, most parents will not want the confrontation or argument they might get from their child to say 'no'.
Furthermore, the popular culture is chockfull of this kind of sexualization of young children -- it is about money -- but question it and you are often accused of being for censorship and being puritanical and reactionary.
ChazII
(6,205 posts)LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)VS does their homework. It's no surprise they'll tap into such a lucrative market. Get them at 13 and they'll be loyal customers for 50 years.
You can't saturate the airwaves with adult women wearing skimpy outfits and expect kids to not want it. Kids imitate the adults around them, they're little sponges that way.
lapislzi
(5,762 posts)(And for the record, I think what VS is doing is disgusting, as is most of its marketing)
All the big brands do it: McDonalds. Disney. Apple. Estee Lauder is particularly clever and insidious: start the kiddies on Clinique and work them up to Estee brands when they are over 40.
If you're doing it right, you're creating a customer for life. A lifetime revenue stream.
Fucking evil geniuses.
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)union_maid
(3,502 posts)They could be attractive to girls, colorful, whatever. The fact that they're VS would probably, unfortunately, make them cool. They don't have to be sexy.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Seems kind of dramatic "Fucking evil geniuses"...
I mean I get it... but this is capitalism, right?
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)I am not excusing the company. However, as you pointed out, we know why the store is doing it - people will buy the shit up. Thus, my bigger question is why do so many parents allow this crap in their house?
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Feminists particularly ought to be enraged at what's happening to children. (Maybe they are?)
llmart
(15,552 posts)and I'm enraged at VS. However, I'm also enraged at all those parents who can't stand up to their own children (for their own good) and just refuse to buy it. There are an awful lot of parents who don't want to be seen as the old-fashioned mother or the not cool mother. We try to teach our children not to give in to peer pressure, but it's the parents who give in to peer pressure more. They're afraid that if the other mothers are buying this for their kids, they don't want to be different.
It's disgusting to me that parents have lost control of their household. Everything revolves around the children. Things have changed tremendously since my two were kids and that was in the 70's and 80's - not so terribly long ago.
I have many remembrances of things my daughter begged for but I just stood my ground and said "No." Believe me, she turned out to be a beautiful woman inside and out and she doesn't hate me for any of it. I clearly remember her saying "you're the meanest mother" and I said, "Yep" and ended the conversation. I didn't give two hoots that she said it either because we all remember that time of being 13 and saying or thinking the same thing about our mothers.
Richardo
(38,391 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Parents need to make sure they don't create forbidden fruit.
Beat me to it.
beveeheart
(1,370 posts)I don't remember how many times I said "No" to my daughter in the '60's/'70's. I must've done something right because I heard her tell her own children "No" when they wanted something that was inappropriate/not really needed/too expensive/a fad. I agree with you that too many parents today have lost control and don't know how to say No.
I was looking through this thread for someone who answer the way you did. Although it is disgusting the way advertising has capitalized on marketing the way they do, it is even more disgusting to see parents allow their children to purchase inappropriate things in the name of "love".
I keep thinking I am turning into an old fuddy duddy, but I really don't think so. Being a parent does not mean being a best friend, I guess it is BFF now. It means being a teacher, and a soldier defending their children. But when you see parents walking down the mall wearing clothes emblazened with the labels of these companies, and wearing them, in my opinion, inappropriately, you can understand how this whole scenario plays out.
Applauding you and the way you raised her.
Isoldeblue
(1,135 posts)loving your children enough to let them hate you. It's a lesson I learned many years ago, reading what Carol Burnett said in an article about her daughter, going through drug abuse. At the time I had two small sons and used it often as they grew into teens, much like you did. I also can say that they are two men that I am enormously proud of. We are all very close now, after the rough passage of their rebellious teens. It is heartening to see them use the same with their youngsters now.
You did great, Ilmart!
VS has crossed the line and only encourages those girls to grow into women who are regarded as mere sex objects, by men and themselves. They only feel good about themselves, when they are at their sexiest. That is sad in this day of feminist women moving forward as self-confident and more than the sum of their bodies.
MineralMan
(146,325 posts)simply said "no" to some of the things I wanted, even when I was spending my own money. I didn't buy those things. Frankly, I can't even remember what they might have been, but "no" was an absolute.
OTOH, I did buy a way cool Madras shirt when I was 16, using my own money, earned delivering milk from 5-8 AM every morning. My mother brought it to me after washing it for the first time. "Look at this," she said, "The colors are all running together." I tried to explain that that was the desired effect, but she didn't get it.
Sometimes Moms are so lame, you know....
JI7
(89,262 posts)Tumbulu
(6,292 posts)outraged and my poor daughter is really out of it compared to the other girls who wear very sexualized clothes. I just will not buy or make those things for her. And so she sticks out and is different.
Luckily for me, the "sexy" type clothes are totally uncomfortable and so she will not wear them anyway. Clothes need to be comfortable or she will not wear them.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)I suppose that encouraging a girl to play sports would give her the opportunity to dress in a more casual manner and not feel "out of it."
Tumbulu
(6,292 posts)and is very coordinated and does lots of gymnastic exercises and play that has her tumbling and doing cartwheels- she'll do 37 in a row to get them right.....
So, she wears clothes that she can do those things in. They are not sexy, they are comfortable and she is the only one who wears shorts that are not too short by the school's rules, which do not seem to be enforced by anyone, except me. When she says- "Oh mom no one follows those rules!" (she is right, no one except us) I say, "well I follow rules and I hope that you will - unless the rule is cruel and or wrong and needs to be changed- then we work on changing it".
I don't know....it is all very discouraging.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Being the ballet student gives her a persona that doesn't require the sex attire.
Best of luck, mom.
Tumbulu
(6,292 posts)and that is true about the posture/persona. And what core strength it builds.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)and not much else.
no brains, no hopes, no dreams, no healthy goals in life, no feelings other than 'sexy' ones, they only exist so eyeballs can view them for their sexuality, and a hole to be filled and diddled.
and the younger the better.
absolutely sick society. Any parent who sees their kids as sexual beings and dress them in adult ways is fucking sick in the head but the morons would be screaming free speech or them consenting to it so that makes it okay, or some more stupid shit about Freedumbs.
Honest, I sometimes wish a bloody humongous meteor would hit us and wipe us out, we are so fucked in the head as a society that there just doesn't seem to be any hope to reverse that.
Tumbulu
(6,292 posts)yes, plenty of sick people want their daughters to be sexualized.
I see it and do not get it. At all.
But I never fit in and my daughter does not either.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)why not just a big flood?
The Wielding Truth
(11,415 posts)do? He should explain to his girls all the things out there that they can not do until they are old enough.
JI7
(89,262 posts)ProfessionalLeftist
(4,982 posts)one_voice
(20,043 posts)?itok=01PW7yV-
?itok=0yJxexsN
I have no idea what the hell middle school girls would be doing wearing these. VS should be ashamed of themselves.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)while wearing them, I hope. But actually the only reason grown women wear Victoria Secret type underwear is they are going to be displaying their underwear to their sex partners. No, this is not for young girls.
tabbycat31
(6,336 posts)I have a few special pairs for when he's around (long-distance). I wear VS underwear because of comfort and quality. 90% of my underwear is from them. I'm not some whore.
There is no way that I'm EVER going back to the granny panties I had to wear growing up.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)progressoid
(49,996 posts)ProfessionalLeftist
(4,982 posts)Hey, I buy VS stuff - mostly their clothing (no use for the lingerie). I started buying the stuff in my 20s or so.
HOWEVER, I think marketing their stuff to girls under 16 or so (at the very OLDEST) is going TOO FAR. At too young an age lingerie with sexy phrases on it and such gives girls the idea that their looks or sexual desirability is all there is about them that is of value and that is SO WRONG to teach a young girl via marketing/products or any other way.
I'm certainly no prude but before 13, girls need to be KIDS. 13 - 18, they grapple with growing up and for God's sake they get enough PRESSURE about their looks, weight, etc. from beauty magazines and peers without VS marketing slutwear to them.
After that, - yep - they should be worrying about what college they're going to and what they want their career to be, not "am I fuckable"? Their stuff for young college-age women is OK. I'd hope by that age they know their worth is not in lingerie and appearance. And they WOULD know that if they weren't wearing what are essentially "fuck me" panties at 13 from VS. Otherwise...they may not.
Jeeze. Seriously. Maybe I'm just getting old but this is WRONG. That's too young an age to be marketing "sexy" lingerie.
one_voice
(20,043 posts)We (girls) all (some/most) go through the stage of wanting to feel 'pretty/more girlish'. I remember when my daughter came to me she was in jr high 8th grade almost 9th and asked if she could wear something other than 'granny panties' LOL...so we went and got something pretty BUT age appropriate. Same when she started wearing bras.
We go through changes and stages as we grow up but they should all be age appropriate and these are not. If these were directed at girls in the later years of high school (that's pushing it) college, well that's a different story. But middle schoolers, no way. It's sick.
I wanted her to come to me and she did, the last thing I would have wanted was her sneaking out getting this shit.
MineralMan
(146,325 posts)in high school. I was 16. It was white with pale pink polka dots. We both laughed. It sorta defused the situation for a time. I guess times have changed since the early 1960s.
beveeheart
(1,370 posts)And you are right on!
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)Who approved this? No shame at all.
MineralMan
(146,325 posts)photograph them while they're on and send the photos to their current crush. This is not a good thing at all.
tpsbmam
(3,927 posts)I wouldn't want my daughter of ANY age wearing this crap -- I'd hope I'd instilled a FAR better sense of her place in her world than to wear putrid crap like this. Pretty and feminine is one thing....this is a whole different area. And to marke t this crap for children....WTF?!! Shame on them......SHAME!
Cleita
(75,480 posts)and good taste go out the window.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)you find a libertarian just a few posts in.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)but I'm sure they don't care. There's all those little girls to exploit.
Grotesque.
Heather MC
(8,084 posts)And they wouldn't have to come after teenagers with this nasty shit.
Women have been asking for it for years.
ProfessionalLeftist
(4,982 posts)And what happened to the request for bras for women who had mastectomies?
There are a lot of marketing strategies besides this they could pursue.
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)Because everyone knows that us fatties aren't fuckable*, and VS wouldn't want their name associated with something so horrid.
* , in case it's not obvious.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)It's brand imaging. They want women (and girls) to identify their brands with supermodels. They have paid those models handsomely to build up the mental association between looking pretty and VS. Enough girls buy the brand and suddenly the girls who don't are "falling behind" in the sex wars, making them insecure and compelling them to buy VS. There are countless marketing studies done associating creating a desire by insecurity and positive brand image.
Associating their brand with plus-size models ruins their image, one that is worth billions. Showing plus size models would not create the mental insecurity that someone like Candice Swanepoel can create. Her mere presence in a room of women, if you could measure their brain activity, would cause anxious thoughts of dieting, skin products, and yes VS lingerie.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Heather MC
(8,084 posts)And they could start a line for Gay Men
Called Victor's Secret.
With Gay Marriage about to be legal nationwide "God willing" lol
Think of all the Men that will want to get something sexy for their hubbies!!!!
Let Me run the dayum company
I would have a granny line called Victoria's Ole Secret. Every panty would come with a free 6 pack sample of depends.
wyldwolf
(43,869 posts)beveeheart
(1,370 posts)nolabear
(41,991 posts)"Ew, they'll let anybody in here." "This country club is for skinnies only." "I wouldn't be caught dead in that. I saw a size 14 wear one."
Not in my universe.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)I really don't find the starving crowd attractive at all.
The industry isn't going to give women realistic targets to hit. If they ever did, what would create the insecurity that compels them to buy? If a girl ever looked at a fashion model and and felt satisfied with how she looked, the industry would be wasting its money. It exists to create want, not satisfy a need.
nolabear
(41,991 posts)Politicub
(12,165 posts)Victoria's Secret is owned by limited brands which also owns Bath and Body Works, Express and Lane Bryant.
I believe their plus size lingerie brand is cacique, but it is nothing like Victoria's Secret.
And I know this because... I had a job during college at one of the Limited-owned stores. The company is masterful at lifestyle branding, and the new distasteful, no, offensive, new line of girl's underwear is about one thing - money.
union_maid
(3,502 posts)That was popular when I was in JH and HS. She said they were trashy or something like that. Also wouldn't let me have a "Liz" blouse. They revealed nothing, but she thought they were trampy looking. She would not be pleased with this stuff.
sinkingfeeling
(51,470 posts)young girls today! I make my granddaughter's dresses so she doesn't look like a mini street walker.
Tumbulu
(6,292 posts)and regressive. Good work making her clothes yourself!
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)voluntarily give up possible profit. The problem is with the parents that buy this stuff. I hope he stands his ground when his child wants to wear what the other girls are wearing.
wyldwolf
(43,869 posts)... I do want to say Disney Princesses and Dora The Explorer as role models aren't that much better. The influences might not be in as "in your face" as Victoria's Secret wear for tweens but the subtle messages they send can be just as damaging if you want to raise a strong and independent young woman.
(edited multiple times because my spelling sux)
Turborama
(22,109 posts)Why is it a bad thing? Genuine question, as I've always thought it was a fun learning show and not seen the harm in it you alluded to.
wyldwolf
(43,869 posts)... and just MY opinion, everything Dora does smacks of helplessness. Her favorite phrase before she does anything is "I need your help." When my daughter was in her Dora stage, she started emulating that and wouldn't do much on her own without asking for help - even little things like put her shoes on.
Once her kindergarten teacher told us she was asking for help doing even the most rudimentary things.
Now, with parents like me and my wife, we weren't too concerned but we did notice it.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)There is no problem solving, there is just Tico showing up with his latest form of transportation to get them over the next topological barrier. Dora is continually getting rescued.
And all it takes to stop a thief is to yell "Swiper! No swiping!"
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)... I thought the letter was going to complain about legitimate aged outfits for grown women.
When I got to the paragraph with the "Call me" and "Feeling Lucky" prints, I couldn't believe what I was reading. This is absolutely unacceptable for middle-school aged kids.
Who the fuck came up with this disgusting idea?
Good grief!
99Forever
(14,524 posts)They are a corporation in a nation without a conscience. Like all of the other corporations.
This is the Nation we have allowed to happen. It is the direct result of electing the less shitty of really shitty politicians.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)Sexualizing pre and teen children is a real problem.
olddots
(10,237 posts)You ain't seen nothing yet ! This crap is aimed at the moms and dads who live thru their kids ,there daughter gets to dress slutty because the mom couldn't and the son gets to be a make believe gangster because daddy's dad wouldn't let junior look anything other than preppy .Most of this is about not growing old ---I look old and unsexy but my kids can look sexy ,my sons a pimp and my daughters a ho .....
BrainMann1
(460 posts)harmonicon
(12,008 posts)I assumed I'd think this was about someone being overly concerned about adults getting to have adult things in a world where it increasingly seems like everything must be "ok for kids," but, damn... that's some fucked up shit. Sometimes I'm so fucking glad that I don't have kids.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)mainstreetonce
(4,178 posts)say every pair of jeans she had for her three year old daughter were low cut so that when she played on the playground they didn't cover her backside. Said she was returning them and telling the store she would not buy more until they made little girl's clothes with a regular waistline so they would cover her butt on the jungle Jim.
The mother is not a popular name around here, but she was right that time..........Elisabeth Hasselbeck.
DollarBillHines
(1,922 posts)I don't even want to know anyone who wears that crap.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)who would that be?
bitchkitty
(7,349 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)DollarBillHines
(1,922 posts)I drink great beer, but I drink $2.49 Three Wishes merlot (Whole Foods, a great deal) and Ancient Age bourbon ($16.49 for a 1.75 and I drink it in three nights).
I drive a 23-year-old car (1990 Mercedes 560SEL), a 1966 Vespa scooter with an all-steel Indian sidecar, and a bunch of other shit.
My favorite foods are migas and Frito pie and General Tso's Chicken (and a whole lot of other stuff).
I haven't deposited a paycheck since the early 70's.
I am White Trash.
I play bottle-neck blues and I sleep 'til noon. I figure, the closer I wake to Five, the shorter is the day.
Like I said, I am White Trash...
But, "JUICY" stamped on the butt of a 14-year-old really bothers me.
That's all,
DBH
datasuspect
(26,591 posts)well if that ain"t country, i'll kiss yer ass
RockaFowler
(7,429 posts)Victoria's Secret
about a minute ago.
In response to questions we recently received, Victorias Secret PINK is a brand for college-aged women. Despite recent rumors, we have no plans to introduce a collection for younger women. Bright Young Things was a slogan used in conjunction with the college spring break tradition.
I stopped shopping at VS a while ago. I used to love their stuff until they got all of the Love Pink stuff.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)ya. i stopped buying when they shifted from empowering women their sexuality and started focusing on the men and their sexuality, telling their woman what they want. use to be all about the woman. now, it is all about the man.
fuck that
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)http://theblacksphere.net/2013/03/victorias-secret-is-coming-for-your-middle-schooler/
I won't hold my breath waiting for the answer.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)tabbycat31
(6,336 posts)Kids underwear will be seen by their peers as soon as they start changing for gym class (locker rooms do not have private stalls). I remember being embarrassed because the only thing I was allowed to wear were white Hanes briefs. Something that was not white was considered slutty by my mother (she also would not let me shop in the juniors dept either as a teen and instead I had to dress like I was in my 40s and matronly).
MineralMan
(146,325 posts)and underwear that says "Call me" on the crotch. Somewhere in between is what is appropriate.
BTW, communal locker rooms are on their way out, and so are gym classes. The schools in my area don't even offer gym classes any longer.
tabbycat31
(6,336 posts)I think the call me is inappropriate. But I don't think wanting something that is not white Hanes briefs (that came up past my belly button) is inappropriate.
I graduated HS in 1998 and not only were there the communal locker rooms (which gyms outside of schools today have) but I was also in the school play and everyone of the same gender was expected to change in the same dressing room. There was no avoiding seeing your peer's underwear.
I would also expect the kids that participate in sports to have some sort of communal locker room.
MineralMan
(146,325 posts)high school (back in the early 1960s). I just never remember it being an issue, at least for the boys. It didn't seem to me like anyone cared much at all. I have no experience with girls' locker rooms, though. More's the pity.
As for your white briefs, I can certainly understand. It's a shame that parents sometimes are so squirmy about their teen children that they attempt to hid the fact that they are growing up. I knew a girl in high school whose mother forced her to wear clothing that was styled after 1940s clothes. She was constantly embarrassed. She was a good friend of mine, and was the leading lady in our senior play. I was the leading guy. We even went to the prom together, after a very, very long session of convincing her mother that it would be OK for her to go. Beyond that, we didn't date each other. We were friends. She turned out just fine as an adult, though. We're friends on Facebook now, and she's a happy person. But her mother's inability to let her grow up during high school really put a crimp in her social development at the time.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Except now the "girls" are for the most part 40+ and I hate to tell you how many conversations I have had with naked ladies dressing or undressing at the locker next to mine. Since I went to Catholic school, we actually had stalls and showers with curtains. I was a little taken aback at first with the freedom other women showed in, well showing.
MineralMan
(146,325 posts)issue with being naked. I'm indifferent to it altogether, really. I realize that others have different attitudes about it, though.
Phentex
(16,334 posts)I'm amazed at the selection really. And yet now all *I* want is comfortable solid stuff, lol. Not necessarily white but I don't mind the plain jane kind.
llmart
(15,552 posts)I didn't think so. What teenager isn't/hasn't been embarrassed about something in their lives? It's part of being a teenager.
Adults try way too hard these days to make life as "perfect" as they can for their children and then when adversity comes into their lives as adults they have no clue how to deal with it.
tabbycat31
(6,336 posts)However, at almost 33, I don't have a healthy relationship with my mother at all. Especially when it comes to clothes.
To this day, she thinks I'm about 10 and refuses to treat me like an adult (I turn 33 on Sunday). She's basically a) refused to accept the fact that I'm growing up and b) refuses to accept the fact that I am not her mini-me and am nothing like her (my sister is which makes this difficult).
I don't think it's unreasonable for a child to dress in age-appropriate clothing, and that includes underwear (especially when said child will be changing in a communal area such as a locker room).
Chellee
(2,101 posts)LibDemAlways
(15,139 posts)adults. My mom is 90. I'm 60. She still refers to my brothers and me as "you kids" and treats us accordingly. I know exactly where you're coming from.
Clear Blue Sky
(2,156 posts)Let kids be kids...
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)The "Reverend Evan" links this information to this blog:
http://theblacksphere.net/2013/03/victorias-secret-is-coming-for-your-middle-schooler/
Written by:
In any given day she can be found administering first grade spelling tests, passing on the virtues of hard work and ingenuity to her children, or writing for some of the nations premier conservative organizations like The Heritage Foundation and The Media Research Center.
Raised in the true blue state of Pennsylvania -- home of the bitter clingers -- Amy and her family broke free in 2011 and relocated to the Lone Star State where her husband has helped launch an outreach organization that is revolutionizing the prolife movement.
Amys passions in life include speaking out for the unborn and standing up to an over-reaching government threatening the fiber of our freedom.
The Heritage Foundation and a whole ton of Anti Choice Right Wing Texas Bible-Bangers and God Barglers. Nice company to keep.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Quick, everyone- ask questions later, freak the fuck out now!
ps. this story is bullshit.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)love_katz
(2,584 posts)Thanks for posting.
It clears things up. VS is not marketing this to middle school girls. It is marketed to college age girls. And, as the article points out, sometimes middle school kids want to emulate older kids by wearing what the older kids are wearing. At that point, it is up to the child's parent(s) to decide if they think that is appropriate or not, and if they decide that kind of underwear is not appropriate, then let their child know that, and explain why. The kid may resent it if the parent says no, but that is the prerogative of the parent.
mythology
(9,527 posts)Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)HappyMe
(20,277 posts)Last edited Tue Mar 26, 2013, 09:04 AM - Edit history (1)
This changes things quite a bit.
edit to add -
I have the recent VS catalog right here. I looked through the Pink section. The girls modeling the underwear are clearly college aged. The underwear itself comes in a bunch of different colors and are just bras. There isn't anything remarkable about them. They also have lounge wear, yoga pants, running/exercise items, tshirts, tank tops. None of the stuff is anything to get upset about.
datasuspect
(26,591 posts)i had me some fresh pearls to clutch and a two liter of outrage ready to vomit all over the place.
shucks.
Sissyk
(12,665 posts)I have been watching this thread to see how many finger-wagging, pedophile calling, corporate crooks, post I would count before someone finally posted the truth.
Only 102. lol!
Let's blame everybody in the world except for the parents when little Lucy throws a fit and wants shiny panties; or a religious fanatic mommy goes all off because her eyes are laid upon panties with words.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Well, yes.
Overblown moral panic at the horrific thought of teenagers having sex ...the way that teenagers have always had sex... O NO!!!!!
And this "Victoria's Secret Is Teh Satan" crap is coming straight from the Religious Right, too.
name not needed
(11,660 posts)What are the chances I find an article blaming liberals, gays, atheists and feminists (aka DU's user base) for all of society's ills?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)it's pretty boilerplate religious right gibberish.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)Like Bluto in Animal House, they're on a roll....
The outrage won't stop.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)It told their son to bring another set of those little tiny batteries next time, but he doesn't come visit.
Why, he hardly ever calls. Is it so hard to pick up the phone, every once in a while?
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Sex scandals.
Sexy movies.
Sexy jokes.
Sexy TV shows.
Sexy underwear.
Sexy books and magazines and movies.
Sex. Sex. Sex.
Being interested in sex is natural and necessary if we are to procreate and our species is to continue to inhabit the earth.
But the advertising industry uses sex to control consumers, to get us to buy stuff we really don't need and can't afford.
Give us a break. Our natural interest in sex is enough. Just lay off all the non-stop sex. And encouraging young girls to wear sexy underwear -- to even think of it is disgusting.
I remember how angry I was with the TV show Beverly Hills 90210. It is very hard to limit what your teenaged kids watch. Why broadcast a show aimed at teenagers that glorifies sex and drugs and all kinds of behavior that is not appropriate at their age.
You are right to be upset.
Having raised girls of my own, my advice is to be very firm about the issue. Show your daughter where you stand and explain why. Girls who get obsessed with sex at an early age have no life. It's very sad. Educate them. Answer their questions. And then explain that they have to focus on education at their age in order to have good lives later on.
I know you didn't ask for advice, so ignore it if you don't want it.
840high
(17,196 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)cynatnite
(31,011 posts)redqueen
(115,103 posts)Totally.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)The stuff wears like iron, its comfortable, it fits. VS has racey stuff but they also have lovely perfectly appropriate items too. It only took 2 days changing for gym for them to realize that Barbie underwear was going in the trash.
As their parent it was up to me to hand over the credit card so I had ultimate say over their under garments as I presume is typical of virtually every other middle schooler (I'm guessing that's the target audience you're objecting to).
While neither of them went through a Justin Beiber phase (my youngest is 16), they certainly were in VS stores well within the tween years as well as Hollister, Abercrombie and Fitch, American Eagle and a slew of other shops that base their marketing on sex - targeting young shoppers. None of these stores are "innocent" so are you advocating against all of them? Good luck with that.
As a parent, its my job to educate my daughters about the hard sell, what it means, how to avoid the propaganda. I agree that VS is marketing to young girls, no doubt. But so are all the other stores so why pick on this shop in particular? That trendline is firmly established and (for this age group) it definitely crosses both gender lines (have you seen the marketing for Hollister for example - near naked guys draped in sexy positions?)
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)I have purchased bras and panties at Victoria's Secret for my kid. Not recently, and i certainly never went beyond a quick check at what the hell we were buying plus handing over the credit card, but she's only recently (finally) financially trustworthy enough to go to the mall and not purchase magic beans or some random shit only sold on kiosks.
There are plenty of things there appropriate for the age group. My female coworkers inform me that the store has a poorly deserved reputation, and that for "more blessed" women they have things unavailable at most other places for a reasonable cost (25 people in my department at work: 24 women, and me).
There's no way ON EARTH or IN HELL I would purchase my daughter underwear that said "call me." Ever. Including if were a gun to my head or the fate of the world were at stake.
Anyway, I say this to point out that hopefully there's a happy medium between making a girl wear granny panties and hyper-sexualizing them, and mostly in hopes that this is a prank, joke, or crazy Internet rumor?
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)since they started to care about their underwear.
My 16 year old gets my credit card now and shops for her own stuff as well. When she was younger there was no way in hell I'd have consented to purchase "call me" thongs. She never asked for that kind of item back then but we certainly had already had conversations about marketing, the sexualization of women in marketing, and how to look for products intelligently without being influenced by the propaganda.
While she's a dumb teen in many ways, she's an excellent shopper now - much better than me.
And yes, VS has made it clear they are not marketing to tweens with this stuff. I doubt that statement (since as you know virtually ALL of the marketing for teens is sexualized - Hollister shopping bags?) but as a parent its our job to help them figure out how to go beyond the marketing of any type and be a smart shopper.
secondwind
(16,903 posts)JVS
(61,935 posts)raccoon
(31,118 posts)BainsBane
(53,056 posts)because I fear seeing a remark about girls exercising "agency."
jmowreader
(50,562 posts)Here's your Bright Young Things...
http://www.victoriassecret.com/pink/spring-break
Go over there, look at that...it's not for little girls and it's very tame stuff.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)SCORE ANOTHER VICTORY FOR PURITY AND DECENCY!!!
jmowreader
(50,562 posts)tclambert
(11,087 posts)to Ted Bundy. Sincerely, Any Corporation."
"P.S. Even though the Supreme Court says corporations are people, you can't put a corporation in jail. So we'll profit from our crimes and get away with it."
My Good Babushka
(2,710 posts)If I had a girl, though, I would hope she would know she's not getting a forty dollar underwear. She can get them in a pack, they will probably say "Hanes" or "Fruit of the Loom" on them.
valerief
(53,235 posts)ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)Hellllloooooo....I know none of you on a tear will read this, but if you care about not looking dumb!!!!
http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/victoriassecret.asp
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)we're trying to watch "The Mentalist"!
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)C'mon....it's not Matlock or anything....
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)and, as is my wont, I took the ball and ran with it and will probably run the joke right into the ground.
Hell, I'm old, too. But not too old for "Archer".
redqueen
(115,103 posts)right?
Whisp
(24,096 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)young women only. I don't think that is their target at all, in fact, but a slippery madison avenue fucked up thinking on how to gt away with it. That name is directed toward the younger, you'd have to have a brick in your skull not to see what they are doing here.
It's deliberately said that way to actually target a younger audience but still claim blinky eyed 'who us' innocence when we know what the hell they are up to. Oh, you dirty minded parents you!
jayzuz
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Yessss, it's a conspiracy.
Thankfully, brought to your attention by [link:http://theblacksphere.net/2013/03/victorias-secret-is-coming-for-your-middle-schooler/|anti-choice blogger fans of the heritage foundation.
]
And then people wonder why there are "purity balls". Oh, look at those people, in a moral panic over their teenage daughters!
http://www.eonline.com/news/401281/victoria-s-secret-controversy-bright-young-things-not-a-new-underwear-line-for-teens
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)is not gonna be all thrilled with "'Bright Young Things'"
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Christ, tell it to the plastic surgery industry.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)promoting this to adult women.
cause we can really really trust those companies. believe them at their word.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)The "Rev. Evan Dolive", whose sole source on this deal is one Amy Gerwing:
http://theblacksphere.net/author/amy/
Raised in the true blue state of Pennsylvania -- home of the bitter clingers -- Amy and her family broke free in 2011 and relocated to the Lone Star State where her husband has helped launch an outreach organization that is revolutionizing the prolife movement.
The Heritage Foundation... Media Research Center... Hmm, think they've worked with other "important scientists" like Judith Reisman? I bet they have. Oh, no pattern here, though, right?
Sure.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)yup.
not buying the company excuse for peddling this shit to the kids.
that simple. want to argue that .... fine. but, nooooo. you have to go off on a whole other tangent
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)The "other tangent" is the ONLY source on the allegations in the OP. In fact, they can't even get straight which is an ad slogan and which is a product line.
Find on the Victoria's Secret website where they're "peddling shit to kids" and I'll listen to what you say.
http://www.victoriassecret.com/
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)or maybe it is just....
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)but contrary to popular belief, flailing and dancing are not the same thing.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)you want to be an adult, although you really barely are.
you want to be sold things as 'young' when you are over the hill.
you got it ack basswards. advertising is topsy turvey world.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)OR the anti-gun control, ranting about Saul Alinsky "Mommy Lobby" terribly convincing on this particular story.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)I advise some froth flicking.
heh.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)And I have an admittedly quaint attachment to shit like facts, over spurious lies and brazen bullshit.
that said, I'm not terribly invested in the success or failure of Victoria's secret. I did enjoy, er, perusing the free catalogs from time to time (Jill Goodacre. Sigh.) ...but that was easily 25 years ago.
trixie
(867 posts)I am a dad who has no control over my children. Your influence is much greater than mine. I will need you to stop any more marketing ploys until I receive a brain.
What a bunch of hogwash.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)religious right, culture war "victoria's secret kids smutty underwear plot" gibberish.
demigoddess
(6,644 posts)I have seen sexy short shorts for little girls in diapers. That is so stupid. And it is hard to see all the sexy outfits in stores for grade schoolers for school attire. I am more appreciative of school uniforms because of it.