Follow up :) for Those Upset About Victorias Secret

If you don't think that PINK isn't being marketed to girls younger than late teens/20s, you haven't walked around a middle school lately.

And I still think that much of their advertising is inappropriate for teens. Why does a 15 yr old need lacy underwear or those sayings on her butt any more than a 12 yr old?

ETA: We have been there done that with my now grown SD and no, I don't think all her underthings were appropriate over the years. But I didn't always get a vote. And she did shop at Target and Penny's or Macy's, too so cute bras are not restricted to VS.

I'm sorry. My daughters are 9, 13 and 14. They like looking at my VS catalogs (the older two do) just to look at the Pink line. Most of the clothes I would have no issue getting, but some of the sleep shirts and all of the underwear...no. Hell no.

I don't care if it is marketed toward 15-22 year olds. You have younger teens and tweens who are still interested in it. The pretty young things marketing campaign is just one little segment of the whole Pink line. It's not really anything new, just a new ad.

It's still ridiculous.

ADD: I read the original question. Visited the VS site and saw pictures. Was complete unaware of the conservative site. I'm 45 years old, politically middle, and I still thought that they were in poor taste, even for college, in light of the whole Steubenville thing. Yes, clothes don't "make the girl", but the wrong place, wrong time, wrong message does NOT help. VS said they were trying to capture a "spring break" attitude - if by casual drunking F-ing as the attitude, that's what some of the underwear lines said to me. Spring break "freedom" I could get behind but they didn't go there.

Original: I e-mailed VS about the issue and got a reply. It was marketed toward College Age girls with a "spring break" flavor. Well, it's still stupid and still surprises me after Steubenville. If they want "bright" young things, they could use "bright" words, like beautiful, sweet, etc. But they chose "dare you", "call me", and other stuff.

It was stupid marketing regardless of the age group of the target girls. And I'm by no means a prude - I'm pretty liberal about stuff. But for all the "let's send a better message", "no means no", etc., I felt like the marketing team was high, stupid, or felt like they had to use last year's idea.

Positive and confident sexuality has nothing to do with a come-on, do-me line. It's about confidence and how you carry yourself.

Guess that I'm glad I'm not the parent of the 15 year old girl the skanky underpants are targeted to.

I'm not going to say that wearing a thong limits a girl's potential... all I will say is this: I still remember being 17, 18.... still confused about relationships with very immature boys and determined to stay a virgin at least until I was out of high school... I can imagine that sexy lingerie for some girls, (who are not of age to vote or drink or even drive legally-- 15, that is) is still a bit confusing. I'm not expecting VS to take responsibility for the parents and teaching our kids to value themselves, but I also consider that most 15-20 year olds are not prepared to have babies and raise them. So, maybe the 'dress sexy in clothes which suggest availability but keep it in your pants' is still confusing at that age?

And as I said before, I wouldn't allow my son, even in his later teens, to wear underpants which said "ride this", even if it WAS being marketed to older kids. These brands know what they are doing == marketing up and selling 'down' to younger ages.

Yep, grumpy conservative mom here... (added-- politically and socially liberal mom with conservative views on appearance and conduct.)

ETA: I understand your point, that the backlash was caused by incorrect reporting. That's fine. The fact that it wasn't reported correctly originally doesn't make me relieved about the fact that our young women are becoming introduced to sexy lingerie at ever younger ages, esp from when I was a teen. It's still troubling. Your link offered a link to a very compelling article, so I'll offer that back...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christine-carter-phd/those-...

I understand that you made no comments about the larger picture, but it is a natural thing to bring up, given the context of your post. Just because something is reported incorrectly doesn't make unsettling news any less unsettling.

I don't think anyone would ever mistake me for a right winger.
I wasn't upset with VS at all, just the parents who would help then profit with distasteful products for their young girls.
It's a wide, wide world out there.
Parents need to "stand in the gap" on MANY products and services available to and marketed to our kids.
In other words, the "if Suzy jumped off a bridge...." line of thought!

This is the first I've heard of this, but I have to laugh... my 10 year old daughter has a rapidly developing body, and the bottom line is, she needs to wear a bra. She is 5'4" tall and 100 pounds, so we really have no choice but to shop for her in juniors. She is too big for the children's department.

That said, I do buy her bras and underwear at Pink/Victoria's Secret, because Pink is the only place I've found that has bras and underwear that are not only appropriate for a young girl, but in fun colors that pre-teens like. She doesn't want to buy white or tan like I do! She wants hot pink, purple, pink camouflage, etc. Who can blame her? She's a kid! The bras we have bought for her there provide plenty of coverage, are NOT push-up, and she says that they feel comfortable. The panties cover her behind and don't ride up. Of course, I don't buy the ones that have sayings on the backside - that's just silly.

I guess before all of these moms go getting so upset, they should try to take a pre-teen bra shopping and see what's available! Pink is really the best option I've found, and it's entirely possible to buy modest, yet fun, underthings for a young girl there.

Here's my 2 cents...if a girl is showing off her panties regaurdless of what they look like the problem isn't Victoria Secrets making them. Just saying girls can be skanky in granny panties. Stop blaming companies for parental flaws. Clothing doesn't make a person who they are.

LOL on the f/u part of the 'headline'
just had that shorthand come thru an email from an HR person - emailed back and told them they really might want to think about their shorthand in such instances ....

Talk about "dog whistling" to your like thinking people, isn't that what your doing? Pucker up much?

Everyone who has ever raised a child past 10 knows that there is nothing a female kid or a male kid likes better than a kid 4 yrs older. They idolize them. You think that's not their plan? Advertisers want clientele. They don't care how they get it.

Connecting this to the right wing is disingenuous at best, deflecting the attention of average moms with normal expectations fo not sexualizing their children to a completely different arena. Wagging the dog, as it were.

ETA After SWH: uh, did you not get that, yes, we still believe that's who VS is marketing to. No matter who you want to blame, moms know when advertisers are going after their children.

Thanks for posting this.

Anytime you mention fact check here, you're going to get yelled at for it because the yeller decides that you mean it as "liberal speak". It wouldn't matter if you were right without a shadow of a doubt - all that matters is that you mentioned the fact check. Just enjoy the fact that you are right.

Dawn

wow!
some folks got their VS thongs in a wad over this!
;D
khairete
S.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/victoriassecret.asp

well if parents didnt turn their young teens loose in the mall or willingly buy the under pants for them then they wouldnt have a market to sell them. if you dont like it dont buy it. we cant control what others do. im not sure if i would or would not buy them for my daughter (as she is 6 and happy with hello kitty panties). how i see it is if its not themed in a sexy way and it covers she can probably have it.

If not VS, some other scantilly clad company. Honestly I think girly makeup lines are far worse because the marketing is geared towards small children who grow up wanting to wear makeup and look like models. My girls have no interest in VS because it's not in our house. I never wanted VS anything, don't get the magazines and don't visit the store when I shop with my girls. I did visit once when I got a giftcard for Christmas (after my 4th child the moms thought it was time I get some sexy back) found it high priced and over rated and bought some comfortable boy panties.

In the end, if you don't want your girls wearing it, don't wear it yourselves and don't immerse yourselves in it. I didn't even know about this campaign. Also, I hate the PINK lineup. It's just trashy as females from age 15-50 wear sweatpants with the words PINK in the back. Terrible. It's not VS's fault... it's people and their inability to dress their age or dress in an appropriate way. These sweatpants are to be worn at home lounging around... there is no model who walks around like that!

If you are the one buying your daughter's underwear, it doesn't matter who they're marketing to. Don't buy it if you don't want her to have it.