Victoria’s Secret marketing sexualizes tween girls, writers say

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Bebyebe UUU, UT
    March 23, 2013 8:44 p.m.

    Some of their products are good quality. Some are only for image and don't fit very well. IMHO

  • jeanie orem, UT
    March 22, 2013 5:42 p.m.

    I've lived in the mission field too and raised kids there as well. It is tricky raising moral kids anywhere. In some places sin is more subtle and in others it is more blatant. Sometimes, as you indirectly point out, the subtle sins are the most pervasive. Parents everywhere need to be vigilant and use every opportunity to teach, weather it's seeing hookers on the corner or refusing to participate in looking at bad pictures shown to you by your "active Mormon" buddies.

  • BYU Track Star Los Angeles, CA
    March 22, 2013 1:15 p.m.

    @Jean in Orem

    Living in the Mission Field. My Kids are confronted by opportunities to sin everyday. Recognizing what is out here and knowing the consequences is part of a growing up process. Seeing Hookers on Santa Monica Blvd. not a mile away from the L.A. Temple is sobering learning experience for them going to do Baptisms for the Dead.

    Despite the fact that the Porn Industry is a 10 Billion a year industry in Southern California it is Utah who is one of the Highest per-capita consumers of this soul-destroying product. Why do you think that is?

    On the Commuter trains to work I often see Amish-like people. They seem to manage to live their lives by their beliefs in the world. The young couples I see mostly are pushing baby strollers.

  • jeanie orem, UT
    March 22, 2013 8:14 a.m.

    It's so easy to flip out the saying "teach correct principles and let kids govern themselves", isn't it? But how do you teach and support correct principles when many things around our children are obviously different(and very persuasive)from those principles?

    At some point our children do and should govern themselves, but only when they are strong enough to actually make a real decision and not just be persuaded to act on the enticements of an industry who would exploit natural physical attraction and a desire to be beautiful for money.

    I get that there are those that see this kind of opinion as "Neo-Victorian" and try to make is seem like an over reaction. However, I would submit that when a person is used to viewing things that are more clearly defined as "porn" Victoria Secrets does seem tame.

  • BYU Track Star Los Angeles, CA
    March 21, 2013 5:51 p.m.

    Oh Pleeeese, I would hazard a guess you neo-Victorians would have been up in arms about those evil Sears Catalogs 100 years ago. Do our Children have free-agency or don't they? We teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves. At some point they bear the consequences for their decisions. BTW, a V.S. catalog is not porn IMHO.

  • iron&clay RIVERTON, UT
    March 21, 2013 4:31 p.m.

    Having raised many daughters, our experience with V.S. is that if your teen daughter visits their store and makes a purchase that your home address is put on a target list for sending their catalogs which my wife would attempt to file in garbage before her daughters or more importantly any of her sons (or husband) could see it.

    The catalogs kept coming to our address even after our daughter left on an LDS mission. Victoria Secret catalogs were an embarrassing stain in our family mailbox that was not easily removed.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    March 21, 2013 3:49 p.m.

    The girl in the picture doesn't look sexualized to me. Sloppy sweat pants and two shirts?

  • jeanie orem, UT
    March 19, 2013 9:44 p.m.

    Yes, parents should teach children. We do that in my family. We are very clear on our standards and why we have them. If parents were the only influence on their children this may be all that is needed. But, there are so many things out of a parent's control. Our children are living in "enemy territory" - if they are trying to be moral young people. It is not wrong to try to lesson the enemy's presence where we can while doing our best to fortify our children to live in the world as it currently stands.

    And our children ARE being victimized. There are casualties in the most solid homes where parents do everything they humanly can to protect their kids. If you do not believe this you are ignorant I was until my child became a victim.

  • jdub1942 PROVO, UT
    March 19, 2013 5:17 p.m.

    You both can argue until you are blue in the face, but you both make great points and the answer is probably somewhere in the middle.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    March 19, 2013 4:37 p.m.

    Samhill - the answer is not to remove choice, but to teach our kids to make the right choices. A right choice when there is no choice.... means absolutely nothing. I really find it hard to understand how parents taking responsibility isn't the very same thing as your "village".

    Victorias Secret is the very least of our concerns. On the internet - material much worse is just a few clicks away. We can either focus on building walls around our kids.... or raising kids that understand how to make proper choices.

    If in Utah, there were no demand for these products, they would not be sold or marketed. If you want to alter the behavior, simply take the market away through the power of the purse. That is ever more powerful than screaming from the roof tops that our kids are being victimized.

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    March 19, 2013 4:21 p.m.

    I find comments, like those from "UtahBlueDevil", that articles like this are some attempt to "shift responsibility" by parents who are not "doing their job" as pretty short sighted.

    It is true that problems with the systematic and commercialized sexualization of young girls (and boys) is not restricted to marketing campaigns by Victoria Secret, and certainly not only recently.

    But, it is spectacular self delusion to suppose that the problem doesn't exist and that it is increasing in both scope and intensity.

    Furthermore, attempts to thwart those pernicious influences is not simply for parents, who in doing so are most definitely "doing their job" as parents, but for all more mature citizens who, as part of their "village" effort to raise children, work to insulate them from exploitation.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    March 19, 2013 12:23 p.m.

    I am a little surprised by this..... the inference that companies can't target age appropriate products for college kids because young kids will want them too?

    What is being talked about has absolutely nothing to do with Victorias Secret. As long as I can remember, we have had things like 17 Magazine - which isn't really aimed at 17 year olds. For the last 25 years we've had MTV. And before that, we had Bikini clad Gidget. This is a very old problem. Vitoria Secret didn't start anything that wasn't already going.

    Little girls wanting to buy big girl stuff is nothing new either. What this loops back to again is parents being parents. They are the ones responsible what their kids bringthe store through the front or back door of their houses.

    Stop trying to shift responsibility away from really the only ones who have a real impact on kids decisions. There are plenty of kids who don't drink, don't smoke, or watch inappropriate material - not because they aren't available, but because their parents are doing their job.

    Yes, stores should hold some responsibility here....but if parents did their job....