The official student newspaper of University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire since 1923.

The Spectator

The official student newspaper of University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire since 1923.

The Spectator

The official student newspaper of University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire since 1923.

The Spectator

Victoria’s Secret is trying to sexualize me?

I’m taking this opportunity to air some of my dirty laundry. Actually, as I write this I’m just remembering how much dirty laundry I have to do.

I started shopping at Victoria’s Secret when I was probably a sophomore in high school. It was the cool thing to do and even though my mother didn’t necessarily approve of the garments I was purchasing as a 16-year-old, I wanted to be grown up and mature like a woman in college. (I realize how backwards my thought process is. I’m far from mature and grown up!)

Found in a New York Times article from 2002, when PINK was first launched, the market was for 15 to 22-year-olds. The garments featured in the PINK line are infamous for their bright colors, lace and shimmering details.

But, not every piece of clothing in the store is racy or scandalous. The newest line for PINK — Bright Young Things — has caused quite the stir in the media. Allegedly Victoria’s Secret was aiming their “spring break must haves” at “teen girls” and the masses are not having it.

Story continues below advertisement

Parents are upset about the fashion line attempting to sexualize teenage girls and claiming Victoria Secret is referring to these girls as ‘things.’

The ammunition these upset parents are using is a quote by VS’s Chief Financial Officer Stuart Burgdoerfer saying 15 or 16-year-old girls want to be cool like girls in college and that is “part of the magic of what we do at PINK.”

People seem so incredibly upset about this, but I’m confused because I thought the line was always directed towards teenagers in addition to college women? One mother, Diana Cherry, started a petition on for the company to pull the new line.

She said, “Sexualization of girls by marketers has been found to contribute to depression, eating disorders, and early sexual activity — and this new ad campaign is a glaring example of a culture forcing girls to grow up too fast.”

Cherry also stated the line tells girls to dress sexy and tells boys to look at women like sex objects and “our children are not sex objects; not things.”

I have a 15-year-old sister and I know that I am often bothered by how old she has gotten. She is my baby sister but somehow she already has her driving permit!

But, she is growing up and I think that PINK is a perfect transition for a young woman.

Yes, this new line does have brightly colored, lacy cheeky undies sporting phrases such as “Call Me,” “Feeling Lucky” or “Dare You” but that is no different than any of their previous lines and there are lots of less-sexy types of underwear sold.

Also, as previously stated, there are more choices than the undies with scandalous statements.

Our society is trying to hold a company accountable for keeping young girls from trying to look older and sexier, but Victoria’s Secret are exactly that. A company. I am sure they would say they are also looking out for the customer but their priority is to make money. These lines are making them a lot of money.

Our society is built on sex. I think we need to just suck it up and understand that it is not a company’s responsibility to control the undergarments girls wear.

Fifteen to 22-year-olds eat the PINK line right up. If you are a parent uncomfortable with your daughter wearing undies with “Wild One” embossed around the butt, then talk to your kid about it. Don’t put a petition up online asking the fashion line to kill the clothing and ruin it for the rest of us.


Leave a Comment
More to Discover

Comments (0)

The Spectator intends for this area to be used to foster healthy, thought-provoking discussion. Comments are expected to adhere to our standards and to be respectful and constructive. As such, we do not permit the use of profanity, foul language, personal attacks or the use of language that might be interpreted as libelous. The Spectator does not allow anonymous comments and requires a valid email address. The email address will not be displayed but will be used to confirm your comments.
All The Spectator Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Activate Search
Victoria’s Secret is trying to sexualize me?