Is Victoria's Secret evil?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BingoBoy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
edwest2 said:
You are quite mistaken. I watched as the media cheapened human dignity over a 40 year period.

I am a media professional. I am involved in Marketing decisions at my company and have studied plenty of examples of advertising strategy. It is highly sophisticated but made to appear invisible to the average person.

Not understanding the history of the advertising medium makes it easy to say - don’t like it? Well, that’s your personal problem. It is the responsibility of responsible media companies to balance legitimate advertising with legitimate public concerns.

It’s fine that Victoria’s Secret has a catalog and that it has public retail outlets. But VS, like other purveyors of women in skimpy ‘clothing,’ also knows that it needs to grow. Which, again, is fine as long as good taste and reasonable standards of decency are maintained - in public. No large banners showing scantily clad models here and there and televised “fashion” shows. I doubt the average woman needs to learn about underwear once she becomes a woman. It’s an everyday thing and special items are such that they either fit or not.

But what else do these models do? Why they’re featured in Maxim. No surprise there but they are certainly not about the clothes. This is not clothes cross-marketing, but the cross-marketing of human beings.

Catholics cannot afford to be indifferent. We cannot fall into the “Hey. What’s the big deal?” thinking pattern.

When I was growing up, chaste meant you never talked about sex in the bedroom. Ever. And when you were instructed about that particular topic, it was private as well. It was done out of the tremendous respect Catholics had for the institution and Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. Young men were taught to respect all women.

God bless,
Ed
Click to expand...
I don’t believe in the ‘Good Old Days.’

Even Catholicism admits that human nature remains essentially the same.

Yes people were a lot more polite (or simply prudish) about sex in that era, but they also took a lot of injustice for granted that we no longer consider acceptable (like institutionalized racism) and the Double Standard regarding the sexual sins of men and women was firmly in place.
 
No Sears-bashing now! I buy my Craftsman tools there, my mowers, clothes, and shoes there! And not all their panties are old lady bloomer specials! Don’t hate! Don’t hate with my Sears! 😛 Victoria’s Secret is too expensive. So sexy Sears it is! 😛
kozlosap said:
Not everyone wants to wear ugly big girl panties from Sears! LOL - I take it from your post that you don’t watch primetime network TV either, muchness cable primetime. I’d much rather my kids see a VS ad than play a “shoot and kill” video game. Just MHO. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
No Sears-bashing now! I buy my Craftsman tools there, my mowers, clothes, and shoes there! And not all their panties are old lady bloomer specials! Don’t hate! Don’t hate with my Sears! 😛 Victoria’s Secret is too expensive. So sexy Sears it is! 😛
Click to expand...
Oh well, sure. In my youth, the boys used to lust over the pictures of the lingerie models in the big Sears catalog, (as well as the Wards and Penney’s catalogs.) The VS catalog did not exist then, but if it had, any boy with access to it would surely have been the most popular boy in school.
 
LOL…no doubt! 😛 I just think it’s funny that women think they have to go to VS to buy sexy, tight-fit, french cut panties? I see those style underwear at Sears, Target, the mall, anywhere? JCPenny’s has them for goodness sakes. VS just has a bunch of gorgeous models wearing next to nothing in advertisements LOL 😛 Maybe Walmart needs to pay the VS chicks to come over to the other side! 😃 Like in MLB or NBA! :cool:
JimG said:
Oh well, sure. In my youth, the boys used to lust over the pictures of the lingerie models in the big Sears catalog, (as well as the Wards and Penney’s catalogs.) The VS catalog did not exist then, but if it had, any boy with access to it would surely have been the most popular boy in school.
Click to expand...
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
LOL…no doubt! 😛 I just think it’s funny that women think they have to go to VS to buy sexy, tight-fit, french cut panties? I see those style underwear at Sears, Target, the mall, anywhere? JCPenny’s has them for goodness sakes. VS just has a bunch of gorgeous models wearing next to nothing in advertisements LOL 😛 Maybe Walmart needs to pay the VS chicks to come over to the other side! 😃 Like in MLB or NBA! :cool:
Click to expand...
For the little credibility that it is worth I have been told by female friends/relatives that victoria’s secret bras are typically a lot more comfortable than generic brands.
 
PatrickSebast said:
For the little credibility that it is worth I have been told by female friends/relatives that victoria’s secret bras are typically a lot more comfortable than generic brands.
Click to expand...
I think that the quality is not as good as it used to be.

I just got a Macy’s catalogue, and low and behold, 2 pages were dedicated to undergarments, with ladies wearing them.

I’m not sure what the controversy is…

is it “Fancy knickers are an occasion of sin.”

Or “Victoria’s secret goes to out of it’s way to market fancy knickers.”

Maybe a woman feels more comfortable buying such items in a store dedicated to only such garments.

Imagine the poor teenage boy working at Target having to work at the register when a lady is buying lingerie :eek:…Usually, Victoria’s Secret has women working there.
 
This is surreal, man. I never thought I’d be on Catholic Answers discussing bra comfort! :p:D
PatrickSebast said:
For the little credibility that it is worth I have been told by female friends/relatives that victoria’s secret bras are typically a lot more comfortable than generic brands.
Click to expand...
 
PatrickSebast said:
For the little credibility that it is worth I have been told by female friends/relatives that victoria’s secret bras are typically a lot more comfortable than generic brands.
Click to expand...
Especially when you are larger on top, comfort is key. I’m sorry, but cheap bras don’t cut it. They either fall apart after one wear, or break at the most inopportune time (ie.a job interview). When it happened the guys eyes bugged out like this: :eek: , but I did get the job!
 
Mary_Gail_36 said:
I think that the quality is not as good as it used to be.

I just got a Macy’s catalogue, and low and behold, 2 pages were dedicated to undergarments, with ladies wearing them.

I’m not sure what the controversy is…

is it “Fancy knickers are an occasion of sin.”

Or “Victoria’s secret goes to out of it’s way to market fancy knickers.”

Maybe a woman feels more comfortable buying such items in a store dedicated to only such garments.

Imagine the poor teenage boy working at Target having to work at the register when a lady is buying lingerie :eek:…Usually, Victoria’s Secret has women working there.
Click to expand...
The controversy has to do with two things: Indifference and Insensitivity.

First, people can do what they want. However, a few post here out of genuine surprise or false surprise: What? You Catholics are hung up over skimpy clothes and underwear? What are you? A bunch of prudes?

The clear implication is that Catholics are much too concerned about things that we should be indifferent toward. I recall when the miniskirt first came out. Christians considered it a scandal regarding modesty. A proper young lady simply did not show so much leg in public. In the 1960s, Catholic schoolgirls were required to wear skirts that covered the knees.

That is the issue. As time passed, a small clique in the fashion industry decided women will be trained to show more and more and more skin. It happened gradually, so people got used to it, then it went on to the next phase. Of course, Christians complained, and the rulers of the fashion industry just went on with it anyway.

Honestly. What is the purpose of a thong? Soon women will be paying $50 for a pair of Designer rubber bands.

And so some people post here to encourage Catholics to be Insensitive. “Hey. What’s the big deal?” The problem, from the Catholic modesty perspective, is that the mass-marketing of this type of “clothing” becomes a part of the culture. It becomes embedded. A young, attractive relative of mine was wearing rather revealing clothes one day and I pointed it out to her. Her knee-jerk response? “All my friends dress like this.”

Like a stain, it spreads. And it helps to encourage certain behaviors. Catholics need to be on our guard and if we are to show a good example, we need to avoid certain things.

Being Catholic is about behavior and doing what pleases God.

God bless,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
The controversy has to do with two things: Indifference and Insensitivity.

First, people can do what they want. However, a few post here out of genuine surprise or false surprise: What? You Catholics are hung up over skimpy clothes and underwear? What are you? A bunch of prudes?

The clear implication is that Catholics are much too concerned about things that we should be indifferent toward. I recall when the miniskirt first came out. Christians considered it a scandal regarding modesty. A proper young lady simply did not show so much leg in public. In the 1960s, Catholic schoolgirls were required to wear skirts that covered the knees.

That is the issue. As time passed, a small clique in the fashion industry decided women will be trained to show more and more and more skin. It happened gradually, so people got used to it, then it went on to the next phase. Of course, Christians complained, and the rulers of the fashion industry just went on with it anyway.

Honestly. What is the purpose of a thong? Soon women will be paying $50 for a pair of Designer rubber bands.

And so some people post here to encourage Catholics to be Insensitive. “Hey. What’s the big deal?” The problem, from the Catholic modesty perspective, is that the mass-marketing of this type of “clothing” becomes a part of the culture. It becomes embedded. A young, attractive relative of mine was wearing rather revealing clothes one day and I pointed it out to her. Her knee-jerk response? “All my friends dress like this.”

Like a stain, it spreads. And it helps to encourage certain behaviors. Catholics need to be on our guard and if we are to show a good example, we need to avoid certain things.

Being Catholic is about behavior and doing what pleases God.

God bless,
Ed
Click to expand...
Instead of pointing the finger at your opponents and accusing them of being indifferent, or insensitive, why don’t you argue against the ISSUE. Let’s keep the ad hominem attacks to ourselves, OK?

Now, I’m sure that everyone in this thread is arguing from their conscience and with the best understanding they have of the Church and God. Since we’ve established that, why don’t we focus on WHY certain garments are acceptable or unacceptable and leave the blame game behind?
 
vashsunglasses said:
Instead of pointing the finger at your opponents and accusing them of being indifferent, or insensitive, why don’t you argue against the ISSUE. Let’s keep the ad hominem attacks to ourselves, OK?

Now, I’m sure that everyone in this thread is arguing from their conscience and with the best understanding they have of the Church and God. Since we’ve established that, why don’t we focus on WHY certain garments are acceptable or unacceptable and leave the blame game behind?
Click to expand...
I am telling Catholics to not be Indifferent or Insensitive, OK?

Catholics need standards and they need to live out those standards instead of simply taking what others give us and wearing it without a second thought.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
The controversy has to do with two things: Indifference and Insensitivity.

First, people can do what they want. However, a few post here out of genuine surprise or false surprise: What? You Catholics are hung up over skimpy clothes and underwear? What are you? A bunch of prudes?

The clear implication is that Catholics are much too concerned about things that we should be indifferent toward. I recall when the miniskirt first came out. Christians considered it a scandal regarding modesty. A proper young lady simply did not show so much leg in public. In the 1960s, Catholic schoolgirls were required to wear skirts that covered the knees.

That is the issue. As time passed, a small clique in the fashion industry decided women will be trained to show more and more and more skin. It happened gradually, so people got used to it, then it went on to the next phase. Of course, Christians complained, and the rulers of the fashion industry just went on with it anyway.

Honestly. What is the purpose of a thong? Soon women will be paying $50 for a pair of Designer rubber bands.

And so some people post here to encourage Catholics to be Insensitive. “Hey. What’s the big deal?” The problem, from the Catholic modesty perspective, is that the mass-marketing of this type of “clothing” becomes a part of the culture. It becomes embedded. A young, attractive relative of mine was wearing rather revealing clothes one day and I pointed it out to her. Her knee-jerk response? “All my friends dress like this.”

Like a stain, it spreads. And it helps to encourage certain behaviors. Catholics need to be on our guard and if we are to show a good example, we need to avoid certain things.

Being Catholic is about behavior and doing what pleases God.

God bless,
Ed
Click to expand...
Once again I ask you Ed, are you married?
 
edwest2 said:
I am telling Catholics to not be Indifferent or Insensitive, OK?

Catholics need standards and they need to live out those standards instead of simply taking what others give us and wearing it without a second thought.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
No, what you’re doing is implying that your opponents in this thread are bad Catholics. Stop it.
 
I am sorry you took it that way. It wasn’t my intention. Whatever I write here will be read by non-Catholics so I have to keep that in mind.

All I’m saying is we need to examine what we do in light of Catholic teaching. Speaking generally, what makes Catholics different than everyone else? If the answer is nothing then why are we Catholics?

Can’t we, as Catholics, ask each other: What is the point of buying anything from Victoria’s Secret? I already know what non-Catholics think. I am just offering the thought that we should think about it too, especially from a spiritual perspective. I am not assuming or implying anything toward my fellow Catholics.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
The controversy has to do with two things: Indifference and Insensitivity.

First, people can do what they want. However, a few post here out of genuine surprise or false surprise: What? You Catholics are hung up over skimpy clothes and underwear? What are you? A bunch of prudes?

The clear implication is that Catholics are much too concerned about things that we should be indifferent toward. I recall when the miniskirt first came out. Christians considered it a scandal regarding modesty. A proper young lady simply did not show so much leg in public. In the 1960s, Catholic schoolgirls were required to wear skirts that covered the knees.

That is the issue. As time passed, a small clique in the fashion industry decided women will be trained to show more and more and more skin. It happened gradually, so people got used to it, then it went on to the next phase. Of course, Christians complained, and the rulers of the fashion industry just went on with it anyway.

Honestly. What is the purpose of a thong? Soon women will be paying $50 for a pair of Designer rubber bands.

And so some people post here to encourage Catholics to be Insensitive. “Hey. What’s the big deal?” The problem, from the Catholic modesty perspective, is that the mass-marketing of this type of “clothing” becomes a part of the culture. It becomes embedded. A young, attractive relative of mine was wearing rather revealing clothes one day and I pointed it out to her. Her knee-jerk response? “All my friends dress like this.”

Like a stain, it spreads. And it helps to encourage certain behaviors. Catholics need to be on our guard and if we are to show a good example, we need to avoid certain things.

Being Catholic is about behavior and doing what pleases God.

God bless,
Ed
Click to expand...
You’re right, I DON’T see what the big deal is in a woman wearing sexy underwear for herself or for her husband. No one’s gonna see them except herself and her husband! What, are you trying to say it’s a sin for a husband to see his wife in sexy lingerie when they are getting each other in the mood for sex? As for the thong thing, I don’t see why the fact that YOU can’t understand why anyone would want to wear a thong applies to whether or not it’s ok to wear one. As a women, I can tell you right now I have multiple reasons for why I wear them when I do. I won’t give you the reasons, because like I said, I don’t think it applies to the argument.

And yes, when mini skirts first came out it shocked a lot of people. So what? When dresses that showed a woman’s ANKLES first came out it shocked a lot of people too, because at one point in time, men were so deprived from seeing a woman’s skin, they would become aroused from catching glimpse of her ANKLES. But YOU seem to be ok with dresses as long as they don’t show the KNEES. So does this mean you’re a sinner because you’ve been “desensitized?” And does it mean society was corrupt and wrong in letting women show their ankles? Just something to think about.
 
Ah yes, the worn out “ankles” argument. I have seen it often on another forum I moderate. By the way, I’m not here to tell you what to do, OK?

So, let’s examine the ankle argument. Apparently, women were covered from head to toe at some point. Then, some brazen few decided to expose their ankles, which drove men nuts because they had been deprived from so much as a glimpse in the past. Then photography was invented and ankle photos secretly circulated among other deprived men. Wow. Really?

How does that connect to anything else? It doesn’t. It’s the sad story of change proposed by those who worship the god change in the church of god is man. Culture, they tell us, not individuals, dictates standards, which is exactly what I’m talking about here.

When a group of “fashion designers” introduced the mini-skirt in the United States it was a scandal. But the lofty fashion designers and their intellectual friends were not at all interested in the thoughts of peasants, much less the protests of those religious types. They wanted to increase their bold (translation: showing lots of skin) creations and turn the culture to their way of thinking.

The mini-skirt wasn’t just a piece of fabric but a bold statement of freedom and independence for the modern woman! - at the time. Baloney. By the time we got to Woodstock, it was pretty clear where everything was headed.

So - as Catholics - let’s just ask ourselves why Victoria’s Secret even exists, OK?

And please, I’m not telling you what to wear.

God bless,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Ah yes, the worn out “ankles” argument. I have seen it often on another forum I moderate. By the way, I’m not here to tell you what to do, OK?

So, let’s examine the ankle argument. Apparently, women were covered from head to toe at some point. Then, some brazen few decided to expose their ankles, which drove men nuts because they had been deprived from so much as a glimpse in the past. Then photography was invented and ankle photos secretly circulated among other deprived men. Wow. Really?

How does that connect to anything else? It doesn’t. It’s the sad story of change proposed by those who worship the god change in the church of god is man. Culture, they tell us, not individuals, dictates standards, which is exactly what I’m talking about here.

When a group of “fashion designers” introduced the mini-skirt in the United States it was a scandal. But the lofty fashion designers and their intellectual friends were not at all interested in the thoughts of peasants, much less the protests of those religious types. They wanted to increase their bold (translation: showing lots of skin) creations and turn the culture to their way of thinking.

The mini-skirt wasn’t just a piece of fabric but a bold statement of freedom and independence for the modern woman! - at the time. Baloney. By the time we got to Woodstock, it was pretty clear where everything was headed.

So - as Catholics - let’s just ask ourselves why Victoria’s Secret even exists, OK?And please, I’m not telling you what to wear.

God bless,
Ed
Click to expand...
Hi Ed.
I’ll share, when I was a young girl (41 now) There used to be little independent lingerie shops for ladiies to buy undergerments. Usually one could get very customized service. I normally remember them being run by ladies.

Those don’t seem to exist much anymore. Victoria’s Secret seems to have taken their place. They sell ladies undergarments, which is a specialized industry. Instead of going to Macy’s or Nordstroms, we can go there.

Most of what they sell is undergarments. They sell cosmetics and perfumes.

The same or similar to what I can buy at Macy’s.

There are many different manufacturers of the same or similar items. And there are other stores that are significantly more provocative stuff.

So, I’m puzzled.
 
What are you puzzled about? Think about the word “provocative.” Compared to what? For years, whenever a new scandal came up, all I heard on the radio was: “Tame by today’s standards.” They never bothered to tell me who created the standards they were referring to.

Just because what was once limited and provocative has leaked into other outlets, it shows the pattern. What was unacceptable in 1960 is considered acceptable today. Why? How did it go from naughty to OK?

There was a time when models were strictly models. Now, Victoria’s Secret is allowing their models to be exploited by at least one men’s magazine.

God bless,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
I am sorry you took it that way. It wasn’t my intention. Whatever I write here will be read by non-Catholics so I have to keep that in mind.

All I’m saying is we need to examine what we do in light of Catholic teaching. Speaking generally, what makes Catholics different than everyone else? If the answer is nothing then why are we Catholics?

Can’t we, as Catholics, ask each other: What is the point of buying anything from Victoria’s Secret? I already know what non-Catholics think. I am just offering the thought that we should think about it too, especially from a spiritual perspective. I am not assuming or implying anything toward my fellow Catholics.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
The point of buying from Victoria’s Secret is… they have cute and affordable clothes, and they have high quality and attractive undergarments. There’ absolutely nothing wrong with a Catholic woman owning sexy underwear. NOTHING. It’s OK for a woman to feel sexy, if it wasn’t we all might as well just start wearing burlap sacks. Show me in the Catechism where it says that Catholic women aren’t allowed to wear sexy undergarments.

Now, are SOME of their advertisements over the top? Yeah. Is it their fault that men use the catalog for masturbation material? No. Are they trying to push it as masturbation material? No. Why would they? They make no money off a free catalog going to a man who will never buy anything in it.

The way I see “Victoria’s Secret” is this. A woman dresses modestly all day and works at a serious business. Maybe she’s not the most attractive woman in the world. Maybe she doesn’t get attention from her colleagues. However, under her modest work clothing is her little “secret”, aka a sexy bra and undies from Victoria’s Secret. Nobody knows what she has on underneath her clothes but her. Nobody will ever know. But she knows and it makes her feel sexy and confident as a woman. God will not look down on her for it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top