Is Victoria's Secret evil?

[Janet1983]

IMO, its not the lingerie that is sinful, but the way they advertise it in their TV ads and in their catalogs and in their “fashion show” that they have on TV once a year that is objectifying women. My husband can not stand their tv ads, in his opinion they are bordering on “soft porn”. When he was working in the high schools in a counseling position, the catalog was THE magazine to have amongst the boys if you get my drift. A few years back, the stores had their mannequins posed in bondage scenerios in their store windows at our local mall, try explaining that to a 6 year old at the time. Their clothes that they sell may be “fashionable” but it would be hard to find one that wasn’t immodest in public, let alone a pair of their sweats that doesn’t have something written on the seat of the pants.

If a married woman likes to wear their stuff for their husband, acceptable IMO. I had some of their “honeymoon” stuff myself when we first got married. But the way they use women in their advertising to sell the product, can be sinful and avoided IMO.

I don’t have TV, but I understand the concern. I think it is definitely ok for married women to wear this for their husbands and unmarried women to wear it to feel good about themselves.

 

[Janet1983]

Is it a sin to buy underwear/perfume/lotions from Victoria’s Secret? They try to make all their products very “sexy” and represent sex appeal. Is that wrong?

I honestly don’t see the issue with Victoria’s Secret. I am married and happily married at that. I sometimes go to Victoria’s Secret, but I am yet to find something that I would actually spend money on. Their products are just to flimsy and to easily worn out for my taste. I guess I like keeping my money together and spend it for something that will last for a couple of years. Why should Victoria’s Secret be a problem though?
Yes, their products are very “sexy”, but my reasoning for buying such products (if I would that is) would be to engage with my husband. He is actually the only one who would ever get to see any of these products. I have heard of women who were not in a relationship who just buy them for themselves because they feel good with these outfits and in their case nobody is going to see them. I don’t really see the issue.
To engage in sinful behavior one doesn’t need Victoria’s Secret…
That’s why I agree with this post here:

I think it all depends on the intent. If you like that stuff and it makes you happy, Im sure its fine unless it goes too far. If you want to dress up for your husband, then thats great too as long it doesnt cause him to objectify you.
Again, intent.

And with this one:

I don’t think it’s a sin.

There’s nothing wrong with doing a little extra to get the hubby going.

I would guess it would be hard to objectify someone you know as well as your wife, so I think you’ll be fine there.

 

[Janet1983]

I don’t think lingerie by itself is sinful – I know a lot of women who wear fancy lingerie not for the sake of a man but because they feel good about themselves doing so. Same with makeup, I actually don’t wear much myself but I don’t think wearing makeup automatically means you are being vain.

Same here… I sometimes feel like putting a little make-up on just because. I happen to get dark rings under my eyes very easily because my skin is so very light and thin there… Most of the time I stay away from make-up though.
If I wake up in the morning after a good nights sleep and look like a vampire though I prefer to cover it up a little… LOL

However, is Victoria’s Secret morally equivalent to a porn shop? Edwest seems to think so, but I’m not sure.

I don’t think it’s a porn shop at all. The kind of underwear you can find there is found at every store that has underwear. It’s just a store with the focus on those products, though they also sell stylish regular clothing…

Their advertising is out of bounds. My husband has told me it poses a big problem to see the pix in the catalogs. They also send emails out-though I’m not sure how they get the lists. For men who struggle with lust, they are really inappropriate. I refuse to buy anything there knowing that the ads are such a problem for men like my husband.

That might be a problem, but then again they have the same kind of underwear at JC Penny, Macy’s or Nordstroms and they have displays and posters too… Concerning commercials: Other brands like Playtex make commercials too. It’s not just Victoria’s Secret that does these things and they aren’t even the first ones to sell this kind of underwear or promote it.

 

[PRmerger]

Well most reasonably fair judicial codes for one thing.

In civilized countries murder is generally punished far more harshly than things like adultery. Of course rape is punished rather harshly in some relatively civilized countries, but rape is also a form of violence.

I think it’s interesting that edwest’s interest is in reading about “violence” (arguable that he’s interested in violence, but I’ll concede the point here).

And then you bring up “judicial codes”.

It would seem that you’re advocating that reading about violence be illegal. :coffeeread:

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I think it’s interesting that edwest’s interest is in reading about “violence” (arguable that he’s interested in violence, but I’ll concede the point here).

And then you bring up “judicial codes”.

It would seem that you’re advocating that reading about violence be illegal. :coffeeread:

No.

I am saying that trying to erase all mention of sex or anything else ‘racy’ from the media and the public square (which seems to be what Ed wants) would be at least as ridiculous as trying to get rid of all mention of violence.

 

[larkin31]

A lot of Protestants (as well as a few Catholics) argue that the Song of Songs isn’t about sex at all. They cannot conceive of their God having such an approving attitude towards the ‘unmentionables.’

Even if this is a metaphor about the joining of souls or of a soul with godhead, it is a song that relishes the pleasures of the flesh in barely (pun intended) controlled sensuality. Gotta love it! Sex and love are beautiful, an ecstasy divine.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I think there are two moral issues here. One is whether wearing “sexy” or “romantic” lingerie is sinful or immoral, and it seems most people here would agree that it’s not inherently so. I guess if wearing certain articles of lingerie would tempt a woman to commit sins such as premarital sex, or tempt a husband to objectify his wife as a sex object instead of his beloved spouse, then wearing the items would be a near occasion of sin, but the lingerie itself is not sinful, the lustful actions or thoughts are what are sinful.

Then we get to the question of whether it is immoral to buy lingerie produced by a certain company, Victoria’s Secret. And here it seems most people have a problem not with the products sold by the company, but by the marketing tactics they are using. Here, while I don’t personally agree, and have shopped at VS as well as their affiliates, I can understand the argument. I would personally never shop at Abercrombie and Fitch due to their obscene advertisements and the fact that they target young people in particular, though much of the clothing they sell is actually modest and tasteful. I decided not to ever buy a certain brand of shampoo after they ran advertisements featuring women having “organic” experiences by reenacting a certain scene from “When Harry Met Sally”.

I’d also like to stand up for women who wear thongs due to the comfort factor. Yes, they do exist, and I really don’t think it’s anyone’s business what a woman wears under her clothes except herself, and of course her husband if she happens to be married. I’d think that most of the sins that a woman could commit while wearing lingerie could also be committed while not wearing lingerie.

 

[PRmerger]

No.

I am saying that trying to erase all mention of sex or anything else ‘racy’ from the media and the public square (which seems to be what Ed wants) would be at least as ridiculous as trying to get rid of all mention of violence.

Oh. Ok.

It sounded like you were judging edwest for enjoying reading about warfare.

But you enjoy reading about warfare, depictions of and discussions about violence (often of all extremely brutal and graphic nature) are okay

But if all you’re saying is the above (in red), then I agree with you 100%

 

[edwest2]

It’s interesting to be misquoted. I never compared Victoria’s Secret to a porn shop. Someone else compared their catalog to soft porn, not me. Anyway.

Before anyone gets the idea that I read “violence,” I read history. I like learning the truth.

I’m not concerned about those who disagree with my sensibilities about this topic. I am concerned that my fellow Catholics consider - as a suggestion - their motives for buying stuff from VS. Once again, I never called them evil. And there was at least one parent posting here about large images of models and not wanting her child exposed. A valid concern. And there were a few comments about wearing such things for self-esteem purposes.

I’m not trying to make any Catholics uncomfortable, just offering my thoughts. As a Catholic, I’m not offended by human sexuality. It does offend me that VS models are being used as sex objects in a men’s magazine. I think women deserve more respect than that.

God bless,
Ed

 

[PRmerger]

Even if this is a metaphor about the joining of souls or of a soul with godhead, it is a song that relishes the pleasures of the flesh in barely (pun intended) controlled sensuality. Gotta love it! Sex and love are beautiful, an ecstasy divine.

Exactly. And the reason that the Catholic Church included it in the Sacred Scriptures is because sex and love are beautiful, ecstatic and an icon towards our union with the Divine.

It is those who remove God from sex that make it anything BUT beautiful and ecstatic.

 

[PRmerger]

A lot of Protestants (as well as a few Catholics) argue that the Song of Songs isn’t about sex at all. They cannot conceive of their God having such an approving attitude towards the ‘unmentionables.’

Incidentally, regarding the magnificent Song of Songs (which one wouldn’t even consider inspired were it not for the Catholic Church–oh! the irony of folks who claim that the CC is down on sex! why, oh why, would we have inserted such “sensuality” into the Bible??)…

It (the Song of Songs) is part of the Catholic divine liturgy.

"and the readings for Year II are taken from the Song of Songs (which foreshadows the union of God and humanity in Christ): “God the Father prepared a wedding feast for God his Son when he united him with human nature in the womb of the Virgin, when he who is God before all ages willed that his Son should become man at the end of the ages.”

And, here’s just excerpt of the exegesis Pope JPII has given on the Song of Songs, which he calls a treatise on the visible sign of man and woman’s participation in the covenant of grace and love offered by God to man:

*In addition, love unleashes a special experience of the beautiful, which focuses on what is visible, but at the same time involves the entire person. The experience of beauty gives rise to satisfaction, which is mutual.

“O most beautiful among women…” (Sg 1:8), the groom says, and the bride’s words echo back to him: “I am dark—but lovely, O daughters of Jerusalem” (Sg 1:5). The words of the spellbound man are repeated continually. They return in all five stanzas of the poem, and they are echoed in similar expressions of the bride’s.* Human Love in the Divine Plan

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Sign one spends to much time on CAF.

Me. Hon, do you think Victoria’s secret is sinful?

DH: Well it could be.

Me. In what way?

DH: Well, if I were to shop there would be a problem.

 

[JimG]

Sign one spends to much time on CAF.

Me. Hon, do you think Victoria’s secret is sinful?

DH: Well it could be.

Me. In what way?

DH: Well, if I were to shop there would be a problem.

But that would depend on who he was shopping for!

 

[aliciaswain]

Being a woman in college, I know many of my friends shop a VS. I’ve been told that because its a specialized shop they are more easily able to find underwear and bra’s that are more fitting to their body type and therefore more comfortable and longer lasting.

Its like going to a shoe store that only sells shoes so it is more likely to find shoes that you like in a style perspective and that are comfortable.

The only problem here is that because VS sells underwear and also lingerie that they actively advertise it can be seen as being provocative for men. I think that if a man is looking at the catalog with the intent to be looking at women with little clothing, then that is sinful. However, if a women is looking to find a comfortable, and yes, maybe even appealing attire, I don’t think that it would be sinful. I agree with one of the earlier replies that said that what matters is one’s intent.

But that’s just my opinion… I could be wrong.

 

[larkin31]

Being a woman in college, I know many of my friends shop a VS. I’ve been told that because its a specialized shop they are more easily able to find underwear and bra’s that are more fitting to their body type and therefore more comfortable and longer lasting.

Its like going to a shoe store that only sells shoes so it is more likely to find shoes that you like in a style perspective and that are comfortable.

The only problem here is that because VS sells underwear and also lingerie that they actively advertise it can be seen as being provocative for men. I think that if a man is looking at the catalog with the intent to be looking at women with little clothing, then that is sinful. However, if a women is looking to find a comfortable, and yes, maybe even appealing attire, I don’t think that it would be sinful. I agree with one of the earlier replies that said that what matters is one’s intent.

But that’s just my opinion… I could be wrong.

Indeed.

How can any man blame the store for their own eyes browsing the catalogs and the thoughts that they have? It’s REAL EASY to avoid VS if you can’t handle it appropriately. Don’t reform without; reform within.

 

[Suni_Moon]

It’s impossible to really advertise things like bras and panties without being sexual.
Does this mean we should run around without underwear?

Victoria’s Secret makes good bras that actually fit me and don’t fall apart.
Shopping there isn’t going to send you to hell or anything.

Also, as for provocative to men… Alright, it’s one thing for a guy to get off looking through Victoria Secret mags… But it’s not evil for them to sell sexual things like lingerie and such.

COME ON. It’s not like there’d be anything wrong with a married woman buying some sexy undies and lingerie, if it’s just gonna be her husband seeing it.

 

[edwest2]

I’m interested in your quote in blue. What tools does God use? Jesus didn’t bring any with Him.

Peace,
Ed

 

[larkin31]

It’s impossible to really advertise things like bras and panties without being sexual.
Does this mean we should run around without underwear?

There’s no rule against it in my home!

 

[camerong]

It’s impossible to really advertise things like bras and panties without being sexual.
Does this mean we should run around without underwear?

Victoria’s Secret makes good bras that actually fit me and don’t fall apart.
Shopping there isn’t going to send you to hell or anything.

Also, as for provocative to men… Alright, it’s one thing for a guy to get off looking through Victoria Secret mags… But it’s not evil for them to sell sexual things like lingerie and such.

COME ON. It’s not like there’d be anything wrong with a married woman buying some sexy undies and lingerie, if it’s just gonna be her husband seeing it.

If one cannot advertise bras and panties without causing many of its viewers to lust, than one shouldn’t advertise such things. While I am whole-heartedly in favor of a married couple’s use of lingerie, its unquestionable that VS’s adverts cross the line between advertisement and provocation, at least to this easily-tempted male. I don’t have a solution, but I do know that I look away when VS commercials come on, and I wish there weren’t things on my tv that required this.

 

[Listener]

Maybe it’s because I grew up in the 1950’s, but I feel embarrassed every time I walk by a Victoria’s Secret shop. It makes me feel like I’m walking by an open Playboy Magazine. It gives me the impression that women are just mindless playthings for men rather than thinking people with minds of their own.

If I go in that store (which isn’t often), I find myself looking around to see if anyone I know is watching me go in there.

I normally shop elsewhere for my underwear.