T
tjm190
Guest
The trophy shop can feed pride and the bakery can feed gluttony just as victoria’s secret can feed lust
- Status
L
larkin31
Guest
The original poster should ask her priest in confession, no? The question is, will he know what Victoria’s Secret refers to? 
IMO underwear is no sin in your own household. Wear as much as or as little as you want of whatever kind you want.
IMO underwear is no sin in your own household. Wear as much as or as little as you want of whatever kind you want.
W
Whitacre_Girl
Guest
That’s kind of the whole point. The idea of the marketing isn’t to cause a huge sexual boost for anyone. My husband reguarly shops with me when I go to VS (I get a good discount, so I can get good sturdy undergarments that last, and he can pick what he likes) and even he says he was a little shocked at the interior.
Again (and I can’t stress this enough) the point of the advertising is not to objectify women, turn men on, blah, blah, blah. The point is to design a store that looks like a luxurious “changing room” as it were (for lack of a better word) where women retreat to dress, make themselves up, and relax. Think victorian era rooms where royalty dress. The name escapes me for the moment “boudoir” maybe? Bah.
At any rate, the goal is to make women take pride in their bodies, pride in themselves, and to feel good about how they look. Every assicoate who works for VS or other affiliated companies are trained very strenously that they and the products sold exist to make the woman feel good about herself. NOTHING about the store exists or is aimed to turn men on, save for the products worn by their wives purchased at that store. The whole design and interior of the store makes no appeal to men whatsoever, and that is done on purpose. The “titllating” images of the women are really not designed to be viewed by men, but rather by women who are shopping. The whole sales ideas of VS is bring women in, make the products seem sexy, and help her find one she likes.
I know not everyone here is going to agree with that, especially since I see men frequently starting threads about putting women in buquas around here…And in case people can’t tell, I don’t waste my time trying to engage in serious discussion with people who are this extremist in their treatment of women due to their own lack of self-control. That’s why I leave the discussion here with these thoughts.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
I know not everyone here is going to agree with that, especially since I see men frequently starting threads about putting women in buquas around here…And in case people can’t tell, I don’t waste my time trying to engage in serious discussion with people who are this extremist in their treatment of women due to their own lack of self-control. That’s why I leave the discussion here with these thoughts.
Based on what I have seen and heard, I honestly think that most of the men who can’t stand the thought of women showing any skin in public, who think that the female form is essentially sensual and shameful, disrespect women far more than most male consumers of pornography.
They might ‘objectify’ women but at least they find women to be good desirable objects. The Morality Police in places like Saudi Arabia and Iran treat women like sinful disgusting objects, whose taboo forms should not be allowed to corrupt the male gaze.
Neither viewpoint is mature or healthy, but I think that the second one is worse. Especially considering how often its accompanied by violence against women.
Based on what I have seen and heard, I honestly think that most of the men who can’t stand the thought of women showing any skin in public, who think that the female form is essentially sensual and shameful, disrespect women far more than most male consumers of pornography.
They might ‘objectify’ women but at least they find women to be good desirable objects. The Morality Police in places like Saudi Arabia and Iran treat women like sinful disgusting objects, whose taboo forms should not be allowed to corrupt the male gaze.
Neither viewpoint is mature or healthy, but I think that the second one is worse. Especially considering how often its accompanied by violence against women.
D
Dsivanish
Guest
By objectivify, I mean that as long as both people connect with each other as husband and wife, with the added goodies as sexy underwear, and not “dressing up as… whatever” to act as such which turns on the husband who is lusting after an ideal, not making love to his wife.
I may have phrased that pompously, but I try to watch my language.
If its you and him, wanting you and him, I see no problem. And Im not your judge.
E
edwest2
Guest
Please point to a single thread that makes the burqa reference you mention. It’s more disturbing to see any thread here that talks about bikinis or other skimpy clothing that doesn’t get filled with people who appear to be shocked that they are immodest or an occasion for sin. On a Catholic forum!That’s kind of the whole point. The idea of the marketing isn’t to cause a huge sexual boost for anyone. My husband reguarly shops with me when I go to VS (I get a good discount, so I can get good sturdy undergarments that last, and he can pick what he likes) and even he says he was a little shocked at the interior.
Again (and I can’t stress this enough) the point of the advertising is not to objectify women, turn men on, blah, blah, blah. The point is to design a store that looks like a luxurious “changing room” as it were (for lack of a better word) where women retreat to dress, make themselves up, and relax. Think victorian era rooms where royalty dress. The name escapes me for the moment “boudoir” maybe? Bah.
At any rate, the goal is to make women take pride in their bodies, pride in themselves, and to feel good about how they look. Every assicoate who works for VS or other affiliated companies are trained very strenously that they and the products sold exist to make the woman feel good about herself. NOTHING about the store exists or is aimed to turn men on, save for the products worn by their wives purchased at that store. The whole design and interior of the store makes no appeal to men whatsoever, and that is done on purpose. The “titllating” images of the women are really not designed to be viewed by men, but rather by women who are shopping. The whole sales ideas of VS is bring women in, make the products seem sexy, and help her find one she likes.
I know not everyone here is going to agree with that, especially since I see men frequently starting threads about putting women in buquas around here…And in case people can’t tell, I don’t waste my time trying to engage in serious discussion with people who are this extremist in their treatment of women due to their own lack of self-control. That’s why I leave the discussion here with these thoughts.
American ideas of Sexuality have been completely distorted over the last 40 years. We are constantly told that we can’t control ourselves. Constantly. Apparently, We No Longer Decide When We Want To Have Sex. And we need pills, condoms, foam, IUDs or other artificial devices to do it. What about beautiful women who have zero access to lingerie? Their husbands turn them down? Get real everybody.
God bless,
Ed
C
CountrySinger
Guest
What about ugly women with no sexy lingerie? What do their husbands do?!
Not all woman are pretty, just look at me. When I get married, I’ll need all the help I can get. And no, my fiance isn’t blind.
E
edwest2
Guest
Uh, I can’t see you through my monitor.What about ugly women with no sexy lingerie? What do their husbands do?!
Ed
D
Debora123
Guest
(OK., so what I am about to write might make a lot of you very angry, and I am sorry if anyone is personally offended by this. But I am just being straight forward and pointing out my observations/feelings about this thread, along with many others in this forum.)
I don’t know if you’re actually atheist or not, but if you are, I’d like to apologize to you on behalf of Catholicism itself. I come from a very Catholic family, studied in Catholic schools, and have been a devout Catholic my whole life. I just recently joined this forum about a week ago because I had a question about a very personal issue - too personal to even discuss with friends and family. Once I was finished writing my own thread to ask my question, I began looking into other people’s random threads and was in utter shock and completely flabbergasted and in disbelief by what I saw. Catholics talking about the most ridiculous things being a sin… from going to the beach, to buying a doll for your daughter, to wearing jeans. I’ve felt very disappointed, hurt, and judged by a lot of what has been written on these threads by people of my own religion - which makes it all the more upsetting to me.** I have never in my entire LIFE met Catholics like some of the people whose posts I’ve read on this site, and I’d like you to know that this is NOT a representation of most Catholics out there.** A lot of these people are extremists and some even suffer from scrupulosity (although I know they mean well, and it is not their fault). So please keep that in mind before thinking Catholicism is completely insane (if you don’t already).
But yeah, I just felt the responsibility to say that to you, because 1. as a Catholic I am genuinely embarrassed, and 2. if I wasn’t Catholic and I just happened to find this site, I’d turn around and RUN the other way… and that is NOT a good thing.
PS - NO. Victoria’s Secret is not evil.
AngryAtheist,
I don’t know if you’re actually atheist or not, but if you are, I’d like to apologize to you on behalf of Catholicism itself. I come from a very Catholic family, studied in Catholic schools, and have been a devout Catholic my whole life. I just recently joined this forum about a week ago because I had a question about a very personal issue - too personal to even discuss with friends and family. Once I was finished writing my own thread to ask my question, I began looking into other people’s random threads and was in utter shock and completely flabbergasted and in disbelief by what I saw. Catholics talking about the most ridiculous things being a sin… from going to the beach, to buying a doll for your daughter, to wearing jeans. I’ve felt very disappointed, hurt, and judged by a lot of what has been written on these threads by people of my own religion - which makes it all the more upsetting to me.** I have never in my entire LIFE met Catholics like some of the people whose posts I’ve read on this site, and I’d like you to know that this is NOT a representation of most Catholics out there.** A lot of these people are extremists and some even suffer from scrupulosity (although I know they mean well, and it is not their fault). So please keep that in mind before thinking Catholicism is completely insane (if you don’t already).
But yeah, I just felt the responsibility to say that to you, because 1. as a Catholic I am genuinely embarrassed, and 2. if I wasn’t Catholic and I just happened to find this site, I’d turn around and RUN the other way… and that is NOT a good thing.
PS - NO. Victoria’s Secret is not evil.
L
larkin31
Guest
I appreciate your saying this. I do not find the most vocal posters here anything like what I have found in “real life” either. Most of us more moderates or less religious know that this site is a non-random sample self-selected toward the extreme, particularly judging from those who actually post on the threads about sin. Self-righteousness and even a nuerotic level of scrupulosity and repression often are expressed here.
And so, to make matters a little lighter on this topic of a store found mostly in malls, I would like to know what “secret” Victoria actually has…
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
V
vashsunglasses
Guest
I don’t think running away is the right response to this site. It needs more “sane” (for lack of a better word) voices, not less. There are still plenty of non-scrupulous people on here and every little bit helps.
D
dailey
Guest
I’m pretty new to this forum myself and I must say…I have had the opposite experience. I just LOVE it here!
! Great advice from so many of the members, sorry to hear you have had a negative experience!
T
Tarpeian_Rock
Guest
I believe that “Victoria” refers to the late, prim-and-proper Queen, who – it is alleged – had an, uh, “exciting” private life with her husband when at the end of the day she would doff the burdens of state and dress up in alluring attire. At least, I believe that’s the idea behind the name. No idea if it’s true. Of course, she did have a bazillion children . . .I appreciate your saying this. I do not find the most vocal posters here anything like what I have found in “real life” either. Most of us more moderates or less religious know that this site is a non-random sample self-selected toward the extreme, particularly judging from those who actually post on the threads about sin. Self-righteousness and even a nuerotic level of scrupulosity and repression often are expressed here.
And so, to make matters a little lighter on this topic of a store found mostly in malls, I would like to know what “secret” Victoria actually has…
P
PatrickSebast
Guest
Well first for all the complaining about Victoria’s Secret ad content I have got to say: At least they are advertising what they are selling.
For most companies that use sexual themes to sell their products sex is barely related to the end product (AXE products are a good example). Victoria’s Secret actually sells underwear, and they advertise for underwear. Obviously if you sell underwear you are going to want to show models that look good in said underwear so I don’t really see the major issue. Saying that Victoria’s Secret is evil is pretty much the same thing as saying Capitalism is evil because all they are doing is properly targeting their market with advertising. Yes it may incite lust in some men, but there comes a point where such things become an issue of personal responisibility/chastity and not public matters. I’m a young man and I can honestly say, and have friends that will back me up on this, that we are more than capable of lusting after even the most conservatively dressed of women. There is no amount of enforcement of sexual morals that will protect us from such things, it has to be a personal matter.
In the meantime yes Victoria’s Secret is selling a sexual product, and yeah their advertising for this sexual product is sexual. I see nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with sex, there is nothing wrong with desiring sex. I think everyone is falling into the idea that being Chaste means never acknowledging the existence of sex outside of the bedroom.
For most companies that use sexual themes to sell their products sex is barely related to the end product (AXE products are a good example). Victoria’s Secret actually sells underwear, and they advertise for underwear. Obviously if you sell underwear you are going to want to show models that look good in said underwear so I don’t really see the major issue. Saying that Victoria’s Secret is evil is pretty much the same thing as saying Capitalism is evil because all they are doing is properly targeting their market with advertising. Yes it may incite lust in some men, but there comes a point where such things become an issue of personal responisibility/chastity and not public matters. I’m a young man and I can honestly say, and have friends that will back me up on this, that we are more than capable of lusting after even the most conservatively dressed of women. There is no amount of enforcement of sexual morals that will protect us from such things, it has to be a personal matter.
In the meantime yes Victoria’s Secret is selling a sexual product, and yeah their advertising for this sexual product is sexual. I see nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with sex, there is nothing wrong with desiring sex. I think everyone is falling into the idea that being Chaste means never acknowledging the existence of sex outside of the bedroom.
E
edwest2
Guest
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
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
P
PatrickSebast
Guest
Victoria’s Secret is building and promoting a brand, not just underwear. That is why they use the techniques they do. Now if the question was: Should a Catholic Corporation act like this then I would have said that they shouldn’t. That isn’t the question though. The question is: Are they evil? And to that I say no. They have some questionable content such as their yearly show that is for the most part directed at males, but for the most point their advertisements their material is very directly related to the sale of “sexy” underwear. If you want a national brand then aggressive advertising is required, that is just how the market works.
Yeah, when you were young sex may have been a taboo topic, America was that way for many years, as was some of Europe. Sex has been treated differently in different cultures sometimes with more shame, sometimes with exceptional openness. Not talking about it at all is certainly off the table though, and I say good riddance.
The idea that the media has “Cheapened human dignity” is exceptionally selective too. Sure they may have sexualized things and added some immorality and negative views into society, but they also helped and continue to promote things like human rights and combat racism. The media played a major role in establishing equal rights for women and blacks and it is currently much more friendly and humanizing of homosexuals and Muslims than some religious and political leaders would like it to be. The media represents the open discussion of ideas and concepts, it is not some mysterious force trying to control humanity but a representation of what we choose for ourselves. The internet is currently the ultimate expression of this and any experience with it will tell you that people want to both know about and talk about sex.
This isn’t a matter of me saying Catholics should be indifferent it is a matter of me realizing that Victoria’s Secret is not to blame. They are selling a sexual product with sexual ads. That makes sense. In the mean time almost every other company we purchase from is equally willing to use sex as a sales pitch when it has nothing to do with their product because it still works. This isn’t some corporations fault or something to do with the media corrupting society, this IS our society. We can wish that it wasn’t secular all we want, we can even beg and pray for it to change, but in the end we still have to live in it and it still is our responsibility to deal with it. If a man falls into lust because of a VS add that is the mans fault, and I say this as a man who fights with lust a lot.
L
larkin31
Guest
Wait.
Sex can occur outside the bedroom???
“Honey!!! We have something to talk about!!!”
P
PatrickSebast
Guest
As long as you adhere to the sacred rule of missionary only!Wait.
Sex can occur outside the bedroom???
“Honey!!! We have something to talk about!!!”
E
edwest2
Guest
You are obviously an intelligent person. I have had the privilege to work with a few people in the genius class level. It is a fact that corruption has been marketed as freedom for a while.
amazon.com/Marketing-Evil-Pseudo-Experts-Corruption-Disguised/dp/1581824599
A functional society requires all of its members to be functional. As we know from experience, if one part of our body is in pain, it hinders us. Our concentration, our enjoyment of daily life. They are hindered.
Responsibility must extend to all levels of society. Do we want corruption in our government? In the business world? In ourselves? As Catholics, we must try each day to end at least a little of the corruption in ourselves. I work in the media and I understand that the company I work for does influence thousands if not millions of people. They contact us. Fortunately, they tell us what an inspiration our work has been for them. It even helped them launch careers of their own. This is our legacy today.
By their fruit you shall know them.
I am not applying the word Evil to Victoria’s Secret but what is the fruit of what they do? That’s all I’m pointing out.
Over the last 40 years, I watched as the volume was slowly, gradually turned up on sex. First, a little skin, then a little more. Two and a Half Men in the 1960s? The Vice Squad would have arrested all of them.
This is our society? Think about who is painting the psychological world you live in. Think about where the images you think about come from. This pseudo-reality is created for us and it’s filled with good and bad. The ratio of good to bad should be under your control but we’ve allowed ourselves to spend hours staring into a device of some kind. It’s easier.
Things that really matter in life are generally difficult to do, things that are mediocre or even harmful, are usually much easier to do.
Catholics have got to live responsibly.
God bless,
Ed
- Status