Is Victoria's Secret evil?

[larkin31]

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.

You don’t have to bother to explain this to most of us here. All power to you! A confident woman IS a beautiful woman, and I love being in their presence even though I don’t know their secret!

 

[Cable]

For one thing, when I have to shield my children’s eyes from their (enormous) storefront pictures at the mall, then I’d have to say they’re definitely polluted.

 

[PatriceA]

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.

They make money off the man that gets the free catalog and then watches their tv show.

Again, my beef is with the way they market their stuff, and in some stores, the way they present their mannequins. Also, they do not cater to all sized women, so much for giving women a positive image. For any woman this more endowed on top, their bras are a no go.

 

[vashsunglasses]

They make money off the man that gets the free catalog and then watches their tv show.

Again, my beef is with the way they market their stuff, and in some stores, the way they present their mannequins. Also, they do not cater to all sized women, so much for giving women a positive image. For any woman this more endowed on top, their bras are a no go.

Unless you’re a Neilsen household or you have satellite/digital they can’t tell if you watch something or not. In any case, you’ve made an argument against the yearly fashion show but not the catalog. The catalog is a catalog, it’s meant to sell garments. If they wanted to make a porn mag, they would make a porn mag. There’s absolutely nothing stopping them from doing so.

 

[PatriceA]

Unless you’re a Neilsen household or you have satellite/digital they can’t tell if you watch something or not. In any case, you’ve made an argument against the yearly fashion show but not the catalog. The catalog is a catalog, it’s meant to sell garments. If they wanted to make a porn mag, they would make a porn mag. There’s absolutely nothing stopping them from doing so.

And as a Catholic, I do consider the catalog soft porn. There isn’t that much difference between their catalog and some of the men’s magazines that are just on the edge of being porn.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

And as a Catholic, I do consider the catalog soft porn. There isn’t that much difference between their catalog and some of the men’s magazines that are just on the edge of being porn.

What do you expect from people in their profession then?

They sell women’s undergarments, of course their advertisements will feature women wearing Victoria’s Secret underwear. That’s just normal business practice.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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

Ed, I have read your posts on many other threads, and the list of things that you don’t approve of seems endless. Is there anything in the material world that you don’t object to in some way?

Also, I ask you a third time, are you married?

 

[PatriceA]

What do you expect from people in their profession then?

They sell women’s undergarments, of course their advertisements will feature women wearing Victoria’s Secret underwear. That’s just normal business practice.

Did I say they shouldn’t feature women in their advertisements, nope never said that. But if they are truly talented, they can find a way to be more creative than advertising their items in a manner that could be considered soft porn. Just because they are professionals does not excuse them from considering a little more taste in their advertisements. Not every business has to resort to sex to sell their products. The ones that do, mean they are being lazy.

 

[edwest2]

Ed, I have read your posts on many other threads, and the list of things that you don’t approve of seems endless. Is there anything in the material world that you don’t object to in some way?

Also, I ask you a third time, are you married?

I will not answer personal questions.

The list is endless? Not really.

Artificial contraception.
Abortion, in-vitro fertlization and embryonic stem cell research.
Adult bookstores, topless bars, strip clubs.
Any movie or TV show that features fornication/adultery and/or profanity or blasphemy.
Rap and/or hip-hop and any radio program that includes profanity or degrades men or women.
Any book or magazine that features photos or descriptions of an immoral nature, especially if it’s not relevant to the stated purpose of the book.
Lewd public displays of women, especially those wearing bikinis or thongs.

I like Popular Science and most military history books.

God bless,
Ed

 

[NE_Catholic]

Ed, I have read your posts on many other threads, and the list of things that you don’t approve of seems endless. Is there anything in the material world that you don’t object to in some way?

Also, I ask you a third time, are you married?

I like Ed. You don’t even have to ask with him, you KNOW.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I will not answer personal questions.

The list is endless? Not really.

Artificial contraception.
Abortion, in-vitro fertlization and embryonic stem cell research.
Adult bookstores, topless bars, strip clubs.
Any movie or TV show that features fornication/adultery and/or profanity or blasphemy.
Rap and/or hip-hop and any radio program that includes profanity or degrades men or women.
Any book or magazine that features photos or descriptions of an immoral nature, especially if it’s not relevant to the stated purpose of the book.
Lewd public displays of women, especially those wearing bikinis or thongs.

I like Popular Science and most military history books.

God bless,
Ed

So your against any depictions of sex or nudity in media, all public displays of sensuality, discussing things of an immoral nature in any sort of public setting, all attempts to control human sexuality or reproduction (except the few ones approved by the Church), saying things offensive to the Church (blasphemy), immodesty among women, and swearing (I feel like I missed something).

These things are all unacceptable in your view.

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

 

[PRmerger]

So your against any depictions of sex or nudity in media, all public displays of sensuality, discussing things of an immoral nature in any sort of public setting, all attempts to control human sexuality or reproduction (except the few ones approved by the Church), saying things offensive to the Church (blasphemy), immodesty among women, and swearing (I feel like I missed something).

These things are all unacceptable in your view.

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

What confuses you about this, Angry?

You feel that violence is worse sexual immorality.

Isn’t ed free to feel that sexual immorality is worse than violence?

I mean, really, what outside authority has deemed one worse than the other?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I like Ed. You don’t even have to ask with him, you KNOW.

I have been operating under the assumption that he was divorced or never married.

But it was just an assumption, I have no data to back it up. Just my observation that people don’t generally idealize sex and marriage the way that he seems to if they have ever had sex or gotten married.

But I suspect that you know or at least assume something different NE Catholic, and I admit that I could easily be wrong. When it comes to Ed’s marital status I have little more than a gut feeling.

I myself don’t fantasize about sex or idealize it nearly as much since I lost my virginity.

I sometimes think that the hedonists and prudes make too much of sex, honestly.

 

[edwest2]

I was waiting for the sex and violins argument.

I am interested in technology - military technology. Especially the obscure stuff.

You misunderstand. Part of what I do for a living is help create fictional worlds and fictional characters. At one time, violence on screen involved a bad guy getting hit with an arrow and falling over, or getting hit with a knife and falling over. I remember the first movie I saw that featured a bullet striking someone and blood flying. After that, the volume control on violence just kept going up and up. Now we have Dexter, who kidnaps people and cuts them up. Remember the episode where he uses a chainsaw? Bad stuff.

Anyway, violence is part of human history. It seems even modern humans still can’t control themselves. If you’re a scientist today, the quickest way to make a buck is to create something for the military that kills the other guy that’s smaller, faster, cheaper.

In creating stories, a certain level of nonrealistic violence is required. And violence for the sake of violence is not the point of any of it. Stories with violence are about people facing hardship and dealing with that hardship as human beings with real convictions who are willing to put their lives on the line for those convictions, whether it’s a soldier or a police officer or a character in a fantasy world that has to take on the monster destroying his village. In reading real history, I encounter those men who had to face real life and death challenges and who survived, even to the point of later saluting their former enemy.

God bless,
Ed

 

[AngryAtheist8]

What confuses you about this, Angry?

You feel that violence is worse sexual immorality.

Isn’t ed free to feel that sexual immorality is worse than violence?

I mean, really, what outside authority has deemed one worse than the other?

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.

 

[PRmerger]

Well most reasonably fair judicial codes for one thing.

Oh. We were talking legal. I didn’t realize.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I was waiting for the sex and violins argument.

I am interested in technology - military technology. Especially the obscure stuff.

You misunderstand. Part of what I do for a living is help create fictional worlds and fictional characters. At one time, violence on screen involved a bad guy getting hit with an arrow and falling over, or getting hit with a knife and falling over. I remember the first movie I saw that featured a bullet striking someone and blood flying. After that, the volume control on violence just kept going up and up. Now we have Dexter, who kidnaps people and cuts them up. Remember the episode where he uses a chainsaw? Bad stuff.

Anyway, violence is part of human history. It seems even modern humans still can’t control themselves. If you’re a scientist today, the quickest way to make a buck is to create something for the military that kills the other guy that’s smaller, faster, cheaper.

In creating stories, a certain level of nonrealistic violence is required. And violence for the sake of violence is not the point of any of it. Stories with violence are about people facing hardship and dealing with that hardship as human beings with real convictions who are willing to put their lives on the line for those convictions, whether it’s a soldier or a police officer or a character in a fantasy world that has to take on the monster destroying his village. In reading real history, I encounter those men who had to face real life and death challenges and who survived, even to the point of later saluting their former enemy.

God bless,
Ed

Romance, sex, and childbirth are just as much a part of human history.

Sex is life (or at least the continuation of life) in a way that no other human activity is. Violence is death (at least when taken to the extreme).

Human society could survive without violence towards one another, yet it would die in one generation without sex. Even the Catholic Church doesn’t argue with this basic idea.

Expecting literature and other media to ignore sex (especially while covering violence) is ridiculous. As is expecting men and women in the public square to censor themselves so as not to offend your sensibilities.

 

[larkin31]

Romance, sex, and childbirth are just as much a part of human history.

Sex is life (or at least the continuation of life) in a way that no other human activity is. Violence is death (at least when taken to the extreme).

Human society could survive without violence towards one another, yet it would die in one generation without sex. Even the Catholic Church doesn’t argue with this basic idea.

Expecting literature and other media to ignore sex (especially while covering violence) is ridiculous. As is expecting men and women in the public square to censor themselves so as not to offend your sensibilities.

Besides, the Bible has some steamy sex scenes in it. Here is part of a scene from Song of Songs:

He
How delightful is your love, my sister, my bride!
How much more pleasing is your love than wine,
and the fragrance of your perfume
more than any spice!
11 Your lips drop sweetness as the honeycomb, my bride;
milk and honey are under your tongue.
The fragrance of your garments
is like the fragrance of Lebanon.
12 You are a garden locked up, my sister, my bride;
you are a spring enclosed, a sealed fountain.
13 Your plants are an orchard of pomegranates
with choice fruits,
with henna and nard,
14 nard and saffron,
calamus and cinnamon,
with every kind of incense tree,
with myrrh and aloes
and all the finest spices.
15 You are** a garden fountain,
a well of flowing water
streaming down from Lebanon.

** She**

16 Awake, north wind,
and come, south wind!
Blow on my garden,
that its fragrance may spread everywhere.
Let my beloved come into his garden
and taste its choice fruits.

Croiky! Can we read THAT at the dinner table with our children??**

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Besides, the Bible has some steamy sex scenes in it. Here is part of a scene from Song of Songs:

He
How delightful is your love, my sister, my bride!
How much more pleasing is your love than wine,
and the fragrance of your perfume
more than any spice!
11 Your lips drop sweetness as the honeycomb, my bride;
milk and honey are under your tongue.
The fragrance of your garments
is like the fragrance of Lebanon.
12 You are a garden locked up, my sister, my bride;
you are a spring enclosed, a sealed fountain.
13 Your plants are an orchard of pomegranates
with choice fruits,
with henna and nard,
14 nard and saffron,
calamus and cinnamon,
with every kind of incense tree,
with myrrh and aloes
and all the finest spices.
15 You are** a garden fountain,
a well of flowing water
streaming down from Lebanon.

** She****

16 Awake, north wind,
and come, south wind!
Blow on my garden,
that its fragrance may spread everywhere.
Let my beloved come into his garden
and taste its choice fruits.

Croiky! Can we read THAT at the dinner table with our children??

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.’

 

[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.’

Well, I can’t speak for the “few Catholics”, but our late, great Pope JPII, used the Song of Songs as the great icon of the Church’s beautiful teaching on sex and marriage.