Victoria Secret

[Eucharisted]

I know of a Catholic lady who is engaged and today I found out that she is going to be shopping at Victoria’s Secret.

I have seen clips of their ads and its revolting. Can you anyone give me sound Catholic reasons why one can shop there? Is shopping there any different from a sex shop?

I wonder how people would feel if there was a Victor’s Secret and the ads included men in provacative scenes?

Oh, and Victoria’s Secret caters toward lust. It’s clothing is meant to be appealing to men and women - meaning the undergarments are meant to objecify the woman, without of course looking too sleazy. That is why I don’t like Victorica’s Secret.

 

[Just_wondering]

Yeah I wonder about that too… just who is gonna be seeing them in their sexy undergarments… hmmm?

I’m a single woman and I buy from VS. Most of what I buy is practical bras and underwear - I’m not big by any stretch of the imagination, but here in Korea A is the biggest cup size most stores sell.

However, I do buy the occasional beautiful set of undergarments, just because I figure that I can be beautiful even if no one is around to see me. Especially when I’m doing something for which I need an extra boost of confidence, like going to a job interview or making a presentation at work, it’s nice to know that I’m dressed to the nines, even in places nobody else will see. I also bought myself some pretty undies after I lost weight, as a gift to myself. Wearing or buying nice underwear isn’t sinful for us single folk - it only crosses the line if we’re out displaying it to people.

I have never seen a VS store in person, so I can’t contribute to that side of the discussion.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

I wonder how people would feel if there was a Victor’s Secret and the ads included men in provacative scenes?

Oh, and Victoria’s Secret caters toward lust. It’s clothing is meant to be appealing to men and women - meaning the undergarments are meant to objecify the woman, without of course looking too sleazy. That is why I don’t like Victorica’s Secret.

If there isn’t a man to see the undergarments do they still objectify?

 

[Just_wondering]

Eucharisted;4855207:

Victoria’s Secret caters toward lust. It’s clothing is meant to be appealing to men and

women - meaning the undergarments are meant to objectify the woman, without of course looking too sleazy. That is why I don’t like Victorica’s Secret.
If there isn’t a man to see the undergarments do they still objectify?

Interesting question, Bruised Reed. I don’t think they do objectify women. I don’t think the clothing itself has the ability to objectify anyone - people objectify others, but clothing can’t.

Also, I think we can be too quick to jump to the conclusion that women (or men) are being objectified. For example, I have long hair. I keep it long mainly because my boyfriend asked me to, because he likes long hair. From comments I’ve received from men and women, it’s clear that long hair is generally considered appealing in women. In fact, long hair has been known to incite lust. Does it follow that my long hair objectifies me?

I don’t think that we can say the undergarments are meant to objectify women. Most of these undergarments are never seen by men who don’t already know the women in question. If VS was going around telling women to wear nothing but those undergarments in public, maybe that would be encouraging the objectification of women, but I don’t believe that’s the case.

 

[TLM08]

As a middle aged man who has been around this world a time or two, I’ve noticed that women who take decent care of themselves and would look good in VS attire almost never complain about being “objectified”. This is only my experience. Yours may be different.

Besides, wasn’t it the radical lesbian feminists of the 1960s who started this whole “objectification” thing when they tried to convince women that they didn’t need men?

I am a big fan of public modesty. VS has no business marketing to teens (if they are doing that). It belongs in the bedroom to be shared and enjoyed by adults within marriage.

 

[pnewton]

Oh, and Victoria’s Secret caters toward lust. It’s clothing is meant to be appealing to men and women - meaning the undergarments are meant to objecify the woman, without of course looking too sleazy. That is why I don’t like Victorica’s Secret.

I don’t know about the catering to lust part. Mostly they market to women. I would bet your not married. Rest assured, for married people, there is a time and place where it is totally acceptable for a woman to look her best, sexually appealing and immodest.

 

[Serap]

As a middle aged man who has been around this world a time or two, I’ve noticed that women who take decent care of themselves and would look good in VS attire almost never complain about being “objectified”. This is only my experience. Yours may be different.

Besides, wasn’t it the radical lesbian feminists of the 1960s who started this whole “objectification” thing when they tried to convince women that they didn’t need men?

I am a big fan of public modesty. VS has no business marketing to teens (if they are doing that). It belongs in the bedroom to be shared and enjoyed by adults within marriage.

I love your posts…you crack me up! You are so blantantly honest :tiphat:

 

[Cat]

As Catholic parents to teenage children, there is the added responsibility of teaching MODESTY. While it may not be pornography, some of its ads are very immodest.

Also I don’t think parents here are “freaking out” about finding VS in their son’s room but of a prudential concern for developing their sense of modesty.

Immodesty can lead to pornography.

I somewhat disagree with the last sentence in this letter.

I think it’s just as likely that modesty can lead to pornography.

I’m not kidding. A young man can be turned on by ANYTHING! My husband said that when he first started going through puberty, his fat grandmother in her bathrobe was a turn-on for him!

The Sears catalogue, with their homely pictures of women in those white bras, was a turn-on for my hubby when he was young.

One of the most popular sexual “fetishes” is the “Catholic Schoolgirl look.” Those sweet little plaid skirts, knee socks, and Mary Janes have become symbolic of sexiness to the point where I honestly feel very strongly that Catholic schools should re-think the whole concept of a school girl uniforms and come up with something that doesn’t carry the reputation of “fetish.”

I saw a concert last week featuring several young ladies in skirts and white blouses. They were so sweet, but I couldn’t help but think that all the young teenaged boys in the audience are probably struggling to control themselves because the girls were so beautiful.

It’s not raunchiness that turns a man on, it’s anything feminine. That means jumpers, long skirts, flannel nighties, ANYTHING that a girl goes near.

It seems to me that trying to keep young men from getting aroused is a losing battle. If “grandma” can turn a teenager on, ANYTHING and anyone, even the most demure girl in the most modest jumper, can arouse a young man! It’s just part of being a boy!

So IMO, rather than trying to stop the arousal and prevent the young man from seeing ANYTHING that will arouse him (may as well put him in solitary confinement), we should try to teach young men (and old men!) to control their body and practice continence.

 

[TLM08]

I somewhat disagree with the last sentence in this letter.

I think it’s just as likely that modesty can lead to pornography.

I’m not kidding. A young man can be turned on by ANYTHING! My husband said that when he first started going through puberty, his fat grandmother in her bathrobe was a turn-on for him!

The Sears catalogue, with their homely pictures of women in those white bras, was a turn-on for my hubby when he was young.

One of the most popular sexual “fetishes” is the “Catholic Schoolgirl look.” Those sweet little plaid skirts, knee socks, and Mary Janes have become symbolic of sexiness to the point where I honestly feel very strongly that Catholic schools should re-think the whole concept of a school girl uniforms and come up with something that doesn’t carry the reputation of “fetish.”

I saw a concert last week featuring several young ladies in skirts and white blouses. They were so sweet, but I couldn’t help but think that all the young teenaged boys in the audience are probably struggling to control themselves because the girls were so beautiful.

It’s not raunchiness that turns a man on, it’s anything feminine. That means jumpers, long skirts, flannel nighties, ANYTHING that a girl goes near.

It seems to me that trying to keep young men from getting aroused is a losing battle. If “grandma” can turn a teenager on, ANYTHING and anyone, even the most demure girl in the most modest jumper, can arouse a young man! It’s just part of being a boy!

So IMO, rather than trying to stop the arousal and prevent the young man from seeing ANYTHING that will arouse him (may as well put him in solitary confinement), we should try to teach young men (and old men!) to control their body and practice continence.

The above post is one of the most insightful that I’ve seen on these forums regarding male sexuality. In the developing young boy at age twelve or thirteen, simply drinking immediately after a pretty girl at the same water fountain can be an extreme turn on.

This sexual hypersensitivity wears off quite a bit as a boy progresses toward his later teens and into manhood. Most men if they are honest, will back me up on this!

ps: Grandma never seemed to turn me on. But then again, she always kept herself well covered… praise God!

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I wish I looked as good as the models do. Personally, I think lots of us here wish we COULD shop at VS.
To the poster who wants a Queen VS…me too!!

Kathy

Lane Bryant has really pretty lingerie. I bought a few undergarments there when I was pregnant, and some pajamas etc. While I am not sure, I think Lane Bryant might be from the same parent company as VS. (anyone know?)

 

[monicatholic]

I am a big fan of public modesty. VS has no business marketing to teens (if they are doing that). It belongs in the bedroom to be shared and enjoyed by adults within marriage.

tlm, you’ve contradicted yourself here. if sexy underwear should be kept within marriage, then why should my teen sons be allowed his own under-the-mattress copy of the sexy underwear catalogue? why should VS send those same catlogues to my teen daughters and allow them in the store if they should arrive waving a $50 bill?

surely you can see how one who might not be opposed to pretty underwear can, as a matter of integrity, eschew purchases on the basis of objectionable marketing?

finally this:

I’ve noticed that women who take decent care of themselves and would look good in VS attire almost never complain about being “objectified”. This is only my experience.

well, tlm, i hope you’re willing to expand your many experiences and conclusions to include the data gathered from me? or will my (name removed by moderator)ut get swept into the anomaly bin?

 

[TLM08]

tlm, you’ve contradicted yourself here. if sexy underwear should be kept within marriage, then why should my teen sons be allowed his own under-the-mattress copy of the sexy underwear catalogue? why should VS send those same catlogues to my teen daughters and allow them in the store if they should arrive waving a $50 bill?

surely you can see how one who might not be opposed to pretty underwear can, as a matter of integrity, eschew purchases on the basis of objectionable marketing?

finally this: well, tlm, i hope you’re willing to expand your many experiences and conclusions to include the data gathered from me? or will my (name removed by moderator)ut get swept into the anomaly bin?

Please allow me to clarify:
Sexy underwear (live model included) should not be on public display. Perhaps I should have also left out the word “marriage” as well because this isn’t really about making a value judgement. My point was that lingerie and all else that provokes sexual arousal really belongs behind closed doors. Children don’t need to be exposed to this stuff.

As far as teenage boys are concerned. 95% or more of them are masturbating… (well… maybe not right at this very minute ) and virtually all of them use a visual or mental image of a pretty woman or girl during the deed. VS provides a very tame, but extremely arousing array of images for these naughty lads. If VS keeps them off of the internet where some of the most disgusting, perverted and frequently violent content can be seen, it must be viewed as a positive thing.

Listen, when I was a teenager, (1970s) we were perfectly content with the pretty girls with feathered hair and bare breasts featured in Playboy magazine. And we had enough modesty to keep that stuff hidden from mom and dad. I was in the military when I first saw a picture of people actually having sex. Although I had a girlfriend and was sexually active, the picture was a shock to my system.

These days, boys as young as thirteen are viewing the most hardcore pornographic material ever produced, all with the click of a mouse. Girls are texting pictures of themselves having sex. These pictures then get circulated to the whole world. There is no sense of shame. Modesty is non existent because it never had a chance to develop. Parents really need to keep close watch on their young sons. It’s a terrible thing.

If I was king, stores like VS would be 21 and over, just like bar. Modesty needs to be encouraged for sure. But we also need to realize that boys will be boys. Moderation and modesty are key.

 

[sanctamaria17]

No, that argument does not fly with me.

First, that assumes women don’t struggle with things like masturbation, etc. It’s not just the boys’ domain. Yet people don’t even think of the possibility that women may use “aids”, whether visual or not, and it’s more common than people think. But it’s still wrong, regardless of whether you possess XX or XY chromosomes.

Second, it’s still objectifying women! I don’t care whether it’s hardcore sex or just an airbrushed girl. It teaches men that women have to look like that all the time, that women are just meant for beauty and sex, and that they can abuse their bodies and refuse to guard their eyes (even though Jesus said that looking at women lustfully was tantamount to adultery) just because a woman is pretty.

I’m sorry but as a college girl, who does struggle a lot with sexual temptation (read my threads on sexuality if you need to be reminded) but still stays faithful to the Church, goes to Confession, and makes a conscious effort to guard her own eyes, as well as someone who fights against pornography and plans to spend her life fighting the sex trade and other abuses of women (and men and children too), this is a slap in the face.

Maybe one pretty girl in Playboy doesn’t cause rape. But the fact of the matter is, it starts out that way. It always does. There’s a fine line between modeling pretty lingerie so a woman can see how it fits and using a woman’s body/sexuality to sell other things. When you treat women like commodities, even in the smallest ways, it comes back with consequences.

Sin is sin, regardless of your sex drive and hormonal state. If you know it’s wrong, don’t do it. If you’re struggling, pray, talk to someone, and figure out a way to manage it while still acknowledging it. Go to Confession, go to Mass, pray daily (hourly if you need to), stay close to Jesus, etc. But the boys will be boys argument does not fly with me. It slaps the face of every women who fights to stay chaste, yet sees all the men around her acting like it’s mating season and it sets men at a lower standard than the one God has called them to.

Call me a prude, I don’t care. I’m just saying, it’s not easy for women to be faithful either, that we have sex drives too, yet we’re expected to stay pure. But men are told, oh, it’s nature, it’s biology, it’s OK. No, it’s not! If you can’t learn to master your sex drive, what are you going to do when you’re married and you can’t have sex for whatever reason?

It also makes me sad that women, it seems these days, are judged based on beauty and sexual attractiveness. I see it every day and it’s something I’ve struggled with. We’ve been told from an early age that beauty is skin deep, that it’s our intelligence and character that matters, but the media tells us a contradictory message: that if we don’t have a toned body and turn on every man in the room, we are worth nothing. Thus, the superwoman complex: that women must have it ALL or she’s worth nothing, while all a guy needs to do is look cute and breathe and he’s perfect. It doesn’t just hurt women, it hurts both of us.

Women are worth nothing if we’re not pretty, men aren’t supposed to have self-control. That’s the message spread by this culture and I believe THAT’S what Monicatholic and others are saying when they speak out against this.

 

[sonofourlady]

No, that argument does not fly with me.

First, that assumes women don’t struggle with things like masturbation, etc. It’s not just the boys’ domain. Yet people don’t even think of the possibility that women may use “aids”, whether visual or not, and it’s more common than people think. But it’s still wrong, regardless of whether you possess XX or XY chromosomes.

Second, it’s still objectifying women! I don’t care whether it’s hardcore sex or just an airbrushed girl. It teaches men that women have to look like that all the time, that women are just meant for beauty and sex, and that they can abuse their bodies and refuse to guard their eyes (even though Jesus said that looking at women lustfully was tantamount to adultery) just because a woman is pretty.

I’m sorry but as a college girl, who does struggle a lot with sexual temptation (read my threads on sexuality if you need to be reminded) but still stays faithful to the Church, goes to Confession, and makes a conscious effort to guard her own eyes, as well as someone who fights against pornography and plans to spend her life fighting the sex trade and other abuses of women (and men and children too), this is a slap in the face.

Maybe one pretty girl in Playboy doesn’t cause rape. But the fact of the matter is, it starts out that way. It always does. There’s a fine line between modeling pretty lingerie so a woman can see how it fits and using a woman’s body/sexuality to sell other things. When you treat women like commodities, even in the smallest ways, it comes back with consequences.

Sin is sin, regardless of your sex drive and hormonal state. If you know it’s wrong, don’t do it. If you’re struggling, pray, talk to someone, and figure out a way to manage it while still acknowledging it. Go to Confession, go to Mass, pray daily (hourly if you need to), stay close to Jesus, etc. But the boys will be boys argument does not fly with me. It slaps the face of every women who fights to stay chaste, yet sees all the men around her acting like it’s mating season and it sets men at a lower standard than the one God has called them to.

Call me a prude, I don’t care. I’m just saying, it’s not easy for women to be faithful either, that we have sex drives too, yet we’re expected to stay pure. But men are told, oh, it’s nature, it’s biology, it’s OK. No, it’s not! If you can’t learn to master your sex drive, what are you going to do when you’re married and you can’t have sex for whatever reason?

It also makes me sad that women, it seems these days, are judged based on beauty and sexual attractiveness. I see it every day and it’s something I’ve struggled with. We’ve been told from an early age that beauty is skin deep, that it’s our intelligence and character that matters, but the media tells us a contradictory message: that if we don’t have a toned body and turn on every man in the room, we are worth nothing. Thus, the superwoman complex: that women must have it ALL or she’s worth nothing, while all a guy needs to do is look cute and breathe and he’s perfect. It doesn’t just hurt women, it hurts both of us.

Women are worth nothing if we’re not pretty, men aren’t supposed to have self-control. That’s the message spread by this culture and I believe THAT’S what Monicatholic and others are saying when they speak out against this.

That is a beautiful post Sanctamaria:clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

 

[TLM08]

No, that argument does not fly with me.

First, that assumes women don’t struggle with things like masturbation, etc. It’s not just the boys’ domain. Yet people don’t even think of the possibility that women may use “aids”, whether visual or not, and it’s more common than people think. But it’s still wrong, regardless of whether you possess XX or XY chromosomes.

Second, it’s still objectifying women! I don’t care whether it’s hardcore sex or just an airbrushed girl. It teaches men that women have to look like that all the time, that women are just meant for beauty and sex, and that they can abuse their bodies and refuse to guard their eyes (even though Jesus said that looking at women lustfully was tantamount to adultery) just because a woman is pretty.

I’m sorry but as a college girl, who does struggle a lot with sexual temptation (read my threads on sexuality if you need to be reminded) but still stays faithful to the Church, goes to Confession, and makes a conscious effort to guard her own eyes, as well as someone who fights against pornography and plans to spend her life fighting the sex trade and other abuses of women (and men and children too), this is a slap in the face.

Maybe one pretty girl in Playboy doesn’t cause rape. But the fact of the matter is, it starts out that way. It always does. There’s a fine line between modeling pretty lingerie so a woman can see how it fits and using a woman’s body/sexuality to sell other things. When you treat women like commodities, even in the smallest ways, it comes back with consequences.

Sin is sin, regardless of your sex drive and hormonal state. If you know it’s wrong, don’t do it. If you’re struggling, pray, talk to someone, and figure out a way to manage it while still acknowledging it. Go to Confession, go to Mass, pray daily (hourly if you need to), stay close to Jesus, etc. But the boys will be boys argument does not fly with me. It slaps the face of every women who fights to stay chaste, yet sees all the men around her acting like it’s mating season and it sets men at a lower standard than the one God has called them to.

Call me a prude, I don’t care. I’m just saying, it’s not easy for women to be faithful either, that we have sex drives too, yet we’re expected to stay pure. But men are told, oh, it’s nature, it’s biology, it’s OK. No, it’s not! If you can’t learn to master your sex drive, what are you going to do when you’re married and you can’t have sex for whatever reason?

It also makes me sad that women, it seems these days, are judged based on beauty and sexual attractiveness. I see it every day and it’s something I’ve struggled with. We’ve been told from an early age that beauty is skin deep, that it’s our intelligence and character that matters, but the media tells us a contradictory message: that if we don’t have a toned body and turn on every man in the room, we are worth nothing. Thus, the superwoman complex: that women must have it ALL or she’s worth nothing, while all a guy needs to do is look cute and breathe and he’s perfect. It doesn’t just hurt women, it hurts both of us.

Women are worth nothing if we’re not pretty, men aren’t supposed to have self-control. That’s the message spread by this culture and I believe THAT’S what Monicatholic and others are saying when they speak out against this.

Young lady, I agree with a whole bunch of what you say. American culture and society in general needs to hear your rant.

Male sexuality is shallow by nature not by choice. Men need to learn intimacy. It doesn’t help that such a large number of women in our culture do not expect more from us men.

You have a great attitude that will be the basis for solid moral development of your family someday should life take you in that direction. But you have to be mindful that life in this world calls for good judgement and moderation.

The flesh will always be with us as long as we are alive on earth. We must to learn to control it.
Bless You!

 

[shannyk]

No, that argument does not fly with me.

First, that assumes women don’t struggle with things like masturbation, etc. It’s not just the boys’ domain. Yet people don’t even think of the possibility that women may use “aids”, whether visual or not, and it’s more common than people think. But it’s still wrong, regardless of whether you possess XX or XY chromosomes.

Second, it’s still objectifying women! I don’t care whether it’s hardcore sex or just an airbrushed girl. It teaches men that women have to look like that all the time, that women are just meant for beauty and sex, and that they can abuse their bodies and refuse to guard their eyes (even though Jesus said that looking at women lustfully was tantamount to adultery) just because a woman is pretty.

I’m sorry but as a college girl, who does struggle a lot with sexual temptation (read my threads on sexuality if you need to be reminded) but still stays faithful to the Church, goes to Confession, and makes a conscious effort to guard her own eyes, as well as someone who fights against pornography and plans to spend her life fighting the sex trade and other abuses of women (and men and children too), this is a slap in the face.

Maybe one pretty girl in Playboy doesn’t cause rape. But the fact of the matter is, it starts out that way. It always does. There’s a fine line between modeling pretty lingerie so a woman can see how it fits and using a woman’s body/sexuality to sell other things. When you treat women like commodities, even in the smallest ways, it comes back with consequences.

Sin is sin, regardless of your sex drive and hormonal state. If you know it’s wrong, don’t do it. If you’re struggling, pray, talk to someone, and figure out a way to manage it while still acknowledging it. Go to Confession, go to Mass, pray daily (hourly if you need to), stay close to Jesus, etc. But the boys will be boys argument does not fly with me. It slaps the face of every women who fights to stay chaste, yet sees all the men around her acting like it’s mating season and it sets men at a lower standard than the one God has called them to.

Call me a prude, I don’t care. I’m just saying, it’s not easy for women to be faithful either, that we have sex drives too, yet we’re expected to stay pure. But men are told, oh, it’s nature, it’s biology, it’s OK. No, it’s not! If you can’t learn to master your sex drive, what are you going to do when you’re married and you can’t have sex for whatever reason?

It also makes me sad that women, it seems these days, are judged based on beauty and sexual attractiveness. I see it every day and it’s something I’ve struggled with. We’ve been told from an early age that beauty is skin deep, that it’s our intelligence and character that matters, but the media tells us a contradictory message: that if we don’t have a toned body and turn on every man in the room, we are worth nothing. Thus, the superwoman complex: that women must have it ALL or she’s worth nothing, while all a guy needs to do is look cute and breathe and he’s perfect. It doesn’t just hurt women, it hurts both of us.

Women are worth nothing if we’re not pretty, men aren’t supposed to have self-control. That’s the message spread by this culture and I believe THAT’S what Monicatholic and others are saying when they speak out against this.

Exactly:thumbsup:

 

[Col40]

I know of a Catholic lady who is engaged and today I found out that she is going to be shopping at Victoria’s Secret.

I have seen clips of their ads and its revolting. Can you anyone give me sound Catholic reasons why one can shop there? Is shopping there any different from a sex shop?

You haven’t been in Victoria Secret stores, have you? They’re nothing like the catalog. I have a lot of VS stuff that is very chaste…including some cotton jersey sleep shirts that a nun could wear. Yes, they have undergarments in the store, some lacy and racy–but it’s not as skimpy as say Frederick’s of Hollywood.

It’s no where near shopping in a sex store…they don’t sell “appliances” if you will. Or “instructional manuals”. Its a lingerie store. And other than 12 year old boys (and a few men who are much older but are about as mature as twelve year old boys) most people aren’t regarding the VS catalog merchandise any differently than they would say the JC Penney or Sears catalogs’ lingerie pages.

Seriously, she’s getting married. She’s going to have sex. Whatever she buys will be on her for 30 seconds anyway…it’s not a sin.

 

[Col40]

One of the most popular sexual “fetishes” is the “Catholic Schoolgirl look.” Those sweet little plaid skirts, knee socks, and Mary Janes have become symbolic of sexiness to the point where I honestly feel very strongly that Catholic schools should re-think the whole concept of a school girl uniforms and come up with something that doesn’t carry the reputation of “fetish.”

IQUOTE]

OK–when you’re talking about the school girl “fetish”–it’s not the innocent look that Catholic school girls actually have–knee length plaid skirts, knee socks, white blouses. It’s a very much “sexified” version–mini plaids, sheer white knee highs, low cut blouses, and high heels. And that’s brought on by guys who are fantasizing about their puberty and girls they found “untouchable”. Strippers and prostitutes have capitalized on this.

IF someone is fantasizing about actual school girls–that’s called pedophilia. And it’s illegal in every state. Meanwhile, there seems to be a trend toward school uniforms being polo shirts and khakis–both unisex.

 

[_wifey]

No, that argument does not fly with me.

First, that assumes women don’t struggle with things like masturbation, etc. It’s not just the boys’ domain. Yet people don’t even think of the possibility that women may use “aids”, whether visual or not, and it’s more common than people think. But it’s still wrong, regardless of whether you possess XX or XY chromosomes.

Second, it’s still objectifying women! I don’t care whether it’s hardcore sex or just an airbrushed girl. It teaches men that women have to look like that all the time, that women are just meant for beauty and sex, and that they can abuse their bodies and refuse to guard their eyes (even though Jesus said that looking at women lustfully was tantamount to adultery) just because a woman is pretty.

I’m sorry but as a college girl, who does struggle a lot with sexual temptation (read my threads on sexuality if you need to be reminded) but still stays faithful to the Church, goes to Confession, and makes a conscious effort to guard her own eyes, as well as someone who fights against pornography and plans to spend her life fighting the sex trade and other abuses of women (and men and children too), this is a slap in the face.

Maybe one pretty girl in Playboy doesn’t cause rape. But the fact of the matter is, it starts out that way. It always does. There’s a fine line between modeling pretty lingerie so a woman can see how it fits and using a woman’s body/sexuality to sell other things. When you treat women like commodities, even in the smallest ways, it comes back with consequences.

Sin is sin, regardless of your sex drive and hormonal state. If you know it’s wrong, don’t do it. If you’re struggling, pray, talk to someone, and figure out a way to manage it while still acknowledging it. Go to Confession, go to Mass, pray daily (hourly if you need to), stay close to Jesus, etc. But the boys will be boys argument does not fly with me. It slaps the face of every women who fights to stay chaste, yet sees all the men around her acting like it’s mating season and it sets men at a lower standard than the one God has called them to.

Call me a prude, I don’t care. I’m just saying, it’s not easy for women to be faithful either, that we have sex drives too, yet we’re expected to stay pure. But men are told, oh, it’s nature, it’s biology, it’s OK. No, it’s not! If you can’t learn to master your sex drive, what are you going to do when you’re married and you can’t have sex for whatever reason?

It also makes me sad that women, it seems these days, are judged based on beauty and sexual attractiveness. I see it every day and it’s something I’ve struggled with. We’ve been told from an early age that beauty is skin deep, that it’s our intelligence and character that matters, but the media tells us a contradictory message: that if we don’t have a toned body and turn on every man in the room, we are worth nothing. Thus, the superwoman complex: that women must have it ALL or she’s worth nothing, while all a guy needs to do is look cute and breathe and he’s perfect. It doesn’t just hurt women, it hurts both of us.

Women are worth nothing if we’re not pretty, men aren’t supposed to have self-control. That’s the message spread by this culture and I believe THAT’S what Monicatholic and others are saying when they speak out against this.

A few thoughts…

First of all, I second the above! And I completely understanding struggling with chastity…even being married!

Second, someone mentioned the lack of quality in VS’s products versus and honest-to-goodness lingerie store (shannyk??) and I have to agree. I’m an “inbetween” size and even worse I have curves! When I was looking for something supportive yet sexy for under my wedding gown, I looked all over creation trying to find something that was skinny enough around the waist and still big enough around the hips and chest. Finally in one of our local wedding mags that my MIL picked up for me was an ad for a small lingerie boutique (privately owned). I walked in and immediately was greeted by a salesperson who not only fitted me (correctly I might add! The only correct fitting I’ve ever had at a VS was my first one when I was still quite small) but listened to what I was looking for, suggested stuff, and brought it to me all so I wouldn’t have to leave the dressing room. I spent a good deal of money there that day (they weren’t “cheap”) but of all the stuff I got for my honeymoon & beyond (my family threw me a lingerie shower), it is the only stuff still in good shape.

Also, while I do still shop at VS for my undies (why oh why can I not find a good cotton panty!?!?!?), I have become increasing frustrated with the seeming decline in the age of the shoppers (I’m only 24!) as well as the immature designs on the panties that fit me. Honestly, I don’t need cute prints that reek of middle school locker rooms.

 

[Christine2009]

A few thoughts…

First of all, I second the above! And I completely understanding struggling with chastity…even being married!

Second, someone mentioned the lack of quality in VS’s products versus and honest-to-goodness lingerie store (shannyk??) and I have to agree. I’m an “inbetween” size and even worse I have curves! When I was looking for something supportive yet sexy for under my wedding gown, I looked all over creation trying to find something that was skinny enough around the waist and still big enough around the hips and chest. Finally in one of our local wedding mags that my MIL picked up for me was an ad for a small lingerie boutique (privately owned). I walked in and immediately was greeted by a salesperson who not only fitted me (correctly I might add! The only correct fitting I’ve ever had at a VS was my first one when I was still quite small) but listened to what I was looking for, suggested stuff, and brought it to me all so I wouldn’t have to leave the dressing room. I spent a good deal of money there that day (they weren’t “cheap”) but of all the stuff I got for my honeymoon & beyond (my family threw me a lingerie shower), it is the only stuff still in good shape.

Also, while I do still shop at VS for my undies (why oh why can I not find a good cotton panty!?!?!?), I have become increasing frustrated with the seeming decline in the age of the shoppers (I’m only 24!) as well as the immature designs on the panties that fit me. Honestly, I don’t need cute prints that reek of middle school locker rooms.

I’ve been waiting for someone to put a stop to those commercials by V.S.
They are porn. I can’t believe they are allowed to put those on TV.
But then TV has really gone down hill, right to that place no one in their right mind wants to go.