An open letter to Victoria’s Secret regarding their choice to advertise an underwear line at young teenagers.
Editor’s note: Two weeks ago, a dad wrote a letter to Victoria’s Secret about “Bright Young Things”, which turned out not to be a new product line but an ad campaign for its “college-age” Pink Line targeted for spring breakers.
According to Business Insider: “There never was product that was called ‘Bright Young Things,’ no product line was called that,” an unnamed spokeswoman told Women’s Wear Daily. “It [the undies] was just part of a normal Pink product line. I’m not sure why people thought that it was something else.”
And spring break is just for college students.
The Daily Beast wrote:
The models for the new range are noticeably younger than those of the regular Victoria’s Secret brand.
Up until now, the company has made no secret of its interest in targeting a younger audience.
“When somebody’s 15 or 16 years old, what do they want to be?” Victoria’s Secret CFO Stuart Burgdoerfer said at a conference in January, according to Business Insider. “They want to be older, and they want to be cool like the girl in college, and that’s part of the magic of what we do at PINK.”
Don’t like ads? Become a supporter and enjoy The Good Men Project ad free
The Pink line includes typically sexy VS underwear with messages like “Call Me”, “I Dare You”, and “Wild”. Sounds like the kind of thing you put on heart-shaped Valentine’s candy, not genital covering. This kind of advertising–sex messaging to teens–is nothing new, but sex messaging on teens?
Here’s the letter, originally run 3.22.13, that fueled the backlash against the line and the ad campaign. It’s still valid, despite the misinformation.
♦◊♦
Dear Victoria’s Secret,
I am a father of a three year old girl. She loves princesses, Dora the Explorer, Doc McStuffins and drawing pictures for people. Her favorite foods are peanut butter and jelly, cheese and pistachios.
Even though she is only three, as a parent I have had those thoughts of my daughter growing up and not being the little girl she is now. It is true what they say about kids, they grow up fast. No matter how hard I try I know that she will not be the little ball of energy she is now; one day she will be a rebellious teenager that will more than likely think her dad is a total goof ball and would want to distance herself from my embarrassing presence.
I know that this is far down the line and I try to spend as much time as I can with her making memories of this special time.
But as I read an article today posted on The Black Sphere, it really got me thinking that maybe the culture that we currently find ourselves in is not helping the cause.
Recently I read an article that Victoria’s Secret is launching a line of underwear and bras aimed at middle school aged children. The line will be called “Bright Young Things” and will feature ” lace black cheeksters with the word “Wild” emblazoned on them, green and white polka-dot hipsters screen printed with “Feeling Lucky?” and a lace trim thong with the words, “Call me” on the front.”
As a dad, this makes me sick.
I believe that this sends the wrong message to not only my daughter but to all young girls.
I don’t want my daughter to ever think that her self-worth and acceptance by others is based on the choice of her undergarments. I don’t want my daughter to ever think that to be popular or even attractive she has to have emblazon words on her bottom.
I want my daughter (and every girl) to be faced with tough decisions in her formative years of adolescence. Decisions like should I be a doctor or a lawyer? Should I take calculus as a junior or a senior? Do I want to go to Texas A&M or University of Texas or some Ivy League School? Should I raise awareness for slave trafficking or lack of water in developing nations? There are many, many more questions that all young women should be asking themselves… not will a boy (or girl) like me if I wear a “call me” thong?
I want my daughter to know that she is perfect the way she is; I want my daughter to know that no matter what underwear she is wearing it does not define her.
I believe that this new line “Bright Young Things” thwarts the efforts of empowering young women in this country. “Bright Young Things” gives off the message that women are sex objects. This new line promotes it at a dangerously young age.
I implore you to reconsider your decision to start this line.
By doing so you will put young girl’s self-esteem, self-worth and pride above profits.
Sincerely,
Rev. Evan Dolive
Houston, TX
—first appeared at EvanDolive.com
—photo by Bruce Guenter/Flickr
.
It’s funny but many are justifiably in a tizzy about plastering words across a young girls behind but I’ve seen many (no one who has posted here that I know of) be okay with sagging pants on guys.
As an old FART (Father Against Rebellious Teens), I concur with what many of you have said. I’m a dad before I’m a prude and dad beats out prude all the time.
I thought women wear clothes for themselves, not for men or other women. So why it matters if young girls wear a victoria secret underwear ? They wear it for themselves right?
That’s right, as a man you’re not supposed to notice. The big words on the butt are not meant for you to read….or something. Just like Victoria’s Secret clearly does NOT want men to read its catalogs, so shame on you for doing so. The company says…um…mind your own business?
Being the proud father of a soon-to-be three year old, I have a few years before I need worry about the sexuality implied in lingerie and what is and is not appropriate for my daughter to wear. As far as I’m concerned, she’s going to wear long pants, turtlenecks and a chastity belt until she’s at least 35. All joking aside, my wife and I will be purchasing the majority of her clothes until she is gainfully employed and is able to clothe herself. If, by some odd chance, someone buys her clothes that are inappropriate, we will retain veto… Read more »
Hmmm…
Funny…
I’m not a girl (now or ever), but it seems like to me that girls, older girls, young women and women want to be desired by someone and be the object of their desire. No doubt, that desire is blown waaaay out of all proportion of our society, but let’s not throw this baby out with the bathwater.
Is that asking too much? Do I even need to ask? Lol…
It is interesting that we are all so concerned about being a ‘prude’ – God forbid. Well, count me in as a card-carrying prude. No father – or mother – really wants a daughter to become an object for others to look at. Modesty is not some bizarre relic from another age. It can be an expression of self-respect. These companies are making plenty of cash assuming that parents are clueless idiots, too worried about not being FREE and trendy or appearing prudish. Or saying NO. So these marketing clowns sell this junk to young kids who want to fit… Read more »
I wrote about VS’s new Juniors line and the potential down side of the reaction to it for xoJane. I would reprint here on GMP, but it’s really female-focused. But if you’re interested, here’s the link.
http://www.xojane.com/issues/the-shaming-of-the-victorias-secret-mother
In a way, what I think is much worse than the underwear is the Pink line of outergarments like sweatpants and shirts. The shirts have big words printed across the chest, and the sweatpants have big words printed across the butt. Very few people (hopefully) are going to see the words on your 15 year old daughter’s underwear, but everyone is going to see the word “PINK” emblazoned across her backside on her sweatpants. These are clothing articles that basically draw the viewer’s attention to breasts and butts. Maybe this makes me an old prude, but this seems too prurient.… Read more »
My problem with the Pink line is the slovenly style of dress it promotes. When my wife and I pass by a VS we always comment how VS started as a high-endish (relatively) lingerie store in the much more conservative 80s-90s, and now 3/4 of the store seems filled with sweatpants.
I see people talking about self-respect in these comments, but how is dressing in sweatpants in your day to day lives better than wearing sexy underwear beneath jeans and a nice blouse?
My impression is that VS has changed its targeted customer base to a much younger clientele. I don’t think they even employ catalogue models over the age of 20 anymore, which was certainly not their policy in the 1990’s, if memory serves.
Fantastic post. I agree 100%. What bothers me perhaps the most is age compression…trickle, trickle, trickle, down goes the target market to younger and younger girls. Just as VS admits that high school girls want to be like college girls, so do middle school girls want to be like high school girls. And VS knows this. 17-year-olds don’t buy Seventeen magazine–12-year-olds do. Apply that same principle to VS. Middle schoolers are the real target now. Soon there will be a line for middle schoolers that elementary schoolers want. VS’s goal is to hook girls early and turn them into lifelong… Read more »
As an attractive middle aged woman with an 11 year old daughter, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Before I begin, let me say that I’m not a prude, am self-confident, and am an old-fashioned southern girl who believes in the rights of women, but not a die hard feminist. I compare what my daughter sees on a daily basis. Back in my day, you never saw a woman in lingerie on any TV or print ad. If you happened to, she looked “real”, like someone you might know. Seventeen magazine was covered with a freckle face natural… Read more »
As an attractive middle aged woman with an 11 year old daughter, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Before I begin, let me say that I’m not a prude, am self-confident, and am an old-fashioned southern girl who believes in the rights of women, but not a die hard feminist. I compare what my daughter sees on a daily basis. Back in my day, you never saw a woman in lingerie on any TV or print ad. If you happened to, she looked “real”, like someone you might know. Seventeen magazine was covered with a freckle face natural… Read more »
maybe we should, i don’t know, be fathers & not buy those things for our daughters? or go through the laundry & make sure they aren’t secretly buying these kinds of garments. in other words: be a parent.
An attack based “misinformation” is still valid? Ok, sure. Spring Break is only for college students? OK if you want to believe that you can, but that’s just more misinformation (some girls in my HS were going to S. Padre from 15 on). If you think a girl can’t be smart and wear cute/fun under clothing that seems to be a problem _you_ have and something that _you_ believe. I doubt any pair of thong underwear has ever turned a valedictorian into a stripper just because she wore them.
Jimbo, you missed the sarcasm in the “And spring break is just for college.” I agree teenagers should be respected enough to have freedom of choice, but there’s a tactlessness in the ad campaign and the underlying motive.
You’re right. That’s a horribly put together intro. I even read it several times to try to figure out what Spring Break had to do with anything so I figured it was meant seriously.