And they have no shame for greed drives their business decisions and their merchandising decisions.

There is widespread notion that boys and girls do not have sexual feelings. A while ago there was outrage that 5-yr old children in Chicago would learn about sexuality. It is that never-to-be-spoken word masturbation. Children touch their genital areas, explore, and find pleasures. And are curious.

Agreed, they do not present themselves as sexual beings until puberty--well, maybe ignoring flirtations amongst 9-yr olds, where some attractions exist, although not really sexual in an adult way.

Children and adults imagine all sorts of things about themselves and relationships. What has to be learnt is the difference between fantasy and reality in sex. 'Sexy' underwear is not the problem.

It is peculiar that so much of religion and "morality", said to be from a god via a lot of men (many of whom run around wearing dresses and gowns), is concerned about orgasms and who has orgasms with whom.

5 year olds, even 12 year olds don't need to wear clothing that advertises their sexuality.

Let them be children before they have to face the pressures and responsibilities that come with sex.

Please don't even go there. I don't have kids and I am utterly disgusted by what Victoria's Secret is doing. Anyone with an ounce of empathy, and protectiveness towards kids, childless or not, is repulsed by this horrible marketing campaign.

I, too, get very tired of the assumption that because one does not have children one can not possess humanity.

Isn't it a little odd that no one can verify the story outside the texas godbag blogosphere?

Victoria's Secret is very much into the sexualizing

Go to
https://www.change.org/petitions/victoria-s-secret-stop-sexualizing-our-daughters-with-the-bright-young-things-line

Victoria's Secret: Stop sexualizing our daughters with the Bright Young Things line
Petition by
The Mommy Lobby

The Mommy Lobby believes that young girls are overwhelmed with images that make them believe that their only worth comes from how they look. Victoria's Secret's latest line of lingerie is further promoting the idea that in order to fit it, young girls need to wear skimpy clothing and now underwear that have words like "wild", "call me" or "sexy" on them.

We are simply asking Victoria's Secret show a modicum of respect for our daughter. They have their entire adult lives to be grown up, please allow them to maintain their innocence and youth for as long as possible.

However, if Victoria's Secret continues to market items that are blatantly sexual, we the undersigned have committed to NOT SHOPPING at your store for as long as you continue to do so.

We, the undersigned fed up parents of young people, thank you.

(for more information on how you can make an impact, please visit us at www.theMommyLobby.org)

totally disgusting!

to stop that nasty ol' Assault Weapons Ban, too.

Yes, you're right. It's totally disgusting.

It's totally disgusting that people on DU would flog blatant right-wing lies and propaganda, because they're in some kind of crazed panic that victoria's secret is plotting to sell tweens naughty underwear.

I have no children but I think this is bad idea in more ways than one

a pedophile's dream come true.

Children do need need to wear "sexy" underwear. God has nothing to do with it. Pedophilia does. Children should not be viewed as sexual, they're children.

When kids are in control of their level of "sexiness," a five year old being "sexy" looks a lot different than an adult designing and dressing (or providing to) a five year old in what they believe is sexy. The glamorous dress-up play we spent hours at as kids when I was growing up was our kid version of what looks and feels sexy. Those pictures don't look at all glamorous or sexy to my adult eyes, and that is as it should be.

It is sort of like good family sex education - have good conversations that offer opportunities for questions, answer honestly what they ask, but mostly let them take the lead and don't provide way more than they are seeking at the moment.

And don't give your 5 year old child things which are professionally designed and manufactured adult visions of sexy. Let them envision and create their own version, which is likely to be much more age appropriate.

It's not even going to fit.

as in underwear which is designed for what adults find sexy, which has been made to fit children as young as 5. You're either being silly - or you have not been shopping for clothing for little girls in the past decade (at least).

Just do a search for padded bras for 5 year olds...

But actually, yeah, umasamatteroffact I do shop for my kids all the time. How about you? I haven't found the Carters or Calvin Klein stuff at Costco, for instance, to be terribly scandalous.

http://www.costco.com/girls-clothing.html

Maybe I'm just shopping at the wrong places?

Of course, since this thread is about Victoria's Secret, the fact remains that they are making and selling "sexy underwear" for adults, and the rest of it is just noise and phony outrage being drummed up by religious right bloggers.

But don't let that stop ya.

"Call me" emblazoned on the crotch of her thong? What tween needs a fucking THONG? Disgusting. Exploitative. Just.Plain.Wrong.

Do you have a link to the products that you think you're angry about? Are you sure they exist as they've been represented to you? Can you find the place on the victoria's secret website where they're selling "thongs" for "tweens"?

You can't, because this story is bullshit.

Which is what this is.

Did you bother to check the sourcing on this story?

http://theblacksphere.net/2013/03/victorias-secret-is-coming-for-your-middle-schooler/

Victoria's Secret is exploiting young girls, not women but girls.

in an extremely small font, no less... haven't you noticed? This is DU, whippersnappers! Please, have some consideration for the demographics.

Try HuffPo, it has the actual story.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/25/victorias-secret-bright-young-things_n_2950691.html

Which is, this is not a "new line aimed at preteens", it's an advertising slogan for their spring break line which they claim is aimed at college aged women. It also is not "fuck me" underwear, but rather bathing suits and fairly pedestrian items like canvas sneakers.

I hate to say this, but I think it will have more impact from a father than a mother.

Economically, it may depend on how many of their customers are females vs. males. I'm guessing that in general, more women shop there than men, other than maybe around Valentine's Day.

some strong parenting skills are going to be called for.

and say NO if their kid wants pricey undies.

Yup, they have no shame. Money rules the day, and sex sells.

Wow!
Do not buy VS products. And teach our kids, through our behavior, not to put up with bs and being used as a 'tool'.

If current customers boycott Victoria's Secret and let them know why, that will send a strong message.

Reflexively over misinformation spread by religious right bloggers who are fans of the heritage foundation, contains little overlap as it is.

The "Pink" line is allegedly targeting college age women but it's purchased mostly by youngeer teens and even by some tweens. Some of the "Pink" garments are quite similar to the crap in the pastor's letter.

an [link:http://theblacksphere.net/2013/03/victorias-secret-is-coming-for-your-middle-schooler/|anti-choice, religious right blogger.
]
The point is, victoria's secret makes nasty, NASTY things that encourage nasty, NASTY thoughts... (although, by all accounts, the actual product line in question is not only aimed at college age teens, but fairly tame, including such "scandalous" items as chuck taylor style canvas sneakers) and those nasty things may fall into the hands of children.

IIRC they were marketing thongs with matching padded pushup TRAINING BRAS.

I'm all for open healthy adult sexuality but this is just...eeeeew.

I pray my SIL will be smarter than that, and by "smarter than that" I mean smarter than me.

My friend's daughter (10 yr old) was taken birthday shopping by her grandma. They went to a store called Justice. It has clothing for girls from about six to fourteen.
She came home with outfits that were all black,sequins,lace and skin tight.

I asked her if she had a special place to wear these outfits. She laughed and said "school"

Justice has nice clothes too. I never got a particularly inappropriate vibe there.

But if you want to raise your girls to be fashion-obsessed, trend-chasing consumerists, shopping there regularly is a great start.

... to perceive a coarsening of the culture.

This is a good example.

Unlike conservatives, however, most liberals and progressives would not be calling for the enactment of laws to prohibit even a business's right to 'free speech' in their product line.

In my opinion it is not censorship or heavy-handed discipline for parents to interact with their children to stop inappropriate dress (such as this "line of underwear and bras aimed at middle school aged children&quot .

I wish boycotts were more effective, but on things like this, in the end, most parents will not want the confrontation or argument they might get from their child to say 'no'.

Furthermore, the popular culture is chockfull of this kind of sexualization of young children -- it is about money -- but question it and you are often accused of being for censorship and being puritanical and reactionary.

VS does their homework. It's no surprise they'll tap into such a lucrative market. Get them at 13 and they'll be loyal customers for 50 years.

You can't saturate the airwaves with adult women wearing skimpy outfits and expect kids to not want it. Kids imitate the adults around them, they're little sponges that way.

(And for the record, I think what VS is doing is disgusting, as is most of its marketing)

All the big brands do it: McDonalds. Disney. Apple. Estee Lauder is particularly clever and insidious: start the kiddies on Clinique and work them up to Estee brands when they are over 40.

If you're doing it right, you're creating a customer for life. A lifetime revenue stream.

Fucking evil geniuses.

They could be attractive to girls, colorful, whatever. The fact that they're VS would probably, unfortunately, make them cool. They don't have to be sexy.

Seems kind of dramatic "Fucking evil geniuses"...

I mean I get it... but this is capitalism, right?

I am not excusing the company. However, as you pointed out, we know why the store is doing it - people will buy the shit up. Thus, my bigger question is why do so many parents allow this crap in their house?

Feminists particularly ought to be enraged at what's happening to children. (Maybe they are?)

and I'm enraged at VS. However, I'm also enraged at all those parents who can't stand up to their own children (for their own good) and just refuse to buy it. There are an awful lot of parents who don't want to be seen as the old-fashioned mother or the not cool mother. We try to teach our children not to give in to peer pressure, but it's the parents who give in to peer pressure more. They're afraid that if the other mothers are buying this for their kids, they don't want to be different.

It's disgusting to me that parents have lost control of their household. Everything revolves around the children. Things have changed tremendously since my two were kids and that was in the 70's and 80's - not so terribly long ago.

I have many remembrances of things my daughter begged for but I just stood my ground and said "No." Believe me, she turned out to be a beautiful woman inside and out and she doesn't hate me for any of it. I clearly remember her saying "you're the meanest mother" and I said, "Yep" and ended the conversation. I didn't give two hoots that she said it either because we all remember that time of being 13 and saying or thinking the same thing about our mothers.

Parents need to make sure they don't create forbidden fruit.

Beat me to it.

I don't remember how many times I said "No" to my daughter in the '60's/'70's. I must've done something right because I heard her tell her own children "No" when they wanted something that was inappropriate/not really needed/too expensive/a fad. I agree with you that too many parents today have lost control and don't know how to say No.

I was looking through this thread for someone who answer the way you did. Although it is disgusting the way advertising has capitalized on marketing the way they do, it is even more disgusting to see parents allow their children to purchase inappropriate things in the name of "love".

I keep thinking I am turning into an old fuddy duddy, but I really don't think so. Being a parent does not mean being a best friend, I guess it is BFF now. It means being a teacher, and a soldier defending their children. But when you see parents walking down the mall wearing clothes emblazened with the labels of these companies, and wearing them, in my opinion, inappropriately, you can understand how this whole scenario plays out.

Applauding you and the way you raised her.

loving your children enough to let them hate you. It's a lesson I learned many years ago, reading what Carol Burnett said in an article about her daughter, going through drug abuse. At the time I had two small sons and used it often as they grew into teens, much like you did. I also can say that they are two men that I am enormously proud of. We are all very close now, after the rough passage of their rebellious teens. It is heartening to see them use the same with their youngsters now.
You did great, Ilmart!

VS has crossed the line and only encourages those girls to grow into women who are regarded as mere sex objects, by men and themselves. They only feel good about themselves, when they are at their sexiest. That is sad in this day of feminist women moving forward as self-confident and more than the sum of their bodies.

simply said "no" to some of the things I wanted, even when I was spending my own money. I didn't buy those things. Frankly, I can't even remember what they might have been, but "no" was an absolute.

OTOH, I did buy a way cool Madras shirt when I was 16, using my own money, earned delivering milk from 5-8 AM every morning. My mother brought it to me after washing it for the first time. "Look at this," she said, "The colors are all running together." I tried to explain that that was the desired effect, but she didn't get it.

Sometimes Moms are so lame, you know....

outraged and my poor daughter is really out of it compared to the other girls who wear very sexualized clothes. I just will not buy or make those things for her. And so she sticks out and is different.

Luckily for me, the "sexy" type clothes are totally uncomfortable and so she will not wear them anyway. Clothes need to be comfortable or she will not wear them.

I suppose that encouraging a girl to play sports would give her the opportunity to dress in a more casual manner and not feel "out of it."

and is very coordinated and does lots of gymnastic exercises and play that has her tumbling and doing cartwheels- she'll do 37 in a row to get them right.....

So, she wears clothes that she can do those things in. They are not sexy, they are comfortable and she is the only one who wears shorts that are not too short by the school's rules, which do not seem to be enforced by anyone, except me. When she says- "Oh mom no one follows those rules!" (she is right, no one except us) I say, "well I follow rules and I hope that you will - unless the rule is cruel and or wrong and needs to be changed- then we work on changing it".

I don't know....it is all very discouraging.

Being the ballet student gives her a persona that doesn't require the sex attire.

Best of luck, mom.

and that is true about the posture/persona. And what core strength it builds.

and not much else.
no brains, no hopes, no dreams, no healthy goals in life, no feelings other than 'sexy' ones, they only exist so eyeballs can view them for their sexuality, and a hole to be filled and diddled.

and the younger the better.

absolutely sick society. Any parent who sees their kids as sexual beings and dress them in adult ways is fucking sick in the head but the morons would be screaming free speech or them consenting to it so that makes it okay, or some more stupid shit about Freedumbs.

Honest, I sometimes wish a bloody humongous meteor would hit us and wipe us out, we are so fucked in the head as a society that there just doesn't seem to be any hope to reverse that.

yes, plenty of sick people want their daughters to be sexualized.

I see it and do not get it. At all.

But I never fit in and my daughter does not either.

why not just a big flood?

do? He should explain to his girls all the things out there that they can not do until they are old enough.

while wearing them, I hope. But actually the only reason grown women wear Victoria Secret type underwear is they are going to be displaying their underwear to their sex partners. No, this is not for young girls.

I have a few special pairs for when he's around (long-distance). I wear VS underwear because of comfort and quality. 90% of my underwear is from them. I'm not some whore.

There is no way that I'm EVER going back to the granny panties I had to wear growing up.

Hey, I buy VS stuff - mostly their clothing (no use for the lingerie). I started buying the stuff in my 20s or so.

HOWEVER, I think marketing their stuff to girls under 16 or so (at the very OLDEST) is going TOO FAR. At too young an age lingerie with sexy phrases on it and such gives girls the idea that their looks or sexual desirability is all there is about them that is of value and that is SO WRONG to teach a young girl via marketing/products or any other way.

I'm certainly no prude but before 13, girls need to be KIDS. 13 - 18, they grapple with growing up and for God's sake they get enough PRESSURE about their looks, weight, etc. from beauty magazines and peers without VS marketing slutwear to them.

After that, - yep - they should be worrying about what college they're going to and what they want their career to be, not "am I fuckable"? Their stuff for young college-age women is OK. I'd hope by that age they know their worth is not in lingerie and appearance. And they WOULD know that if they weren't wearing what are essentially "fuck me" panties at 13 from VS. Otherwise...they may not.

Jeeze. Seriously. Maybe I'm just getting old but this is WRONG. That's too young an age to be marketing "sexy" lingerie.

We (girls) all (some/most) go through the stage of wanting to feel 'pretty/more girlish'. I remember when my daughter came to me she was in jr high 8th grade almost 9th and asked if she could wear something other than 'granny panties' LOL...so we went and got something pretty BUT age appropriate. Same when she started wearing bras.

We go through changes and stages as we grow up but they should all be age appropriate and these are not. If these were directed at girls in the later years of high school (that's pushing it) college, well that's a different story. But middle schoolers, no way. It's sick.


I wanted her to come to me and she did, the last thing I would have wanted was her sneaking out getting this shit.

in high school. I was 16. It was white with pale pink polka dots. We both laughed. It sorta defused the situation for a time. I guess times have changed since the early 1960s.

And you are right on!

Who approved this? No shame at all.

photograph them while they're on and send the photos to their current crush. This is not a good thing at all.

I wouldn't want my daughter of ANY age wearing this crap -- I'd hope I'd instilled a FAR better sense of her place in her world than to wear putrid crap like this. Pretty and feminine is one thing....this is a whole different area. And to marke t this crap for children....WTF?!! Shame on them......SHAME!

and good taste go out the window.

you find a libertarian just a few posts in.

but I'm sure they don't care. There's all those little girls to exploit.

Grotesque.

And they wouldn't have to come after teenagers with this nasty shit.

Women have been asking for it for years.

And what happened to the request for bras for women who had mastectomies?

There are a lot of marketing strategies besides this they could pursue.

Because everyone knows that us fatties aren't fuckable*, and VS wouldn't want their name associated with something so horrid.

* , in case it's not obvious.

It's brand imaging. They want women (and girls) to identify their brands with supermodels. They have paid those models handsomely to build up the mental association between looking pretty and VS. Enough girls buy the brand and suddenly the girls who don't are "falling behind" in the sex wars, making them insecure and compelling them to buy VS. There are countless marketing studies done associating creating a desire by insecurity and positive brand image.

Associating their brand with plus-size models ruins their image, one that is worth billions. Showing plus size models would not create the mental insecurity that someone like Candice Swanepoel can create. Her mere presence in a room of women, if you could measure their brain activity, would cause anxious thoughts of dieting, skin products, and yes VS lingerie.

And they could start a line for Gay Men
Called Victor's Secret.

With Gay Marriage about to be legal nationwide "God willing" lol

Think of all the Men that will want to get something sexy for their hubbies!!!!

Let Me run the dayum company

I would have a granny line called Victoria's Ole Secret. Every panty would come with a free 6 pack sample of depends.

"Ew, they'll let anybody in here." "This country club is for skinnies only." "I wouldn't be caught dead in that. I saw a size 14 wear one."

Not in my universe.

I really don't find the starving crowd attractive at all.

The industry isn't going to give women realistic targets to hit. If they ever did, what would create the insecurity that compels them to buy? If a girl ever looked at a fashion model and and felt satisfied with how she looked, the industry would be wasting its money. It exists to create want, not satisfy a need.

Victoria's Secret is owned by limited brands which also owns Bath and Body Works, Express and Lane Bryant.

I believe their plus size lingerie brand is cacique, but it is nothing like Victoria's Secret.

And I know this because... I had a job during college at one of the Limited-owned stores. The company is masterful at lifestyle branding, and the new distasteful, no, offensive, new line of girl's underwear is about one thing - money.

That was popular when I was in JH and HS. She said they were trashy or something like that. Also wouldn't let me have a "Liz" blouse. They revealed nothing, but she thought they were trampy looking. She would not be pleased with this stuff.

young girls today! I make my granddaughter's dresses so she doesn't look like a mini street walker.

and regressive. Good work making her clothes yourself!

voluntarily give up possible profit. The problem is with the parents that buy this stuff. I hope he stands his ground when his child wants to wear what the other girls are wearing.

... I do want to say Disney Princesses and Dora The Explorer as role models aren't that much better. The influences might not be in as "in your face" as Victoria's Secret wear for tweens but the subtle messages they send can be just as damaging if you want to raise a strong and independent young woman.

(edited multiple times because my spelling sux)

Why is it a bad thing? Genuine question, as I've always thought it was a fun learning show and not seen the harm in it you alluded to.

... and just MY opinion, everything Dora does smacks of helplessness. Her favorite phrase before she does anything is "I need your help." When my daughter was in her Dora stage, she started emulating that and wouldn't do much on her own without asking for help - even little things like put her shoes on.

Once her kindergarten teacher told us she was asking for help doing even the most rudimentary things.

Now, with parents like me and my wife, we weren't too concerned but we did notice it.

There is no problem solving, there is just Tico showing up with his latest form of transportation to get them over the next topological barrier. Dora is continually getting rescued.

And all it takes to stop a thief is to yell "Swiper! No swiping!"

... I thought the letter was going to complain about legitimate aged outfits for grown women.

When I got to the paragraph with the "Call me" and "Feeling Lucky" prints, I couldn't believe what I was reading. This is absolutely unacceptable for middle-school aged kids.

Who the fuck came up with this disgusting idea?

Good grief!