Victoria's Secret tries to calm outraged parents

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.

http://money.msn.com/now/...d2a389495a

'wouldn't like to see some teens'

which ones are those 'some teens'?

Which ones are the ones he would like to see?

I think parents should quit demonizing adolescent sexuality

if they want them to be responsible and mature about sex.

Well, "call me" panties doesn't mean that you're easy. Or does it?

Beautifulstarr123 said:

Well, "call me" panties doesn't mean that you're easy. Or does it?

i guess you could write your phone nummber on them and give them to someone, or throw them on a concert stage.

Cuddles said:

Beautifulstarr123 said:

Well, "call me" panties doesn't mean that you're easy. Or does it?

i guess you could write your phone nummber on them and give them to someone, or throw them on a concert stage.

Ha Ha!

Beautifulstarr123 said:

Well, "call me" panties doesn't mean that you're easy. Or does it?

No, but the fact that a guy is in a position to read them might.

People's interpretations of things say a hell of a lot more about the person doing the interpreting than it does about the actual item.

Dude complained about the dangers this underwear this would have on women, including his daughter than says:

"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."

So tell her than and don't try to dictate what adult women should or should not buy.

Other guy (who said he didn't even have a daughter) said he didn't want to see women under 18 wearing these items - well, wtf, dude? How the hell would you be seeing any undergarments of any child under 18?

In the time where we even have grown adult film actesses young enough to pass for underage teens, we shouldn't be surprise that a business like Victoria's Secret are willing to go this low to sell product to real teens.

I'm not a father and I'm pretty outrage by this situation.

JustErin said:

People's interpretations of things say a hell of a lot more about the person doing the interpreting than it does about the actual item.

Dude complained about the dangers this underwear this would have on women, including his daughter than says:

"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."

So tell her than and don't try to dictate what adult women should or should not buy.

Other guy (who said he didn't even have a daughter) said he didn't want to see women under 18 wearing these items - well, wtf, dude? How the hell would you be seeing any undergarments of any child under 18?

THAT'S^ fair game and all, but you are not going to tell me that selling G-strings to teen girls AND little girls is good "honest" business neither.

I think our, what people would like to believe is 'traditonal' veiws,

on sex and sexuality are askew, quite immature and niave.

This is going to be a subject that is going to come into the view of mainstream

after this whole marriage thing is resolved.

Brace yourself for that one if you're angry about this.

[Edited 3/27/13 8:38am]

TonyVanDam said:

JustErin said:

People's interpretations of things say a hell of a lot more about the person doing the interpreting than it does about the actual item.

Dude complained about the dangers this underwear this would have on women, including his daughter than says:

"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."

So tell her than and don't try to dictate what adult women should or should not buy.

Other guy (who said he didn't even have a daughter) said he didn't want to see women under 18 wearing these items - well, wtf, dude? How the hell would you be seeing any undergarments of any child under 18?

THAT'S^ fair game and all, but you are not going to tell me that selling G-strings to teen girls AND little girls is good "honest" business neither.

It is not made for girls and teens.

woman can be sexy without being slutty. it's a sign of the times that we keep forcing younger and younger females to paarticipate in the sexual revolution, even when they don't understand the full ramifications. any mom who'd buy that for their underage daughter has probably done worse already.

Another distraction. Moving on...

JustErin said:

TonyVanDam said:

THAT'S^ fair game and all, but you are not going to tell me that selling G-strings to teen girls AND little girls is good "honest" business neither.

It is not made for girls and teens.

It better not be. G-strings are for grown women only.

TonyVanDam said:

JustErin said:

It is not made for girls and teens.

It better not be. G-strings are for grown women only.

If the items are not sold in children's or junior sizes (which these are not) they are not for kids. It's that simple.

Anybody who has cash they'll sell it to, it ain't a porn magazine that you have to be a certain age to purchase.

These folks/corps spend millions possibly billions on psychological studies to get us the consumer to buy as much as possible from whoever they can. I think it's our right to bitch about and not just simply go along with whatever they want to do.

Where are the 35 and over Victoria Secret advertising campaigns, maybe I missed them? If there aren't any then you know for damned sure they aren't even thinking about females of a certain age.

JustErin said:

TonyVanDam said:

It better not be. G-strings are for grown women only.

If the items are not sold in children's or junior sizes (which these are not) they are not for kids. It's that simple.

Yeah, it's pretty sinple when they are clearly not marketing to children.

This seems much ado about nothing.

it seems to be a story about a few fellows who just told on themselves and exposed their desires

Cuddles said:

it seems to be a story about a few fellows who just told on themselves and exposed their desires

Or just men with traditional values, as you've stated.

CarrieMpls said:

JustErin said:

If the items are not sold in children's or junior sizes (which these are not) they are not for kids. It's that simple.

Yeah, it's pretty sinple when they are clearly not marketing to children.

This seems much ado about nothing.

I think if anyone that's going to cross that line, it's the tweens and the teens. Maybe, that's the concern here, crossing that line, I think.

NDRU said:

Celebrating the beauty of young women? I, for one, am shocked!

Selling underwear with "Call me" on the crotch celebrates the beauty of women? Yeah...I don't think so.

Genesia said:

Beautifulstarr123 said:

Well, "call me" panties doesn't mean that you're easy. Or does it?

No, but the fact that a guy is in a position to read them might.

That's possible because he's probably thinking who else is "calling" you besides him, when he sees it

Genesia said:

NDRU said:

Celebrating the beauty of young women? I, for one, am shocked!

Selling underwear with "Call me" on the crotch celebrates the beauty of women? Yeah...I don't think so.

Yes, those panties sound a little ridiculous, but I was really referring to the Bright Young Things slogan, and how virtually every picture, TV show, movie, and horny brain is all about young women, not just VS

We're bombarded with it, though I also think that youth and sexuality (young adults, that is, not children) is nothing shameful, either.

But yeah, I don't know who would buy those panties It's like a fetishizing desperation

Beautifulstarr123 said:

CarrieMpls said:

Yeah, it's pretty sinple when they are clearly not marketing to children.

This seems much ado about nothing.

I think if anyone that's going to cross that line, it's the tweens and the teens. Maybe, that's the concern here, crossing that line, I think.

I don't think anybody was thinking 4 year olds, children cross a lot of ages.

[Edited 3/27/13 13:41pm]

morningsong said:

Beautifulstarr123 said:

I think if anyone that's going to cross that line, it's the tweens and the teens. Maybe, that's the concern here, crossing that line, I think.

I don't think anybody was thinking 4 year olds, children cross a lot of ages.

[Edited 3/27/13 13:41pm]

Didn't say they were. Besides the subtitle speak for itself, anyway.

Beautifulstarr123 said:

morningsong said:

I don't think anybody was thinking 4 year olds, children cross a lot of ages.

[Edited 3/27/13 13:41pm]

Didn't say they were. Besides the subtitle speak for itself, anyway.

Nope didn't think you did, but it does seem that was the path things were taking.

JustErin said:

TonyVanDam said:

It better not be. G-strings are for grown women only.

If the items are not sold in children's or junior sizes (which these are not) they are not for kids. It's that simple.

I was wearing adult sizes when I was 13.