Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm no prude since Ive lived in a lot of major cities and seen a lot. But when I see that mall advertising young girls that are almost naked it gives me the feeling that it isn't right. Young girls and boys going through the mall see that and I don't know what it does to there idea of morals. But back in the 1950s and early 60s that would have been backroom pornography. I may have been on a magazine rack but not accessible to someone of young age. Not only that but what are those young models doing posing like that. I think that they are being used by someone. It can't be good for them either.
Unless the models in these ads are engaging in explicit sexual acts, it doesn't fit the definition of pornography in the least.
BTW: What do you really think is going to cause psychological problems for developing teens overall? Letting them see a human in his or her natural form, or telling them there is something morally wrong with looking at one?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cape Cod Todd
I think the message they send is not pornography but it is wrong and shouldn't be plastered all over their store fronts in a mall for all to see. What bugs me the most is all these young girls that are trying to live up to what they see there. Why do we need 14 year old girls wearing tight clothes and sticking their butts and boobs out ??
Do you honestly believe if we ban all lingerie ads that this behavior will cease?
I see little kindergarten aged children staring up at those huge V.S. posters that you can't avoid when walking through the mall corridor. If their kindergarten teacher had those posters displayed in the classroom, that teacher would be fired and possibly arrested. Why is it ok to shove these images in kids' faces at the mall and in the checkout line? (By the way I don't want to see it either, and while I understand your precious right to view pornography I demand my right NOT to view it so keep it out of my face!) I don't care if V.S. wants to display these images within their stores, because then I can simply avoid going into their stores. But I should be able to go to the mall and walk from one end to the other without being forced to encounter 12 foot tall posters of nearly nude women posing provocatively. If a woman walked through the mall like that, she'd be thrown out. Why is ok in 2D?
Sexy models have been around in advertising for many decades. You don't think Marilyn Monroe was sexualized at every opportunity?
Quote:
I have 2 solutions. Either quit the objectification and sexual exploitation of women OR do it to men equally. I am sick to death of seeing these images of women everywhere I look. Get rid of them, or add a whole lot of hot naked men to the mix to make it fair.
Yeah, because there aren't half-naked (and fully shaved) men/boys on massive posters in front of Hollister or Abercrombie...
Give me a break!
Quote:
To be clear, I have zero problem with nudity. I believe that we would be a far healthier culture if we all went around naked. (Although I'd be quite freezing here in Buffalo..) The V.S. posters and all of that type of smut have nothing to do with healthy nudity or healthy sexuality.
VS Posters are hardly smut. They show beautiful and confident women in lingerie that they are trying to sell to women. Clearly they're doing something right because VS is usually the most crowded store at the mall and it's all women. You rarely see men just standing there staring at the posters...and those who are offended by the posters need to look at themselves and not blame others for their insecurities.
I find it funny that parents are more concerned about their children seeing underwear ads than seeing violence on TV and movies. When my son was about 7 or 8, we were watching a program one night on the Discovery Channel. As it ended, a notice showed onscreen saying the following program might not be suitable for young children. He asked me why that would be, and I said it probably had naked breasts in it. Sure enough, we watched it and it was about a tribe in the Amazon rainforest, and there were several shots of women whose babies were nursing while the mothers cooked.
Now I realize that's somewhat different than very young women modeling sexy underwear, but my point is that Americans are very quick to shield their kids from anything having to do with sex or nudity, but (mostly) fine with bang-bang shoot-'em-up TV and video games. Boys in my generation couldn't wait for the Sears catalog to look that the underwear section, and those garments were considered sexy THEN. My concern with the VS ads are the same as Natural510s - the unrealistic expectations placed on young girls to emulate those models. But I feel the same way about cosmetic and clothing ads. As Stephen Colbert said, "But if we make young women feel good about themselves, how are we going to sell them all those things they don't need?"
This.
It's merely prudish Christians (or Muslims, Jews, or any other religious person) who have a problem with this stuff. You don't see protests about the obscene amount of highly graphic violence on the TV today, but the moment a nipple is exposed (you know, the same thing that you put in your child's mouth for months...) it's suddenly the worst thing to happen since the holocaust.
Maybe it's because Christians are fine with violence and torture, after all, these are people who support a religion that's responsible for the horrors of the Inquisition and countless massacres over the course of time...
tbyv -
I have had similar questions. I think the commonality with these religions is their patriarchal centers. The prudery is a response to the fact the women can manipulate these dominant and insecure men with sex. By making these guys think of sex distracts them from worshipping their God Daddy and questions their inherent superiority, masculinity and authority. Women are a threat and pretty sexy mostly naked women the most threatening of all. I pity these weak little boys.
I do not believe in the inherent authority of men, women or god. Authority in my world has to be earned and is never a given. I am attracted to interesting and pretty women. Yeah, I think sexy thoughts. That is because I am a man that loves women.
I am against V.S.'s imagery for feminist reasons (in addition to boycotting the company for human rights reasons - V.S. products are made in some of the most horrific sweatshops on the planet). I am not religious.
Anyone who says men are equally objectified is lying or blind. When it is truly equal (or when men are objectified more than women), I will be satisfied.
And what on earth is with this assumption that because one is against smut he or she must be all for violence?! Bizarre leap there. One can reject both.
My issue is force feeding this imagery to a public without consent. One should be able to get through a grocery store checkout line, drive to work, and shop at the mall with the reasonable expectation of not being exposed to nearly nude women posed provocatively. If the imagery was limited to inside the stores I would have zero complaint. It's about reasonable expectations. If I walk into a sex shop and get offended at the imagery I encounter, I am a fool. But the problem is there are fewer and fewer places in this country where one can go and be free from this imagery. I see this as a freedom / rights issue. You have a right to view smut, I have a right not to. Location of smut viewing comes into play at this point. Public places like malls and grocery stores and airplanes are just not the place. A bikini is appropriate for the beach, but if you work as a dental hygienist you should not wear a bikini to work, it would be highly inappropriate. How can people not understand this concept?!
Hating V.S. imagery does NOT make one a prude! I would say those of us who "get it" actually understand the beauty of sex and appreciate the human body far more than the brainwashed masses that worship such a narrow, distorted corruption of sexuality.
I think the message they send is not pornography but it is wrong and shouldn't be plastered all over their store fronts in a mall for all to see. What bugs me the most is all these young girls that are trying to live up to what they see there. Why do we need 14 year old girls wearing tight clothes and sticking their butts and boobs out ?? Come on girls there is more to life and YOU than your bodies. The last thing I want to see is a 12 year old with the word "JUICY" plastered on her butt and I think Victoria Secrets ads and our sexed up society is adding to that problem.
If your 18 plus yeah where all that sexy gear for boyfriends, husbands and for yourself but lets let our girls be girls.
These models are mostly in their early/mid twenties, not their early teens. So it's not jailbait.
However, there is one thing the company did that I really do have a problem with. Back in September, they released an East Asian-themed lingerie set. One of the items was called "Sexy Little Geisha", which is pictured below:
I have a problem with THAT because it's trivializing other cultures through fashion. On top of that, real geisha are already objectified thanks to movies like Memoirs of a Geisha. I've been suspicious of the company because of that. I'm not a woman or a drag queen, so I don't feel any need to buy their products. But it was pretty bad for Victoria's Secret to make racially charged undergarments.
Last edited by TheViking85; 04-26-2013 at 07:58 PM..
For those who view all the V.S. models as simply confident, empowered women, please read this recent article about a former V.S. model. I was especially disgusted to read about the coercion that takes place in getting these models to pose provocatively. They are pushed beyond their comfort and it's wrong. Try to read between the lines as the religion aspect clouds the deeper issue.
Oh, what a shocker! She grew up dreaming of being a half-dressed VS model. Then, when she finally makes it, the VS people had the unmitigated gall to ask her to pose half-dressed. The very nerve!
I agree she seems quite unintelligent. But the coercion that takes place throughout the modeling industry was my point in posting the link because others in the thread made the case that V.S. models are just confident women who want to show off their bodies for money. Victoria's Secret pushed this young woman to date celebrities for publicity... even though she was married! Photographers pressured her to show more of her body than she wanted to. The things they said to get her to do so were really creepy & calculated! She was convinced to pose in sheer garments on the promise that her "intimate parts" would be obscured via post shoot photoshopping, but that did not happen and instead her pics were posted on porn sites. Victoria's Secret has symbiotic relationships with "mens magazines" like FHM and Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition. All V.S. models are expected to pose for these publications which are slightly less explicit versions of Playboy (while V.S. imagery is slightly less explicit than FHM and S.I. "swimsuit" edition). Again, I do think this former model profiled in the NY Post article is probably a ridiculous person, but that wasn't the aspect of the article I focused on. It's the industry, and V.S.'s part in it, that I focused on.
V.S., FHM, S.I. Swimsuit edition, etc. do not celebrate women, the female form, and sex. The message they all send is unhealthy - for women, for men, and for children. Many companies are guilty of this, but that does not mean we can't target one company among the many. Victoria's Secret is not promoting and projecting healthy images of women, feminine beauty, and sexuality. Just because the same can be said of many other companies does not mean we should keep our mouths shut about V.S.
I think she's a proufoundly ridiculous person. You'd have to be a moron to not know what you were getting into, and this gal grew up in Vegas, for heaven's sake! Of course there's coersion in the modeling world, whether it's VS or teen models from Russia being sent overseas. It's a business that sells sex.
She did a complete 180, from posing half-nude to refusing to even dance with a man who is not her husband. Oy, such a sin!
I wish her all the luck in the world with her line of "modest", puritan clothing.
I'm no prude since Ive lived in a lot of major cities and seen a lot. But when I see that mall advertising young girls that are almost naked it gives me the feeling that it isn't right. Young girls and boys going through the mall see that and I don't know what it does to there idea of morals. But back in the 1950s and early 60s that would have been backroom pornography. I may have been on a magazine rack but not accessible to someone of young age. Not only that but what are those young models doing posing like that. I think that they are being used by someone. It can't be good for them either.
Young girls? Do you mean young women? I've never seen vs ads with provocatively dressed girls.
And personally, I see nothing wrong with kids seeing these posters anyway. There is nothing wrong with the human body nor nudity. The problem is with those who have a problem with it. Cast off those puritanical chains. Many countries don't raise their kids to view this stuff as taboo or evil, and they grow up better adjusted for it. Why are you linking nudity/exposed flesh with morals anyway? They have nothing to do with each other. I don't know why so many in the US get hung up on this.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
