Tags
I read Huffpo, I have Facebook etc. This week I’ve seen this letter circulating around. It’s a letter to Victoria’s Secret from a Father, critical of their decision to market a line of racy underwear to young girls.
Ok, I read this article. And on the one hand I agree. It is sorta skeezy. But at the same time, rather than expect the world to change to protect our daughters, which it won’t, as long as there’s money to be made marketing to them, I’d focus on raising kick ass daughters with an iron clad sense of self. Then it won’t matter. We can’t go around saying that what a woman wears doesn’t matter if we’re going to be all outraged about what’s written on her panties, and VS making sexy underwear for young women. A teenager wearing ‘call me’ panties is entitled to the same respect, and legal protection as one in granny bloomers. Does it matter or not? Standards apply across the board. By getting our knickers in a twist, we sort of tacitly support the message that a woman’s virtue can be defined by what she’s wearing. Further, that we have a right to decide for OTHER girls what’s appropriate. If a girl’s sense of self worth is damaged by someone’s line of racy underwear, then you’ve got bigger issues than just what’s written on a pair of undies, IMHO. If your opinion of her value is affected by what’s written on her underpants, you need to take a good long look at your own moral compass. So yeah, another lame marketing exercise capitalizing on the insecurities, and sexualization of young girls. *yawn*. We can do better than banning suggestive underwear for young girls though. We can raise young girls who know that they are so VERY much more, and boys who know that the value of a girl is defined by a hell of a lot more than what’s written on her underwear. That’s on US though, not Victoria’s Secret.
Addendum:
Also- we begin to emerge as sexual creatures around puberty. That’s not a moral issue, it’s a biological reality, and it’s a genie nobody can put back in the bottle. There is nothing inherently bad or immoral about sex or sexuality. It’s our attitudes towards it, ignorance of it, and all the emotional issues tied up in it that make navigating that minefield so tricky- for example, accepting sex as an easy substitute, when what we really need is intimacy. Tough stuff, even for adults, much less teens. But ignoring or denying the sexuality of young people isn’t going to help. Moral outrage isn’t a solution. Make them all wear potato sacks, and the issue will still be there. That’s kind of what puberty is about. Reaching sexual maturity. (emotional maturity is a separate issue) Teenagers don’t need to BE sexualized. They are already SUPERCHARGED, no matter whose name is in their underwear. This would be the case with or without movies, music or mass marketing. Our efforts would be better spent teaching healthy attitudes towards sex and sexuality as part of our whole self image-for both genders, fostering respect with regards to sexuality, giving our young adults the tools they need to protect themselves, recognizing what is abusive or unhealthy, physically and emotionally, and preparing them to make good decisions even when we parents aren’t there to do it for them. That’s not VS’s problem. It’s ours.
Nation of Three 
While I agree with you, and am doing my damnedest to raise just those types of daughters… it’s not as cut and dried as that. There are way more things at play, and TV/other media has a huge impact on these kids. It’s the daughters of parents who don’t try, and who raise girls with massive crises of identity and self worth who influence their friends and others around them. I think it’s disgusting of VS to market to young girls in that way, but they’re not the first to do so, either. Just look at any of the clothes put out with a young star’s name on them (Hannah Montana, and before her, Mary Kate and Ashley, to name two franchises).
And then there’s the predators who salivate at these kinds of outfits, ads, and kids who sport them. It’s a pedophile playground out there, and companies like VS are fanning the flames. We’re in that handbasket, and it’s becoming a shorter trip to hell.
I still don’t think it’s just the clothing that’s the problem. I think our underlying attitude towards women and girls MAKES it a problem. There are cultures where women are covered head to toe anytime anyone can see them. They are still regarded as property. It’s our entire attitude that needs to change, not just the clothing. The girl in the tight jeans and crop top has the same value as her more conservatively dressed friend.
Also, the predators have always been there. WILL always be there. No matter what our daughters are wearing. The blame for them needs to be placed ON THOSE PREDATORS. Not on our daughters for what they chose to wear.
Sure, but if you’re a deer, you don’t go waving your tail at the hunters… seems like common sense to not put yourself in harms way. Sure, we have the *RIGHT* to wear whatever we want. But does that mean that we should? There are things that I’ve refused to purchase for my daughters over the years, even though their friends are wearing the same things, because I don’t want my child to be perceived as a tramp. That doesn’t make me a prude, or repressive. It makes me smart about how my kids are dressed, and thus perceived. We are a judgmental society. We all do it, whether we’re vocal about it or not. There’s no valid reason for an 8 year old to wear super short skirts, or plunging necklines. A 12 year old wearing thongs? Not on my watch. There’s also a valid argument to dissuade my 18 year old – who is essentially an adult now – from walking out of the house looking like she’s for hire. Not that she ever would, I’ve raised her better than that, but still.
I think we need to call attention to companies marketing items that sexualize children. I feel the same way about disgusting so-called “reality TV” shows like Toddlers and Tiaras. Just because WE say “no means no”, and would never think to cross a line, it doesn’t mean that there aren’t plenty of creeps out there who wouldn’t think twice. That’s society. We can educate, we can yell and bang our drums and get attention to what WE feel is right, but that isn’t going to dissuade someone who is basically a scum bag from doing whatever HE wants to do. We are never going to change the attitude of someone who is that depraved.
So it boils down to raising smart, savvy kids with excellent morals to bring those values to the next generations while at the same time protecting them with our own decisions, like not buying and dressing them in skanky clothing as kids, and calling out companies who offer that kind of crap.
Now, if only I had the right to pull up the pants of the boys who still wear them around their knees…
‘Sure, but if you’re a deer, you don’t go waving your tail at the hunters.’ And until we’ve evolved past the point of viewing women as prey, and men as hunters, we’re stuck. Our daughters are not deer. Our sons are NOT hunters. And what she wears does not give anyone any rights with regards to her person. ‘Sure, but if you’re a deer, you don’t go waving your tail at the hunters.’ is the same mentality that says that what happened in Stubenville was the victim’s fault. Or that a woman can be ‘asking for it’. That attitude is part of the problem.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keli-goff/of-course-she-was-asking-_b_835782.html
Also, there is no credible evidence that VS was ever targeting tweens. The ‘Bright Young Things’ line that is referred to is marketed to college age girls.