Lingerie brand Victoria’s Secret’s Bright Young Things collection (launched under its young Pink label's line) has stirred up a whirlwind of controversy since its initial public launch.
 |
| Victoria's Secret Bright Young Things (Courtesy of: kiss925.com) |
An online petition on Facebook is protesting the brand should withdraw it’s collections from stores and more than 1,500 parents are posting their anger on VS's Facebook page. The campaign has some parents accusing the popular brand of targeting (and sexualising) preteen and young teen girls. The brands underwear contains sexually suggestive messages like “wild”, “call me” and “feeling lucky”, which are angering parents and some people of the public. On Facebook Victoria’s Secret Company responded, "Victoria's Secret PINK is a brand for college-aged women."
Despite recent rumors, we have no plans to introduce a collection for younger women. 'Bright Young Things' was a slogan used in conjunction with the college spring break tradition." The Victoria Secret store has recently opened in the London Oxford Street and has been hugley successful.
However, the backlash on this collection underlines parents constant worry and battle in today's society to protect their children from the media and fashion industry that are trying to sexualise them. Big retailers such as Marks & Spencers been all been accused in the past of sexulising their children. But are the retailers really sexualising children or is just parents over reacting? If the parents didn't want their children to wear the items they don't have to buy them. But the fact retailers are constantly bringing out similar items must been there is a demand for them.
However, the backlash on this collection underlines parents constant worry and battle in today's society to protect their children from the media and fashion industry that are trying to sexualise them. Big retailers such as Marks & Spencers been all been accused in the past of sexulising their children. But are the retailers really sexualising children or is just parents over reacting? If the parents didn't want their children to wear the items they don't have to buy them. But the fact retailers are constantly bringing out similar items must been there is a demand for them.
 |
| Juicy Couture (Courtesy of: lilsugar.com) |
Perhaps if victoria secrets brand's advertisements and marketing campaigns displayed more of an effort in its focused on the “college aged” point, the controversy may have been avoided? Well-known luxury brand Juicy Couture sells their very own version of the "days of the week" underwear This is geared towards a teenage demographic, but portrays a message of "fun and flirty," rather that "sexy and naughty". So it could be down to how the brand market the items by using sexy model its intiates that sex appeal. I wonder how much this will effect retail sales, there is always a chance that the negative attention only increased consumer’s awareness of the collection, therefore it may even increase business retail sales for the popular lingerie brand.
 |
| Vogue Paris Ad (Courtesy of: fashion.telegraph.co.uk) |
On the same token, Vogue Paris’ December 2010 issue featured a shoot with young girls reclining on tiger-skins and sprawled on beds in full-blown make-up and designer gowns, which sparked a negative light (especially considering how many wealthy retail shoppers who are mothers). So is the fashion industry really having an impact and sexulising children? I personally think that the main retailers have pushed the boundaries in the past offering young girls the chance to buy push up bras. But I dont think it is just the fashion industry sexulising the children, the media industry has a huge influnece with the likes of Rihanna who is known for her sexy bad girl personality.However i do believe the battle between parents and retailers will continue into the future, with many retailers mostly focused on profit and not what is right.
No comments:
Post a Comment