Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

A Letter to Victoria’s Secret From a Father


  • Please log in to reply
63 replies to this topic

#31 Russ

Russ

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,387 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 06

Posted 27 March 2013 - 06:57 AM

I was in Fred Meyers last week and I noticed they had a wall of TapOut shirts for boys aged 5-12. I thought it was irresponsible of them to sell that stuff but this takes the cake.

Well some elementary kid is going to wear that and going to think he can beat up every other kid because he wants to be like some of the TapOut MMA fighters... uggh!

I think companies can market how they want, but marketing to kids should have tighter restrictions. I don't think those words "call me" etc. should be marketed to U-18's simply because its just unclassy and will send bad messages.
  • 0
Xbox Live - Lenerdosy
PSN - Lenerdosy

Interested in a game of NHL or BF3? Send me a friend request and lets play.

#32 Down by the River

Down by the River

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,075 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 09

Posted 27 March 2013 - 07:27 AM

For those saying don't buy the product, I think you have to consider that these are teenage girls who most likely get an allowance. I really think parents need to be responsible for what their children buy, but at the same time, this puts parents (fathers in particular) in an uncomfortable position. I'm not a father, but I imagine I would be pretty uncomfortable monitoring my teenage daughters underwear purchases.
  • 0

OMG we could've had McKeown!

I think Virtanen was a terrible pick given that he's out for 6 months which will hinder his development. You don't pick someone at #6 under that circumstance, along with the fact that he was given a 3/5 IQ (aka he's dumb). 

God dammit Benning. WHY VIRTANEN? Terrible move.

Down by the River - Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young.


#33 Raoul Duke

Raoul Duke

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,263 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 04

Posted 27 March 2013 - 08:50 AM

Nothing surprises me anymore.
  • 0

TomBrady.jpg


#34 Niloc009

Niloc009

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,787 posts
  • Joined: 12-October 09

Posted 27 March 2013 - 08:53 AM

Another bible thumper trying to impose his views on everyone else.

Here's an idea, if he doesn't like the products, don't buy them.


Atheist here. I agree with the Reverend.

I think you forget that it's not just people under 18 who have money. Allowance, part time jobs, and odd jobs like newspaper routes or mowing lawns could help these young girls buy products that are quite inappropriate for their age.

On the most basic level, do you think that these young teen lingerie products should exist? Yes or no.
  • 2

zuhwS.gif


#35 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,329 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 27 March 2013 - 10:00 AM

I'm a bit conflicted on this. On one hand I believe it's parents' job (not the manufacturer) to better educate and guide their kids purchasing decisions on stuff like this and that in a perfect world the market for products like this simply wouldn't exist due to that parenting involvement and education of women's self worth not based on their sexuality. Problem = solved.

Sadly, we do not live in a perfect world where parents all parent at the same "level" and kids are bombarded daily by media with the message that they should emulate the current slutty pop star du jour etc. Hence the reality is there IS a market for 14-18 year old girls to buy and wear overtly sexual clothes, underwear etc. Hell I remember as a ~16 year old almost 20 years ago going to Halloween parties where significant numbers of girls seemed to be in a costume competition for who could "dress" like the sluttiest tramp (lingerie is apparently a suitable Halloween costume...).

Can you blame a company for fulfilling an existing market? Should we limit/govern the teen sexuality market similar to how we monitor tobacco or alcohol? There's no quick or easy answer there...

Edited by J.R., 27 March 2013 - 10:01 AM.

  • 1
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#36 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,138 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 27 March 2013 - 12:33 PM

I find it wildly ironic that you feel someone is 'imposing their views' yet your second sentence is no different than anything this man is trying to accomplish.

It is also shortsighted of you to assume that he is a 'bible thumper'. Despite being a reverend, nowhere in that post does he allude to religion. You do not have to hold religious beliefs to agree with his message. I am agnostic and I agree with him.


As someone who has teenage daughters, I'm not particularly crazy about this marketing scheme either.

Edited by debluvscanucks, 27 March 2013 - 06:45 PM.

  • 2
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#37 Down by the River

Down by the River

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,075 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 09

Posted 27 March 2013 - 03:40 PM

As someone who has teenage daughters, I'm not particularly crazy about this marketing scheme either.


I wasn't calling the poster a pedophile. I wasn't even saying the poster had pedophilic interests. I was making a comparison. The poster had used straw man logic against the author of the letter to Victoria Secret by claiming that he was a bible thumper when the author had made no real attempt to draw religion into the argument.

It seemed clear to me that I wasn't calling the poster I quoted a pedophile. My post was meant to try to make a reasonable argument; calling someone a pedophile is rarely part of a reasonable argument and so to call that poster as such would only contradict the message I was trying to send. If that is how s/he interpreted what I wrote, that was not my intention.

Edited by debluvscanucks, 27 March 2013 - 06:45 PM.

  • 1

OMG we could've had McKeown!

I think Virtanen was a terrible pick given that he's out for 6 months which will hinder his development. You don't pick someone at #6 under that circumstance, along with the fact that he was given a 3/5 IQ (aka he's dumb). 

God dammit Benning. WHY VIRTANEN? Terrible move.

Down by the River - Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young.


#38 Gross-Misconduct

Gross-Misconduct

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,142 posts
  • Joined: 15-December 07

Posted 27 March 2013 - 04:07 PM

I find it wildly ironic that you feel someone is 'imposing their views' yet your second sentence is no different than anything this man is trying to accomplish.

It is also shortsighted of you to assume that he is a 'bible thumper'. Despite being a reverend, nowhere in that post does he allude to religion. You do not have to hold religious beliefs to agree with his message. I am agnostic and I agree with him.


I think people should have the right to buy a product or ignore it? You know where they wouldn't allow these products to be sold? In places like Iran. You can go live there if you want. I prefer to live in a country that has freedoms. If I disagree with someone, I state my position and have a civil interaction. Something that seems a little beyond you.

And how is suggesting this Rev (who by the way, I'm sure doesn't believe or support gay marriage because homo sexuals are not natural and gays all go to Hell according to organized religion) choose not to buy these products as opposed to making sure no one in the entire world should make that decision for themselves "wildly ironic"?

Edited by debluvscanucks, 27 March 2013 - 04:58 PM.

  • 0

HpkJUPw.jpg

Credit to KingAlex for the sig. R.I.P.


#39 Common sense

Common sense

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,742 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 06

Posted 27 March 2013 - 06:06 PM

And how is suggesting this Rev (who by the way, I'm sure doesn't believe or support gay marriage because homo sexuals are not natural and gays all go to Hell according to organized religion) choose not to buy these products as opposed to making sure no one in the entire world should make that decision for themselves "wildly ironic"?


Source, or are you just talking out of your rump?
  • 0

#40 debluvscanucks

debluvscanucks

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Super Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,709 posts
  • Joined: 19-February 08

Posted 27 March 2013 - 06:48 PM

I think people should have the right to buy a product or ignore it? You know where they wouldn't allow these products to be sold? In places like Iran. You can go live there if you want. I prefer to live in a country that has freedoms. If I disagree with someone, I state my position and have a civil interaction. Something that seems a little beyond you.

And how is suggesting this Rev (who by the way, I'm sure doesn't believe or support gay marriage because homo sexuals are not natural and gays all go to Hell according to organized religion) choose not to buy these products as opposed to making sure no one in the entire world should make that decision for themselves "wildly ironic"?


Here's the thing though...when it comes to "making decisions" of sexuality and suggestive clothing and it involves kids, the options shouldn't even be there. I'm all for the freedom of choice, but to even put kids into the equation isn't something that anyone should be entertaining. Protection of kids trumps anything.
  • 0

Posted Image


#41 DarthNinja

DarthNinja

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,860 posts
  • Joined: 18-November 08

Posted 27 March 2013 - 07:02 PM

I think people should have the right to buy a product or ignore it? You know where they wouldn't allow these products to be sold? In places like Iran. You can go live there if you want. I prefer to live in a country that has freedoms. If I disagree with someone, I state my position and have a civil interaction. Something that seems a little beyond you.

And how is suggesting this Rev (who by the way, I'm sure doesn't believe or support gay marriage because homo sexuals are not natural and gays all go to Hell according to organized religion) choose not to buy these products as opposed to making sure no one in the entire world should make that decision for themselves "wildly ironic"?


So are you of the opinion then that alcohol and heck, why not cocaine and heroin ought to be made available for purchase by young children because they choose to purchase it?
  • 1

**RETIRED...**

"Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens & the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We (Allah) parted them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?" (Qur'an 21:30)

        Sig too big, images removed. - SN

"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” (David Rockefeller)


#42 Lancaster

Lancaster

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,686 posts
  • Joined: 03-September 12

Posted 27 March 2013 - 07:23 PM

Here's the thing though...when it comes to "making decisions" of sexuality and suggestive clothing and it involves kids, the options shouldn't even be there. I'm all for the freedom of choice, but to even put kids into the equation isn't something that anyone should be entertaining. Protection of kids trumps anything.


Lingerie isn't really for "public consumption", so if your daughter is showing it off, the undergarment isn't the problem here, it's upbringing.
Having sexier lingerie available won't make your daughter anymore or any less sexually provocative. Claiming that clothing will make your child more sexually active isn't too far off from claiming that mini-skirts causes rapes.
  • 1

#43 debluvscanucks

debluvscanucks

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Super Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,709 posts
  • Joined: 19-February 08

Posted 27 March 2013 - 07:37 PM

Lingerie isn't really for "public consumption", so if your daughter is showing it off, the undergarment isn't the problem here, it's upbringing.
Having sexier lingerie available won't make your daughter anymore or any less sexually provocative. Claiming that clothing will make your child more sexually active isn't too far off from claiming that mini-skirts causes rapes.


I'm not worried about "my daughter"...I'm worried about the fact that it sends the wrong messages. I didn't make the claim that you're suggesting...my claim is that it will somehow be interpreted by pedophiles that kids are not off limits. Especially with suggestive wording...not saying that they'll necessarily see it ON kids, but to see that it's available to kids can somehow be translated to a green light.
  • 0

Posted Image


#44 Gross-Misconduct

Gross-Misconduct

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,142 posts
  • Joined: 15-December 07

Posted 27 March 2013 - 08:30 PM

Atheist here. I agree with the Reverend.

I think you forget that it's not just people under 18 who have money. Allowance, part time jobs, and odd jobs like newspaper routes or mowing lawns could help these young girls buy products that are quite inappropriate for their age.

On the most basic level, do you think that these young teen lingerie products should exist? Yes or no.


No. I think they are classless. But I think VS has the right to make them. They are not breaking the law.
  • 0

HpkJUPw.jpg

Credit to KingAlex for the sig. R.I.P.


#45 Gross-Misconduct

Gross-Misconduct

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,142 posts
  • Joined: 15-December 07

Posted 27 March 2013 - 08:34 PM

I'm not worried about "my daughter"...I'm worried about the fact that it sends the wrong messages. I didn't make the claim that you're suggesting...my claim is that it will somehow be interpreted by pedophiles that kids are not off limits. Especially with suggestive wording...not saying that they'll necessarily see it ON kids, but to see that it's available to kids can somehow be translated to a green light.


The sad, horrible and disgusting reality is that pedophiles ALREADY think kids are not off limits. These items will change nothing.
If you dress kids in nun habits and lock them up in your home pedophiles will still want at them. So I don't buy that argument.
  • 0

HpkJUPw.jpg

Credit to KingAlex for the sig. R.I.P.


#46 Kass9

Kass9

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,847 posts
  • Joined: 02-April 07

Posted 27 March 2013 - 08:39 PM

So suggestive clothing is the problem here? You know who wears suggestive clothing? Promiscuous chicks!!

Teenagers know what's good and what's bad, some choose to ignore it and some get involved. Smart move by VS even though some may think it's immoral.

Is McDonalds at fault too because you're fat? No! Is VS at fault for allowing teenage girls to buy lingerie? No!

Why? Because people have choices.

As for parents, talk to your children, and educate them if you have a problem with some things.
  • 1

#47 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 27 March 2013 - 08:48 PM

I'm not worried about "my daughter"...I'm worried about the fact that it sends the wrong messages. I didn't make the claim that you're suggesting...my claim is that it will somehow be interpreted by pedophiles that kids are not off limits. Especially with suggestive wording...not saying that they'll necessarily see it ON kids, but to see that it's available to kids can somehow be translated to a green light.

Hey it not like viewing child porn and such can lead to violence against children, eh???

Oh wait...


Probation officials are investigating how a man charged with possessing child pornography managed to cut off his electronic monitoring bracelet before carjacking a woman at a mall, fatally stabbing her and raping her 10-year-old-daughter, authorities said.


David J. Renz abducted the school librarian and her daughter as they left a gymnastics class Thursday night at a mall in the Syracuse suburb of Clay, about 150 miles west of Albany, state police said Friday.


Renz bound both victims, raped the girl and drove a short distance to a spot where the girl escaped and was found by a passing motorist, troopers said.


CAUGHT RUNNING FROM SCENE


The motorist told 911 dispatchers he saw a man running away, allowing police to quickly send in officers on the ground and a sheriff’s helicopter in the air. Renz was caught a short time later near a wooded area.


It was unclear how the girl escaped or when her mother was killed, authorities said.


“We’re still trying to piece the timeline together,” Trooper Jack Keller said.


The girl was being treated at a hospital Friday. Her mother died from multiple stab wounds.


FREED WITH CONDITIONS


Renz, 29, had been charged in January with possession of child pornography and allowed to remain free under terms that included staying off the Internet and away from places including schools, parks and arcades. He lost his job at a supermarket, moved in with his mother and hadn’t been able to find other work after his arrest, according to court documents.


Federal authorities said he cut his electronic monitoring device off his ankle shortly before Thursday’s attacks. Probation officials are investigating whether Renz was able to get around an alert that is supposed to go off if the ankle bracelet is removed, Executive Assistant U.S. Attorney John Duncan said.


Renz was arraigned Friday on murder, rape and kidnapping charges and was held without bail. The lawyer assigned to his case, Ken Moynihan, didn’t return a call seeking comment.


The Associated Press generally doesn’t publish information that could identify potential sex crime victims and isn’t naming the woman to protect the girl’s identity.


100 GIGABYTES OF CHILD PORN


According to an FBI criminal complaint, agents who went to the North Syracuse apartment where Renz was living in June found in his bedroom four computers that he told them he used to view adult pornography.


Agent Alix Skelton said Renz eventually admitted using the Internet for the past six years to download child porn to a drive on one of the machines, which he turned over to the agents. Technicians determined in November that it had an encrypted hard drive, and Skelton said Renz provided the encryption key. Agents reviewing the drive in December found about 100 gigabytes of child porn comprising more than 500 videos and more than 3,000 images, according to the complaint.


Among the images were two showing sex acts involving prepubescent girls, said Skelton, a member of a unit that targets people involved in online exploitation of children.


TRIAL WAS DELAYED


Renz was charged Jan. 9 in federal court with possession of child pornography. On Jan. 29, a judge granted a prosecutor’s request for an extension of the time required for grand jury action so investigators could continue going over “numerous items of electric media” for additional evidence.


Renz, who authorities said had no prior police record, was released after agreeing to stay at home at night with an electronic monitor and away from any place he might encounter children.


Late Friday afternoon, state police turned Renz over to federal authorities, who will hold him for violating the terms of his release, court documents said.


Duncan said the cases against him will continue in federal and state courts.


The lawyer assigned to Renz in the child porn case, James Greenwald, didn’t return a call seeking comment Friday.

http://www.theprovince.com/news/probation+cuts+ankle+monitor+carjacks+librarian+kills+rapes/8109907/story.html#ixzz2Onpq6sDy
  • 1
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#48 Niloc009

Niloc009

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,787 posts
  • Joined: 12-October 09

Posted 27 March 2013 - 08:53 PM

No. I think they are classless. But I think VS has the right to make them. They are not breaking the law.


Right. But that's exactly what the father is saying in the letter. "Sure, go ahead and make them if you must, but try to look into your souls and see that this product isn't appropriate. You can keep them up, but if you took them down, you'd be doing culture a favour."
  • 1

zuhwS.gif


#49 Kass9

Kass9

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,847 posts
  • Joined: 02-April 07

Posted 27 March 2013 - 08:57 PM

Right. But that's exactly what the father is saying in the letter. "Sure, go ahead and make them if you must, but try to look into your souls and see that this product isn't appropriate. You can keep them up, but if you took them down, you'd be doing culture a favour."


Someone should tell that father that even though the product is inappropriate, it's the culture's fault for buying into it.

Why else would Victoria's Secret be manufacturing them? Because they know it will sell.

And for the 'soul' part, business has no soul.

Edited by Kass9, 27 March 2013 - 09:01 PM.

  • 0

#50 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 27 March 2013 - 08:59 PM

Here's the thing though...when it comes to "making decisions" of sexuality and suggestive clothing and it involves kids, the options shouldn't even be there. I'm all for the freedom of choice, but to even put kids into the equation isn't something that anyone should be entertaining. Protection of kids trumps anything.

I go with that sentiment.

Only one time did I ever begin to lose control where i could easily have killed someone and it involved a child prostitution ring.

I was working a case with VPD vice squad and we had tracked a pimp to an apartment in the West End. When we entered (after properly announcing ourselves of course) we found 5 children all under 10 years of age in a set up for clients - foam mattresses room dividers, cameras, etc.

The pimp laughed at us and said there was no way that the kids' testimony would be able to be used as they were doped up. One of the VPD officers I was with completely lost it and laid the pimp out with a full swing of his Maglite across the mouth. Beat me to it by millisecond. He ended up being suspended.

Unfortunately for the pimp somehow his paperwork at Oakalla got mixed up and he ended up in Gen Pop. He was in hospital in critical condition for several weeks with a skull fracture and other injuries. So sad.
  • 1
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#51 Gross-Misconduct

Gross-Misconduct

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,142 posts
  • Joined: 15-December 07

Posted 27 March 2013 - 09:08 PM

People equating a clothing line with child rapists and pedophiles is a cop out. Lowest common denominator.
  • 0

HpkJUPw.jpg

Credit to KingAlex for the sig. R.I.P.


#52 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 27 March 2013 - 09:13 PM

*
POPULAR

People equating a clothing line with child rapists and pedophiles is a cop out. Lowest common denominator.

it is about sexualizing children and it sends the wrong message.
  • 5
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#53 Kass9

Kass9

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,847 posts
  • Joined: 02-April 07

Posted 27 March 2013 - 09:15 PM

it is about sexualizing children and it sends the wrong message.


Is VS forcing it on young girls?
  • 0

#54 debluvscanucks

debluvscanucks

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Super Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,709 posts
  • Joined: 19-February 08

Posted 27 March 2013 - 09:15 PM

The sad, horrible and disgusting reality is that pedophiles ALREADY think kids are not off limits. These items will change nothing.
If you dress kids in nun habits and lock them up in your home pedophiles will still want at them. So I don't buy that argument.


But imagine how it'll reinforce things for them.

Here's the deal...I don't really think there's an argument in the world that should place sales and marketing in a position of importance over kids. Let kids be kids...they grow up too quickly as it is. To target them as little money making mannequins is not really in the best interest of society. We all have choices to make and, hopefully, we do so in a light that makes us role models for kids and helps steer them in the right direction. Not exploits them.

When money becomes more important than the future generations of this world, we're all lost. Too late (really), but that doesn't mean it's worth giving up on. How low can we go really comes to mind.

Sure - it's about having the right to choose. And companies aren't excluded in that...they can chose to be socially responsible or absolutely mindless and completely greed driven.

I am completely oblivious as to what VS is?? And no, I'm not googling it.

And GM...its not just clothing. Sure, make cute little underwear and bras....but the labeling on it is the focus for me. "Feeling Lucky?" What the hell is that about? So don't pretty it up with a bow....it's very suggestive and has no place on children.
  • 0

Posted Image


#55 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 27 March 2013 - 09:16 PM

Is VS forcing it on young girls?

We have all sorts of laws about marketing products to children for their protection.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#56 Kass9

Kass9

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,847 posts
  • Joined: 02-April 07

Posted 27 March 2013 - 09:21 PM

We have all sorts of laws about marketing products to children for their protection.


Well I'm pretty sure a company like Victoria's Secret has done their research so they don't get into trouble with the law.

Edited by debluvscanucks, 27 March 2013 - 09:32 PM.

  • 0

#57 Gross-Misconduct

Gross-Misconduct

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,142 posts
  • Joined: 15-December 07

Posted 27 March 2013 - 09:26 PM

But imagine how it'll reinforce things for them.

Here's the deal...I don't really think there's an argument in the world that should place sales and marketing in a position of importance over kids. Let kids be kids...they grow up too quickly as it is. To target them as little money making mannequins is not really in the best interest of society. We all have choices to make and, hopefully, we do so in a light that makes us role models for kids and helps steer them in the right direction. Not exploits them.

When money becomes more important than the future generations of this world, we're all lost. Too late (really), but that doesn't mean it's worth giving up on. How low can we go really comes to mind.

Sure - it's about having the right to choose. And companies aren't excluded in that...they can chose to be socially responsible or absolutely mindless and completely greed driven.

I am completely oblivious as to what VS is?? And no, I'm not googling it.


But I don't believe these animals need any reinforcing. They don't care what kids are wearing, they will attack kids. I'm far from an expert on this but I don't believe this particular product is gonna make normal people turn into pedophiles.
  • 0

HpkJUPw.jpg

Credit to KingAlex for the sig. R.I.P.


#58 Niloc009

Niloc009

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,787 posts
  • Joined: 12-October 09

Posted 27 March 2013 - 09:27 PM

Someone should tell that father that even though the product is inappropriate, it's the culture's fault for buying into it.

Why else would Victoria's Secret be manufacturing them? Because they know it will sell.

And for the 'soul' part, business has no soul.


I'm sure the father understands that. But maybe he's trying to change the culture. Sure, it might be pointless. But even if Victoria's Secret does nothing, it still raises awareness, which in itself may tweak the culture. Even if it doesn't, it's worth a shot, right?

He's certainly not some "bible thumper" because he's against children's lingerie.
  • 0

zuhwS.gif


#59 debluvscanucks

debluvscanucks

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Super Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,709 posts
  • Joined: 19-February 08

Posted 27 March 2013 - 09:37 PM

Someone should tell that father that even though the product is inappropriate, it's the culture's fault for buying into it.

Why else would Victoria's Secret be manufacturing them? Because they know it will sell.

And for the 'soul' part, business has no soul.


So you let them off the hook on that? Culture's fault? It starts somewhere you know. If people just willingly accept everything that's thrown at them, where does it end? That's the lazy man's thinking - to pass the buck like this.


But I don't believe these animals need any reinforcing. They don't care what kids are wearing, they will attack kids. I'm far from an expert on this but I don't believe this particular product is gonna make normal people turn into pedophiles.


Again, I don't believe I said "turn into" anything...I said send the message to them that it somehow supports their sick and twisted thinking. Reinforce their thinking to them. People who are so completely askew and mentally disturbed that they would do something like that will read that it's "OK". And how do you think they'll advertise this stuff? They'll likely have models and campaigns and billboards and ads to promote the line.

No. Sorry, just no.
  • 0

Posted Image


#60 Kass9

Kass9

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,847 posts
  • Joined: 02-April 07

Posted 27 March 2013 - 09:44 PM

So you let them off the hook on that? Culture's fault? It starts somewhere you know. If people just willingly accept everything that's thrown at them, where does it end? That's the lazy man's thinking - to pass the buck like this.





It's well documented that cigarettes lead to lung cancer.... Yet people still smoke. They know what's going to happen to them, and yet they still support the companies and the idea of lung cancer. It's all about supply and demand, such products will be made if there is enough interest.

Same goes for the lingerie, if teenage girls want to buy it, they will.

As for the 'willingly accept' part, blame the people that willingly accept this crap.... If enough people don't buy VS products, they would eventually shut down and other companies would know their stuff won't sell either.

Companies will make things, just ignore them and don't give them any business if you feel strongly about it.

In other words, you have a choice.

Edited by Kass9, 27 March 2013 - 09:45 PM.

  • 1




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.