Angela Malone

I recently walked out to my mailbox to retrieve the daily mail -- a small task usually anxiously accomplished by my 12 year old daughter. I expected to see a few of the usual bills, "junk mail", and college advertisements for my college-bound son. However, this particular day I pulled out a magazine. Not just any magazine. It was a Victoria Secret's "Pink Nation" magazine. I had never heard of this division of Victoria's Secret as I stopped supporting the company when the "secret" turned into "pornography". This "Pink Nation" targets teenage girls. "Victoria" obviously still has some unresolved insecurity and lack-of-self-value issues and is now passing them down to the younger females. To say the least, I was completely appalled at the "modeling" positions these underage girls advertised product in. One pair of modeled underwear had the words plastered on the young girl's derrière "you want it". I was so glad I got the mail that day. I don't want my 12 year old daughter nor my sons believing this is the way a female should treat herself or allow herself to be treated.

Victoria's Secret on every level delivers unethical advertising, promoting pornography and strongly suggesting underage sex. The advertisement campaigns are irresponsible and, in addition to communicating unrealistic ¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬life expectations, they may indeed teeter on false advertising. Unrealistic in that the advertisement suggests that you can be as seductive and sexually indiscrete as you want and nothing will happen to you -- you will just be beautiful. Not so. When a female goes around flashing her thong and seductive, bedroom undergarments she is now promoting and advertising her own body. 6When that teenage girl goes to school or to the mall with those undergarments on display she is communicating messages about herself: "I have no self-respect". "I have no self-value". "I am an easy sexual target".

Everyone wants to be accepted and attractive. Victoria's Secret abusively manipulates this social need. The company is both unethical and irresponsible. The unethical implications are that it is o.k. for you to begin to have underage sex. Sexy looks are for those looking for sex. Sexy body positions are for those looking for sex. The advertisements teach children how to look for sex. However, the advertisements don't exactly say that with words. They use non-verbal communication. The advertisements don't explain that when the female gives another individual the sexy look with the sexy pose she is opening herself up for more than the admiration, popularity and "good times" suggested in the magazine. The truth is she is opening herself up for rejection and ridicule once she is used up for what she is non-verbally offering.

The social irresponsibility is that the light pornographic photos of the underage models starts a thought without completing it. The thought being personal sexuality. The irresponsibility is that Victoria's Secret "Pink Nation" doesn't go on to talk about the "side effects" of seductive displays of sexy undergarments: rape, teenage pregnancy, HIV, AIDS, other STDs. The advertisement doesn't tell the truth that what a female can perceive as cute and harmless another can see as a "go" sign to make advances the teenager really didn't want or understand they initiated. The advertisement doesn't go on to show the benefits of self-respect, self-value, and healthy self-esteem that come from not being so quick to offer sex with a quick note sewn onto the back of the underwear, "you want it".

Should advertisement be covered under freedom of expression or should advertiser be held to higher accountability with the messages that are communicated?

Graphic Credit:
Sabrina Segal