CAP en Español
Small CAP Banner

Faith in Values: The Dark Side of ‘Bright Young Things’

Victoria's Secret

SOURCE: Jeff Daly/Invision/AP

Elsa Hosk, Alexander Ludwig, and Sara Sampaio appear at the Victoria's Secret Ultimate Spring Break Dance Party at The Raleigh Hotel on March 13, 2013, in Miami Beach, Florida. "Bright Young Things," the new Victoria's Secret PINK line, has caused a stir in the media, with some alleging that it aims to inappropriately sexualize young girls.

  • print icon
  • SHARE:
  • Facebook icon
  • Twitter icon
  • Share on Google+
  • Email icon

The other day I saw a little girl—probably no older than 6 or 7 years old—dressed in a vinyl leopard-print miniskirt, a skinny hot pink tank top, and platform shoes. She was holding the hand of a woman who appeared to be her mother, who was wearing jeans, an oversized t-shirt, and running shoes. The mom looked like a tourist. The little girl looked like a hooker.

It’s not news that children are being sexualized at younger and younger ages or that marketers see the youth population as ripe to exploit. Recently Victoria’s Secret’s PINK brand came under fire for allegedly targeting teen girls in its ad campaign for “Bright Young Things”—an underwear line whose bikini panties say things such as “call me” on the front and “wild” on the back.

The media ran with the story of girl exploitation, and nearly 40,000 people signed a petition against Victoria’s Secret. The feminist blog Jezebel did some investigative digging and found that the source of the outrage was an article on The Black Sphere, an extremely conservative website. The author was Amy Gerwing, a pro-life, antigovernment advocate. In her piece, “Victoria’s Secret is coming for your Middle Schooler,” Gerwing linked the sexy underwear campaign to a host of problems facing girls, including anorexia, sex trafficking, bodily mutilation, and sexual promiscuity.

Slate magazine’s Amanda Marcotte hit back, scoffing at the protest. Her post, “Victoria’s Secret Sells Sex to High School Girls. So What?” called adults delusional for denying the sexuality of teenage girls and underscored the obvious fact that girls can be smart and ambitious and also inclined to wear sexy underwear.

Point well taken.

But missing in the debate—at least I didn’t catch it—was any broadening of the conversation beyond conservative scolding and liberal retort. Where were the challenges to marketers’ inappropriate targeting of young girls that affirmed healthy female sexuality? Where were the questions about possible links between marketplace values that celebrate unrestrained self-interest—and which measure human worth by the bottom line—and the weakening of civic values that historically have put limits on commercial profit, especially when it comes to children?

Progressives have something to contribute to that larger conversation. Unfortunately, they often stay silent when the controversy has to do with sexual matters, especially when conservatives have already made their voices heard. There are good reasons to be wary of speaking out: Progressives don’t want to give ammunition to right-wing calls for “moral decency” that simultaneously condemn healthy sexuality for girls and women. They don’t want to sound like prudes. And they don’t want to step on free speech.

Even so, progressive women and men need to add their voices to the conversation. First of all, these are issues that concern them. Conservatives don’t have a monopoly on worrying about raising their kids in an overly commercial and sexualized culture. And many progressives, similar to many conservatives, worry about how to shield their young children from degrading messages. Reasonable people on both sides of the aisle want to instill in their children a sense of self-worth that isn’t measured by possessions or what society deems sexy.

Beyond personal concerns, however, progressives need to enter the conversation for another reason: They can often link flashpoint controversies to broader policies of deregulation that, along with the worship of an unfettered free market, give free rein to the corporate exploitation of children. Progressives can point to an uncomfortable truth for conservatives: Despite their rhetoric of valuing and protecting children, their deregulatory policies consider kids fair game. When it comes to junk food advertising, for instance, conservatives seem more worried about a “nanny state” than about helping reduce the sharply rising rates of childhood obesity and diabetes. When it comes to mobile apps that allow companies to collect kids’ personal data and send it to third parties without parental knowledge, conservatives are more likely to take the side of business and stick up for unregulated commerce than for the safety of children. These discrepancies need to be given attention.

It’s never easy raising kids, and in some ways, it seems to be harder than ever these days. That’s why it is important for progressives to speak to the many challenges facing families and to assert without hesitation the fact that children have the right to grow up—and that their parents have the right to raise them—without commercial assault.

Sally Steenland is Director of the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative at the Center for American Progress. Steenland, a best-selling author, former newspaper columnist, and teacher, explores the role of religion and values in the public sphere.

To speak with our experts on this topic, please contact:

Print: Liz Bartolomeo (poverty, health care)
202.481.8151 or

Print: Tom Caiazza (foreign policy, energy and environment, LGBT issues, gun-violence prevention)
202.481.7141 or

Print: Allison Preiss (economy, education)
202.478.6331 or

Print: Tanya Arditi (immigration, Progress 2050, race issues, demographics, criminal justice, Legal Progress)
202.741.6258 or

Print: Chelsea Kiene (women's issues,, faith)
202.478.5328 or

Print: Benton Strong (Center for American Progress Action Fund)
202.481.8142 or

Spanish-language and ethnic media: Jennifer Molina
202.796.9706 or

TV: Rachel Rosen
202.483.2675 or

Radio: Sally Tucker
202.481.8103 or


This is part of a regular column: Faith in Values

For more from the same column, click here