There has been an article online about Victoria's Secret new skimpy underwear line aimed at young girls. This type of news about parents trying to protect their children especially with cloths that "over sexualising" their kids has been going on for years, and I understand why parents are not happy about sexy clothing for kids.
I have nothing against the new Victoria's Secret skimpy underwear because company insisted the collection was aimed at 'over 17s' and all the fuss is about is that chief finance officer has suggested 15-year-old girls could wear the clothing.
A lot of parents were outraged at this comment by the chief finance officer and they had responded on social networking sites and bloggers saying 'You already do enough to undermine real woman's and young ladies self esteem - now you want further sexualise our daughters [sic].'
Another admitted 'I have shopped regularly at Victoria's Secret for a decade and will no longer be supporting your business,' she wrote. 'It's a shame because I love your product, but I cannot support a company that seeks to sexualize children.'
The problem is that these people have focused on 15-year-old and wear the clothing, and do not realise that when you read the whole sentence, as a sentence and not on the individual words, you will realise that the chief finance officer is not aiming the cloths at teenagers, but suggesting that they could wear it if they wanted.
The key words are "suggested" and "could", not "15-year-old girls".
And don't worry all you women and parents out there that is disgusted with this blogg. I will have a blogg that will back you up. (when you get it right)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please comment