Victoria’s Secret recently made headlines for deciding to reverse its feminist makeover and “bring back sexiness” in response to falling sales.
Back in 2018 the lingerie brand, once celebrated for its glamorous catwalks and bombshell models, underwent a significant transformation. They retired their iconic ‘Angels’, moved away from their signature runways, and announced their ambition to be “the world’s leading advocate for women”. The shift came in response to mounting criticism that the company perpetuated patriarchal beauty standards and encouraged extreme diets and training among models. Prominent figures like American soccer star and gender equity campaigner Megan Rapinoe, for example, criticised the company for sending a “really harmful” message to young women that was “patriarchal, sexist” and viewed women “through a male lens and through what men desired”.
To make matters worse, in 2020 a New York Times investigation also exposed a “culture of misogyny” at Victoria’s Secret, as well as “widespread bullying and harassment of employees and models”. High-ranking individuals such as Ed Razek and Leslie Wexner, both chief executives at L. Brands, the former parent company of Victoria’s Secret, faced allegations of misconduct. Wexner was also connected to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein.
In the years that followed, the company’s marketing campaigns shifted towards inclusivity and body-positivity, featuring a much more diverse range of models including Rapinoe, plus-sized models Paloma Elsesser and Ali Tate Cutler, as well as Brazilian transgender model Valentina Sampaio. The company also announced a new board of directors comprising six women and one man, along with the ‘VS Collective’, a group of seven women set up to advise and represent the company, including Rapinoe and the actress and UNICEF ambassador Priyanka Chopra Jonas. Together they aimed to redefine the brand’s old version of ‘sexy’, swapping the Angels for “what women want”.
But is that what women wanted?
Recent sales figures suggest otherwise. Victoria’s Secret’s projected revenue for 2023 is now $6.2 billion, a 5% drop from the previous year and even lower than their $7.5 billion in 2020 when most of its shops were closed for months at a time during the pandemic. Their latest fashion documentary, Victoria’s Secret: The Tour ’23, also received poor ratings, scoring only 2.9 out of 10 on IMDb and just 1.7 stars on Amazon. Victoria’s Secret’s CEO, Martin Waters, has now acknowledged that the company’s inclusivity initiatives have not been profitable. “Despite everyone’s best endeavors,” he admitted, “it’s not been enough to carry the day.”
In my view, Victoria’s Secret shift toward inclusivity was an unnecessary over-correction. Of course models shouldn’t be starving themselves on extreme diets, but the brand has now swung too far in the opposite direction. What began as introducing some plus-size models became a complete departure from the brand’s signature style. Some Victoria’s Secret models have even revealed that they were encouraged not only to seem more realistic but to intentionally look less attractive: the brand allegedly used unflattering lighting and instructed models to slouch and make their stomachs seem bigger.
To me, this perfectly represents the prevailing feminist narrative today. It is a message that often seems less about representation and inclusivity, and more about denigrating beauty and femininity. It tells young women that there is something inherently wrong with wanting to be attractive to men, and that dressing in a way that appeals to men is a form of patriarchal oppression.
Young women are inundated with this kind of messaging. For example, Rihanna’s lingerie brand, Savage X Fenty — which also features trans, disabled and plus-sized models — frames lingerie as a form of self-love, and not about pleasing men. Rihanna herself stated that “women should be wearing lingerie for their damn selves”, while American actress Halle Berry, when launching her lingerie line Scandale Paris, declared: “Women don’t wear lingerie for men. We wear it for ourselves.” And in an article about “lingerie that subverts the male gaze”, the founder of another new brand Lonely Lingerie said: “We really wanted to celebrate female relationships. I’m sure boyfriends would love to see this beautiful lingerie, but it’s too often the focus. It’s really about giving the power back to women.”
But these are lingerie brands! Isn’t the entire point of lingerie to appeal to the male gaze? (Who is really wearing a thong for themselves?)
I don’t believe we need to pretend that we’re wearing lingerie for ourselves, nor do brands need to ditch conventionally beautiful models, for women to feel empowered. For many of us the allure of Victoria’s Secret was the sensuality, the glamour and the impossibly beautiful models.
There is also nothing wrong with women wanting to look good for men. It isn’t ‘the patriarchy conditioning us’; it’s a powerful biological drive. We can deny this all we want, but I think Victoria’s Secret plummeting sales speak for themselves.
What’s most revealing in all of this, though, is Victoria’s Secret back-pedalling. What it demonstrates to me is that, ultimately, what these woke brands really care about is not progressivism but profit. Their main focus is not ‘diversity’, ‘representation’ or ‘female empowerment’; it’s money. If Victoria’s Secret does indeed revert back to bombshell models and glamorous catwalks it will reveal that their woke feminist message wasn’t only misguided but was, from the beginning, just a marketing strategy — and one that has massively backfired.
Freya India is the author of the Substack, GIRLS. You can subscribe here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Victoria’s Secret’s CEO, Martin Waters, has now acknowledged that the company’s inclusivity initiatives have not been profitable. “Despite everyone’s best endeavors,” he admitted, “it’s not been enough to carry the day.”
Sounds more like the concession of defeat in an election campaign than admitting it’s not what customers wanted
The CEO response was a classic, it was not our fault but that of the ill informed customer. Their previous success was built on providing what the customer wanted, whilst their recent loss of custom was because they didn’t supply what the customer wanted. They failed the most basic of business criteria, of not concentrating on their core business success, of doing what you are good at.
Ill informed and bigoted customers
CEO – another “profession” full of frustrated politicians, do-gooders and social justice warriors
Can I be Victoria’s Secret secret CEO?
PEOPLE DON’T LIKE LOOKING AT FAT PEOPLE BECAUSE FAT PEOPLE ARE GENERALLY UNHEALTHY AND WHO WANTS TO REPRODUCE WITH A FATTIE?
FAT PEOPLE WANT TO BE SLIM.
IT’S EASIER TO HAVE AN APPEARANCE OTHERS FIND SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE AND IT’S EASIER TO ENJOY SEX IF YOU AREN’T FIRST A CHUBSTER.
WHEN PEOPLE SHOP FOR SEXY CLOTHING, THEY AREN’T JUST BUYING SEXY CLOTHING, THEY’RE ALSO BUYING A DREAM.
There. Wasn’t hard, was it? Or maybe it was hard wink wink.
Thanks. I’ll come in secret to Victoria’s Secret secret HQ to collect my secret salary.
We like to look at beautiful models for the same reason we like to listen to the best music, visit the prettiest landscapes, watch great athletes etc etc. Its not about us, its about them. Being close to perfection is almost hypnotic. People should aspire to perfection, even though it can’t be attained, its about how close we can get. We know what’s good and what isn’t. Its not about women with size 20 bodies seeing size 20 models walking about in their pants. Our ‘best self’, is only fleeting anyway and relative to our life journey. In 10 years time, none of us will look as good as we do today, just as none us look as good as we did 10 years ago. Who cares if we want to see beauty in its purest form..?
Great post.
Could not agree more. I grew up in the 80’s it was such a great era, yes we had terrible recessions, but we had so much ingenuity and inventiveness as a result, we were not so heavily influenced by American slob culture, we had New Romantics, Punk, Glam Rock, Goth, hip hop, to name a few, each had their own unique modes of dress and music. Fat people were in the minority, on a beach it was rare to see anyone over weight especially in their 20’s. We exercised and yes followed crazy diets as none of us wanted to be fat, that applied to both Male and Female. The Models of that time Campbell, Turlington, Crawford, Evangelista were other worldly beautiful, they were blessed with their looks and bodies, I wasn’t jealous, I wanted to be like that, most girls aspired to try and look as healthy and glamorous.
Now we praise the overweight and unhealthy, the couch potato dress look imported from the States, the plastic android uber big lips and camel eyelashes of the Khardasians. Everyone looks the same, there is no new styles or looks, its just a rehash and poor imitations of previous generations.
I believe a lot of the body positive movement, is actually an excuse for poor nutrition, lack of exercise and is an increasing burden on an already overwhelmed poor health “service”!
I am not a man but I think the Victoria Secret models as were bought a bit of fun, glamour and aspiration to an increasingly boring world, what’s wrong with that.
Very well said. At times, the “Everybody’s wearing elastics, trainers and better tablecloths and sacks as clothing excuses” which has taken over British high streets, especially post-covid, is outright depressing in its disinspiring shabbiness.
Woke up this morning but couldn’t be arsed to get dressed!
Chose to go out nevertheless!
And that’s not even mentioning the significant minority who are probably really wearing their only rarely washed or changed pyjamas all day.
The ancient Greeks knew a thing or two about beauty and celebrated it unashamedly.
We should too.
With most advertising campaigns showing more people of colour, fatties and disabled than I see in a day is it any wonder people pay them so little attention? Why do I have to have a diversity lesson inflicted on me in the middle of a rugby match? Actually I press mute on the odd occasion I put the propoganda box on but that’s because I’m an awkward sod.
“Happiness is a cigar called Hamlet.”
“Only the crumbliest, flakest milk chocolate, tastes like chocolate never tasted before.”
“Go to work on an egg.”
These days I could not name one advert. I could not even name an advert linked to a specific company.
The advertising industry today is utterly, utterly boring and if it disappeared overnight few would notice and those that did would simply be relieved.
An industry bereft of talent and ideas much like the rest of today’s world – perhaps that is the point.
My finger is always close to the mute button, TV for muting ads, radio to mute the “news”.
I swear people go into “advertising” in order to “make the world a better place” rather than to sell products and services for their clients.
I watch some rugby on S4C via iplayer – just a blank silent screen for the ad breaks. Bliss!
Top headline:
‘Sorry, Victoria’s Secret, your ‘woke’ rebrand failed because it was performative pants’
“…..gender equity campaigner Megan Rapinoe, for example, criticised the company for sending a “really harmful” message to young women that was “patriarchal, sexist” and viewed women “through a male lens and through what men desired”.
Hmmm! As opposed to that which Rapinoe and other sapphic women desired?
Lingerie as female self-love? All this emphasis on the male gaze? WTF? Lingerie – the underwear equivalent of ‘a cauliflower is only a cabbage with a college education’, you know, bras and knickers, vests, slips and jammies, etc – is first and foremost functional clothing: I wear knickers because I’m uncomfortable going commando (jeans rather chafe) and wear a bra to support the dangly chest appendages. That doesn’t mean they can’t be attractive, made of nice, sensuous fabrics and yes, be ‘sexy’ for whoever’s gaze you want to please, if that’s what you want. If I could afford to wear silk undies all the time I would but I can’t so I don’t. Companies like VS used to understand this (their bras were once noted for being well designed and comfortable as well as visually attractive, and silk next to the skin is far better than synthetics) but they decided to sell out to The Narrative™. Now it’s everyone’s fault but theirs – men for looking, and women for wanting to wear anything deemed attractive. Jeez.
Absolutely right! Well designed underwear for women which is comfortable, functional but beautiful is a pleasure to wear. I choose my underwear with the same care I do the rest of my clothes, to please me first & foremost ‘cos I’m the one who wears it but it also has to make me feel good & dowdy underwear just doesn’t do it!
Plus bra & pants have to match ‘cos I’m no dressed otherwise!
Nothing wrong in appreciating beauty, one of the reasons I married my wife.
”Let’s do the Time Warp again…”
Talking of women’s undies, I don’t think the DS team have noticed their boob yet have they?
I thought that Wexner dude was the money behind Epstein. Anyway I have one simple standard for underwear be it male or female. Natural fibres. The less processing the better. Few people are aware of Gandhi’s war against underwear. This company deals in synthetic fibres which are no good for the vagina. How could they be for heaven’s sake? This is the cauldron of creation and the anvil of the heart and you dress it up in polyester?
Even if your underwear is made out of hemp or straw you have to insist on natural fibres. And I don’t want to tell anyone what to wear but you should avoid the colour balck in underwear. Don’t get me wrong it might hide the skid marks and stains better than other colours but this is a cop out. Even if it just a change from black to dark blue.
Money is such a fantastic litmus test of sincerity.
The secret Victoria doesn’t want you to know is simple and yet typically female; she always wants what she can’t have.
Once you understand this about her, she is an open book.
Rome is burning but here we have it, news about Victoria’s Secret. I have to admit, I am confused.
Saw the article picture two days ago. Still haven’t read the article ;-/