Portrait of an Adoption
Victoria's Secret: No Daughter Does Not Need A Thong that Says "Call Me" on the Crotch
If my tween were in the market for, oh, say, highly inappropriate sexy thongs, she would be awash in options, such as the new brand coming this spring from Victoria’s Secret called “Bright Young Things”
The new product line features panties with phrases like “Dare You” and “Feeling Lucky?” on them. And how about this gem -- a lace trimmed thong with the words, “Call me” on the front. I guess a middle-school girl needs to strip down to her thong to let the object of her affection know she is interested.
How do the powers that be spin this? Chief Financial Officer Stuart Burgdoerfer of Limited Brands, (of which Victoria’s Secret is a subsidiary), spoke at a recent conference, describing why this lingerie will appeal to younger girls:
“When somebody’s 15 or 16 years old, what do they want to be?” Burgdoerfer asked. “They want to be older, and they want to be cool like the girl in college, and that’s part of the magic of what we do at Pink.”
Burgdoerfer may call it "magic", but I call it "sexualization". The company clearly intends to sell the items to children far younger than age 15 or 16, as evidenced by the tiny sizes offered and the marketing campaign aimed at tweens and middle schoolers. Teen and tween heartthrob Justin Bieber, who is idolized by girls as young as age 8 or 9, was hired to perform during the Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show in November.
The proliferation of racy underwear marketed to children has drawn attention around the globe. In June 2011, the British Retail Consortium announced that it would be banning the High Street shops from selling sexualized clothing for children. Padded bras and thongs were deemed inappropriate for young children, as were clothes with suggestive slogans.
A petition has already been started on Change.org to get Victoria’s Secret to Stop Marketing Sexy Lingerie to Teens and Tweens; maybe if enough people speak up, we can achieve the type of results that the British Retail Consortium did. And in case you have any doubts about whether or not the lingerie has crossed the line, consider that a reporter covering the “Bright Young Things” Product launch for NBC’s TODAY show confessed that, “The latest campaign features underwear too racy to show here.”
What is sexualization, and how does it cause problems? Many of us are so accustomed to it that we do not even question it. In my new book on social conflict, aggression and bullying in our culture, I write extensively about the phenomenon of sexualization, and how this increasingly-accepted marketing tactic contributes to problems with male-female relationships when the children grow older.
The following excerpt is from my chapter called "Stop Marketing Make-Up and Sexy Clothes to Children":
In the winter of 2011, Walmart announced that it was introducing Geogirl, a new line of cosmetics, specifically designed for girls 8- to 12-years-old.[i] The mass retailer wants a piece of the tween make-up market, which earns more than $24 million per year, with the top sellers to kids being lip gloss, eye shadow and mascara.[ii] When I heard about WalMart’s expansion into kiddie makeup, my first thought was, this doesn’t help the movement to prevent bullying. Parents may wonder, how is bullying at all related to make-up? The connection goes through sexualization.
According to the American Psychological Association’s Report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls:
There are several components to sexualization, and these set it apart from healthy sexuality. Sexualization occurs when
- a person’s value comes only from his or her sexual appeal or behavior, to the exclusion of other characteristics;
- a person is held to a standard that equates physical attractiveness (narrowly defined) with being sexy;
- a person is sexually objectified—that is, made into a thing for others’ sexual use, rather than seen as a person with the capacity for independent action and decision making; and/or
- sexuality is inappropriately imposed upon a person.
When mass retailers are marketing make-up to eight to twelve year old girls, unhealthy sexualization is occurring.
"I like blush, lipstick, um, mascara," a nine-year-old girl said to ABC News during a report on children wearing makeup.[iv] Of course she likes blush, lipstick, and, um, mascara. She is a kid. Katie asks me for make-up all the time. I hand her a tube of bubble-gum-flavored Chapstick and tell her to have fun. “I want something with color,” Katie protests. I practically need to put a child lock on my make-up drawer to keep Annie Rose’s groping little hands away from my powder and blush. And if you walk into an elementary school, be prepared to see little girls wearing lipstick and eye makeup. Toy, clothing and make-up manufacturers have a name for this phenomenon: KGOY (Kids Getting Older Younger).[v] They market along strict gender lines: sexualized products for young girls and macho or violent products for young boys, pushing kids into gender-based stereotypes that harm their perceptions of each other. As soon as a twelve-year-old needs a bra, the clothing stores are right there pushing a bra to her younger sister, telling her that she, too, needs breasts to be sexy and attractive. Abercrombie and Fitch is one of many retailers that offers string bikini push-ups for girls age seven to eleven. Parents of little girls are left asking in bewilderment, where has childhood gone?
The retailers are quick to blame the parents, claiming that they are not forcing mom and dad to buy sexualized products. While there is parental accountability involved, it is not that simple. The stores enticingly market inappropriate items to young kids, and parents are in the difficult position of having to say no, not just to a single purchase, but to an entire glamorized lifestyle. Perhaps a parent has initial resolve and manages to escape the shoe store without buying high heels for her ten-year-old. But then the child begs her for a tube of lipstick at the grocery store, and a bottle of perfume at the drugstore, and a short skirt at the clothing store . . . the barrage is endless. In a moment of exhausted weakness, the mom purchases a pot of eye shadow, just for “fun.” But the girl sneaks it out of the house and puts it on at school. Once one girl in the class starts wearing make-up, the other girls beg to wear it too.
Peggy Orenstein mulled the problem over with me.[vi] She predicted that “what’s going to happen is that the cool girls are going to start wearing makeup at age nine and ten, and then the kids who are being raised more healthily will end up being targeted and bullied for being uncool.” Unfortunately, Orenstein’s predictions are playing out. The “cool” girls are the ones who wear make-up, and the other girls are desperate to fit in. Worn down from picking their battles, some parents give in, and now we have a generation of nine-year-olds who wear mascara to school. What do we do with that as parents? Do we say, I’d rather have my daughter be the mean girl than the picked-on girl? Orenstein thinks the answer is to teach your girl how to value herself inside out, and to provide her with skills for conflict resolution. “It’s not easy,” she commiserated, “but you try to make decisions based on what you know is long-term healthy.”
For generations, little kids have played dress-up at home, and for some, this includes applying mom’s make-up. Nothing unusual about that. And it is perfectly appropriate for kids to get their faces painted at carnivals, amusement parks and the like. These activities are within the realm of a normal childhood. The trouble is that little girls are now applying blush, lip shadow and mascara as part of their regular grooming before leaving the house. Can't a ten-year-old be free of the social pressure to feel suitably attractive before going to school? I know a woman who refers to putting on her make-up as putting on her "face." What does that tell her children? That without painting herself up, their mother doesn't even merit having a face? Makeup alone is not where young kids end their beauty regiments and procedures. There are now spa treatments, eyebrow waxing, facials and massages marketed towards little girls between the ages of eight and twelve,[vii] and there are plenty of parents who are willing to pay for these services. "I feel it's part of hygiene. I do all of these types of things myself and I think they're better off starting young," one mother told ABC News.[viii]
Part of good hygiene for a ten-year-old does not need to include facials and electrolysis. This doesn’t mean it is harmful for a girl to get a manicure on a very special occasion, such as for a birthday treat or before a big event. It is fun and enjoyable! What it means is that kids who receive a weekly mani/pedi and regular spa treatments are at risk of feeling entitled at a very young age, and this contributes to discrimination against those girls who simply get their nails trimmed by mom's clippers. We don’t want kids to look down on other kids who are different, creating an “us” and “them” mentality, which allows kids to view each other as objects. Once that happens, kids (and adults) find it increasingly easy to taunt and torment someone who is Other. A nine-year-old with a freshly waxed upper lip is more likely to view a hairy-lipped peer as Other. But what is a parent to do if other kids are teasing her daughter for having a mustache? Leave her to suffer? It is a dilemma, a slippery slope of perfection, because if you allow a young girl to wax her lip hair in order to protect her from taunts, what do you do when she then wants to get a bikini wax?
Body hair has emerged as a surprisingly common reason why kids target others. An Indian mother told me, “There are some fair-haired girls in my daughter’s fourth grade class who make fun of my daughter for having a lot of dark hair on her forearms. She wants to wear long sleeves every day, even when it’s hot outside.” While it is true that kids with poor hygiene are at higher risk of being bullied, arm hair is not a hygiene problem. The pressure for girls to maintain hairless bodies has propelled children as young as eight to seek out painful treatments such as electrolysis and waxing for body hair. Just as disturbing is the behavior of mothers who want their daughters to look perfect. Diane Fisher, owner of Eclips Salon and Eclips Kids Day Spa in McLean and Ashburn, Va., both Washington, D.C., suburbs, told todayshow.com that “I had a mother who brought her daughter in, pulled up her shirt and asked us to wax the girl’s back. The hair didn’t seem to be bothering the little girl, but the mom was embarrassed and wanted it done,” Fisher recounted. “I told the mom to wait until the child wanted it, but she refused.” The girl with the hairy back was six years old.[ix]
- Excerpt from Carrie Goldman's highly-reviewed book, Bullied: What Every Parent, Teacher, and Kid Needs to Know About Ending the Cycle of Fear
Follow Carrie Goldman on Twitter and find her blog on Facebook
To keep up with Portrait's blog posts, type your email address in the box and click the "create subscription" button. The list is completely spam free, and you can opt out at any time.
Black Professor Melissa Harris-Perry Calls Pre-Born Baby ‘This Thing’
Melissa Harris-Perry says that she understands how religious people argue that personhood begins at conception, that it’s “a particular kind of faith claim,” but such a claim “is not associated with science.” So what is it about science that says a 5 or 7 year-old child is a person?
Science is not in the value judgment business. Scientists can measure brain waves, but they can’t say there’s a mind or if there is a mind whether it has any significance in a matter-only universe. Science can determine if a human meat bag is dead or alive, but it can’t say whether that meat bag’s life was worthwhile.
Evolutionist Stephen J. Gould (1941–2002) described religion and science as “Nonoverlapping Magisteria”:
Science can’t say whether what Adolf Hitler did was moral or immoral; it can only count the bodies and determine how they expired.
Melissa Harris-Perry finds it easy to argue for the pro-abortion position when she starts with a fertilized egg and moves toward birth since what can be seen is so small. Yet everything a human being is can be found in the union of sperm and egg.
By the way, Melissa Harris-Perry couldn’t argue the same way if she were holding some bird eggs. “The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the taking, killing, possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests except as authorized under a valid permit (50 CFR 21.11).”
But what if the abortion argument started with a newly born baby and moved backward second-by-second to the point of conception?
Here’s a line of reasoning that I use with people who have not thought through the abortion issue but who would say that it’s up to the mother to make the decision.
I draw a horizontal line on a piece of paper capped on both ends with short vertical lines that represent the beginning and end of a nine-month pregnancy. I then ask: “At what point on this nine-month horizontal timeline would you say that it would be wrong to kill this pre-born baby?”
They are initially reluctant, so I facilitate the process. “Would it be OK to kill the baby as soon as he or she is born?” (I draw an oval, representing the just-born baby, at the right-end of the vertical line.) No one says yes.
“How about when the baby is half in and half out of the birth canal?” (I draw an oval so half the oval is bisected by the end portion of the vertical line.) Again, I get a “no.” “Would it be OK to kill a pre-born baby when the crown of the baby’s head begins to show? “No” is still the most universal answer.
It’s at this point that I offer the pencil to anyone to mark on the line where it would be morally justifiable to kill the pre-born baby. Most are non-committal because they begin to see the logic of what I’m doing.
So I pick a point around three months, the end of the first trimester. I make a vertical mark on the line. To the left of the line, abortion is morally justifiable. To the right of the line, abortion is not morally justifiable. Some will agree with this.
I then ask what has changed from one second before the three month period when abortion is legal and one second after when abortion would be illegal and morally unjustifiable.
Melissa Harris-Perry, who is black, has her own personhood problem. There was a time when it was thought that “the average intellect of the negro race . . . was exactly intermediate between the superior order of beasts such as elephant, dog, and orangutan, and Europeans or white men.”[1]
There’s nothing in science that says that it’s immoral to view blacks or whites as morally significant. They just are. Without God to impute value, there is no value. What’s true for Melissa Harris-Perry’s fertilized egg is also true of Melissa Harris-Perry herself.
Read more: http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/03/black-professor-melissa-harris-perry-calls-pre-born-baby-this-thing/#ixzz2Oax2W6Fl
Victoria’s Secret “Bright Young Things” Line Targets Teens
The lingerie retailer taps into the teen market with a new range of sexy beachwear.
Claire Stern is a fashion intern for The Daily Beast and a master’s candidate at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. She has served in the editorial departments of Vogue.com and Elle.com.
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.
Same-Sex Marriage: We're Playing Chess, Not Checkers
This article was originally appeared in Public Discourse: Ethics, Law, and the Common Good, the online journal of the Witherspoon Institute of Princeton, NJ. The article was republished with the permission.
By Doug Mainwaring
Just as chess requires players to seriously consider every possible consequence of their moves, we need to seriously consider every possible consequence of the push for same-sex marriage, especially for children.
In our sometimes misguided efforts to expand our freedom, selfish adults have systematically dismantled that which is most precious to children as they grow and develop. That’s why I am now speaking out against same-sex marriage.
By the way, I am gay.
A few days ago I testified against pending same-sex marriage legislation in Minnesota’s Senate Judiciary and House Civil Law Committees.
The atmosphere at these events (I’ve also testified elsewhere) seems tinged with unreality—almost a carnival-like surrealism. Natural law, tradition, religion, intellectual curiosity, and free inquiry no longer play a role in deliberations. Same-sex marriage legislation is defended solely on grounds of moral relativism and emotions.
Pure sophistry is pitted against reason. Reason is losing.
Here’s the problem: The national discussion of same-sex marriage treats the issue like a game of checkers, where opponents can quickly gain each other’s pieces without much forethought about the consequences. This unreflective view of the discussion has prevented any real debate.
In years past, defenders of marriage found it easy to win the battle on the checker board. Appeals to religion and tradition won hands down almost effortlessly. While same-sex marriage advocates argued for a more thoughtful consideration of the topic, they were mostly just bulldozed over.
The tide has turned. Same-sex marriage proponents now have all the “kings” on the board, and rule it. One only needs to consider media headlines from the last few weeks. We are bombarded with approvals of same-sex marriage. To the casual onlooker, not steeped in this issue, it would seem that conservatism has embraced same-sex marriage. Each day brings fresh news of Republican political elites, Fortune 500 companies, NFL members, and even Dirty Harry himself, Clint Eastwood, throwing their support behind genderless marriage.
The game we are actually playing is chess, not checkers. This sounds confusing, because chess and checkers are played on the exact same sixty-four square game board. Checkers is easy and it’s fast. It’s one of the first games children learn how to play. Chess is hard, requiring thought about the intended and unintentional consequences of every single move that may or may not be made.
In developing their goals for policy and law, politicians often look no further than the next election cycle. They’re concerned about votes. Supporting same-sex marriage now looks like a winner for them.
It also looks like a winner for media outlets, concerned about revenues and readership, and for large corporations, eager to polish their images and create goodwill. Few of these outlets are interested in playing chess because a quick win at checkers is more important to them.
The sense of urgency regarding same-sex marriage, now palpably frenetic, is in itself a sign of our national discussion’s devolution into nothing more than slogans and emotions.
Our nation’s individual state legislatures and courts—including the Supreme Court— need to apply the brakes. Now.
As in chess, the unintended consequences deserve sound consideration.
Genderless marriage now enjoys an aura of equality and fairness, which suggests that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had same-sex marriages in mind as they penned their magnificent giant leap forward for humanity. While this situation is highly unlikely, those who selfishly seek additional “rights” for themselves have found their justification in the penumbra they now sense surrounding legitimate civil rights.
Same-sex marriage will not expand rights and freedoms in our nation. It will not redefine marriage. It will undefine it.
This isn’t the first time our society has undefined marriage. No-fault divorce, instituted all across our country, sounded like a good idea at the time. Its unintended consequence was that it changed forever the definition of marriage from a permanent relationship between spouses to a temporary one. Sadly, children became collateral damage in the selfish pursuits of adults.
Same-sex marriage will do the same, depriving children of their right to either a mom or a dad. This is not a small deal. Children are being reduced to chattel-like sources of fulfillment. On one side, their family tree consists not of ancestors, but of a small army of anonymous surrogates, donors, and attorneys who pinch-hit for the absent gender in genderless marriages. Gays and lesbians demand that they have a “right” to have children to complete their sense of personal fulfillment, and in so doing, are trumping the right that children have to both a mother and a father—a right that same-sex marriage tramples over.
Same-sex marriage will undefine marriage and unravel it, and in so doing, it will undefine children. It will ultimately lead to undefining humanity. This is neither “progressive” nor “conservative” legislation. It is “regressive” legislation.
Nowhere on any marriage license application in any state are the applicants asked, “Do you love each other?” Yet this is the basis on which same-sex marriage proponents seek to change our laws. Is the state really in the business of celebrating our romantic lives?
The mantra I heard repeatedly in Minnesota was that “marriage is about love, commitment, and responsibility.” But these three things are not the state’s interests in marriage. Marriage, from the state’s perspective, is about kids. Period. That’s the reason the institution exists. We should tremble at and fear the notion of undoing it.
For a nation that has no trouble selfishly creating a seventeen-trillion-dollar (and growing) deficit it will soon hand off to its children and grandchildren, perhaps this is asking too much. But for the sake of all children and those yet to be born, we need to slow down and seriously consider the unintended consequences of undefining marriage. Otherwise, we risk treating our progeny as expendable pawns, sacrificed in the name of self-fulfillment. We can do better than that.
Mainwaring is co-founder of the National Capital Tea Party Patriots.
- Sort by
- Highlighted
- Newest
- Oldest
- Most agreed
- Most disagreed
But if the court does decide to rule on the issue it will consider the arguments of the Witherspoon Institute that have found its way in legal briefs.
These arguments have tortured logic and will not win the day. They will help the justices make a choice to expand marriage equality in many states. less
"The total number of new marriages here dropped from 89,428 in 1999 to 71,572 in 2011 (of which 1,355 were same-sex). In the meantime, the number of heterosexual couples opting for registered partnerships has jumped from 1,500 in 1999 to 8,343 last year, while the number of same-sex partnerships has stayed steady around 500 since 2001"
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/08/world/europe/08iht-letter08.html
...an almost 800% rise in "registered partnerships" (!!!) and a 20% drop in hetero-sexual marriage -- marriage has LOST its meaning. less
It’s hard for me to imagine how you can draw the conclusion that the Netherlands is “seriously protestant” if you’ve actually been there. Sure, it has some old Reformed churches. Many of them are empty. The Oude Kerk in Amsterdam is surrounded by brothels in the Red Light District. The Nieuwe Kerk has a pot-growing head shop built into one of its storefronts. The Westerkerk has a gay rights monument ON the church grounds. If that doesn’t suggest a cavalier attitude toward religion, I don’t know what does. Studies such as this EU report from 2005 (http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf) show on page 11 that only about 35% of Dutch believe in God.
Sure, there are slightly more religious parts of the country outside of Amsterdam, but the Dutch in general were mercantile and secular even when the neighboring monarchies bordered on theocracy. That’s why the most conservative ethnic Dutch live in the US, keeping their Reformed tradition alive in settlements like Grand Rapids since they didn’t feel they enjoyed religious freedom in the homeland. less
In fact, the solid and orthodox theological writings coming out of Europe in our day far eclipse anything coming out of the US. This counter-reaction is still in its infancy, but it continues to grow and I rejoice greatly in it.... the Lord will always keep His remnant fed. Always. less
Furthermore, the point is moot, since 9 states (and over a dozen other countries) already have legal same sex marriage, some of them for several years now. The best approach for the anti-SSM contingent is to find evidence that these nine states offer quantifiably worse results for children than the other 41 states. Considering that most of these 9 states are wealthy, well-educated, and have below-average rates of teenage pregnancy or children born out of wedlock, it’s going to tough for their arguments to carry a great deal of weight. less
While watching a round-table style news debate on homosexual marriage, I heard a defender of it claim that heterosexuals are simply by accident able to procreate. If there is no God and everything happened by accident, then heterosexuals are only able to have children because of some cosmic accident, rendering such reasoning for marriage nullified. And somehow that then allows for homosexuals to marry. Her reasoning is that if there is no good physical reason for any couples to marry, then there is no good physical reason for any couples not to marry. She then goes with the "love" theory. --It would be nice if someone would ask her how we describe love, without getting into beliefs.
I would use the reasoning of the gender body parts, as clearly not all heterosexual couples can have children. And actually biblically marriage is about a man and a woman coming together and being one flesh. Of course biblical reasoning would not be acceptable to humanists.
I would not mention the bible in a court hearing on this topic. I would instead speak of logic, intelligence, and a civil society; one that is ran in an orderly manner. I would arm myself with medical facts of how the male and female gender parts are formed in a way that they are meant to come together and that that is what consummates and makes a marriage, something that two people of the same gender cannot do. And for those who want to believe that everything is a cosmic accident, I would point out that no matter what a person wants to believe as to how the male and female bodies came to be this way, the fact is that they are this way. Heterosexual couples can consummate a marriage, homosexual couples cannot. I would also point out some state laws that allow for an annulment of marriage, if one spouse cannot consummate the marriage.
It is a sad thing that America ever got to this point, where people are sworn in on a bible in a court of law, but not allowed to mention anything that is in it when the issue is that of our laws. Our founding fathers never meant for lawmakers to ignore what God says. That is just foolishness. But if that is what people want to claim, then let's talk about logic, intelligence, and a civil society. Let's be wise as a serpent (Matthew 10:16).
Copy Rights Reserved - Debra J.M. Smith 03-25-13 less
Christina Gao juggles skating, Harvard studies
"See that statue of John Harvard?" she says. "Don't touch it, ever. People pee on his left foot."
As the legend goes, rubbing the foot brings good luck which is why tourists line up at the statue and why Harvard students, after a few drinks, relieve themselves on it.
Walk through the Skating Club of Boston with Gao and she sounds like any figure skating hopeful heading into U.S. Championships, which begin Thursday in Omaha with the women's short program.
After finishing fifth in the event the past three seasons and just about quitting the sport last year, Gao is having the best season of her career — while going to Harvard full time.
"I don't want to be No. 5 this year," she says. "I want to be better than No. 5 and I think this year I'm capable."
Other elite skaters have gone to Harvard, but none had the same success while taking a full course load. Olympians Paul Wylie and Emily Hughes went to Harvard, but Wylie attended part time before winning a silver medal at the 1992 Olympics and Hughes' career peaked prior to her enrollment. Hughes also took a semester off from school in a failed attempt to qualify for the 2010 Olympics.
Rachael Flatt, a 2010 Olympian, is a sophomore at Stanford but her skating career has stalled. She took this season off due to injuries.
So why is Gao having so much success? In part because she has no free time. Her fall semester consisted of classes in economics, calculus, Chinese for Heritage Students (her parents are Chinese immigrants) and the biology seminar "What Is Life?"
How did she do? "My parents were happy," she says. "Almost all A's."
Her fall semester also consisted of competing in Skate America, where she finished second behind Ashley Wagner, the favorite heading into nationals. In November, she was fourth at the Trophee Bompard in Paris. She was then a last-minute addition to the Grand Prix Final in Sochi, Russia, when one of the six qualifiers withdrew. Gao placed sixth.
"It was such a whirlwind," says her coach Peter Johansson. "We didn't know until four days before, and that was hard on her going into an event of that caliber not feeling prepared." Plus, Gao had final exams waiting for her as soon as she returned.
"It's a good balance," she says. "School keeps my mind busy, so I don't even think about skating. I don't get caught up in drama or high expectations. Before I had time to do that; now I don't have time."
Gao sleeps in the top bunk of a cramped dorm room with three other freshmen, an occasional cockroach and several mice.
Last semester, Gao's days began at 6 a.m. (not long after some of her roommates go to bed). Since the dining hall isn't open yet, she usually stops at a store to grab a yogurt. Then she either hops on bus No. 86 that stops by the rink or if the weather is nice, she'll walk.
When the semester began, she biked to the rink, which is about two miles away. Then her bike was stolen. So then she got the bright idea (she does go to Harvard) to use a scooter. When her coaches got wind of that injury-prone mode of transport, they quickly nixed it.
Most days she skates from 8 a.m. to 11 a.m., returns to class in the afternoon, the goes back to the rink for off-ice training. Some mornings, she's been tired enough to fall asleep while lacing her skates.
"Doing both complements each other," she said. " ... My body may be tired, but I'm not mentally tired, because I love skating. I love going to school here. When you're doing something you love, it's not work."
At Harvard, her classmates don't know she's an elite figure skater unless a professor happens to mention it. Early in the semester her new group of friends found out she was a skater when they all decided to Google each other.
She defies the ice princess stereotype in other ways. For lunch, she polishes off a chicken burrito bowl at Chipotle and waxes poetically about her love of Big Macs and french fries. Gao is a big fan of Harvard's dining hall, Annenberg Hall. "Doesn't it look just like Hogwarts?" she says as she peers through a window that does seem straight out of Harry Potter.
This life is opposite from her past three years. After her freshman year in high school in Cincinnati, where her parents work for Procter & Gamble, she moved to Toronto with her father to train under Brian Orser and took classes online.
However, after struggling last season, she decided she needed a change. She returned home last March and barely skated.
"I came in fifth three years in a row in nationals and I thought maybe I don't have anything left," she says. "It's fine. There's nothing wrong with just going to Harvard."
She took a summer internship at a hospital shadowing a gastroenterologist, a job she loved. But as the summer wore on, she contacted her coaches, Johansson and Mark Mitchell, about skating again. They told her they expected a full commitment to both skating and school for the arrangement to work.
"They are exactly what I needed," Gao says. "They really really push me. They don't take many excuses, unless you're injured."
Though Gao is battling a recent groin pull, Johansson thinks she'll be fine this week.
After nationals, she'll pick classes for next semester and then, who knows? A top-two finish would send her to worlds in March. If she doesn't go, there's school, preparation for next season's Olympic push and perhaps even some skating for fun.
Walking past an outdoor rink Harvard just finished, Gao says she'll be in demand. "All my friends want skating lessons," she says, smiling.
Cloudy, 44° F
A league of her own
With Harvard on hold, Christina Gao is skating to the top
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Photo by Elaine Thompson/Associated Press
It was the evening after the Four Continents competition in Japan, and the Harvard College freshman, who has been racing toward the top of the figure skating world, needed her fast-food fix — a salty counterpoint to the discipline, travel, and sacrifice a career in athletics demands, a career that recently led Gao to make the difficult decision to take a yearlong leave from Harvard to dedicate herself to Olympic training.
Gao placed fourth in the Four Continents competition, and got her reward in the form of a Big Mac. She then boarded a plane back to Boston, where she’s continuing her training, and where the busy Harvard world is just a train ride away.
“It wasn’t an easy decision,” said Gao, who also recently placed fifth at the nationals. “I wasn’t able to work out my courses to fit my schedule, and so I decided to take this year to train. Harvard will always be here for me, but the chance to try for the Olympics doesn’t happen very often.”
Raised in Cincinnati, Gao began skating when she was 7. “It began as just an after-school activity,” she recalled, “but started growing into more than that, and soon I was training three or four hours a day.”
As a high schooler, Gao uprooted to Toronto, where she could focus on training, taking courses through online correspondence, and traveling to 11 countries over the past few years while competing with Team USA.
When she visited Harvard to skate in An Evening With Champions, “I knew this was where I wanted to be,” she giddily confessed.
Gao’s down-to-earth personality could be attributed to her Midwestern roots. She offers no pretense about her concentration of choice: “I have no clue,” she said. “There are so many neat things to dive into and I’m excited to have the opportunity to discover what I’m passionate about.”
But Gao is passionate about skating, its peaks and pitfalls. “It’s really hard most of the time. I’m always tired and sore, and sometimes I don’t think I can handle it. But in the end, I always seem to push through, I think because I truly love it,” she said.
“I’ve had an amazing time at Harvard so far. I had to balance skating and school, which was hard at first, but very rewarding. I found a nice balance between the two. School kept my mind sharp, while skating kept me physically sharp. I’d train three hours in the morning, go to class, and then go back to the rink for another hour of training. It was definitely tough, and sometimes I wanted to give up, but I’m glad I pushed through.”
As Gao moves forward with the 2014 Olympics in mind, she’ll be contending not just with competitors, but herself. “I get really nervous when I compete,” Gao said.
To counter that, like many athletes, she has some superstitious practices (though fewer, she said, than she used to): “I always put my left skate on first, and I usually try to take a nap before I compete.”
Another necessary ritual? McDonald’s, of course — post-competition, at the airport, before the flight home.
So far, it all seems to be working. Gao garnered a silver medal at Skate America in 2012, and that year placed fifth in the U.S. Figure Skating Championships.
If it ain’t broke, why fix it?
-
The Semi-Annual Sale
- All Sale & Specials
- $29 & Under Bikinis
- $39 & Under Bikinis
- 2/$35 Bikini Separates
- Up to 50% Off Clearance
-
Swim Finder
-
Features
-
Shop by Category
-
Shop by Collection
-
Shop by Top
-
Shop by Bottom
-
Self-Tanners & Bronzers
-
Gift Cards
Victoria's Secret Draws Parental Ire Over 'Bright Young Things'
Victoria's Secret is known for its risque fashions, but some parents think the brand has crossed the line with items in their "Bright Young Things" campaign. A father wrote an open letter, parents started a petition and a Facebook page was created alleging that the provocative underwear was targeted at teen and tween girls.
Items in the PINK campaign with the slogan "Bright Young Things" reportedly include underwear with words and phrases like "dare you," "feeling lucky" and "call me" on the front and back. PINK is the line of items at Victoria's Secret targeted at younger women.
Links that appear to be to the products are re-directing to the Victoria's Secrets homepage so it is unclear if the company has removed the products. Representatives for the company did not wish to comment beyond a statement that was posted on their Facebook page insisting that "Bright Young Things" was simply a slogan.
A Texas father of a 3-year-old girl wrote and open letter to the company that has gone viral.
"I don't want my daughter to ever think that her self-worth and acceptance by others is based on the choice of her undergarments," Evan Dolive wrote. "I don't want my daughter to ever think that to be popular or even attractive she has to have emblazon words on her bottom."
"I want my daughter (and every girl) to be faced with tough decisions in her formative years of adolescence," he wrote. "Decisions like should I be a doctor or a lawyer? Should I take calculus as a junior or a senior? Do I want to go to Texas A&M or University of Texas or some Ivy League school? Should I raise awareness for slave trafficking or lack of water in developing nations? There are many, many more questions that all young women should be asking themselves…not will a boy (or girl) like me if I wear a 'call me' thong?"
Victoria's Secret insists that the "Bright Young Things" was just a slogan used to coincide with spring break and not a new collection targeted at younger girls.
"In response to questions we recently received, Victoria's Secret PINK is a brand for college-aged women. Despite recent rumors, we have no plans to introduce a collection for younger women. 'Bright Young Things' was a slogan used in conjunction with the college spring break tradition," the company posted on their Facebook page.
Their post received 1,300 comments and 1,000 shares on Facebook so far, continuing the debate for and against the ads.
"OK honestly who cares if they are wanting to reach out to a younger crowd? Isn't that the point of business, to expand their fields and make money? Besides, anyone who has shopped VS knows their PINK line is no where near considered sexy," one woman wrote defending the brand.
"Disgusted. Just own up to your mistakes instead of denying them. I will never shop at Victoria's secret again. You really think 'I dare you' undies are aimed at college aged women? I think not," another commenter wrote.
Comments made by Victoria's Secret chief financial officer Stuart Burgdoerfer in January are also drawing fire.
"When somebody's 15 or 16 years old, what do they want to be?" Burgdoerfer said at a conference, according to Bloomberg. "They want to be older, and they want to be cool like the girl in college, and that's part of the magic of what we do at Pink."
Additionally, there is a "Dear Victoria's Secret: Pull 'Bright Young Things'" Facebook page and a Change.org petition penned by a mother of three in Washington that has more than 1,000 supporters.
Angels’ in Hell: The Culture of Misogyny Inside Victoria’s Secret
A Times investigation found widespread bullying and harassment of employees and models. The company expresses “regret.
Victoria’s Secret defined femininity for millions of women. Its catalog and fashion shows were popular touchstones. For models, landing a spot as an “Angel” all but guaranteed international stardom.
But inside the company, two powerful men presided over an entrenched culture of misogyny, bullying and harassment, according to interviews with more than 30 current and former executives, employees, contractors and models, as well as court filings and other documents.
Ed Razek, for decades one of the top executives at L Brands, the parent company of Victoria’s Secret, was the subject of repeated complaints about inappropriate conduct. He tried to kiss models. He asked them to sit on his lap. He touched one’s crotch ahead of the 2018 Victoria’s Secret fashion show.
Executives said they had alerted Leslie Wexner, the billionaire founder and chief executive of L Brands, about his deputy’s pattern of behavior. Some women who complained faced retaliation. One model, Andi Muise, said Victoria’s Secret had stopped hiring her for its fashion shows after she rebuffed Mr. Razek’s advances.
A number of the brand’s models agreed to pose nude, often without being paid, for a prominent Victoria’s Secret photographer who later used some pictures in an expensive coffee-table book — an arrangement that made L Brands executives uncomfortable about women feeling pressured to take their clothes off.
The atmosphere was set at the top. Mr. Razek, the chief marketing officer, was perceived as Mr. Wexner’s proxy, leaving many employees with the impression he was invincible, according to current and former employees. On multiple occasions, Mr. Wexner himself was heard demeaning women.
“What was most alarming to me, as someone who was always raised as an independent woman, was just how ingrained this behavior was,” said Casey Crowe Taylor, a former public relations employee at Victoria’s Secret who said she had witnessed Mr. Razek’s conduct. “This abuse was just laughed off and accepted as normal. It was almost like brainwashing. And anyone who tried to do anything about it wasn’t just ignored. They were punished.”
The interviews with the models and employees add to a picture of Victoria’s Secret as a troubled organization, an image that was already coming into focus last year when Mr. Wexner’s ties to the sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein became public. Mr. Epstein, who managed Mr. Wexner’s multibillion-dollar fortune, lured some young women by posing as a recruiter for Victoria’s Secret models.
L Brands, the publicly traded company that also owns Bath & Body Works, is on the brink of a high-stakes transition. The annual Victoria’s Secret fashion show has been canceled after nearly two decades on network TV. Mr. Razek, 71, stepped down from L Brands in August. And Mr. Wexner, 82, is exploring plans to retire and to sell the lingerie company, people familiar with the matter said.
As those plans progress, L Brands’ treatment of women is likely to come under even closer scrutiny.
In response to detailed questions from The New York Times, Tammy Roberts Myers, a spokeswoman for L Brands, provided a statement on behalf of the board’s independent directors. She said that the company “is intensely focused” on corporate governance, workplace and compliance practices and that it had “made significant strides.”
“We regret any instance where we did not achieve this objective and are fully committed to continuous improvement and complete accountability,” she said. The statement did not dispute any of The Times’s reporting.
Mr. Razek said in an email: “The accusations in this reporting are categorically untrue, misconstrued or taken out of context. I’ve been fortunate to work with countless, world-class models and gifted professionals and take great pride in the mutual respect we have for each other.” He declined to comment on a detailed list of allegations.
Thomas Davies, a spokesman for Mr. Wexner, declined to comment.
Fiery Explosions
Victoria’s Secret, which Mr. Wexner bought for $1 million in 1982 and turned into a lingerie powerhouse, is struggling.
The societal norms defining beauty and sexiness have been changing for years, with a greater value on a wide range of body types, skin colors and gender identities. Victoria’s Secret hasn’t kept pace. Some of its ad campaigns, for example, seem more like a stereotypical male fantasy — the director Michael Bay filmed a TV spot in which scantily clad models strutted in front of helicopters, motorcycles and fiery explosions — than a realistic encapsulation of what women want.
With its sales declining, Victoria’s Secret has been closing stores. Shares of L Brands have fallen more than 75 percent from their 2015 peak.
Six current and former executives said in interviews that when they tried to steer the company away from what one called its “porny” image, they were rebuffed. Three said they had been driven out of the company.
Criticism of Victoria’s Secret’s anachronistic marketing went viral in 2018 when Mr. Razek expressed no interest in casting plus-size and “transsexual” models in the fashion show.
Then, last summer, Mr. Epstein was charged with sex trafficking, and the festering business problems at Victoria’s Secret escalated into a public crisis.
Mr. Wexner and Mr. Epstein had been tight. The retail tycoon gave the financier carte blanche to manage his billions, elevating Mr. Epstein’s stature and affording him an opulent lifestyle. Mr. Wexner has said he and Mr. Epstein parted ways around 2007, the year after Florida prosecutors charged him with a sex crime.
On multiple occasions from 1995 through 2006, Mr. Epstein lied to aspiring models that he worked for Victoria’s Secret and could help them land gigs. He invited them for auditions, which at least twice ended with Mr. Epstein assaulting them, according to the women and court filings.
Three L Brands executives said Mr. Wexner was alerted in the mid-1990s about Mr. Epstein’s attempts to recruit women. The executives said there was no sign that Mr. Wexner had acted on the complaints.
After Mr. Epstein’s arrest last summer, L Brands said, it hired the law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell to conduct “a thorough review” of the matter at the request of its board of directors. The exact focus of the review is unclear. Mr. Epstein committed suicide in jail in August while he awaited trial on federal sex-trafficking charges.
Davis Polk has worked for L Brands for years. Mr. Wexner’s wife, Abigail, previously worked at the firm. Dennis S. Hersch, a former L Brands board member and a financial adviser to the Wexners, was a longtime partner at Davis Polk. The law firm also has contributed money to Ohio State University’s Wexner Center for the Arts.
Employees interviewed for this article said Davis Polk had not contacted them.
A Davis Polk spokeswoman didn’t respond to requests for comment.
‘Someplace Sexy to Take You’
Then, last summer, Mr. Epstein was charged with sex trafficking, and the festering business problems at Victoria’s Secret escalated into a public crisis.
Mr. Wexner and Mr. Epstein had been tight. The retail tycoon gave the financier carte blanche to manage his billions, elevating Mr. Epstein’s stature and affording him an opulent lifestyle. Mr. Wexner has said he and Mr. Epstein parted ways around 2007, the year after Florida prosecutors charged him with a sex crime.
On multiple occasions from 1995 through 2006, Mr. Epstein lied to aspiring models that he worked for Victoria’s Secret and could help them land gigs. He invited them for auditions, which at least twice ended with Mr. Epstein assaulting them, according to the women and court filings.
“With
the exception of Les, I’ve been with L Brands longer than anyone,” Mr.
Razek wrote to employees in August when he announced he was leaving the
company he had joined in 1983.
Mr. Razek was instrumental in
selecting the brand’s supermodels — known as “Angels” and bestowed with
enormous, feathery wings — and in creating the company’s macho TV ads.
But his biggest legacy was the annual fashion show, which became a global cultural phenomenon.
“That’s
really where he sunk his teeth into the business,” said Cynthia
Fedus-Fields, the former chief executive of the Victoria’s Secret
division responsible for its catalog. By 2000, she said, Mr. Razek had
grown so powerful that “he spoke for Les.”
Sometimes Mr. Wexner spoke for himself.
In
March, at a meeting at Victoria’s Secret headquarters in Columbus,
Ohio, an employee asked Mr. Wexner what he thought about the retail
industry’s embrace of different body types. He was dismissive.
“Nobody goes to a plastic surgeon and says, ‘Make me fat,’” Mr. Wexner replied, according to two attendees.
Mr.
Razek often reminded models that their careers were in his hands,
according to models and current and former executives who heard his
remarks.
Alyssa Miller, who had been an occasional Victoria’s
Secret model, described Mr. Razek as someone who exuded “toxic
masculinity.” She summed up his attitude as: “I am the holder of the
power. I can make you or break you.”
Image
Andi Muise in 2007. After rebuffing Mr. Razek’s advances, she said, she was left out of the 2008 Victoria’s Secret show.
At
castings, Mr. Razek sometimes asked models in their bras and underwear
for their phone numbers, according to three people who witnessed his
advances. He urged others to sit on his lap. Two models said he had
asked them to have private dinners with him.
One was Ms. Muise.
In 2007, after two years of wearing the coveted angel wings in the
Victoria’s Secret runway show, the 19-year-old was invited to dinner
with Mr. Razek. She was excited to cultivate a professional relationship
with one of the fashion industry’s most powerful men, she said.
Mr.
Razek picked her up in a chauffeured car. On the way to the restaurant,
he tried to kiss her, she said. Ms. Muise rebuffed him; Mr. Razek
persisted.
For months, he sent her intimate emails, which The
Times reviewed. At one point he suggested they move in together in his
house in Turks and Caicos. Another time, he urged Ms. Muise to help him
find a home in the Dominican Republic for them to share.
“I need someplace sexy to take you!” he wrote.
Ms.
Muise maintained a polite tone in her emails, trying to protect her
career. When Mr. Razek asked her to come to his New York home for
dinner, Ms. Muise said the prospect of dining alone with Mr. Razek made
her uneasy; she skipped the dinner.
She soon learned that for the first time in four years, Victoria’s Secret had not picked her for its 2008 fashion show.
‘Forget the Panties’
The 2017 fashion show. Mr. Razek’s behavior at a fitting a year later led to a complaint to human resources.
In
2018, at a fitting ahead of the fashion show, the supermodel Bella
Hadid was being measured for underwear that would meet broadcast
standards. Mr. Razek sat on a couch, watching.
“Forget the
panties,” he declared, according to three people who were there and a
fourth who was told about it. The bigger question, he said, was whether
the TV network would let Ms. Hadid walk “down the runway with those
perfect titties.” (One witness remembered Mr. Razek using the word
“breasts,” not “titties.”)
At the same fitting, Mr. Razek placed his hand on another model’s underwear-clad crotch, three people said.
An
employee complained to the human resources department about Mr. Razek’s
behavior, according to three people. The employee presented H.R. with a
document last summer listing more than a dozen allegations about Mr.
Razek, including his demeaning comments and inappropriate touching of
women, according to a copy of the document reviewed by The Times.
It wasn’t the first H.R. complaint about him.
At
a photo shoot in June 2015, the company put out a buffet lunch for
staff. Ms. Crowe Taylor, the public relations employee, went to get
seconds. Mr. Razek intercepted her, she said. He blocked her path and
looked her up and down. Then, with dozens of people watching and Ms.
Crowe Taylor holding her empty plate, he tore into her, berating her
about her weight and telling her to lay off the pasta and bread.
Ms.
Crowe Taylor, who was 5-foot-10 and 140 pounds, fled to a bathroom and
burst into tears. She said that she had complained to H.R. but that as
far as she could tell, nothing happened. She quit weeks later.
In
October, shortly after Mr. Razek had left the company, Monica Mitro, a
top public-relations executive at Victoria’s Secret, lodged a harassment
complaint against him with a former member of the L Brands board of
directors, according to five people familiar with the matter. She told
colleagues that she had gone to the former director because she didn’t
trust the H.R. department.
The next day, the head of H.R. told
Ms. Mitro that she was being placed on administrative leave, the people
said. She recently reached a financial settlement with the company, they
said.
Mr. Razek’s son, Scott, also worked at Victoria’s Secret.
Sometime after the H.R. department was told about his mistreatment of a
female colleague, he was transferred to Bath & Body Works, according
to four people familiar with the matter. He didn’t respond to requests
for comment.
The woman he mistreated later received a settlement from Victoria’s Secret, according to several current and former employees.
Mr.
Wexner was seldom in New York, where much of the fashion show’s staff
was based, leaving employees with the impression that Mr. Razek was his
proxy. Mr. Razek flaunted that power, invoking Mr. Wexner’s name to get
his way.
Even as complaints piled up, the elder Mr. Razek
maintained Mr. Wexner’s support. In 2013, Mr. Wexner helped raise a $1.2
million fund in Mr. Razek’s name at Ohio State University’s cancer
center.
‘A Voyeuristic Journey’
Image
Russell James collected
his nude photographs of Victoria’s Secret models in a book that sells
for $1,800 and $3,600.Credit...Julie Glassberg for The New York Times
Russell
James was one of Victoria’s Secret’s go-to photographers. The company
at times paid him tens of thousands of dollars a day, according to draft
contracts reviewed by The Times.
At the end of sessions with
models, Mr. James sometimes asked if they would be photographed nude,
according to models and L Brands executives. Mr. James was popular; he
had a knack for making women feel comfortable. He also had a close
relationship with Mr. Razek. The women often consented.
The
nude photo shoots weren’t covered under the models’ contracts with
Victoria’s Secret, which meant they weren’t paid for the extra work.
In
the industry, “everyone is using their influence to get something,”
said Ms. Miller, the model. “With Russell, it was getting girls to pose
for his books or portrait series nude.”
In 2014, Mr. James
published a glossy collectors’ book, “Angels,” which featured some of
the nude photos. The women agreed to have their photos included in the
book, according to Martin Singer, a lawyer for Mr. James.
Two
versions of the books currently sell on Mr. James’s website for $1,800
and $3,600. Victoria’s Secret hosted a launch event for “Angels” during
New York fashion week in 2014. Attendees included supermodels and the
company’s chief executive at the time, Sharen Turney.
“This ample
volume offers an unprecedented and personal view into James’s most
intimate portrait sittings,” the book’s jacket says, noting that Mr.
James met many of the women during his 15 years working for Victoria’s
Secret. “Readers will be taken on a voyeuristic journey into a world of
subtle provocation.”
At one point, a poster-size version
of one of the book’s photos was displayed in a Victoria’s Secret store
in Las Vegas. The model’s agent complained to Victoria’s Secret that his
client’s photo was being used in the store without her consent. Mr.
James also complained about it and asked for it to be removed, according
to Mr. Singer. The company took down the photo.
In 2010, Alison
Nix, a 22-year-old model who had worked occasionally with Victoria’s
Secret, was invited to attend a weekend event to raise money for the
nonprofit foundation run by Richard Branson’s Virgin Group. The venue
was Mr. Branson’s private Necker Island in the Caribbean.
The
live-streamed event, hosted by Mr. Branson and Mr. James, was billed as
featuring “some of the world’s most stunning supermodels.”
Mr.
James with Richard Branson, the Virgin Group billionaire, at an event
promoting Mr. James’s book “Angels” in 2014.Credit...Michael
Loccisano/Getty Images for Victoria's Secret
Ms. Nix said her
agent had told her that if she chose to go on the all-expenses-paid
trip, she’d be expected to pose for nude beach photos shot by Mr. James.
She said that was fine. She was left with the impression, she said,
that “if Russell likes you, you could start working with Victoria’s
Secret.”
Mr. Singer, the lawyer for Mr. James, said his
client had no influence over whom Victoria’s Secret selected as models.
He said models were not required to pose for photos, nude or otherwise.
He said Mr. James had agreed to shoot the nude photos at Necker Island
at the request of the models and their agents “as a favor and
professional courtesy.”
Ms. Nix called Mr. Singer’s comments “absurd.”
She
said that she and other models who attended the event were provided
with copious amounts of alcohol and were expected to mingle with men,
including Mr. Branson.
“We were shipped out there, and all these
rich men were flirting with us,” she recalled. She said the models were
asking themselves, “Are we here as high-end prostitutes or for charity?”
The
last day on the island, Ms. Nix said, she and at least three other
models lined up to have their nude photos shot by Mr. James.
A
spokeswoman for Mr. Branson said he had “no knowledge of anyone being
invited to the event for any reason” beside the charity fund-raiser.
Two
photos of Ms. Nix from that weekend — one, in profile, with her breasts
obscured but her bare bottom exposed — appeared near the middle of Mr.
James’s “Angels” book, with her consent.
Ms. Nix never landed another modeling gig with Victoria’s Secret. Was she disappointed?
“To be honest, I didn’t expect much after the trip,” she said. “I could tell I wasn’t right for the brand.”
Emily Steel and Mike Baker contributed reporting. Susan Beachy contributed research.
Editors’ Note: Oct. 21, 2020
This
article referred imprecisely to the activities of Russell James, a
prominent fashion photographer. Mr. James was one of several
photographers used regularly by Victoria’s Secret, which oversaw the
casting and styling for the shoots. Mr. James had no connection to the
incidents of harassment involving Victoria's Secret executives that were
reported at the company's offices and events. While Mr. James
photographed certain models nude, including for his book "Angels," no
model interviewed claimed he coerced her to do so, and at times women
requested to be photographed by Mr. James. The Necker Island event,
where some of the nude shots were taken, was organized as a charity
event for a women’s health initiative.
