So now that we’ve gotten that little caveat post out of the way, let’s chat…
Let’s chat about a certain seriously attractive young lingerie model: Adriana Lima.
Here’s what we know about Adriana:
She is a church-going, devoted Catholic.
She remained chaste until marriage (let’s just take her word on that one, girls).
She has always wanted to be a wife and mother and is newly married and expecting her first child later this year.
She does not believe in birth control (for us Catholics that says a lot about her devotion to her faith).
She carries a Bible with her and often reads it backstage at fashion shows.
She is happy to share her faith and is unapologetic about it.
She is, according to statements she has made, faithful to her understanding of Church teaching.
Now here is what I want you to forget about Adriana Lima, just for the sake of argument:
She has posed nude in various print work.
And here is what I would LOVE to hear your opinion on:
How do you feel about lingerie models? Do you think pictures of women clothed only in lingerie, in order to sell said lingerie, it’s an offense against modesty? Or is it just fine because ultimately lingerie catalogs are intended to serve and be seen by women? Would you prefer it if lingerie retailers used only mannequins? After all, men grab the mail from the mailbox just as often as we women do. Or is it the responsibility of men to guard their eyes? (I think we can agree that ideally risque images should not be put on display in malls or on the covers of catalogs.) Do you find it helpful to view lingerie on real women (even though they may not have “normal” bodies, being lingerie models and all) before buying things through catalogs or on the Internet? Is it demeaning for women to use their scantily clad bodies to sell merchandise even when the target audience is fellow women and displaying the product in question necessitates wearing little in the way of clothing?
And finally, keeping all those things in mind, do you think Adriana Lima, an outspoken supporter of abstinence before marriage and devoted Christian, is doing anything wrong by modeling lingerie? (Again, let’s pretend she had not posed nude in the past.)
I’m on the fence (though I’m leaning heavily in one direction). Anyone care to give me a push?
Take care, girls!
BB
Lingerie models can be helpful if they are shaped like the average woman, but that's pretty rare to find. While the lingerie is meant to be worn by women, many of the ads I have seen seem to cater to men. I am surprised that a Christian would model lingerie, since as Christians we are instructed to avoid things that may cause a fellow believer to stumble. I would be interested in knowing her opinion about her modeling.
I think the answer lies in the intent. I went to a small Christian college where I was shocked when a close Catholic friend of mine told me she was working on a nude drawing as part of her class and happened to be one of the students drawing the front of the male model.
She explained why she didn't have a problem with it and it stems from Theology of the Body. Truly, our bodies are a work of art and originally (Adam and Eve) were not meant to be covered. It is our fallen nature that prevents us from feeling to look at each other and just see children of God instead of the "object" many men see in those photos.
Would I be comfortable posing like that – no! I don't think anyone else needs to see that much of me. Do I fault a model who is able to witness her faith to a crowd that probably doesn't get much of it? My answer is the same – no. We are all unique and maybe it is God's role for her.
My reaction may come as a surprise to most who know me since I am seen as the "conservative" in the crowd and plan to teach NFP. I try to live my faith and life the way I feel God is leading me to and I can only hope/assume she is doing the same.
I have no problems with her work. I once had to take a Sexual Discrimination Class and one MAN said Women should be forced to wear dresses so we don't get bad thoughts about them and another stood up and said when women wear dresses it sexual excites me and they should be force to wear only jeans. Why worry about men. If lingerie is being modeled I have no problems with them being real.
I'm glad she live her values. Modeling is her work. Maybe on the not real modest but she seems to be ok with her work.
Sadly, I think she is representing a double standard. Let's face it, lingerie modeling, as it is presented now, caters to men, not to the women who would wear said lingerie. The models are posed in provocative positions, and the ads are too prevalent to be catering to women. I don't believe such marketing can possibly be conducive to promoting a message of modesty or chastity.
Just my two cents.
I don't think it is necessary for lingerie to be modeled honestly. Most women who buy lingerie are not shaped like models anyway so what's the point of seeing a bra on a "perfectly" shaped woman and then trying it on yourself only to be disappointed. :)
I do not think there is a legitimate need for it.
I also don't agree with a strong Christian doing so. Most pics of lingerie models are seductive, sexy and trying to arouse a certain feeling in either women or men. "buy this bra and you can be as alluring as this model" it's all about sex and I am so sick of it.
Would she pose in lingerie in front of Christ?
Do you think the Blessed Mother would have posed in lingerie?
Do you think anyone would get a case for canonization if they had that past?
Definitely not. And we should all be striving for sainthood.
"Whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is PURE, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things." Philippians 4:8
I think going so far as to say someone would “Definitely not” get a case for canonization with that past is a bit extreme. There are some canonized saints with far more scandalous pasts than a lingerie model (St. Augustine comes to mind).
That said, I think the whole “sex sells” attitude definitely needs some changing.
It is a tricky one, isn't it? I think maybe you are asking two different questions. 1) Should there be lingerie models? and 2) Is this model sinning by being one?
I guess it goes back to my opinion about skirts vs. pants. Do I think that skirts should still be the norm for women? Yes. Do I think that women sin by choosing to wear pants? No.
I'm not sure that lingerie models are necessary, but I'm not sure we can judge an individual, either. I tend to think that, even if I looked perfect, it would be immodest for *me* to be a lingerie model, but the church leaves so much of this up to individual discernment.
Personally I do not consider nudity to be sexual by definition, and I do not feel offended by the sight of other people in states of undress provided that it is in an appropriate situation (in a changing room, for example).
I believe that the context of undress is extremely important – for example with swimwear. Would I wear a swimsuit on a city street? Never. But I wear one at the beach. (It's actually a swim-dress, but I still wouldn't wear it anywhere else.)
It wouldn't surprise me that this lingerie model believes that she is simply displaying a product and that modeling does not have any sexual connotations for her. Is it necessarily her fault that men go out of their way to use lingerie catalogs in a pornographic way?
(As an extension of this argument: I'm a nurse, and where I work we don't have scrubs like in the US, but wear either white tunics with trousers, or white dresses. Nurses in white dresses have a long tradition of being "sex objects" – does this mean that I am at fault for causing men to stumble while at work?)
I agree that lingerie catalogs ought to have a subtle cover and perhaps also be posted in envelopes so that no one unwittingly looks inside (for example if the catalog were to fall open). But the point of lingerie is also to look and feel pretty and feminine, and I think that most of us wives wouldn't consider it a sin to use lingerie to make ourselves appealing to our husbands. Otherwise we all can just get us some grandma panties and be done with it. This justifies a certain amount of leeway in advertising, IMO – models standing or sitting in lingerie sets should be ok. (Overtly sexual poses not so much.)
This is tough. While she seems to be living her faith honestly, I'm not sure it's the impression we need to be giving for Christianity. If the body is to be given the respect it deserves, then it can't be plastered all over the place in seductive poses showing more skin than fabric. On the other hand, I agree with the commenter above who noted that the body and the lingerie themselves aren't anything to be ashamed of – we, as wives, want to use both to please our husbands.
I guess my main problem isn't with Lingerie ads specifically, but with sexualization being used so visibly everywhere we turn. By putting herself and her body on display like this just adds fuel to the fire of our society being comfortable with sex-laden pictures. Which leads to a sense of complacency – naked bodies in sexual poses become fine and dandy. Or, they already ARE fine and dandy :) What next?
Hmm. Tricky. While Catholic teaching has always celebrated the beauty of the human body portrayed with reverence, most recently in Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body, it has also always warned against art which denigrates the subject.
What makes art different from pornography? The intention of the person portrayed–to excite arousal rather than turn the eye to God–and the intention of the viewer–to look upon the person as an object rather than an embodied spirit worthy of respect.
With regard to lingerie modeling, it seems to me to fall into the pornography camp. The look on the faces of Victoria Secrets models screams "Come hither" and their poses certainly don't seem intended to inspire reverence and love for God.
God help dear Miss Ana, but I think she is very confused and has a big blind spot about a key aspect of chastity, namely treasuring and safeguarding the body from those who would objectify it.
I think we're kidding ourselves if we believe that lingerie catalogs and advertising are out there for the sake of women who are shopping for something special to share with their husbands. That thought also implies, coming from a Christian, that they are further only intended for married women's viewing. A single glance at her modeling and that of other VS ads clearly indicate that they are for the sake of men.
Satan distorts what is beautiful. I don't believe that there is anything wrong with the use of lingerie in marriage. I do believe it is wrong for men to be tempted by "advertising" and women to be sucked into believing that they are inadequate.
Yes, I do think that her choice of work is incompatible with her professed faith. She may not have had much of a chance for further formation, and I pray that the faith that she has now will lead her in a direction of modesty.
God created us good, including our bodies, but we are fallen creatures. Any man who is honest with himself, any man who is pursuing excellence in the Christian walk, any man who truly honors himself as beloved of God, would avert his eyes at the sight of this woman. He would try desperately to keep his mind and his heart pure. As women, it is hard for us to understand the struggle men are in in this culture with the constant bombardment of twisted sexual lies. They deserve better, and Christian women posing provocatively in their undergarments are NOT honoring their Lord or their brothers.
Sorry to divert, but this brings up a related topic…I've been wondering about the "okayness" of women figure competitors and the 3 square inches of material they wear during competitions. I tend to fall in the "context" category, as a previous poster alluded, so I'm fine with my running shorts and lycra running tops for my 5:30 am runs…but I don't wear that to the grocery store.
What I tell my sons is that if it's not okay for your mother or sister to participate in (as in porn)…then you shouldn't be involved with it either…so I think any woman out there who doesn't feel it's okay to be a lingerie model should not be browsing the VS catalogs.
That being said, I wish lingerie companies (and all other clothing manuf. in general) would focus on pretty and charming rather than sexy "come hither."
Hmmm, this seems related to a topic I plan to tackle this weekend!!
Hi Betty B!
I agree with Rebekka. I don't think modeling lingerie is necessarily sexual. The magazines are meant to be seen by women. That would be like saying girls changing in a locker room is immodest. Women should be responsible for the catalogs and not have them lying around but it's not pornography.
For some reason, the comment on Ms. Ana not being up for canonization rubbed me the wrong way.. It sounds to me like she's got a good head on her shoulders and perhaps the Lord is using her as a witness in a world that would not otherwise see such a Christ-like light. I think it's okay to discern the holiness in an action, but not in a person. Only she and God know that.
Caitie
I just read over the comments again, and I did want to point out that someone modeling for Victoria Secret is not the same thing as someone modeling for JC Penny.
I don't know who the model in question works for, but a woman standing smiling in a catalog demonstrating the clasp on a nursing bra is still a "lingerie model."
While I still think its tricky determining what is okay, I don't think it is fair to use VS ads as the standard for determining whether modeling lingerie at all is acceptable. I would think most could all agree that VS ads cross the line and are not intended merely to present options to women in a non-suggestive way. Afterall, they broadcast their show on national television.
Hi!
Nice post!
Do you read portuguese? I wrote a article about your answer here:
http://modaemodestia.wordpress.com/artigos/terceira-posicao-sobre-modestia/
(It´s a third position (the first and second "position" are in english)
Thanks,
God BLess
Julie Maria
Hmm…after reading all the other comments…here's why I think it's wrong for a practicing Catholic to be a lingerie model.
First of all, I'm European. I have no problem with nudity or being nude or going to a naked beach (not that I have ever been to one). At first I was going to say, yes, sure it's fine to be a lingerie model if you're Catholic,
but after reading some of the comments and asking my husband's opinion, here's what I think.
1) Lingerie Models are unnecessary. We're going to have to try the bra on anyways.
2) In this day an age, nudity is not what it used to be. Sure, if it is drawing a nude person in art class, that is one thing…but having seductive pictures of women in magazines/billboards/ads in the Sunday paper…is no good.
My husband put it this way: Nowadays, nudity is pornography.
Sadly, I that is true.
BB – your caveats post mystifies me – how can anyone think you are anything but down-to-earth and lovely?! This post is yet another example.
In Ami's defense, she is Brazilian, and the standards for modesty there, and in the modeling world for that matter, are much different. Scantily-clad supermodels are here to stay, IMO. I am glad that she is in a position to witness to the modeling world – some of those women are very messed up. I find that my best witnessing efforts are unintentional, just being a "normal" person who practices the faith.
Even in countries where women are required to be fully covered, women are sexualized and lusted after. Original sin is also here to stay. I would never want to live in a place where we didn't have the choice of what to wear.
I was trying to get my words together, and then I read what Leigh@orgnaicsmama said. So, just read hers again. She hit it on the nail.
I agree wholeheartedly with Leigh's comment.
The only question this model should be asking herself is, "Would I model lingerie in front of Christ?"
I don't think it's necessarily bad, but the problem I have with it is that everyone knows that lingerie ads and magazines are taken to bathrooms and used as porn and food for men's fantasies. So… with that in mind, I would say it's unwise. If it was just to sell lingerie, fine. Problem is, that is not all that lingerie ads are used for.
When folks participate in something questionable for a Christian, claiming they are "witnessing", my husband jokingly pipes up with "Prostitutes for Jesus!" I know, a bit irreverent, but his point is that there are certain things that undermine your witness and send mixed messages.
Also, what's the point of live models? It would be cheaper for the company to use mannequins. There obviously is another motive here, and it's all about sexual fantasies – for men and women.
Saints have been canonized with horrible sins in their past. St. Augustine had an illegitimate child, Bl. Doris Day (or is she a saint already?) had an abortion in her past.
I don't understand the condemnation since EVERYONE has sin and no one is worthy of canonization.
Many a saint has been converted later in life.
That being said, modesty is modesty, no matter what your profession. I avert my eyes if I'm at the mall or in the grocery line w/ magazines. Someone already mentioned that in the end every woman has to try on their own undergarments.
But, I wonder, what IS the purpose of a lingerie model? If the model is beautiful and "perfect" isn't the focus more on the body instead of the garments? I would say that modeling lingerie is NOT morally neutral.
Which then has me wrestling with the question of swimwear and competitive swimming. My oldest dd swims competively and while she's dressed appropriately for swim meets, I'm torn. She covers up as soon as she gets out of the water. And doesn't use public showers. For recreational swimming she uses a cover up.
Still, is there a difference btwn this and modeling lingerie?
Great discussion!
Lillian,
I believe you meant Dorothy Day, not the still living actress Doris Day. She is neither a blessed or a saint, yet. Her cause has been opened for canonization but as such she is considered a Servant of God. That aside, yes, the vast majority of saints had sins in their pasts. The point was they repented and changed their ways. Dorothy Day repented of her abortion and it haunted her until her dying day. Not only did she repent she worked diligently against the proponents of contraception and abortion for the rest of her life.
Anyhow, I agree with the rest of what you posted.
I should have clarified that I meant that anyone being considered for sainthood would not be still living a somewhat questionable life. Yes many saints have horrible sins, but they all turned away and repented of them.
Just wanted to clarify what I meant :)
Love all the comments.
"Would she pose in lingerie in front of Christ?"
I think that is pretty funny and irrelevant, since you could say that just about anything..like: Would you have sex in front of Christ? – … cause as a matter of fact, we do. LOL. And whether Mary would wear lingerie – again, beside the point and misleading. Would the mother of God wear a bathing suit? What kind would it be? Would it be a one-piece or a bikini, God forbid… This stuff is irrelevant when it comes to determining morality.
That said, I think modeling lingerie has its place and necessity. Whether lingerie should look the way VS sees it, is a different question. Obviously for people who believe sex has its place in marriage, the use and presentation of lingerie will be slightly different than for people who view sex as a fun hobby. I haven't seen a lingerie store catered to the former though.
I guess for me the question is more, would a truly devout girl, who is trying to put God's will firt really find purpose and meaning in modeling lingerie? Really? THAT is what is confusing here. Would a spiritual person find it fulfilling to use their body for something like this? Personally, i can't see it, but i don't know adriana lima, so i really can't say.
Dinka,
I think it is completely relevant whether she would pose in front of Christ. Yes, you can say that about anything and that is exactly the point.
Our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit and Christ is everywhere and can see everything.
If we can always keep that in our heads it would make us think twice about doing or saying certain things.
And as for the Mother of God, isn't she the only other perfect model of a human being (other than Christ) that we are called to strive to live like? If she lived in this day and age, would she pose half naked (and completely naked) just to witness to the modeling world?
No. Enough said. If Christ wouldn't do it or the Blessed Mother then you should think twice about it.
When I was talking about her ability to witness, I was talking specifically to the modeling world. To them it is no big deal to see lots of body parts all the time. To them, her witness of being someone who believes in chastity and likes to read her Bible while being someone "just like them" could be an extremely powerful.
As to whether she would pose for Christ, my hypothesis is that she would. She is clearly a devoted Catholic and so I imagine that she feels comfortable with her [very public] profession. Otherwise, as a good Catholic girl wanting to be true to her faith, she would have dropped it. She probably sees her body as a gift and the pictures of herself as art.
If an artist believes it is art, does it make it so?
I knew when I posted my first comment that I would be in the minority, but I didn't realize by how much. VS is much different than a "Lover's Lane" or other adult store. They have cute and sexy and comfortable quality things that are nothing to be ashamed of and presenting that in an alluring way could help married women shop there – I know I have.
And as a woman who is concerned with modesty and would not pose in front of the world, I hope I would be willing to pose in front of Jesus in anything or nothing. He would just see my body as the piece of art that God created in His image. Satan will turn anything around including things with the best intentions.
As I said in my first comment, I hope she is living the life of faith that she feels led to live and good for her – I'm not going to blame her for it. Let's think of what a mortal sin contains: an act of a grave nature, knowing it is wrong, and doing it anyway.
Okay, lust is a grave nature – but is she being lustful or is she using one of her gifts (a beautiful image of God – her body) and inspiring women to get something nice for their husbands (at least some of the time). I would go with using one of her gifts. Does she "know" it is wrong – No. So the questions stop there. Just because some people sin, doesn't mean we all have to live in a bubble where we feel like we can't do anything. Just because some men will use the advertisements in a way that is lustful doesn't mean she caused them to do that. We all have free will – maybe we should talk more about that and why something once so awe-inspiring and good could be turned into something "Unchristian"
In questioning whether you would wear it before Christ, I'm not sure it is really accurate say that you hope you'd be comfortable wearing nothing. The first thing that Adam and Eve did after the fall was try and cover themselves so that God would not see them, and the first animal sacrifice for sin was offered by God as a means of giving them clothing to wear.
Shame and modesty aren't simply about the audience, they are intrinsic parts of our human nature in its fallen state. We will always suffer the consequences of the fall in this lifetime.
Whether or not Victoria Secret offers things that a moral/modest/married woman might find useful and whether or not its advertising promotes its product in that light are two different questions.
Like I said, everything we do, we already do in front of Christ. Like going to the bathroom for example. Now, would anyone suggest we do this in front of the altar? No, because it's disrespectful, but the ACT itself is not sinful nor disrespectful. So offering the image of a half-naked adriana lima prancing in front of Christ is misleading, because of course everyone will say "eeewww". But that still doesn't prove anything.
Also, while we should strive to be like Mary, it doesn't mean we should BE her as much as possible. Ideally would we all be virgins then since this is one of the things we venerate about her? Mary's life and attitude is relevant, but we are still called to our unique way of living the same principles in our lives. This might include things Mary would've never done, but that is beside the point, because she had her calling and we have ours.
I think offering images as these ("Would you do it in fron of Mary/Christ?!") is messing with other people's heads and potentially leading them to be scrupulous.
Maybe my rambling prevents me from making a point. So let me make that short and sweet:
I don't think that lingerie adds are inherently immoral, I don't fault Adriana for her chosen profession and I don't think VS adds are out there for men. Women want to be found appealing by their husbands and a VS ad displays that idea much better than a JC Penney add that would appeal to my mother or grandmother.
I think there is a benefit for having models and not just mannequins, I don't think it is an offense against modesty and I do think men can be responsible for guarding their eyes. Hope this more directly answers some of the questions that were asked.
While being a lingerie model is this young woman's choice of career which pays well obviously, the comment that Heather made about Christians being instructed to avoid things that might make a fellow believer stumble says it all for me. While Miss Lima professes to have faith and reads her Bible,even when on the job, that is too much contradiction for me to take seriously. Now, if she didn't model the type of lingerie that she does, and I have seen pictures of her in fashion magazines, then that type of witness might be credible to me. But someone showing more skin than cloth isn't setting an go example of being a good Christian to anyone. That type of modeling and the catalogs that sell this type of merchandise are targeted mainly to men, not women. Period. Getting back to the stumbling issue; My husband and I early in our marriage considered buying a liquor store that was for sale here where we live. The business was well established. We decided not to go through with it though, exactly for the reason Heather stated. We did not want to be a stumbling block for anyone. Faith and conviction meant more than the money,as it should. If this young woman is as serious about her faith as she says she is,then she needs to change her line of modeling and keep more clothing on. Or change careers.
There is a lot of art, including at the Vatican, that involves the human nude. I don't KNOW that Adriana considers her photos art, just a hypothesis on my part.
If she is a devout Catholic, she goes to Confession. If her confessor doesn't condemn her profession, and there's nothing in the Bible or Catechism that specifically says, "Thou shalt not lingerie model," she may have concluded that she could do it in good conscience.
But I digress – Betty asked us what we think about lingerie models. I wish we lived in a world where no one would be objectified or tempted to lust, but could appreciate the beauty of God's creation as with the eyes of God. But that not being the case, I'm firmly on the fence.
It is my hope that I not be ashamed to be naked before Jesus. He came to save us from our shame.
I just wanted to share this post by Fr. Angelo since I think it has many points that are relevant to this discussion: http://maryvictrix.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/shame-on-you-amen/
"Shame is not only embarrassment at what is ugly, it is also modesty and humility in the face of what is holy, beautiful and mysterious."
We don't just not show our bodies publicly because of the possibility of causing another to stumble.
I used to get a womens' sportswear catalog called Title 9 Sports. I LOVED the way they showed their sports bras and other lingerie- the photos were cropped so all you saw was from the neck down. Gone were the provocative expressions and pouty "come-hither" looks. I felt this was a wise and very respectful solution to showing (modelling) women's lingerie, and wish other catalogs would adopt the same policy.
As for what do I think of lingerie models themselves? Envy, natch – but it's fleeting and I admire whatever discipline they use to keep themselves so fit. I do, however, from a moral standpoint, wish they were reserving the sight of their bodies for real intimacy, not for commercial purposes.
Ooh, I liked Title 9 too. I bought their "frog bra"–best running bra I've ever owned, for a large busted woman. Almost ten years later and it's still going strong.
Anyway, I think someone made the point earlier that modeling has its own subculture, like acting, like art, where various states of undress are very ho-hum. This model is young. I remember being her age and having NO CLUE how my immodesty affected others, even as I professed my faith as brazenly as she has.
I'm still probably not as modest as I should be. I like snug jeans. I love a scoop neckline. If the fashion were to tape my bosoms together and up into a heaving Renaissance bodice, I probably would. But that's beside the point.
I think the ad industry in general is rarely selling what it claims to be selling. They're in the business of fabricating "want"–at least for a semi-luxury brand like VS. Women need bras, but do they need lace and satin demi bras in every color of the rainbow? Only if the catalog can drum up a sufficient quantity of "want" to convince the consumer that their want is actually a need. Therein is the deception and the sin. Rarely are these products applied in real life as they are in the catalog–and that's true for VS, for J. Crew, for JC Penneys. Is it necessary to have lingerie models?
NONE OF IT is necessary–not the bras, the models nor the madras plaid bermuda shorts.
That is, unless you are the one trying to make a living off of hocking bras.
I should add, from a capitalist point of view, VS has done a splendid job of making themselves the gold standard in lingerie sales, precisely because they market to men. Walk into a VS any day of the year and you'll likely find more men in there shopping for or with their, um, wives.
Whew. This is a tough one.
I agree that younger women can be clueless. Take me, for example, when I was in college. Our Christian organization was going to do a car wash, and I piped up with, "Hey! That's great! We can put on our bathing suits and get a tan while we wash cars!" My Bible study leader had to explain to me that that probably wasn't the best way for us to be witnessing… *grin* It never even occurred to me.
Two, I agree with Dinka that asking "would you do it in front of Jesus?" is not necessarily the best question to ask, since I can think of many things (already listed in other posts) that I would not do in front of Him… and they are completely legitimate things to do. [not to mention the fact that thinking of the whole Host of Heaven watching me made me a bit freaked out when I was younger. Made taking a bath and other such things quite the trauma *grin]
That said, I can't stand the seductive nature of VS catalogs. If it were just for women to see, that would be one thing [and I'm sure the whole catalog would have a much different flair to it!], but the fact that men are looking at it bothers me.
It's not the lack of clothing that bothers me — it *is* lingerie, after all, and seeing it "live" as opposed to on a mannequin is helpful, IMO. It is the seductive looks and such that the models have. As Jenelle stated, it's all in the intent, I believe.
So do I have problems with lingerie models? I guess not. I have problems with the way it's marketed, and big billboards being hung up all over the place (so my young sons can see it… thank you), and turning it into a prime-time TV modeling event. Um, no.
I don't want to judge Miss Lima, but I don't want her to influence my teenage daughter — or get in the scopes of my teenage sons…
Sorry, I've been lurking for a bit, but thought I might contribute. Forgive me if I am repeating what previous posters have said, but I want to offer an example that illustrates how the aim of the picture/ad is relevant. I am quite busty, and have finally found a store that caters to busty women's needs in clothes, swimwear, and underthings. The pictures and models in those catalogues are not posed in a way that is "selling sex". They are merely wearing it, standing up, so you can see what it looks like. Maybe it is because the models are more my body type, but I don't see this as immodest. When my husband and I look through the catalogue, it is because we are looking for things for me. More importantly, we look at the lingerie in the same way as we look at the clothes. Will it fit? Will it look nice? Does it serve its purpose?
I don't think most people can say the same thing about VS, and that is, I feel, the fine line.
People need to more fully understand Theology of the Body as not being an excuse to expose our bodies. We cannot deny that men are more visual and we ought to keep our sexual parts veiled as they are sacred. I have great respect for Adriana Lima and her desire to evangelize, but posing nude in print ads is not art, and lingerie ads are designed, by intent, to be sexy. We all know sex sells! She would be an even great witness by refusing to model lingerie and refusing to model nude.
People need to more fully understand Theology of the Body as not being an excuse to expose our bodies. We cannot deny that men are more visual and we ought to keep our sexual parts veiled as they are sacred. I have great respect for Adriana Lima and her desire to evangelize, but posing nude in print ads is not art, and lingerie ads are designed, by intent, to be sexy. We all know sex sells! She would be an even great witness by refusing to model lingerie and refusing to model nude.
Just wanted to say that when my husband was single, he and his guy friends would subscribe to VS. I think a lot of men do. I would consider it soft porn for those men who do. Also, I throw these magazines out if I receive them because I don't want them lying around tempting my husband and teenage son.
Yes, I do find it very helpful! Mannequins, while they may/may not be "modest", will never have that fascinating combination of soft, firm, and whatever else we real girls have. And as long as they're not on overtly sexual poses, I don't think it's provocative, just there to show us how the stuff looks! I mean, we see the same thing, more or less, in the dressing room mirror when we try it on- so should we go in blindfolded?
I think modeling lingerie is just awful and scandalous. We women should know what we need and not need to be shown by other women. Catalogs were used before and lots of times we just saw the front side, some without a face, and not in provocative positions. Thanks.
I just came across this post and had to leave a comment. Maybe I'm more of a black and white thinker, but this issue seems pretty clear to me. Jesus told us that if we so much as look at another with lust in our heart we have committed adultery. Now, I do understand that a man can look at any woman no matter how modestly she's dressed and think lustful thoughts if he wants. But, a woman dressed in an animal print g-string and a push up bra staring seductively at you from a catalog or a commercial is there for the sole purpose of putting lust into ones heart to entice them to purchase something for their "wife". And even if they're purchasing this lingerie for their wife the image of the seductive woman is in their heads and images are powerful. Many, no doubt, are lusting after this woman when they are with their own wives.
I don't think this is one of those topics that the church leaves up for discussion. No, there is not a specific section in the Catechism that states we shouldn't be a VS lingerie model, but as Christopher West says, there's also not a section that says we shouldn't put our neighbors arm through a meat grinder…but is that open for discussion? I think not! This is common sense.
I don't think we should try to justify seductive lingerie modeling with a misguided charity that thinks well really it's all in what Adriana's intentions are. I make no judgement on her intentions or her heart, but I do judge her actions. She is publicly objectifying her body and most likely leading many men into sin and many women to view themselves as sexual toys and objects. I believe this type of modeling to be very scandalous indeed.
I agree with all the posters who recognized that this is wrong. Lust, appearance of scandal, vanity and greed. Would she be doing this if she wasn’t being paid a fortune? And why is she being paid a fortune? Because “sex” (which is what this is on the spectrum of sexuality) sells. This is a type of prostition and therefore it is wrong. Poor girl has not been properly catechized. Maybe motherhood and our prayers will help her see the light.
In my opinion, lingerie stores like VS and the like are targeting men, not women. Read the founder and you’ll see that he wanted to create a store men would like to shop at. The reason that these models pose in suggestive ways is to get men to want to buy those materials for their girl.
But back to your question– is it wrong to model underwear or lingerie? It is wrong for the man to lust after it, for sure. Leviticus teaches us that it is wrong to look at another person’s nakedness, and I would think that intentionally exposing one’s nakedness (a la Noah) is probably wrong as well.
The idea of my husband having any fraction of a fleeting vision of the VS model in the ad for the bra he ordered online for me makes me more than sad, it makes me feel stupid and ugly! He didn’t need to see it modelled by a woman splayed out on bed in front of a camera in order to spend money on it… or did he?
I did a little sleuthing and discovered that she did not marry in the Church, but rather a civil ceremony. I’m wondering how important her Catholic faith really is to her? seems to be a disconnect somewhere along the way – those Victoria’s Secret ads are pornography by every definition of the term, let alone that she has posed nude. sad.