Get Premium
Dark mode theme is available exclusively for premium users. Learn more about the benefits of subscribing.
No fees, cancel anytime.
Dark Mode 
No fees, cancel anytime 
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
Lingerie chain Victoria’s Secret has long struggled with its marketing strategy, previously criticized for creating unreachable and unhealthy beauty standards.
It is now the brand’s attempt at becoming more inclusive and providing further visibility for marginalized communities which has sparked outrage across the internet.
Highlights
- Victoria's Secret drops inclusivity efforts after sales decline.
- CEO admits inclusivity didn't improve profitability.
- Company aims to surpass $7 billion in annual sales.
- Victoria's Secret stock rose 15% after strategy shift.
RELATED:
Victoria’s Secret’s “woke and feminist makeover over the recent years” is now being ditched amidst a drop in sales
Image credits: gettyimages
Back in 2018, Victoria’s Secret former chief marketing officer Ed Razek was slammed for making insensitive remarks about brand talent.
Responsible for a homogenous, airbrushed, and sexualized brand image, Razek infuriated the public with comments he made in a Vogue.com interview about Victoria’s Secret’s casting practices: “Shouldn’t you have transsexuals in the show? No. No, I don’t think we should. Well, why not? Because the show is a fantasy.”
Surprisingly, the confirmation of Razek’s departure came on the same day when news talks began circulating that Victoria’s Secret had hired its first-ever transgender model, Valentina Sampaio.
Victoria’s Secret has long struggled with its marketing strategy, previously criticized for creating unreachable and unhealthy beauty standards
Image credits: gettyimages
A year later, the lingerie company signed Ali Tate-Cutler, its first-ever size-14 model.
The retailer worth billions of dollars has since undergone a rebranding, with new CEO Martin Waters being appointed in 2021, implementing policy changes and new partnerships with a number of new spokeswomen including Megan Rapinoe, Priyanka Chopra Jonas, and Naomi Osaka.
But new reports have revealed that Victoria’s Secret’s “woke and feminist makeover over the recent years” was being ditched, as it didn’t translate to business success after all.
As of May 2020, with over 1,070 stores, Victoria’s Secret reportedly remained the largest lingerie retailer in the United States
Image credits: Phillip Pessar
According to Business Of Fashion, the company spent the last two years overhauling its hyper-sexualized image in a bid to regain cultural relevance, and yet, sales have continued to decline.
The retailer’s prime objective now has reportedly been to improve profitability and cross back over $7 billion in annual sales.
As of May 2020, with over 1,070 stores, Victoria’s Secret reportedly remained the largest lingerie retailer in the United States.
Victoria’s Secret spent the last two years overhauling its hyper-sexualized image in a bid to regain cultural relevance
Image credits: candicehuffine
In a new attempt to revitalize itself, the brand has planned to bring back “sexiness.”
As reported by CNN, Victoria’s Secret’s efforts to promote inclusivity – which included getting rid of its famous “Angels” supermodels – earned “favorable reviews from online critics [but] never translated into sales.
”The retailer’s projected revenue for 2023 is reportedly $6.2 billion, which is 5% lower than it was last year, and even lower than 2020, when the brand’s revenue was $7.5 billion.
The retailer’s prime objective now is to improve profitability and cross back over $7 billion in annual sales
Image credits: victoriassecret
Victoria’s Secret stock soared 15% in just five days after ditching its “wokeness strategy,”
Finbold reported.
The decline in Victoria’s Secret’s sales coincided with the company’s decision to predominantly comprise its board of directors with women.
In 2021, American football star Megan called out the brand before its rebranding, claiming it had sent out a “really harmful” message that was “patriarchal, sexist, viewing not just what it meant to be sexy but what the clothes were trying to accomplish through a male lens and through what men desired.”
Victoria’s Secret’s efforts to promote inclusivity included getting rid of its famous “Angels” supermodels, notable for their extremely skinny body type
Image credits: victoriassecret
She also said that Victoria’s Secret’s image “was very much marketed toward younger women.
”Victoria’s Secret: The Tour ’23 new fashion show has reportedly displayed what “fell somewhere in between the personification of male lust of the brand’s aughts-era heyday and the inclusive utopia promoted by its many disruptors.”
Victoria’s Secret and Pink brand president, Greg Unis, outlined this fresh corporate direction when he reportedly addressed investors: “Sexiness can be inclusive.”
The decline in Victoria’s Secret’s sales coincided with the company’s decision to predominantly comprise its board of directors with women
Image credits: victoriassecret
He had explained that “Sexiness can celebrate the diverse experiences of our customers and that’s what we’re focused on.”
Nevertheless, CEO Martin reportedly admitted that the inclusivity initiatives were not profitable for the company, stating, “Despite everyone’s best endeavors, it’s not been enough to carry the day.”
According to Unreserved Media, Victoria’s Secret has had trouble withstanding newer brands who have marketed themselves as being inclusive from the start, such as Rihanna’s Savage X Fenty, because “Victoria’s Secret was built from the male gaze, while Rihanna’s Savage X Fenty is all about what women want.”
Megan Rapinoe called out the brand before its rebranding, claiming it had sent out a “really harmful” message that was “patriarchal and sexist”
Image credits: victoriassecret
“Victoria’s Secret’s show was known for skinny supermodels, featuring the most beautiful women in the world, while your everyday girl could only wish to look like a Victoria’s Secret model. The brand was selling an unachievable reality,” the publication stated.
CEO Martin Waters admitted that the inclusivity initiatives were not profitable for the company
Image credits: victoriassecret
It explained: “Savage on the other hand embraces diversity, a movement that shook social media and almost every well-known fashion and beauty brand in the world.
“The lingerie brand speaks diversity in every form, featuring women and men of all sizes, skin tones, and ages, including pregnant [people] and drag queens.”
Many people were unsurprised at the announcement, while others thought the drop in sales was caused by poor quality products
Poll Question
Thanks! Check out the results:
Newsletter
Subscribe to Access
Exclusive Polls
By entering your email and clicking Subscribe, you're agreeing to let us send you customized marketing messages about us and our advertising partners. You are also agreeing to our Privacy Policy.
Thank you! You've successfully subscribed to newsletters!
What do you think ?
Kathryn Baylis 1 year ago (edited)
Notice that the majority of responses in favor of the return to ridiculously thin models are from men, the 50% of the population who do not use or wear VS products, but who probably keep the VS catalogs in their “spank banks”. Notice also it was exclusively women who mentioned the drop in the quality of VS products as the reason for the drop in sales. I too have noticed a drop in quality. A lot of their stuff is cheap, scratchy, tight, and really uncomfortable to wear. Back in the eighties, VS was the epitome of really nice quality, elegant, and classy lingerie. Nowadays its quality has dropped nearly to the level of Frederick’s of Hollywood stripper and porn shoot supplies. That’s why I haven’t bought anything there for years, except one particular fragrance I always liked—-the quality of which has also gone way down to the point where it smells like cheap drugstore cologne. I have recently turned away from VS, and started buying a similar fragrance from The Body Shop, which smells wonderful in comparison. It’s such a shame that they’re blaming the drop in sales on their normal size models and embrace of inclusivity, rather than on the overpriced cheap tacky products they’ve been selling recently.
cursedcarver69 🇺🇲 1 year ago
What has happened to this website, it's lost its soul. It's just a buzzfeed clone at this point.
General Anaesthesia 1 year ago
Money, capitalism, copy/paste by "writers".
Load More Replies...
Anon Ymous 1 year ago
ABSOLUTELY SHAMEFUL OF YOU TO SHARE THIS BP Then losing profitability has nothing to do with "going woke" because in fact most companies who do "go woke" and do it right end up being MORE profitable. When it's just s****y lip service from a company with no soul we know and we'll spend our money elsewhere. Victoria's secret never really catered to women anyways. It preyed on young insecure women, and was all based on the misogynistic male gaze. They can't just do a 180 and expect women who know the truth to suddenly be on board. For shame BP and writer Andréa Oldereide, you're no feminist.
Sala Han 1 year ago
This is exactly it. None of this "woke rebrand" was authentic and it was sooo patronizing. It was so clearly a WELL THIS IS WHAT YOU ASKED FOR and then they put no effort into making it real. Their weird fashion show this year didn't fail because it wasn't angels. It failed because the clothes were ugly, it made no sense for a lingerie company, and had no vision. Had they actually come up with products that were good quality, that people want, and just chilled out a bit on the dehydrated stick thin models, they would have been fine. You can't reasonably blame their lack of success on their half-assed, begrudging attempt to rebrand.
Load More Replies...
Breadcrumb. 1 year ago
I think women are more concerned with comfort and durability in their underwear then maybe they used to be a few decades ago. The whale tail fashion of Victoria Secrets hay day is thankfully tucked away back into pants where underwear belongs.
Carol LeMay 1 year ago
I don't really care about the comfort and durability of clothing I plan to wear for about ten minutes before it winds up in a heap on my bedroom floor.
Load More Replies...
Stylishsidewaysbird 1 year ago
I just did a massive organization of all my clothes and went trough my lingerie. I have VS underwear and bras from 5-6+ years ago that are in great condition. However, I threw out multiple pairs of underwear that lost their shape in the wash, had holes in the lace etc that I bought in the last 1-2 yrs. I threw out bras from the same time frame because they were falling apart and didn’t fit great to begin with. I appreciated the ads with a variety of people. The reason I’ve stopped shopping there was the quality severely went down and the prices went up with fewer sales.
Clown fish 1 year ago
It's because it's over priced sh@tty. Who wants to spend £30 for 5 pairs of knickers
Fun Fan 1 year ago (edited)
When you are overpriced like a Triumph, but your products are way more shittier like Triumph's, than this will happen. Nothing to do with "inclusivity". Also, Covid happened in the meantime, and no any sane woman will pay 70-80 euro for a bra, what gives up after 3-4 months, when she can get for the same price a Triumph lasting 2-3 years, or a Deyllo for less, which also lasts for at least 1 year. Pandemic and greed happened. And idiots, who are blaming the 54 sized underwears and 105H bras for it.
Leo Domitrix 1 year ago
Quality went down, prices didn't, ergo we stopped shopping there. Or, "What Actual Women Say About Victoria Secret". I don't care about their politics. I care that I am asked to spend as much on one pair of cotton undies as I can spend to get *six* of a different brand, and have that six be better quality!
Isabella 1 year ago
I used to love VS and for me, the most confortable underwear were from them. Also, their pyjamas were great, but their quality overall is getting worse and worse; the last pyjamas I bought last year, was such a disappointment comparing with what I have from them just 2 years before! I stopped buying from them just because of this. And I agree with @cursedcarver69!
Jumping Jellyfishes 1 year ago
These guys are idiots if they don't know the real reason why their sales went down. Or, don't want to admit it. You severely dipped in quality and still expected us to spend just as much for it. Good luck on trying to win us back. We don't take betrayal well
Alecto76 1 year ago
Let this brand burn. It has promoted an unhealthy body type and has caused body image issues for countless young women and girls for decades. It also has ties to Epstein. Its a porn magazine, not a retailer that caters to the people buying its product. Marketing to women is too little too late. Further, I have bought from this brand - in the 90s to maybe 2010 ish. Their stuff is expensive, not great quality and uncomfortable. I'm about a DD - trying to buy a bra there is pointless. If you are a larger lady, you do not need 5 inches of padding in your bra. Now there are much better brands in terms of price and confort, which started out marketed to women rather than making them feel inadequate and inferior.
whiterabbit 1 year ago (edited)
For many years I bought all my bras and most of my underwear at VS. Then about 5 or 6 years ago the quality plummeted and underwear would start falling apart within a couple months and I'd be lucky to get a year out of a bra. I won't touch their stuff now, overpriced garbage.
JayWantsACat 1 year ago (edited)
"gO WokE Go bRoKe huurr durrrr" plenty of companies who are more inclusive do well, just like plenty of MAGA companies go out of business. And, yet, being woke is somehow universally a bad business move despite reality proving otherwise. Just more snowflake dipshits crying online.
Mallory Morrison 1 year ago
I don't buy VS because it's overpriced and more reasonably priced companies pop up all the time.
Marno C. 1 year ago
I never shopped at VS because I knew they didn't want me as a customer (too big and too feminist). So, I never noticed their rebranding. TBH, I probably would have felt it was insincere and they still wouldn't have wanted me as a customer -- just my money. I think their profit drop has had more to do with increasing competition from brands that were smarter, better made, and more inclusive from get-go: Rihanna's Fenty, Torrid, etc. Those are the brands that welcome you AND your friends.
Steve Hall 1 year ago
Didn't care yesterday, don't care today and probably won't care tomorrow.
VCC 1 year ago
Im a girl and I agree. I used to love VS so much because it was aspirational, I used to love watching the show because it was in fact A FANTASY, it was so glamorous. I mean, if I watch that kind of tv shows it's because I want to disconnect from reality and just chill. I feel very happy with myself and I'm not a 6 foot model, a few beautiful women on a catwalk won't make me feel any less happy with who I am. I will never understand why people ditched VS. Just like not everyone is meant to be, let's say, a singer (because not everyone can sing), not everyone is meant to be a model.
Celtic Pirate Queen 1 year ago
That's what Lane Bryant is for. They're just about the only (affordable) place for bigger women to shop. I wear a 42 D bra and there's no way in hell I'm finding that at VS. If I wanted to pay over $100, I COULD go to Macy's - but I won't.
bliglum 1 year ago
"creating unreachable and unhealthy beauty standards". That was the original fake news which led to this ruinous direction.. A woman being slim is not "unreachable", in fact female "beauty standards" are FAR more easily achievable than the ideal male shape. A man's gotta work out for hours per day, every day. Adhere to a strict diet, and take risky steroid drugs to achieve that shirtless leading man look... All a woman really needs to do, is simply not over-eat... And portraying "beauty" as a morbidly obese woman is far, FAR more of an "Unhealthy Beauty Standard". Calorie restriction, intermittent fasting, etc. have been shown to extend life span, as well as quality of life. The exact opposite is true for those who are morbidly obese.
silowew628@picvw.com 1 year ago
The "writer" of this piece of s**t post needs to be fired. So much hate and ignorance and sexism and transphobic bigotry. F**k you for this absolute garbage. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Givemeabreak101 1 year ago
I can't understand why anyone would pay their outlandish prices in the first place. Plenty of quality se*y panties out there for a third of the price.
Astrophile 1 year ago (edited)
Honestly I struggle with my weight. I’m often underweight and usually kinda scrawny, and I’m aware I look like a “bag of bones.” I’m constantly reminded how unattractive I am - I’m sure other girls with “unideal” body weights can relate. I’m also tall as heck. You’d think my 5’9” 120lb a*s would look good in VS clothes since they design them on very thin models with similar proportions to me, but I’m so embarrassed that people might make fun of my bony hips and ribs (I’m really self conscious about my ribs sticking out). We women just can’t win in this department eh :( I feel so bony and ugly
Pittsburgh rare 1 year ago (edited)
Sales dropped because you're not fooling anyone placing ONE plus size model between the Hadids and the kind and pretending you're all for inclusivity when the underlying message is that the fat girl is the exception and the whistle thin girls are the standard. Take a look around. Also because for what it is, VS is not cheap. I'd rather pay the same or even a bit more for good quality, lasting underwear.
Stoneface11 1 year ago
What a load of trash! All the negative comments are from men. Having a more diverse and inclusive brand is a winning business model that has made people like Rhianna and Kin Kardashian millions. Shame on the female BP writer for promoting this nonsense
manowce 1 year ago (edited)
I'd rather see clothes on normal people than feel discouraged from buying them because I'm not a size 0. and no, I'm nowhere near the "plus size model", but also I'm not a supermodel or built like a child.
Load More Replies...
Kathryn Baylis 1 year ago (edited)
Notice that the majority of responses in favor of the return to ridiculously thin models are from men, the 50% of the population who do not use or wear VS products, but who probably keep the VS catalogs in their “spank banks”. Notice also it was exclusively women who mentioned the drop in the quality of VS products as the reason for the drop in sales. I too have noticed a drop in quality. A lot of their stuff is cheap, scratchy, tight, and really uncomfortable to wear. Back in the eighties, VS was the epitome of really nice quality, elegant, and classy lingerie. Nowadays its quality has dropped nearly to the level of Frederick’s of Hollywood stripper and porn shoot supplies. That’s why I haven’t bought anything there for years, except one particular fragrance I always liked—-the quality of which has also gone way down to the point where it smells like cheap drugstore cologne. I have recently turned away from VS, and started buying a similar fragrance from The Body Shop, which smells wonderful in comparison. It’s such a shame that they’re blaming the drop in sales on their normal size models and embrace of inclusivity, rather than on the overpriced cheap tacky products they’ve been selling recently.
cursedcarver69 🇺🇲 1 year ago
What has happened to this website, it's lost its soul. It's just a buzzfeed clone at this point.
General Anaesthesia 1 year ago
Money, capitalism, copy/paste by "writers".
Load More Replies... Anon Ymous 1 year ago
ABSOLUTELY SHAMEFUL OF YOU TO SHARE THIS BP Then losing profitability has nothing to do with "going woke" because in fact most companies who do "go woke" and do it right end up being MORE profitable. When it's just s****y lip service from a company with no soul we know and we'll spend our money elsewhere. Victoria's secret never really catered to women anyways. It preyed on young insecure women, and was all based on the misogynistic male gaze. They can't just do a 180 and expect women who know the truth to suddenly be on board. For shame BP and writer Andréa Oldereide, you're no feminist.
Sala Han 1 year ago
This is exactly it. None of this "woke rebrand" was authentic and it was sooo patronizing. It was so clearly a WELL THIS IS WHAT YOU ASKED FOR and then they put no effort into making it real. Their weird fashion show this year didn't fail because it wasn't angels. It failed because the clothes were ugly, it made no sense for a lingerie company, and had no vision. Had they actually come up with products that were good quality, that people want, and just chilled out a bit on the dehydrated stick thin models, they would have been fine. You can't reasonably blame their lack of success on their half-assed, begrudging attempt to rebrand.
Load More Replies... Breadcrumb. 1 year ago
I think women are more concerned with comfort and durability in their underwear then maybe they used to be a few decades ago. The whale tail fashion of Victoria Secrets hay day is thankfully tucked away back into pants where underwear belongs.
Carol LeMay 1 year ago
I don't really care about the comfort and durability of clothing I plan to wear for about ten minutes before it winds up in a heap on my bedroom floor.
Load More Replies... Stylishsidewaysbird 1 year ago
I just did a massive organization of all my clothes and went trough my lingerie. I have VS underwear and bras from 5-6+ years ago that are in great condition. However, I threw out multiple pairs of underwear that lost their shape in the wash, had holes in the lace etc that I bought in the last 1-2 yrs. I threw out bras from the same time frame because they were falling apart and didn’t fit great to begin with. I appreciated the ads with a variety of people. The reason I’ve stopped shopping there was the quality severely went down and the prices went up with fewer sales.
Clown fish 1 year ago
It's because it's over priced sh@tty. Who wants to spend £30 for 5 pairs of knickers
Fun Fan 1 year ago (edited)
When you are overpriced like a Triumph, but your products are way more shittier like Triumph's, than this will happen. Nothing to do with "inclusivity". Also, Covid happened in the meantime, and no any sane woman will pay 70-80 euro for a bra, what gives up after 3-4 months, when she can get for the same price a Triumph lasting 2-3 years, or a Deyllo for less, which also lasts for at least 1 year. Pandemic and greed happened. And idiots, who are blaming the 54 sized underwears and 105H bras for it.
Leo Domitrix 1 year ago
Quality went down, prices didn't, ergo we stopped shopping there. Or, "What Actual Women Say About Victoria Secret". I don't care about their politics. I care that I am asked to spend as much on one pair of cotton undies as I can spend to get *six* of a different brand, and have that six be better quality!
Isabella 1 year ago
I used to love VS and for me, the most confortable underwear were from them. Also, their pyjamas were great, but their quality overall is getting worse and worse; the last pyjamas I bought last year, was such a disappointment comparing with what I have from them just 2 years before! I stopped buying from them just because of this. And I agree with @cursedcarver69!
Jumping Jellyfishes 1 year ago
These guys are idiots if they don't know the real reason why their sales went down. Or, don't want to admit it. You severely dipped in quality and still expected us to spend just as much for it. Good luck on trying to win us back. We don't take betrayal well
Alecto76 1 year ago
Let this brand burn. It has promoted an unhealthy body type and has caused body image issues for countless young women and girls for decades. It also has ties to Epstein. Its a porn magazine, not a retailer that caters to the people buying its product. Marketing to women is too little too late. Further, I have bought from this brand - in the 90s to maybe 2010 ish. Their stuff is expensive, not great quality and uncomfortable. I'm about a DD - trying to buy a bra there is pointless. If you are a larger lady, you do not need 5 inches of padding in your bra. Now there are much better brands in terms of price and confort, which started out marketed to women rather than making them feel inadequate and inferior.
whiterabbit 1 year ago (edited)
For many years I bought all my bras and most of my underwear at VS. Then about 5 or 6 years ago the quality plummeted and underwear would start falling apart within a couple months and I'd be lucky to get a year out of a bra. I won't touch their stuff now, overpriced garbage.
JayWantsACat 1 year ago (edited)
"gO WokE Go bRoKe huurr durrrr" plenty of companies who are more inclusive do well, just like plenty of MAGA companies go out of business. And, yet, being woke is somehow universally a bad business move despite reality proving otherwise. Just more snowflake dipshits crying online.
Mallory Morrison 1 year ago
I don't buy VS because it's overpriced and more reasonably priced companies pop up all the time.
Marno C. 1 year ago
I never shopped at VS because I knew they didn't want me as a customer (too big and too feminist). So, I never noticed their rebranding. TBH, I probably would have felt it was insincere and they still wouldn't have wanted me as a customer -- just my money. I think their profit drop has had more to do with increasing competition from brands that were smarter, better made, and more inclusive from get-go: Rihanna's Fenty, Torrid, etc. Those are the brands that welcome you AND your friends.
Steve Hall 1 year ago
Didn't care yesterday, don't care today and probably won't care tomorrow.
VCC 1 year ago
Im a girl and I agree. I used to love VS so much because it was aspirational, I used to love watching the show because it was in fact A FANTASY, it was so glamorous. I mean, if I watch that kind of tv shows it's because I want to disconnect from reality and just chill. I feel very happy with myself and I'm not a 6 foot model, a few beautiful women on a catwalk won't make me feel any less happy with who I am. I will never understand why people ditched VS. Just like not everyone is meant to be, let's say, a singer (because not everyone can sing), not everyone is meant to be a model.
Celtic Pirate Queen 1 year ago
That's what Lane Bryant is for. They're just about the only (affordable) place for bigger women to shop. I wear a 42 D bra and there's no way in hell I'm finding that at VS. If I wanted to pay over $100, I COULD go to Macy's - but I won't.
bliglum 1 year ago
"creating unreachable and unhealthy beauty standards". That was the original fake news which led to this ruinous direction.. A woman being slim is not "unreachable", in fact female "beauty standards" are FAR more easily achievable than the ideal male shape. A man's gotta work out for hours per day, every day. Adhere to a strict diet, and take risky steroid drugs to achieve that shirtless leading man look... All a woman really needs to do, is simply not over-eat... And portraying "beauty" as a morbidly obese woman is far, FAR more of an "Unhealthy Beauty Standard". Calorie restriction, intermittent fasting, etc. have been shown to extend life span, as well as quality of life. The exact opposite is true for those who are morbidly obese.
silowew628@picvw.com 1 year ago
The "writer" of this piece of s**t post needs to be fired. So much hate and ignorance and sexism and transphobic bigotry. F**k you for this absolute garbage. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Givemeabreak101 1 year ago
I can't understand why anyone would pay their outlandish prices in the first place. Plenty of quality se*y panties out there for a third of the price.
Astrophile 1 year ago (edited)
Honestly I struggle with my weight. I’m often underweight and usually kinda scrawny, and I’m aware I look like a “bag of bones.” I’m constantly reminded how unattractive I am - I’m sure other girls with “unideal” body weights can relate. I’m also tall as heck. You’d think my 5’9” 120lb a*s would look good in VS clothes since they design them on very thin models with similar proportions to me, but I’m so embarrassed that people might make fun of my bony hips and ribs (I’m really self conscious about my ribs sticking out). We women just can’t win in this department eh :( I feel so bony and ugly
Pittsburgh rare 1 year ago (edited)
Sales dropped because you're not fooling anyone placing ONE plus size model between the Hadids and the kind and pretending you're all for inclusivity when the underlying message is that the fat girl is the exception and the whistle thin girls are the standard. Take a look around. Also because for what it is, VS is not cheap. I'd rather pay the same or even a bit more for good quality, lasting underwear.
Stoneface11 1 year ago
What a load of trash! All the negative comments are from men. Having a more diverse and inclusive brand is a winning business model that has made people like Rhianna and Kin Kardashian millions. Shame on the female BP writer for promoting this nonsense
manowce 1 year ago (edited)
I'd rather see clothes on normal people than feel discouraged from buying them because I'm not a size 0. and no, I'm nowhere near the "plus size model", but also I'm not a supermodel or built like a child.
Load More Replies... You May Like This Account Showcases Real Women That Said To Hell With Society's Expectations (30 New Pics) 45 Women Inventors Who Changed The World And You May Not Even Know It
Gabija Palšytė
Eligijus Sinkunas
Related on Bored Panda
-56
60