In Defence of Victoria’s Secret.

When Woke Fatigue Meets the Return of Beauty Worship

There was a time — not long ago — when the annual Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show was less runway, more ritual. Wings unfurled like secular angelic totems; bodies glistened under impossible physics; and the world paused, not because it believed these women represented reality, but because it wanted to tap into aspiration, fantasy, beauty.

Then the pendulum swung.

In a post #MeToo, hyper-woke cultural recalibration, the brand was exiled. Objectification. Unhealthy beauty standards. Tone-deaf to body inclusivity. The Angels were dethroned, replaced with a boardroom of activists, athletes, and role models who were supposed to embody empowerment rather than desire.

The result? Viewership plummeted. The brand collapsed. The new campaign — soaked in good intentions — didn’t sell. And so, quietly but unmistakably, the pendulum swings back again.

Victoria’s Secret is returning to fantasy. To spectacle. To beauty. To sex.

Here’s the uncomfortable question emerging in the cultural bloodstream: Was it really beauty we hated — or just guilt for admitting we enjoyed it?

The Psychology: Why Sex Has Always Sold (And Still Does)

Let’s not feign cultural amnesia. Sex appeal has been a foundational driver in human behaviour and marketing since the dawn of trade. Research consistently shows that sexualised advertising increases memory retention and brand recall — particularly when the product aligns with the theme of desire, attraction, or status.

• A 2017 meta-analysis published in Psychological Bulletin found that sexual imagery significantly improves ad attention and brand awareness — especially in fashion, luxury, and beauty sectors.
• Neuromarketing studies using fMRI imaging show that attractive faces activate reward centres in the brain, similar to receiving money or viewing art.
• The “beauty premium” is a well-documented economic phenomenon: conventionally attractive people earn, on average, 10-12% more than their counterparts.

In other words: beauty is a currency. Desire is a motivator. The body is both canvas and commodity — and pretending otherwise is a cultural performance, not a moral evolution.

But Isn’t It Harmful? The Woke Critique — and Its Limits

Yes, there are legitimate critiques:

✔ Unrealistic standards can contribute to body dysmorphia.

✔ Over-sexualisation of women may reinforce harmful stereotypes.

✔ Beauty worship can create value hierarchies rooted in appearance.

These are not imaginary consequences.

But here’s the nuance the culture war ignored: enjoying beauty is not inherently oppressive. Appreciating physical form is not the same as dehumanising it. Acknowledging aspiration is not the same as enforcing conformity.

We visit museums to marvel at Michelangelo’s David, Botticelli’s Venus, Degas’ dancers — all bodies idealised, elongated, sensual. Do we cancel Renaissance art because it romanticises an unrealistic human form? Or do we accept that not everything must be a mirror? Some things are meant to be windows.

Beauty as Theatre: Can Spectacle Exist Without Guilt?

Victoria’s Secret was never marketed as reality. It was marketed as theatre — a fantasy world dripping in sequins and serotonin. A moment of escapism. Hyperreality, as Baudrillard would put it: a simulation of desire that doesn’t need to exist in reality to have cultural value.

Could it be that instead of rejecting beauty, what we actually resented was having it morally policed?

The Cultural Pendulum: From Empowerment to Exhaustion

Wokeness called for empathy, representation, and inclusivity — necessary recalibrations. But in its most extreme form, it created a guilt economy where desire was deemed dangerous, fantasy immoral, and beauty exclusionary by default.

Now, in a post-woke fatigue era, there’s a cultural appetite for glamour, aspiration, seduction, luxury. TikTok’s “clean girl”, “mob wife” and “old money” aesthetics, or the renewed fascination with ‘90s supermodel glamour, suggest a return to beauty as a moodboard, a performance, a dreamscape.

Not everything has to be “relatable.”

Some things exist simply because they are stunning.

So, What’s the Harm in Wanting Wings Again?

There can be space for Victoria’s Secret-style beauty in public culture — if we accept it for what it is: fantasy, not a blueprint. Spectacle, not instruction. Art direction, not oppression.

Pro: It inspires creativity, fashion, performance, theatricality.

Pro: It activates aspiration, desire, even self-improvement.

Con: It risks reinforcing beauty hierarchies if consumed uncritically.

Con: Without media literacy, fantasy can be mistaken for expectation.

The solution? Teach distinction, not prohibition. Allow beauty to exist while maintaining critical awareness. Let aspiration and authenticity coexist without annihilating each other.

In the End — Maybe We Just Missed Magic

Perhaps the fall of the Angels didn’t liberate us — it just left us with fewer cultural spectacles that dared to be breathtaking.

We can hold two truths at once:

• Women are more than their bodies.

And sometimes, a beautifully shot runway with impossibly glamorous people in jewel-encrusted lingerie is… simply fun to watch? And maybe — just maybe — that’s okay.

Your Turn:

Is the return of Victoria’s Secret a step backward into objectification — or a refreshingly unapologetic return to beauty as performance? Can we enjoy spectacle without shame, or does desire always demand a moral debate?

Sound off. Culture is a conversation — not a verdict.

References and research

• Wirtz, Sparks & Zimbres (2017). Sexual appeals and advertising effectiveness. International Journal of Advertising.
• Samson (2018). Memory effects of sexual content in ads across genders. Journal of Media Psychology.
• Lawrence, Furnham & McClelland (2021). Impact of sexual advertising on brand recall. Perceptual and Motor Skills.
• Hamermesh & Biddle (1994). Beauty and economic outcomes. American Economic Hammer mesh & Biddle (2017). Why beauty matters in labor markets. American Economic Association Papers and Proceedings.
• Sierminska & Singhal (2023). Earning advantages for physical attractiveness. IZA World of Labor.
• et al. (2019). Mechanisms behind the “beauty premium.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.