Not every woman is a Victoria’s Secret Angel, and maybe that was the point of this year’s fashion show all along.
For decades, Victoria’s Secret built its identity around glamorous models, extravagant wings and unattainable beauty standards. Becoming an Angel represented a major achievement in modeling, but growing criticism over the brand’s lack of body inclusivity sparked recent controversy.
After a six-year hiatus sparked by falling sales, declining viewership and public disapproval over its lack of body diversity, the fashion show returned in 2024, attempting to balance its glamorous past with modern expectations. But the question remains: Does every woman need to see herself represented on the runway?
The Victoria’s Secret runway was never meant to represent the average woman. Demanding that it should risks stripping the brand of the allure that made it successful.
Part of what made the Victoria’s Secret fashion show iconic was its exclusivity. The Angels on the runway represented extraordinary beauty, confidence and sex appeal. Their elaborate wings, signature walks and glamorous performances created an experience that went beyond an ordinary fashion show.
However, the brand’s recent casting decisions have raised questions about whether it has lost sight of that identity,
According to Vanity Fair, former Angel Romee Strijid publicly criticized the casting process after learning that she would not walk in the 2026 show. Despite training all summer and attending a casting in New York, Strijid said she was left waiting for an answer and felt misled by the lack of communication. Fans shared her frustration, expressing their disappointment on social media as they defended longtime Angels and questioned the decision to cast influencers instead of familiar runway faces. Many argued that while inclusivity matters, the show was losing the distinctive appeal that made it iconic.
While former Angels shouldn’t automatically receive a spot, Victoria’s Secret risks losing the glamour and nostalgia that made its show recognizable.
That doesn’t mean the brand should exclude women who don’t fit a particular body type. Cuvier and plus size models can absolutely embody the Angel image. However, Victoria’s Secret should cast them for the same reasons it casts thinner models: their confidence, runway presence and ability to represent the brand.
However, in an Allure article, Danielle Pergament criticized the show’s lack of body diversity, noting that fewer than 10% of its 80 models could be considered curvy or plus-size.
These concerns deserve attention, especially considering that brand’s history of promoting narrow beauty standards. Similar criticism has surrounded Brandy Melville, whose “one size” clothing typically caters to smaller body types, making its clothes inaccessible to many shoppers. Young women may compare themselves to these models and develop unrealistic expectations about their appearances.
But a fashion show doesn’t necessarily need to reflect everyday reality. Victoria’s Secret sells a fantasy, much like luxury brands promote lifestyles that most consumers will never experience. Viewers can appreciate the show without treating it as a standard they must personally achieve.
Inclusivity and exclusivity don’t have to be mutually exclusive. Victoria’s Secret can embrace different body types while maintaining the qualities that make its Angels extraordinary.
Somewhere along the way, Victoria’s Secret forgot that its greatest selling point was never just the lingerie, but the fantasy of the women wearing it.
Not every runway needs to reflect our reality. Sometimes, we should appreciate the fantasy without expecting to become part of it.