In a short story in the Wall Street Journal [subscription required], Sharen Turney, chief executive of of Victoria's Secret, confided during a conference call that the lingerie chain may have gotten off track at some point and may now be just too sexy.

Can there be such a thing as too sexy? There are times you can be too trashy, or too slutty, but can you be too sexy? I think not!

It may be that some of the advertisements on television are inappropriate for the time-slot. It may be that at times the ads are viewed like soft porn and teenage boys are the first to peruse the monthly mailing. But too sexy? That is a very strange comment coming from a company that has made a reputation for itself and pushed sales growth for years based on a foundation of sex appeal.

The Victoria's Secret chain is a division of the Limited Brands Inc. (NYSE: LTD) and Turney said she wants to bring a more sophisticated image back to the product line - hmm. I wonder if this is just a smoke screen to avoid criticism by conservatives in an election year.

• I can just hear the discussion in the board room: "There are some folks that think we have gone too far, and that we present an image that is just too darn sexy. All those in favor of being less sexy raise your hands"

This just does not seem possible, does it? LTD closed yesterday at $17.82 but is down over 9% in midday trading. Maybe Wall Street traders prefer more sexy, not less?

Gallery: Victoria's Secret Fashion Show 2007

UPDATE: LTD closed at $15.85 down $1.87.

Sheldon Liber is the CEO of a small private investment company and the principal for design and research at an architecture & planning firm. He writes the columns Chasing Value and Serious Money. Disclosure: I do not own shares of LTD.