Just something I came across yesterday; I noticed the 12 year old neighbor girl was wearing a t-shirt with the Victoria’s Secret “Pink” brand across the front. Nothing I’m about to rail about but it did make me raise an eyebrow since I naturally connect VS to lingerie and runways shows with models in angel wings and even the word “Pink” coming from VS seems like a double entendre. That said, there was nothing overtly wrong with the shirt itself, it was just a shirt. Maybe it’d be different if it was some yoga pants with “Pink” written across the ass, maybe not.
Ultimately, I decided I was just happy to be raising sons and figured I’d post about it.
VS has not trademarked the word “pink”, despite their best efforts. Clothes with the word “pink” on them are about as provocative as clothes with the word “love” on them. I think “love” has a lot more double *entendre *potential than “pink” does. There’s also all the clothes covered in hearts or of pink coloration.
Nothing to get the vapors over here, IMO.
To be sure, VS also sells fairly provocative clothing and darn sexy underwear, including underwear meant to be seen. A 12yo wearing that stuff would be a different story. Although the sexualization of a 12yo girl’s clothing choices probably started 6 yeas ago, so the horse is well and truly out of the barn by this point.
This was pretty obviously a VS “Pink” shirt with the standard (?capital letter) font used by the line. I don’t have much reason to believe that it wasn’t from the VS line.
Victoria’s Secret goes through great trouble and expense on a regular basis to sexualize their brand
Anyway, just to restate, it wasn’t anything that upset me. My thought process was “Hey, that’s a VS shirt. Is that kosher? Eh, maybe. Glad I don’t have girls so I don’t need to worry about it. Hey, maybe I’ll start a thread…” I figured, if nothing else, maybe someone with daughters around that age would have an opinion.
I had daughters about that age at one time. A shirt that was otherwise appropriate would not have bothered me simply because it was Victoria Secret and said “PINK.”
I currently have daughters at that age, who do wear VS “PINK” branded clothes. Given that the clothes themselves are neither revealing nor sexualized, I don’t have a problem with it.
I had daughters of that age about ten years ago. Thank Bacchus that the naughty/ “sexy” clothing for pre-teens had not been invented back in those days.
Why I never! The Pink line is, as I understand it, intended to be for girls/young women. I’ve never actually seen it worn by girls or young women! Not one time! I see it weekly on age 30+ dumpy white trash. I was under the impression it was part of the uniform! I sure consider that inappropriate.
The PINK gear I’ve seen has been remarkably unsexy compared to other workout wear, and particularly compared to other VS gear. Granted, I haven’t had as many opportunities of late to see what women were wearing as underwear, but the t-shirts? They’re t-shirts.
This drives me crazy because “PINK” is just branding. That is the name of the brand within a brand. VS has several different lines of clothing and the PINK line is just one of them.
There is also a brand called Juicy Couture, and some of their items have the word “Juicy” on them. That doesn’t mean the wearer of said clothing is particularly juicy; that’s the name of the brand. I own a pair of Juicy Couture glasses that say “Juicy” on them and they have a little stripper shoe embellishment on the sides. (Which is why I picked those out, because shoes. On my glasses.)
Yes, I am familiar with the concept of double entendre and this is just clever marketing. And I still agree with Bill Hicks about marketing.
That said, I’m not sure that everyone associates “PINK” with… what? Female genitalia? Are all vaginas pink? Is that what you think that means when you see the name of a brand on someone’s ass? Most of the PINK line is sweats, hoodies and t-shirts AFAIK. Settle down.
I don’t think I have ever seen it on anyone under, say, sixteen years old but that doesn’t mean much. I probably don’t pay a lot of attention, either (nor am I in their target market). But the whole “Intended for girls” idea is news to me.
…Likewise?
I really think less about any double entendre than the basic “VS = undies” angle, really. I realize they sell other stuff but undies still seems to be their core push and what they’re known for.
The Pink label seems to attract junior-high age girls, although I’ve certainly seen older girls wear it. It’s almost like he introduction to VS. When I taught junior high the halls were full of it.
Seeing someone older than eighteen in it makes me think of a fifty-year old in pigtails. It just looks odd to me. So I wouldn’t have thought anything of it.
Interesting. My exposure to it is primarily through VS ads where it’s being worn by adult (college age+) models. The website for Pink apparel (not just the undies) is all college+ age models as well. I wouldn’t have guessed it was being primarily marketed to younger girls.
