I don’t think it is marketed to young girls. Girls want to think they’re wearing clothes for older teenagers, so marketing to young girls would defeat the purpose. Young girls just seem to be the main purchasers, or rather Mom is, for them.
They’re colorful and cute, and usually pretty tame.
It’s pretty common for items appealing to girls to seem like they are marketed a few years up. No actual 17 year old reads 17 magazine. It’s squarely aimed at middle schoolers.
Checking in as an old stick-in-the-mud fogey. Sure, it is “just marketing”, but the parents of pre-teens have considerable input into what they think it is appropriate for their kids to wear. Sure, sexualization is everywhere, but that doesn’t mean a parent cannot make choices for their own child.
When my kids were in middle school, I was astounded at how provocatively some of the young girls dressed. I can’t understand why parents would allow that, but that is their choice. And Pink and Juicy are admittedly far FAR milder on the provocative scale, but I think you are kidding yourself if you believe no sexuality is intended by the marketer.
Maybe I’m a pervert, but I’d be surprised if I were the only man who made a connection between the designations Pink and Juicy and sexuality. The saying “pink on the inside” - while crass, is not exactly unheard of. And I doubt VS has never heard it.
I’ve never looked into it. Does VS cross market their main brand lingerie and Pink? I don’t think I’m a prude, and I know young people will get all kinds of experiences about sexuality whether or not their parents are comfortable with it. But there are TONS of clothes out there that do not invoke double entendres, without covering a young girl head to toe in a burkha. My personal preference as a parent was to choose the options that did not imply sexuality. Each parent is entitled to choose as they see fit.
According to my just-15 daughter:
She thinks Pink-branded underwear is super comfortable, but kinda pricey so she doesn’t buy it.
Wearing big brand names on a tight t-shirt or the butt of warm-ups is “kinda slutty” - Pink and VS are examples of that. If she wore Pink-branded underwear, it would be under non-Pink-branded outerwear.
I didn’t ask her if she thought “Pink” means anything sexual. I doubt she’s given it any thought and I don’t need to put that in her brain.
As context, she cares about pop culture, but is part of the upcoming generation of girls who are looking more to the US Women’s Soccer team and other achieving women vs. Kardashians.
Good for your daughter. Hope mine goes the same way. I have a ways to go, though – she’s only 19 months.
I have no idea what teenage and pre-teen girls will have to deal with in a decade or so. It worries me.
It literally never occurred to me that there is any kind of sexual double entendre in the name “Pink” for this line.
I mean I can see what the double meaning is supposed to be, now that you guys point out that one exists.
But… I’m a 37 year old dude and the thought never crossed my mind. I am not sure how widespread the understanding of the double meaning is.
Soooo… it’s not some tie-in to Susan Koman/Race for the Cure thing? Honest to God I thought there was a corporate connection. Kind of like the brand did.
Anyhoo, as someone who lives in the city where Limited Brands, Victoria’s Secret, etc., are headquartered maybe my shopping experience is skewed but to me (a dude) it seems the day of VS being about sexy lingerie are gone. For sure they still sell it but they’ve diversified their product offers so much that I doubt it is their main revenue stream by now. Again, just my opinion based upon observation but the sections of the stores around here with PINK are larger than the lingerie sections.
Wasn’t there a brand a few years back, called “FU”?
I wasn’t able to find any sort of breakdown by department but I did see a site claiming that VS makes up 35% of the lingerie market in the US. I’m not sure on how they define “lingerie” though – if all bras and panties apply or specialty items or what. Regardless, VS is still the lingerie giant.
When my daughter was that age there were similar concerns about similar shit. When somebody critiqued me for allowing my daughter to wear clothes she liked, I explained that she’d brought home another straight “A” report card, so I took her on a little shopping spree to celebrate.
Twelve years old. The only reason they’d have to think of themselves as little sluts is if you tell them they are.
If the word “pink” is in and of itself inappropriate for young girls then we should probably be more concerned about Barbie than Victoria’s Secret.
nm
I was recently shopping VS online for panties for myself and it felt more like soft porn. I would not let my young daughter wear the brand bc for me, yes, VS = sexy underwear = picture me in sexy underwear. My brain works like that, and I’m a woman
There was one called “FCUK”. They liked to emblazon it across T-shirts and such. I haven’t seen it in about 10 years although I don’t shop in the stores where it would be likely to be found.
I wouldn’t think it’s at all inappropriate, but I don’t personally like the PINK brand. I remember when it first came out, ages ago, it did definitely strike me as a porny, rather vulgar term. But then, I’m old and I don’t think it has that connotation now. I still wouldn’t buy clothing for my 12 yr old daughter with that huge word stamped on it, but if she got a PINK sweatshirt as a gift I wouldn’t be offended and would let her wear it. I do draw the line at words across her butt, though! I also try to remind her that clothing companies that plaster their words and logos all over their items are using her body for free advertising and she needs to consider whether she wants to be their billboard. I don’t know that she’s quite getting that concept yet, but I’m trying!