Candie’s Response: Thongs for 10 Year Olds

I’m not ready to go with the full post yet, but last night I found this comment from Candie’s waiting to be approved:

While the Candie’s demographic can scale to as young as 14, we target 16-21 year olds as the core customer within Kohl’s and many of our loyal customers are over 30. The Candie’s thong underwear is not available in sizes for the younger consumer and we have never included thongs in any of our marketing. An entirely separate line of styles and sizes of Candie’s underwear is produced and available for younger girls.

Well, I looked at both the Candie’s and Kohl’s websites, and while I’m not going to talk about their marketing (yet), I do have several follow up questions for them. Several.

Here’s what I found for the underwear that Kohl’s shows on their website from Candie’s. I’m still confused as to which of this  is for the ‘younger girls’. Remember, the thong was sold within inches of the training bras (most girls start wearing training bras long before the 16-21 year old deomgraphic Candie’s states in the quote above). I found no examples of underwear of Kohl’s or Candie’s site that I would purchase for my under 18 year old daughter.

Candie's Underwear style also sold directly next to training bras at Kohl's

That doesn’t look like underwear for a young girl, does it? On a 21 year old, fine. But on a 12 year old? The style above was also sold directly next to training bras, the main demographic for which is 9-13 years old.

Have a follow up question of your own for Candie’s? Post it in the comments. Candie’s didn’t leave a contact name or email address for us to further the conversation, just


  1. I can tell you one thing; I will never buy anything from their company. I’m in marketing myself and to me their marketing strategy here is very obvious.

    I NEVER would have seen this type of thing 16 years ago when I was 14. What happened to morals and values? These are children!

  2. So Candie’s is saying it’s OK for 16-year-olds to wear sexxxy thongs? Really? So 16-year-olds should be having sex? (Why ELSE do you wear sexxxy, animal-print underwear? Cutesy is one thing, sexxxy is another.)

    EVERYTHING about their marketing screams SEXXX. Their Facebook page is all half-naked photos of Britney Spears (I think that’s her, someone commenting on FB mentioned her name as the spokesperson.)

    They can say what they like, the FACTS are they are marketing sex and sexxxy clothes to UNDERAGE girls. They’re selling this to girls as young as 8 and 9 years old, even if they claim they “market” it to 16-year-olds. Sixteen is too young to be sexualized in that way, and too young to be having sex. Tell them to ask their other spokesperson, Bristol Palin. How old was she when she and Levi had unprotected sex?

    What adds insult to injury (I wish there were stronger words to use, because those are way too mild) is that Candie’s turns around and has a “teen pregnancy prevention” organization. And their spokesperson is a teen mom. A rich teen mom. A celebrity teen mom. Who tells other teens that THEY should not get pregnant because it’s not OK for them — just for her, because she’s rich and a celebrity.

    How about you sell condoms next to your sexxxy panties, Candie’s? Or try to EDUCATE teens about birth control and STIs, instead of just shaming them and flaunting privilege??
    .-= Criss´s last blog ..Did you leave the Catholic church before or after your abortion? =-.

    • Criss,
      I absolutely agree. Candie’s knows full well that their market is far younger than the 16-21 year olds they claim to target. And no, I don’t think 16 year olds should be wearing sexy, lacy panties. On a ten year old that is just sick. Candie’s anti-teen pregnancy movement – the Candie’s Foundation – is a joke considering their marketing and choices for spokes models for their apparel line. Britney Spears, and her super sexy photos for Candie’s print ad campaign, is the current marketing.

      Bottom line (no pun intended): Thongs and g-strings are cross overs from the sex and adult film industry. Lingerie is costuming for sex and does not belong on the bodies of young girls. There is nothing sexual about our girls.

  3. I am very INTERESTED in seeing this “entirely separate line of styles and sizes of Candie’s underwear produced and available for younger girls.” Where is it? Because i’ve never seen it. Why are their thongs being sold next to “training bras”? Why are these SEXXXXX panties even being marketed to “Juniors” – a.k.a pre-teens & teens. Candie’s is full of cr****p!

  4. Does Candie’s really think a consumer who writes them a letter is that stupid? Their marketing strategy is, indeed, obvious. Thanks for the info. Consider me another Candie’s boycotter. This is shameful.

  5. Candie’s “teen” floral pajama set complete with padded cups. For sleeping. Here:

    Connecting all the dots: Candie’s Foundation works on teen pregnancy education.

    So, it seems teen girls should look sexy and bigger chested while sleeping BUT should know be “aware” of how difficult it is to become a teen mother.

    I’d suggest Kohl’s reconsider which product lines it chooses to sell.

  6. Also note: The language on their website under the Britney Spears photo says, and I quote:

    “Find the latest Candie’s trends for Juniors and Girls 7-16, only at Kohl’s! A Candie’s girl has it all. She’s fun and flirty. Complete your look with Candie’s shoes, Candie’s clothing, Candie’s jeans, Candie’s perfume, Candie’s bags and more! Get your Candie’s fix at Kohl’s.”

    Sorry, Kohl’s, you can’t have it both ways.
    .-= Lisa @ Corporate Babysitter´s last blog ..Consuming Kids Summit starts tonight =-.

  7. Michelle M says:

    I love Candie’s brand. You guys can go suck it.


  1. […] Melissa’s first post about G-strings for preteens, her second post with the corporate reply from Candies and her helpful third list of ‘vocabulary’ for dealing with sexualization […]

Speak Your Mind