Since clothes are designed, sold, and worn to be seen and appreciated, don’t all clothes function as “eye candy” to some extent? It seems to me that clothing is never truly separate from the aesthetic. It is all intended as eye candy.
I tried to force a distinction in prior post between how we know what is innately sexual to one, versus somehow being made sexual by another (i.e. sexualized). This hasn’t been done here, and rarely is.
So I think there is a lot to unpack and consider here. If clothing is intended to flatter and support those who wear it, how aesthetic can it be before it somehow undermines the worth or appearance of the wearer? Does clothing which is designed to obscure one’s form add or subtract from the value of the person versus the clothing? Or is it neutral? I think that this is very culturally/subculturally specific.
And on an individual basis, how confident is the person wearing them? If they are comfortable and confident in themselves, then I would say that wearing what they consider attractive strengthens their agency, that this embodies their own innate sexuality. Whereas if they are insecure and this insecurity is exploited, this undermines their agency. For better or worse, I think that this dynamic between person and culture happens mostly separately from the intentions of those who supply the clothing. Just because they make something doesn’t mean that they succeed in getting people to wear it.
This is true, but we’re talking about ten year old children here. Telling these kids “now you’re sexy and sexual” is wrong on many levels, but even more wrong when a clothing company is trying to profit from it.
I see what you’re saying - most outer clothing for sale must function as eye candy in order to be sold. But there are three reasons that that doesn’t apply here, or at least that other factors should eclipse it -
These are underpants for children. Underpants for children do not need to function as eye candy after being sold. The way that A&F chose to make them visually attractive so they could sell them was by hijacking the children’s sexuality.
They say “eye candy” on them. This statement clearly is not intended to apply to the clothing itself, but to the child wearing it. If you see a shirt that says “2HOT4U” or “You’re a Loser” you know the shirt is speaking on behalf of the wearer. These clothes are explicitly claiming that the child wearing them is eye candy.
A statement printed on an article of clothing is there to be read. This statement is intended to be read by a sexual partner, or maybe the other children in gym class, or maybe just the child herself, standing in front of the mirror and thinking she’s sexy.
I think there’s a good chance that A&F made these primarily for all the free press they would garner. That doesn’t change the fact that it’s wrong for a company to try to increase profits by messing with a child’s sense of self.
And I agree that culture and place play a role in how this is received; my 17 year old nephew lives in New Jersey and is dating a girl that, in spite of her “very conservative” Catholic mom, is constantly posting pictures of herself in lingerie on Instagram. She’s also had lip injections at some tupperware type party for lip injections, botox, etc. She’s 14.
