I know there are some bizarre beauty names out there – some are questionable, some are tasteless and some are just plain boring (does the world ever need another lipstick called Fuschia?). But, there has to be a line that, if you cross it, you should expect some attention.
So, the Kat Von D lipstick and gloss named ‘Underage Red’ should have us all seeing red. I don’t think there would be a single beauty brand that, if asked the question, “are you promoting, glamorizing or advocating underage sex?” would fling up their hands and say, “yes! yes, we are…”. And yet, with their siren red gloss, and the name ‘Underage Red’, the Kat Von D range has taken a beauty product over the edge into a seedy and highly questionable place where they’ve associated a product with child sex. The age of consent in the US is between 16 and 18 depending upon the state, and the age of consent in the UK is 16. Across the world, it varies between 12 and 18. But, that’s not really what’s relevant – what is more important is that they’ve glamorized it and tried to make it desirable.
It’s not for me to judge at all where anyone’s sexual boundaries lie; people mature at different ages and I guess decisions have to be made on an individual basis, but we live in a world where sexual exploitation of minors is a major issue. Most young women want to experiment with makeup as part of their growing up process, and that’s always going to be tied with attractiveness and self-esteem. But, with Kat Von D, how underage is Underage? Were they thinking of some naughty 14 year old? A 10 year old? Need I go on?
The beauty industry treads a very fine line – personally, I think it’s been crossed here. What do you think?
Transparency Disclosure
All products are sent to me as samples from brands and agencies unless otherwise stated. Affiliate links may be used. Posts are not affiliate driven.
36 comments
Totally agree with this post. It’s horrible and makes Rihanna look like a wallflower.
You are absolutely right. And I can basically already hear them say something like “It is meant to be funny/naughty/tongue-in-cheek/etc.” As always with things like that (rape, feminism, racism) we are supposed to grow a sense of humor and just grin an bear it.
You know weirdly, I read the title of this on Bloglovin and didn’t immediately register anything wrong (I thought it was someone doing another review of a lipgloss) which is actually quite worrying in itself. Has the industry become so close to the line over a period of time that its crossing it without us really noticing? I think its wonderful that someone in your position is highlighting it, making sure that the rest of us are not allowing that line to be crossed without really being aware of it. What is wrong with these companies? do none of them have children? The problem is, as a young person many don’t see much wrong with underage sex as long as its consensual but as an adult and a parent things look a whole lot different and surely its the responsibility of the leaders of these brands to make better decisions in the hope it will help our young people make better decisions too. To be honest I think its disgusting, are there no authoritative bodies overseeing things like this? I would hate to think companies can just get away with things like this. Sickeningly, “any press…” and all that – is that the intention all along? Do they not mind being noticed for the wrong reasons because at the end of the day they are being noticed?
It’s interesting that you raise that because I checked several US blog reviews and not one of them questioned it.
Well I love a nod to paedophilia with my cosmetics *sarcasm*.
WTF?
This is a brand I will now entirely avoid.
I totally agree with your posts. There are other ways to get attention for your product rather than going down this road. There is enough smutty stuff out there already without the need for this.
It just goes in line that they are pushing the agenda of making illegal and perverted things to be acceptable by society, by putting it “out there”. Some years ago, no one would even think of discussing child sex ( hence a lot if today’s cases are historic child abuse) or incest. However, people (if this is what they can be called) are getting away with this, to a point that some parts of Europe, first degree incest has been legalized and child sex abuse are of the norm. This is a sick sick world we live in, from sexually glamorizing death to sexually glamorizing children. Personally, I am happy that I stopped myself from buying any of the Kat Von D makeup and financially contributing to this product sick “name”. I would be surprised if this affair makes a lot of noise, maybe you have rightfully mentioned it, but no major consequences will happen to the brand, as it’s part of pushing the agenda.
I can honestly say I must be a little naive because I had never heard of that term before but it is quite questionable. I don’t really see the point of some beauty product names for instance some mascara names are a little crass, the same can be said for some blushes. I would feel a little off it a teenage girl was purchasing NARS Deep Throat for example.
Becoming Becca
How horrid! After women’s day and the scandals with politicians and world wide scary reports of rape and murder of women!
Underage doesn’t have to mean sexual. Can be underage for drinking, getting into clubs etc. kat von d is pretty smart, I don’t think she would be so stupid as to name it underage of consensual sex.
No, but I think there is an implication because it’s lipstick.. you’re not as likely to infer from the name that it’s underage voting for example, or as I have seen it above, sneaking into 18 rated films.
i agree, i thought it was more about sneaking makeup, like a bright bold lipstick, when you aren’t around your parents who have forbidden you to wear it. and i also agree that i don’t think she would have meant it to mean that.
and i knowwwww that nars and urban decay aren’t really promoting underage stuff, but sometimes their names shock me a bit too.
I am also going to have to agree with this post. There is no reason at all to call it that, unless they are pursuing the road you suggest of glamorising under-age sex.
I completely agree with you, it’s not acceptable and I’m sure there will be a statement issued about how it was meant to be funny. When things like this happen, I always wonder how it ended up going on sale with no one saying ‘Hold on a minute folks, perhaps this isn’t the best idea…’, or perhaps it does but objections go ignored.
I’ve always wanted to try Kat Von D after reading several reviews on her products, but nobody has ever mentioned this shade – definitely making me think twice about it now! This is crazy! I can’t believe that someone would have actually given the okay to name a product in such a way.
http://www.ceejayell.blogspot.co.uk
I cannot buy KVD lipstick at all because of tha one name.
THANK YOU! I had that exact same reaction the SECOND I read the name of the color. It’s offensive enough that we sexualize young women all around the world, but to think this is cute? It’s not. I’m actually going to e-mail the brand (for all the good it will do) and at least give them a piece of my mind.
I had the same issue with Essies : Nein nein neon okay fine (roughly translated: No no no okay fine) (german special edition). To me it sounded really date rapy. Funny is what amuses you and for me getting reminded of child abuse and rape is not make me have fun.
Have to agree. It really is in very bad taste
I remember reading why she named it that. It’s to do with the times she sneaked into films while underage and would wear a red lipstick or something like this. I don’t really like the name but it has people talking. I can’t find the source for that info since my google searching has it clogged up with new articles about this shade despite this colour having been around for a long time.
I would argue her shade called Lolita is just as bad.
Surely they can’t mean underage sex? You would think it wouldn’t be allowed on the shelves! If they really are referring to that than I have been completely put of and repulsed by the brand! To be honest I won’t really buy any product with a reference to sex because I personally just do not feel the need for the names. This just takes the biscuit though!
http://katsbeautytales.blogspot.co.uk/
It’s completely inappropriate and creepy. Obviously they are going for the shock value – brand as professional troll. We all know that a product name isn’t just something that somebody thinks up on a whim. Many people will have been involved in choosing this name and will have been involved in approving it before it went on sale. Do they not aspire to better?
And now everyone’s talking about it…controversy = super sale. By the time you can say ‘capitalism’ it’ll be a sold out commodity.
It seems to me that as a society, it’s time we grew up about certain things. Sex being one of them. The rape thing? TIme we got over it and decided it’s not ever acceptable for anyone to be pushed into sex in any way. (I love the ‘cup of tea’ analogy for consent that’s gone viral.)
Sexual predation and abuse used to be prevalent in the 20th century on people who were young, vulnerable, of lower social class, who were shy, lacked confidence or for a multitude of other reasons. People are now being prosecuted for this behaviour and it is no longer accepted as ‘par for the course’ in society.
Underage sex and the sexualisation of young people has to be similarly expunged from our way of thinking. I’d like to see a code of conduct that any model used must be over the age of consent – runway, photographic, anything. Because those are things that shape our view of what is appropriate.
I agree it’s a really offensive name and much as I like the look of some KvD products I have chosen not to buy them for this reason – Nars and Mac have even more questionable product naming practices in my opinion, and I don’t buy their products either. The only thing a lot of businesses care about is sales figures so the only surefire way to make your opinion felt is by choosing not to buy…Jo
I think MAC also has something called Underage but I’m not sure what.
They do, there was just an article in the Guardian about it: http://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2015/feb/23/mac-underage-lipgloss-hadley-freeman
Uhhh… disturbing. Thanks for pointing this out. There are plenty of other “cheeky” taboo subjects that aren’t criminal.
I totally agree with you Jane
Also I keep thinking how many people did this have to go through to look at an approve before it hit the shelves … Surely someone should’ve raised it in development stages n stopped the peoduct?!
Why has everyone sexualized this??? Have you ever even researched why it is called Underage Red!?? Eurgh for everyone slamming.
unfortunately Dollface, it doesnt actually matter WHY they called it that; all that matters is peoples PERCEPTIONS of it.
I think I’m more disturbed by MAC’s Underage lipglass, which is a nude pink that is meant to look youthful. Isn’t it typical that paedophiles want their victims to look young, as that is the appeal to them?
Kat Von D has Underage Red as if it is to make you look older, which suggests seeing and presenting yourself in a sexual way, which brings its own issues and questions of health and maturity.
If it was to do with films couldn’t it have been called “18” or “R-rated” or “movie night” or a load of other things?
Rudey names can make me laugh; I’m not a prude. But I have boundaries, and one of them is bringing kids in where it isn’t appropriate. No one questions baby pink as a colour, but Maybelline Baby Lips makes me shudder a little.
This from the woman who also named a lipstick ‘Celebutard’ and tweeted ‘At the end of the day, it’s just a f*cking lipstick’ before deleting it. It’s not a surprise, she thrives on this sort of publicity.
In case you didn’t see her response this week: https://www.facebook.com/katvond/posts/10155445610990454:0
I never looked at this in a sexual way…
It’s interesting that no one criticizes Tom Ford’s line this way.
Yes, I’ve just seen it.. but then, within that same line is a lipstick called Lolita.. exactly about underage sex. I question a lot of lipstick names – particularly from Urban Decay which walks a very fine line.. but I don’t do much on Tom Ford because I’ve got no relationship with the brand at all, so it’s not a range I keep up with.
I would have never thought of this THAT way. Interesting. I like Kat Van D as a brand, don’t think she does this intentionally. I boycott Nars for their creepy names