—Kerry Hill, B1Daily

For decades, Les Wexner, the billionaire founder of L Brands, wielded enormous influence over American fashion, culture, and, unfortunately, young women’s perceptions of themselves. At the center of that influence was Victoria’s Secret, and more specifically its Pink line, which targeted teenage girls and college-aged women with overtly sexualized lingerie marketed as playful, flirty, and fun.

Pink was not just a clothing brand; it was a cultural signal. By wrapping adolescent femininity in lace, satin, and provocative slogans, the brand blurred the lines between youthful innocence and adult sexuality. Wexner’s vision, carefully curated by executives under his direction, normalized the idea that teenage girls should aspire to a sexualized adult image. Every catalogue, every fashion show, every ad campaign sent the same message: sexual desirability was a commodity, and girls were the product.

The problem deepens when we consider Wexner’s long-standing association with Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein’s exploitation of young women and minors is widely documented, and his financial and personal ties to Wexner raise unsettling questions about the environment fostered within his corporate empire. While there is no direct public evidence that Pink was used as a vehicle for abuse, the combination of marketing sexualized young women and Wexner’s proximity to Epstein creates a toxic narrative about power, money, and the objectification of girls.

This is not just a critique of branding or fashion. It is a critique of societal complicity. When billionaires like Wexner profit from the commodification of teenage sexuality, and when the lines between mentorship, corporate power, and predation are blurred, the consequences ripple far beyond the mall. These marketing decisions shape young women’s self-image, reinforce gendered expectations, and normalize sexualization at an age when consent and agency are still developing.

The Victoria’s Secret Pink brand became more than just clothing—it became a cultural lesson in the sexualization of youth, packaged as fun and empowerment. And in hindsight, that empowerment was always conditional, tied to male gaze, profitability, and a system that allowed figures like Wexner to operate with enormous power and little accountability.

As society begins to reckon with Wexner’s legacy and his ties to Epstein, it’s worth asking a hard question: How much of the culture around teenage sexuality was cultivated, deliberately or otherwise, by the decisions of a man whose empire profited from girls aspiring to a dangerous ideal? The conversation about corporate responsibility, sexualization in media, and the intersection of power and predation is long overdue—and it starts with brands like Pink.

—Kerry Hill, B1Daily