I Don't Like That A Brand Called TITS Exists

Look, very little makes me uncomfortable. Profanity, frank, open talk about bodily functions, medical oddities, self-expression, whatever. It all has a time and place, and it rarely bothers me. But really? Do we REALLY need a clothing brand called "Tits"?

Tits stands for "Two In The Shirt," and according to their blog, the name "'Two In the Shirt' is derived from the acronym T.I.T.S., which is quite fitting considering the nature of the clothing itself." We also learn that Tits is a "provocatively unique clothing brand that uses the female body as the focus of its design... embodying a unique prototype of various fantasies of women."

Really? That's not unique. It sounds like you're just... using the female body -- specifically breasts -- to sell some t-shirts and hoodies. Do you really need boobs to sell hoodies?

"Each design showcases classy prints of nude or nearly nude women." Well, at least you're up front about it. But since when is a greased-up woman eating a banana in a locker room while wearing a cheerleading skirt is classy? She is many things, but classy is not one of them. And DON'T get me wrong -- if you like looking at photos like that, have a BLAST. Have a ball, even! But don't call it fashion.

I NEVER thought I'd say this, but at least American Apparel owns it! They just like pervy ads. They're gross but they don't pretending it's something it's not. 

Sure. Tits just isn't a brand for me. For one, I already have two in the shirt. But it's also not for me because it's Just. Not. Clever. ("Titter" instead of "Twitter"? Okay, fine. At least it sounds similar. But "Titbook" instead of "Facebook"? REALLY?)  It's just porn someone threw a t-shirt on.