Use of U logo by Victoria's Secret is a Minnesota arouser to some

The University of Minnesota has decided to sever a licensing deal with Victoria's Secret. Good, some say: The Most Sacred "M" will not adorn their hussy-suits and trollop-costumes! Good, others say: The idea of Goldy Gopher in a bustier and heels is not the image we want to project.

But how did this happen in the first place? And what's the problem with Victoria's Secret, anyway?

The reason it happened was simple: All the other cool kids were doing it. Thirty-three other schools had signed up with VS to put the logo on the "Pink" line, which is VS's casual lounging-around-the-house brand. Well, as your mother said, if all your friends were jumping off a bridge wearing clothes made in Indonesia bearing your logo, would you? The U said of course, and figured there wouldn't be a problem.

Well. Anything that combines "ess-eee-echs" and college students is bound to raise eyebrows, but you'd think the U had hooked up with Frederick's of Hollywood to produce undergarments that played the U of M theme when the straps were undone. Rah rah rah for Sky-U-Bra! Rah! Rah! Bra! Bra! Pants off for U of M! Not so.

The line of clothes is tame by any standards. There's a tote bag. Oh ho, a see-through, strapless tote bag? No. There's also a hoodie, a sweatshirt and sweatpants. They do not dissolve on contact with beer. They would not be considered immodest in an MRI machine in Saudi Arabia. You could hike them up a bit and show some ankle, which would be handy if you intended to travel back in time and scandalize folks at the 1891 home opener, but there's nothing naughty here. Except the name.

That's probably the issue. The brand.

The U's spokesperson said the revocation wasn't "a judgment in regards to Victoria's Secret." Mm-hmm.

We can only guess what the Key People didn't like. The old Victoria's Secret catalogs were much spicier, and daunting as well -- how anyone got those things off without a tin snips and an instruction manual was a mystery. But nowadays the Victoria's Secret catalogs sell things you can wear in public without the police throwing a blanket over you. If the school had struck a deal with Abercrombie & Fitch, no one would have peeped -- even though the stores have giant pictures of dumb shirtless beefcake greeting every 14-year-old who wanders in. C'mon in, kids! Grow up as fast as possible! A world of poor hormonally based choices awaits! There are clothing companies out there whose entire business model is based on the assumption that millions of parents will let their young daughters walk out of the house with JUICY printed on their behind. Those would have been bad partners. But a sweatshirt that doesn't even say Victoria's Secret? Hmm.

Over on StarTribune.com, one of the comments noted that you could buy a U of M thong at the Gold Country store. Surely this was just Internet nonsense; hard to believe that an institution as august and noble as the U would allow the hallowed M on the front of a thong. (Never mind the "Crying Game" false advertising that might imply.)

I wandered over to the Dinkytown store. Brace yourself: An anonymous Internet poster spake the truth. For $9.99 you could buy a thong with an embroidered "M" in the colors we have come to revere. To recap, then: Victoria's Secret sweatpants with the U's logo: Forget it. A thong: Oh, sure. We've got spirit, yes we do! We've got spirit, and it's riding up something fierce.