03|26|2009
irrelevant nudity in advertisements.
This (women being exploited in the media) is something I’m very passionate about, but I never found the right words to describe my feelings. It’s obviously really difficult to talk about, so if my thoughts on this seem random, unprovoked, and/or disorganized, please know that I am still trying to make sense of this myself. I should also warn that the pictures & links in this post show graphic nudity.
____________________
I’m going to be quite frank: I cannot stand going to American Apparel’s website. What starts out as simple browsing, turns into a blatant titty-fest. I try to ignore it; I try to see the “art” behind their bold displays of skin, but it’s very difficult because I see it as unnecessary & borderline offensive. Especially when I see advertisements like this. I get really perturbed. (& I truly pray that I’m not the only one.)
When I showed those links to Lover, I asked him what he thought of them. He said that the zipper ad, specifically, was “understandable” because it is only “showing how the zipper works.” He considered it an accurate portrayal of advertisement. I do not see it this way.
I responded, “Show how the zipper works, my ass! She doesn’t have to be nude underneath. She could easily wear a bra if they wanted so desperately to show how the zipper works. Her being nude has nothing to do with how the zipper works.” Lover immediately saw my irritation & hinted that I might be overreacting. I told him that I didn’t care if I was overreacting; I don’t like it, & I won’t stand for it.
Let me say this: I have nothing against nudity. I think the human body is beautiful & we should all embrace it, in every size, every color, & every shape. But I also think that nudity to sell a product is completely unnecessary, regardless if it’s “tastefully done” or not. & the declaration of “my body is beautiful!” becomes contradictory when ads like these are shown without shame:
By showing these provocative pictures, are we embracing the female body, or are we exploiting it?
The first thing I saw when I looked at these advertisements was the suggestive poses these models were in. Their “come hither” looks; their wide open legs; their tongues, fingers, bodies calling your attention; their sexual expressions & the obvious showing of skin. For me, it was only a mere coincidence that they were wearing American Apparel garments. & because I didn’t notice the assumed advertisement of the product straight away, my next thought was, What exactly is being sold?
I wear American Apparel garments religiously. Most of my closet is comprised of their pieces: t-shirts, scarves, panties, bras, etc. (& all of these garments were purchase WAY BEFORE I knew of these racy ads.) They’re beautifully made & fit my body perfectly. It could be said that because they are made so well, I feel attractive in them; I feel sexy & confident. But does it make me want to lick my husband’s crotch? No, not in the context of me purchasing their underwear or socks. I suppose what I’m trying to say is that what is being boldly displayed in these advertisements has nothing to do with the product. Or… perhaps that’s the catch?
It can easily be argued that this is Art; that it doesn’t need “a reason.” But I think that if someone is going to publicly reveal their body to strangers, there had better be a damn good reason for it. Especially when these ads can be easily seen by children. What kind of messages does it send them? Unrealistic & irrelevant promiscuity. What kind of messages does it send to men? That women might enjoy being taken advantage of; that women dress in such a way to attract that kind of dangerous attention. Even more than that, these advertisements announce rather loudly that objectifying women is okay. No longer does a woman’s body become something sacred & beautiful; it becomes picked apart to “tits” “ass” “legs” & “face.”
& the more you talk about this touchy subject, the more popular these companies get. We’re damned if we do, & damned if we don’t, it seems.
There is such a grey area to this, but I feel it should only be black & white. Because people are constantly confusing “looseness & obscenity” with “Art.” It’s disgusting, it’s wrong, & frankly, it’s soft-core porn. Why do we allow this? Why do we make excuses for this?
(When you read that the founder & CEO of American Apparel, Don Charney, has been sued for sexual harassment several times, the ads become that much more disturbing. In this interview, Charney says that the word “slut” could be used as an “endearing term” for women; one that “you call your lover.” How absolutely degrading.)
I think we all have gotten far too comfortable with sex in the media. It’s constantly crossing the line, but it no longer outrages us. It provokes no real emotions in us because it’s the norm. Sexual subliminal messages are being pounded into our heads daily. (& American Apparel isn’t the only one courageous enough to proudly promote sex; Tom Ford did a series of advertisements & they are just as bad worse.)
These messages are in music, in television shows & commercials, in movies, & in magazines. We think nothing of it anymore because it’s so common. We are immune to it. But it should leave us outraged. It should provoke raw emotions of agitation & disgust, especially when the context of these “messages” are overly & irrelevantly suggestive, with no good reason.
I think we all need to start questioning the underlying meaning of these advertisements. I think we need to re-filter our brains to see what is really being portrayed, rather than accept these images as “the norm.”
____________________
Q: what did you think upon seeing those advertisements? What emotions did those photographs provoke in you? Tell me…
on Thursday, March 26th, 2009 at 2:13 pm:
Yes, yes, YES!
I think you are TOTALLY RIGHT.
I adore AA, but I am reticent to send Mike links to clothes I like because they are so unnervingly sexual.
When the models become a distraction instead of a selling point, no thank you. I can’t afford most AA clothes anyhow – I usually just buy the $5 t-shirts at our local Insanely Good Deals Store. :) I love their t-shirts, though!
I don’t know if you saw my tweet the other day about how AA is a total Nipple Fest, but good timing with this post. It’s totally been on my mind lately.
I mean, PUT ON SOME BRAS, LADIES!
Sheesh.
on Thursday, March 26th, 2009 at 2:22 pm:
I would probably call photographs of that style “art”, but I don’t think art and advertising really go hand-in-hand. If someone wants a coffee table book full of shots like that or to hang one on the wall, that’s great, I’m all for it. But, advertisements have a very specific purpose (sell stuff!), and I don’t think any of those photos convey the “buy this product” message very well. Seeing someone’s booty on a billboard doesn’t really encourage me to buy pants, ya know? It’s just very backwards…
on Thursday, March 26th, 2009 at 2:31 pm:
Totally agree. The sock ads are revolting.
on Thursday, March 26th, 2009 at 2:35 pm:
Well, I will just start by telling you that you’re absolutely right. This is pretty much crossing the line.
As an art student AND a marketing student… this isn’t what I would want to be selling to companies.
Frankly, I wouldn’t even want to be a part of it!
As for that zipper girl… I’m pretty sure that she could have shown that it’s a zipper and how it works without showing her boobs. Also, I’m pretty sure that everyone knows how to use a zipper! If not, well, then they are an idiot.
I know that sex sells. We all know that… BUT, this is past “sex”.
As nice as American Apparel is, this kind of puts me off … but that’s just me.
I don’t know what’s going to happen with this, but something needs to be done. I also don’t think that it’s very tastefully done. For example, the third example from the first paragraph. OMG. Why?? I don’t even have any words for that one.
Thanks for stating all of this… because I know a lot of people wouldn’t do it. <3
on Thursday, March 26th, 2009 at 2:42 pm:
I totally agree with your opinion.
The stuff is not so cheap here in Germany, but I always had a look on their site, and I always found it cool that they’re models arent’t the typical extreme-skinny ones but rather girls like you and me. Okay, it was shown more an more skin and it was okay, ’cause I think being confident with your body, feeling well and accepting it as a natural gift is important. But NOW it’s no more beautiful. It has nothing more to do with the products, it just has the effect that everybody talks about it, that’s all.
It’s a pity…
Apricot, will it prevent you from buying more AA?
Sina
on Thursday, March 26th, 2009 at 3:19 pm:
THANK YOU Ev’Yan.
Thank you for putting this in writing and out her for everybody to read.
I am pretty sure you’ll find that many, if not most, women agree with you on this.
The problem with those kind of ads is not only the sexual messages that it sends, but the exploitation of women in general. Let me quote you “these advertisements announce rather loudly that objectifying women is okay”, WHICH IT IS NOT.
Sorry, but it seems to me that this is prudish Americas attempt to make up for the fact that everybody goes craaa-zzzey when Janet Jackson has a wardrobe mal function on national TV!
I mean, seriously, you can’t show a piece of flesh on TV, let alone a (commited) couple making love on public television, but you can post exploitive pictures of women on a billboard?
THAT does not make any sense to me… and THAT totally sends the wrong message.
This upsets me as much as it upsets you.
Sadly, I do think that most men will react like your hubby and not think much of it.
on Thursday, March 26th, 2009 at 3:26 pm:
@ Sina: As much as I would like to say that this little post didn’t effect the way I feel about American Apparel, it really, really did. I now look at AA (& Don Charney, the CEO) in a different light.
This isn’t to say that I won’t ever buy another AA item again; I feel like that is a very rash decision. But I am glad I did more research regarding AA, because it was very informative.
Aside from this, AA is a great company. They are “sweatshop free” & all of their items are made in the US, where there workers are well taken care of. However, I will most likely be more inclined to buy elsewhere. Not JUST because of this, but because AA has always been really expensive. Every AA item I own I bought wholesale, through trendyblanks.com.
I didn’t write this to deter people away from AA, either. But… knowledge is power. & the more you know, the better.
on Thursday, March 26th, 2009 at 3:27 pm:
I completely, 100 per cent, agree with you on this. Those ads offend me and the use of sexuality and display of intimate body parts is unnecessary. The zip up ad even could have showed a small amount of skin, but didn’t need to show her breasts.
I’m not a prude, but those ads disturb me. And I do think that they say that objectifying women is okay.
on Thursday, March 26th, 2009 at 3:42 pm:
Coming from a mom’s perspective, it’s advertising like that that causes young girls to feel insecure about their bodies. I know of 8 year olds who are asking about diets because they think they are fat! When I was 8, the least that I worried about was whether I’d have enough money to buy bubble gum AND a snow cone!
The advertisers all along have been touting the fact that sex sells. That’s why they have scantily clad ladies in front of used cars and window tinting businesses??? It’s just a way of subliminally causing guys to take notice. Guys are much more visual, especially when someone has nothing or barely anything on. So, given that AA is willing to display their models that way, they are certainly gaining the attention that they are going after.
Is there a disclaimer on their website stating that some pictures may not be for children???
You voiced it very well, Ev’Yan. Our bodies are beautiful but in the suggestive ways that the models are being portrayed screams more than a beautiful body. Good topic!
on Thursday, March 26th, 2009 at 3:43 pm:
Ugh I am just as disgusted as you are at these ads. It is so unbelievably offensive that women are so routinely objectified as a means of gaining commercial profit, and that the customer base is such that female nudity actually results in increased profits. It is so vulgar and crude and base, selling to the lowest common denominator. To drive the point home on how offensive AA ads have become, I honestly can’t tell whether the “no wonder women get raped” slogan is part of the ad or just graffiti.
At the same time, however, the female nude has been a prevailing theme in art from as far back as B.C. times. Look at any time period, and the pervasive commonality is the image of the naked female body. So in that sense, it’s not really a surprise that female nudity has become so ubiquitous in advertising, which is really the most consumed and distributed form of art today. But still- it’s so effing offensive!!
on Thursday, March 26th, 2009 at 4:04 pm:
a few years back when their ads were much more toned down i got it- their brand image was trying to stand out a bit etc. i mean when you think about their products a lot of them are basic pieces done in loads of colours- so to stand out from the ‘traditional’ ads like gap/ uniqlo etc they needed a unique selling point. but now they are seen as this hip cool brand it’s like they are seeing how far they can push it and it just isn’t cool. also…. i’m from the uk and i do love myself some AA but the staff in all the shops a. look absolutely stupid (like they have come to work as clowns on most days) and b. ARE THE RUDEST PEOPLE ON EARTH. i have worked in retail- it doesn’t make you the coolest people on earth. manners cost nothing- some simple pleases and thank-yous as well as maybe some eye contact might be nice! or just don’t act as if we are irritating you by daring to come into your shop.
x
on Thursday, March 26th, 2009 at 4:20 pm:
I 1000% agree with you.
Its just porn!! Has anyone complained about this the way they have Abacrombie & Fitch? If not they should. Its just exploiting young women & I bet a bunch of dirty old men are getting off on it. They arent buying the clothes!
on Thursday, March 26th, 2009 at 5:20 pm:
I can see how this would be an attractive advertising avenue to go down, but that doesn’t make it right. I totally agree with you – it’s not art, it’s objectification, and its *horrible*.
We don’t have AA here in NZ, but two campaigns have been pointed out to me. One is this one, the other is the pregnancy set Ryan from ‘Pacing the Panic Room’ is doing with his wife in AA gear as a kind of Mock AA campaign (viewable here).
Even though the Ryan Maternity set is an unintentional ad campaign, I know which I prefer.
on Thursday, March 26th, 2009 at 5:41 pm:
Now that I’m home from work, I checked out some of the links and many of those cross the line from “art” to “sleazy porn.”
on Thursday, March 26th, 2009 at 5:58 pm:
Not in defense of AA, but they sort of pride themselves on being a very sexualized brand. I don’t know if this image is helping them move product, necessarily, but that’s their hook.
Sucks that I can’t browse their site unless I’m at home. Porn at the job is frowned upon.
on Thursday, March 26th, 2009 at 6:29 pm:
I think that part of the distinction that is really important to make is context. When models wear sheer blouses in a Chanel show, that’s one thing. When American Apparel, whose owner has had scores of sexual harassment charges filed against him by his employees sells based on mindless, numb looking, nude, barely legal girls?
That seems to be another to me.
My problem for a long time has been American Apparel, specifically.
I think it’s really hard though, if you have a visceral reaction to the way they sell – why support that by buying? There are lots of other companies we can buy from, maybe the answer is to be less cool – don’t let it roll off your back, and put your money with a company that you fully support. That, or know you’re a part of that image they have – I know I am, I own AA stuff too and I love it.
Like it or not, if you wear AA religiously those images are part of your religion. I’m just not sure what we can do beyond not buying in.
on Thursday, March 26th, 2009 at 7:11 pm:
I am so glad you blogged about this!
This is something that has always made me feel particularly sick to my stomach, because I HAVE read before that the CEO was charged with sexual harassment.
Sometimes when I look at their ads, I feel like I’m looking at something that wasn’t meant for public eyes … like photos a girlfriend took for their boyfriend, only somehow it ended up in a very public place. I think it has something to do with the fact that the girls look so ordinary, unairbrushed and are completely lacking the “im a naked model. rAwr!” look in their eyes.
You can show a lot of skin, but I think the line gets crossed when you’re showing private parts or blocking private parts out with text elements (like in the fourth image you posted) … then it just becomes porn.
One commenter mentioned that A&F does the same thing, and that is very true – I have always felt EXTREMELY uncomfortable in an A&F, more so than in an AA store (up in Canada, or in the stores I’ve visited at least, there isn’t any full nudity displayed IN the store) … but while A&F makes me uncomfortable, it doesn’t give me that sick feeling, because their photos are clearly edited and photoshopped, making it feel more “posed” and less “leaked nude photos-turned-advertisements” … if that makes any sense.
on Thursday, March 26th, 2009 at 7:27 pm:
On the other hand, they’re just nude body’s. We all have them, most of us are to some degree interested in other people’s nude bodies. What’s the big deal?
This is not going to be a popular comment here is it … oh dear … well, just for the record I am most definitely against exploitation, just not sure that this crosses that line.
on Thursday, March 26th, 2009 at 7:28 pm:
I am more offended by my poor apostrophe usage, sorry about that, should be bodies not body’s.
on Thursday, March 26th, 2009 at 7:53 pm:
YIKES! The nudity in those ads is TOTALLY unnecessary. Completely and totally unnecessary. In the zipper one, she didn’t need to show her boobs. In the scarf one, she didn’t need to show her boobs. THAT was random. And in the yellow sock one? You can barely SEE her socks! If I’m looking at clothing ads, I just want to look at the clothes! I can’t even see her socks really, just the top of the socks before I’m bombarded by her bush and her boobs. Yikes.
on Thursday, March 26th, 2009 at 7:59 pm:
I think its one thing to have them on your site(still not good)…but another to have them in the media for everyone to see….because I agree, it’s going to provoke different feelings in everyone and it’s of course very inappropriate for kids to see, and when its displayed on billboards and common magazines…they are gonna see it
I mean jean advertisements dont feel the need to show how the zipper works now do they?
My gymnastics coach wanted to order the nude leotards from there to wear under our white competition leotards…a girl on my team told him American Apparel sold them for cheap..and he was like “i’ll check out the website” and I was like “NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO”
sorry to rant my life story
I agree very much with this post….and I also wear AA quite a bit
on Thursday, March 26th, 2009 at 8:33 pm:
We Live in a world where sex sells and it’s gotten ridiculous.
I’ve seen those ads while walking down the streets in LA and I cannot help but repress a shudder because its vulgar. I’ve seen worse in photography especially in regards to women and their bodies. I just hate those American apparel ads because I never understand what it is they are trying to sell for the longest time I didn’t even know it was a clothing store. Looking at those ads and being inside the store was a complete 180 it’s like how do poses like these sell your clothing? It makes absolutely no sense what is the message you are trying to send?
Whoever made those ads should be ashamed of themselves for making the human body a commodity.
on Thursday, March 26th, 2009 at 8:45 pm:
I completely agree. And I will never, ever believe anyone who would dare say that those photos are “art” or “just advertising”. You’re right…it’s not a tasteful presentation of a woman’s body, nor does it leave ANYTHING to the imagination. It is crude. That’s what it is.
I had no idea their ads were so graphic – good thing I didn’t decide to browse their website while at work, huh?
It makes me sad, really…because it’s definitely not going to stop. And if they’re making images like that more and more available to anyone (at any age) then…who knows. I don’t even know. It’s just upsetting.
I agree with Chanel and how she pointed out that the ads look more like “leaked nude photos-turned-advertisements”. That is exactly it – AA knows that sex sells. And they’re doing absolutely everything they can get away with, and then some.
Thanks for writing this awesome post!
on Thursday, March 26th, 2009 at 8:49 pm:
Thank you so much for posting this. UGH. Seriously, I hate this crap! You are right – these pictures are basically soft core porn. And yeah, your eye goes right to the girl, not the clothes. Shouldn’t the point of an ad be to sell the clothes? And it’s even more sick knowing the owner of AA has been accused of sexual abuse. UGH UGH UGH. I knew their ads were sexual but I had never been to this company’s Web site before so I had never seen such photos like the ones you linked to (the zipper one, etc.) Oh my gosh. I hate how these ads treat women like objects, that they’re nothing more than boobs and ass. UGHHHHH. So sad. And I’m sure lots of young girls buy these clothes – what horrible role models and such a terrible thing to teach young girls that all they are are sexual objects. Sorry, this comment is really rambling … And those Tom Ford ads! I couldn’t believe it! The ads are hated the most were the ones where the girls were naked and the guys were fully clothed. Like men are intellectual beings and girls are just these things to leer at. UGH. To go back to American Apparel — I had wanted to buy some clothes from this company one day but now I’m going to really think about whether I want to support a company that exploits women. Blah. :[
on Thursday, March 26th, 2009 at 9:22 pm:
I totally, 100% agree with you!
I cannot shop at AA online at work because that whole website is NSFW (not safe for work).
Its not the nudity, its the sexual nature, the poses, teasers, etc. You dont need this to sell clothes. I have a few AA clothes and undies too and constantly ask myself if I really want to support a company like that.
on Thursday, March 26th, 2009 at 9:46 pm:
I also heard (but that would definitely need to be checked) that AA was doing some unofficial sponsoring of actual porn films. I don’t think they get money out of it. Porn stars wear their clothes in the films, which contributes to the whole soft-core porn gloss the brand has been elaborating. I guess it’s also all good for the porn films that can get some kind of publicity out of it… If anyone has a reliable source that can confirm this…
on Thursday, March 26th, 2009 at 9:57 pm:
As a mother of 2 young boys, ads like these DISGUST me to no end. I am trying to raise my sons to respect women, to treat them & love them for the amazing human beings that they are & NOT just as sexual objects but it is SO hard and will get increasingly difficult as they age, to teach them these morals & values when everywhere you turn ads like this are in your face. Not to mention that it’s hard to teach respect for someone who isn’t showin much respect for themselves, imo.
I have heard SO much about AA from practically everyone in the blogospere and had ventured over to the site to look at the clothes only to be flabbergasted at the blatant display of nudity/pornographic images.
I will NOT buy their clothing precisely b/c of their choice of advertising and think its absurd that the clothes are an afterthought as apposed to the main content. Do I want to buy socks, leggings, tshirts etc while browsing their site & seeing these ads? NO. I want to close the window & stay the hell away. And ew, how disturbing about the CEO!
on Thursday, March 26th, 2009 at 9:58 pm:
btw, i applaud you for this post!
on Thursday, March 26th, 2009 at 10:07 pm:
As a 32 year old woman, I feel confident enough to share that these ads do not affect me as it would, perhaps, my 12 & 14 year old nieces who may think it’s “cool” to pose like those pictures and then subsequently share those pictures with their friends. And so on and so forth.
Whatever happened to the mysterious nature of sensuality? Like, hinting at what may be hidden behind that zipper instead of “bang! boobs!”
It is sad that most young teens will think that nothing is sacred: children are having sexual relations at such a young age that once they hit their late teens, they will probably shrug their shoulders & think, “well, what now? what’s left?”
Let’s hope women such as ourselves can still make a difference. Thanks Ev’yan for speaking loud & clear on this disturbing trend.
on Thursday, March 26th, 2009 at 10:49 pm:
If you disapprove, you probably shouldn’t go to the site.
on Friday, March 27th, 2009 at 1:02 am:
i totally agree! i am a business marketing student and i see where they are trying to go with the concept, but they definitely took it too far. not to get technical but there -are- legal limitations on this kind of thing. either way i have only been to an american apparel store once in las vegas, nv and while i do love their basics, its too pricey for me.
oh, and i thought i would sort of introduce myself; i have only been reading your blog for a few days, and i forget how i stumbled on it, but i find you so interesting and relatable! i too married young (at age eighteen!) and i also live minimalistically.
can’t wait to read more!
-beccap
on Friday, March 27th, 2009 at 4:26 am:
Nice thoughts. Overall, I do find those AA ads lacking in good taste.
on Friday, March 27th, 2009 at 4:58 am:
I’ve never actually seen these overwhelming sexual AA ads but seeing them now, it’s pretty shocking. There is such an abundance of sex, and it is unsettling. When I was a younger teenager I don’t remember seeing so much sex in the media. It is no wonder that more and more 13 year olds are starting experimenting with sex, without thinking about the consequences and dressing in ways that I certainly copy. And why should they when the media makes it look like so much fun, and it literally is everywhere.
And you’re right—there is no point to it. It’s just there for “shock” value. I know it certainly doesn’t make me want to wear the clothes more. I do like AA, but seeing this, it makes me question what they are trying to sell. Sex for sex sake bothers me so much. Like when Andrew and I went to see Watchmen, we actually started to GIGGLE during the obscenely (and unnecessarily) long sex scene because it was that uncomfortable. It was part of the plot, sure, but not four minutes of it.
Ugh. — Great post.
on Friday, March 27th, 2009 at 5:20 am:
I’m glad I’m not the only one that feels this way. It’s ridiculous and to the point that in some of these so called advertisements you can’t even tell what they are advertising because they show basically a naked body and the top of a pair of socks. wtf is that! awesome and much needed post.
on Friday, March 27th, 2009 at 5:31 am:
American Apparel is known for hiring women who are *actual porn starlets* for their adverts. E, I completely agree about the gratuitous nature of the nudity in their ads.
I’ve heard the argument go both ways, but for me, finding that kind of explicitly sexual advertising when I wasn’t seeking it made me -literally- close the browser window and skip my purchase. I found something similar on Etsy, anyway.
I’m only 25, so I can’t claim to have the world figured out. People surprise me all the time (E, our little friend N brought a knife to school yesterday. A big one. Wonders never cease) but I think I have enough awareness to understand that if I modeled in that way at 20, 22, 25… I’d regret it later.
We emphasize women as sexual objects, and yet tell them if they explore that sexuality privately, they’re sluts. It’s more acceptable to post pictures of yourself making out with other women on MySpace than to have any kind of real experience. I think disconnecting sexiness from the emotions we’re supposed to feel about sex does a huge, confusing disservice to women, especially the ones who haven’t had a sexual experience yet.
This article is interesting, written by the lover of my favorite spiritual cowgirl, Sera Beak: http://americanapparel.net/presscenter/articles/20050624sfgate.html
on Friday, March 27th, 2009 at 5:41 am:
Although I agree that there is a fine line between “art” and “unnecessary sexual images” in these ads, I think that a lot of the problems people have in the US with things like this stem from the odd relationship popular media has with sex. A lot of people think we are “immune” to over-sexualized representations of men and women in the media, but I think most Americans are really scared of this kind of thing, whereas in other parts of the world, like Europe for example, nudity does not always immediately denote sex, and representations of nudity in the media are not cause for public outrage. There are far more nude ads in magazines, for instance. I used to work in fashion with a woman from Germany and she brought in some German fashion magazines one day. Many of the ads featured nudity, and although it was artistic, tasteful and in no way sexual, many of my other co-workers were outraged and offended. In the case of these AA ads, yes, they are quite exploitative, but nudity can be artistic, and we shouldn’t be so scared of it. Just because someone’s naked doesn’t mean they are being objectified or turned into a sex object, and I think that’s an important distinction to make.
on Friday, March 27th, 2009 at 6:06 am:
I have many thoughts on this.
First, YOU ARE NOT ALONE IN THINKING THESE ADS ARE WRONG. I’ve often wondered ‘What the hell?!’ when you see giant t!ts and @ss staring at you from the back of a magazine cover.
I also heard from someone who was a photographer for American Apparel that a lot of nasty shit goes down during photoshoots- often times with underage models.
So I have yet to buy American Apparel and don’t know if I will.
However, another part of me wonders if it is also maybe a jealousy thing? I’m not too proud to admit that I really don’t feel comfortable with my husband seeing a naked model who is younger/prettier/fitter than me.
I’ll admit that could also be something that irks me about those ads.
But in general, nudity is used to sell everything, from cars to orange juice to cheese, so even my husband has turned to me and said ‘Now was showing that naked woman REALLY necessary there???’ so I don’t think I have anything to worry about!
:)
on Friday, March 27th, 2009 at 6:42 am:
i totally agree.. more like soft porn than clothing advertisements.
on Friday, March 27th, 2009 at 7:21 am:
it actually doesn’t disturb me that much because the ‘realness’ of the pic – at least they don’t look super-retouched
on Friday, March 27th, 2009 at 7:59 am:
I just stumbled upon your blog and I am so relieved. I have been so frustrated with this myself! I recently wrote a 20 page paper to get out all my frustration with the female body in the media vs. the male body. Its almost as if it will never be changed or equal because of the centuries of damage that has already been done. I think its sick that we have people who feel that the best way to sell their CLOTHING is using a NUDE model. What sense does that make? I, like you, have American Apparel clothes, and I like them. But these adds and the blatant and unashamed objectification of the female body make me want to stop buying their clothes. I just hate to see that this dude is getting away with it still, its 2009, haven’t we come further in our thinking by now as a society!? And why hasn’t anything been done about his sexual harassment suits, or has there? Like the women mentioned before, once you have little boys especially, how on earth do you teach them to respect women and their bodies if you grow up seeing them exploited all over billboards, magazines, etc. especially for a popular clothing line that more and more younger teens are getting into? Someone once argued to me that what he is doing is good because he is using images of girls who are natural and normal, not all made up supermodels. I think its great that their faces look natural, not coated with make up, yet their legs up in the air with no undies on somehow takes away from looking at their face at all…go figure. I just wish that there would be enough of us to really do something about this. Thanks for letting me know I’m not the only girl who “overreacts,” as my friends also say, on this subject.
on Friday, March 27th, 2009 at 8:14 am:
I had never seen those American Apparel ads. I find it rather surprising (at the same time, I don’t at all) because I always think of AA as this forward-thinking, progressive company — no sweat shops, all clothing made in the US (Los Angeles, I believe?). They’re stepping forward in the right way, I always thought.
These ads certainly give me pause and make me rethink the way I regard the company. I, too, like their products and I’m pretty happy with the way they fit. But, mostly, I was impressed with their liberal attitude. I think that our country needs more companies like this. However, I could do without the blatant sexual overtone of the ads.
I agree with you — we’re living in a precarious time. Ads like these influence the way we think, the way young girls think, and I don’t believe that any of it is appropriate. I was recently in LA for the first time in many months. I found myself succumbing to a very negative, critical way of thinking — my body isn’t good enough, I should exercise more and eat less, blah blah blah. Why is it that I feel fine in New Mexico and the minute I’m in LA, this is what controls my thoughts? The answer is obvious, and these ads are absolutely representative of that. It’s really a problem in our society, one that, I think, is not going anywhere any time soon. I mean, have you seen the latest cover of Rolling Stone? Yeah, it’s hot. But what is it saying to me? What is it saying to young women?
Great post, Ev’Yan. I think it is honestly one of the best things I’ve read on the blogs in a while. Thank you.
on Friday, March 27th, 2009 at 9:02 am:
wtf!
i don’t like that at all
on Friday, March 27th, 2009 at 9:15 am:
best thing i read above so will re-state “Like it or not, if you wear AA religiously those images are part of your religion. I’m just not sure what we can do beyond not buying in.”….
YES. NO BUYING IT. smartest idea from above.
i do not wear AA and would ask all of you, including the author to do the same. get rid of AA you already have. how can we in good conscience be against something…and then buy it? please don’t buy AA. end of story.
also hate how many pics had to be included to get point of story across. aren’t we in a way sort of doing their PR work for them? if all we do is talk about AA, get offended and then these same people still go out and buy it/wear it…they sort of win-sort of just smart ads then for them, huh?
thanks for this post and i hope it brings people to ACT not just complain. i got to girls to raise here, ya know? would love to see this part of “what is” our culture transform. :p
on Friday, March 27th, 2009 at 9:19 am:
What a fantastic post! It made me laugh when I saw the photos behind some of the links because they were so obviously porn. It wasn’t an ad. It was porn.
por·nog·ra·phy: Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
Dictionary.com says it well. I’m not always offended by pictures like that depending on the context. I feel like they are missing the mark though. Classic Pinup photos do it better and do it more tastefully. I was surprised to see a larger clothing company just going for it 100%, but then again I’ve intentionally avoided advertising like that for years now.
My question though is why buy from a company you have a moral objection to? Boycotting is one of the strongest ways I know to influence the world around us, especially the world of business. If a large enough amount of people stopped buying their clothes because they didn’t like the ads, they would be forced to rethink their approach. And with the unbelievable amount of products available on the internet now, finding an alternative would be an exciting adventure. I don’t have brand loyalty to companies that piss me off.
I remember the controversy over Calvin Klein ads back in the early ’90s. This seems like a natural evolution from that. In that sense, seeing an ad like that is not surprising to me, a part of me thinks it’s long overdue. Maybe it takes something that has way crossed the line in order to force people to rethink the whole approach of using sex to sell products. Is sex appropriate to sell something? Is sex sacred? Or is it just another commodity that’s fair game for making some money and manipulating people?
When I was thirteen I went to modeling school, though I never ended up modeling. I didn’t even send my headshots out. Nothing. When I was done with it, I’d gotten a serious education in the fashion and advertising industry and it helped to begin to break the spell it held over me as a young girl. At around the same time I was finishing up my time at modeling school I was also getting into creative writing. Years later, writing satire about the fashion industry became one of my favorite subjects for fiction because, 1) they’re such an easy target and 2) there is a lot that needs to be said about something we are bombarded with, a lot of times without a choice.
When I see pictures like the ones you have here, one of the first things I think is “who is that girl? what is her life like? does she go home and tell her boyfriend, ya I did a shoot today feigning orgasm to sell some American Apparel socks?” These kinds of questions fascinate me, and make good fodder for writing about it in a way that will help people see it from a different angle that they may not even register just looking at the pictures. They may not be offended or even phased by the photo, but you can show them why it makes sense to be disturbed by those ads. Maybe looking at it from the perspective of a young girl around 12 seeing those ads at her friend’s house one night while sleeping over and they take turns imitating the poses just to be silly and for something to do. And then they go to school the next day to health class talking about the virtues of abstinence or whatever. Ya, it’s a lot of material in there. Have fun with it, I’d love to see what you’d come up with. =)
on Friday, March 27th, 2009 at 9:51 am:
“a blatant titty-fest.” You’re brilliant. Ev’Yan, I think you should write more posts on women’s issues. I have thoroughly enjoyed this post.
on Friday, March 27th, 2009 at 9:51 am:
I’m just glad to see a woman with public hair. So over the Brazilian.
on Friday, March 27th, 2009 at 10:12 am:
This is pornography not advertisements. This is the stuff that it is so hard to teach daughters about and it goes around school like a buzz.
Exploitation at it’s worst. Thank you for a good post.
on Friday, March 27th, 2009 at 10:24 am:
I have thought about this a lot through the years. And not just the sexual aspect. Take for instance the fact that every sit com, every commercial etc… in the media we still see the woman as the mediator, bitch, housewife, nurture of children, cleaner of the house. And the men tend to be the rebellious child, someone who needs scolded by the wife, he’s not very bright and needs a woman to keep him straight (this is what’s typically portrayed). I sometimes play a game and role reverse the gender of the actors and see how strange it seems. The stranger it seems, the more stuck in these stereotypes our society is. Your topic brought this other aspect to mind for me. Thanks.
on Friday, March 27th, 2009 at 10:32 am:
I have never bought anything from them, and I’m not sure I want to now. Those adds, for a clothing store? It really is disgusting, and if I had a child, and he/she saw those adds, I’d be pissed.
on Friday, March 27th, 2009 at 10:35 am:
speaking of role reversal… how do you feel about Calvin Klein ads where men or the male body are/is objectified?
http://us.st12.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/abcunderwear_2045_6573916
on Friday, March 27th, 2009 at 10:57 am:
@ Everyone: I want to thank all of you for your comments. All of them were very insightful, & I really appreciate your honesty. I am very surprised that this post has gotten so much attention. I was really only blowing off steam, & venting about a subject that makes me very angry & disturbed. I am not, at all, trying to sway people into boycotting AA or Tom Ford, or anyone else that does ads like this. I am only wishing to bring awareness to a subject that can be easily justified as “art” & defended.
Mostly, though, I’m happy to know that I am not the only one who sees this in a bad light.
A lot of you have suggested for me to boycott this brand. While it would be the perfect solution, & something that I could easily do, throwing away all of my AA garments seems VERY irrational to me (though it would be making a huge statement). Not just because I they’re my clothes (I paid a hefty price for them) but because I use them consecutively. As I type this, I am wearing AA underwear.
I want everyone to know that by me still choosing to wear AA garments — the ones I bought BEFORE discovering the uckiness of these advertisements — it does not make me any less aware of the sleeziness. I know now what I didn’t know before, & therefore, I will definitely rethink my purchase choices of AA.
Again, I have to say that there are some very good qualities of AA, which ultimately keeps me wearing their clothes. They are a sweatshop-free environment, & they make ALL of their clothes in Los Angeles. Not to mention, they take great care of their employees. I really respect that about them, because how many clothing companies can say that?
But still, it’s a small price to pay in regards to the lucid advertisements.
I have only bought 1 item in the actual American Apparel store; otherwise, I have purchased ALL of my AA clothes from trendyblanks.com. I very rarely go on the AA website, & when I do, it’s because I am looking for clothes that trendyblanks.com does not have.
Someone said that if I don’t like what I see on the website, I shouldn’t go on it. That’s an obvious solution. Again, I hardly ever go on their website, but when I do, I end up leaving to find a better alternative. At least on trendyblanks.com their photographs are filtered & only for the purpose of selling the clothing — or so I feel. It’s a better environment for me to shop in.
@Suzanne Tucker said “also hate how many pics had to be included to get point of story across. aren’t we in a way sort of doing their PR work for them?”
I included so many pictures because I wanted to show the uglier side of ads. I wanted to paint an accurate picture of why I truly despise AA’s (& other companies) ads. To talk about them is one thing, but to give people an actual visual of what is going on is another. I may gone overboard with the links, but I did that because a lot of the links contained full frontal nudity & I did not want THAT plastered on my blog; but I did want people to see exactly what I was talking about. & if I am doing their “PR work for them” that’s fine; truthfully, I don’t really care about that, as much as I care about bringing awareness to a subject that is often overlooked & excused.
A lot of people also said that “at least they don’t airbrush their models.” Yes, it is refreshing to see real women being used as a canvas for their work; I’ll give them that. But at what expense? To me, after viewing these very explicit ads, them not being airbrushed & retouched goes out of the window. I feel like that could be easily used as a justification for these ads, to give them a more “noble” approach, & I don’t like that.
& yes, I think nudity is beautiful. If I see a painted picture or a photograph of a woman in the nude, I don’t immediately think “this poor woman is being objectified.” I know when it is appropriate & when it is not. I know when it is art & when it’s not. & I feel like AA’s ads are NOT art. They are exploitative & completely unnecessary in regards to what is being sold — clothes! The female body is beautiful, if portrayed as such. If a female body is portrayed as only “tits & ass” that’s all it becomes. Body parts to be gawked at.
I would also like to say that we Americans DO have a very weird relationship with sex & the media, as @Marisa said. On one hand, we try to embrace it — like with these AA ads — but on the other, we’re afraid of sex! That’s why I feel this is such a touchy subject; because while sex is looked down upon in a lot of cases, it is also embraced awkwardly… It’s very confusing, & I wish that we could all just stick to one healthy story about sex & the human anatomy.
@Sharon asked: “how do you feel about Calvin Klein ads where men or the male body are/is objectified?”
I feel the SAME way about men as I do about women, in this issue. I was close to including my opinion about the men’s advertisements, but felt like that was a whole other topic within itself.
I WILL say that I don’t see men objectified as much as women; maybe because for men, it’s harder to do (?). Jonathan gets Details magazine, & I occasionally read the pages & peer at the advertisements & they are NOTHING like what women are portrayed as. Usually, the men are clothes & not in a derogatory pose. But when they are — because I’ve seen them before — it disgusts me in the same way. & I am very curious to hear how men, themselves, feel about ads like that, where their bodies are being seemingly objectified. It happens to both sexes, but for women it’s much, much more frequent & a lot worse.
I just wanted to answer some questions & comment on some of the statements you’ve all been making. & although I am very overwhelmed by all the attention this article is getting, I feel like it wasn’t in vain because the awareness is being spread.
Thank you very much for your feedback! :]
on Friday, March 27th, 2009 at 11:23 am:
I’ll be very straight to the point – you may like the ad or may not – and I totally respect that. What I have problem with is you assuming the right to judge.
The bottom line is very simple – ads are run by (private) businesses and they are trying to make money. If their ads sell, that’s good enough argument for me to use it and if it doesn’t – that’s their loss not mine.
For whatever reasons we treat human body (nude) differently from everything else and thats just puritanical and not healthy as far as I’m concerned.
on Friday, March 27th, 2009 at 11:30 am:
I agree – I hate their ads and as such, I won’t wear their clothes. They are too boring for me anyway (though I admit I have a simple tank or tights from there) but just how creepy and gross their ads and their whole company is….blah! You’re so right Appy, I’m with you on this one!
x0×0 Lusty
on Friday, March 27th, 2009 at 11:34 am:
I also want to say that I don’t AT ALL think this is a matter of “ohh we are such prudes here in North America”
I’ve seen some beautiful NAKED ads that look like art. But this is not beautiful, it’s not art – It is OVERLY SEXUALIZED and its intention is as such. This borders on smut and porn – it’s dirty.
There is a fine line between beautiful nudes (even if the subject themself isn’t beautiful) done in a tasteful and provocative way and stuff like this which is just…
TRASHY.
on Friday, March 27th, 2009 at 12:05 pm:
it’s AA.
don’t bitch and whine.
good clothes, cheap and made HERE.
and no one thinks of sex when they see the ads. the models are nasty as fuck. victories secret and a wal mart ad ae porn, AA is a pretty chunk of art/ad :)
on Friday, March 27th, 2009 at 1:06 pm:
I wholeheartedly agree. I had never seen these American Apparel ads before (I frequent the shop itself since it’s just down the street from my flat) but I’ve always considered their in-store advertising to be pretentious and stupid anyway. These are downright pornographic and totally offensive — especially since it’s only the FEMALE body that is objectified/revealed in order to sell clothing. I do NOT buy clothing with the intention of wearing it like the clothes in these adverts are worn, nor do I think to myself, “Oh wow, I bet this zippered top will be perfect when I want to wear my shirt HALF UNDONE.” How is that even practical? Whoever came up with this marketing strategy is either an idiot or a pig, or both. Ughhhh. I am so mad right now! Hahah but in closing: I totally agree on your stance. These are IRRELEVANT stylings. I know fashion doesn’t necessarily always have to serve a purpose, but isn’t the purpose of advertising to sell fashion? This does not compute!
on Friday, March 27th, 2009 at 3:05 pm:
i completely agree with everything you said. it’s crossing the line, and turns me away from shopping their site. no other clothing line feels the need to show nakedness along with their clothing. i was looking for a costume for a school event, and the mesh dress picture popped up…not the type of thing I should be looking at at school, now… :/
i’m tweeting this!
on Friday, March 27th, 2009 at 4:04 pm:
I have to admit, before I read the post I thought I was going to hear an non-logical, purely emotional argument from a woman outraged against the objectivity of woman and exploitation of sexuality.
Ev`Yan Nasman, I have to admit, your arguments are strong and your logic is there. You don’t let yourself get too carried away by emotion, but still let your writing become full of your personality.
My thoughts on the subject:
I believe that sexuality is way too “taboo” here in the states. I honestly prefer the European take on the human body.
You do bring up an excellent point that this is no longer art; rather, it is a company exploiting the female sex symbol to really sell more clothes, make more money, and get people talking about them. It’s one thing to tastefully show the human body, it’s another thing to have a woman lying on her back with her legs spread open.
[Again, who can say what is actually "tasteful." I think an entire post can be written on that subject alone.]
I am of the opinion that AA is exploiting the human body. They know that sex sells, and they’re pushing the limits to generate buzz.
I will say that the one where the woman is pulling down her zipper seems find to me. I don’t think they’re really exploiting her as some sex symbol to cause attention.
Man… this is a really long comment. So for me, what is the difference between the zipper pull-down and the legs spread wide open? Is there really a black and white?
So much of this is subjective. I commend you for bringing this to the attention of the blogosphere, but I think ultimately LIFE IS SUBJECTIVE.
Since I am a subjectivist, I cannot say whether they are right and wrong; I can only give my honest opinion.
- Jun Loayza
PS. You and Jonathan are great :)
on Friday, March 27th, 2009 at 4:48 pm:
I didn’t read all of the comments, I’ll admit, but I just wanted to say that I 100% agree with you and that this post makes me want to look around your blog more! (first one I’ve read, found it through twitter)
on Friday, March 27th, 2009 at 5:14 pm:
I ‘m a guy who totally agrees with you on this- I’ll admit to enjoying some of the photographs, but believe that in addition to being tacky and in poor taste- they’re simply dishonest. It’s unnecessary to go to this extreme- what puzzles me is that the target audience is most likely to take offense. I just don’t get it…
There’s a time and place for many things, and I am totally against all forms of censorship and repression, but do find at times our society has gotten somewhat vulgar and dumbed-down.
on Friday, March 27th, 2009 at 8:05 pm:
I so UNDERSTAND!
I was going to post about this issue also. I mean seriously, American Apparel really has to stop this, along with the other companies that take part.
I used to want to buy A.A. clothes, but not anymore. I wouldn’t even dare to walk into one of their stores.
And the zipper add doesn’t even make any sense whatsoever, i think we all know what they are really trying to advertise.
on Friday, March 27th, 2009 at 9:09 pm:
I’ve always wondered if they use the shock/curiosity factor. With something like that, wouldn’t images like that entice the audience to see what exactly it is and judge for themselves? That’s what I’ve pondered the last few days after I read this post but I still find the ads disrespectful to a certain degree but you have to admit AA isn’t the only one that has done this sort of advertisement.
Look at the representation of Asian women there are so few asian models out there because we’ve been subjected to either import or porn. And sometimes it amazes me how many photographers try to capture the eastern eroticism by doing tacky photoshoots and their target audiences are men. It’s sad that women of all ethnicities have been made into commodities and objectified. I still see the body of a woman being colonized by the corporate media we are being raped of our resources, our own bodies.
Pardon this extremely long drawn post but I’ve been thinking about these ads for a long while. I actually found my answer when I passed an AA in westwood. Hope this clears up some things. Wonderful post Ev’yan!
on Friday, March 27th, 2009 at 9:37 pm:
they are slightly offensive..i guess that might be the appeal he’s going for..i don’t know..i had heard a long time ago he had strippers for models of the clothes..probably not so now..
on Saturday, March 28th, 2009 at 12:33 am:
Okay I must say WOW. I rarely peruse AA’s website because I don’t need to see nipples to buy a shirt. But the ads that you linked to left me speechless (I just finally got home and had time to click through. Glad I waited until I wasn’t at work!). I had NO IDEA. My husband buys graphic tees from other sites that use AA shirts. So at least when he shops he’s not staring at porn all day, but WOW.
I know there are people who are all for the cultural relativistic approach to this kind of stuff, but really? This acceptable? I don’t think so. Based on what it looks like AA is advertising, I’m not see where the clothes aspect comes into play here. I’ve seen more tasteful advertising done by Fredericks of Hollywood or Victoria’s Secret. It honestly makes me sad.
I’m glad you brought it to my attention. I know that I won’t be doing any shopping there in the future.
on Saturday, March 28th, 2009 at 12:38 am:
Oh and I had to ROFL at the comment about you assuming the right to judge.
They are putting these ads out there and subjecting the American public to them. OF COURSE we have the right to judge. Images are thrust in front of our faces every place we turn. As much as we try, we can never be free from advertising, so we most definitely have a right to object to offensive ones.
on Saturday, March 28th, 2009 at 12:40 am:
I just read this interview wiht Joss Whedon about Dollhouse, and the last question reminded me of your post. It’s not quite the same, but has a similar line of thought. Thought you might be interested in reading it:
“The Fox promo site is called the Echo chamber, it features Eliza Dushku, she’s nude, looking very sexually available in the tagline get to know Echo intimately. Is this a standard hot babe come-on, or a sexual objectification show being set up for subversion. Do you fully support this type of promo, and could you explain a little either way?
WHEDON: Nice. Finally something that’s slightly more awful than me saying “Wake up and smell the Acker.” I absolutely think that the question is valid and my answer is a little bit vague. I do support it. I saw the photo shoot, and I mostly support it because Eliza was very comfortable with it and very pleased with the photos. She’s very comfortable with her body.
The premise of the show involves these men and women being hired and obviously, some of that has to do with sex. This is something that was in the premise from the start. It came from my conversation with Eliza. We wanted to talk about it, she mentioned herself, wanted to talk about sexuality in whatever show she was doing, not just by virtue of her being all hot, but by really examining human sexuality and how it drives us and why it’s important to us.
And the idea of objectification versus identification, these are all things that I’ve been working on all the time. I didn’t actually know that tagline was in there. I just heard oh, they released those photos, so I didn’t know that, and it brings up what is ultimately the touchiest issue of this show, which is are we actually making a comment about the way people use each other that is useful and interesting and textured, or are we just putting her in a series of hot outfits and paying lip service to the idea of asking the questions.
And I think there are going to be things that people react to different. I think some things will offend some people, some things will not. There are things in it that I’m not positive I support, and some of the things that bother me don’t bother any of the other writers, and that’s something that I’ve been a little bit afraid of, but I haven’t shied away from, because part of the point is to look at these gray areas and to see what of this is unique in us, what is it we need from each other, how much do we objectify each other, how much do we use each other, both men and women, and what is actually virtuous.
One of the problems I ran into early on, and this was the only real dissonance between me and the network was they didn’t really want to deal with those issues having bought the show. They didn’t want to deal with the idea of what they are now clearly marketing, but the sexy side of it. It’s a classic network problem. You want to evoke this, but then they don’t want to say anything. They don’t want to be specific about it, so we’ve struggled with that. We’ve struggled with making sure that the show doesn’t, by virtue of playing it safe, become offensive, because the idea of this show was never to play it safe. The idea of this show was always to be in your face about it.
So the answer to your question is kind of both. It is just a standard scantily clad babe come-on, and it is ultimately a deconstruction of same, but not so much that I would say it’s just done ironically and therefore, I am blameless for it. We are absolutely saying Eliza is a sexual creature, and people desire her for that reason.
The idea is to get the audience to look at their own desire, and to figure out what of it is acceptable, and what of it is kind of creepy. In order to do that, we go to a creepy place sometimes, and I will be very interested to see if people find it empowering or the other things. I may have crossed the line. Let’s find out.”
(Source)
on Saturday, March 28th, 2009 at 5:15 am:
I don’t own anything AA nor tried it on before. Why? The ads totally turned me off.
on Saturday, March 28th, 2009 at 7:05 am:
Dov Charney, being the incredibly chauvinist that he is, keeps me from buying his products. I refuse to adorn a body that he doesn’t respect with his over priced garments. I figure, there are plenty of sweat free shops that sell plain tee shirts at reasonable prices. I’m not lining that fuckers’ pockets with MY money when he is clearly such a pig, you know?
I saw these ads a couple months ago, and was livid… because really, you could advertise for sock with a clothed model. One that you clearly weren’t having sex with for half of the pictures.
on Saturday, March 28th, 2009 at 12:26 pm:
100%, totally agree
When I first saw the sock ads, I was jincredibly shocked as well.
and no, this is not art, this is just getting extra media attention by creating ads that look like porn
on Saturday, March 28th, 2009 at 3:07 pm:
There is no art in this. It is pure skankery. In-store is no better. Love their basics but Urban Outfitters is all-around a better experience.
on Saturday, March 28th, 2009 at 5:46 pm:
American Apparel & Tom Ford have some skeevy advertisements. I have nothing against sex in the media… as long as it’s necessary. And when advertising CLOTHES, I think nudity may be anything but necessary.
on Saturday, March 28th, 2009 at 7:41 pm:
I respect art, whether it is photography, painting, poetry, etc. But advertising is not art in most cases, and there is a strong difference between being vulgar and being sexy.
So I agree with you, I think it goes too far. And then you really do have to take into consideration the source, i.e. the founder and CEO’s background, which does not lend me to think that the motivation for the ads is to be artistic or portray the female body as art.
on Saturday, March 28th, 2009 at 8:03 pm:
I could not agree more, we want to see the clothes, not what under the clothes. And it always seems that my mother wakes in on the worst pictures
on Sunday, March 29th, 2009 at 12:20 am:
It’s not only tacky, but uncreative too. I wish they’d get on to something new. It’s especially frustrating because some of their basics *are* nice and they could do something really chic and simple with their advertising, but instead they keep rehashing this retro soft porn stuff that’s more ugly than shocking.
on Sunday, March 29th, 2009 at 5:43 am:
it’s really ironic because i was thinking about this the other day. i was on their site browsing, and the things i saw were nowhere near as graphic as the ones you have here. i can kinda see the logic behind the zipper advert but they didn’t have to zip it all the way down & bare her breast. how literal do you have to be?
“head, toe & everything between” – okay, okay we get it. the one exposing the pubic hair was just porn – get real. what were they advertising? she was completely nude. they should be advertising wax.
on Sunday, March 29th, 2009 at 11:24 am:
Wow, I really agree with you,
this had nothing to do with advertisment…
It is not what I expect from an serious Brand and I do not understand what they expect for them — That more men buy their products because of the (half)nude girl in their ads.
It’s really great that you wrote about that and you definitely not alone whit this attitute.
on Sunday, March 29th, 2009 at 8:51 pm:
i agree 100%, the ads are totally soft porn. i don’t really see how it’s necessary to show your pubes to sell socks. i remember the first time i checked out the website i was totally puzzled and i thought that perhaps i had clicked on the wrong site. bottom line is that the ads are lame…it deters me from buying their clothes because they are trying way too hard to be cool or whatever the hell they are going for. BOOO american apparel!
on Monday, March 30th, 2009 at 8:18 am:
I think this was a well covered topic. I too don’t understand the need to promote nudity just to sell clothes. Yes, I feel that the body is beautiful and should be celebrated -and- that nudity can be a form of artistic expression. But, come on…. American Apparel?
on Monday, March 30th, 2009 at 3:49 pm:
This is great! This really needed to be discussed.
I don’t like going in the store because the dressing rooms actually have pornographic pictures lining them! Seriously! I was like wtf. I don’t want to see that and I don’t want my boyfriend to see that. Also, there are always ads on our weekly city newspaper, and I think the AA ads fit in with the smut/slut ads and personals. It really is embarrassing to be caught in their store, looking at their website, or looking at a billboard. I really think it is irresponsible and unprofessional.
on Monday, March 30th, 2009 at 11:47 pm:
This makes me sad.
girls are bought and sold
$$
on Tuesday, March 31st, 2009 at 3:28 pm:
Have you read about the CEO’s lawsuits? He is getting sued for sexual harassment by several female employees, but he argues that working at American Apparel is working in a “sexual environment” and any advances (or supposedly displays of his manly parts to them) should be expect! Really makes me consider not only banning future purchases of AA (which I am doing) but trashing every AA item I currently own.
on Tuesday, March 31st, 2009 at 5:21 pm:
i think we share a brain. i hate going on the site to purchase things because of this exact reason. i don’t need to see some girls breasts just so i’ll buy a shirt. i’d rather travel to the store to avoid running into a girl’s who belongs to the girls gone wild clique
on Thursday, April 2nd, 2009 at 7:45 pm:
I just stumbled across your blog and while I normally don’t feel compelled to comment on much on the internet, I feel like I HAVE to say something to let you know how great it is that you are speaking your mind about these ads. Honestly, I had NO idea American Apparel ads were that gratuitous…I mean, the ones on the back of the Onion every week, or the ads I see on the metro are pretty disgusting but the ads on the links you provided were absolutely appalling. It pisses me off when people use the female body in such an objectifying way just to sell something (something which, ironically, is meant to cover up the body…) I highly recommend the book Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture by Ariel Levy. I just finished reading it, and given your reaction to these ads I think you might appreciate her analysis of why girls think these sorts of ads or that sort of behavior is “empowering”. The human body IS beautiful, and it isnt something to be ashamed of- but society isnt really giving such a great standard for what “normal” or “healthy” sexuality really is. We’re not pieces of meat, and people should not be encouraged to appraise our worth as such. Further, we should not feel like we must base our own sense of self-worth on whether or not some guy out there thinks we are beautiful or sexy by these ridiculous standards.
I loved your post, its a relief to know there are other women out there who feel similarly about these sorts of ads!