Jezebel 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 4:24 AM
Fri Nov 27
2 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
tips@jezebel.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Anna Holmes
Email | Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Dodai Stewart
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor:
Tracie Egan
Email | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Anna North
Email | Twitter
Sadie Stein
Email | Twitter
Reporter:
Irin Carmon
Email | Twitter
Editorial Assistant:
Margaret Hartmann
Email | Twitter
Contributors:
Rich Juzwiak
Email | Twitter
Latoya Peterson
Email
Jenna Sauers
Email
Lizzie Skurnick
Email
Interns:
Katy Kelleher
Twitter
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
07/31/09
Well, maybe not, but that would be a shock to the advertising world, yeah? Or how about selling women's underwear by modeling it on men?
08/01/09
So I'd like to call, as you so beautifully put it, for some first-person advertising from the female perspective. Let's have men like Dov Charney or Dick Cheney or whatever the hell his name is pause, for a second, to imagine what it is that might turn a woman on (a la that sillyl Mel Gibson movie), rather than splattering their own sexual fantasies over billboards and catalogs nationwide. Diid it ever occur to anyone that this dude might truly be feeling like he's gotten one over on us? Hey, offer your immigrant employees some subsidized lunches and health insurance (which, considering the company's profits, should be expected rather than impressive), and you can be as sleazy as you want without anyone calling you out.
I own several things from American Apparel and probably won't stop wearing them, but I'm definitely going to stop buying from them. And also consider writing them a letter, although this Cheney fellow seems an impenetrable type. The rest of the country may do what they will, but please stop telling me that I have some sort of problem with sex because Penthouse centerfolds don't make me want to run out and buy a pair of leggings. Acting like this is the zenith of socially responsible companies is the definition of hipster hypocrisy.
07/31/09
07/31/09
07/31/09
07/31/09
Believe me, I don't like the idea of using a woman's body to sell a product - but we can presume that the model pictured is complicit in the decision to make this ad.
So if a woman decides to sell her body for sex, that can (arguably) be a feminist choice: her body is the product. Is that better than someone using their body to sell clothing?
07/31/09
It's offensive to me, personally. It's a garment being sold to women, so why then do I feel like these ads are never made with the woman in mind? They're clearly made for the pleasure of the person seeing you in it (Dov).
Not only that, but American Apparel suggests with these ads that women should want to look like whores or porn stars. It's a male-centric way of viewing what is considered sexy.
07/31/09
I know it's all about context, shades of gray, and all that. But I just don't see that much of a difference between this and say, the women who pose for Playboy.
And then some women will jump all over me and say, "But she's doing it for herself!" and somehow try to convince me that appearing in a centerfold is a feminist act. And I just don't think it is.
07/31/09
Again, I have no problem with this girl posing like that. She can do whatever she wants, it's none of my business.
The issue is with American Apparel. They also sell menswear and yet I've never seen campaigns for men like this. I've yet to see a man with his legs spread open, displaying the outline of his penis.
07/31/09
A lot of it comes down to art theory stuff on whether the nude exists for itself, or for others to look at, and what the acknowledgment from the subject is about being viewed, etc.
I mean, I'm with you. This isn't feminist for a lot of reasons, not the least of which being it's clearly meant to appeal to men even while selling to women, reinforcing the idea that we should dress for others and not ourselves.
07/31/09
A mesh bodysuit? I don't fucking think so.
07/31/09
07/31/09
07/31/09
What is it about sex that brings out such moral superiority?
07/31/09
07/31/09
07/31/09
07/31/09
07/31/09
Random, Seldom Used Factoid: We are more than a hole.
07/31/09
That makes a lot more sense than some of the other critiques of them I've read!
07/31/09
07/31/09
07/31/09
07/31/09
I ordered the sheer leggings in black after seeing this post...
07/31/09
Their ads are stylistically reminscent of old-school pornography, and SUPER voyeuristic: you can tell that the viewer is male, perving on the (young, coltish) girl, and probably meant to be Dov.
I have no problem with sexy ads, but I'll admit these do make me feel a little weird because of that implicit "male gaze".
07/31/09
Don Draper: Says who? Just so you know, the people who talk that way think that monkeys can do this. They take all this monkey crap and just stick it in a briefcase completely unaware that their success depends on something more than their shoeshine. YOU are the product. You- FEELING something. That's what sells. Not them. Not sex. They can't do what we do, and they hate us for it.
07/31/09
07/31/09
I would say that a lot of it revolves around the poses and the fact that the women are shot in a voyeuristic manner. Which, given our cultures commodification of the female body, implies a lot about our sexuality not being our own. Risque is fine, implying that women are objects is not.
These women are posed in a way that doesn't suggest agency. It doesn't suggest that their sexuality is really their's, but something to be viewed. They aren't really people, they're sexual vessels that exist to be looked at. Like dolls.
And since AA is not VS or the like, it's odd.
07/31/09
Nothing in the images suggest agency or anything other than, here, they are sexual objects. Go check out The Female Nude: Art, Obscenity, and Sexuality by Linda Nead. These images don't exist in a vacuum.
07/31/09
08/01/09
I see what you are saying. I feel like I see many ads that do this type of objectification and voyeurism to an equal degree, obviously also questionably. What I was mostly getting at with my question was "Why do these particular ads attract such ire when there are so many similar ads that pass uncritiqued in popular discourse?". These really great responses have made me think it has a lot to do with people identifying the gaze (not always correctly, as with this photoset) in the photographs as Dov Charney's, who we can all agree is a jerk and who is justifiably generally disliked. I think that perhaps other ads aren't identified as closely with a hated figure, and so people react less personally to them.
07/31/09
07/31/09
07/31/09
07/31/09
07/31/09
07/31/09
All of these poses are basically porn/masturbation shots. It's not weird or strange that they might be arousing to some people. Let's not shame people for normal sexual responses to stuff that's supposed to be arousing.
07/31/09
07/31/09
07/31/09
07/31/09
07/31/09
07/31/09
07/31/09
07/31/09
07/31/09
07/31/09
07/31/09