@rixatrix: After being a long-time lurker, I registered just so I could respond to this comment. Rixatrix, I think you just whacked the proverbial nail. I'm getting kind of fed up with everyone who keeps saying, "What's wrong with sex? Sex sells." What I object to is not sex, or companies using sex to sell me products. Should I see an ad like one of the two you just described, I'd be all over that shit. But American Apparel is not selling me sex. They're selling me my own sexual objectification. They're selling me my sexuality as viewed through the eyes of some skeevebag with a penchant for Penthouse.
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.
whynotshesaid promoted this comment
Edited by My Jen Could Paint That at 08/01/09 11:57 AM My Jen Could Paint That approved this comment
c-creature was starred
c-creature was unstarred
That looks like a Penthouse spread, but without seeing labia. My biggest issue with this is imagining Dov Charney taking these pictures with his dick out.
But she chose to be an American Apparel model, right? We can't say "I choose my choice" and then say, "Well, except that choice. That's just sad."
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?
@MilointheMeadow: Yes, yes, of course yes. Everyone gets to "choose their choice." I'm not critiquing the young girl for choosing to be an American Apparel model, I'm critiquing American Apparel for using this marketing technique time and time again.
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.
@Eleanor Ramilly: For the record, I can't stand the whole "I choose my choice" rationale. And AA ads really irritate me too for the same reasons as you.
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.
@MilointheMeadow: When women pose for Playboy they are selling sex. People look at Playboy to become sexually aroused. They sell sex. American Apparel sells clothes.
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.
@MilointheMeadow: To me, it depends on the type of nudity. Playboy is not, at this point, particularly feminist. But there are ways for women to be nude, even sexually, that are.
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.
I don't really understand why people find AA's ads so upsetting. Okay, they're risque. So are tons of other ads. Sex sells. What's so offensive about them? (honestly curious)
@blueberryblackberry: And who are they trying to sell to here, exactly? I don't look at these and think, "oohh! I'm going to buy one in every color!" If anything, they're selling jack-off material.
@girlleastlikelyto: wow, assume victimhood much? Sex sells absolutely doesn't imply exploitation. That suggestion is the sort of mindset that assumes all depictions of the female sexual form is exploitative. That's nonsense.
@mattharvest: I think the only thing that is doing a lot of assuming here is you. When people say "sex sells" they often say it to defend images that are exploitative. I am not assuming victimhood nor asserting that all sexualized images of women are exploitative. You brought a lot of your own stuff to my little statement there.
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".
@blueberryblackberry: Peggy Olson: Sex sells.
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.
@Skellatrix: Exactly it's offensive to me because it feels like Dov is taking a sick personal satisfaction in paying these young girls to act out his masturbatory fantasies under the guise of selling clothes. They feel only secondarily like ads. And I also am offended by how they try and make exploiting sex and women's bodies some sort of revolutionary act.
@blueberryblackberryA :
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.
@mattharvest: No, but voyeuristic ones that objectify are common, exploitive, and what's at work here.
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.
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.
Edited by Mmmmkay (gellin' and Jezebelin) at 07/31/09 6:57 PM
Mmmmkay (gellin' and Jezebelin) was starred
Mmmmkay (gellin' and Jezebelin) was unstarred
@napalmnacey went as Nancy Lorenz before: Well, that's the point of the ads. They're effective in that way. You can find something sexy while still seeing the underlying objectification. It doesn't make it less personally sexy, nor is that wrong.
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.
Well, I'm done. Sorry Dov. I don't care how much I need a plain tee or whatever, I'm going to extra mile, literally, to get it somewhere else. It's been nice!
Well, you have to respect the fact that the woman top-left has a total "are you fucking serious?" look on her face. Which, coincidentally, I am currently wearing as well.
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