Watchdog slaps American Apparel's youthful naked arse The UK's Advertising Standards Authority has ordered US clothing outfit American Apparel to pull a snap from its website which featured a prominent pair of youthful buttocks promoting the "Lips Print Cotton Spandex Sleeveless Thong Bodysuit". A cropped version of the offending image The watchdog received a single complaint …
Have to wonder about those who look at an obviously adult model and see underage.
I blame American TV and movies. The general rule seems to be that all "young" characters are played by someone 5-10 years older than the character. Thereby, peoples' expectation of what a 16-year-old looks like is flavoured by 21-year-olds (because anyone who ever looks at an actual 16 year old is a filthy pervert).
Here's the same model, in the same pose, in 2012. When, presumably, she looked "under 13".
http://www.ign.com/boards/threads/wooooah-now-since-when-does-american-apparel-sell-lingerie-pics-inside.250138226/
"We considered that readers were likely to interpret the model's expression and pose as being sexual in nature."
I consider it necessary to show people what the clothes look like.
"Another dangerous threat to our fabric of society squashed. Hooray!"
Yep indeedy- and by concluding that the ad "must not appear again in its current form"- as they do in precisely 100 ******* percent of cases- they've yet again protected us from an advert that was part of a campaign that finished months back and was incredibly unlikely to be used again anyway.
All hail the chocolate teapot!
I wonder if she has grounds for complaint for ageism. She is not under-age for inappropriate behaviour yet her livelihood is being attacked by the watchdog and could cause her difficulty obtaining future jobs.
I wonder how long until it is illegal to act like an adult if you 'look' too young.
I wonder which side the feminist lands on- womans freedom vs objectification.
Lol. The Mail was slobbering over it this morning, describing the model as "flame haired" etc.
It is probably a bit too revealing for a clothing catalogue. But I'm surprised that an advertising code applies to online catalogues.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2998827/American-Apparel-advert-banned.html
(maybe NSFW)
This post has been deleted by its author
Most girls have their sexual debut around 13-15.
In some countries age of consent is 14.
In England it is 16.
So if she appears to be 16 she is legit on the meat market...
If you are 50 and looking 'that way' at a 16 y.o. some might consider you a perv.
But what if you are 18? or 17? or 19?
If the ad is targeting youth anyway, then I see nothing wrong with using sexual references. In fact, it doesn't matter who they're targeting, she's over 16 (20 even!) and legit...
I can't help feeling that this is a very odd bit of clothing. It looks like a swimsuit for when you're not... well.. swimming, but it fact it's really a T-shirt that goes between your legs in order to avoid wrinkling or rising. Why would anyone put up with a constant wedgie from a T-shirt, just to avoid a wee bit of wrinkling?
picture or it didn't happen!
...
I see... No sir, I'm not. No, I don't think so. Definitely not. No, it was... a jest, you know, a joke. Sir. Well, you know, like a.... Biggus Dickus, sir, like a joke name, you know. Well, no sir, no, I would definitely not want to be registered as a "person of interest" sir. No, or in the Register either, sir. Yes sir, I promise, sir. Heil Caesar to you too sir!
I guess being in the States I don't get it. You have an agency or association that someone (ultimately the taxpayer or consumers) paying for this "watchdog". They get one complaint... one.... and rise up show the world they did something. I've seen worse outfits at Wal-Mart for crying out loud. I'm offended but I also know enough to look the other way and ignore it.
I'll wander off scratching my head and wondering what all turmoil is about.
lurid thoughts must circulate in the 'minds' of the narrow-minded bas*ards who twist every bare leg into sexual innuendo complaints. Likewise for the LONE COMPLAINER.
And American Apparel should simply replace the photo's with links to it's non-UK web sites.
Perhaps if AA simply lopped the models head off consumers would be less likely to regard her as being younger than 16 years of age.
So, you've got a model who is 20 and slender who is being told, indirectly, that she has the wrong body shape and looks for her job.
How fucking dare you? She's not pretending to be younger than she is, she's not dressed up like a school girl or in a setting or pose that suggest that. She's a youthful, slender model, modelling clothing aimed at a youthful, and yes slender, market.
She is of legal age and doing her job and is being sent a message that because of her looks, she is inappropriate.
By what fucking standard? She looks 16? Beg your pardon but how is that in anyway justifiable? Is one banned from buying alcohol or driving or voting if one looks underage? No, you show proof and everything is good.
Reading the judgement, I am even more incensed.
"The ASA acknowledged the ad depicted the advertised product from various angles. We considered the model had a youthful appearance and that some consumers were likely to regard her as being younger than 16 years of age. The model was shown looking back at the camera over her shoulder with her buttocks visible. We considered that readers were likely to interpret the model's expression and pose as being sexual in nature. In conjunction with the youthful appearance of the model, we considered the ad could be seen to sexualise a child. We therefore concluded that the ad was irresponsible and was likely to cause serious offence."
Readers? Some consumers? How do you quantify that? Is there a threshold of 'consumers' and 'readers' who, in the ASA's estimation, are likely to feel this way? They know that one person does - what research do they do to back up their SUBJECTIVE opinion? Did they go out an ask a bunch of people if they thought it was 'sexual'. And if so, what is the difference between 'sexual' and 'sexy' - something that one assumes this youth-oriented brand is aiming for.
And what do they mean by "could be seen to sexualise a child"? What child? There are no children being portrayed here, only a 20yr old young woman doing her job by showing consumers how an article of clothing appears from all angles. Something that is kind of important.
And, sorry, "likely to cause serious offence"? SERIOUS offence? To who, exactly? 'Some consumers', presumably. But even then, are we no longer allowed to cause 'offence'? I say things every day that might cause 'offence'. A 20 year old young woman - and indeed a 16 year old girl - could go to the beach in clothing more revealing than this and, though it might cause 'offence' to some people, she wouldn't be carted off and told she "must not appear again in [her] current form".
And who are these people making these judgements anyway? Surely they must represent a broad cross-section of average people, right? I mean, they wouldn't be just a handful of CEOs and chairpeople . . .
But no, that's who they are - 14 people; not one of whom is in the target market for the brand or advertisement in question and only one is under 35. Most are upper-level management, and all are in positions that see them rather well-off. Not one would I consider and 'average' consumer.
I was going to ask how it is possible, in a sane and rational world, that what 14 (15 if you count the complainant) people think someone looks like is a reasonable criterion for anything. But then I realised that of course we do not live in a sane and rational world and decisions like this are often anything but reasonable.
Since AA has apparently removed the pictures from all their sites, not just the .uk one, here's a couple links to the offensive girl and garment in question. Note: Clearly these pictures have already been determined to be NSFW in the UK.
http://nytree.godo.co.kr/img/d_455/45433/53b86cd6e2fa9.jpg
http://40.media.tumblr.com/9846d112bec739135d152690c8e47623/tumblr_nje63cLKZq1qcl5z5o1_1280.jpg
"We considered the model had a youthful appearance and that some consumers were likely to regard her as being younger than 16 years of age."
Such consumers must then be rounded up, put on the Sex Offenders Register and sectioned under the Mental Health act. No way that model would appear 16 to a normal person. One must have a certain predisposition to see her that way...
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
