back to article 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 …

  1. Jimmy2Cows Silver badge
    WTF?

    Not seeing the problem here. Swimsuit adverts show similar views and aren't banned.

    Some people have too much time on their hands, clearly. Have to wonder about those who look at an obviously adult model and see underage.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      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).

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      That stuff about her looking underage was just a smokescreen; the complaint was really just because she is an evil ginger.

      1. Dave 126 Silver badge

        >because she is an evil ginger.

        Bizarrely, she is only a ginger in the back and 3/4 back shots. In the front pictures she is a tanned brunette.

    3. NoneSuch Silver badge
      Childcatcher

      Won't someone think of the children!

      A naked backside will surely destroy society. Let's not let any of the review committee visit Rio during Carnivale. None will survive.

    4. Craigness

      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.

    5. wayward4now

      I couldn't find the pic, did they take it down?? Damnit! I like evil ginger! :)

  2. Google
    Coat

    Another dangerous threat to our fabric of society squashed. Hooray!

    ...we can all safely head back to the pub to witness far worse.

    1. Jimmy2Cows Silver badge
      Thumb Up

      +1

      We can all sleep safe in our beds tonight knowing another company has been chastised for not breaking the law. Thank you, ASA.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "Must not appear again in its current form"

      "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!

      1. John Robson Silver badge

        Re: "Must not appear again in its current form"

        No insulting chocolate teapots please:

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-29126161

      2. kiwimuso
        Joke

        Re: "Must not appear again in its current form"

        And there I was thinking of the children. Apparently that's not permitted any longer - even if they are over age!!

    3. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge
      Devil

      This decision by the ASA was a load of arse.

  3. Jimmy2Cows Silver badge

    Family Guy

    Shades of the PTV episode...

    "Gentlemen, we got 20 calls about the David Hyde-Pierce incident. And as you know, one call equals a billion people, which means 20 billion people were offended by this. Needless to say, something must be done."

  4. Big_Ted
    Thumb Down

    WTF.....

    One (most likely ugly) feminist complains and they investigate ?

    What a waste of time and money, there is nothing wrong with the pictures unless you are looking at them for that sort of reaction.

    You see worst in the tabloid press every day.....

  5. Finder Keeper
    Flame

    All of you readers in Britain who researched said image (for academic purposes, naturally), are now criminals for viewing sexual images of a person who is 20 but appears to be 16. Congratulations.

    1. K
      Gimp

      Its not illegal to have an appearance, but it is illegal to "suggest".

      If it was illegal, then midget porn would be outlawed, and I just couldn't live with myself if that happened!!

    2. codejunky Silver badge

      Ha

      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.

      1. Craigness

        Re: Ha

        "I wonder which side the feminist lands on- womans freedom vs objectification."

        Demonisation of male sexuality, every time.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Ha

          Yes you are so right.

          I once saw a research article in a magazine that held your views precisely.... what was it called...

          It was "Millie Tant" in VIZ.

          Well done for reminding me.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Ha

        "I wonder which side the feminist lands on- womans freedom vs objectification."

        The side most acceptable to Islam, judging by past statements and lack of statements. .

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      As indeed did many of the other models on the website in both the swimsuit and lingerie sections.

      In my defense I was researching a book.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        In my defense I was researching a book.

        You are Peter Townsend and I claim my five pounds.

      2. wayward4now

        "In my defense I was researching a book."

        Duly noted, Sir. Duly noted.

    4. JeffHome

      I tried to research said image - but McAfee kicked up a "Blocked by URL Filter Database" error and wouldn't let me continue. I will have to remember to try again from home this evening (so I can game that criminal status).

  6. Jim 59

    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)

    1. Paul Crawford Silver badge

      Having looked at that link I feel quite dirty now :(

      I should have noticed it as the Daily Fail.

      1. Dave 126 Silver badge

        Would that be the same Daily Mail that printed pictures of a 13 year-old Princess Beatrice in a bikini? Yes it would, and for extra hypocrisy points, said bikini pic was printed opposite a leading article attacking Chris Morris' excellent spoof documentary 'Brass Eye: Paedogeddon'.

  7. Jim 59

    Even with the pixelation ?

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Pixelation

      Is that a pixie in a state of arousal?

  8. Elfo74
    Coat

    too prude?

    Perhaps if they sold burqinis this would appeal to ameri... oh...

  9. JR555

    16? so what?

    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...

    1. Lamont Cranston
      Facepalm

      Re: "she is legit on the meat market"

      Congratulations. That doesn't make you sound like a creepy old man, at all. No, sir, not a bit.

      1. x 7

        Re: "she is legit on the meat market"

        I wonder if he reads Dolcett tales

  10. The Indomitable Gall

    What is more concerning...

    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?

    1. John 110
      Joke

      Re: What is more concerning...

      "Why would anyone put up with a constant wedgie from a T-shirt, just to avoid a wee bit of wrinkling?"

      Old person alert!!!

      1. Dave 126 Silver badge

        Re: What is more concerning...

        Women wear such garments with jeans, and it keeps the top fairly taught thus accentuating their breasts and flat bellies.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: What is more concerning...

          ..........fat bellies. FIFY.

          Not every woman is blessed.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Facepalm

    Tomorrow, the ASA bans underwear advertising...

    Thank God that we have the regulators to protect us from websites that most of us would never have known about--if it wasn't for the regulators.

  12. John Sager

    AA scores again

    AA now have the measure of the ASA. And they can get Dacre's rag to give them lots more publicity off the back of it. Sounds like an optimised marketing strategy to me.

    1. BongoJoe

      Re: AA scores again

      Do you remember when Madonna, faced with underwhelming sales of her book, Sex, reported it to the Obscene Publications mob?

      That also didn't work.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    with her buttocks visible.

    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!

  14. Mark 85
    Meh

    Much ado over very little

    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.

    1. strum

      Re: Much ado over very little

      >You have an agency or association that someone (ultimately the taxpayer or consumers

      The ASA is paid for by the advertising industry.

  15. skeptical i

    They're just now getting on American Apparel's case?

    Rather late to the party, aren't they? AA's "cheeky" adverts have been their trademark since almost Day 1 and their product catalogues similarly push the envelope.

  16. x 7

    whoever thinks that is a thong needs to have their horizons widened

    1. dan1980

      Which is one reason why it's important to show an image ". . . from the back with her buttocks visible".

      Descriptions alone are often not enough to get the specifics of such things - how high-cut is it, how wide is the material, etc . . .

  17. JaitcH
    WTF?

    You can imagine what ...

    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.

  18. dan1980

    Dear ASA . . .

    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.

  19. x 7

    I think American Apparel are now having a laugh.....the offending photo has gone from the USA site (though the product remains)

    Instead this appears..........http://i.americanapparel.net/jsslideshow/gallery.html?i=3257

    let the pix scroll through

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    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

  21. earl grey
    Trollface

    ugh, why is my keyboard all wet

    someone else must have been here...yeah, that's the ticket.

    1. x 7

      Re: ugh, why is my keyboard all wet

      it may be wet........but is it sticky?

  22. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

    Looking in the wrong direction...

    "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...

  23. x 7

    she's back!

    http://www.thedrum.com/uploads/news/tmp/85019/lips_thong_american.jpg

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like