After five months of deliberation, the U.K’s Advertising Standards Authority has banned eight American Apparel ads featuring nudity and provocation and buttocks and breasts.
London / NationalTurk – British ASA has put bans on ads in the pastfor making young actresses look ‘ misleadingly attractive ‘ or for portraying a sexy female child in an unsafe position — in that case, it was 14-year-old Hailee Steinfeld crying on a set of empty train tracks.
The provacatively advertised American Apparel clothing chain has been warned against using exploitative images of young women after a watchdog ruled a series of ads were likely to cause ‘serious and widespread offence’.
American Apparel ads found abusive and sexy and provacative in UK ?
Eight ads on the retailer’s website and in a free magazine in October showed young and sweet women modelling knickers, socks and sweaters in various poses that exposed their bodies largely their breasts or buttocks.
One showed a girl arching her back towards the camera with her breasts exposed, others showed models lying face down in beds or on their side revealing buttocks and breasts while more images were of models with their legs apart while on a bed.
American Apparel Ads : Is Girls undress themselves and feature their young breasts and buttocks wrong ?
Like every other imaginative American Apparel ad, the images in question featured young girls undressing themselves. Nine images that appeared on American Apparel’s website back in October were challenged, but in an official ruling released today, the ASA ruled that eight of the ads in question were actually irresponsible and offensive.
‘ We concluded that the gratuitous nudity in the ads…in combination with the sexualized nature of the pose [in two images] meant the ads were exploitative and inappropriately sexualized young women.’
One female person complained that the artistic sexy images were border-line pornographic, exploitative of women and inappropriately sexualised young women, who clearly showed their lust.
American Apparel on the defensive : This is soo natural
American Apparel rejected the complaint, stating the images featured ‘real, non-airbrushed, everyday people’, and that the vast majority of them were not professional models. The retailer further added that the young women who featured in the images were clearly in their twenties, and emphasised that they were ‘happy, relaxed and confident in expression and pose’ and were not portrayed in a vulnerable, negative or exploitative manner.
They said the images were the sort that people regularly shared with their friends on social networks and which normal people could relate to.
But the retailer American Apparel argued that the images ‘were less and certainly no more sexual in nature than a large proportion of images of other companies.’
American Apparel : Marketing Morality meets capitalistic cupidity : Gay Activist Dov Charney is the eccentric CEO of American Apparel
The rise and fall of American Apparel is a modern-day tale of marketing morality. Back in 2008, american Apparel’s fortunes were as bright as some of its most lurid hosiery. Its shares cost $14 and the Observer named it label of the year; a few months later its founder, Dov Charney, was a finalist for Time’s 100 most influential people in the globe. But what goes up generally comes down: in 2010, American Apparel was teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, its shares trading at $0.75. Two years later, the share price has barely recovered. Nevertheless, the company remains a going concern thanks, in large part, to the philanthropy of George Soros, a man who clearly understands that investing in underwear and young women’s bodies can pay off.
Except that other companies don’t sexualize little girls like this, this, or that. American Apparel — zero, the U.K. — one. Take a look at some of the banned ads below. Tell us what you think about the ruling or just the images of young girls..