Answer after the jump!
Wow, they’ve actually gone and done it. American Apparel have finally admitted they are nothing but porn for teenagers. But cracking off over a webpage with a link to babies and kids in clear sight?
Thats going to mess with a young boys concentration surely? Perhaps they should just go the whole hog and admit to themselves what they really are all about?
That’s better, much clearer what message we should take from this company. Perhaps their next marketing move will be to scatter porn in bushes outside schools and in woods.
13 Comments
This is probably the best thing I’ve read for about a year.
People like you make me think the world is going to be alright after all.
Right, I’m off to photograph a donkey’s anus.
I feel ashamed. I didn’t actually believe you.
I’m not sure what the thesis of this argument is. That babies are shopping on the American Apparel site and thus it’s functionally equivalent to handing out free porn at kindergarten?
Don’t get me wrong, I think there are a lot of pretty shitty consequences to the use of idealized body images in selling, and on a personal level think Dov Charney should DIAF, but the obloquoy heaped on AA, and why it’s singled out, always baffles me.
Are we asserting that clothes should never be sold on the principle that they make you look sexier?
Or that if they are, they should only be sold to people who know that’s not true?
Or that anywhere that kids might have something bought for them should be as protected as a kindergarten?
Or if they are, should only use images that don’t titillate, thus refusing to acknowledge what the hell it is that’s being sold? I’d be quite happy to volunteer my saggy ass for the task of modelling women’s briefs, but I think their sales figures might suffer.
I should probably start a campaign to have me installed by government edict as the sole model for Agent Provocateur, to save people from thinking about sex.
I know what bothers me about it, but none of what I read here, or read anywhere in the criticism levelled specifically at AA, seems to touch on that at all.
The fashion industry, the music industry, the celeb trivia grindmachine, hollywood and television are all as fucking culpable. I’m just never convinced when I see the same argument over and over again about something that’s quite tame in comparison to stuff like, for example, this
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/17/demi-moore-is-ralph.html
Or maybe we’re seeing different problems here. It’s possible it’s not the effects of the use of idealized, sexualized body images that people are pissed off about, but not treating people as whole, interesting human beings 100% of the time.
In which case I’m giving up wanking, because even when alone in the dark, there’s no way to avoid committing that thought crime in any practical way. If I have to construct some scenario in my head where I meet the object of my fantasy at a tracy emin exhibition, and have a long courtship where I come to appreciate her as a whole person before a final, tender love scene in which I realise how lucky I am to be with such a brilliant, independent, strong, imaginary woman, my arm’s going to get very fucking tired.
it’s not an argument about the effect sex on kids, its an observation that if you try and have a wank over the pictures you’re going to have a distracting mention of kids and babies in your sight line.
I also think it’s got absolutely nothing to do with selling idealised body images, and everything to do with encouraging its customers to objectify themselves for the company’s gain. It’s a very boring, tired idea that the internet is already full of. What exactly differentiates this from the high street honeys, page three idols or miss worlds?
Titillation is one thing, but its far too often I’m faced with the pruned crotch of a doe eyed teen when I just want to waste time at work. All because I clicked on any site earmarked as being used by the right demographic. If you want a wank Martin, go for it, get worked up about those buttocks, its perfectly normal. I just think it’s going to be a lot tougher to argue that AA are about anything but masturbation and isn’t that a dead end from a marketing point of view?
http://feministing.com/archives/005574.html
x
“it’s not an argument about the effect sex on kids, its an observation that if you try and have a wank over the pictures you’re going to have a distracting mention of kids and babies in your sight line.”
Thin, given the audience your argument postulates for this, but leaving it as a joke rather than an argument, will get onto the actual thesis
So what you’re bothered about is *not* the pretty devastating effect that the sort of advertising that uses these sort of body images has on people’s self esteem, especially the young women that are in the target market, but that there are people being titillated by it? or that you’re offended by it being included where you shop/browse?
Or is it that by exercising their choice to participate, the contestants are doing harm to themselves or others? in which case, what harm? (not saying there is none, just saying a simple assertion that objectifying oneself is a priori a bad thing. doesn’t hold up. if it’s bad, it’s bad for a reason. what’s that reason?)
If there’s nothing inherently wrong with it other than its titillation value, then I don’t buy that as a valid complaint. You can take your internet dollars/eyeballs elsewhere. Indeed, that’s the best method of dealing with it, since it’s about money, and if it doesn’t make money, they stop doing it. nothing’s forcing you to look. Also given its spectacular prevalence on the internet, again I simply don’t buy the singling out of AA for such scorn. Yeah, they deserve it, but so does everyone else that does it, and I don’t see screeds like this posted against them among our social circle.
if it’s simply puritanicalism, you’re welcome to your POV and I don’t feel any need to argue against it. Everyone’s entitled to their preferences. Perfectly natural.
If there’s more to it than that, if it has some sort of definable pernicious effect, then I’d love to hear about it and discuss it.
(i believe there is, of course, but I don’t think we’re discussing it right now)
As to wanking material. Dude, this is pretty thin stuff. If AA are hoping to make themselves some sort of internet destination for amateur porn, there are a lot of companies doing it a lot better, which makes arguing that AA are about masturbation a bit difficult, since that would depend on demonstrating that the marketing kick they get from guys jerking off over women’s panties and then shopping at AA is bigger than the one from perpetuating an unrealistic standard of beauty and getting girls to buy their stuff to attain it.
I don’t recall ever being strongly motivated to buy sports equipment by the underwear section of the littlewoods catalog I had under my bed when i was 13. that was pre-internet though. Maybe there’s some mojo with browsers that makes that link happen
I am unconvinced. I think it’s about something entirely different to what you’re postulating.
Martin,
“Thin, given the audience your argument postulates for this, but leaving it as a joke rather than an argument, will get onto the actual thesis”
Are you having a sense-of-humour-failure-intellectual-self-satisfaction-hard-on over there?
It’s a comment about how American Apparel’s sad, wank-heavy marketing is naff, hard to avoid, boring and, dare I say it, insulting. Not a ‘thesis’
taking all this a bit seriously are you not Martin? If I wanted to write a thesis on it I probably wouldn’t have made so many wank jokes. You really don’t need to assess this as if it was one. For one thing, I’m not your pupil, so I don’t really care if you think my stupid blog post is ‘thin’.
I am however obviously bothered by how people are affected by this type of advertising. That’s exactly what I meant when I said it encourages customers to objectify themselves. Do we really need to discuss why asking people to objectify themselves is a bit dodgy? Surely you can’t moan about the effect of fashion photography on ‘young women’ then play ignorant on the link of the two can you? Or do I need to spell out my every thought, every opinion, in great detail? Regardless, my original post was not an attack on this, more an observation that their tactics were more suited to the kind of teenage titillation of Nuts and Zoo.
I single them out because they are literally flashing crotches in banner ads on lots of websites I read (dailyswarm, nme, pitchfork etc) and my indifference has steadily grown to annoyance at this aggressive, old fashioned campaign.
“Thesis – 1. A proposition that is maintained by argument.”
Sorry Nellanine. I’ll use simpler words next time.
“Do we really need to discuss why asking people to objectify themselves is a bit dodgy?”
Yeah, because my point is, objectification is not an a priori evil. If we want to have a discussion, then we need more than that. So I hazard a guess at what it is, you deny that guess is the effect that bothers you, and decline to expand more, and still aren’t.
But now you say there *is* a link between the two.. which seems to contradict your earlier statement that it wasn’t what bothers you.
As to taking it seriously.. dude, you’re the one posting vitriol about an advertising campaign. If it’s not serious stuff, why are you so wound up about it?
Anyway, I was assuming you were up for discussion. I’m getting the sense that’s not the case. My bad.
I should probably caveat all that. I *know* I’m a motherfucker in arguments, and come off as being far too full on, and I miss kinda a lot my american friends who argued the same way. I thought/inferred from the post you might be up for a tussle about it, and I’m sorry I was wrong, and sorry that in being wrong I might have offended you.
I dunno. It might be some consolation that I thought you’d give me some new perspective about why AA seems to draw so much vitriol, cause it’s puzzling as fuck to me. I wasn’t looking to win an argument, I was looking to lose one.
Okay, to clarify for those of you in the stalls.
in this case of the worlds best bum:
I think its a boring idea.
I think it is no better, nor worse than lad fodder such as Nuts and Zoo.
it is humorous that there is such a prominent link to babies and kids alongside images more suited to wanking.
I suspect I may have covered all this in the original post.
As for the ideas within my comments:
I was referring to my initial post when I said it had nothing to do with selling idealised body images, and everything to do with objectifying the customers of AA. however it would be naive to think it isn’t part of the bigger picture, I just didnt want to get distracted from the point in hand onto another complex issue.
It does annoy me that in less than a decade AA has gone from being interesting company with interesting politics and popular products, to a old fashioned aggressive brand, with old fashioned sexist adverts.
Objectification is problematic with AA because they are so aggressive, and porn-y. It’s more likely that they are effect rather cause but that doesn’t justify their use of young females as sexual figures in almost all of their advertising. Lets not forget they are a lifestyle brand, they sell a lot more than sheer leotards and thongs.
It’s precisely because they co-opt the imagery of porn to sell hoodies that they are so unpopular. Its hardly rocket science.
Martin, you say I’m not willing to discuss these things but I am discussing things, I’m just not getting into a tired debate with you about the semantics of objectification, which by definition is to degrade. As for you being a motherfucker, I think its slightly more boring than that.
* I should add, I’m not annoyed or overly serious about this, but I should clarify I do honestly believe in what I say. It’s not a subject to twist and turn in an attempt to catch me out. You won’t convince me otherwise through debating skills, or verbal rug pulling. Ideas are more likely to change my views. But I really don’t mind if you disagree.
“* I should add, I’m not annoyed or overly serious about this, but I should clarify I do honestly believe in what I say. It’s not a subject to twist and turn in an attempt to catch me out. You won’t convince me otherwise through debating skills, or verbal rug pulling. Ideas are more likely to change my views. But I really don’t mind if you disagree.”
I’m sad you think those are my motives. Like I said in the last paragraph of my previous post, I was looking to lose an argument. Which is why I pick at what appear to be inconsistences and evasions.
Needed more than I was getting to be convinced. Not that you have any obligation to do so. There’s no duty here. Was just hoping for it.
As to my being a motherfucker, I think perhaps you read more into it than I put in. It’s not meant to be self aggrandizing. Read “jerk”, “asshole” or “annoying and picky” instead if that makes it any clearer.
Back to the subject matter, for the last time. I didn’t like the conclusion I’d come to about why this happens and I was hoping to be convinced otherwise.
maybe not motives but certainly part of your approach to conversation. I think if you are looking to lose an argument, you’ve turned my observation into an a battle over which there could be a winner and a loser. My point is, there is no argument. If you disagree with what I think, so be it.
Post a Comment