Fashion vs American Apparel vs Porn

Aug 25, 2007 11:05

This morning a cow-orker and I were talking about this LA Times article about "American Apparel" ads.

I believe they're meant to evoke pornography, sometimes even child pornography. The fact that a) this cannot be proved, and b) you can't say it without sounding like a prudish old biddy, drives me crazy ( Read more... )

photography, porn

Leave a comment

Comments 7

leighton August 25 2007, 21:19:31 UTC
I agree with your premise and argument completely.

But my perspective is tainted, because more than one person has told me that the "god-like and progressive" owner is a womanizer who sleeps with his (usually younger) employees.

Though, does AA sell more using these ads?

Wonder if he sleeps with the models? Eeeew?

Reply


(The comment has been removed)

tongodeon August 25 2007, 23:51:18 UTC
That is the issue right there. You put women in tight t-shirts and underwear, and you set them up as being available to the men who are looking at them.There's no doubt that there is objectification happening in that ad, but I think you're misreading what I wrote. I said that the women in those ads look like the type of women I've dated. Natural, ordinary looking women. Women that I apparently had a chance with. I'm trying to describe the difference between airbrushed supermodels and the women who you and I meet every day. Perhaps "women I (do/do not) have a chance with" is a bad or at least distracting way to describe those two demographics ( ... )

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

(The comment has been removed)


catbear August 26 2007, 01:10:22 UTC
Well, there's "action violence" where people who get shot fall over dead in a half second and never bleed, and there's real violence where guys who get shot shit themselves, moan and cry and scream and crawl around and leave stains and smears all over the place and die after half an hour of agony. Action violence gets a PG rating; real violence ain't ever shown.

So, the more realistic the portrayal of the sex object is, the scarier, more frightening and more provoking it is. Given a photoshopped supermodel you'll never ever have a chance at, and the girl next door who looks at you half a second longer than she needs to, which one ought to be wrapped up in a burkha so your inner sinner doesn't run rampant?

Reply


ikkyu2 August 26 2007, 06:49:19 UTC
pornos graphein means dirty writing. You should probably define it before you go too much further down this path. For example, "I know it when I see it" makes it pretty pointless to discuss this any further, because all objections to your arguments can be immediately refuted.

Reply


twocrows August 29 2007, 07:09:56 UTC
but the AA models are mostly just as thin as the regular models, and look just like regular models, without the make-up and airbrushing. it's dirty partly because the poses are pornagraphic, and partly because there is a sense that they are following those "hot"models and getting photos of them as they really are.

AA has redefined sizes so that what is a 3XL for them is approximately the same size as an XL for conventional clothing, so their models had best be thin to look good in their stuff.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up