Friday, 7 December 2012

Yet another American Apparel scandal.

A couple of months back US fashion retailer, American Apparel was part of a dispute over their rather provocative 2011 Autumn campaign which pictured scantily-clad women in somewhat provocative poses. Well, they’ve only gone and done it again.

American Apparel has yet again found itself in a predicament with the UK ad watchdogs who have ruled their ads as “sexually suggestive and gratuitous” following a complaint from a mother who came across a series of risqué images whilst trying to shop for tights with her 12 year old daughter.
She said that that there digital ads are “… sexually provocative… and likely to cause widespread offence, because they were displayed on a website which could be viewed by, and was likely to appeal to, children under 16 years of age.”
Further complaints were received over the nature of their ads showing young models posing in their range of coloured t-shirts.
Naturally the ASA were quick to issue a statement on the matter stating that:
“We told American Apparel they should not use images which were likely to sexualise models who appeared under 16 years of age, and they should not use images which were likely to cause offence.
“Because her breasts were visible through her shirt, we considered the images could be seen to sexualise a model who appeared to be a child.”
After all, their perpetual use of such images seems to suggest that they really don’t give a damn about how offensive these images can be.
The execs down at American Apparel tried to defend themselves over their t-shirt ad campaign issuing a statement that outlined that all the images were a “completely fair and decent representation of their product”… Nice way to really hit the nail on the head there. Objectification of the female form at its finest.
They went on to argue that it is “standard practice” to market their hosiery in the way they do.
Oh, that’s fine then, if it is a standard practice this MUST mean that it’s all entirely ethical and not sexist in the slightest.

Sources used:,,


  1. I couldn't agree more. I'm no prude by any means but I've had an issue with their ad campaigns only because the age of the models. It's one thing if an adult model looks young, but when they're actually 15 or 16, that's just wrong. It's like they want to cater to pedos.

    Great post and great blog!

    your new follower,

    1. I know right! Clearly they don't care who models their products as long as it's done well- and it's pretty obvious what kind of image they prefer to sell.

      Thanks for reading Mandyǃ ː)
      (Now your new follower!)