While some laws are more theory than practice, especially when it comes to advertising, the UK is developing a staunch record of keeping “inappropriate” ads out of its borders. The country’s Advertising Standards Authority has recently banned ads for plastic surgery, Miu Miu, Marc Jacobs and a smaller clothing line. Now the A.S.A. is (unsurprisingly) targeting American Apparel, a company known for its advertisements featuring barely-clothed women. The above shot is from the banned campaign, and you can see more of the banned images after the cut.
You can see more of AA’s banned ads at the source. Unsurprisingly, the campaign was singled out for being, “gratuitous…pornographic and exploitative.” The strange part of the ban, however, was the reasoning that:
the particular context of images which featured nudity and sexually provocative poses, there was a voyeuristic and ‘amateurish’ quality to the images which served to heighten the impression that the ads were exploitative of women and inappropriately sexualised young women.”
While I can certainly understand the ads being nixed due to their sexual nature, doesn’t the second judgment seem a bit subjective? Sure, I look at these photos and see sexualized women, but I’m not really getting a “voyeur exploiting them” vibe, either. While some excuses for banning ads are understandable, if the A.S.A. is going to use overly-personal reasoning to make future calls, perhaps their framework needs some more thinking.
What do you think of the ads? Should they have been banned?
guest
They make me cringe and give me the feeling of amateur porn.
guest
They look like the photos are taking in a basement by some poor porn film producer xD
The ads make me cringe. Like, I’m sure there are more tasteful ways of advertising sweatshirts and tall socks :P lol
guest
They definitely feel voyeuristic. All of AA’s ads do. They have the lighting and posing quality of amateur porn. A lot of them look like Polaroids. I think they do this to make their clothing fit with a certain image…because when you boil it all down, most of their clothes are really boring. But the ads make you think “Wait, this totally plain-jane grey sweatshirt is all edgy and alternative, where’s my wallet, I need one.” At least that’s what it must make some people think.
guest
That model looks not a day over 18 for one and I agree about it looking like the photos were taken in a basement. The whole point of clothing spreads is to entice the buyer to want to WEAR the clothing. Honestly, who are they targeting? That’s what scares me.
guest
I agree with their assessment of the ads. They do resemble cheap porn.
guest
@Cestovatelka@xanga - I was legit about to comment about how to me it always looked like the ads were taken in someone’s poorly-lit basement… Good to know I’m not the only one who thinks this way!
guest
People, ‘SEX SELLS’, yes?
The ads were shut down by FEMINISTS (aka FEMINAZIS), GUARANTEED!
guest
Wait.. This is a clothing company right? Where is the clothes? ;P
Anyways, they dont look like they are of age alot of them, so this makes it look really wrong…
guest
Is it just me or do they have the same look that impoverished children have in those adoption commercials? The ones with the “price-of-a-cup-of-coffee” comparison.
guest
too much naked buttcheeks, cameltoes and nipples. the 70′s porno look isn’t appealing. their bodysuit thong ads are so disgusting(probably because they give off this thai or russian hooker vibe to them)they are selling plain clothes and accessories, but make it seem like a lolita-ish fetish style.
guest
I wouldn’t care about the ads if those models didn’t look like they were fresh out of puberty.
…If only someone could ban the young Kardashian girl’s photos.
guest
I guess these ads work since people still continue to buy their over-priced, yet extremely boring clothing. They must have some appeal. It just creeps the hell out of me.
guest
Gross.
rose / 759 posts
If it were done in a classy way, then I think it’d be fine… take VS, for example. But their ads are too bland and porn-like for my taste.
sunflower / 396 posts
@LegionOfLucifer@xanga - i’m pretty sure its because the ads look like CP
guest
They should be banned PERIOD!!!! It is just so gross! Put some clothes on people damn. It’s not that hard to do!!
orchid / 119 posts
I hatehatehate all American Apparel ads. It honestly makes me never ever want to shop there because I think they’re disgusting.
guest
At first I was like, “Eh, they’re’ not so bad.” But then I realized I was turned on. So.
guest
I always hate looking at the AA adds, seriously. They’re not even good quality. I could take better pics than that haha.
guest
@spentandsickk@xanga - It WORKS. Sex sells, darling.
guest
@thatkyliegirlx@xanga - I doubt if they care.
guest
@pikachooseyou@xanga - No problem with being turned on. That is actually the very reason females exist.
guest
I think I get what they’re saying. They’re not just pornographic…Victoria’s Secret is all about showing skin, but these photos are different. They look too real, as if some guy just snapped these pictures of his drunk neighbor and plastered them on the internet.
guest
@HisKeiki@xanga - That’s pretty much what I just wrote as well!
guest
I do find it amusing when people say nothing about Victoria Secrets ads not only being shown in print, but there are also commercials showing very skimpy women. What’s the problem then? Hypocrisy rears its ugly beak.
orchid / 119 posts
@LegionOfLucifer@xanga -
Seeing as it’s obvious many other people feel the same way, I bet they care more than anyone cares about your ludicrous theories.
guest
I dunno why people are affraid of pornography. Naturally we’re all sexual objects, but we wouldn’t want to admit that.
I’m so attracted to cute boys and can’t help myself. My insides just start turning and I haven’t even heard his voice yet!! It means I’m healthy and normal, that’s all.
guest
@milky_vampyre@xanga - what? Did you mean sexual beings? Because I’m pretty sure everyone is a human, not an object.
guest
They just don’t help me focus on the clothes, really.
guest
Ironic given that they put pornography in their newspaper.
guest
I first thought that they looked fine, then I looked again, and I don’t think it is very appropriate. Sex sells, but it also makes little girls think that it’s okay to take skimpy pics of themselves to post on the internet for pervs to gawk at. And that is not okay.
guest
That’s too far. Seriously.
guest
You are joking right!? Has anyone every opend a mag from the UK or watched tv there? Its full of naked people!
guest
@Digital_Angel21@xanga - yup, human objects. It’s our animal instincts. I imagine we’re not animals though, right? Perhaps we just think we’re different, or want to be a certain way. Oh how our fancies are always on the prowl! Confusing and deluding us, oh my! Maybe, right?
guest
@LegionOfLucifer@xanga - You’re most definitely a troll, so I won’t waste time.
AA can do what they want (just as VS can), but I don’t want their ads on any channels of TV that children might watch or in magazines that children look at. So far, I haven’t seen either of those, so I’m okay with it. Yeah, AA looks like cheap porn because their clothes are boring that they need something else to sell it. And VS just uses thin, beautiful models as a way to make us focus on the bras and underwear, because if they used women that were deemed physically unattractive, everyone would be focused on how unattractive they were.
guest
American Apparel: the company that usually has banners on most of the Xanga articles I read, thus drastically reducing my time spent on Xanga.
guest
@anenigmaofsorts@xanga - So, because I do not share your views, I am considered to be a ‘troll’? Perhaps you need not post in my direction ever again if you truly believe this, yes? I stand by my comments within this blog.
guest
@quidam2010@xanga - Dear, it is because of American Apparel that you may even post here for free. Otherwise, you would be asked to pay monies to post here. It is called ‘REVENUE’. They simply advertise in order to create jobs for the people who work for them, just as this site allows advertising to ensure you enjoy a wonderful experience for free. In effect, American Apparel pays YOUR bills. It is not wise to bitch about them, unless you are willing to pay some cash to be here, which I doubt very much.
guest
@biggirlsdontcriyiyiyi@xanga - Ah yes, let us place the blame on the corporations for all those young girls who post inappropriate pictures of themselves on the internet, rather than the young girls themselves? One of those ‘blame everyone else but ourselves’ liberals, yes?
guest
@LegionOfLucifer@xanga - I don’t really care either which way. But thanks for your comment.
guest
@milky_vampyre@xanga - You are precisely correct. We are all indeed sexual creatures. No one forced the girls to pose in such a skimpy manner, and they were paid well for doing so. They are not the problem, only the bitches who whine, moan and groan about a company working for ways to survive are the problem, especially in a time of economic downturn.
guest
@Digital_Angel21@xanga - And human beings are sexual objects. Otherwise, why is there so much sex out there? Do you understand her point now?
guest
@quidam2010@xanga - Fair enough.
guest
@LegionOfLucifer@xanga - Thanks! I just think that sex is fun and that we need more of it.
guest
@milky_vampyre@xanga - Well-said. After all, is not sex a healthy part of everyone’s life?
guest
@LegionOfLucifer@xanga - Not what I said, but you go ahead and read my comment how you want to read it
have a nice day.
guest
@biggirlsdontcriyiyiyi@xanga - That is precisely what you implied. You now realise your mistake, and are desperate to get out of it.
guest
@LegionOfLucifer@xanga - Desperate is an interesting choice of word… not at all what I was doing. So once again, read my comment/ comments how you want to, but don’t read too much into them. Thank you
guest
Those ads do have that amateur porn look to it, though.