American Apparel Ads: A Totally F-ed Up Portrait of the Ideal Woman

Okay, I know that simply by writing this post I’m doing exactly what they want- reproducing their ads and their brand and making people think/talk about their product.  Ugh.  But I can’t keep my mouth shut (or, in this case, my fingers silent).  Does anyone else really hate the American Apparel ads that are all over the place?  You know the ones I’m talking about- the photos of women’s butts all up in the camera, women’s crotches the focal point of an ad, bright colored tights painted onto bodies that need some cake?

I mean, I get that models are skinny and ads are meant to be provocative.  Fine.  But I can still find these in particular way annoying.  Last time I checked, I didn’t need to get inside some woman’s vag’ to be inspired to buy a pair of tights.  In fact, I’d rather just see them on a healthy looking woman who didn’t seem to be totally uncomfortable in them.  Or, better yet, put them with a funky outfit that makes me think, “Hey, I’d like to try something like that!”  None of this “Let me spread my legs and hump the lens” business.  If I want gynecological excavation I’ll make an appointment with my ObGyn.  And yes, AA, we get the double entendre of “tights.”  And no, we don’t think it’s cleaver.

Little did I know, this controversy isn’t new.  People have been objecting to AA ads left and right- and who’s surprised?  Some of the ads that appear on the backs of magazines and on the AA website practically suggest that the ideal woman is either

a- a porn star

b- a rape victim

c- a teenager with no breasts and no self-esteem who can’t keep her step-father out of her bedroom

or d- a scary combo of all of the above

The supposed “pro-labor” stance of AA’s owner and president Dov Charney might not be so “pro” if he didn’t get to ogle sad little hotties all day long.  Suddenly those subsidized lunches and high wages seem more like a trade for sex (or at least the suggestion of it) than fair and inspiring labor practices.

The objectification of women is all over fashion, but there are moments when edgy and irresponsible become much too close for my comfort and, apparently, the comfort of others.  And, while I’m not a fan of censorship and I think that art and advertising can be viewed in myriad different ways, I do think that the potential ramifications of these ads are greater than those of wearing bad tights.  What do you all think?  Are these ads going too far, or is all fair game in the world of marketing?  By protesting are we  making more money for companies that objectify women, or are we defending women’s health and the right to look around our neighboshoods without feeling bad about ourselves?  What’s the right answer here- or is there even one?  And is it naive to think that we should even care?

I say, “American Apparel: fired.”  Too bad I own at least ten pairs of their tights.  You won’t catch me flashing the crotch of them at people, though!!  And I won’t suddenly become a woman who can’t say NO just because I’m wearing them, either.