American Apparel Ad Banned For Looking Too Much Like Child Porn

*sam*
wrote on September 2 2009 @ 02:56 pm: [report]

I *completely* agree with the banning of this add. Whether or not the model in question actually *is* of legal age, the fact that she **appears** to be the ripe old age of 12 is reason enough to ban this. Had they made the effort to give her a shirt rather than allowing her breasts to be partially exposed, then I would think otherwise. However, when I first saw this, I just thought it was a 12yr old with an exceptionally well developed bust. If they want to use extremely youthful looking models, that’s fine, but if they should refrain from putting them in even mildly provocative ads. Even if they had put a disclaimer in the ad stating the actual age of the model depicted, it wouldn’t really matter as it would be easily overlooked.

Riley
wrote on September 2 2009 @ 03:00 pm: [report]

Unless it is actually illegal to use someone that doesn’t look their age, keep the ad.  If someone wanted to make a fuss over it let them, there isn’t anything wrong with it as long as the models are of age.

What a useless watchdog group.

_jsw_
wrote on September 2 2009 @ 03:21 pm: [report]

Well, on the plus side, I suppose it must feel good in some way to be 23 and be seen as looking under 16.

retro chic
wrote on September 2 2009 @ 03:37 pm: [report]

@jsw: Yeah, and get paid like 23 40-year-olds!

Humble Bee
wrote on September 2 2009 @ 03:42 pm: [report]

Oh yeah, I totally wear my hoodie topless, all the time. Don’t you?

ksdancer
wrote on September 2 2009 @ 03:46 pm: [report]

The age of the model doesn’t matter. Who is the marketing geared towards? TEENS ! and having a niece who is 12 going on 25, this is the type of clothing she MUST Have or she’ll just die(!),  believe me when I say that this almost qualifies as child porn.

tk_2009
wrote on September 2 2009 @ 03:59 pm: [report]

As much as I detest American Apparel’s advertising techniques, and most of their clothing, there were no laws broken here. I understand, and agree, that this model looks underage, and there is no question that she has been sexualized and that the target market is the 12-24 set. HOWEVER, there isn’t anything actually illegal here, and legislating against something as nebulous as intentions and public perception is a dangerous precedent in my opinion. Should they have been more careful with their advertising choices? Yes. Should this organization encourage a more responsible use of advertising dollars? Yes. Should we start banning things based on perceptions that are not, in fact, truthful? I don’t believe so. It’s a much more slippery slope than many people would believe.

Ginger
wrote on September 2 2009 @ 04:01 pm: [report]

Every time I see this ad I think that they look like a twelve year old met some creeper over the internet, went to his house, and then he sat her on a bed and took pictures.

Actually, internet creepers probably could take these pictures. And I’ll bet anything they’re cheaper than the people taking them now.

PhillyGirl13
wrote on September 2 2009 @ 05:25 pm: [report]

American Apparel ads are a big reason why I can’t bring myself to buy their clothes. I don’t care how comfortable they are - it makes me feel gross just walking in there.

Anniushka
wrote on September 2 2009 @ 06:12 pm: [report]

@ ksdancer—I believe I just read a BBC article about this. In fact, the target audience was not teens, but rather the bar- and nightclub-going crowd:

“The ASA noted the advertisement was published in a magazine called Vice, which is aimed at the 18-34 market and distributed free in bars, nightclubs and clothes shops.

It ruled the nudity ‘was not so overly gratuitous as to make it unsuitable for or likely to cause serious or widespread offence to the target audience’. “

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8232162.stm

danae
wrote on September 2 2009 @ 07:45 pm: [report]

I don’t care how young she looks, it’s just an unappealing ad in the first place. I’m also not their demographic, so ... shrug.

Aidra
wrote on September 2 2009 @ 08:22 pm: [report]

American Apparel produces some of the strangest ads. It certainly does not make me want to shop there. It’s like that Levi’s commercial where the couple goes skinny dipping… what does that have to do with jeans? Just a way to sexualize something and make you watch. Sad.

sophiafaith
wrote on September 2 2009 @ 08:53 pm: [report]

Why do girls who are 12 want to be 21, and why do 20-somethings strive to look like they are teens again? Women and girls are always pressured to look and feel either older or younger. Most 20-something pretty girls DO look like teenagers. And a lot of pretty teens look older than they are. I agree with TonyKuehn, it is a very slippery slope to legislate based on perception. But advertisers ought to know better than what, going after the almighty dollar? Sex sells everything, and there’s no such thing as bad publicity. Just don’t buy their clothes!

Riley
wrote on September 3 2009 @ 06:58 am: [report]

I agree with Tony.  I’m surprised people can’t see what kind of door this would open, leave legality up to public perception?

bogart4017
wrote on September 3 2009 @ 09:05 am: [report]

This company has quite a few ads and all their models look like they just left Howard Herber Junior High School. Check the L magazine.

AlisonNoelle
wrote on September 3 2009 @ 09:10 am: [report]

I’ve never really understood what was so great about their clothes personally. Its nothing I’d ever wear although the hoodie is cute. I love hoodies. I have to say that I’ve always appreciated the fact their models are never conventionally pretty. Most are….. Hmmm I think striking is the word I’m looking for. As for this one, eh….. Yeah she looks 13 but she’s NOT. So get over it.

canadiancutie
wrote on September 4 2009 @ 07:49 am: [report]

I read that all their models were actually selected randomly, seen walking down the street. I mean, seen in that context, it’s easy to see why they picked her. She would stand out as a pretty girl on a sidewalk, and she has the target body type.

stiffinp
wrote on September 10 2009 @ 07:12 pm: [report]

Probably they use the same ad agency that made suggestive ads for either Abercrombie & Fitch or Aeropostale.

portisheart
wrote on September 29 2009 @ 09:38 pm: [report]

I would be outraged if she were actually that young, but she is not. I don’t look at her and think 12. It is believable that she is 23.

Are women only supposed to look a certain way to be the age they are? I’m sorry if she looks “youthful” but I assume she is over 18 when I see an ad like this. If she isn’t then I see the line being crossed.

It is a ridiculous ad though—- using sex to make us buy a hoodie. Yes, I will look that tantalizing if I pay vast amounts of money for something I could thrift in a heartbeat.

Karixa
wrote on October 5 2009 @ 07:24 pm: [report]

People are acting far too prudish.  I suspect guilt over being attracted to a beautiful young lady - what’s wrong with appreciating the beauty of a 23 year old woman?  Are all women supposed to be leather skinned at that age from teen years tanning at the beach?  We have insane double standards in this world.  There’s nothing wrong with that ad that isn’t already what’s wrong with the entire advertising industry - that it’s entirely too sexually biased.