Has American Apparel Gone Too Far?
Posted by: Leonora Epstein
Filed in:
style
10:10AM, Tuesday September 29th 2009
American Apparel: the store people either love to hate or hate to love. As for us, we go back and forth, at times comically appalled by its hijinks and shenanigans, other times in love with its new fashions. Shopping at American Apparel can feel like a guilty pleasure—you know you’re buying into hipster culture, yet you’re going to be just as happy to purchase the same zip-up hoodie that everyone else has.
Then there’s this, which does make us question the company’s true moral barometer. (Even though the latest scandal involved an ad which looked like teenage porn, the model was 23—so, there’s no real legal encroachment there.) While the kids line is nothing new, these leg warmer items and the little one wearing them are. Seriously? That girl is practically a toddler and already practicing her Playboy poses. [American Apparel]
TheFrisky.com is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment Digital Network
GreenAura
wrote on September 29 2009 @ 09:30 am: [report]
That little girl is precious! BUT I do think that it is a little on the provocative side, as far as the pose goes. It would have been a great shot if they had taken the picture head on and she was propped up on her elbows (chin in hands). Keep her feet the way they are though. The biggest problem is the stare over her shoulder. You know she didn’t come up with that herself.
Jenn27549
wrote on September 29 2009 @ 09:40 am: [report]
I vote borderline. Taken as just a still it could be too much, but it also looks kind of like the end point of an 80’s style, slide across the floor Flashdance dance move, which would be appropriate with the leg warmers.
elizabethmarley
wrote on September 29 2009 @ 09:54 am: [report]
If this were a picture of my 8 year old cousin, I’d see it and think “Aw, look at my cute cousin.” But, given the style of American Apparel ads, it’s really offensive. How about we DON’T have children mimicking the sexy, adult AA ads?
msu.umich
wrote on September 29 2009 @ 11:15 am: [report]
I think its plain ol’ inappropriate. Everything about the ad - the open mouthed expression, hair tossed over her shoulder, rump-up-legs-spread positioning is sexed up in every way. Gross. I never liked their clothes anyway.
Arsenic
wrote on September 29 2009 @ 01:58 pm: [report]
Eeesh. As itself that might not be totally inappropriate, but in conjunction with the rest of amer apparel? Awful.
amylou
wrote on September 29 2009 @ 02:58 pm: [report]
it’s considered sexual because people are sexualizing it! she’s like 5 for godsakes! i don’t think she’s out to get some, or looks like she is.
lahnne
wrote on September 29 2009 @ 04:55 pm: [report]
Psh. Abercrombie’s done worse with 10-year olds. Besides, it worked like a good advertisement should- it got everyone’s attention, didn’t it?
CaleeKay
wrote on September 29 2009 @ 06:42 pm: [report]
honestly, its only the facial expression that is making the whole thing seem so provocative. If she simply just had a cute little smile, noone would have cared. It sucks that there are people who think this will be great advertisement.
Lahnne is right, it DID get everyone’s attention and that is how i usually say things too, ‘well it worked didnt it?’ but i just wish somethings didnt have to be like that.