Are these American Apparel images pornagraphic?

Images used in American Apparel's advertising campaign.
UPDATE: Dec 1st 2010
Clearly, I was either on crack when I wrote this post or I’ve become more conservative in the past 18 months. Individually, and in a different context (say, in a men’s magazine) the images would not press my buttons. Perhaps that’s what I meant when I wrote that I didn’t have a problem with them.
But in the context of advertising a unisex all-ages contemporary-basics fashion brand? Yuck. And the girl in the blue bra looks about 14. I considered just deleting this post when I re-looked at it because it no longer represents what I think, PARTICULARLY after reading this post by Patty Huntington about the endemic use of these kinds of exploitative images of women in their advertising and even their manniquins. When I read what I wrote, I cringe.
However, the ethos of Mamamia is authenticity and in reality, people’s views on things change and evolve, my own included. So I am leaving it up here with this update.
I was a little surprised to read a story in the Sunday papers about American Apparel’s online porn images. Is this called porn these days? Well lordy haven’t we taken a giant and somewhat prudish step to the right. I am very qualified to comment on this particular story having spent an obscene amount of money buying cotton separates for myself and my kids at AA last week.
Quelle co-incidence. I was in a bit of a long-sleeved-t-shirt buying frenzy so maybe I missed the porn when I was shopping in the store….

So I went to the American Apparel website and pulled down THE RAUNCHIEST images I could find to show you. Now, bear it mind there are hundreds of images of tshirts and leggings and all sorts of ordinary things. These ones are the ‘rudest’…..

Beyond good taste ... some of the controversial pictures that feature on clothing retailer American Apparel's website.

Advertisement
Images used in American Apparel's advertising campaign.

The Sun-Herald reports:

American Apparel has come under fire from lobbyists over the sexually exploitative images that appear on its Australian website.The

website and online store features images of young women, in varying
states of undress, in sexually charged poses that look like they belong
on the pages of a pornographic magazine, not on a website selling tank
tops and socks.

“It
goes without saying that most of the images of women on that website
are overtly sexualised and some of them you would have to call
pornographic. It’s another example of the normalisation of pornography
in popular culture.” Ms George said it was also concerning that the men on the site were not sexualised in the same way women were.

Here’s how the boys look:

Screenshot_02

I thought this bit was a stretch:

Clive
Hamilton, the professor of public ethics at the Centre for Applied
Philosophy and Public Ethics, and former chief of the Australia
Institute, which issued the 2006 report, Corporate Pedophilia, on the use of images of children in advertising, is also concerned about the impact the images could have on children.

“Clearly
they are using pornographic-style images, pornographic-style poses in
order to promote the product, and what it does is it normalises the
pornographic genre,” he said.

“On this website there
is also a section for children’s clothes, which means kids who go to
have a look at the website for clothes for themselves are just one
click away from adult women posing in ways that are unquestionably
sexually provocative.”

Really? I don’t know many toddlers and tweens who surf the net looking at CLOTHES. Do you?

Still, I don’t think the other images are pornographic either. Or offensive. Do you?

JOIN THE CONVERSATION

More articles