Thank you

Thanks to everybody who has stopped by the site and left comments or e-mailed me. A lot of people have asked where I've been and if I'm going to keep this site up, or if I have a new site. As for where I've been, I've been really busy with school and work and an internship I'm doing for my psychology degree. My work and internship both involve working with special-needs children, and I have had a lot of great experiences. I want to return the favor and link to the site http://www.ourthreeangels.info/ which relates to my job working with children with Angelman Syndrome. You can find information on the family and caregivers, there are videos, and most importantly, you can order yourself a copy of the new book "Communication Techniques in Angelman Syndrome."

As for whether I will continue this site... I'm not sure at this point. I might. I think I have said everything I want to say at this point. There will always be new examples of ads, my only issue is that I took so long at the beginning of the blog explaining where I am coming from, and the more I post, the further those explanations go back into the archives. I don't want to keep repeating myself over and over, but it seems the less commentary I put with my posts, the more misunderstood I am in terms of where I am coming from and what my point really is. I've had a couple of anonymous (of course) comments saying "get over it," and "what's the big deal." I feel like I've explained myself sufficiently, but a lot of this is in my earlier posts, and I don't want to keep saying the same thing over and over. Without explanation, a lot of people will ignorantly think "feminist" means "man-hater," or that someone opposed to sexism or racism or homophobia is automatically an uptight person who can't take a joke and takes the fun out of everything, which is all so far from the truth. Furthermore, if I don't provide an explanation, many people will equate my point-of-view with a certain type of conservative, ultra-religious, self-righteous point-of-view, which is also really far from the truth. I'm not against the ads in this blog for religious or moral reasons, or because I believe in censorship and want everything PG rated. I am against them because, through my studies in psychology, I have come to learn how damaging certain messages can be to people in our society, in particular women and children. There is a wealth of research out there (there are some links on this site,) and there is scientific research currently taking place, that takes an intensive look at the effects of certain messages that the media sends out. I created this blog because I have learned about and can see the damage caused by certain media elements, and I felt like I wanted to share what I have learned because I think it is so important. I have no agenda other than the fact that I care about people and want the world to be a better place.

As for whether I have another site, I have started a new blog at http://bloodribbons.blogspot.com/, largely for personal reasons which involve a way to keep my creative writing all together in one place. I have been posting poetry-type writing on my myspace for a long time, but it is all mixed in with other stuff, so I wanted a place to keep it all together in an organized way. There is not much there yet, but hopefully that will change soon. If you're into creative writing, check it out, and leave a few hundred comments or so. :)



love and space,
nadia

Lies, part 2

'Effortless Perfection': Much Photoshopping Required

"As individual women, it can be easy to wonder why we fall into the trap of trying to live up to an unattainable standard. It's something we absorb on an almost subconscious level. Deconstructing this month's Redbook magazine cover shows us just how manufactured the images of beauty we see really are....The side-by-side comparison reminds us that we are continually fed ridiculously unrealistic images of beauty and perfection. We don't really have the option to turn away. Even if we don't read fashion magazines, the cover images are everywhere."

Faith Hill's 'Redbook' Photoshop Chop: Why we're pissed

"...even in and on a women's magazine meant for a more mature female audience (working moms, etc.) and featuring a more mature female celebrity (career-woman and mother-of-three Faith Hill) the lies and half-truths continue to be perpetuated....In a world where lying, deception, and the fudging of facts has become endemic in everything, all the way up to the highest levels of government, this is yet another example of a fraud being perpetrated on the public... and the public, for the most part, is not yet in on the joke."





When Photoshopping Goes Too Far

"And you have the audacity to call it the 1st Annual Figure-Flattery Issue."

Glamour Magazine to America Ferrera: "How do you feel about being the newest spokeswoman for curvy figures in Hollywood?"

How amusing, considering they photoshopped all the curves off of her for their magazine cover.

Take a minute and write Glamour a letter.

more...













Here is a video of Kelly Clarkson at the Elle Magazine photoshoot, so you can see how much the images above have been altered to make her look thinner:

Reader comments

I have gotten a couple of negative reader comments lately, and I have debated whether to respond to them. For now, I will just tackle the negative comment I received today:

in response to my "Say hello" entry:

ugh, yes Jaslene is skinny. But, it ticks me off how you said America's Next Top Model is showing girls that this is the image of beauty. How dare you to say she is not beautiful. Skinny girls have self-esteem too. Not to mention that Jaslene had confirmed that she does not ave an eating disorder and she feels sorry for the girls who do. I'm sick of people calling others out for being skinny, it's a natural thing for her and if she were to try and change that for your "image" of beauty, she would be doing exactly what anorexic girls do. Do not think of well I'm only saying this because I'm skinny. I'm a 14 year old girl who is five foot five and 160 pounds. I've got curves and I love them and I also love Jaslene's body. Calling her out for her body makes you just as bad as anyone else.

In no way am I saying she is not beautiful. My point is that overall there is a trend for models to be super-skinny and often anorexic. This promotes a lot of negative things, as I talk about in other entries. It is not about one individual model, but about larger trends that are going on. I am absolutely not saying that very skinny people cannot be beautiful. In fact, that goes completely against what I am saying with this website. Of course skinny girls have self-esteem, too, as you said! I think people of all types should be celebrated, as opposed to how it is now, where it seems like most models have nearly identical body types. I would love to see models of all shapes and sizes (and colors and everything else.) Unlike what you said, I do not "call people out" for being skinny, and if that is Jaslene's natural body type, of course she should not try to change that just to fit in. If I were to see her on the street, I wouldn't think, "oh, she's anorexic," or have a problem with her at all.



We continually see images like the above in fashion magazines and on the runway. In this sense, it was predictable that a model like Jaslene would be chosen as the winner. The fashion industry promotes this type of image, and that has been shown to contribute to the development of eating disorders and low self-esteem. Also, in case it isn't clear, I have empathy and concern for those suffering from eating disorders, not condemnation. Anorexia is a horrible disease that I do not like to see being promoted, and that is why I post about it. Also, I have never said that these images cause eating disorders, which have important psychological and biological components.

"Many researchers in the field use the metaphor of a gun to explain what leads to the onset of an eating disorder. According to this description, first coined by Dr. Cynthia Bulik of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, genes load the gun and the environment pulls the trigger." -- Kimberly Conniff Taber

Thanks for reading.

More

Anorexia : A Controversial Ad Campaign

Check out the link for a great article.



"An image of unique power, even though disturbing, can impact viewers in the way pages of text cannot. It has shock value and sometimes people need to be shocked into awareness, particularly when it comes to a ‘fashion’ disease that has been wreaking havoc in the lives of women. While anorexia also has a psychological component, there is little doubt that constant exposure to the ideal of beauty represented by rail thin models has added to the pressure to appear slim at all costs - even at the expense of health." - Aidan Maconachy

Reality

A statement said: "Toscani [the photographer] has literally laid his subject bare, to show the reality of this sickness to all through this naked body, a sickness that in most cases is caused by the stereotypes imposed on women by the fashion world." (Billboard appeared during fashion week in Milan.)

I think this billboard is great. The photographer is trying to make people confront the reality of anorexia. Anorexia is a deadly illness that is being promoted when anorexic and super-thin models are continually presented as being the epitome of beauty. There is also a huge amount of pressure within the industry to be underweight; many models (and former models) have spoken publicly about the rampant problems of drug use, bulimia and anorexia in the modeling world.





A recent image from Teen Vogue magazine:



And last month's issue of Glamour magazine:



America Ferrera has become hugely successful playing "Ugly Betty" on TV, a girl who supposedly doesn't match up in outward beauty to the women around her yet is well-liked and successful. America goes through wardrobe and make-up changes to alter her appearance for the show, but still, in real life she is not as thin as most women working in Hollywood (although she has lost a lot of weight-- perhaps due to industry pressure-- since her wonderful debut in the film "Real Women Have Curves.") With all of this taken into account, I find it truly sick that Glamour magazine digitally altered America's image to make her look much thinner than she really is. They are saying that even though they love "Ugly Betty," she is still not beautiful enough for the cover of their magazine. They are saying that even though America Ferrera has lost weight (and is awesome and just won an Emmy award!), that she is still not thin enough for the cover of their magazine. The whole thing is ironic, even more so because there is an episode of "Ugly Betty" dealing with a young model, and the moral issues involved when her magazine images are photoshopped to make her look much thinner.

American Apparel

Check out this article about the American Apparel ad shown above.

"A woman who lives in this neighborhood, contacted wcbstv.com to tell us she's sent a petition to American Apparel with dozens of resident's signatures asking them to take the billboard down."

The woman mentioned above is named Jessi and you can check out her blog at http://annienyc.blogspot.com/. The two pictures used here were also taken by Jessi.

I highly recommend checking out her blog entries about American Apparel at http://annienyc.blogspot.com/search/label/american%20apparel. Start with the entry at the bottom of the page and scroll up to read more recent entries. Find out about this controversial billboard and how Jessi took it upon herself to contact CBS and inspire their news story. The blog entries detail Jessi's reaction to the billboard as well as the opinions of other local residents, like the man who owns the business right underneath the giant ad.

Jessi says, "this billboard is the epitome of dehumanization."

I also think this ad is completely sexist and dehumanizing. By not even showing the woman's face, they are further turning her into a sexual object. By repeatedly showing women in sexually objectified images, American Apparel is-- inadvertently or not-- sending a message to society about women. And the message they are sending is false and dangerous.



Ads, especially 50 ft. tall posters, send messages. So the more ads like this that we allow, the more we are sending these negative messages to people, in particular impressionable young boys and girls. The messages we teach our children influence what kind of people they grow up to be. Do we want to teach our children that women are sexual objects who should be used and disrespected? Of course not! That will benefit absolutely no one. Even if a company insists on using sex in their ads, whether or not it will help sales, it is completely possible to do that without taking it to the level of degrading women.



(the above ad is diagonally across the street from a playground.)

By portraying a woman as a sexual object, an ad is saying that her feelings and personality are not important. Many people have urgently expressed concern over a possible connection between images like this and real-life violence toward women.

I am once again going to quote wikipedia on the dangers of dehumanization:

"Dehumanization is a process by which members of a group of people assert the "inferiority" of another group through subtle or overt acts or statements. Dehumanization may be directed by an organization (such as a state) or may be the composite of individual sentiments and actions.... Anthropologists Ashley Montagu and Floyd Matson famously wrote that dehumanization might well be considered "the fifth horsemen of the apocalypse" because of the inestimable damage it has dealt to society. When people become things, the logic follows, they become dispensable - and any atrocity can be justified."

From the CBS article:

"The consumer has the power," Passikoff said. "Enough letters written to a corporation regarding any kind of a campaign and you'll see a campaign dropped entirely."

So, boycott American Apparel! Write them a letter if you don't like their ads.

Contact content advisor Alexandra Spunt at alexandra@americanapparel.net,
or write to adrian@americanapparel.net.

Be like Jessi and do something. If everyone who hates these ads were to do something about it, I think we would see a big change; most women I talk to do not like to see women portrayed like this, and many men feel the same way. So don't be passive, and don't be silent!

The Reality of Plastic Surgery

"79 percent of plastic surgery patients were influenced by TV, media"

"Let’s face it. Most people don’t get plastic surgery solely because of these reality TV programs. These programs are part of the much larger societal trend, which promotes physical perfection and pushes people to look a lot better than they actually do. But overall, these programs don’t help. They contribute to this unhealthy trend. There’s nothing wrong with cosmetic surgery if it’s done by the right doctor to the right patient for the right reasons. But when you have 15-year-old girls obsessed about getting breast augmentation or a nose job or wanting to look more like J.Lo or Jennifer Aniston, that should be enough reason for all of us to be concerned. I say the vast majority of so-called reality shows about plastic surgery only make it worse for impressionable kids, not to mention particularly insecure adults."

When sex doesn't sell

Check out this article: Study: Sex Doesn't Sell

This June, two University marketing professors are releasing a study that suggests sex doesn’t sell. The research, based on 200 college student interviews suggests that sex-obsessed advertising can actually backfire against marketers, triggering doubts about product quality and legitimacy.

and:

Beauty and the beholder: Why pretty faces don't always help sales

Beautiful young models are used to sell everything from computer processors to motor oil. But is it really effective to use a pretty face to market something that has nothing to do with physical attractiveness? New research from the June issue of the Journal of Consumer Research argues that an attractive model can actually negatively influence product perception if the model is irrelevant to the quality of the product and the consumer had a very high interest in the product to being with.

*

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the entire point of this website. I wanted to show that the phrase "sex sells" is a broad generalization that is sometimes true, sometimes very untrue, and all too often quoted to defend negative things. People say "sex sells" to justify sexist images that promote misogyny and directly hurt women ("sex" does not equal "sexism"!) Of course, sometimes sex does sell, but not in the way that people often claim. In conclusion, all of this objectified sexualization of women in advertising seems to be doing nothing but damage. Don't take my word for it, just check out the countless scientific studies that have been done on the subject.

And finally, one last bit of news from trendhunter.com:

French Fashion Label Uses Hardcore Porn for Catalog

"A French Fashion Label, Shai, has decided to launch its latest clothing line using full x-rated pornographic content. The interactive online site features x-rated porn with woman-on-woman, man-on-woman, and man-on-man sex scenes that feature the clothing on the bed. The website also allows users to react, and does not censor those who object.

One user writes, “intentional or not its complete crap. you only see the same set of clothes the whole time, i get it, the clothes are on the bed, so what, the next 5 minutes is porn, and a terrible track that has no other meaning than the brands name repeated over and over. Brands should build good stories at the very least, not brainwash people into [pleasuring themselves] while listening to someone awfully singing “Shhaaiii"”

The site is engineered to start a viral trend with links for bloggers to post videos, tell a friend links, and an online press kit…"

*

Just to make sure I'm being clear, I'm not including this here as a commentary on pornography. The point is that advertisers are using sex as a commodity in ever more extreme ways, which does not seem to make any sense in light of the scientific studies I have been sharing.

Finally...I wanted to say thank you to everyone reading this and especially to those who have commented on my posts or sent me emails. I love getting your feedback. Knowing that this website has been a positive thing for even one person definitely makes it worth my while.

How to help

It's easy enough to complain about the things that bother us, but what can we do to help? People are easy to dismiss valid concerns when nothing is suggested to help solve the problems at hand. I recently talked about a facebook.com ad that I did not like. What I failed to mention was that I wrote them a letter about the ad, and they wrote me back. What I wrote to them was similar to what I posted here, and what they wrote back was something along the lines of: we care very much about our users, we try to take their opinions into account, we thank you for your suggestion, blah blah blah...

At first, I was a bit disappointed (although not surprised) by the weak response I got. But when I look at the big picture, I believe I did my part to try and stand up for what I think is right. And I believe I made a difference. What if everybody who didn't like an ad were to contact the company? What would happen? It's simple, the ad would get pulled! How do I know? I have provided examples on this website of that happening. If enough people complain about an ad, the company will stop using it. Sometimes there will not be enough protest to end an ad campaign, but enough to make the company take these things into consideration next time around. It's too easy to think that one person can't make a difference. Sometimes, one voice is not enough. It is when voices come together that change happens. So, if you have a problem with something, speak up at every chance you get. And the great thing is, it's really not hard to do.

In conclusion, I think the way to solve these problems is much, much simpler than it may seem at first.

1. Don't buy the product.
2. Complain! To the company, to websites hosting ads... even voicing your opinion in your own blog or to your friends makes a difference. For example, when I saw the ad on facebook.com, I simply hit the 'contact' button on the top right of the screen and wrote them a short note. The more of these they get, the more likely they are to really think about it. Even doing just that will help, but you can always do more. In this case, a person opposed to the ad could go on to write a letter to American Apparel (the offending company in the ad), and they could refuse to buy clothing from that company. Sometimes it can get more tricky. For example, take the Baby Bratz Dolls, one of the most offensive product lines I have ever seen. You could contact the company that makes these dolls, but would you go so far as to boycott Target, or some other major chain? It can seem overwhelming and impossible to cut out every company that does something you disapprove of. Therefore, many people do nothing. I believe that doing whatever you can to help will have an effect. Just because you can't save the world doesn't mean you can't make a difference.

Now I must admit, I was inspired to write this after visiting this webpage. I know I already wrote about the Bratz Dolls, but coming across this article just made me remember how much I hate these dolls. Really, it's beyond belief to me. How in the world did this product make it to the shelves of our stores? Why would any parent ever buy these dolls for their child?

From the website:

Maybe I'm wrong and these aren't babies at all. The upcoming Bratz Babyz DVD states they've got to "put on their makeup" and "look hotter than hot" which would lead me to believe that they're perhaps middle-aged sex-workers. But I doubt it since their website states that the Bratz Babyz are "keepin' it real in the crib" and "already know how to flaunt it".

Already know how to flaunt it? That has got to be one of the most disgusting things I have ever heard. Who designed these dolls and came up with these slogans? Whoever it is, he/she makes the CEO of American Apparel look like a saint in comparison.







From the time they are born, many girls are being given toys like this! What message is that sending to them? To me, it seems obvious. Unfortunately, many people do not agree. Or, they just don't care. I'm not sure what's worse.

A quote from the American Psychological Association:

Bratz dolls come dressed in sexualized clothing such as miniskirts, fishnet stockings, and feather boas. Although these dolls may present no more sexualization of girls or women than is seen in MTV videos, it is worrisome when dolls designed specifically for 4- to 8-year-olds are associated with an objectified adult sexuality

– APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls, Report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls

Now, check out this quote from a Bratz spokesperson:

The Bratz brand, which has remained number one in the UK market for 23 consecutive months focuses core values on friendship, hair play and a 'passion for fashion'.

Yeah, right.

*

In lighter news, here is some ridiculously bad photoshopping for you to enjoy:



It usually helps if the head and body they paste together are actually proportionate in size to one another.

*

Oh no... I was just about to say goodbye, when I came across this...

Dolls or Hookers?

Say hello to "Flavas", the new "urban" Bratz Dolls! I'm not even starting on this one.

I've left American Apparel alone for too long

Anyone who regularly visits facebook.com may be familiar with this ad. I've been bothered by some American Apparel ads before, but haven't yet complained about the company on this website. Fortunately for me, I found a wonderful piece on American Apparel that perfectly captures what I originally aimed to articulate myself.

Besides the fact that I don't like American Apparel, the ad caught my eye because the girl looks to be about 12. For a second, I thought maybe I was wrong and/or overreacting. But I clicked on the ad, and the URL included the word "tweener," referring to a pre-teen. Personally, I find this swimsuit a bit revealing and the pose too sexualized for a pre-teen. It seems pretty clear they are trying to make this model look "sexy," and I don't think that's right for a 12 year old.

I went on to do a bit of investigative work (at least that's what I like to call it to make myself feel important), and I visited the official American Apparel website to check out their photographs. To my relief, their was no highly sexualized "tweener" photograph section. In fact, I found galleries for adult clothing and children clothing, but no teen section. Not only did I not find a teen or tween section, but in no place did I see the offending ad, the same model, or even the same swimsuit! So, why is this weird ad on facebook.com all the time? Most people who use facebook are definitely not in their preteen years.

Well, since there's no teen section to rip apart on the American Apparel site, let's take a quick look at the kids section. Here are the pictures that make up the kids skirt/dress section:



The above blue "dress" also "doubles as a long tank top," according to the website. Why is that? Because there is not enough fabric here for a dress! Sure, I've seen worse, but there is a bigger picture here, and that is that we are increasnigly seeing sexy clothes being marketed and sold to kids. What do you think?





This skirt is advertised as being "a short yet modest style." Tell me, what determines a skirt's modesty but its length?

And finally, I present the wonderful article I mentioned earlier. It is actually part of a much longer piece, and for those who are so inclined, I highly recommend reading the whole thing via the link provided. Otherwise, dig in:

Love for Sale: Criticism and Defense of Advertising

by Bernard Dolan, Special to Knowmore.org
August 22, 2006

In 2005, Jason Rowe, a columnist for NYU’s Washington Square News, described American Apparel's ads as, “Photographs of young women in compromising positions, some as young as fifteen... juxtaposed alongside text giving accounts of meeting the models on the street and inviting them to be photographed... conveying the feeling of some sort of perverted conquest." Rowe called the ads "sexually exploitative" and noted that they "seem more like amateur pornography than anything else."

As American Apparel's slinky ads have spread across urban landscapes, the internet, and the pages of weekly culture rags, many commentators have begun to voice similar criticism. The ads have been compared to child pornography, called "sleazy" and "creepy," and have constantly been linked with Charney's rumored sexual antics and legal battles.

In a 2005 interview with NowToronto.com, Media Watch founder Ann Simonton called for a boycott of American Apparel products over the ads. "This is beyond 'sex sells,'" Simonton told the interviewer. "It goes to a level of humiliation."

And yet the same NowToronto article found Charney's ads being defended, by porn star turned PhD sexologist Annie Sprinkle.

"I like the sweat, the grit, the reality," Sprinkle said. "He obviously appreciates female sexuality in all its glorious sleaziness. And I think you can worship female sexuality and also worship women in the workplace. If you see sex as bad, dirty, and ugly, then you're going to see these ads as bad, dirty and ugly. These ads are kind of a mirror. In a way, they're almost neutral."

I spoke with Alexandra Sprunt, head of American Apparel's marketing department, about the ads. Ms. Sprunt echoed Annie Sprinkle's defense, explaining that many of the controversial photographs used for the ads were culled from "random shots" taken by a number of employees and their friends.

As evidence of this "random" motif, which she claimed Charney created in the company's early days, Ms. Sprunt showed me an American Apparel print ad featuring a picture of an elderly couple in Montreal, and another featuring a car's bumper in the company parking lot.

She also singled out ads featuring photos she and her friends had taken, and told me the back-stories behind some of the images.

"If you saw this without knowing where it came from you might just think it's a dirty picture I guess," she said of one photo. "But to me that's a great picture from a funny night that sort of captures what me and my friends do when we hang out."

This is a central feature of the company's defense of its advertising: that the ads it uses are the natural outgrowth of a genuine youth culture at the company. In defense of their advertising, company representatives often point to a "sexy lifestyle" being lived by the company's employees, from which the ads spring spontaneously. The company goes so far as to include a "gallery" section on its website, featuring collections of amateur photography by employees, videos of photo shoots and office Christmas parties, and other pieces of what the site calls "American Apparel Culture". In a way then, American Apparel wants its ads to be viewed as spontaneous art, produced by and among its employees, featuring its employees.

But isn't there a difference between art and advertising? And what about those who don't want to participate in American Apparel's sexy "youth culture"? Isn't there still something basically irresponsible in plastering city buses and park benches with pictures of spread eagle girls blowing bubblegum, for the sake of selling t-shirts?

In my conversations with American Apparel's press agent, Cynthia Semon, she acknowledged that the ads are just that: advertising. They are created in a prescribed way, to appeal to a targeted audience with the aim of selling goods to that audience. In this way, they are funadementally different from art created for art's sake.

However, Ms. Semon still defended the company's ads by comparing their critics to those who would censor erotic art.

She and American Apparel assert that it is the viewers individual responsibility to curb the harmful societal trends blamed on advertising and art. Parents should educate their children about sex and raise them properly, she maintains; advertisers should not be faulted for selling their products as they see fit. "No corporation can influence a child more so than their family," she said.

Many critics of advertising disagree. In her book Can't Buy My Love: How Advertising Changes the Way We Think and Feel, author Jean Kilbourne takes exception to the kind of 'individual prevention only' approach to social problems that Ms. Semon is advocating. Kilbourne argues that there is a need for a more widespread, "systems approach" of regulating businesses and advertising if people are to curb the social problems they are linked to. She writes:

"People make choices, for better or worse, in a physical, social, economic, and legal environment. The credo of individualism and self-determination ignores the fact that people's behavior is profoundly shaped by their environment, which in turn is shaped by public policy. Certainly individual behavior and responsibility matter, but they don't occur within a vacuum. ...

The systems approach is easily misunderstood because some of the interventions can seem trivial, especially in light of the extent of the problems. When some parents in a Boston suburb complained about an advertisement for beer in a Little League field, a well-known Boston columnist ridiculed them as "touchy-feely, politically correct busybodies" who thought the ad would immediatly "turn their kids into drunks."... Like a lot of people, he completely missed the point. Which is that we give a message to our children about the normalcy of beer-drinking and about societal expectations when we allow such an ad on a Little League field. A single ad-or scores of ads- won't turn kids into drunks, but they are part of a climate that normalizes and glamorizes drinking, and research proves that this especially effects young people.

Ms. Kilbourne writes that where a focus on individual prevention has failed to curb social problems like drinking and tobacco use, systems approaches have succeeded dramatically.

She uses as an example the history of antismoking organizations, who for years focused on the individual smoker as "the problem," offering consumers health information, pictures of diseased lungs and advice for quitting. Data showed, however, that an individual prevention approach was not improving public health. Antismoking organizations then began switching their strategies, highlighting the role of the environment and the institutional responsibility of the tobacco industry. Bans were placed on cigarette advertising and promotion, aggressive counteradvertising was created, and higher taxes and better warning labels were placed on cigarettes.

As a result of this shift to a systems approach, consumption of cigarettes has plummeted in states that launch aggressive anti-tobacco campaigns, and the norms for cigarette smoking have changed dramatically in the past 20 years.

But do ads that use sex to sell contribute significantly to a harmful environment? A number of academics, activists, and consumers seem to think so.

Mallory Hanora, a feminist and contributor to Knowmore.org, had the following to say about American Apparel's ads:

"American Apparel is built not only on what it sells, but how it sells it. If worker's rights are truly important to the production of a t-shirt, why isn't the objectification of female models important in the process of selling that t-shirt? After all, the models in American Apparel's advertisements are part of the company's workforce. For a so called visionary company, it's hypocritical and shortsighted to trumpet the influence you have over labor policies in garment manufacturing, but deny that same influence over marketing by submitting to the sexist, exploitative status quo in advertising."

With the help of Alexandra Sprunt and Cynthia Semon at American Apparel, I compiled a diverse collection of about 80 of the company's ads from the past two years. The ads were then shown to Dr. Susan Bordo, Professor of Gender and Women's Studies at the University of Kentucky. Dr. Bordo is the author of numerous books involving gender, cultural images and their relation to body image issues, including Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western Culture, and the Body. She had the following to say about American Apparel's advertising:

"My biggest complaint against ads such as these is the way they get away with soft-core porn body postures and motifs -- for example, spread legs and orgasm-like facial expressions, done in an 'unposed' polaroid-type style -- under the guise of being 'young, fresh, and authentic.' The marketers use post-modernism and 'youth culture' ideology as an excuse for moving the bar lower and lower regarding what is acceptable to show. Calvin Klein was the first to employ this strategy in his famous 1994 series of TV ads, which looked like home movies with underage models, and which were ultimately yanked from the air. Klein defended the ads by saying the models weren't actually underage (as though that were the issue) and by insisting that for him they had less to do with sex than with spontaneity and youthfulness. The idea: These young people are simply being 'natural'; it's the sleazy-minded viewers that see the dirty sex in the ads.

The reality of imagery is, however, that the more stylized and polished photos are -- the more 'high fashion' drama they express -- the less pornographic they look. In the posed, glossy, and highly stylized photos of most (not all) fashion spreads, the models do not look like they've been caught unaware or don't fully understand the meaning of what they're doing. They look like models. These American Apparel ads, in contrast, which pride themselves on using 'real people,' for that very reason have a much more pornographic edge to them.

It's distressing that the same kind of images that had to be taken off TV in 1994 are, in 2006, are stuff of 'left-wing' advertising!

Do the images have an effect? All you have to do is walk down any suburban street and you'll see the answer to that. Six and seven year olds, who don't have any real idea of what they are doing, are aping the poses, the gestures, the personae. Young, fresh, and spontaneous? Or little girls learning how to play by the current rule that if you aren't sexy, you aren't worth anything?"

Charney remains dismissive of those who would criticize his company's ads. In our conversation, Dov pointed to soaring profits as evidence that "the average consumer doesn't care about this stuff. Most people are responding to our ads. All of this criticism is academic. ... It all comes down to personal taste. Look it's not like I'm selling beer, you know. We're selling sexy underwear, so we have sexy ads!"

by Bernard Dolan, Special to Knowmore.org
August 22, 2006

***

"All of this criticism is academic." That's just brilliant. But, really, I shouldn't be suprised that Dov Charney fails to understand. After all, he seems to enjoy using his own body to try to sell his product.



Yeah, that's the CEO of American Apparel himself. And that picture is supposed to make me want to shop there?! I would think they'd put this ad up in the window if they were trying to keep people away, especially if you know anything about the guy.

Remember Sisley?

I complained about the following ad a while ago:



I don't even know for sure what this ad is selling, but I suppose that would be the barely-there denim dress on the barely-there model who looks like she is being tied up. Is this image supposed to make a woman want to buy this dress? My question remains, why do people think this will help sell a product? If there is someone out there who knows something I don't know about advertising, fill me in.

And now, a new ad from Sisley. The caption should be: "Snort Coke. Don't Eat. Look good in this dress that doesn't even contain enough fabric to function as a scarf." Focus: girl on the right. Her makeup is done to make her look like she's just been beaten up, and her eyes seem to be rolling into the back of her head like those drugs are about to take her from high to overdose.



Oh No... Upon looking up more information on Sisley, I just found out that the above ad is a fake! At first I got upset that I wasted my time posting the picture and writing about it, until my quest led to me to real Sisley ads that were more disgusting than anything I thought I'd find. And now that it's time to reveal the first image, I've decided I don't even want to post it on my page.

Here's a link.
One more.

Don't I wish that those were the fake ads. It seems too crazy to be true. Josie Maran, the model here, got in trouble with Maybelline (for whom she was a spokesperson) over these photos.

Here are some more pictures that Sisley has used to advertise their clothing.




I'm speechless.







Wow, I'm almost predicting the next Sisley ad is going to look like our favorite Dolce & Gabbana ad, except with animals in place of the men.



More Sisley:





It seems that a lot of these photos are from 1999 to 2001, so there won't be any protests now. But I certainly will never buy anything from Sisley. Actually, I've never even seen a Sisley store or Sisley clothing in America, though I'm not exactly known for my interest in fashion.

More photos.

Well, at least the models don't appear to be underage, like the ad I'm going to talk about next time. Then again, I'm not sure how old the animals are (haha.) But truly, I find these ads to be degrading to both the women and the animals featured.



Zoophilia is most commonly referred to only jokingly; it's not something people really want to talk about on a serious level. And this is definitely the first time I have seen it implied in an ad campaign. Personally, I hate the pictures, but i'm not sure how to elaborate on that more without discussing zoophilia further, which I am not interested in doing.

I wonder, does anyone like the ads? Do they make you want to buy the... clothing featured? (They don't exactly make it clear what they are trying to sell!)