*Heads up: This post is going to have several photographs of women in little to no clothing, in poses that may represent sexual acts. If you feel you may find these photographs offensive, triggering or upsetting, please do not continue reading this post. This post also may not be considered safe for work, children or your Grandma. Come back and have a look when you’re at home/they’re not watching.
I need to write the post that others failed when they wrote about American Apparel’s marketing and promotions. It’s been a big week for me, with another big week coming, and I wasn’t sure I would have the spoons to blog about this topic yet, but I can’t leave it alone.
I won’t link to other posts. You really don’t need to read them, they’re full of slut shaming (the misogynistic judgement of women for having/displaying any sexuality), denial of female sexuality and general loathing towards women who they deem outside the “nice girl” box. There is the use of words like slutification, pornification and sexualisation. All of which conflate female sexuality with objectification, which is not helpful at all in taking on the negative stereotypes of women that are perpetuated in marketing and media. Plus there is a rather massive dose of bullying and mean girl behaviour going on with most of them too.
Instead, I want to talk about American Apparel and the objectification of women that they perpetuate with their marketing.
I don’t know if any of you have seen any of American Apparel’s marketing. Here’s an example:
Now American Apparel make a whole bunch of Lycra/Spandex/Elastane stuff that you would consider as dance wear, gym wear, sports wear etc. So yeah, it’s the kind of thing you expect to see dancers in, and it’s body fitting, because that’s what those kinds of garments are meant to do. Tights, leotards, socks and similar things aren’t meant to be baggy and body hiding.
However, American Apparel seem to really think that women should always be presented in sexual positions in their marketing. Legs open, bent over with bared buttocks, sexually available and open. Often you won’t see the woman’s face, but if you do, she’s expressionless, vacant, compliant, submissive. There is often alcohol involved which to me implies a removal of control from the women depicted as well. Often the female models are splayed out in beds, sometimes with other clothing partially removed or yanked down to expose buttocks and genital areas. Here are a few more examples:
Very provocative stuff, as you can see. Women in American Apparel marketing are treated as objects, laid out and available for the viewer to have whatever they like of them.
I’m not sure who this is marketing too. Is it the women who would wear these items of clothing? Would they respond favourably to this kind of imagery and go out and buy these products? Or are the marketing images aimed at someone else? Are they designed to create buzz in their controversy?
If you do a Google Image search for American Apparel, you will find they also sell men’s garments too, as well as some children’s pieces. I noticed that the imagery for men and children are far, far less objectified than those for women. The male models chosen always seem to be older looking than the women they use for their marketing too. And they seem to opt for white men and children yet with a lot of the marketing images of women, they choose a high proportion of very young looking Asian and Latin American women.
Personally I find the objectification of women in American Apparel’s marketing highly offensive. Women are almost always shown in their images with either their legs spread or on all fours, regularly headless or at least expressionless. Cameras are focused on genitals or the buttocks, even when the model’s face appears in the photograph. The models are presented like sex dolls, completely devoid of any humanity in most cases. Women are treated as objects for the gratification of others, rather than as human beings or of having emotions, thoughts, or intelligence of their own. This is not about the sexualisation of women, it’s actually about a woman’s sexuality being removed from her, and her being nothing more than an object to be used.
In fact, American Apparel make it very clear that they don’t want a whole person when it comes to women. They only want body parts:
As you can see – they only want your backside, or there’s some breast there that they are willing to accept as well.
American Apparel’s marketing is very much aimed at young people. It sends the message to the young people who view these marketing images that women are nothing more than parts to be used, ogled, spread out. It’s not about the women in the ads being “slutty” or pornographic, it’s about the removal of humanity from the female subjects in the marketing.
Don’t buy from American Apparel. Tell your friends and family not to buy from American Apparel. Tell American Apparel that their marketing is offensive and unacceptable. But don’t attach terms like slut, porn or sexuality to these marketing images. They are dehumanised and objectified, not sexualised/slutified/pornified.
*Dr Samantha Thomas has also posted a great piece about the concept of “slutification”. It’s well worth reading, go here to read it.