(nsfw) Is this the sleaziest American Apparel ad ever?
(click ad, via) Yes, I guess it is (compare it to these [nsfw]). Not content with line drawing bushy pussy, the pants-optional CEO, with an ad in French fashion mag Purple, sticks actual pubes in your face. First time ever, that I know of (in a print ad). Isn't that special? Time to start a porn website, Dov. You need the cash.
posted by copyranter @ 9:15 AM
25 Comments:
But like...if you couldn't see pubic hair would it be considered sleazy? I don't see how visible pubic hair (vs the visible nipples and asses in other ads) makes that much of a difference, as far as AA ads go.
in one word? No.
Americans are weird.. "Oh noez! Pubes! They might have reached puberty!"
Definitely not the first time we've seen pubes in a print ad. (example: http://adland.tv/content/guccis-hairy-ad) They're not very common, but I've seen a few hairy-ads in general print. Not to mention ads in Playboy in the 60s/70s for smokes and liquor. By the way, the word verification I have to type in to post this happens to be: TRAMP
to be honest, i think I prefer this rather than looking at the millions of photos, ads, and drawings of women's vaginas that are miraculously lacking any sign of pubic hair.
The hell is wrong with her skin? Psoriasis? Lack of melanin? it's freakin' me out.
@anon
it's called sand
Matthew: I meant first time ever in an AA print ad.
Any other company would take the exact same pictures and airbrush the shit out of them. I'm down with what AA is doing. The girl has a vagina and see through panties on, why do we have to pretend there's nothing under there?
So you'd prefer she look like a child? Adult women have pubic hair. I am not offended.
Yeah, she is a woman, but what is she advertising? Her vagina? That doesn't make me want to go to the store and buy anything. Isn't that the point of advertising? Getting people to buy your stuff? This isn't something I'd want to see outside of my "personal time". get it?
If this was in a Playboy or Penthouse magazine, that would be fine, but are you going to put this up on a billboard? I hope not.
@anon
Well yeah, I'm not arguing about the effectiveness of the advertising, just the fact that it shouldn't be such a big deal that her bush isn't shopped out of the photo.
Americans are so prude when it comes to adverts like this... In any other part of the world this wouldn't come under scrutiny whatsoever, in fact its common place to see nudity in European adverts because we feel that the body is a piece of art, not something that should be covered up and pretended like there is nothing there
girlfriend needs some lotion. the whole american apparel scene grosses me out.
if you can't fap to this you don't have a heart... er, penis.
They're advertising underwear by showing a girl wearing said underwear. The product in question features a see through section (in similar fashion to a large proportion of women's underwear). The girl (like 99% of adults) has pubic hair. You're going to see them.
The main issue isn't with the pubes, it's with the really quite terrible photography. The lighting is awful, rendering the location very difficult to discern. Is she on the beach, is she lying in the middle of a parking lot? Maybe the location isn't important, but if this is the case why leave the sand sticking to the model's legs making her look like she has a skin disease.
Also, her pose is so contrived and uncomfortable. Has she slipped and fallen over? This clumsy attempt to be sexually provocative comes over as lazy and lacking artistry. That's more offensive than a few pubes. I rather like pubes.
YES IT IS. And I love it.
Omg! She isn't photoshoped! She's not wearing any makeup. And she didn't get a Brazillian bikini wax like all the Maxim girls. She's like this weird nature woman hanging out on the beach. Frankly, I think all models should be made up, photoshopped, and covered in makeup, fake baked, boxtoxed, have no public hair like a child, and continue to give a delusional sense of what a REAL woman is supposed to look like.
I cannot believe that AA would use a model with pubic hair. I mean, come one, she looks too old. Makeup anyone?
Take some sarcasm classes, Mr/Mrs. Sledgehammer.
Well i love it!! I cant stand a woman without her pubic hair!! What is it with women who shave it?? Great ad i think,at least it's more real!!
I find this ad extremely offensive. Women's bodies are private property and frankly on this point I prefer photoshopping because it adds some distance, a level of opacity, between a 'real girl' and the viewer. The appropriation of a woman's private parts to sell something disgusts me. And people wonder why rape statistics in the US don't budge...
Thank you for finding this add. I fell in love with the model and her undies. The pubes definitely worked for me. I would pay thousands for the model, and she can keep her undies.
What is her name? I would love to lick her through her panties!
I don't see how you deduce she's not waxed just because the front's not trimmed into a place to land a tiny airplane. She could still be waxed under the shield, which would keep pubes from sticking out of a swimsuit... allegedly the reason models started shaving it, anyway.
Everyone is missing the point. It's not about how prude Americans are when it comes to nudity. It's about what objective this ad achieves. Are they showing an un-shaven/un-waxed girl for the sake of shock value, or because they really believe that this image is going to increase sales. Whether that comes from consumers appreciating that realness of this ad or being intrigued by the pornographic nature is beside the point.
Post a Comment
<< Home