by Naomi Foster

An 1871 Pearl Tobacco ad depicts a woman baring her breasts and running her hands through her hair, with fabric barely covering her lower half. It’s sexual. It’s provocative. It’s alluring. And it worked. Sales rose immediately. Other companies followed suit, namely Duke & Sons who started to include erotic images on trading cards with each pack of cigarettes.  Though the phenomenon spread to other industries like beauty, health, and fragrance, no industry has relied as heavily on sexuality in its advertising as fashion. 

Moving into the 21st-century fashion advertisements have become borderline pornographic. The days of subtle hints at sexuality are long gone, replaced by full-frontal nudity and vulgar sexual innuendos.  In an attempt to draw attention and boost sales companies incorporate sex as a concept and the act itself into their advertisements to the point where the buyer has to question whether the clothes or the model is for sale. 

And to some extent, we do want to be drawn in. We, as consumers, want to be curious about what happens after the photograph is taken. That element of suspense is vital for advertisers if they want to keep their audience hooked. But when the ads are used to showcase sex instead of the product lust quickly turns to repulsion, clout turns to controversy and the business loses revenue. Companies like Calvin Klein, Dolce and Gabbana, Tom Ford, and American Apparel, all of whom rely on sex to drive consumers, have found themselves in the hot seat regarding ads that went too far.  Some feature minors, some alluding to “gang rape” and others are simply indecent. Many called for the retraction of such ads, apologies are issued and the company waits until enough time has passed to offend us all again. Unlike other companies listed, American Apparel ignored the cries of the public time and time again. Even as lawsuits piled up and the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) in the United Kingdom banned numerous American Apparel ads for being “pornographic” and “exploitative”,  the company continued to release ads featuring “scantily clad women, who look barely above the legal age, in provocative poses—suggestively lying down in bed, spreading their legs, and bent over” (Berkeley Women in Business, 2021).  The company’s former CEO, Dov Charney, seemed unfazed by the influx of criticism, calling the scandalous ads “fashionable” and “trendsetting” (The Fashion Law, 2020). His relaxed response was shocking especially since he was, at the time, dealing with several sexual allegations and reports of sexual misconduct in the workplace. How does a man like that get to be in charge? I’ll start from the beginning. 

The year was 1989 when twenty year-old Dov Charney started selling t-shirts out of his dorm room at Tufts University, near Boston. As he neared graduation Charney dropped out to pursue his endeavor full time. The concept was an All-American wholesale business, selling ethically-manufactured blank t-shirts, and “related garments’ (The Fashion Law, 2020) After relocating to Los Angeles in 1997, Charney began to make waves in the industry. Not only was his clothing sustainably sourced, but his labor practices were also some of the best in the local garment industry, “paying higher wages (two times higher than the standard wage at times) and providing benefits for his laborers, all while touting his company’s mission of removing the widespread norm of exploitation from the garment manufacturing process” (The Fashion Law, 2020). The budding company opened its first store in 2003 and the rest was history. American Apparel would become synonymous with unbranded and moderately priced t-shirts, sweatshirts, jeans, and undergarments. It would become known for other things, too, like risque ads.

American Apparel ad campaigns were thoroughly dominated by provocative young girls wearing next to nothing, sprawled out across a couch or bed. A teen wearing just socks appeared in one ad. In another, a girl posed in a sheer bodysuit exposing her breasts and pelvic area. Naturally, this raised concern among buyers, claiming that the ads were “objectifying women”. The American Apparel chair members and CEO argued that “their employees are willing to model and that women want to be subjected this way because they choose to submit photos in hopes to be part of their advertising campaign”. What I see here aside from a failure to take accountability is a lack of understanding of the potential impact that these ads have on young women. By plastering these images of young women, who look barely legal, the company encourages and seeks to normalize the objectification and sexualizing of young girls. In response to the company’s response to criticism, I say “shame on you”. Of course, young women would submit photos for a chance to model for a major company. It means exposure, it means opportunity, and more than anything it means recognition. At no point, should these girls be blamed for the poor marketing of a multi-million dollar company. They are being instructed to pose and behave a certain way for a check. It’s not necessarily about who is in the ads, but how these advertisements play into the idea of the male gaze and project sexual desires onto an audience of young women.

Many American Apparel ads claim to promote a garment, but only reference the item vaguely. This unnecessary use of sex can be observed in the brand’s notorious sock ads. Take figure two(right), for example, we see a doe-eyed blonde, completely nude with the exception of her white knee-high socks. The larger photo is accompanied by three smaller images of the woman lying in bed biting her lip, raising her brows, and demonstrating a “climax” of sexual pleasure. Figure three(left) shows only two portions of a woman’s body— her exposed chest and lower half.  Unlike the first photo, hinting at a sexual act, this advertisement leaves little to the imagination.  The image clearly objectifies the woman.  She is presented “as object-like, as inanimate”; no face, no personality, just a pair of breasts and legs(Keller 1). “This explanation fits a widespread idea associated with objectification: treating people as if they were objects. Women are often dismembered, their bodies cut into fragments. Such advertising that depicts women’s bodies without faces, heads, and feet implies that all that is important about a woman lies between her neck and her knees “(Bowles 9). The woman in the photos is merely objects of pleasure meant for viewing and gratifying. 

Moreover, location and perspective play a major role in how these ads are perceived.  “A far cry from the polished, traditionally glamorous ads that big fashion houses were putting out at the time, there were no…professional sets or recognizable faces. Instead, there were a lot of beds, couches, and white walls, and provocatively posed models”(The fashion law, 2020) photographed on low-quality cameras to add to the voyeuristic feel. The photos are meant to come off as spontaneous and raunchy, like snapshots from an unsupervised house party. And for the most part that’s exactly the vibe, we get but that’s not necessarily a good thing. Since the models look barely of legal age, and many of them aren’t even facing the camera  (suggesting a  lack of consent) it’s uncomfortable to see these photograph on billboards and in magazines. It feels as though we’re walking in on a private moment or seeing something that we shouldn’t have seen at all. In figure four(right) we see a partially exposed backside of a woman sitting on top of the man taking the photo, suggesting that this is an intimate relation between the two parties. In figure five (left), a topless woman lies between a hairy-legged man, rumored to be Dov Charney, with her tongue on his crotch.  It’s important to note that the photograph is taken from the man’s point of view, hinting at some form of submission and power imbalance.  The women in these ads are frequently shown pleasuring the man or doing something for his pleasure. Whether it’s intentional or not, these photographs encourage gender roles rooted in misogyny. By portraying the women as mere objects of pleasure, they are reduced from human beings with emotions and intellect to playthings. Through American Apparel’s exploitation of women, we observe the concept of subjection.  Subjection refers to the process of power relations being imposed in some way. An individual is subjected to circumstances beyond his or her control… one is not only born into his or her body but also a complex network of power relations (Kaiser & Green, 2022). Subjection, as it relates to fashion, occurs when barriers imposed by those in a position of power (whether they be legal or societal norms) dictate the way groups of people dress. The process of developing an identity through clothing is referred to as subjectivity. Without subjectivity, subjection would not exist. For the “rules” to be enforced, there needs to be a general understanding of ideas associated with certain groups of people( good or bad).  The stereotyping that we see in western society fuels the very essence of subjection. The impact of subjection and subject formation is subject position. When an individual is associated with a certain lifestyle, sexuality, ethnicity, etc… it determines the way that they will be perceived by others.

How the individual chooses to embrace or hide their identity would be subjectivity.

“But there is a second sense of objectification: the woman in the American Apparel ad is presented in this object-like way because it fits straight-male sexual desires. Those shopping at and those creating American Apparel want to see her naked, bare; they derive sexual pleasure from [her body]. So American Apparel advertisements make her that way in their pictures. This is the second sense of objectification: the content of sexual desire is projected onto women; one then thinks that women are the way one sexually desires them to be”( Keller 2) These ads are meant to promote socks, but instead align with male gaze and objectification of women. These sorts of images give the audience a warped perception of what it is to be a woman. 

 On that note, fashion is used to push minority groups into submission. Minority groups are expected to present themselves a certain way to be taken seriously or even mildly respected. While this phenomenon can be seen in any oppressed group, it is especially prevalent among women. 

The female body is caught at a crossroads with the rest of society. A woman must cover up all evidence of womanhood via modest, loose-fitting clothing to gain respect. Respect can get you the power and good social standing but love and desirability are not on the menu. To be deemed worthy of love or even get a second glance, a woman must embrace her body, and wear less to show more. If that woman shows too much, she’s no longer desirable. She puts everything on display, there’s no mystery. For this reason, the female body is a slave to society.  it. Women are expected to submit to whoever demands it, which means dressing according to what other people deem to be acceptable. 

This idea of female submission in fashion, in marriage, and in sex has direct roots in the patriarchy. Women are seen as inferior and treated as such. This is no secret on a woman’s behalf either. She is expected to know her place and dress according to what someone else (likely a dominant male figure) wants to see.

As it relates to the American Apparel advertisements, these patriarchal values are emphasized through the vulgar ads. Women are almost always as “powerless” in the photographed scenario. For instance, In Figure six(left), we see a young woman faced down, topless, seemingly masturbating. In a larger photo the topless woman looks directly at the camera. The woman appears caught off guard, as if someone walked in during a private moment, rendering her powerless.  This ties into the previously mentioned voyeuristic nature of the photos. It’s as though we are viewing something that we shouldn’t be. Another issue is that the act of sexual pleasure is being associated with students; the ad reads “New freedom for the student body”. To make a statement about the sexual freedom of adolescents enrolled in school is one thing, but it is quite another to attempt to capture said student exercising said freedom– it’s wrong and predatory.  

Unfortunately, this would not be the last of these sexual student advertisements. In 2014 American Apparel released its Back to School Campaign, thinking of plaid skirts and button-downs. As expected the advertisements were sexual and brought general discomfort to those with a conscience, but there two photographs in particular that onset the downfall of the American Apparel brand. Figure seven(directly above) we see only the bottom half of a slender young woman, who appears to be reaching inside of a car.  Figure-eight(left) is a similar shot of the same model, bending over and preoccupied when the photograph was taken, this time revealing her underwear.  “The attempt to “imitate voyeuristic ‘up-skirt’ shots” that looked like they had been taken without consent”  is not only sickening but a glorification of pedophilia(Vizard, 2014). These presumed children (for the sake of the ad) look as though they are being violated by the photographer.  The angles at which these photographs are taken and the fact that the models are doing something else while these “sensual” photos are taken are a nod to predatory tendencies. 

 Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruled that images featured on the retailer’s website and Instagram account were “gratuitous’ ‘, “sexist’ ‘ and “objectified woman” (Vizard, 2014).  American Apparel claimed that the pictures were not graphic, explicit or pornographic and the models used were real people that were not portrayed in a manner that was vulnerable, negative or exploitative.When the age of the model was questioned, they claimed the woman used in the ads was 30 years old and that the images only went out on its website and social media, where people had opted in to see these images. Once again American Apparel missed the point. It’s not just about whether the audience is being presented with full-frontal nudity or if the model in question is above legal age. It’s about how the images are being perceived and the target audience absorbing the message. These advertisements have the potential to “normalize a predatory sexual behavior”.

By 2014, the brand had reached a new low, resorting to cheap sexual innuendos and stylistic choices most comparable to “soft porn” (Berkeley Women in Business, 2021). The average rate at which American Apparel ads would get banned was 3 out of four.  Admisnatrion began cracking down on the company socially while the workplace sex scandal was going on. The company filed for bankruptcy once in 2015 and again in 2016, before closing down all brick and mortar stores. Eventually, American Apparel retained, online-only, coolly rebranded, The days of suggestive, predatory advertisements were over. This rebrand could also have a lot to do with the new administration, as Dov Charney was fired in 2014 after it was confirmed that he was guilty of sexual misconduct in the workplace. Though the record demonstrates effort, it does not change the past. The impression that the brand had on impressionable youths, promoting voyeurism and pedophilia as normal behavior is inexcusable. Perhaps there will be a day when Charney others like him can understand that the use of sex in advertising must be done tastefully or not at all.

Does Sex Sell? I would say yes. Human sexuality and sensuality are primal emotions.  When crave something or have desireswe indulge, it’s normal. Representation of these very human emotions seeks to destigmatize sex and can help foster conversations about safe sex practices.  If done properly, sexual advertisements can help in attracting an audience.  Unfortunately, American Apparel took it too far, rather than teasing the audience with sensuality, they smothered us with it. As criticism got worse, the ads became more raunchy and began to play into the dark sides of sexuality, spefically pedophilia and voyeurism. As a whole, the advertisements are aggressively suggestive and represent an era when the abuse of power went openly unchecked.