How old these girls or young women actually are, I don't know, but regardless of how old they may be, they look extraordinarly young, and that indeed seems to be the intention.

But I've seen lots of American Apparel ads where the models look (and look like they've been intentionally made to look) shockingly young for these sorts of poses the company puts them in. It's fucking disturbing.

That said, I have no shortage of issues with the way American Apparel depicts and uses more-clearly-adult women too (both in their ads and in their offices). Not my favorite company.

These ad campaigns have RUINED American Apparel for me.  It's great that their clothes are made in the U.S. in fair labor conditions.  But their ads are disgusting, pornographic, and bordering on exploitative.  They actually remind me of the non-nude child modeling sites I found researching child sex trafficking, which are basically very young children in the most sexual poses possible wearing bathing suits or underwear.  It's legal, but it's objectifying and revolting.  

When I buy clothes, I want to think "Hey, I as a young woman would look good in that dress/leotard/weird tube top thing."  Not "Hey, underage, half-starved vaguely Asian rape victims look good in that dress/leotard/weird tube top thing." 

These ads are awful and have to stop!

The picture of the young girl is nothing  more than pornographic and exploitive of a young gir's body.  Let us all stop and think about the thoughts of people who visit the web-site to look at this one advertising phot and then ask ourselves, "What is the picture advertising?" 

The ads are exploitive of women and girls.  I am truly dismayed that women participate in these kinds of ads let alone that a company would promote them and pay for them.

I am further shocked that the parents of the young girl would allow their child to be exploited.

I really have nothing more to say other than I will not be buying American Apparel.

Yeah, this really sucks because I love their t-shirts but I'm starting to feel uncomfortable about supporting their brand!

I have grrl-cotted their stuff for years! I don't care how many people tell me what a great company American Apparel is - if you sexually exploit women and, as the rumor goes, your company CEO is a notorious sexual harrasser (in a company where a large majority of the female employees are non-white and new Americans), I'm not buying your clothes. Period.

I really don't even think that this is a valid question.  The kind of potography here is as Karen Dincan said "Pornography", not advertisment.  I do not need to see a womans pubic hair in order to purchase my clothing, as a matter of fact it is rather off putting.  The positioning of the models is intentionaly provocative, why would a woman purcahae from this store, do men purcahse for thier wives and girl friends or are our young women being taught by this kind of advertisment that this is how they should behave, and what they should wear?  Or, even more fightening how they should look and act? And we wonder at gender inequality!

WOW!!! what kind of question is that? this is wrong on so many levels...I appreciate the article but I'm a little annoyed that given all the infos ie. the onion article / the CEO history of sexual harrassment, recently in the news for allegedly firing "unattractive employees" and the IMAGES of the disturbing ads ,the writer still has questions....What more does one need? Let's take a stand and lets not try to be PC...THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!!!!

This stuff has nothing to do with selling product and everything to do with the anti-feminist, exploitative ethics of the founder/CEO. No, asshole, it's not your "right" to sleep with the people who depend on you for a paycheck.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_26/b3939108_mz017.htm

http://www.illinoissexualharassmentattorneyblog.com/2009/01/sexual_harassment_class_action.html

Hmm, appears that Change.org has my logged in as an organization. Prior comment on behalf of me, Jonathan, not my employer.

This is disgusting. It is over-sexualizing children and what this translates into is a norm that children can also be sexual objects--ultimately desensitizing child sexual abuse, statutory rape and child pornography. For me, this goes right up there along w/ companies that sell thongs for little girls. Think about it--And, who are the parents that are allowing these girls to pose for this pornography and buy these products. Are they being exploited w/ offers of big money and the thrill of being "famous". What a mess.  

WOW this is really disturbing, it's as if they are "secretly" promoting child porn with the way these girls are posing and how young they look (weather they are or not).

It really bothers me to think that my 10 yr old cousin would be looking at this and want to look like one of these girls.... kids are really easy to influence specially now with their preferences changing from playing with Barbie's (years ago) to using (now) cell phones or wanting more adult things.

Whew, glad I'm not alone on this one. Thanks for all the thoughtful comments! Especially the outrage about why I would even bother to try to be PC - I guess it goes to show you that I too have been desensitized enough by our culture to second-guess myself about whether or not this is appropriate.

What can we do? Would something like a boycott or petition even work for something like this?

The one thing that bothered me about those pictures were the poses the models were in...As if trying to look sexy would be a good way to show off those clothes which it aint.

When It comes to selling kid's clothing...I think they'd be better off using manikans in non provocative poses.

And of course I am wearing a  freaking american apparel shirt when I see these disgusting ads. I have heard people call the aa images "artsy". That term is a poor, poor excuse. I would not deem these art. I'd like to have a long sit down discussion with those that do.

Kate, I know right? Also, I may have failed to mention that on the website that photo of the blond girl is WAY bigger so you can actually see her entire crotch...

Recently, I heard about their stance against vandalism to their DC store because of their support of gay rights so I was very impressed.

Since then, I have seen A LOT of things about American Apparel that makes me uncomfortable. Like this. This is not advertising. This is porn.

Their ads have always thrown me off from purchasing anything from them.  I really wish they would find a way to sell clothing without having their models posed in such a disempowering way.  Really, I would feel more comfortable buying their clothes.  Which otherwise I like- especially that their childrens line is mostly unisex and they are fair trade.

so right now i am searching through the conscious consumer marketplace website, trying to find other reasonably priced sweatshop-free clothing

http://www.newdream.org/marketplace/clothing.php

Bitch Magazine (love them!) has also mentioned the same ads on their blog: http://bitchmagazine.org/post/aa-just-keeps-getting-pornier-plus-are-you-hot-enough-to-peddle-neon-spandex-and-cotton-v-necks
It's definitely not just you, Dorothee.  You are not alone.

And Dov Charney may or may not be firing ugly employees at AA stores: http://gothamist.com/2009/07/27/dov_charney.php 

I don't know ... let's leave allegations against their CEO aside for a moment and just talk about the ads. I'm not convinced these gals are any more "underage" looking than most high fashion models, and I doubt they are actually under 18. The ads may be provocative, and sometimes downright pornographic, but common sense says nothing illegal is going on. If pornography (however we're defining that) bugs you, cool. Stay away from it. But I can't find evidence that it's necessarily anti-feminist. What woman wants to be told what to do with her body? It's her choice. She doesn't need to be verbally revictimized by the very group who claims to seek her empowerment.

Jennifer, my problem with the ads is not that I think the girls are underage - I'm pretty sure they are not. My problem is that the ads, which presumably are targeted to a demographic of young women who buy their clothes, are pornographic. If the girls in the photos want to do porn, fine. But I don't want to see it while I'm trying to buy a t-shirt! There should be a difference between advertising and porn, especially when the product you're selling is for young women. You gotta draw the line somewhere.

Thanks for your comment Marissa! I collected those images from the AA website and put them together in a collage so I guess Bitch Magazine was inspired by this post. Glad that people are spreading the word!

'Secretly promoting Child Pron'?  Are you kidding?  No obiously not.  So, all emotions aside ladies, can you please explain to me 'why' these pictures are so evil as you seem to be alluding.  All I see are young powerful women in erotic poses.  I don't see pron here let alone child pron.   How is this different than the young ladies I see -voluntarily- walking all over campus/town wearing just as provocative type clothing out in the open.

Yes they are blatantly showing sexuality in these photos but it's also a statement of power, over men or who ever would desire them.  What is wrong with images of young women owning their sexuality?

It seems you ladies want to 'force' these young woment to 'behave' in a way that makes YOU feel more comfortable and you have no idea if these girls are comfortable or not with it.  Isn't that paternalistic religion's job?  ;)

Somebody please explain to me, in a 'rational' way why this company is 'wrong' to use such photos. Please don't waste my or others time with emotional flaming.

I really want to understand this issue and am not writing this to make anyone mad, just want someone to get to the POINT.

Thank you.

Hi Brian, thanks for your comment. This post was intended to open up a discussion about what young female consumers feel comfortable with in terms of products that are marketed to us. You mentioned that we should 'set our emotions aside' when judging advertising but I think most advertising is intended to appeal to the emotional/intuitive parts of ourselves, with the intention of tapping into our desires. How else can companies sell us something? No one can sell a $22 t-shirt on rationality alone.

With that said, you should also keep in mind that being critical of advertising aimed at us is not a ploy to make women 'behave' in a certain way, rather it's about how things are being marketed to us.  I believe it is vitally important for companies to know how their advertising is percieved by their main consumers, therefore it IS about what makes us comfortable.

In a democratic society, consumers should be allowed to freely express their opinions about advertising just as they can about politics. Of course in a capitalistic society, the market is the ultimate judge. That's why American Apparel should care that girls who typically purchase AA products are getting turned off from the brand because of their recent advertising. 

You are basically saying that these photos make you uncomfortable. So if capitalism is at work here, you won’t buy their clothes anymore and that is your form of protest. American Apparel sells sex. Is that some sort of new idea? Are you joking?  For years, people (not just women) have been publically challenging sexual boundaries and making people uncomfortable.  What about D.H. Lawrence? Madonna?  Suicide Girls?  Anais Nin?  Nabakov anyone? The point is not these photos are “bad” - it’s that you are somehow personalizing the message rather than examining what it means in the larger context of sexual politics.  Maybe you should re-write this post with some references and background history of American Apparel and then some youth/gender theorists so that we can have a real conversation about it.  Maybe all the emotions in here should be directed to doing something about sex-workers of ALL sex and genders and human trafficking.  Maybe that’s exactly what some of you ARE doing and, if so, that is awesome.  The thing about American Apparel is, it’s hard to protest an corporation that walks the walk in every way in terms of workers rights.  It’s a fine line, but I think our brains should be able to hold the debate.  Challenge your capitalistic urge to just buy and not buy.  Exploited children all over the world will thank you.

The problem I have with these photos is who is their target audience? I have 2 little girls and I most certainly don't feel that those photos show sexual empowerment. I would certainly hope that their models are just babyfaced over 18 year olds, but it's aparent to me that they are suposed to look like young girls.

Well, coming from a very different background, I do not care for this type of clothing, would never buy it, don't want to see it in ads or anywhere else, and didn't know it existed before now.  IMO, capitalism, materialism, consumerism and self-absorption are extremely NEGATIVE and I avoid them and anyone who espouses them.  Also, I find the use of what's traditionally been thought of as a pejorative epithet ("bitch") a really ludicrous title for a magazine, and would never read it, look at it, or even use it for birdcage lining (provided I had a birdcage, which I don't).  YUK.  The whole thing is about as ugly as ugly gets.  NO THANKS.

Can you provide a link to where these images are on AA site?  I would like to see the context in which they were presented.

I wrote an essay about this on my blog:

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=56565875&blogId=215273475

Their labor practices are not as stellar as everyone thinks they are.

Unfortunately, there are no individual links that I can find on the site to each set of pictures. They are all featured on the homepage, you just click on the little white circles to get to a new set. The ones of the dark-haired girl are second row down in the middle.

Erin, your blog post rules! Check it out everyone: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=56565875&blogId=215273475

These are classic 'Penthouse' poses.  Penthouse, et al, are targeted at a specific demographic.   There's a place for poses like this, and it isn't in mainstream advertising.  Might be time to write that letter and enclose a condom.  The message is all about sex, not clothes.

Thank you Krissy and Dorothee for responding to my above comment, that helps me understand better.  I appreciate that..

I get that the AA 'debatably sexy sell sell buy buy' pictures can affect/effect young women, or even sensitive men for that matter.  So by all means, don't buy them if that is what you feel..  I completely understand.

But it seems the real issue is more need of supporting and educating young women and not really the pictures that AA is using, cleverly to sell its wares. 

Positive or negative, AA wins everytime if the debate centers around their ads.  You don't like them, keep your kids and your eyes away. Why you letting your kids fart around unsupervised on the internets anyway?

Really to make change, I think the debate needs to be shifted to focus on WHY women are affected by this and what can be done to help them, and help the men/women in their lives understand better to support them.   Not only that, can we shift the debate further to focus on ways to raise our children so that they feel loved and supported just as they are so when they see 'strange' adult crap, they are able to process it in a healthy way and not internalize it into some unhealthy self destructive behaviour?

Again, it is good to see this amount of well thought out points and not stupid finger pointing flame wars. 

Awomen!

The only thing that bothers me about the whole conversation is the assumption that these women are underage, or the insinuation (or outright statement) that these photos are somehow 'worse' because these women *look* underage. Really, is sexuality relegated to older/curvier women and only them in feminism? Screw that - I look very much like the dark-haired model. While I may not be at all comfortable with the ad campaign itself, I get a sense of juvenile satisfaction about seeing a girl who looks like me, 'prepubescent body' and all, in a sexual light. Why? Because girls like me, girls who can't help their looks any more than a bigger woman, or older woman, can are incessantly and constantly put in a state of asexuality by society and by so-called 'feminist' and 'accepting' conversations like this.

So yeah, thanks for confusing the hayl out of me. I should feel comfortable enough shredding this ad campaign to bits like it deserves. Despite that logical understanding of why this is wrong, I'm just glad to see a woman - yes, a WOMAN - like myself depicted as desirable and a sexual being instead of, once again, being hammered into a little box of 'what is appropriate' (based on my looks, ya raging hypocrites). For the record, I'm twenty-two and my breast size/weight/height is *entirely* genetic. My fifty-three year old mother looked like me when she was my age.

Sad that I should feel that level of comfort and self-acceptance and, yes, validation within feminist circles, but instead I - and other women like me - get it from a freakin' American Apparel ad.

Ya'll might want to look at how you approach these conversations, 'cause that girl? She's a real person, MOST LIKELY a woman herself, and there are plenty more like her who deserve to be sexually empowered and confident - not made to feel like we're somehow 'sending the wrong message' and 'exploiting children' by accepting the sexuality so many other women get to embrace without a second thought.

Yeah, sure as hayl ain't no place for me and people like me in conversations like this.

Whether these models are of age or not, that the photos are done in a way that's at least on the edge of pornographic and that leaves you to wonder about their age by how the models are dressed and made up is at best unscrupulous. There's no reason to go for such an over implication that the models even might be underage or to suggest pornography with advertising.  It's a really distasteful way to market AA or anything - but, sadly, it works in our culture and (perhaps most sadly) among our youth.

I agree with the above posters who mentioned that these garments are undergarments, but the poses typically used for advertising anything from AA lately is sexually suggestive - and yes, there's a difference between suggestive and empowered.  One puts the power in the hand of the wearer and the other puts in the hand of the viewer.  It's like their whole ad campaign lately is aimed at convincing underage and just out of high school girls and women "buy our clothes and make men 'love' you as demonstrated by one night stands and sexual harassment".  It very specifically seems to aim for getting the attention of men who are buying outfits for their women/girls to match a fantasy they had in mind and the attention of girls or women who are buying such clothing in hopes of fulfilling such a fantasy for their guy.  Creepy, IMHO from what's supposedly trying to be a regular clothing retailer, even one aiming at hipsters.

This is pretty disgusting. I wouldn't buy their clothes. x(

Yucch.  And I just sent them an email less than two weeks ago, praising their bold actions, in support of lesbian and gay people.  I even provided a link for people to purchase their "Legalize Gay" shirts.  Sigh...

Now I see their dark side, and it is sure depressing.

I do not have time to read all the posts & comments thoroughally as deserved, but I have one comment to share with the group.  I think the most disturbing thing about these ads and gazillion others that are forced to use what the "animals" understand and will follow.... SEX...sex...Sex...sEX.....  Is this all that we need to be driven to purchase any product, be it toothpaste to toilet paper - a crochless hottie is just "good for business" mentality. 

So if it isn't hetrosexual "sex" inuindoes and in your face photography, now it's Burger King ads that have that "nicely homosexual" overtone, a new Dell commercial that makes me wonder what lolly pop the man was referring to as he got from a very close position next to another man and is putting up his overall straps???  Hmmmm...

I think the problem is that humans are just so simple and marketing is just so good at taking our simplicity and finding ways to exploit our weaknesses.  Weakness A :: the inability to control / manage ones sexual impulses & desires with anything remotely close to what a primary function of "SEX" :: Reproduction.  The continuation of the human species, etc.. etc... 

I think we will see more wholesome, truthful marketing when WE the purchasing people determine to be treated as intellects versus animal.  OK, I can sleep well now - off my to-do list.  Thanks for listening.

If Humanity spent more time undressed in public then there would be no market for nudes and semi-nude. When the true nature of Fragile Human Life, and Fragile Human Happiness, is SEEN and KNOWN then it is Admired for its endurance and respected.

By forbidding and outlawing NORMAL Human Contact, in order to limit reproduction to the authorized patriotic obedient soldiers, the rulers of military empires have created these many forms of ABNORMAL Human Contact, that are cripplijng and destroying Humanity today.

You can only Respect that which you KNOW. ... Meanwhile, the deprived and starving Animals we produce will ''eat'' anything... even their own young.

Speaking up about sexual exploitation by advertisers (especially of our children and teens)  does not translate into being "uptight about sex".  That argument is always the comeback when initiating a conversation about sexual exploitation by advertisers.  Health sexuality includes having a conversation about the social norms that sustain exploitation. 

Well said, Karen Duncan.  Holding people and corporations accountable for exploitation of sex and sexuality is part of being HEALTHY about sex, NOT being "uptight about sex".

Speaking of AA and its ad campaign, being Wednesday, I picked up this week's copies of the local alternative papers - Seattle Weekly (www.seattleweekly.com) and The Stranger (www.thestranger.com). I read them because believe it or not, they cover a lot of news the local paper (formerly papers) miss(es) or selectively covers such as city politics.  I just about gagged when I flipped both over and saw the weekly AA ad on the back of each.  One has an almost nude model wearing nothing but panties with the caption "Pantytime" along with info about local stores and the other has the caption "One Pieces" with a model with her legs spread suggestively - both made up in that "is she old enough or jail bait" look.

Admittedly I do not have children, but one thing I would to my best to teach any daughters of mine is that any many who thinks their value lies in their bodies and access to their bodies or that beauty REQUIRES dressing this suggestively isn't anyone they want in their lives. Anyone who thinks this doesn't value them for their entire self - they value ONLY their sexuality or they tend not to value anything about them and merely pretend to show interest in the process of trying to get what they want.  People - including women (even young women and teens) - ARE NOT DISPOSABLE - and we shouldn't be treated as if we are.  We all have value and worth, and are far more than our sexuality, whether others or even AA sees that.

If one were to look at the photos of the young women without knowing they were part of a clothing ad, one would never make that connection. I still can't. AA is selling clothing and targeting young women by selling the exploitation and dehumanizing of women. This is not about empowerment, nor being comfortable with ones sexuality, but about suggesting a "role" or "fantasy" which young girls and women are being portrayed to fulfill, as some of you have already stated.

This ad is about first impressions of what the marketing executives want to sell, by the poses and skin tight clothing of the models. Although I have no way of knowing, these young women appear to be underage, and I would bet money on that. Would any of the executives from AA put their daughters in these ads?

The young woman wearing black looks like my daughter did when she was 11; the same, young rounded face, the same look of innocence. Then this model is put in this provocative pose that not only is intended to sell underwear, but to sell the concept of pedophilia. She's young and she's there for the taking.

Let's get real, here. Those responsible for these ads have only one main purpose, and that is to sell the idea of sex and promiscuity, while connecting this concept with their clothing. This is disturbing, because this is not clothing for young women, nor is this the type of clothing that is appropriate for young women, which the ads are attempting to portray. These aren't even ads for older women who may want to add some spice to their relationships; rather, these are clearly pornographic, and most women would not see the beauty in them.

Yes, it's personal, and it should be. Women do not want to be connected to this type of exploitation. True sexuality is much more than this. It is being comfortable with yourself in the ways that matter most, such as real accomplishments, real empowerment, true compassion and a genuine understanding of femininity that has nothing to do with being controlled or attempting to control. I am sad for these young models, because they are being exploited in the worst possible ways, using their innocence and naivete to sell items in provocative poses, ones in which they have no real understanding of and should NOT be exploited as such. An excellent example of this, is when young boys, some as young as 5 years old, in militant societies, are handed a gun and told to kill.

If we cannot protect our children from these types of exploitation, we cannot call ourselves civilized or humane.

Gross. Gross. Gross. I would not buy clothing from this company based on this ad.

Well it "cums" to this ::  marketing firms use whatever tools they have in their arsenal to sell their product.  The most powerful selling tool in the world is young, hot, steamy, girls which they manipulate as the grand puppeteer to sell "SEX SEX SEX." 

As for me and my purchasing dollars "we" will never (in this lifetime) go to companies who exploit women and re-affirm that we are best loved for our lower "lips" and "hips & tits...."  Although a majority may believe that "this is great"  because they are making unscrupulous amounts of money off of the puppet (woman) or possibly enjoy a little porn with their product -- this is not make the value system I would want for myself, daughters, sisters, mother's or friends.

It saddens me that women are so de-valued.  If it weren't for our vagina would men want us at all???  Would we have a purpose at all if it weren't for exploitation?   I mean, that's what that ad says to me.  Come on IN!  Serving number 3,444 - for the low low price of __?  This is not empowerment it's disgraceful!  It is a sign of the times where beautiful souls have no value other than the money that can be made from them.  Even if the models would have looked over the age of 18 - I would still think the ads were pretty sick, but the fact that they do look so young and that so many defend that says a lot about where our values are.

As for the very young looking model (who is probably 18 years + day), that too is very common for the times.  Even though we hate to think about these type of issues - this type of ad brings it to our attention.   Old men enjoy looking and sampling young sweet fruit - the younger the better for some.  The model in the provocative pose appears to be of Asian decent, possibly Japanese? - take a look at the Japanese culture and you will see the pedophile capital of the world. 

I lived there - I saw what happened on the trains to the young little girls who wear their cute little short skirts to school.  Dare I say it... many are fondled right there on the bus.  They just look away... tee hee tee hee... and the dirty old man gets away because they are trained to think this is what they are there for.  This is normal.  Don't make a scene...so embarrassing!  Much better to just let the men do what they want with you.  FORGET THAT!

Even within the yoga community - sex sex sex... take a look at this profile photo with the young man grabbing the breasts of two statues in front of him.  Again, this is what we think of our women - toys!  http://www.couchsurfing.org/image_gallery.html?id=32B693F&photo=1705437  

 The apparal does not effect me per say.  I will NOT purchase from them and support their twisted marketing of women.  I do not lose sleep over the women that chose this lifestyle no matter the excuse - selling your sacredness for "money" can never be good for the soul. 

Although I have yet to understand how anyone could find this type of advertising "sex positive?"  As a very young girl...maybe 6 or 7, I already knew about male predators!  We knew to watch out - because given the opportunity they would rape us.  Not much has changed in 40 years.  I think this advertising might just tell the old men, "hey, you don't need to rape us, we are here for your enjoyment."   Even though it exists, making this type of behavior socially acceptable by bringing it to mainstream marketing is vulgar and offensive.  

I appreciate the intelligent conversation regarding the subject because this is the only way to make social change.  Communication is KEY! 

FYI: I did not post the CS link to degrade or humiliate the individual, rather to demonstrate that even in a yoga group which I am signed up for, there is sexuality being used... in this case for humor, I think. I did not maliciously go find one image to justify a conversation, it actually came to me through a yoga group.

Is there a beginning or an an end to this? Are we forever destined to look at the women in our society as just objects?  way we will view our young - old women? What do we value as a society if not the people that make it up? 

The human body is sacred and full of mystery to this day.  When a woman and man unite and through that union LIFE IS CREATED -- that seems like magic to me!  A union that could create life must have more meaning than the mere monetary attachment placed to it by the RULING MEN!

In our 'democratic society' as Dorothee mentioned that we live in, AA still has the -right- to use controversial ads.  Debate back and forth on that all day expousing how 'evil' AA is for doing this.  It is NOT going to stop the ads nor the alleged 'effects' of said advertising.

Every day right in front of us some poor kid is mentally ravaged by media -showing- a strong protector male or showing a -submissive- attractive female.

That showing of said media can affect the child in either a postive or negative way.  Dorothee's opinion is that AA is evil and therfore negative.. Cypher stated a positive.

When the debate gets into opinions, the kids in danger loose.

Lets start bringing the discussion to education for current parents. How can we intervene for kids that need help on HOW TO DEAL WITH MEDIA.  That is my point here. 

Your not going to be able to stop all potential dangerous imagery from reaching your children so lets raise children -capable- of dealing with it if/when it happens

OR at least provide better places where we can help fix those kids whom have already been affected.

And I don't mean using the in place patheticly funded outreach programs.  Those programs need real support now more than ever.

As a conservative, my advice to liberals is to get a solid plan first before asking for money.  Find proven programs and expand.

So to repeat,  the more the finger gets pointed at companies, the less attention gets focused on the actual daily stories that can affect people to realize we have a real problem here.

This is what is still happening in front of all of us.

Read the below article..warning, it's not a comfortable subject.

I think there is a connection to the discussion at hand, however one may beg to differ.

---

below article copied from:

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/manchester/8191440.stm

Teenager has eyelash transplant Hair taken from Louise Thomas's head was placed into her eyelids

A woman from Greater Manchester has become the first person in the UK to undergo an eyelash transplant.

Louise Thomas, 19, from Stockport, had the treatment because she suffers from trichotillomania - obsessive plucking or pulling out hair.

The four-hour procedure involves taking hair from the back of the head, and placing individual hairs into cuts in the eyelid.

The lashes thicken up gradually between four and six months after treatment.

Miss Thomas said: "Having suffered from trichotillomania for 17 years, I learned to accept that I'd never have real lashes again. That's quite a hard issue for a young girl to come to terms with.

"When I heard about this treatment it sounded too good to be true but the results are absolutely amazing."

The procedure was pioneered in the United States.

Shami Thomas, from Transform, which carried out the surgery, said: "We often look to America for the latest in cosmetic surgery as they are the pioneers in the industry, but not all are as successful and safe as this one."

This is wrong on so many levels.

These images are soft porn.  Disgusting

I'm appalled that they still make uni-tards in the 21st century.  Have we learned nothing from the ill-fated trapeze artists of the 20th century? Will we continue to make the same mistakes?

i agree, that type pf clothes should be weared by older models and not young girls, even though they are of legal age. also i dont mind the clothes i think is sexy just have older models promote it.

There is so much to be said here i don't even know where to begin. First, i would like to thank everyone for writing in. It has been a long time since I've been truly evoked or impassioned by an issue such as this besides the slight sigh of disgust that my daily life requires because my senses are so deadened to the overwhelming amount of "sex sells" "exploitation!" or even "sexual empowerment" as some of you seem to find it that its just too damn exhausting most of the time to do anything about it. So i am happy to know there are folks like yall out there who are evoked too.

What I'd like to ask, however, is why is it even necessary to position this issue as only important becuase the women may look young? I'm young. I'm 21. I've been dealing with this shit since i can't even remember when. Why isn't it just plain offensive that women (like so many others put so much more eloquently before me) are depicted in this way soley for the purpose that exposing their crotch in this position sells amazingly and gets a lot of hits online for reasons i'd rather not know about? that their bodies are what counts and the only thing that counts? ...not their minds, not their hearts, not their souls.

I understand and can see some of your arguments that emotion isn't the key here. action is. i agree. what are we doing about this everyone? one of you suggested getting in touch with the models. can we do that? can we change one models mind by just showing them this discussion forum and perhaps making them think, wow i never realized what my actions can do to others? what else? i mean, really, why is it that every famous actress seems to sexually exploit herself. can't we send them a message saying, what are you telling us and all young men and women if you bare your body for only it to be admired above all else that makes you you?

what can we do folks? lets do it. im in!

For those of you who claim (with some legitimacy I admit) that this action is that of the models and her free choice so deal with it, I'd just like to say, their actions do effect others. The first amendment is important and people have the right to advertise mostly as they chose. and yes this issue isnt going away for as long as i can see because the market is going to choose sex in the end.

BUT besides all this aknowledgement, i still feel the need to share my emotion about this add, and how it EFFECTS ME. So for those who believe "who cares, so what, and this is sexual empowerment..."

I am a 21 year old woman. I am a pretty darn conservative dresser. always have been. I have had wonderful relationships and I always used to believe, with the obvious exception of rape, women will to a degree be treated how they want and expect to be treated. But you know what, I walk down the street almost every day and get a "hey, baby." an "ow ow," hoots hollars this that and the other. and some days, I'm just like, "jeez im wearing a t-shirt and basketball shorts, what is the deal with our culture?" In fact, i feel oppressed by how much I have to almost overdress just to be less identified, not even unidentified, with the sexually objectified women ubiquitous everywhere. i once had a friend walking with another friend in front of a group of males and overheard them playing a little game where they asked eachother, "haha, hey man, which one do you want to rape?" I broke down and cried when I heard this. This is my reality.

this is our reality as a society. Yes, in my opinion, advertising like this perpetuates males looking at women as sex objects and all that that entails. yes, in my opinion this advertisment makes women look at themselves and question thier own dignity and wonder how to position themselves in society to be most valuable ie attractive (especially in their formative years). so, yes, this disturbs me. yes, im emotional about it. no, i don't know if it can be fixed but I'm so damn sick and tired of it sometimes I'm even willing to give it some kind of effort no matter how fruitless it may seem to at least let others out there know that there is part of our culture that does oppose this kind of degredation of women. That some of us don't think its ok. That young women aren't alone out there and at least part of our society will stand against this to at least, if nothing else, make others question "whats wrong with this? What are the effects of adds like this? and who is it effecting?"

Sorry that that was basically a novel everybody.

But one last note. If interested, please read this book.

"Reviving Ophelia: Saving the Selves of Adolescent Girls" by Mary Pipher

It made me want to be a psychologist working with teenage girls just to try and help them realize the bondage that our culture can sometimes be and that they don't have to subscribe to it. I think some of you might find it really interesting and useful. It uses psychological practice as real evidence that ya, our culture, media and society do effect us. and how!

Are these clothes even made in America (US)???

Wow Steph Keller you said it all, but to sum it up where are these girls' parents (fathers particularly) and how could you let your child be used this way?  They don't just look young, they ARE, so it is just sad that people let their kids be exploited.  If people just protected their own children then the rest of us wouldn't have to spend time arguing about it.

I think Calvin Kleine did the same thing many many years ago. Hugely sucessful campaign.  I don't think these photos are any worse of stuff already available free on the net for children.  These photos are not really meant to attract child molesters, as they don't buy these clothes.

FAce it, the marketing people are smart. They know children at a very young age are turned on by sex because their world is full of it, everywhere they turn.  They know that kids are sexually active before they reach legal age, so that these pictures are for them. 

We should be questioning our entire society's dragging our children into sexual activity to early, not these pictures. They are simply a red flag, a mirror of what young people are doing and feeling.

Sex is a thing, a joy ride, not really a means to reproduce or express love. it is so sad. They are turned on and seduced by it before they truly understand it.  

This is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. You are obviously lacking any form of sexual activity in your life. Look at what the women are wearing. Are you going to wear that outside? No. They are portraying in the photo exactly how it's meant to be worn, its lingire. Is it racy? Of course, I'm sure a boring shot of lingire won't sell. Don't complain because these women are much more attractive than yourself, because they do not look a day under 20 years old. You obviously have never seen an underage person to conclude that these women look underage. Some people just need to find something to complain about these days.

Again, please try to get laid in the near future, it will help against posting such idiotic topics.

I am completely confused... but one thing is sure :: SEX is a heated debate.  I am sure part of that is because the "industry" makes so much money and everyone likes things that "feel good."  

I actually did not know they were meant as "sleep" or "take off for play" wear, and that does make a little more sense of why the particular shots they are using.  I think there are many shots like that in Playboy - expect Hef does it with style and his girls actually make money and are in no way mistreated or abused. 

I agree with Romy... just because we don't like someone's opinion does not mean we sling mud or stomp our feet!  This is a forum for adult communicaiton on many subjects that are controversial. 

But it does show that at least one or more people take their sexual freedoms and feel anger if everyone does not agree.  Hmmm  agner begets anger / sticks & stones... and all that good stuff. 

I can completely disagree and feel women are being exploited knowingly or unknowingly and not resort to  name calling.  It's an opinoin.  It's mine and I do not need anyone's permission to feel our bodies are sacred.  Thats' between me and the creator. 

Don't get mad...get even?  Start a group in support of exploitatoin or disprove the entire theory and show us how many women are benefited from this type of advertising all the way through prostitution.  If you can do that - I will read it and respond respectfully.  You may not change my mind, but I am sure you will get some support for your rally.

I would like a discussion started on "WHY" and "How" sex has been manipulated throughout historical recorded (unrecorded) socieity?  Goodness gracious... it is nice and can be wonderful, but it NOT all there is to living.  So why so much emphasis?  Why will men and some women pay so much money just to "sleep" with someone?  I am baffled.  Anyone want to tackle that and see where it leads up?