The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), which monitors ads in the UK for offensive material, said: Here’s the ad:
Hm, I don’t know about you, but this ad looks like a young woman wearing a thong bodysuit. I mean, the company is selling a thong bodysuit. That’s why you have a woman wearing it. Perhaps I need my eyes checked, because nothing there screams “child porn” to me!
Sure, perhaps she could pass for being younger than her age — but younger than 16? I’m not really seeing it. Besides, who is to say when a grown woman looks like a teen? I guess the ADA does. I guess they are the arbiter of who looks young and who doesn’t.
Some of the ads American Apparel has had banned in the past — such a young woman in a school girl plaid skirt, with her butt in the air and her underwear showing — erm, yeah, that one did sexualize young girls, even if the model wasn’t a young girl.
More from The Stir: Banned Cellphone Ad is Too Stupid to be Sexy (VIDEO)
But this young lady is just standing there, and you have to show a thong from the butt side to show what someone is buying. I don’t think it’s any worse than Victoria’s Secret ads.
Perhaps the only solution here is to use middle-aged models? Or maybe we should just stop seeing pornography where none was intended? Get a grip, people.
Do you think this ad “sexualizes a child”?
Image via American Apparel
title: “American Apparel Underwear Ad Banned Because Model Looks Like A Child Photo " ShowToc: true date: “2024-09-17” author: “Rhonda Nieto”
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), which monitors ads in the UK for offensive material, said: Here’s the ad:
Hm, I don’t know about you, but this ad looks like a young woman wearing a thong bodysuit. I mean, the company is selling a thong bodysuit. That’s why you have a woman wearing it. Perhaps I need my eyes checked, because nothing there screams “child porn” to me!
Sure, perhaps she could pass for being younger than her age — but younger than 16? I’m not really seeing it. Besides, who is to say when a grown woman looks like a teen? I guess the ADA does. I guess they are the arbiter of who looks young and who doesn’t.
Some of the ads American Apparel has had banned in the past — such a young woman in a school girl plaid skirt, with her butt in the air and her underwear showing — erm, yeah, that one did sexualize young girls, even if the model wasn’t a young girl.
More from The Stir: Banned Cellphone Ad is Too Stupid to be Sexy (VIDEO)
But this young lady is just standing there, and you have to show a thong from the butt side to show what someone is buying. I don’t think it’s any worse than Victoria’s Secret ads.
Perhaps the only solution here is to use middle-aged models? Or maybe we should just stop seeing pornography where none was intended? Get a grip, people.
Do you think this ad “sexualizes a child”?
Image via American Apparel
title: “American Apparel Underwear Ad Banned Because Model Looks Like A Child Photo " ShowToc: true date: “2024-10-02” author: “James Griffin”
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), which monitors ads in the UK for offensive material, said: Here’s the ad:
Hm, I don’t know about you, but this ad looks like a young woman wearing a thong bodysuit. I mean, the company is selling a thong bodysuit. That’s why you have a woman wearing it. Perhaps I need my eyes checked, because nothing there screams “child porn” to me!
Sure, perhaps she could pass for being younger than her age — but younger than 16? I’m not really seeing it. Besides, who is to say when a grown woman looks like a teen? I guess the ADA does. I guess they are the arbiter of who looks young and who doesn’t.
Some of the ads American Apparel has had banned in the past — such a young woman in a school girl plaid skirt, with her butt in the air and her underwear showing — erm, yeah, that one did sexualize young girls, even if the model wasn’t a young girl.
More from The Stir: Banned Cellphone Ad is Too Stupid to be Sexy (VIDEO)
But this young lady is just standing there, and you have to show a thong from the butt side to show what someone is buying. I don’t think it’s any worse than Victoria’s Secret ads.
Perhaps the only solution here is to use middle-aged models? Or maybe we should just stop seeing pornography where none was intended? Get a grip, people.
Do you think this ad “sexualizes a child”?
Image via American Apparel
title: “American Apparel Underwear Ad Banned Because Model Looks Like A Child Photo " ShowToc: true date: “2024-08-30” author: “Rocio Kent”
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), which monitors ads in the UK for offensive material, said: Here’s the ad:
Hm, I don’t know about you, but this ad looks like a young woman wearing a thong bodysuit. I mean, the company is selling a thong bodysuit. That’s why you have a woman wearing it. Perhaps I need my eyes checked, because nothing there screams “child porn” to me!
Sure, perhaps she could pass for being younger than her age — but younger than 16? I’m not really seeing it. Besides, who is to say when a grown woman looks like a teen? I guess the ADA does. I guess they are the arbiter of who looks young and who doesn’t.
Some of the ads American Apparel has had banned in the past — such a young woman in a school girl plaid skirt, with her butt in the air and her underwear showing — erm, yeah, that one did sexualize young girls, even if the model wasn’t a young girl.
More from The Stir: Banned Cellphone Ad is Too Stupid to be Sexy (VIDEO)
But this young lady is just standing there, and you have to show a thong from the butt side to show what someone is buying. I don’t think it’s any worse than Victoria’s Secret ads.
Perhaps the only solution here is to use middle-aged models? Or maybe we should just stop seeing pornography where none was intended? Get a grip, people.
Do you think this ad “sexualizes a child”?
Image via American Apparel
title: “American Apparel Underwear Ad Banned Because Model Looks Like A Child Photo " ShowToc: true date: “2024-10-16” author: “Donald Allen”
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), which monitors ads in the UK for offensive material, said: Here’s the ad:
Hm, I don’t know about you, but this ad looks like a young woman wearing a thong bodysuit. I mean, the company is selling a thong bodysuit. That’s why you have a woman wearing it. Perhaps I need my eyes checked, because nothing there screams “child porn” to me!
Sure, perhaps she could pass for being younger than her age — but younger than 16? I’m not really seeing it. Besides, who is to say when a grown woman looks like a teen? I guess the ADA does. I guess they are the arbiter of who looks young and who doesn’t.
Some of the ads American Apparel has had banned in the past — such a young woman in a school girl plaid skirt, with her butt in the air and her underwear showing — erm, yeah, that one did sexualize young girls, even if the model wasn’t a young girl.
More from The Stir: Banned Cellphone Ad is Too Stupid to be Sexy (VIDEO)
But this young lady is just standing there, and you have to show a thong from the butt side to show what someone is buying. I don’t think it’s any worse than Victoria’s Secret ads.
Perhaps the only solution here is to use middle-aged models? Or maybe we should just stop seeing pornography where none was intended? Get a grip, people.
Do you think this ad “sexualizes a child”?
Image via American Apparel
