Wednesday, 12 January 2011

Bums and body hair. Eek!

Once again, if the Daily Mail hates it, I'm bound to like it. Today's edition of the newspaper included a story entitled Has American Apparel gone too far with 'creepy' controversial new campaign?

No strangers to controversy over the use of often young, barely dressed models in their advertising, the company is probably used to it by now. SHOCK, HORROR they might even court it just a little. Well I never!

I can't imagine that censure from one of the UK's least tolerant newspapers is going to cause them many sleepless nights. In fact, CEO Dov Charney must be rubbing his hands together at all this free 'controversy-generated' publicity; considering AA is said to be facing bankruptcy, it's probably well worth the money spent on the campaign in the first place.

"One poster shows a young-looking 'classically trained ballerina' lifting her arms to reveal stubble. Another sees a very young looking 'college student' swinging on a tree in nothing but a shirt and knee-high socks."

But, as usual with the Daily Mail, I simply can't see what all the fuss is about.

Stubble? Gasp! Young-looking? Surely not! No knickers? *Faints*

 Argh! Armpits!!

Eek! A BUM!!!

In all seriousness, there's nothing all that provocative in these new adds, and certainly nothing that I think can be deemed as "creepy". 

In fact, the Mail doesn't even mention the two adds that could be seen as closest to the knuckle - a girl in lacy knickers showing her dark pubic hair and a bare breasted girl painting her nails in a shop (although the paper's website does take pleasure in showing the add with her nipples blurred out).

Avert your eyes... pubes!

Nipple alert!

Honestly, if there hadn't been controversy about American Apparel ads in the past, do you think there would be a national news story focussing on images of a girl with unshaven pits and a girl without any knickers on? Is this new or unique, or particularly shocking or outrageous? Not to my eye.

And naturally, the article isn't interested in any of the more modest, and frankly beautifully shot ads from the campaign.

I'm a fan of American Apparel, and not at all a fan of The Daily Mail, so I'd be really interested to hear your opinions on AA's advertising campaigns - past and present. Please do comment below.

Knickers and nipples, 

Bunny x

Images gratefully copied from American Apparel


JillPirate said...

God, those pits aren't even hairy! A days growth at best. Hardly Beth Ditto underarm fur.

Bunny Darke said...

I know! Mine are nice and smooth at the mo but you shoulda seen them about a week ago! lol x

Imo said...

AA really do go all out, but is what makes them stand put AND they get away with it. If its not to your liking I say look away...youre right Daily mail is wack so who are they to start shouting off?