I can’t wait for the worshippers of the deity of private property to start whining, oh, and the defenders of “artistic� expression.

yeah that billboard has been at the major intersection near my house in LA for weeks now.

typical american apparel fare. if you guys don't know anything about this company, i suggest you do some googling--the clothes are sweatshop-free, which is awesome, but the retail side is messed up. they've been sued for sexual harassment multiple times and the founder, dov, is a total sleazbag.

because I am tired, (you would have thought I could go to bed after the red sox went up 13-1, but no) I have to say that I am amused to no end that this is titled "bad-ass" edition. It is, indeed, a bad use of ass.

I think it's implying that the wholesale objectification leads men to feel entitled to women.

Well, I don't think American Apparel is responsible for rape. I think such an over-the-top declaration takes away from the larger issue of using women's bodies to sell stuff. This isn't a violent picture or even a particularly provocative picture, so I don't know why anyone would claim that this picture would promote rape.

I love American Apparel's clothes (I'm wearing one of their shirts right now). They're sweat-free and made in America. I'm not a big fan of their ads, but I'd rather buy stuff from them than from a company that claims to be wholesome but at the same time is responsible for human rights violations (i.e., practically every other clothing company on earth). Besides, American Apparel models aren't professionals. They don't get their models from agencies, so I don't think there's as much pressure to, say, go topless for an ad. Many of their models already work for them. If they approach one of their workers and ask if they want to model, they can always say "No thanks."

Stupid me. I didn't see the written graffiti and just thought the big green line was the graffiti. I thought, "How are people getting meaning out of that? Is it a stripe? Huh?"

It makes it worse that advertisements like this not only objectify women's bodies but almost always cut off their heads or take the focus from their face, which REALLY objectifies them even more. Stop taking the face away from women's bodies.

Tara K., the model isn't wearing a shirt. If she turned around to show her face, nobody would be looking at it.

Well, I don't think American Apparel is responsible for rape. I think such an over-the-top declaration takes away from the larger issue of using women's bodies to sell stuff. This isn't a violent picture or even a particularly provocative picture, so I don't know why anyone would claim that this picture would promote rape.

(I'm making this comment under the assumption that the graffiti is blaming AA for objectifying women. That was my first reaction, though I can see how the other interpretation would work, too.)

I don't think that it's a question of "promoting rape," per se. In fact, I think the fact that you said this picture wasn't violent or particularly heinous, as if that makes it less harmful, is a great example of how desensitized our culture has become to daily (hourly) images of nude or partially nude women in all manner of poses and scenarios, to the point where a particular image has to be really heinous to be seen as "bad." There are other types of bad and harmful advertising involving women than just the violent or truly pornographic ones.

I think the harm is really in the fact that putting a woman's naked ass on a billboard to sell clothes buys into the cultural paradigm of female sexual availability, which IS part and parcel of a rape culture. So I can see the argument that AA is "promoting rape" with this billboard. And regardless of whether it's an active promotion of rape, it's certainly not doing anything to hinder the progression of a rape culture.

This billboard is not selling a product. If you took the "American Apperal" text away, would you know what it was selling? I'm guessing its the tights on the woman. Though American Apperal is not saying, "Go rape women," I think their advertising campaigns certainly promote objectification of women and people of color (their ads often announce the racial heritage of the "models" to present them as an exotic other)
While I agree with the whole sweatshop free thing, I don't think they should get a free pass from getting called out on their horribly sexist marketing campaigns.

I know this isn't new, but I loves me some The Onion: http://www.theonion.com/content/news/14_american_apparel_models_freed

Am I the only one who can't tell which "side" the graffiti tagger is on?

He might be saying "women get raped because they're so hot and dress so sluttily; men can't help it."

Or he might be saying "rape is a product of the objectification of women."

Which is it?
(Of course the graffiti tagger could have been a woman, too.)

Oh wait, what I just said was also said in the post. Sorry for missing that and being redundant here.

FEMily – if they work for the company and the company wants racey adverts with topless shots, are they really more free to say no than a model who's freelancing for them?

I've tangled with one of their PRs in an internet discussion before and they're all about "hey! it's free expression of our sexuality!". Which to my mind throws up a bunch more questions about objectification and clothing ads.

I think it's implying that the wholesale objectification leads men to feel entitled to women.

---Cola (and also to Kaichester)...I would hope that the point was that women get raped because things like objectification of women contribute to rape culture, and such... however, whether or not that was the intent, I don't know if most people would see into it that way.
All of us on here might look that far into it..but the average Joe might look at it and be like "hurr hurr that's true, womens r sluts".

I'm not sure how anyone can support this company. There are plenty of other t shirts that are sweatshop free that don't exploit women or have CEOs that sexually harasses his employees/models, openly fucks them, or masturbates in front of journalists.

FEMily, and anyone else who supports Dov C. through their dollars, I highly suggest you check out alternative apparel. Sweatshop AND sleaze free.

People should stop buying this shit, for real. I was really, really disappointed with Bitch when I found out their merch is printed on american apparel - not only are they sexist and gross, they are not size inclusive at all - the only defense of this Bitch gave was "unless you like your t shirts on beefy hanes - we're sticking with AA." Ok, so we're feminists but we'll support one of THE most openly sexist CEOs just because their shirts are cool?

I'll take substance over style any day, thank you.

FEMily, the models aren't professionals--generally they get to model for AA by having sex with dov. the pressure to go topless is probably even more pervasive.

I think the saying is wrong. Its like theyre giving an exscuse to men who rape. If they wanted to write a social message about the objectification of women, great! However, this does not convey that.

Judging by the way the graffiti is phrased, I'd wager the "artist" is blaming the women who "get raped." The graffiti doesn't wonder why "men rape women" but why the women are getting raped - which sounds very much like blaming the victim.

I agree with moraith. I wonder if the graffiti might mean something even more depressing than "women are rape-inducing sluts": we mens are constantly aroused by hotttt ads like these, so what can we do but go out and rape women?

It's a stupid ad anyway. A clothing company puts up a billboard showing... someone NOT wearing their clothes. WTF?

Leslie, you have a point, but somehow i doubt that was the original intent of the graffiti. it seems more likely to be a case of "women r slutz if u dress sexy u must be askin 4 it." maybe i'm just a cynic.

I agree with Gopher. It sounds to me like the author is trying to lay blame on AA and popular media for rape, but that takes the individual accountability out of it. I certainly don't think it's at all victim-blaming, and I suspect it is intended to call AA out objectifying women, but it doesn't do it well.

Leslie, you have a point, but somehow i doubt that was the original intent of the graffiti. it seems more likely to be a case of "women r slutz if u dress sexy u must be askin 4 it." maybe i'm just a cynic.

I immediately saw it as an indictment of American Apparel. But I can definitely see the other side, now. Moriath makes a very good point. At the same time, though, we're assuming that an indictment of AA for objectifying women would only be written by a hardcore feminist who would be familiar with our preferred choice of phrasing. That's not necessarily the case, and "get raped" is a horrible term, but one that is incredibly comment, incredibly mainstream and one that women -- even badass graffiti artists -- often internalize.

I kind of wish that the artist would step forward and state his or her intent. And in any case, with such an ambiguity, I feel like the only responsible thing is to remove the ad altogether. Not that the company would have likely left it up, anyway.

I get the feeling that the grafitti-ist was pointing out the objectification, not blaming women for the way they dress. I mean, it is an advertisement, not some girl walking down the street.

Go grafitti person! (If I am right.)

Off on a slight tangent, but some research on impressions of sexual advertisements came up on my university homepage today:

http://www.comsdev.canterbury.ac.nz/news/2007/071025b.shtml

Where I enter the subway near Lex & 42nd, there is a display of oh about 10 posters for Jordache Jeans showing a purty lady in said jeans but topless, yes, but get this-- she has no nipples. Isn't that tasteful?

I sometimes shop at American Apparel (I love longish solid tees, something they're good at) but I can not get over how big of a scumbag the founder is. Have any of you read that Jane article about him? He actually whipped out his dick during the interview (the writer, by the way, laughed it off--so typical of Jane).

yes, the graffiti could be interpreted in different ways (in terms of if it's victim-blaming or feminist.) if anything though, it's provocative... and that's a good thing.

i'd like also note that this billboard (at allen and houston) is right where the asshole who raped me used to live/work. how ironic. i hope he fucking sees it. and i want to know who wrote this because i've been wanting to graffitibomb that area with anti-violence epithets for a long, long time. thank you to them, whoever they are.

When I first saw it I thought it was saying that the use of women's bodies in advertising was what was causing the rape, not that the artist was blaming women themselves, but I can see both sides of the story. The model is sticking her ass out, almost in a rutting like fashion which can kind of be a "come and get it" pose, and can be interpreted as if all women are/should be this open sexually. There isn't a lover in the photo that specifies who she might be trying to entice, so her ass is presented to all the world for enticing.

Where I enter the subway near Lex & 42nd, there is a display of oh about 10 posters for Jordache Jeans showing a purty lady in said jeans but topless, yes, but get this-- she has no nipples. Isn't that tasteful?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: it's not the breast that's the problem, it's the nipple.

You can show as much of a women's breast as you possibly can as long as the nipple isn't showing. For some reason women's nipples are considered "indecent" while the fatty tissue around it is perfectly fine. I do not and probably will never understand the reasoning behind this. That poster would probably freak out a lot of kids (and adults) who know at least a little bit about anatomy and it really seems tasteless, as well as pointless.

FEMily-- how can you say this picture isn't provocative? It's a half-naked woman, in tights that perfectly show her ass, bending over slightly just waiting to get taken from behind. As some others mentioned, the fact that this doesn't seem that sexual to you only shows how desensitized we become to these images which are everywhere.

As for American Apparel... I've only been in their stores once or twice, and I was disgusted by them, honesty. The ads all along the walls honestly looked like low-budget soft-porn. It was almost as bad as Abercrombie & Fitch (whose ads I find disgusting-- I was in a dressing room of theirs once, trying on jeans, and I swear the ads in the stall was a shot of a man's crotch in jeans, with an erection. I walked out and have never set foot in their stores again.)

AA and A&F both go great distances to give men body image issues too: A&F has shirtless sculpted male models wandering around and AA t-shirts only fit men who are rail-thin or heroin chic.

I think the graffiti artist was trying to call American Apparel out for objectifying women but the message wasn't quote clear enough.

Huh, The Message did a little ripping on AA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P06zQ9js9mY

My first (and only!) thought was that the graffiti artist was blaming American Apparel for the objectification of women leading to men's sense of entitlement to them. It honestly surprised me to hear that other people interpreted it differently. Gosh, I hope I'm right. Otherwise... sad.

I think the harm is really in the fact that putting a woman's naked ass on a billboard to sell clothes buys into the cultural paradigm of female sexual availability, which IS part and parcel of a rape culture. So I can see the argument that AA is "promoting rape" with this billboard.

Strettttttttch! I can't believe nobody else called this out. Am I the only person in here who thinks that printing ads with naked models is NOT equivalent to promoting rape? I see this argument so often. If you were right, literarycritic, wouldn't you agree that rape prevalence should currently be exploding due to proliferation of racier and racier ads? In fact, most reports show that the incidence of (reported) rape has fortunately been decreasing since the early 90's, or at worst is flat. I think a more REASONABLE criticism is that these types of advertisements are responsible for the (truly) rocketing incidence of bulimia and body image disorders in young women and men.

Hmm. I do wonder how many arseholes will interpret it as being "women are sluts".

I don't know what the graffiti was meant to say, but I really fail to see how a picture of a woman PAID to be objectified is a good example of anything being women's fault.

I dunno, my initial reaction was that it was blaming commodification of women for rape, not women or AA

I read this immediately as a comment on advertising in general and AA's advertising in particular.

In Manhattan, I'm guessing that most people who "re-purpose" big billboards are in it for the subversion, rather than a large-scale declaration of misogyny.

AA's appropriation of "sex-positive" culture and iconography has always resided on the spectrum between bizarre and offensive. Example, cited briefly by others above: their recent strategy of plastering their stores with 1970's porn shots, which they claim is "authentic," harking back to a pre-airbrush, pre-implant time of real tans and real women - as if it were simple to declare that we all need to return to the mores of Hustler circa 1976 and everything would be great.

Not to mention their louche, lazy style of newspaper ads whose shots' crummy quality is supposed to be edgy or unusual or remind us of Nan Goldin or something cool like that, but pretty much reminds me of a hipster serial killer's private photo album.

I have a hard time reconciling the images the company puts into circulation and the public behavior of Dov Charney with a clothing line that IS positive. Being really sweatshop-free is something unusual and worthy. Additionally, the fact that the store has so, so many different styles tends to make it creative, fairly egalitarian and, frankly, feminist - while a lot of the cuts are geared towards waifs, just about anyone can find something there that looks good on their body. I can't say that about most American chains.

I don't think that it's a question of "promoting rape," per se. In fact, I think the fact that you said this picture wasn't violent or particularly heinous, as if that makes it less harmful, is a great example of how desensitized our culture has become to daily (hourly) images of nude or partially nude women in all manner of poses and scenarios, to the point where a particular image has to be really heinous to be seen as "bad." There are other types of bad and harmful advertising involving women than just the violent or truly pornographic ones.
That doesn't prove that I'm or anyone else is desensitized. Are you going to tell me that a woman wearing tights is on the same level of violence and pornography as the Tom Ford cologne ads? Come on. Would I like the ad better if she were fully clothed and giving a thumbs up under the slogan "American Apparel: Our Clothes Aren't Made By Little Slave Kids"? But what are you going to do? The woman in this ad isn't doing anything perverse, in my opinion. She could be leaning up against a sink brushing her teeth, and she took her shirtdress off because she didn't want to get toothpaste on it. I've done it before. I think people are just trying to find something wrong with the ad.

if they work for the company and the company wants racey adverts with topless shots, are they really more free to say no than a model who's freelancing for them?
The models still choose whether or not they want to model. Many of the models already work for AA, or anyone can send in photos if they're interested in modeling.

the models aren't professionals--generally they get to model for AA by having sex with dov. the pressure to go topless is probably even more pervasive.
And do people not have minds of their own? They're not professionals. They're regular people. A regular person can say no. They don't owe anybody anything. They're modeling on their own. They don't have agents that have to get paid. They don't have portfolios to enhance. What happened to saying no?

how can you say this picture isn't provocative? It's a half-naked woman, in tights that perfectly show her ass, bending over slightly just waiting to get taken from behind.
Is that what she's doing? Sounds like you're seeing what you want to see. I don't see that at all.

As for not buying clothes because the founder is a dickhead, are you all running around naked? Are you eating? Do you live in a house? You obviously have Internet access and computers. You think the owners of those companies are saints? Give me a break. You can't spend a penny in this country without lining the pockets of jerkoffs. So anyone who is going to judge me for wearing AA clothing because the CEO is sexist (something I didn't know but isn't going to keep me from buying their stuff) is a hypocrite.

arcticwoman & badnfluence don't make me feel like an a-hole. Thank you.

Maybe she is brushing her teeth, but what you see is not her body and her doing a fairly normal activity...you see her ass.....no one is saying that she is wearing tights is the problem...the problem is that you can't see her face or anything other than her ass...has anyone ever slapped yoru ass or made a comment when you bent over at the waist. Hell even friends had a comment when the guys were playing twister and one of the girls was bent over with her ass in the air about the sexual position....I always try to approach each post with an objective attitude and not jump on the "they're evil" bandwagon but this ad is blatantly sexist...no face...ass up...it's not about the tights it's about grabbing people attention with sex and trying to put the name in teir head

"Maybe she is brushing her teeth, but what you see is not her body and her doing a fairly normal activity." Um, if she is brushing her teeth, isn't that a fairly normal activity? I'm sorry, that just made me giggle a little. My point is that the ad is not explicit (that's the word I was looking for all day), meaning you can interpret it in any way you want. Therefore, your interpretation is all on you, not what's necessarily portrayed. Someone said the woman in the ad is waiting to have anal sex. Your buddies made gross comments during a game of Twister. Some people get their ass smacked when they bend over (to answer your question, that's never happened to me). Who is at fault in those situations? Who is escribing explicity and inappropriate sexuality in those cases? Since when is bending over automatically an invite to sex and taunting? I thought that was the sort of thing readers of Feministing wanted to change. And like I said before, she's not wearing a shirt. If she turned around, nobody'd be looking at her face, and I'd be just as outraged over it as most of the people here seem to be. Or is the fact that she's not wearing a shirt bother people? But she's not showing any private parts, so what's the issue? This is all confusing me.

As for using sex to grab people's attention, no duh. Sex does sell. What shouldn't sell is violence against women, which is also portrayed as sexy. This ad isn't violent. It's just sexy. And it's not even overtly sexy or portraying an unrealistic ideal of what sexy is. It's just a woman wearing some tights (whether she's brushing her teeth or doing pilates or getting ready to have anal sex is up to the beholder). It might make me want to buy some tights, because tights are sexy and I like to look and feel sexy. I don't see anything wrong with that.

well, MAYBE the CEO's of the companies I buy from are "jerk-offs" but did they ACTUALLY jerk off in front of their employees and journalists? because Dov Charney ACTUALLY jerks off in front of people.

It's ok, you want to look cute and wear hipster t shirts, I get it. That doesn't change that it's a company run by a misogynist asshole.

A little about the sexual harassment suits: "In their sexual harassment suits, two of the women accuse Charney of exposing himself to them. One claims he invited her to masturbate with him and that he ran business meetings at his Los Angeles home wearing close to nothing. Another says he asked her to hire young women with whom he could have sex, Asians preferred. All describe him using foul language in their presence, much of it demeaning to women."

Racist AND sexist.