Morning:
9°c
Semi-nude model 'appeared to be under 16'
Chris Laker2 Sep 2009
A model featured partially nude in a "provocative" fashion advert looked under 16, the advertising watchdog ruled today.
The shots for trendy Los Angeles-based retailer American Apparel showed the girl wearing just a hooded top and shorts with minimal make-up.
In each picture she progressively revealed more skin until the final frame in which she wore the fleece unzipped with her nipple partially exposed.
American Apparel argued that the model was 23 and the six images showed how to use the top to create different looks.
But the Advertising Standards Agency decided "the photographs suggested that she was stripping off for an amateur-style photo shoot".
It also ruled that she appeared under 16 in some of the shots.
"Because the ad could be seen to sexualise a model who appeared to be a child, under the age of 16 years, we concluded that it was inappropriate and could cause serious offence to some readers."
But it did not uphold the claim of the one person who complained that the nudity was offensive and could have been seen by children.
The ASA noted that the advertisement was published in a magazine called Vice which is aimed at the 18-34 market and distributed free in bars, nightclubs and clothes shops.
It ruled the nudity "was not so overly gratuitous as to make it unsuitable for or likely to cause serious or widespread offence to the target audience".
American Apparel have been banned from publishing the same advertisement again.
American Apparel's UK operations manager Brent Chase said: "American Apparel is well known for its provocative advertisements.
"Our models are real girls who are often employees or friends of the company. They do their own hair and make-up and aren't Photoshopped. From time to time people are made uncomfortable by this, and it occasionally causes an unfortunate reaction."
A spokesman for the company added that it only places its advertising in appropriate publications and said that the target readership of Vice reflected American Apparel's customer base.
He added: "American Apparel currently advertises in 20 different countries, rarely resulting in complaints from their respective advertising standards bodies, and this inquiry is one of those sporadic instances."
Reader views (23)
She look perfect for me, and if have more than 18 whats the problem????
- Laércio Guidio, Brazil, 06/09/2009 21:54
Report abuse
I saw no gun or chains in the advert, so I guess it's a matter of freedom of the individual?
Don't tell me the State has a responsibility for our youth - parents fail their children not governments.
I wonder how many hipocrites will post here - publicly decrying the advert and secretly voyeuring??
- Chris Williams, Cardiff, 03/09/2009 09:23
Report abuse
She looks over 16 to me!
- Emma, London, UK, 03/09/2009 03:03
Report abuse
American porn ? If the girl is legal age then the girl is legal .Law is the law is it not .Does this now mean if a girl is 16 but looks 21 u can not be charged with offensise of a minor.Cant have it both ways
- Huh, Australia, 03/09/2009 02:46
Report abuse
Just goes to show that people are looking younger these days!
- Andrew, hounslow, 02/09/2009 22:04
Report abuse
Remember Twiggy? Whole point was to look 12 and slightly depressed (repressed?), and she wasn't American decadence personified. She was from where? The land of Victoria. Get real - this gal looks a fine 21 to me, and this is too sexy compared to French ads? American Apparel should be gleeful.
- Steve Colton, Glendale USA, 02/09/2009 16:41
Report abuse
She should be wearing a birka, with swimming goggles.
Seriously, this is the tip of the iceberg of censorship. Soon people will get fined for putting up pictures of themselves in swimming gear on facebook.
Speaking of swimming gear, is that ok? The sexualisation of girls is not something the government can do (unless its porn). You can voice your opinion by not buying from them. That's it!
- Matthew, newcastle, 02/09/2009 16:28
Report abuse
the point seems to have been missed whilst debating the literacy of other contributors to these comments. the age of the model seems irrelevant to me, to point is they are trying to sell a product in a sexual way by (un)dressing up a model who is made to look underage. I have a problem with this - but sadly this approach is consistent with the increasing sexualisation of girls, particularly young ones. but i guess those who get a kick out of viewing partially clothed underage girls probably approve of this advert, or at least don't have a problem.
- Elaine, cambridge, uk, 02/09/2009 15:42
Report abuse
I believe part of the issue in question is the "portrayal" or underage sexuality. Hollywood has been doing it for a long time, there is even a regular weekly television show - produced by Disney and ABC - that portrays high schoolers being in sexual relationships - and its on the 'family' channel.
Something is not being enforced equally here.
- Trunk, US, 02/09/2009 15:30
Report abuse
Unfortunately, although I think perhaps Sarah needs to go back to school and learn how to spell properly, I agree with what she is saying - at the end of the day models are getting younger and younger and this girl, whether she's 18 or 25, looks barely 15. Surely sexualising someone who looks that young is wrong..??! No wonder paedophilia is so common now..whatever happened to using sexy, real women not little girls!!? and personally i don't go around with my nips hanging out of my top...
- Rochelle, London, 02/09/2009 14:09
Report abuse
American Apparel must be rubbing their hands with glee at this free publicity!
- Paulo Uccello, London UK, 02/09/2009 14:08
Report abuse
Hey kids, hey Sarah... free will. And literacy. Both concepts that seem to have passed some of you by.
- Michelle@Shed22.Org.Uk, London, 02/09/2009 13:31
Report abuse
Sarah, are you for real?
- Laure, Paris, France, 02/09/2009 12:42
Report abuse
I'm confused...how is anyone, regardless of age or gender, whereing a top and shorts "semi-nude" or "partially nude".
Stupid
Non
Story.
- Escobar-Alop-Lop, Camden County, 02/09/2009 12:34
Report abuse
Waste of time. The model is 23 - lucky her, she looks younger. Since when is wearing shorts and a sweat top 'partially nude'. Ordinary people must protect ourselves from this PC lunacy...
- Adam, London, 02/09/2009 12:01
Report abuse
@Sarah - I'm guessing you speak of the modelling world from experience? My assumption is based on your minimal grasp of English grammar and spelling, which does nothing to dispel the myth that many models don't have cotton wool for brains.
If it can be proven that this model is over 18, then I fail to see what the problem is. The only problem lies with the people who perceive there to be problem, where potentially none exists, and think the rest of us should be sheltered from it. Reeks of PC.
- Jock, London, 02/09/2009 10:59
Report abuse
If you (can)read the article, Sarah, the model is 23, hardly a child.
- Paul, London, 02/09/2009 10:40
Report abuse
Sarah Gilbert. You have the spelling skills of someone who seems to be a lot younger! ho ho!
- Kevin, Dublin, 02/09/2009 10:39
Report abuse
The American idea that nothing should stop you making money no matter how low you are prepared to go is begining to make the whole world feel sick!
- Serafim, london, 02/09/2009 10:31
Report abuse
@ Sarah Gilbert, stanley
Not really up to speed on this one are you? The model is 23 years old.
- Frank, Home Counties, England., 02/09/2009 10:30
Report abuse
well she doesn't look under 16 in those photos.
- Squiz, Islington, 02/09/2009 10:04
Report abuse
The law is the law...it stipulates an age limit...not how one looks. Lets look at this another way round...I am 14 but look 21...can I drink in a pub ?
- Edouard, Toulouse. France, 02/09/2009 10:03
Report abuse
i think it is dissgusting having who is i child paraiding around with nothing but a top on a think her famiely need to give this girl a reailty ceck and let her know just how dangers it is out there for moddels it not all glits and glam.
- Sarah Gilbert, stanley, 02/09/2009 09:44
Report abuse
