Living in Europe I am more accustom to seeing a little more skin in advertising, but those usually have a more “artful” flair to them. These just look slutty. And the wording they use doesnt help that matter. It certainly does not make me interested in buying their product.

I find these ads tacky to say the least. And I’m no prude.

Not a fan at all. I am from Europe too and used to see a lot of skin in the adds, but these are as tasteless as I have ever seen.

There is a difference between showing skin and having no taste. These are indecent!

Thanks for letting me know. I will not buy this brand. Women and men must use their spending to censor marketing like this.

I agree with the posters above. Tasteless indeed.

Vulgar and tasteless. We’ve sunk to a new low. And, if these ads help sell American Apparel, shame on all of us.

have you seen the new urban outfitters catalogue? it’s gotten just as bad! i brought this up on a thread the other day – view the catalog here to see what i mean: http://www.urbanoutfitters.com.....pp12-node8

flip through it, or just look at this blog entry on another fashion blog i frequent: http://brokeandbeautiful.com/2.....utfitters/

disgusting!

Quite right. For those of you that have lived in Europe, you’ll see nudity on the tele all the time (either through advertising or in programs and movies), especially in France, the Netherlands and Germany. German company Nivea often advertises a beautiful naked woman frolicking through pastures before she lathers Nivea cream all over her body. This is completely acceptable within the culture. Nudity is not censored on Euro television.

What I find most interesting about this campaign is that it’s by an American company. American culture is a lot more conservative when it comes to nudity which makes the marketing strategy even more controversial. Especially when it’s about catering to a very impressionable teenage audience. I’d love to know how this type of advertising has improved revenue.

Thanks, Hanna. Good point.

I’d like to hear how teens, or preteens feel about this advertising. It’s them shopping in this store. I also wonder how their parents feel?

As the parent of 4 – and 2 girls – I am appalled.

wow-I’m speechless-if I ddint know better, I would have thought I had landed on a porn site! yuck!

I’m 18 so I definitely fit into the teen category. And I find it absolutely disgusting.
This is right up the alley with Abercrombie and Fitch, and they’re mostly-exposed models. I don’t shop there, and one of my biggest reasons is because I think it’s ridiculous to use half-naked models to sell your CLOTHES. Which are supposed to cover your nakedness … ?
I’m pretty offended by these pictures, and I hope that my fellow teens are as well. I’m sure all the parents are!

tacky and tasteless and awful! i hope my daughter can steer clear from all of this…yuck!

OMG, I can’t wait til 230, so I can go home and look at what the bruhaha is about!! Angie, you are a little devil–stirring the pot!

I think that nudity in European advertising is fine. In fact, I wish America would catch up and loosen the puritanical beliefs towards nudity. However, these photos take that to an inappropriate level. Perhaps the taboo towards nudity helps this advertising because it is SO shocking in a society where they don’t show a lot of skin. It would be interesting to see what happens if America starts to have a more European attitude towards nudity. I wonder if this advertising would die out in that instance? Interesting social experiment…

I agree 100% with all the other comments! Tasteless is the word!

This is exactly why I don’t like to use the word sexy. Its graphic, do I really want to dress and look in a way as to elicit that desire in someone? I prefer allure, glamour, mystery, polished, put together, etc.

Its a bummer, I’m sure their product is good enough to sell with a less shock value campaign.

We have two of these within 3 miles of my home in Dallas, and I haven’t noticed provocative posters in their windows.

I didn’t know they targeted teens/tweens; I thought it was simple, high quality knit pieces.

Bah! Some are pretty gross. It’s very odd, a friend of mine from high school is actually one of the models (the one in the back seat of the car) it’s very odd seeing her like this lol!

it’s not the nudity that bothers me, I’m often disappointed the U.S. is so prudish about nudity, it is the suggestiveness of these poses. This kind of advertising degrades women. From what I have read, Dov Charney treats his female employees contemptibly, so I’m not surprised there are harassment suits. It’s too bad because I actually like the merchandise, but I won’t buy anything there since I read about Charney.

I have not been in one of their stores so didn’t know who the target customer was, but now I am worried for my soon to be 13 yr old Grand Daughter. How embarrassing it would be if I took her into a store with ads like these on the walls. We’d be outa there in a hurry. They just keep pushing it further and further until finally what? Where does the shock value end?

Also a sight of a beautiful naked woman frolicking through a field before putting on Nivea cream is alluring. These pictures are crass.

I find the whole AA marketing strategy (and the owner) creepy. It is as if he is using the ad campaign to satirize the very accusations against him – but it seems he means it.
In SF this week the community got the planning commission to tell American Apparel it could not open a store on Valencia St. by the way. They had concerns with the “chain store” but I think the ethics of American Apparel justify it in this case.

Thanks for your teen input, Sara.

Interesting, Chris.

Charlotte, it’s precisely the suggestiveness of the poses that gets to me too. Not classy to say the least. There is nothing at AA for me or my clients to purchase, so I have never spent my fashion dollars there and probably never will. But I don’t think that this type of advertising would deter me if I absolutely needed something and could not get it anywhere else. I stress, I could NOT get it anywhere else. Their advertising is not blatantly visible when you walk into stores. But there are other fashion houses who I will never support no matter what.

I’m speechless. The poses…well I see why they hired porn stars. Yuk. It makes me want to somehow rescue the models

Angie, what other fashion houses will you never support? I noticed you mentioned something in that vein about D & G last week, and I’d love to hear more from you on that subject.

i thik the ads are a bit over the top – and it’s a shame really because the clothes are quite great. granted there are some styles that are a little out there as well, they are definitely good for the staples and for layering. just wish they didn’t take things so far that it begins to detract from what originally seemed to be a positive mission from the company. oh well – i guess a discourse like this is the best way to pass on some level of disappointment.

one another note – if anyone is interested in any American Apparel clothes for less you might want to check out http://aashirts.ecrater.com – they’ve got some of the best styles on there.

Who are they aimed at women or men who want to look at porn! The advert certainly wouldn’t make me want to buy socks! Rather inappropriate

I guess I just can’t make the connection between what American Apparel is selling, and their advertising. I mean, the “Tights” ad? Isn’t the point of advertising to make you want to shop someplace? Seeing these ads, if did happen to find myself in that unlikely situation, I definitely wouldn’t want to touch anything, and I’d want to wash my hands as soon as possible afterwards, you know?

One of the ads on the page you linked to is a spoof ad ((Kristina with the short hair and unshaved underarms), although the mag doesn’t seem to realize it. See here: http://www.feministing.com/archives/005574.html

American Apparel recently got in trouble for displaying a porn magazine in full view in one of their Vancouver stores. A 13-year-old girl and her mother who were shopping there came across it. Lovely. Regardless of how you feel about porn, as the mother in the artcile says, “porn is not for children” and AA is certainly frequented by young teenagers as well as adults.
http://www.xtra.ca/public/Nati.....-6161.aspx

I’m a bit torn on AA. I appreciate that AA doesn’t use foreign sweatshops to produce their clothes, and I appreciate that the women in their ads usually have healthy-looking bodies that are closer to average than the bodies you see in most advertising. There are many other reasons why they bother me, though. I’m an anti-porn (for the most part–I accept that non-oppressive, non-coercive, anti-patriarchal porn could potentially exist, but if it does it’s pretty well below the radar) feminist, for one thing, and their ads are pretty porn-tastic to me. They even use porn stars as their models sometimes. I’ve also read far too many articles and exposes (just google “american apparel expose”) about their highly questionable practices–sexual harassment and coercion, exploitation of immigrants, especially young girls, etc.–to feel OK about them as a company. Sure, they’re pushing the envelope in their ads, but they’re pushing it backwards, in my opinion, encouraging pornographic objectification (I have no problem with nudity, but there are many different modes of nudity). Dressing up objectification in indie hipster clothes does not make it progressive.

PS Carissa, I agree with you on the word ’sexy.’ I really dislike how it’s used to descrive everything from fabric softener to yogurt these days. I never, ever aim to appear “sexy.” At least not when I’m in public.

PSS Angie, I’d also like to hear more from you on D&G and other fashion houses you won’t support.

Here’s one more link about AA from our local paper, too:
http://www2.canada.com/vancouv.....d4d0366eb9

This is awful. It’s not only that it perpetuates the rather common idea that to be fashionable you must appear sexual (which is untrue in itself), but that it conveys that the fashionable standard is now degrading, pornographic sexuality. And all to young people. Terrible.

I hate their ads, but love their basics. I wear their leggings under skirts and their tank tops as layering pieces. I’m slightly conflicted about supporting them, though.

For people who do want to buy their stuff, a lot of their basics can be found wholesale through Trendy Blanks dot com for way less. (I’m not affiliated in any way, jsut trying to help people save a buck.)

Given that I purchase their clothes through that rather austere looking wholesale web store, I wasn’t aware of their ads until I stepped into a store, which was a surprising experience for me.

I’m a 19 year old girl and I’ve always considered AA to be softcore hipster porn…. I would rather go to F21 or H&M for basics.

Some of them seemed a little creative, but most of them were just dirty. What is with all the girls with their legs apart!?

I would like to add that I feel a little bad for that tank-thong model – that angle makes her butt look really big…

I have never had any luck with their clothing, the sizing seems to run very small and the last time I tried to order something from them they sent me the completely wrong product and never bothered sending me the right one when I returned it.

I am realizing that I am not sad about this, it warned me off from them early on. My impression is that they are not aiming for teenagers so much as college kids and young twentysomethings who want to be hip. They have been putting the porn-star versions of their ads on racier sites (haven’t seen them, just read about them) and asking the girls that run the websites to model for them. This is great press for them as the girls then write all about how great it is to be an AA model. It seems to be a very specific demographic that they target, which is why these ads aren’t in their stores, where they target a wider audience for walk-in traffic.

Where I have traveled in Europe, the nudity seems to be much more of a casual thing, these ads don’t bother me for the flesh they show as much as it is for the exploitative sexual manner in which they show it. No class is the problem. I vividly remember walking by posters of naked, jewelry-draped women in jewelry store windows in Italy and not giving a second glance other than because they were beautifully shot/ showcased beautiful jewelry. Nobody looks at these ads for the products.

I kind the ads tacky and uncreative, but my big problems lies with the clothes themselves. I WANT to support this US-made, pro-labor company, but everything I’ve ever own by them has been a piece of junk–colors fade quickly and unevenly, threads unravel, things get shapeless after only one or two wearings. It’s just not worth the price for dispoable clothes.

I think the ads are tasteless and not very artistic — the quality of American advertising has gone down so much in the last decade or so. Sad to see AA pushing it further in the wrong direction, what with their exemplary non-sweatshop principles they seem to adhere to otherwise.

These lame ads are also making me not feel bad about purchasing an AA hoodie on eBay instead of at the retail store.

Ok, that’s porn. No company is gonna try and tell me that’s anything else, c’mon.

The one with the girl in the green knit shirt was fine (pic 21). In fairness, that photo could be in any magazine, and the one right underneath it with the same girl dressed in black with her legs up was ok too.

But the others….

I was also seriously grossed out by the photo of that model Kristina…..armpit hair is supposed to get me to buy their clothes? Ew.

I’ve seen quite a few photos on several fashion magazines where the jean advertisement has a girl naked from the waist up. She’s turned in such a way that all you see is her bare back. I’m ok with that…

…….but all this full front display in these photos is gross. It’s porn. I don’t like it.

Eurrgh. Crass and tasteless. I’ve never bought anything from American Apparel and now I most certainly will never do so. This sort of imagery hurts everyone- men and women. All people. Thumbs down.

Dov Charney is easily one of the creepiest men in America and the fact that these ads cannot be viewed while you’re on lunch break at work just shows how vulgar and tasteless they are. Lots of high fashion ads have some suggestive nudity (like Lory mentioned) which is fine, but this is just absolutely nasty stuff. I can’t understand why there was such a stink over some of those Benetton ads and yet these seem to go unnoticed.

I’m all for American-made, fair labor, and “normal” people without makeup as models. But for me, this kind of advertising just overrides everything that could potentially be admirable about this company. It’s incredibly degrading. I’m curious to know what their male models are asked to do but don’t really feel like seeing for myself…

I sometimes wonder about the models who pose for these pictures, or those who submit their own pictures, and I find it hard not to be judgmental. I feel like you would have to have very little self respect and be very attention-seeking to do something like this.

Whenever I see an AA ad on Facebook, I mark it with a thumbs down and tag it as offensive. I’m tired of seeing those vacant eyes and sleazy poses. On top of that, their clothes are crappy too.

I agree 110% with what Carissa said about being “sexy.”

Oh, how I wish I would have been in the room when Angie saw these for the first time! I would have loved to have heard what would have been some fantastic screams of horror!!

I really like what Charlotte said. I also have no problem with nudity and I think the American culture would be much healthier if we weren’t so afraid of our own bodies. But if these pictures aren’t porn, they are certainly suggestive of it. So what I think that what we find so troubling about these pictures is not that they evoke sex, but that they evoke porn–which is often utterly degrading to women.

It seems very little thought was put into the target market of AA products. My guess is the CEO created this campaign for his own onanistic purposes.

Like Sara I am 19 and I find these ads definitely tasteless. For most of them I only thought “ok, so that’s kind of weird..” but for a couple my mouth definitely dropped. I just don’t see why these ads sell anything.
It’s different with Victoria’s secret- their ads aren’t so bad and the point is to sell the underwear. Here with AA the shots look sleazy and amateurish, and it looks like the point is just to have a funny picture advertising their products. I think it’s unnecessary. I don’t know.. I’m going to buy underwear either way, I don’t really need to see it sleazily on someone else first.

Ifind JessicaLynn’s comment about how American Apparel ads are different than Victoria’s Secret’s very interesting.

Victoria’s Secret models, after the airbrushing, makeup and flattering lighting, don’t look very human. They look like manequins, posed and sterilized. An American Apparel model in the same clothes looks different to us because the images are much rawer, more real. Without the airbrushing, the shots look much more exploitative and creepy and the perfect VS models. I think this says something about our society.

OK I finally had a few minutes to look at the photos, with out a boss or a kid in the vicinity. Sure some of the photos are nasty, and not because of any nudity. All the camoflaged crotch shots and double entendre copywriting is beyond distasteful, and really has nothing to do with the product. Clearly they are using this as a way of getting some extra media attention….and apparently it’s working.

To be honest, I had never heard of the company (I do live under a rock, apparently). But after reading Wikipedia’s synopsis of the company–it appears they make clothing that is resold for advertising purposes? (like tee shirts that businesses buy and put their own logo on?) I don’t get the connection between that kind of clothing and this kind of advertising. I mean, shouldn’t they be advertising to businesses who might want to use their shirts for their own logo? I guess they sell tights and leggings too…..but surely that can’t be their bread and butter.

I think it is a bit naive to pretend that AA is trying to be more “European”. I used to live in the UK and Europe.

They are imitating the online more sexualized world of teens.

It’s pretty distasteful, but I feel as though that this taps into a bit of culture we’d like to pretend doesn’t exist.

It’s no accident that shows like “To Catch a Predator” are phenomenally successful”. We let our kids get out there, they think they can handle it.

Frontline did a story on how advertising has penetrated deeply into youth culture. This is only an example.

Besides, who shops there? Youth and the adults trying to capture their youth. I sure as heck am not running out for thigh high tights and hot pants. Even if I could pull them off.

I bought some tee shirts through woot.com and the quality is pretty craptastic, too.

boobalah, that totally makes sense. I think that explains why I see it that way. Good insight!

Hm, well while I don’t hold VS in particularly high esteem, I think there is SOME difference. VS is selling lingerie, for one thing. I also don’t find the posing of the models to be nearly on this level. I have yet to see a full-on crotch shot. Their window displays are suggestive but at least it’s understandable, given what they are selling. And even so, I don’t think it’s nearly as crass as what AA is showing. Their poses are not just suggestive: they are the real deal. As pornographic as it gets without being porn.

I don’t have a problem with nudity. To me that’s besides the point. What I’d prefer is something artistic or practical – e.g. if I’m buying something knowing what colors and sizes it comes in. I agree with Charlotte that these are suggestive and that’s what I have an issue with. I find that they are degrading to both women and men. And if I were with a guy who bought me an AA gift because he was swayed by the ads, I’d have several concerns. I am absolutely not buying their products – not that I was aware of their existence in the first place!

If the latest HK online “decency” legislation goes through, I think that I could be jailed for looking at these AA ads. They’re not very tasteful at all.

Although I do appreciate that at least one of the shots was able to show quite well how the panties would ride up my butt were I to wear them. They do have that going for them.

I don’t have a problem whatsoever with nudity, perhaps we’re more used to seeing the naked body in its natural beauty here in Europe (as Angie and others have pointed out), but I don’t care one bit for these ads.
Were they going for the ‘let’s satirize the porn industry’ approach, or are they just trying to provoke people, I can’t tell, and I don’t really care.

I think Anne (in Reno) put it very well:
“these ads don’t bother me for the flesh they show as much as it is for the exploitative sexual manner in which they show it. No class is the problem.”
“Exploitative” and “no class” being the key words.

A few of them were very beautiful and arty–even the one referenced in the article with the zip-down front wasn’t too bad, but almost all the rest of the pictures look incredibly voyeuristic, like something that was taken without the consent of the girls and then put on some immature guy’s blog. Very distasteful and incredibly objectifying of women. I won’t be buying AA anytime soon.

Some people have made great comments here. As many have said, I think these ads are tasteless and obscene. Call me old-fashioned and closed-minded, but I’m of the opinion that nudity should stay in the bedroom. But these ads are even considered crass by those who think Americans should be OK with actresses and models parading around naked. If you want to watch porn, then go ahead, but don’t use it as advertising for everyone to see. Don’t turn models into whores. I find this degrading to women, and it actually makes me angry. I’ve only ever been into the store once (and bough one swim suit there), because I’m just not drawn into a store full of raggy t-shirts and tank tops. Somehow I’ve missed hearing about all of this until now. I’m not one to boycott, but I will not be buying anything from American Apparel again.

Ok, someone has to dissent, and I think it will be me.

Do I think the ads look like girl-next-door porn? Yes I do. I also think that AA has done a FANTASTIC job getting attention with their advertising when its fashion line is just basically t-shirts and underwear that looks just like other t-shirts and underwear. The fact that the ads look like they’re shot with polaroids and without professional lighting really sets them apart from other ads. You can pick out one of their ads immediately.

Personally, I don’t buy from American Apparel, but everything they make is manufactured in Los Angeles by people making at least minimum wage. If this advertising keeps them in business, I say hooray.

I haven’t bought anything from AA as far as I know and have never heard of them before, but after seeing those ads, I will be making a point of not buying any of their stuff. AA seems to be targeting their ads to a particularly cheap and vulgar segment of the market. Since I do not want to look either cheap or vulgar, they’ve lost me as a customer.

Actually, I agree with Fran. These ads aren’t porn–they’re ‘cheap’ porn. I hadn’t heard of AA before this but some of their items seem pretty useful [the tank thong, for example--no more tuckage worries!].

This discussion reminds me of the ad campaign in the 80’s: Uniting the colors of Benetton. In the ad were two children, one very fair skinned white girl with almost white-blonde hair and an african american little boy with dark skin and his hair was spikey and put into two ‘horns’. There was a big uproar over the implication that black people are portrayed as evil in this ad, what are we saying about the children, etc. etc.

Honestly, before the uproar, I had never heard of Benetton before. So maybe this campaign is designed to get the word out, even tho’ it outrages folks.

Just my 2 cents.

I don’t disagree that advertising wants you to think outside the box, and into the product’s “box” as it were.

Benetton’s adverts were very blunt and even offensive to some.

I do think, however, as misogynistic and exploitative as these ads appear to even the most average viewer, it is hard to compare them to Benetton’s social commentary.

These photos clearly mine that world of kid on kid sexualization. Voyeurism is very compelling. Personally I find it sad that we accept the exploitation of teenage girls as a de facto part of growing up these days.

ha ha ha! actually most of them are kind of funny. they have make them to look like vintage porn from the 70’s, even badly shaved armpits… Don’t get offended but you americans are sooooo tight !
I really dislike this company though.

Brianna has the best quote ever: “I agree with you on the word ’sexy.’ I really dislike how it’s used to describe everything from fabric softener to yogurt these days.” So true!

I think Johanna also makes an important point, these ads are imitating the new MySpace culture of young children and teens quite publicly exploring their burgeoning sexuality online–taking photos with their cellphones, videos with their webcams, etc. My biggest concern, as she notes, is the predators and the exploitative Dov Charney-s of the world.

AA is HUGELy popular (just look at what any of the top fashion bloggers are sporting, or any starlet). At least the price points are decent, considering the stuff is really, really basic.

Like other readers have mentioned, I’m glad their products are made in L.A. under better working conditions. But does that balance out the other young women they’re exploiting? I’m not sure… I mean, I understand the models have free will to pose but they’re probably too young to know the long-term ramifications of their choices. Just sayin’

I guess I’m torn…but as long as the stores I love don’t jump on the smut bandwagon, I’ll be a happy shopper

I appreciate the informed comments that have been made on this post. It has also been fascinating hearing people hold the “unpopular” view, that is, being on the fence about the positive effect of this type of advertising.

Interestingly, I also never use the word “sexy”. I prefer the word “alluring”.

As for AA’s merchandise, it’s basic and rather shoddy. Not that “basic” is bad, but shoddy is not so fab. It makes H&M’s quality look like Anne Taylor quality. I don’t know why top fashion bloggers are blogging about AA products. It leaves me thinking it’s all about the advertising

I was very pleased to find out that my swim suit is from American Eagle, not American Apparel. In that case, I’ve never even heard of AA outside of this blog post and the links (or seen one of their stores). I guess they don’t have them in the Mid-West, and that’s fine with me. I’m not interested in supporting this company, especially since I can find better quality basics elsewhere.

Hasn’t AA also gotten into trouble for rather racist advertising in the past, like spray-painting their models black and the like? I’m pretty sure that was them. Even if it wasn’t, the company just skeeves me out.

It’s so frustrating buying clothes in today’s market knowing that just about every company you give your money to is doing something unethical. Sure, some people can make their own clothes, and some people have the money to buy all or some fair trade/organic clothes (like bamboo fabric shirts and the like), but that’s not an option for all of us!

Advertising is my business, and I’ve been doing it for a long time. This advertising will certainly get attention — consider how we are all talking about it now — and that’s part of the strategy. But I often advise my clients to think in terms of the larger picture. How does this message or design represent your brand? What does it say about your company? These things have more impact over time that garnering a few headlines now. Brand is everything in my world. And these people are playing with fire.

As many of you have replied, I also agree we have sold out. There appears to be no level below which advertisers will not stoop. This seems we have no sense of actual style and have objectified and prostituted what once was appreciated as important information for trends of behavior and choice in our country. I am truly ashamed at what we have reduced our societal conscience to. What do suppose will bring about a change in this rediculous trend of spiraling degradation?

I have a serious problem with the direction the American Apparel company has gone in in regards to its online site and print media ad campaigns. I argued a whole thread on citydata.com about how having American Apparel come to a town near you (in this case, Albuquerque) is not a good thing, and how shocked I am as a product of a good solid 80s upbringing how gross and nasty the American Apparel marketing approach is. It’s low rent raunch porn chic, which is the product of the culture that’s been evolving since the 80s, only much more tolerated now. It’s the tolerance of American Apparel that I argued on the thread that is the real problem. I grew up on stores like Express, the Limited and the Gap. That we would have ever had to tolerate exposed nipples or sexy poses as part of a shopping experience is unthinkable.

These ads certainly don’t sell to me. I don’t see anything indicating quality, at all.
I also have the misfortune of having to walk by one of their stores to get to my bus stop (sometimes with my 4 year old son). The manicans are posed and dressed slightly more tastefully.

There are two reasons I no longer shop at AA.

1) They are so pleased with themselves for not exploiting people in other countries, but they exploit women right and left.

2) The clothes are crap for quality. A pair of leggings i bought at fred meyer lasted me twice as long as the leggings from AA, and they cost a fraction of the price.

AA = LAME.

Angie – what fashion houses do you refuse to support and why?

Seems like some pervert lured girls into his room, put her in some American Apparel, had sex with her and during the romp took cheap photos of the conquests and used them to distastefully advertise clothing. This makes me never want to buy anything from this brand even if I wanted to, it is demeaning to women. I’d hate to say it but I think I’d rather buy clothes made in China in a possible sweatshop than support the mysogenistic demeaning of women as sexual conquests. There is difference between sex appeal in a classy or artfully done way, and budoir photos post coitius.

What can we say? It does sell. It comes down to what men want to see and what women want to show us. There may not be a right or wrong in it. It’s true that men will pay more attention to the least dressed woman in the room. But it comes down to talking with the girl and if she is worth spending more time with, regardless of what she has on. Every man wants it all, a hottie on his arm but can discuss world politics and not just lip stick color. We know men are sexual….but so are women too. And everyone seems to forget that.

If you want to watch porn, then go ahead, but don’t use it as advertising for everyone to see. Don’t turn models into whores. I find this degrading to women, and it actually makes me angry. I’ve only ever been into the store once (and bough one swim suit there), because I’m just not drawn into a store full of raggy t-shirts and tank tops. Somehow I’ve missed hearing about all of this until now. I’m not one to boycott, but I will not be buying anything from American Apparel