I am from Belgium and I do think that sometimes these ads are a little over the top. It’s not that I am shocked but you’re like: “what’s the point of showing a naked woman to promote a yogurt?” I think that in The US there are too much censorship though. No wonder then that people go crazy for HBO and Showtime shows where it’s all boobs and sex.

I’m of the mindset that Americans are way too uptight and puritanical about nudity and sex. Put a man shooting someone on a billboard and no one complains. Put a woman’s breast in a completely non-sexual situation and all of a sudden mothers are crashing their SUV’s into the median as they try desperately to shield their child’s eyes.

I find AA’s advertising trashy and vulgar, but that doesn’t mean nudity can’t be done tastefully. I saw much of this in Sweden and France. Sweden even has laws to protect women so that, for example, a bikini-glad girl can’t be used to sell a car, but a nude woman can be used to sell bath soap. It was interesting to see how advertisers worked around these laws while never quite stepping outside of them completely, and I for one appreciated it. Call it censorship if you want. I call it common sense and a lot of people don’t have enough of it!

I don’t think this does anything but harm to women and men alike. It causes shame and fear or our own bodies, and makes us hypersensitive to even the teeniest hint of skin.

That last picture is pushing it for me, but it is abstracted enough. Something about it makes my skin crawl though, but it isn’t the nudity. Perhaps the pose and the ghostliness.

My problem is not with the nudity, or even the sexuality, but the position of women in these types of ads. The one with the spread eagle continues to display women as pieces of meat to be consumed. Women as passive, available, and always ready is disturbing. It’s not the skin, it’s the objectification of women. I didn’t see enough, but more than likely the male images are more empowered. I would not go into this store or any other store that does this.

Great photography Greg.

Picture A seems sweet and I would chckle as I passed it on the street.

Picture B, it took me a long time to figure out exactly what was going on there.

Neither is as pornographic as Paris Hilton’s larger than life picture up in the mall a few years back, with almost everything showing under the front of her pants. That really put me off.

The above pictures allude to something. It seems AA actually crosses boudaries, especially showing very young under age looking girls. The pictures in AA and of Paris Hilton give the feeling of a peep show. Creepy.

Sexuality in advertising is overdone. It shows lack of imagination by resorting to the lowest common denominator in order to catch the attention of individuals.
I don’t find it offensive, just dull.

I suppose it always depends on the context. The first time this happened to me I was a young bride sitting in the living room with my brother in law, when a soap commercial about appeared on the French channel (and full frontal nudity of the woman). It was so unexpected (for me) and I was so embarrassed (he was 19) I didn’t know what to do or say; I got up and left! Years later, I remember being stuck for half an hour in a traffic jam in east Beirut with my husband and kids on the way to a mountain picnic. Right in front of us were two giant billboards (both the same) advertising jeans with a man and woman in a sexy pose, and the woman (of course) without a top. I guess by then I was not shocked but did feel it was gratuitous (to sell jeans? or to sell sex?). Then a man was moving car to car trying to sell newspapers (like you see in Chicago) and when he got to ours it turns out it was an XXX one. Again,the kids were agog! Certainly American adverts are all about selling the promise of sex or sexuality. This plays to a powerful instinct (and the accompanying ‘promise’ of wealth, happiness and success), but there is cheesy and there is arty and tasteful.

The top two ads don’t make me at all interested in the clothes they’re wearing. The bottom one makes me cringe. What exactly are they selling in these ads?

Whatever happened to “what you do in your bedroom is your own business?”

I am offended that advertisers think they have the right to show these images on public streets, beyond inside the “privacy” of their store walls.

Who is edified by this? Nobody.

AA is one of my biggest pet peeves. The models are always shown presenting either their behinds or their spread legs to the camera, and they are either chopped up into disembodied butts or staring at the camera (i.e. the viewer… any viewer, implying that they will spread their legs for anyone who’s walking by) with their mouths hanging open. I recently joined an anti-AA FB group: http://www.facebook.com/video/.....8839789213.

To me, the A pictures in Angie’s post are different. The woman is depicted with her partner, she’s standing (at least kind of an active and strong pose), and the lighting gives her and her partner kind of an unreal, statue-like quality. If AA ads come off as the result of a sleazy camera dude tricking 15-year-olds into a porno shoot, then the Burger ad comes off as the result of imagination… or a distant memory gone idealized and abstract.

I don’t know what to think of the B pic yet… o_0

Hm, that link turned out wonky. If interested, the group is called “Take Back the Gender. Boycott AA.”

Just like anything else, it’s all in how you use it. The Burger ads don’t even make me blink, but the Dirk Bikkenbergs photo made my jaw drop. Yuck.

Equally distasteful to me are the AA ads using very young girls. Like the Bikkenbergs photo, they suggest vulnerability and exploitation of women.

Angie, I just noticed your reflection in the 2nd photo! Your expression made me laugh:)

Even Hugh Hefner says that Americans are so screwed up when it comes to sex, and the reason why the porn industry is booming is because we are completely taboo and puritanical about it in everyday. kinda like how as soon as you say you’re going on a diet you sit down and eat the entire bag of cheetos
I personally think nudity is all in how its done. Some are tasteful and artistic, some are just crass. It all depends whether its being used to show beauty of form and sexuality, or if it’s just trashy SEX (ahem. AA and A&F, I’m looking at you)

Also, my two cents? It wouldn’t hurt any if Americans learned to relax a little about sex.

I have no problems with nudity…but context is everything. The European ads use the body in an artistic way and it looks very beautiful. American ads push sexuality. But nudity does not have to represent sexuality. It can represent freedom, sensuality, and purity. It’s all in how it’s portrayed.

I know American Apparel’s ads are somewhat too sexual. But I will continue to shop there as they are an American company and do not use sweatshop labor. I think that is more important than their advertising.

Picture A looks arty Picture B just looks like porn!!!

Pictures A may be more creative and tasteful than Picture B, but they appear to be depicting foreplay. Picture B — well…. No, I would not appreciate seeing these displays on shopping trips to the local mall. I’m no prude, but like Cricket, believe there is a place for all things. Nudity does not belong on a billboard.

Trying to figure out what they’re doing with Picture B, and finally — it looks like she’s birthing a handbag. But Rhonda is probably right with the foreplay suggestion.

Like most posters, the top pictures don’t bother me, but the bottom ad is a bit rattling. That being said, it makes one stop and ponder, and the lighting is pretty cool. I’d probably have less problem with it in a magazine.

I personally would be offended by these advertisements. I think that using nudity and sex to sell anything is unoriginal, crude and vulgar. The human body is beautiful and sex is sacred- in private, not public.

The advertising doesn’t offend me, but I hate to think about how uncomfortable the model felt during photo shoot B. It just seems unnecessary to expose so much in an effort to sell a brand.

Like with all things, it’s about balance and I love what Gloria said about context. AA is awful. And I think some American ads/photos are much worse than European full nudity because of what’s implied. A is fine and even tasteful and attractive to me. B is over the top for me. The pose seems irrelevant to what they’re selling and vulgar. I think the more we treat our bodies as “normal” and nothing to be ashamed of, the less companies like AA will hold an appeal for folks. In some cases the forbidden fruit is what’s most appealing.

(I apologize in advance if this is the third reply from me. My replies aren’t showing, at least on my computer.)

I won’t give a blanket yes or no in regards to being offended. It would depend on each individual advertisement. Nudity in general isn’t something I find offensive, but it is dependent on the context.

The second photo I find distasteful. What does the naked body in that position have to do with shoes or handbags? Is that even what they’re selling, because I’m not certain? Yet another problem with the ad for me.

To me it’s all about context. I don’t think either of these ads are appropriate because the images are very sexual–not because there is nudity, but because of the poses and scenes. I wish America were less hostile to normal, non-sexual forms of nudity (e.g., breastfeeding) but the above pictures don’t say anything good to me.

This isn’t “nudity,” this is FEMALE nudity. I am in complete agreement with amazona.

If we lived in a society where women were not constantly sexualized and almost never allowed to be seen through anything but a filter of physical judgment, then we could talk about this in a more objective way.

Until women are not unrelentingly used (and I mean that literally) as objects and consumer products whose main purpose is to appeal physically to others (we might as well never learn how to speak for all our thoughts are valued), there will be nothing innocent about naked (and silent) women in ads.

This has not a thing to do with prudishness, it is about context and subtext and the fact that we can’t seem to escape the position we keep being put in. Nakedness implies vulnerability, helplessness (think of any dream in which you find yourself exposed…LOL), and subjection. I think it’s about time that we started seriously questioning WHY any ad would use naked women to sell stuff. Who “benefits?” Not me.

It is offensive. Bodies are wonderful beautiful things. We shouldn’t be afraid of them- I’ve seen a lot of skin just walking around outside.

The above images suggest that women are only beautiful when they are sexual objects. What a distorted idea to teach daughters. Where this because a man will want to unzip your dress or unbutton your skirt.

Picture B makes me think that the purses are made from a woman’s skin instead of an animal’s. The picture itself is quite artful, but the association of ideas in my mind is just creepy.

I’m from South America and I’ve spent seasons in Spain and the US, so I’ve been exposed and immersed in different sensibilities’ keys, and seen quite a lot; from nude beaches to breastfeeding women being asked to leave.

My views: while I feel nudity and sensuality on images on the press or on the road aren’t repproachable things per se, I do find disturbing the fact that they are intended to add value to an unrelated product. I also feel it’s potentially dangerous filling what I perceive as voids in sexual education and curiosity for the human body.

How does the purported foreplay among two people relate with liquor, hotel chains or clothes? Will your consumption of the liquor lead you to foreplay with someone way better looking than you? (chances are you’ll only get drunk, though). Or maybe you’ll look that good too if you check in into that hotel? (a powerful self delusional pill is included with the welcome drink?) Will the clothes’ zips fail, exposing random body parts and thrusting you into a mood for sexual intercourse?

What does it mean all that sensuality and nudity in the pictures and how do people incorporate in their lives? The lack of an answer is what makes me reject open sensuality and feel it’s just trash.

Subtle nudity doesn’t bother me much…in your face like pic#2 would make me walk a small child in a different direction.

I think your post title says it all Angie, there is a difference between nudity and sexuality. A naked body may be less sexually charged than a semi dressed one.
I see nothing vulgar in nudity but believe there is a time and a place for sexually charged images.

The UK is very different from the mainland in this respect, we are probably somewhere between Europe and the US with regards to nudity and censorship, male testes have been shown on breakfast television as part of a campaign for testicular cancer awareness but a female nipple may not shown on prime time tv advert. I guess context is everything?

Think about the status of equality for women in Europe versus America. Enough said.

I’ve never been to either Europe or America – I am MUCH more comfortable with the European attitude to nudity than the American one. (There is a certain widely admired American blog which I really enjoy – except for its prudish attitude to exposed legs/knickers/butt.)

Nudity is one thing…
those first 2 pictures (while I admit they are beautiful pictures) depict foreplay to me. As far as the last one, there are 3 activities that require that position- sex, child birth, and a pap smear. Unless that is an advertisement for a hoar house or an OB GYN I do find it unnecessary and inappropriate.

The first row of pictures are quite artistic. I find them interesting, because the man is actually more nude than the woman, something that you don’t see often. The last picture just looks crude and somewhat medical. Not appealing to me, but I’m probably not his targeted demographic.
I question the convention that most Americans are squeamish about nudity, but rather that a small group of vocal and conservative Americans with resources have been able to influence policy makers. There are a small number of “family values” types in various European countries, but they lack the political capital that the American traditionalist right has.
The AA ads are different because Dov Charney actually pays homage to certain amateur porn conventions, particularly from the 1970s. He is trying to be trashy and use shock value to sell things. That’s his prerogative, but it makes me uncomfortable (is that my Puritanical Americanness?). Which is too bad, because some of AA’s stuff is pretty decent.

Would the first picture hold similar appeal if the position of men and women was swapped? Would the second picture look similarly appealing if it was a man was playing the passive/submissive/prone sexual partner? For me, the answer is no in both cases.

Well, I’m not American but I guess I represent the “uptight and puritanical” mindset that Maya writes about. I don’t mind daring clothes: short skirts, low necklines or plunging backs. But nudity / half nudity used to sell things feels inappropriate to me. And sexist. Women showing their breasts is very common on European billboards but how often do we see, say (since men’s chests don’t carry the same level of sexual connotation) a pair of naked male buttocks in an ad?

Mr Mac is European and he notes that growing up, he never really paid attention to females’ bare breasts at the beach; it was only once he moved to the US that he began to see bare breasts as sexual. But while some see that as a bad thing, I quite like having a few body bits that are kept private, “special” and yes, even sexually-charged.

I’m American and I find nothing particularly offensive about these, short of the already-mentioned fact that it’s almost always women on display. That’s what irks me the most about American Apparel — every single shot looks like exploitation as opposed to the more artful (if still sexist) nudity I’ve seen in European ads, etc.

At first I thought picture B was a picture of a frog skeleton. Then I figured it out, and I was a bit surprised. “I see, she has just given birth to fraternal twin purses!” I exclaimed.

Then I looked a little more closely at the lower right hand corner and saw the wide-eyed reflection of Angie in the glass. Nice job, Greg!!

No matter how familiar we are with the human body, we just can’t help but stop and look at it. The bodies in those pictures are beautiful, but so are all bodies in their own way.

I think they’re all beautiful photos. The curves of the human body are beautiful. But the juxtaposition of the last one with the handbags and sneakers looks and feels really odd to me. Like everyone else at the party is fully dressed and someone shows up naked. Not offensive so much as uncomfortable.

I could write (and talk) about this subject for hours (and I have as a matter of fact), but a nice, warm bath beckons, so I will just say this….. Women have been sold a big truckload of BULL if they believe that female nudity used to promote consumer goods is in ANY way “sophisticated” or “edgy” or “artistic”- in fact I can think of nothing more lame, predictable, and pedestrian than exploiting the nude female body to sell unrelated items. And the fact that women line up like a bunch of silly ducks, nodding their heads and saying, “Yes, yes, so artistic. So edgy. So sophisticated.” Of course the real sentiment behind this is that since they approve of this state of affairs, they *too* by extension, are also artistic and edgy and sophisticated, and therefore deserve a pat on the back for their glorious third wave, post-feminist permissiveness. Nudity! Pole dancing! Mainstream porn! Aren’t we proud of ourselves for coming so very far! Malarky! Nudity does not = power, not now, not ever, and the fact that women buy into this idiocy does my head in. Here’s a hint- the most powerful person in the room will NEVER be the one naked and lolling around like an idiot. Men still hold the REAL power, even in liberal western democracies, which is PRECISELY why they are permitted to keep their clothes in ads! Now off to my bath before have an aneurysm……

Hmm, picture B made me stop and think. Generally I’m all for being more relaxed about nude bodies, but this picture puts me off big time. And I don’t get how it’s used to sell bags and sneakers.

Furthermore, I’d like to see the male and female models switch roles in both ads. Equality and fair play.

Greg, the composition in picture B is most excellent. Angie’s reflection takes that picture to another level.

Mac, I mentioned the example of Sweden because they have mastered the art of using nudity appropriately and tastefully in advertising. If you’re selling a lotion or a soap, why wouldn’t you use a naked body? Most of us shower naked, I would think.

I agree with those who say there is an imbalance between the amount of female and male nudity. But that isn’t really what the post was about to me. That imbalance exists everywhere, including movies and television which we readily and voluntarily consume. There is just more focus on female beauty in general. That is a whole other issue to me. The question is whether or not nudity in advertising offends me, and in principal it doesn’t. In practice it frequently does, but it’s about the execution rather than the fact that there are naked bodies.

The reason I oppose the idea of certain body parts being “sexually charged” and “private” is because it is just a breeding ground for unhealthy outlets. It’s naive at best to think that my boyfriend is only going to find MY body sexually charged. He’s going to also going to notice the girl across the street, his friends, his coworkers, etc. much more so than he would if he were desensitized. Not only that, but as a woman, I am also at the receiving end of those unsavory gazes. Personally, I don’t like to be looked at in a sexual way outside of a sexual context by men of all ages and relationship statuses. It creeps me out. I’d prefer men to be more desensitized so I didn’t have to worry about distracting male coworkers with an unintentional flash of cleavage every day.

I guess what it comes down to is that I’d rather have my boyfriend see these ads every day and go to the beach with topless women sunbathing than find a release in hardcore porn.

LOL, Angie! I thought the first pics were from a fastfood (burger!) store before I read you write up and got momentarily angry at the attitude that advertises the meat with nudity.

Anyway, I don’t see the point in this type of advertising. I can try to appreciate Pic.A, but B is inappropriate for many reasons in my opinion. Are they trying to say come in if you feel this naked?

I don´t appreciate bundling the whole of Europe in one bag. I think that every country here has different standards. I saw stuff like this in Poland, but not in Germany (even though Poland is much more conservative and Christian !)

The bottom line for me would be that Europeans are just more comfortable with their bodies and their functions. I´d take this over American prudishness everyday, even if only because in Europe it´s normal, common and accepted for women to breastfeed in public.
And before you say there isn´t any connection — there is.

It seems to me that this type of advertising doesn’t succeed in its aim (to capture your attention so you remember the product or brand) – in America, at least – if most of the thoughts provoked are regarding the nudity itself, debating whether it’s artistic or exploitative, and all the other issues that raises.

I recently saw a “you’re getting older” type birthday card for me with a drop-dead gorgeous woman on the front – the cover text was “I have just one question” and inside was “what color was her purse? If you just said ‘what purse’ you’re not too old yet.” So I’m guessing the nudity overrides the product for men too!

So far on this post I haven’t seen anywone saying they want that dress or that purse.

My problem is that these ads are not selling clothes, purses, or shoes. They’re selling sex to sell clothes, purses, and shoes. I love art; I have attended figure drawing shows and see the beauty of artistic nudes both in painting/drawing form and in photographic form. Thing is, these are not artistic.

Also, Angie, I find it very disappointing that you just posted these images instead of linking to them as you did with the American Apparel ads. On that post you linked to the ads and warned us that they may be considered inappropriate. Here you just posted them in our faces whether we wanted to see them or not – and some of us read YLF at work!! No matter what your stance on even sexualized nudity, nearly everyone agrees that it is inappropriate at work – and you didn’t even give us a chance to avoid it.

I had to laugh at mojoriley’s vehemence – but actually, those are some really good points. We need to feel that it is okay and not prudish to be in control of the way bodies are used/exploited in advertising.

I also appreciated kimana517′s post. I am myself an artist so I absolutely agree that the human body is one of the most beautiful things in the world. However, it’s one of my pet peeves when people mistake shock value for artsiness. Good art is thoughtful – it doesn’t JUST aim to push the envelope. I’m not European nor have I ever been to Europe (that is soon to change! Yay) so this is just the opinion of a “prudish” American. That last photo you posted is offensive to me because despite the technical skill of the photography, I can only assume the point is to attract attention with shock value. And to me that actually degrades the beauty of the human form.

Lastly, I also agree with kimana517 that you should have given a warning before posting these for anyone to see. Regardless of anyone’s offense or lack thereof, if that doesn’t qualify as NSFW, I don’t know what does.

I’m from Germany and so I am quite used to nudity in advertising. I wouldn’t even notice the first pictures as they are what you can find on every billboard.

Picture B is different though for me. I find it really disturbing. It reminds me of an emaciated dead body like in the pictures you sometimes see from Hitler’s concentration camps. So disgusting!

Kimana, your accusing Angie is not fair, I think. Your chance to avoid these pictures in your workplace would have been to not surf the net for your private enjoyment.

Kimana is right that these images might be unsuitable in some work environments and we didn’t think about that when posting it yesterday morning. We’ve subsequently changed the post so that one has to click through a warning in order to see them. I’m sorry if this caused anyone trouble. It is ironic that the exact social norm I wrote about ended up biting me on the bottom.

@pregnantmom – You assume that using the internet in my workplace is against the rules. It is not. At my workplace and many others, we are allowed to surf the ‘net when there is no other work to be done, so your argument is not valid.

@Angie – Thank you for the edit! That is much better. And yes, it is indeed ironic.

Angie, thanks for changing the format of the post. I opened it while I was at the airport and felt a little dirty.

majoriley, Well said!

Mojoriley, no one has said it better. Thank you for putting it so succinctly.
You should shout it from the rooftops.

Oh my, this is loaded. So without reading everyone else’s comments, here are some of my thoughts:
There is a difference between nudity and sexuality, and there is also the concept of exploitative images and the objectification of (typically) women and girls.
I personally am comfortable with nudity (including stuff like women being topless at the beach) and with advertising that includes nudity. Like the Nivea nude in the flower meadow.
I also don’t mind racy images and those that evoke sex; I see the first couple images in this post fitting this category and I don’t mind them.
I do, however, react very strongly to images that objectify women, and I see the third picture in this post as fitting that category. It doesn’t show a women as a person but as a dehumanized body ready for you know what. I find it icky and exploitative and objectifying and yes, extremely offensive.

I’ve been thinking about how to respond to this post and think Antje expressed it very well. The first pictures, maybe especially because they are not in color, almost look like sculpture. The second is an interesting but disturbing photo that I could see belonging in a photography book as art but not on a billboard for advertising.

I completely agree with Antje.

I am European and have lived there most of my life and have been exposed to nudity a lot. It does not bother me a single bit. However, i can not stomach anything that objectifies women. So I find the bottom photo quite disturbing.

Wow interesting post and reactions. I agree with all who say nudity and sexuality are 2 very different things.

I’m also not too affected either way by pics #1 and #2, but find #3 a bit gross. Are the handbags and shoes part of the advertisement, or products placed just below it?

I’m working in Ob/Gyn at the moment, and have no problem dealing with women in that position every day. I call it the “Brazilian wax” position. But this picture depicting a form without arms and a head serves no purpose in advertising handbags of all things. Maybe if it was advertising pap smears and actually serving a purpose it’d get a different reaction out of me, but I just think it’s unecessary in this context. Find another way to sell a bag.

I have a real hard time buying into this discussion about the prudishness of the U.S. vs. the body-comfort of Europeans. These aren’t real bodies in these ads, nor is this real sexuality. It’s not even real nudity. They’re highly polished, over-Photoshopped, predictably posed a la Maxim, and once again pounding unrealistic body images into our heads.

I don’t find a Dove or Nivea ad offensive since they feature real women’s bodies. I think Dove, in particular, has done an outstanding job of doing what these photos do not – actually finding the beauty of the female form. I find these photos offensive because they once again display impossible perfection, and, as others have said, they portray women as objects and sex as a commodity. These photos don’t have anything to do with real sex, nudity, beauty, etc.

I do agree that there is a difference between nudity and sexuality. I find the second picture incredibly offensive as it screams sexuality and objectification to me. I don’t even understand what the add could possibly be promoting.
Being an America born to American parents, I do find the first photo shocking in the sense that it is not something I would expect to see but not so awful to offend me. But I grew up in America and for better or worse this sort of advertising is taboo. Would I prefer a different image to promote the item? Probably. But not enough to go out and protest. I wonder if I would feel differently if I had young children. That being said a soap commercial that involved nudity would not bother me because it is not sexual and showering is an activity that is done nude.

I don’t view this as an American vs European perception issue and get tired of Americans being stereotypically painted as prudish or backwards compared to their European counterparts. It isn’t true, you can find examples of backwards or progressive thinkers in either location.
Too many confuse edginess with sophistication.

I’m less offended by B’s body, but more offended by the set of bolt-on breasts the model is sporting, how realistic is it for an anorexic model to have breasts that look like they are full of milk?
Unlikely.
So it’s a marketing aesthetic, not an artistic one, and to pretend it’s artistic and not a sell out is a posture that is transparently ridiculous.

AA has had a smirky campaign that is akin to kids sending photos over social-networking sites. People would do better to boycott “FaceSpace” type of junk sites. They are now becoming corporate and blogger pimp machines, anyhow.

AA is just capitalizing on zeitgeist, plain and simple. I’m more offended by the factory farming of McDonalds than AA. AA makes their stuff in the US, and anyone who buys anything made in third world countries, then pretends to be offended by AA’s advertising has so much hypocrisy flaming off the top of their head, the light could be seen from three counties away.

Seriously flawed at supporting sweatshop labor for a pair of chintzy Clarks sandals and get strenuously knicker-twisted over advertising.

Interesting. There are two issues here, I think

1. Nudity per ce
2. The specific photos shown

As a Scandinavian, I’ve grown up with what mainstream America (as I understand it) would think were a shocking amount of nudity. I don’t think the grown-ups of my time even knew pedofilia existed and children were encouraged to run around nude on the beach and in the garden up until the age of 6-7. This was deemed as very healthy to make up for the long and dark winters’ lack of natural sunshine and light. Some curiosity and playing “doctor” among kids were just laughed at indulgently. Grown-ups would quite often sunbathe and swim in the nude/topless as well, but be more discreet about it. I still try to get a bit of nude swimming done during summer as it feels totally glorious (in a safe environment, that is). I grew up in the 60′s and 70′s with baby-boomers and womens libbers. Things like nipple shields and padded t-shirt bras still seems kind of hysterical to my mind. Not to mention “modest” swimwear. Oh BTW, I used to model for an artist friend in the nude.

The specific photos posted are another kettle of fish, though. As Antje so eloquently wrote, its just objectifying and exploitive. I also think the “foreplay” photos are quite icky. I love clothes and clothing design (I sew quite a bit of clothes) and would be much more interested to see the clothes themselves featured, rather than a couple of teenagers having sex. I guess the advertisers are trying to get teenagers to buy the clothes, though – and we all know what most teenagers think about most of the time, so … it’s an easy way to exploit the money out of them, the poor little things.

AA is highly sexual and provocative in a way that is supposed to titillate and upset people thereby driving sales. Nudity is not the issue really. The European pictures look fairly tasteful/harmless to me.

[...] Nudity is commonplace in European advertising, so it’s no surprise that one of the models is topless. She looks magnificent. Remember that this is French Marie Claire and it’s common for ladies to tan topless in France.  This type of advertising probably doesn’t kick up any fuss over there. [...]

The Atlantic gap is big not just when it comes to nudity… it involves *anything* regarding the body. As a European it sounds to me like Americans are WAY too uncomfortable with personal hygiene, enjoying food (eat, pray, love — anyone?), and stuff like that. Americans are grossed out by bidets, French and/or Italian people are grossed out by people who don’t use it LOL Even the idea of beauty in the US is plastic, artificial, surgical, made-up.

I think the second pic doesnt give that piece of art any justice, i have seen it and it is a truely beautiful. i would love it in my house and i am a girl!
those bags are in the way else you would see her feet…
and although its seems to expose everything it is all hidden by shade and that shop is built to look like a house, i’m not sure but if i remember right that is a bedroom, sometimes you see models just walking around from room to room as if they were in their own house, they dont sell only handbags they sell all clothes, shoes and everything from that brand, but in italy its not about what u are selling it is about lifestyle!

It is amazing to me that people are “shocked” or “offended” by a human body. I honestly don’t know why – it’s just a body. We all have one, and it’s nothing any of us haven’t seen before.

I think people aren’t as much offended as embarrassed – embarrassed for their own selves. And this embarrassment is elevated to the point that the person has the urge to vocalize it. But people aren’t likely to just say “Oh gosh, I am embarrassed”. They’re more likely to react to this embarrassment with anger, and thus react by “becoming offended.”

So, the next time you feel offended for seeing a nude human body, take a moment to think about this feeling. Are you truly offended? Or are you feeling a little embarrassment and shame and simply reacting to those feelings with a little anger?

Phil did you even take the time to read the comments? There is barely anyone here shocked or offended by nudity. Maybe you should display some literacy before heaving judgments about people’s views on nudity and certainly before you comment.