Advert pulled because model ''appeared'' to be under 16

age doesn't matter it's perception of age that counts.
 
Really, I don't finds this astonishing at all. Isn't this what the ASA are supposed to do.

American Apparel are always pushing and getting into trouble in the US, but they like the publicity I think.
 
Without seeing the girl in question it's hard to say conclusively but if she appeared to be under 16 and was revealing more than an under 16 year old should be then it is right that the advert should be pulled irrespective of the real age of the model. Like has already been said, it's the perception of the model's age that matters.
 
-Rob- said:
Without seeing the girl in question it's hard to say conclusively but if she appeared to be under 16 and was revealing more than an under 16 year old should be then it is right that the advert should be pulled irrespective of the real age of the model. Like has already been said, it's the perception of the model's age that matters.
Click to expand...

Matters to whom about what? Who's getting "protected" from what and against what and by who? It's a photograph of a 23 year old woman.
 
maybe i should cut out my eyes so i stop oggling women in the street (over 18) in case they are younger?

:shrug:

i think that if a reputable company used a semi clad women in an ad that we can all assume they are over 18. they arent that stupid..
 
aberal said:
Matters to whom about what? Who's getting "protected" from what and against what and by who? It's a photograph of a 23 year old woman.
Click to expand...

don't forget the ASA have a job to do, and I'm with them on this one she doesn't look 16 let alone 23 and its apparent that this is what AA wanted to portray.

There's an article here (actually fairly reasoned) with some images from the AD, nothing that caused the add to be pulled though

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...de+model+'appeared+to+be+under+16'/article.do

Hugh
 
aberal said:
Matters to whom about what? Who's getting "protected" from what and against what and by who? It's a photograph of a 23 year old woman.
Click to expand...

It's the 15 year old girls that are being protected for their own good. They see a girl that looks the same age as them dressed in something that's very revealling and they think it is OK to dress the same.

You're average adult joe public may be smart enough to think "That model is used in an ad so she must be over 18" but a 15 year old girl could think "I look like her so I'll wear a revealing dress with my nipple on show".
 
-Rob- said:
It's the 15 year old girls that are being protected for their own good. They see a girl that looks the same age as them dressed in something that's very revealling and they think it is OK to dress the same.

You're average adult joe public may be smart enough to think "That model is used in an ad so she must be over 18" but a 15 year old girl could think "I look like her so I'll wear a revealing dress with my nipple on show".
Click to expand...


I can see where your coming from here, but some 15 year old girls want to look like jordon and she is over 30.
 
LMFAO - no way should that have been pulled. she looks over 18, it's not exactly raunchy in anyway. the people at the ASA must be on drugs

Detail-from-the-American--001.jpg
 
jolsterj said:
I can see where your coming from here, but some 15 year old girls want to look like jordon and she is over 30.
Click to expand...

I think you have just provided the best defence for this kind of potential intervention. A fake who has trouble keeping her clothes on(when not modelling) and stupidly huge plastic breasts - oh what a role model:eek:

As for THE photographs. She does look under 18 to me. My daughter is 16 and looks older but it offers no sexual angle as for as I can see. Just looks like a catalogue shot. Don't think that should have been pulled - oh get your grandfathers glasses off, he's lookng for them:lol:
 
There is a story line running in Hollyoaks (channel4 @ 6:30pm Mon-Fri) at the moment involving a female student who is studying to become a film maker. She has just submitted some film of a local girl she knows is only 16, cavorting in front of the camera in a bikini. She is aware that it is illegal, but has still submitted it. Now I'm not sure if the story has run its course as I have missed the last 3 episodes, so catching the omnibus at the weekend might be a better option. I think it will be interesting to see how channel 4 portray the facts about this kind of thing.
 
dalex_257 said:
Yes but it is not up to government to address what they think isn't it. I'd say it is a parent's job really.
Click to expand...

but the ASA is an agency which only acts on the basis of public complaints, so isn't this just them agreeing with what (some) people are saying.

Hugh
 
boyfalldown said:
but the ASA is an agency which only acts on the basis of public complaints, so isn't this just them agreeing with what (some) people are saying.

Hugh
Click to expand...

The only people who ever complain about this sort of thing are the same pathetic trolls who complain about everything on TV...

Trouble is that once a complaint is recieved, the ASA are duty-bound to act...

Never mind the millions of souls who either couldn't care less or actually quite liked the ad...
 
boyfalldown said:
but the ASA is an agency which only acts on the basis of public complaints, so isn't this just them agreeing with what (some) people are saying.
Click to expand...

I meant it is a parent job to educate kids better than following up "advert" and expose private parts - not something that should come up as a administrative solution from some organisation. It is as with anything in this country nowadays just shifting responsibility and using the path of least resistance: "if we need something done - just throw a new law or create a new useless organisation to control it..."

(sorry for ranting :))
 
Arkady said:
The only people who ever complain about this sort of thing are the same pathetic trolls who complain about everything on TV...

Trouble is that once a complaint is recieved, the ASA are duty-bound to act...

Never mind the millions of souls who either couldn't care less or actually quite liked the ad...
Click to expand...

yep - great isn't it, and if they'd had the freedom to leave it alone the advert would of just been forgotten by the vast majority. Now the clothing company must be rubbing their hands together - result for them
 
POAH said:
LMFAO - no way should that have been pulled. she looks over 18, it's not exactly raunchy in anyway. the people at the ASA must be on drugs

Detail-from-the-American--001.jpg
Click to expand...

The offending piccy isn't there.
 
Jo said:
There is a story line running in Hollyoaks (channel4 @ 6:30pm Mon-Fri) at the moment involving a female student who is studying to become a film maker. She has just submitted some film of a local girl she knows is only 16, cavorting in front of the camera in a bikini. She is aware that it is illegal, but has still submitted it. Now I'm not sure if the story has run its course as I have missed the last 3 episodes, so catching the omnibus at the weekend might be a better option. I think it will be interesting to see how channel 4 portray the facts about this kind of thing.
Click to expand...

It is not illegal to film or photograph 16 year olds, It is illegal to photograph them in a sexual way.
 
Banning things just gets more publicity and access to a wider audience .... think back to 1979 Pink Floyd Another Brick in the Wall pt 2 ........ was going out of the charts got a complaint about the strong anti-education theme and was banned in South Africa so Radio1 decided to ban it ...got it to Number 1 for a number of weeks ....... So that works well :shrug: ?????

Paul
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
Jo said:
There is a story line running in Hollyoaks (channel4 @ 6:30pm Mon-Fri) at the moment involving a female student who is studying to become a film maker. She has just submitted some film of a local girl she knows is only 16, cavorting in front of the camera in a bikini. She is aware that it is illegal, but has still submitted it. Now I'm not sure if the story has run its course as I have missed the last 3 episodes, so catching the omnibus at the weekend might be a better option. I think it will be interesting to see how channel 4 portray the facts about this kind of thing.
Click to expand...

It is not illegal to film or photograph 16 year olds, It is illegal to photograph them in a sexual way.
Click to expand...

;)
 
This is the same company that used Woody Allen's image without his permission to sell their wares.

They know exactly what they're doing.

A more cynical person might suggest they rang in the complaints themselves.
 
I bet the company rang those complaints in themselves :)

Go on call me a cynic then
 
If its perception that counts then if a 14 year looks like she's 23 its ok to take a nude photo of her...
They might want to protect their audience of 18 form "rude" pics, but they see them on the tele anyway, or the cinema, or the school shower or their are are having sex with their underaged boyfriend...

I understand people not wanting rampant pornography everywhere, I myself like a certain balance :lol: but have some sense...
 
Based on her appearance I'd have put her age at between 22 and 25.
 
It's hardly Top-Shelf though, is it - a 'hint of nipple' caused all the offence apparently - we get more than that in shampoo and shower-gel ads these days...
 
I think she looks younger than 23, but not 16...she looks about 20 ish in the far right picture and rather foxy
in the other pics she looks younger...but someone less provocative.
 
Well I think it's a good stance to take tbh.

I'd like them to tackle music too.

Just look at the crap that Lady Gaga sings about. Poker Face.....a song about bumping uglies with her boyfriend while she's thinking about other women.
And I find it extremely uncomfortable that my 10 year old daughter is innocently singing along to it.

So yeah, I think its a good stance to take. I'm no prude by any means, but I think things shouldn't be overly sexualised unnecessarily and advertised as such. Not when it can have such an impact on impressionable young girls.

Yes, it is a parent's responsibility, but it's kinda hard when you're fighting a multi million dollar ad campaign with a 'few words of wisdom' ;) (OK I generalise but you get the jist)
 
Full set of pictures in the Ad here, I do think she does look younger in the later photographs and am sure it was deliberate too!
 
Marcel said:
Well I think it's a good stance to take tbh.

I'd like them to tackle music too.

Just look at the crap that Lady Gaga sings about. Poker Face.....a song about bumping uglies with her boyfriend while she's thinking about other women.
And I find it extremely uncomfortable that my 10 year old daughter is innocently singing along to it.

So yeah, I think its a good stance to take. I'm no prude by any means, but I think things shouldn't be overly sexualised unnecessarily and advertised as such. Not when it can have such an impact on impressionable young girls.

Yes, it is a parent's responsibility, but it's kinda hard when you're fighting a multi million dollar ad campaign with a 'few words of wisdom' ;) (OK I generalise but you get the jist)
Click to expand...



:clap::clap::clap: some of the lyrics in songs amaze me and when my 7 year old istens to it, indeed it is very uncomfortable.
 
EdBray said:
Full set of pictures in the Ad here, I do think she does look younger in the later photographs and am sure it was deliberate too!
Click to expand...

The fourth one does make her look a bit young, however the rest make her look around the same age as my friends (in fact some of them look younger than her), and they are all 21-23...

I just cant help staring at her glasses, why, oh why, they're terrible...:gag:

Just googling them (type "American Apparel" into google image search) shows how this seems to in fact be tame for them.:shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top