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

controvesy sells. look at all the publicity they have!
 
Marcel said:
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.
Click to expand...

I never realised that, not a huge fan and not heard all the lyrics.

my friend was told a lady gaga joke from one of her 5 year olds in her class

how do you make lady gaga cry...
Poker face.
/ahem
:help:
 
Those who said that "It doesn't matter on her real age, it how old she looks" I completely disagree with.

That can't just work one way.... if that were true what would Paedophiles be using as their defense? "I swear I didn't know that she was 3, she looked 16". Come on guys... get real.

This is just another example of the stupidity of this country, I appreciate WHY they try to stop these adverts as they think that it'll stop glamourising modelling to young people but this should not be done by an agency or association, this should be done by the PARENTS.
 
How would the parents stop this advert? :shrug:
With all the will in the world, its not easy for a parent to compete with a multi million pound advertising campaign.
 
Marcel said:
How would the parents stop this advert? :shrug:
With all the will in the world, its not easy for a parent to compete with a multi million pound advertising campaign.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean that parents should stop the advert. Parents should stop their children trying to become 'size 0' and become what is portrayed in the adverts.

We are humans. We have free will, just because we see something doesn't immediately make us do it.

It's like gun crime, they blame some of it on computer games. I don't remember Lemmings making children jump off cliffs.
 
awp said:
age doesn't matter it's perception of age that counts.
Click to expand...

so by that standard it would be ok to photograph a nude 14 year old providing she looks old enough.

Seriously though, im not having a dig, but it is the true age thats most important, theres no law against looking young, i imagine most people would like to look younger than they are.
 
I agree we parents have the ultimate responsibility to instill values and teach our children what is right, wrong, acceptable, unacceptable.

However, I believe that society has a moral responsibility as a whole, and the corporate entities are a part of that society.
I don't believe anything should be 'fair game' just because it's not illegal.

If they can afford to literally plaster their exposure in our childrens faces then with that should come a responsibility IMO.
 
Jaffster said:
I didn't mean that parents should stop the advert. Parents should stop their children trying to become 'size 0' and become what is portrayed in the adverts.
Click to expand...

Society has a large part to play in this though. I'll instill as many values, and take complete responsibility for my children, but I can't keep her in a box. Its easy to say stop them trying to become 'size 0' (your example) but not so easy to do when they're exposed to it day in day out

Hugh
 
Marcel said:
I agree we parents have the ultimate responsibility to instill values and teach our children what is right, wrong, acceptable, unacceptable.

However, I believe that society has a moral responsibility as a whole, and the corporate entities are a part of that society.
I don't believe anything should be 'fair game' just because it's not illegal.

If they can afford to literally plaster their exposure in our childrens faces then with that should come a responsibility IMO.
Click to expand...

Who decides what values society as a whole encourages, though? Nobody would disagree with your position, it's common sense; the contentious issue is precisely what values should be discouraged.

A conservative and religious person might hold the view that all models that show this amount of flesh—regardless of their age—should be banned or at least discouraged, and would lament the difficulties of trying to stop their children from seeing such adverts. Why is their position any different to yours? How about if they thought that women shouldn't be allowed in adverts at all?

Everyone thinks their own position is reasonable, and that censorship of views not covered by their own morality is therefore reasonable too. Why do your views trump others', though?
 
Monkey said:
Seriously though, im not having a dig, but it is the true age thats most important, theres no law against looking young, i imagine most people would like to look younger than they are.
Click to expand...

A slightly diverse line... but my 37 year old girlfriend got ID'ed in Sainsburys for looking under 25 when buying some wine last week - made her day!
 
Gordon Scott said:
A slightly diverse line... but my 37 year old girlfriend got ID'ed in Sainsburys for looking under 25 when buying some wine last week - made her day!
Click to expand...

But that is a stunning example... she has PROOVED that she is over 25 and so it is LEGAL. She'd be annoyed that if after PROOVING that she was over 25 they still wouldn't serve her because she looked too young.

Wine is bad for you? Why doesn't it apply here?

Ok, maybe it's not the best example but it shows that the 'ageism' that they're casting on the modelling world isn't really fair.
 
Using the argument she looks under 18 I hope the ASA is going to pull all the St Trinians films off the market, after all they show "young" girls dressed in somewhat dodgy school uniforms.
This countries gone potty, my children can watch graphic violence on film and TV, and it seems video games can now be sold to anyone of any age (they screwed up the law) videos that were once banned are shown on the horror channel, but adults in bars (where the mags given away) cant see a grown women partly dressed.
3 tickets out of the madness please.
 
swanseamale47 said:
Using the argument she looks under 18 I hope the ASA is going to pull all the St Trinians films off the market, after all they show "young" girls dressed in somewhat dodgy school uniforms.
Click to expand...

I just hope they're going to pull them because they're rubbish :lol:

I don't see this as cut and dried. If they are purposefully trying to make someone look like a schooolgirl, and making an effort for her to look younger than she is than I can certainly see the case against letting them do so.

L
 
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...

Its the next three images that were underneath that were the problem. I agree with them being pulled. but as I'm 40 witha 16 year old daughter, she does look underage. I'm sure a 24 year old would think she looked 18 or maybe 20. What can you do:shrug:
 
robmiller said:
Who decides what values society as a whole encourages, though? Nobody would disagree with your position, it's common sense; the contentious issue is precisely what values should be discouraged.

A conservative and religious person might hold the view that all models that show this amount of flesh—regardless of their age—should be banned or at least discouraged, and would lament the difficulties of trying to stop their children from seeing such adverts. Why is their position any different to yours? How about if they thought that women shouldn't be allowed in adverts at all?

Everyone thinks their own position is reasonable, and that censorship of views not covered by their own morality is therefore reasonable too. Why do your views trump others', though?
Click to expand...

So by reading this your view is that potraying females to look under 18 in a sexual manner is fine?:gag:
 
hiddybiddy said:
So by reading this your view is that potraying females to look under 18 in a sexual manner is fine?:gag:
Click to expand...

That isn't what he said is it. Are you spoiling for a fight? I think we've had enough of that rounf these parts of late.:nono:
 
He wasn't saying that at all, he was merely saying that who decides what gets allowed or disallowed within society.

50 years ago, you could argue it was the church. They were the moral authority within society and with us being a religion led populous, they had the 'controlling hand'.
Now with religion taking a back seat, and the boom of a multicultural society....where does that moral compass come from now?
 
I must be getting old :'(

I think the advertising ploy has worked well in this instance, more people are talking about the ad now it's banned than when it was produced.

FWIW I think they have deliberately made her look younger (don't think she looks under 16 though??) in the last couple of pics and agree with the ban.....................told you I was getting old.
 
Marcel said:
Now with religion taking a back seat, and the boom of a multicultural society....where does that moral compass come from now?
Click to expand...

In the abscense of leadership from the CoE you could argue that it should come from the Governemnt (I'm not suggesting we need any more interference from them just some good examples and some strong leadership both of which I feel are sadly lacking) the problem is they're amongst the biggest bunch of misfits in the country so who would be their moral compass?
 
boyfalldown said:
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
Click to expand...

That is pretty spot on
 
The same thing happened over here with a TV advert for Original Source shower gel. There were complaints that the nude model in the advert looked underage so it was duly pulled. Story

I think maybe a compromise could have been reached in the case of the American Apparel ad. The first 3 images in the series i think are totally acceptable and model looks old enough, however the last 3 are pushing the boundaries a little bit
 
Kev M said:
That isn't what he said is it. Are you spoiling for a fight? I think we've had enough of that rounf these parts of late.:nono:
Click to expand...

NOt spoiling for a fight but your avtar is:lol:

Thats the second time i've missed the point in as many week. His first sentence covers it all, but as far as one point trumping another. Mainstreem common sense should trump it all. Extreme points of view whatever they are should be respected but I think its the silent minority of mr and mrs normal that gets overlooked. MP's are the wierdest bunch of elitists going and the moral compass of the CoE lacks credibility. don't know why - old fashioned maybe. Just look at who goes to church nowadays, although i said the odd prayer when I was in the first gulf war(hypocrite i know). Modern cultures evolve and soon become the norm. Darwin was right eh?

As for the pictures that started this all, I think she looks under 18 and the pictures are sexually provocative. Whoever pulled them did the right thing. BUT
Does your p**** fear this kind of intervention, no because they are satisfying their perverted needs anyway(it's in the news every day) us normal folk who can make up our own minds would no doubt be 50/50 about its content. Someone has to make a decision and they did. As the meerkat says 'simples'
 
John.D said:
Yeah, she definately looks younger in the later shots.
Click to expand...

I was about to be ****y about this too, cause I only saw the first three shots, but have to agree that the latter three do make her look rather young. Also the choice of colour post production makes it look like some 70's porn. I think the ASA probably did the right thing here.
 
Utter tosh, she looks well over 20!!

Having said that this has to be playing right into the hands of american apparel!!
 
It's a Russian model named Zippora Seven. there are loads of pics of her on the web where she looks much older and more sophisticated and some where she doesn't so I can see why it was pulled.

Zippora%20Seven.jpg
 
NSFW NSFW *** Warning, the link doesn't contain any nudity, but its quite sexually explicit so don't click it in work, or anywhere near children or your grandmother *** NSFW NSFW

I think adverts such as this prove why corporations simply cannot be trusted to play nice within society unregulated, and proves that they can't be trusted to be left alone to exercise common sense and morality.

NSFW NSFW *** Warning, the link doesn't contain any nudity, but its quite sexually explicit so don't click it in work, or anywhere near children or your grandmother *** NSFW NSFW
 
Marcel said:
NSFW NSFW *** Warning, the link doesn't contain any nudity, but its quite sexually explicit so don't click it in work, or anywhere near children or your grandmother *** NSFW NSFW

I think adverts such as this prove why corporations simply cannot be trusted to play nice within society unregulated, and proves that they can't be trusted to be left alone to exercise common sense and morality.

NSFW NSFW *** Warning, the link doesn't contain any nudity, but its quite sexually explicit so don't click it in work, or anywhere near children or your grandmother *** NSFW NSFW
Click to expand...

you git now i have tea on my screen...
 
can i please point your attention towards this? this shows how makeup, photographers direction and even lighting or pose can age a girl older or younger.

one photographer, ONE MODEL! one makeup artist

the model is 20 years old but through the photographers direction and the makeup artists talent this model appears to be going from 10 years old to 20


ten years old:
vogue-paris-10.jpg


twenty years old:
vogue-paris-20.jpg


thirty years old
vogue-paris-30.jpg


forty years old
vogue-paris-40.jpg


fifty years old
vogue-paris-50.jpg


sixty years old
vogue-paris-60.jpg
 
If all of those who say they are right surely this should be banned as well.
sttrinians5BIG1004_468x361.jpg

Yet millions of dads took their daughters to see this, no doubt a lot of them rubbing their hands with glee. If she is old enough, she is old enough. End of story. No she might look this etc. Katie Price is much worse for children. I work in a school and have had several 13 year old year girls saying they want to be a glamour model like Jordan, and they look up to her as a hero. Surely that is way more scary than an advert with a legal age model.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top