American Apparel: Can Nudity Advertise Clothing?

It is clear to see that in the world of advertising, sex is everywhere you look. Perfume advertisements with half naked men and women, Calvin Klein adverts with perfectly sculpted (and heavily photoshopped) men in just their underwear. Even shampoo advertisers felt the need to have a 30-second long clip of Nicole Sherzinger screaming provocatively in an airplane toilet as one of their television commercials. However, the most notorious, scandalous and *sexist* of them all is undeniably American Apparel. Public billboards of completely naked women (or girls, as they seem to be most of the time) are displayed with the signature logo "that's American Apparel", causing outrage amongst feminists, parents and the general public alike. So this leads me onto the question - American Apparel, can nudity advertise clothing? 

Not only do adverts such as these make women even more prone to sexual assault - notice the graffiti "Gee, I wonder why women get raped" on the billboard - but is publicly displaying a photograph of a naked woman completely necessary when advertising clothing? Surely to broadcast to the masses how fantastic your product is and how they should buy it, your advertisements should show the models you've hired actually wearing it? And to be brutally honest, I can safely say I don't know many girls who walk around wearing nothing but a pair of socks, even if they are as unrealistically perfect as the AA girls are.

Dov Charney, CEO of American Apparel has been the subject of numerous sexual assault accusations since the store first opened in 1998. Not only does he objectify the girls he uses on his commercials, he has physically assaulted some of them too. A man like this should not be left in charge of a business which caters to such a substantial number of young girls. Especially when he so publicly displays his opinions towards women and how men should refer to them. 

American Apparel seem to advertise a lot more than just their clothing, they advertise the oversexualised stigma attached to it. Many people - feminist or not - would agree with me when I say that the methods AA use cause more harm, and controversy, than good. Perhaps it's to shock people into purchasing their products (after all, any publicity is good publicity, right?) or perhaps customers are attracted to the thought of being 'sexy' and 'empowered' like the girls they see on the adverts. But whatever it is, is the nudity and obvious objectification necessary? 

The fact that the same shirt has been advertised in two completely different ways - the male version as how your average high street brand would display their product, and with the female version  encouraging that it is necessary and acceptable for the girl's shirt to be wide open - it is blatant that in the eyes of American Apparel, the men take control. The advertisement in which the man is standing up and pushing an unseen girl's legs open is used to advertise what I'm guessing is the man's suit, as well as the idea that with that suit you will be mimicking not only his clothing but his actions. I'm not saying people are idiotic enough to believe that as soon as they buy a product from American Apparel they will become irresistible to the opposite sex, but if you were given the opportunity to be perfect would you take it? 

To cut a long story short, American Apparel objectifies women, glorifies men and preys on innocent members of the general public who they con into thinking that this is acceptable. Open legs should never be a metaphor for an open shop. Nudity is not only pointless when trying to advertise clothing (naked is the polar opposite of clothed, who thought that would be a good idea?) but it is unnecessary, unwarranted and unwanted by most. Not everyone wishes to see a billboard displaying a naked girl everytime they pass a certain area, so - American Apparel, I don't know about other people, but nudity cannot advertise clothing to me.