Dov Charney has tried to put a unique spin to his brand by being sweatshop free and using the “un-airbrushed aesthetic” with their print campaigns. They seem to be very proud of their “raw” images, as airbrushing is seen as a controversial issue however they contradict it with pornographic, explicit content. Incorporating sex appeal, objectification and misogynistic/sexist elements into their advertising techniques, it can be seen as quite risky and often borderline pornographic, even being banned in a few countries. “Objectification is often used in a general way to describe disrespectful ideas about another person when those ideas involve emphasis on physical beauty (or lack thereof) or dismissal of the objectified person's full personality and attributes.” (Women’s history – feminism …show more content…
Brands (such as American Apparel) have used this to their advantage and often try to incorporate sexual elements their advertisement campaigns. Using the ‘sex sells’ technique, which connotes that sex, in fact, does sell due to the sexual shock value (Wikipedia & Ledesma). This technique is often used in advertising and the purpose of this is to attract attention. Going to extremes that are “shocking” is what seems to work for certain brands like American Apparel. Focusing more on selling the brand than their goods. The ‘subject’ in most of these campaigns in American Apparel is women, where they are often revealing parts of their bodies regardless of whether or not it has anything to do with the product that is being advertised. This alone is a huge problem that we are facing in society, where women’s bodies are being sexualised for advertisement purposes. Women bearing their bodies by choice are not issues but our society viewing it in a different, sexual, objectifying light is, and this will be discussed throughout the