Originally posted as part of the February 2009 issue.
The Trend Is Sex
But That’s Not Necessarily a Bad Thing
Warning: Some pictures on this page are less innocent than the one pictured above.
If there is anything the year in fashion advertising has proven so far, it is that the old adage “sex sells” undoubtedly holds true.
Calvin Klein Jeans followed up their controversial, banned-for-TV Secret Obsession advertisement – featuring a writhing, naked Eva Mendes – with an equally scandalous montage of eight up-and-coming models with nothing on but sweat and blue jeans in their spring-summer campaign which premiered last month but was immediately censored for American viewers.
In addition, this year promises English it-girl Daisy Lowe sprawling for Marc by Marc Jacobs – à la CK’s Eva Mendes – in the February issue of Teen Vogue and Scarlett Johansson as the face of Dolce & Gabbana Cosmetics styled in a white bustiere and Marilyn Monroe coiffure.
Although often studied for its objectification of women and men – which is bad – fashion advertising may be stimulating more than just the economy this year. While fashion forecasters have predicted that sexuality may play a bigger role in getting customers invested in the regressive American economy this year, sex in fashion has already started doing more than just bringing home the bacon: it is breaking down heteronormativity in modern American culture.
After a year marred by the passing of California’s Proposition 8, the LGBT community may yet find a reliable alternative for progress in the fashion world. American Apparel – a company renowned for its simplistic designs and ironically European approach to sexual advertising, including the bare-chested promotion of their Zipper-Front Bodysuits last month – stood fast in their support of the LGBT community when confronted with a legal situation earlier this year.
On January 13, mother Trina Campbell and her 13-year-old daughter were startled to find an unwrapped copy of BUTT magazine in the backpack of a mannequin in a window display and shocked at what they found pictured within. American Apparel was quick to defend the magazine, however, calling it “a respected publication of art, fashion, and gay culture.”
Having worked with BUTT magazine before – including their first gay advertisement “Bottoms… and Tops” a year ago – American Apparel continues to support the Dutch publication in all of their stores nationwide despite critics advising the opposite. Founder and CEO Dov Charney even maintains a public letter to his mother promoting the magazine on the American Apparel website:
Dear Mom:
BUTT is an important art magazine that I support. No question, that it is going to offend people and it is my feeling that that is the nature of provocative art. At times, to make progress, you end up offending people. And people were offended by many things I have done over the years. But I did what I felt was right, especially from an art and creative point of view.
We are going somewhere with what we are doing, and no one is required to buy it. Many people have told me how much they appreciate our carrying the magazine. It has sold out in some stores.
Also, because some moralistic anti-gay forces opposed our carrying it within our company, I am committed to having it. I wanted our company to be open enough to accommodate this kind of magazine, and if I don’t set the precedent now, it could become too late to get that done later.
We are also facing customs obstacles in Asia which I am committed to overcoming, on civil libertarian grounds.
Sexual freedom, art, and photography are important to me and I am standing firm on my support for BUTT.
Dov
Perhaps as the LGBT community – and no doubt American society as a whole – works to move past regression in 2008 towards a brighter future in 2009 and beyond, they can take a page from Charney’s book to help write their own.
Comment [3]
The objectification of women and men is bad, but homosexuality isn’t? How is the former worse than the other? The breaking down of heteronormativity is a good thing?
While the objectification of women and men and the marginalization of homosexuals are both problems, I would not consider one especially worse or better than the other. My point was merely to illuminate that an institution (sex advertising) – although often criticized as negative to society – may actually be helping society in at least one aspect: the demarginalization of homosexuals.
As for your last question, it is more of an emphasis on the American ideal of equality called into question with the topic of homosexuality: should a group be marginalized because of their sexual orientation or is it their right as Americans to express their identity as such? Just as the Civil Rights Movement fought for race-based equality and Women’s Suffrage for gender-based equality, my article obviously argues the latter, but – as an American as well – it is your right to disagree.
Hopefully this answers some of your questions. Thanks for the post!
— Ethan Millspaugh · Mar 25, 06:44 PM · #