Student Opinion Articles

Nudity in Ads: artistic or obscene?

Clare Gellene, 12^th Grade

In response to the recent local reaction to the infamous Abercrombie and Fitch advertisements,  and after doing a little bit of research, which consisted of getting onto the Abercrombie and Fitch website to see if I could view the condemned ads, I was enlightened with my own thoughts on the subject, though I expected a more immodest display than that of the seemingly accidental view of one model’s “derriere crevice.” In order to give a full explanation of my interpretation of the matter, however, I must “flashback” to middle school, when my dad was fortunate enough to get stationed in Germany.

  My sister and I were 10 and 12 years old, respectively, and I remember rounding a corner in a subway station in Budapest, Hungary and running headlong into a life-sized ad for women’s “undergarments,” where all she was wearing was the lower half of the undergarments, leaving her top-half exposed for the whole world to see. We of course ran screaming from the station, shocked and scarred for life. My embarrassment, however, did not end there. In Bologna, Italy, my parents thought it was hysterically funny to make my sister and me pose in front of a fountain of mermaids where certain parts on the mermaid’s chest areas were squirting water, and then proceed to take several pictures. These traumatic childhood events allow me to relate to the Abercrombie and Fitch incident, all except for one small difference: I was twelve years old. That’s what early adolescents do best, get  embarrassed about anything and everything having to do with the human body.

   As I near adulthood at 17 years old, I have matured enough to be able to appreciate art, such as Michelangelo’s nude sculpture of David. Yes, it is true that you can see his “man parts,” but you can hardly stand from having your breath taken away at the awesome attention to overall detail. Every muscle is carved out perfectly, and even little things that are hardly noticeable in everyday life such as the veins in his hands and tendons in his legs were painstakingly sculpted out of stone. The sheer genius of Michelangelo absolutely leaves you speechless, and yet to this day, though I witnessed it when I was the same age as I was in Budapest, it is the intricate details that I remember, not the exposure of those parts. 

I view the Abercrombie and Fitch advertisements not as indecent or scandalous, but as artwork in themselves. Due to the prominence of photography and the many artistic decisions that accompany it, today’s major art medium is not sculpting out of marble as it was hundreds of years ago. In my opinion, the photographs in the Abercrombie and Fitch store are not “obscene materials” as was originally charged by the Virginia Beach Police, but rather pieces of art. I understand that both beauty and perversion are in the eye of the beholder, and in this case I see only beauty.

Megan Keithley, 12^th Grade

When it comes to things such as Victoria’s Secret advertising, I realize that fully-clothed models do not gain as much attention and therefore revenue. What they are selling is a 30-second clip of soft pornography.I understand that fully-clothed models cannot accurately display the garments, so I don’t think nudity is the real problem. The problem is the provocative motions and facial expressions. What they are selling is a 30-second clip of soft pornography, not underwear. It is not necessary and they are desensitizing us as a culture to the nature of sexuality in general.

Ariah Mousavizadegan, 12^th Grade

So I feel that nudity is not a big deal in advertising. To an extent it’s not a big deal, but as soon as you get into things extremely explicit it could pose a problem. Over Thanksgiving break I went to England with some other buddies. While we were browsing through some newspapers, we saw a huge picture of a topless girl advertising the E.P.L. (English Premier Lounge). Our country is too soft and censored. It is really not that big of a deal. The human body is a natural and beautiful thing and covering it up is appropriate to one extent, but our society has taken it another whole ten yards. Eric Stortz agrees with everything I said.

Eric Wilmer, 12^th Grade

The first morning Channel One aired the removal of Abercrombie and Fitch ads in Lynnhaven Mall, Calculus I students were shocked. These ads are pictures of teens in jeans running through a field, nothing more than would be seen on the beach itself.

The main problem is in the interpretation of the ordinance itself: “It is unlawful for any person to knowingly display for commercial purposes in a manner where juveniles may examine ... any picture, photograph ... which is harmful to juveniles.”

The police officer that issued this citation was “overreacting” according to VA Beach’s mayor.

The intent of the ordinance is noble, but what constitutes offensive material is highly subjective. This should not be taken as a litmus test of American tolerance. There have been progressive strides in this subject since the early twentieth century. Let’s not forget your grandfather’s one piece bathing suit. Anything more revealing than this was taboo.  If this event was really a reaction to increasing public exposure, this is not the best place to focus it. Juveniles have much more access to nudity in low gas-station magazine racks and even in Barnes and Noble. Surely these are more harmful to children than teens running through a field in jeans. If turning back the tide of public nudity is a concern, the first step would be moving “Playboy” to a higher rack, not taking out an ad for jeans.

Katie Francis, 12^th Grade

As I walk through the mall, I always laugh at Abercrombie and Fitch when I pass by because it is always so dark in the store that people have to bring the clothing items to the spotlights to be able to see what it is they are holding. I never find myself walking inside that store because shopping should just not be that hard. One Saturday, as always, I found myself heading down the wing of the mall where that particular store is located. By habit, I glanced at the store displays. Instead of noticing the light-sucking darkness, it was the enormous ad at the front of the store that really caught my eye. My first thought was that the models were super hot, but as I looked closer, I noticed that one of the models was showing a little more skin than I was used to seeing in an advertisement. At first I was a little confused on why there were half-naked models modeling clothes. It didn’t seem to make sense to me. I didn’t linger long on that thought, though, and I had soon forgotten about the later offensive ad.

            On taking a stand on whether nudity is acceptable in advertising, I believe that companies should not have to resort to such methods to attempt to sell their products. Stores like Abercrombie and Fitch that sell clothes should do just that: sell clothes, not their model’s bodies. Even Victoria’s Secret, who by the nature of their products, are close to having ads inappropriate for the public. But Victoria’s Secret has been successful in keeping their ads tasteful when campaigning their lingerie. Alcohol and cigarette ads follow the same idea of using women in their undergarments, but even companies such as Budweiser and Camel Cigarettes do not go as far as to show more skin than society deems acceptable. But how much skin is too much? As everyone has learned from Abercrombie and Fitch’s mistake, even a little “rearness” is too much for many.