“Apparently, sex doesn’t always sell”
From what I see on social media and from what I hear from various circles, Abercrombie and Fitchs’ new policy seems to lay off several girls. So you see, sex does sell. It’s just, there’s always controversy that is going to surround it – and I’m one of those who would initiate it as well. While I would commend A&F’s policy, I fail to recognize the difference between stripping down male models to their bare chest only on billboards in order to advertise, versus Victoria Secrets’ excessive emphasis on practically naked girls in campaigns, advertisements and in part of various marketing strategies. Why was the controversy that surrounded A&F taken ever so seriously and why was the store policy completely revamped, versus debate on the sexual objectification of women is taken to just be another group of voices in a crowded cafeteria with no real power? I think a flat out answer would be that it’s accepted by society today to strip women down to a pieces of cloth, to give them shapes and sizes and be plastered on every single billboard down the highway – but the case with men, it’s automatically condemned and even leads to customers feeling offended to an extent where action must be taken. What about all the plus-size girls/”a class” of feminists/the girls who were ruined of their self esteem due to the over objectification of women and classifying them into categories of shapes? Is action EVER going to be taken? I find it EXTREMELY hard to believe that our society will take great action so as to change Victorias’ policy completely.
“…Abercrombie & Fitch, (which) has long been notorious for shamelessly using half-naked male models on billboards and shopping bags and as live props in front of stores to lure in customers.”
Once again, I fail to see a difference.
Granted, that VS does not hold models in their shop to serve as sales assistants. But as commented before, I think their entire use of “Victoria’s Secret Angels“, using only super skinny women to give girls a picture of the heavenly body, is far more influential in the minds of young teenagers. I see it myself. Even the girls I know who appear to most as beautiful, fit or in words of boys, “hot”, scroll down the feeds of these angels or watch their shows, with the dire need to thin down. So, I’m pretty sure it’s as influential or perhaps, even greater. But as mentioned, society chooses to null out this influence to just debate that doesn’t seem to affect the company’s popularity or policy to any extent.
“But starting on Friday, the retailer announced that such flashes of abs, pectoral muscles and sculpted flesh would no longer be welcome in their stores. The Ohio-based brand stated that it would stop using sexualized marketing in materials such as in-store photos, gift cards and shopping bags for both Abercrombie & Fitch and Hollister, effective immediately.”
Sexualized marketing (which by the way, includes shirtless men, not 3/4th naked girls) on gift cards being paid more attention than years and years of controversy surrounded around the labeling of women body type? Now, I’m not being the kind of feminist or the kind of person who’s trying to downplay what A&F is doing, no. Like stated, I think what they’re doing is going to positively influence or not negatively affect an entire generation of boys. But what about the other side? What about the girls? If action is being taken to take away the image of body types from the minds of young boys, what about doing the same for the girls? No, but if done, opposite to A&F’s predicted rising sales, Victoria’s Secret is probably going to lose out on their popularity for ruining their self created definition of ‘sexy’.
Because that’s just how society apparently works now.