According to this, American Apparel, a clothing company, has mannequins in its storefront windows in New York - like many other stores do - only theirs are a bit different. Specifically, three mannequins have giant patches of untamed pubic hair peeking out from transparent white underwear. They also have nipples. BEHOLD:
That's not even just pubic hair. It looks like small animals have set up camp in those mannequins' panties. Seriously.
There's been some reaction to this display, as you might imagine, but American Apparel is defending the mannequins by saying they want to "start a conversation about society's concept of feminine beauty."
And whaddya know! Here I am, starting a conversation about it. I have fallen RIGHT INTO their trap.
The District Visual Manager of American Apparel, Dee Myles, said that the display is meant to "bring rawness and newness to a holiday thought of as a romantic Hallmark holiday. . . by exploiting the lust of Valentine's Day" and added that it's important to "have instances spark up curiosity and conversation about what we deem beautiful and sexy.'
I can't decide whether this is brilliant, because indeed I am conversing about the fact that the pubic hair on these mannequins looks like small animals, or whether this is just the dumbest attempt at manufactured controversy ever.
Given that American Apparel is the same company which featured a t-shirt with a drawing of a menstruating vagina on it a few months ago, I suspect they're just going for shock value here.
I will say, it's visually odd to see a mannequin with pubic hair. I mean, they don't have armpit hair, or leg hair, or really ANY other body hair, so obviously this isn't an attempt to be anatomically correct - it's simply a way to get a reaction from people.
I've reacted.
What's your take? Is this just a shameless ploy to get people to have a reason to talk about the company? Is it brilliant marketing? Does it, in fact, make you "curious" and compel you to want to have a "conversation about what you deem beautiful and sexy?"
Discuss.
That's not even just pubic hair. It looks like small animals have set up camp in those mannequins' panties. Seriously.
There's been some reaction to this display, as you might imagine, but American Apparel is defending the mannequins by saying they want to "start a conversation about society's concept of feminine beauty."
And whaddya know! Here I am, starting a conversation about it. I have fallen RIGHT INTO their trap.
The District Visual Manager of American Apparel, Dee Myles, said that the display is meant to "bring rawness and newness to a holiday thought of as a romantic Hallmark holiday. . . by exploiting the lust of Valentine's Day" and added that it's important to "have instances spark up curiosity and conversation about what we deem beautiful and sexy.'
I can't decide whether this is brilliant, because indeed I am conversing about the fact that the pubic hair on these mannequins looks like small animals, or whether this is just the dumbest attempt at manufactured controversy ever.
Given that American Apparel is the same company which featured a t-shirt with a drawing of a menstruating vagina on it a few months ago, I suspect they're just going for shock value here.
I will say, it's visually odd to see a mannequin with pubic hair. I mean, they don't have armpit hair, or leg hair, or really ANY other body hair, so obviously this isn't an attempt to be anatomically correct - it's simply a way to get a reaction from people.
I've reacted.
What's your take? Is this just a shameless ploy to get people to have a reason to talk about the company? Is it brilliant marketing? Does it, in fact, make you "curious" and compel you to want to have a "conversation about what you deem beautiful and sexy?"
Discuss.
