Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« Bareback Mountain | Slogdance 5 - Back to Main Str... »

Saturday, January 21, 2006

Porn Fantasy

Posted by on January 21 at 17:59 PM

There are ’70s Penthouse covers on display in the women’s section of American Apparel on Broadway.

It’s presented as a pop-art exhibit, and so, the series of magazine covers is accompanied by a written statement that waxes nostalgic about the “natural” look of “70s and 80s” porn when “curves” and “body hair” and “blemishes” and “stretch marks” were hallmarks.

What a bunch of revisionist bull shit.

Yes, there was half a second in the early early early 70s when a “natural” look was in (meaning big bush—but certainly not blemishes). But ’70s sex symbols were air-brushed skinny blondes with manicured bushes and big tits, just like today. Yes, there’s something about the depressed ’70s that seems dirty and slutty and dark and “real,” but let’s stop pretending that the sex industry was celebrating normal bods. Idealized disco sexiness in the ’70s was exactly the same as sex industry sexiness today: skinny, blonde, busty, and airbrushed. The hairstyles and lip gloss were a little different, but that’s about it.

Certainly, porn circa 2006 stars shaved women and/or super-trimmed women, but the ’70s models were hardly Woodstock hippies. They were manicured and airbrushed. (70s porn films may have been more “real,” but that’s because the industry was much more underground, and so, there wasn’t as much money, and so, production values were low and fly-by-night.)

If American Apparel is talking about Hustler…Well, Hustler was more graphic (more spread legs), but it did not promote “natural” women. And, if American apparel is talking about Hustler, than they should be displaying Hustler, instead of Penthouse.

Even more absurd: American Apparel’s attempt to include the ’80s in its statement. The ’80s?? The ’80s?? There couldn’t be a more plastic, unnatural time than the stilted ’80s. The ’80s were leather, barbie doll new wave, big tits, and once again: skinny skinny skinny. The ’80s were not a time when “natural” anything was on the menu.


CommentsRSS icon

The AA in the U-district has (or had) the same porn on the walls the one time I went. I wish I would have known that before I brought my kids in there to do some gift shopping. Man, did I have some explaining to do...

But I hear you on the revisionism. Weird that they're saluting porn, isn't it? It's like they're saying, "Back in my day when porn was good..." I don't think under any circumstance porn can be pointed to as a POSITIVE image booster, ya know?

hmm..a 'het porn' post immediately after a 'gay porn' post, just a coincidence?

I have sudden urge to shop at American Apparel…

American Apparel doesn't farm their labor out to genocidal military dictatorships, they make their stuff here. You can't say that about very many companies. I wouldn't go to an AA store looking for a porn history lesson or any sort of insights into our culture for that matter. A clothes store is a fucking clothes store. That said, I do agree that the porn industry was never about "real" or "natural" and to try to wax nostalgic in that sense is pretty dumb. I really think their marketing department just follows the lead of their pervy owner, who wants to sex it up. I don't think American Apparels will be popping up in suburbia or GOP country anytime soon.

Josh is losing his hair.



Josh as social critic? He should get back to ankle-biting members of the city council.


At American Apparel, you don't get to pick the cut. You only get to pick the color.

All in the name of labor rights and nationalism.

American Apparel is also the target of sexual harassment suits. I'm pro-porn, but the owner of that place, if the suits are to be believed even a little, is a real sleaze.

I like the porn covers in AA. Who cares if they try to rationalize it with a bunch of BS? It's like when there used to be "sociology" books about homosexuals but, in actuality, the book were just gay porn. Same thing for AA's porn museum. Still they look great and they give the boring tshirt store a little life.

Their ridiculous revisionism per fetishism (and the public's desire to capitulate to its marketing devices) is what my boyfriend calls "American Apparel Guilt Trippin'."

My girlfriend went into AA once because the photos in the ads were not all skinny model girls but had some real curves and personality to them. Couldn't be a bad store if they are trying to shift standards of beauty, right?

But she was turned off by two things inside: the porn covers, that, with the skinny nude bodies single handedly cancelled the good message of the other ads (not to mention, this was in the women's floor - Udistrict - so they are not just trying to attract men, but to tell the women who shop there something); and the fact that the size of the clothes were, in the typical fashion, totally unrealistic, with a "large" tank top, e.g., bearing no corresondence to to the reality of an average sized woman. Seems like they could be trying a little harder... but why should we expect much from a chain like this, these days?

The large sizes are for larger-yet-still-healthy body types. Not the rotund.

This conversation would be far more interesting and, we suspect, worthwhile if someone transcribed exactly what the written statement says.

Does Terry Richardson do the photography for AA? The ads sure look like his stuff.

No one will read this I'm sure, but...Just to second Josh, and lest anyone think otherwise, in the 70s they loved skinny skinny skinny women. That was the era of Karen Carpenter and her skullface not drawing a single comment. If anyone has any doubts, there was a decent 70s thriller called "Eyes of Laura Mars" (okay, it's probably a bit cheesy but I thought it was good 25 years ago, when I was 10) which has to do with a fashion photographer...just check out the photo shoot scenes and check out the models. They are so thin you think they're going to die at any moment. (The reason I remember this so clearly is because my feminist older sister made a point of drawing my attention to them when we were watching it on network TV one evening. I probably would never have noticed otherwise).

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).