Is sexualisation in fashion necessary?

Over sexualised imagery is something frequently seen in the world of fashion, but is it really necessary?

U.S. retailer American Apparel has caused controversy in the past for it's overly sexual advertising campaigns that have caused offence and received a load of complaints for showing young women in vulnerable positions alongside tasteless strap lines. The highstreet store manage to get their ads banned three times in just four months, by using images that have been seen as offensive and demeaning to women. The provocative ad campaigns have also been slammed for having a "voyeuristic quality" which added to the impression that the women were vulnerable. The ads have concerned audiences, particularly for their choice of models which usually look younger than sixteen.American Apparel have said they are sensitive to gender and sexual issues, just as they have been to issues such as immigration and gay marriage. They also said that is was unfortunate that "some bloggers have confused the artistic photo shoot" which was intended to be shown next to a product and controversy erupted. 

A photographer who regularly uses overtly sexual themes in his work is Terry Richardson. The 47 year old photographer regularly uses young.attractive models and celebrities in his work and has been accused several times of sexual exploitation of his models. He frequently shoots models depicting sexual acts or in sexual positions in none or little clothing. Richardson or "uncle Terry" as he is creepily known, allegedly manipulates models into taking their clothes off, many feeling too young or intimidated by his status to say anything.Former model Jamie Peck has wrote about an experience she once had on a shoot with Terry Richardson where he insisted she called him Uncle Terry and unexpectedly stripped naked during the shoot. Model Charlotte Free has repeatedly stood up for Richardson, saying " Terry likes to do sexual stuff,thats his shit.Don't willingly blow the man and get all mad and ashamed later.." She even stated "..I hate it when girls say 'but he asked me to', you should have said no then, stupid bitch! Theres plenty of other girls waiting in line."  I find it disgusting that he can get away with this predatory manner in his working environment, it's simply shrugged off, because these young girls are models and its tolerated as fashion photography. It would be a completely different story in a different career path. Its a shame it's seen as acceptable as part of the fashion industry.

Another brand that has been seen regularly using sexualised imagery in fashion is Tom Ford. Tom Ford has used raunchy imagery to sell products including perfume, where the perfume bottle is seen held between a models oiled naked thighs and clutched between a woman's bare breasts, never one to shy away from controversial advertising, Ford is also the mastermind behind the Gucci campaign that saw a model with a Gucci 'G' shaved into her pubic hair.

\

So is sexualisation really necessary in fashion? To a certain extent, yes. As the saying goes sex sells and apparently any publicity is good publicity.Many brands simply use this type of imagery to gain recognition and earn money. Controversial images can be provocative,fun and exciting. I also think there is a certain point where its stops being cheeky and shocking, but borders on perverted, I think this type of imagery is not necessary in the industry or fashionable at all and can be irresponsible and vulgar.