Another A&F controversy..

A quote from CEO of Abercrombie and Fitch, Mike Jeffries on the Abercrombie website reads.. "Diversity and inclusion are key to our organisation's success." Though this clearly is not the case as the company has been slammed in recent weeks by consumers, activists and the media as Jeffries has announced the stores will stop selling clothing for larger women. He has also said "A lot of people don't belong[in our clothes], and they can't belong." "Are we exclusionary? Absolutely."

The store is known for its American, preppy look clothing and for it's staff which are usually scouted based purely on their looks, girls in the store are pretty and slim, and boys usually muscular and attractive. According to Jeffries, the reason behind this is because good-looking people attract other good looking people and the brand "Wants to market to cool, good looking people."

The company has had many controversial stories in the press including being accused of shifting most of their non-white employees off the shop floor. In 2009 the company was hit with a lawsuit in the U.K after allegedly forcing a 22 year old employee to work in a stock room away from customers, as she had a prosthetic arm. They have faced backlash from Taylor Swift fans who took offence when a t-shirt read "More boyfriends than T.S." A reference to the singers love life, after threats and complaints from fans, the store pulled the shirt. They had to recall a number of mens t shirts after Asian American groups boycotted the company due to distasteful, Asian stereotypes on the t-shirts.

 Blogger Jes Baker, who is a size 22 hit back and the company with black and white photos of her in the style of A+F campaigns, "I challenge the separation of attractive and fat, and I assert that they are compatible regardless of what you believe." Baker wrote in a public letter to the CEO.

Im not sure why anyone would shop in Abercrombie and Fitch nowadays after it's narrow minded opinions. I think it's very irresponsible of the brand, as its aimed at the teenage market and these are not the kind of morals or opinions that should be aimed at young people.

In the past Abercrombie have paid cast members of Jersey Shore NOT to wear their clothing as they believed it was ruining their brand image, but I think it's clear to see the only thing damaging the brand is the brand itself!

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.