i like the clothing mode-i mean line, the *clothes* are very nice..

You're an idiot Bo...but not for the reasons you realize. You actually think there is something new and unique about a flannel shirt that either a man or woman can wear...and an advertising showing men and women differently? In the past, it was just the woman grabbing the man's flannel from his closet...what is supposed to be the controversy here? And why you are an idiot - Because you think everything has to be a controversy...it's a shirt, Bo...and gender-biased advertising because different things appeal to men and women. Not a single new concept here.

The controversy? If you'd been to the page, you'd see men in a button-down shirt smoking a cigarette. Then you'd seen a woman with an unbuttoned shirt and NO PANTS. Sexy? Sure. Sexist? Yes. That's what those imaginary lines are for, krellybelly.

Bottom Line Bo is the Bottom Line - American Apparel is successful at selling clothing - which is what they do, so bravo to them. Women apparently enjoy buying their clothing off half-naked models - so why does it bother you?

In other words, if it were offensive, if it were sexist, then they wouldn't be selling clothes, because people would refuse to respond to the ads. I know...it's very sexist that the men are not allowed to go shirtless -- is that what is bothering you? Again...I'm not really sure what your issue is?

By the way...the blonde in the white panties...so hot...I almost bought a shirt.

Lol... they are advertising shirts. Of course the men can't go shirtless.

"if it were sexist, then they wouldn't be selling clothes"

That is an absurd statement.

Sure he could, he could hold the shirt out to a naked woman. I meant pantsless...you were upset that he wasn't pantsless.

By the way, Bo --- ever walk through a museum? Museums must just piss you the fuck off, with ancient statues of naked women and paintings of same, with a very relative few of men. Does it irritate the hell out of you to go to a museum? And no...saying "that is history" is not an adequate excuse....the museums do not *have* to put on display an old panting or statue - they choose to. In so doing are they promoting sexism, and the display of the naked female form? So honestly, don't you thinks museums are terrible places in that they actively promote and institutionalize sexism and the abuse of women? Particularly since museums have a choice and are often publicly funded....whereas an advertiser is responded to what actually sells - i.e. they get daily confirmation that their gorgeous half-naked women are getting exactly the response desired.

There are lots of statues of naked men.

Jamie -- what I meant is that is this were sexists (whatever that is...) then it would not be an effective means to sell clothing. If women found this soooooo offensive, they wouldn't buy clothes from them.

Because YOU call it sexist does not make it so.

How does this advertising cause descrimination against women? How does this advertising harm women in any way? For any way you say it harms women, someone else can find a way in which it promotes women.

After all...I don't think the women pictured were filmed at gun point...and I don't think the women buying the clothes are doing so at gun point.

So your false sense of outrage (which you are expressing as you flip back and forth from your porn....the irony is not lost on anyone...) is not really going to play here.

Jamie -- I said there are far fewer naked men in a museum.

Anyway...let's talk half naked men....you people seriously think men are not ever pictured in various states of undress in advertising? HAppens ALL the time. Beckham...I thought he played soccer...turns out his soul purpose in life is stripping for the camera to sell god knows what.....so is that sexist?

You guys are ridiculous. If you don't like the ads, don't buy the clothes. But the idiotic claim that this is "sexist" is just more blowhard LibTardism. I don't think you actually have *any* idea what sexism is/means.

So you think I don't abhor societies that held women down, obstructed religious freedom, quelled protest by force, restricted minority involvement in the country, and outlawed homosexuality on bases they didn't understand?

There aren't any of those today at all!

krellin 9000, everyone else 0

I just bought 20 shirts. What's the issue here?

BREAKING NEWS: Clothing companies use sex to sell clothes. More at 11.

The Krellin 9000 sounds like a robot Krellin from the future.

IF ALL THE CONSERVATIVES ARE GOING TO DIE OFF, THE ONLY WAY TO CONTINUE THE FIGHT TO RESTORE THE REPUBLIC IS TO.....


....BUILD THEM

KRELLIN 9000

COMING SOON TO A THEATER NEAR YOU

@abgemacht

naturalist fallacy right there mayne

naturalistic lol dunno what the naturalist fallacy would be... loving animals more than people?

@Thucy

I don't understand.

just because its normal, and it happens all the time, and has happened all the time, doesn't make it okay.

is does not make ought

Oh, I completely agree. But, Bo was making it seem like this was some radical new occurrence, but it really isn't.