Is Online Clothing Advertising too Sexualised?
In an era where online retailers rule the fashion market, advertising is more influential than ever. Brands such as Boohoo, Missguided and Pretty Little Thing tend to use sexualised models and racy fashion trends and imagery in their advertisements. This therefore sparks a debate on whether we should celebrate and be empowered by our bodies or whether clothing advertisements have gone too far?
Pretty Little Thing — a popular clothing company — has recently had an advert banned for its objectification of women. This advert involved a model wearing latex chaps-style knickers with a bralette and other similar outfits, she strutted and posed provocatively to ‘You’re Gonna Love Me’ by Matt Goodman and Matthew Bento. The lyrics by the male vocalist say “if you don’t love me now you’re gonna love me tomorrow” which has sexual implications— suggesting after spending the night together their feelings will be different.
Is this combination of sexualised music and clothing too racy, or are we becoming too sensitive to a more expressive society? This discussion can be considered a grey area — as adverts such as this have breached industry codes and had been marked offensive by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). Others, however, have argued that it’s empowering to women, as her sass and confidence highlight her freedom of expression. This evokes questions regarding historic women’s oppression, and whether they should be able to reclaim their bodies and choose if they want to celebrate their sexuality.
Boohoo, a sister company of Pretty Little Thing had also been branded “socially irresponsible” by ASA, due to its implications of sexual harassment with the email newsletter which said “Send nudes. Set the tone with new season hues”. This reference to a potentially harmful trend which involves sending explicit photos, is dangerous regarding Boohoo’s young age demographic, and is normalising such actions. Boohoo insisted that this online newsletter had been sent to all accounts with a minimum age of 18, and it wasn't their intention to promote this to a young audience. However, this is dangerous considering how easy it is to create a Boohoo account and to lie about your age online.
Other clothing brands such as Missguided have also been under fire in summer 2019 due to the nature of their advertisements. With ASA removing their advert which was produced alongside Love Island, involving a group of models posing on the beach in swimwear. Missguided released a statement insisting that the clothing worn by models was “relevant, necessary and unavoidable” regarding the contextual nature of the programme. ASA disagreed with the reasoning and responded saying, “we considered that some viewers who enjoyed the programme would nevertheless be seriously offended by advertising that presented women as sexual objects”.
A spokesperson from Missguided reiterated that the “website reflects what appeals to the young women who love to buy from us — sassy, empowered, unafraid of what others think”. Which poses the question — are these advertisements beneficial and promote female empowerment, or do they display women as sexual objects, and is it offensive? Or could it be that the aesthetic and nature of popular programmes such as Love Island are desensitising young viewers making skin exposure the norm?
Are programmes such as Love Island desensitising us?
In an effort to understand whether online advertisements were overly sexualised I surveyed a range of people regarding their opinions on the matter. It has been argued that we are ultimately becoming desensitised by advertisements of this nature due to TV shows such as Love Island — where it’s the norm to watch contestants in swimwear all day.
I wasn’t surprised by the constant reference to Love Island, as the summer (and now winter) show displays men and women in their tiny swimwear, with their perfectly toned physiques. Due to constantly seeing their bodies, we therefore become desensitised without even realising it? Their looks appear normal, even though their lifestyle is unattainable to most, who can’t afford cosmetic surgery, a nutritionist and/or a personal trainer. Their aesthetic can be detrimental to young viewers, as they may believe this is a ‘one size’ type of beauty — when beauty truly comes in every shape and size.
It was alarming discussing with people how advertisements don’t just sexualise women but also men. It highlights how the culture of Love Island promotes the ‘perfect’ body but doesn't consider body diversity. The toned abs the men have are truly difficult to maintain, it evokes questions such as why are plus size men far less publicised than plus size women? A male student (20) I had surveyed highlighted that the only place he sees male body diversity is on Jacamo adverts, and in the plus-size range on ASOS Men.
By sexualising both men and women on shows like Love Island, and being regularly exposed to naked bodies on programmes such as Channel 4’s Naked Attraction, nudity is becoming the norm. It therefore naturally has an impact on advertisements, and how a younger audience would become used to them.
Maybe clothing advertisements are too sexualised… but surely they are feeding off a change in culture ruled by shows such as Love Island. Is there really an issue with that kind of imagery that Boohoo, Missguided and Pretty Little Thing convey? It’s 2020 and surely if people CHOOSE to buy such fashion from these retailers and they feel beautiful and empowered, that’s what truly matters? These websites clearly make a lot of money and are highly successful, they know what sells! There is a significant debate regarding the appropriateness of the adverts discussed; and it is important to promote and educate the young audiences about healthy body image and self-love. So, ask yourself are we as a society to blame, or are company’s benefiting from our desire for sexualised adverts and TV?
