When Fashion and the Law Collide: Salacious Obscenities

One visit to the American Apparel website, and it’s clear that they aren’t just selling T-shirts (that I so adore). Adolescent-looking models, with dear caught in headlights expressions, in “come hither” poses, are like, well, the retailers trademark. And nipples are often exposed.

Attitudes regarding nudity in Western cultures are often more critical than attitudes in non-western cultures. For example, in the U.S., exposure of female nipples is a criminal offense in many states and are not  allowed in public at all, while in the U.K., nudity may not be used to “harass, alarm or distress” according to the Public Order Act of 1986.

However, it was a British advertising watchdog that recently criticized the clothing company for the ad pictured below, after a reader complained to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) that the ad, which originally ran on the back cover of Vicemagazine in the U.K., but with a series of six images — instead of three — in which the model further disrobes from her flex fleece and where her nipple was partially exposed in one shot, was “offensive and inappropriate because the model appeared young and it could be seen to sexualize a child.” Reuters reports:

 American Apparel said that it did not think the partial nudity in the advertisement would cause widespread offense. It said that the model was 23 years old and did not look under 16, nor was she portrayed as a sex object. (because you look naturally sexy wearing a hoodie, right?)

The ASA disagreed, calling the images “provocative,” and adding,

“Because the ad could be seen to sexualize a model who appeared to be a child under the age of 16 years, we concluded that it was inappropriate and could cause serious offense to some readers.”

Sexual materials range between erotic art (which usually includes “classic nude forms” such as Michelangelo’s David statue) and the generally less respected commercial pornography. The differentiation between sexual materials is a particularly difficult one and a contentious First Amendment issue that has not fully been settled. Many cultures have produced laws to define what is considered to be “obscene”, and censorship is often used to try to suppress or control materials that are obscene under these definitions. The definition differs from culture to culture, between communities within a single culture, and also between individuals within those communities.

In the United States, the 1973 ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States in Miller v. California established a three-tiered test to determine what was obscene – and thus not protected, versus what was merely erotic and thus protected by the First Amendment.

Delivering the opinion of the court, Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote,

The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether ‘the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

The legal distinction between artistic nudity, and permitted commercial pornography (which includes sexual penetration) that are deemed as “protected forms of speech” versus “obscene acts”, which are illegal acts and separate from those permitted areas, are usually separated by the predominant culture appreciation regarding such. In fact, federal obscenity law in the U.S. is highly unusual in that—not only is there no uniform national standard, but rather, there is an explicit legal precedent that all but guarantees that something that is legally “obscene” in one jurisdiction may not be in another. In effect, the First Amendment protections of free speech vary by location within the U.S., and over time.

However, “mere nudity” was upheld in the Supreme Court case Jenkins v. Georgia , 418 U.S. 153 (1974) and deemed not to be obscene under the constitutional standards announced by Miller. As declared by the judge at trial “… nudity alone does not render material obscene under Miller’s standards.” In the U.S., the word “obscenity” is usually limited to content that directly refers to explicit sexual acts that are publicly accessible, though it has at times encompassed other subject matters, such as spoken and written language that can be publicly transmitted and received by the general public.

With the advent of Internet distribution of potentially obscene material, this question of jurisdiction and “community standards” has created significant controversy in the legal community. So, while the nude content was offensive to some in the U.K. community and it has been banned from distribution through print publication (so that no one else will happen to glance over at the doctor’s office or on public transit to be incited with disgust), the online community isn’t as easily offended by nudity, perhaps, and hasn’t spoken out. So, if you’re in the U.K., and want to see bare nipples, then you’ll have to go to American Apparel’s website, where nipples run free, although, I couldn’t find the other three photos on the website either, only the ones pictured above (there are plenty others, however).

What do you think of the racy advertisements? Offensive? Not offensive?

No Ma’am!

 

Miss J has a book coming out titled, “Follow the Model: Miss J’s Guide to Unleashing Presence, Poise and Power,” in which he (she?) tells of a story about being denied acces to a particular fashion show. When he arrived, a man told him,  “I’m sorry to do this to you, but I’ve been told they really don’t want you here.” Miss J didn’t cause a scene, but was embarrased. He writes,

I still don’t know why I was shut out of that show…As fate would have it, the same Brazilian designer later begged the producers ofANTM for two weeks to do our final runway show for cycle twelve with them in Brazil. All I have to say about that is God don’t like ugly, and Rosa Cha was such a a [sic] better choice and a total dream to work with.

Brazilian designer? Hhmm…Idk. But, you got to watch where you step in those stilettos. Source

What does a Recessionista Drive?

My car is on bended knee, begging me to get front wheel bearings and rear struts, over $800 worth of work. I just spent over $1100 a few months back. I really want a new(er) car. But, I can’t afford what I want (a Cadillac SRX), and until now, I have been unwilling to compromise. The question is what does a recessionista drive?

Does Rihanna Read My Blog?

Probably not. Although, Kanye reads Sea of Shoes. So, it’s not  totally out of the question.

However, someone must have passed along my friend’s advice that the only way she and Chris could ever appear together in public would be to go on the Oprah Winfrey Show because bloggers are now saying that Rihanna won’t forgive Chris until he publicly apologizes on Oprah…because the public won’t forgive Chris either until the Queen of Daytime Television approves!

It arrived!!

My J. Crew Catalogue arrived today!! Liya is beautiful and did a fabulous job. The spring/summer collection is gorgeous, as usual. The cardigans, cashmere, satin, sequins, embellished tees and pearls sophisticated girly glam that J. Crew has come to be known for. I want this sweater, this top, these shorts in dark ochre and this blazer in pink, this skirt, and this dress. And these sneaks. I tell myself every season, “Self, there’s nothing at J. Crew that you like. It all looks the same!” And then the catalogue arrives, and I tear out all of the pages with the stuff on them that I want, and carry them around in my planner, and look at them every day until I can’t stand it anymore (or they go on sale) and break down and buy them. Piece by piece.  I know. Grrr. I sound obsessed.

I got my first sweater from J. Crew when I was in high school. It was orange. I loved it so much, and so I was extremely upset when I washed it and it shrunk. I was also in denial. I kept on to it and even took it to college with me. I think it was around that time the J. Crew went into sort of a hiatus, and, well kinda fell off. So I was so thrilled when they reinvented themselves just in time for me to start working (rather than going to college and wearing jeans) for a living! I filled my wardrobe with J. Crew pieces. And to know that I have something in common with Michelle Obama! We shop at the same store! I have that sweater! Eek!

P.S. My new Zoya nail polish also arrived today!! yay me!

Tale of the Counterfeit Bag Carrying IP Lawyer

I was at a CLE (Continuing Legal Education) last week sitting in a session on intellectual property when I saw the most unbelieveable thing: another lawyer sitting in the same session on intellectual property, carrying a knockoff Louis Vuitton bag! She looked so confident. Her head held high.

Over the weekend I kept thinking, “What does this mean? There must be some sort of conflict of interest. How can Counterfeit Bag Carrying Lawyer Lady protect the interests of her client, Brand Owner, and at the same time disregard the  legal protection that has been granted to another brand owner? Certainly she wouldn’t buy a knockoff of Brand Owner’s products. Is Counterfeit Bag Carrying Lawyer Lady characteristically unfit?!

Then, my concerns were confirmed when I came across this article about Professor Dan Ariely, who has done studies and written the report, “Faking It: The Psychology of Dishonesty and Counterfeits,”on how counterfeit goods influence people in other aspects of their lives. “The effect on morality, people don’t anticipate,” says the Professor.  Among his findings: People who were told they were wearing “fake” designer sunglasses were significantly more likely to cheat on tests than ones told they were wearing “real” ones.

Prof. Ariely findings didn’t exactly clear things up for me. Counterfeit Bag Carrying Lawyer Lady is undoubtedly held to a higher standard. And she certainly knows better. But is she categorically “immoral” for her faux designer bag carrying ways? There’s an interesting debate about the study going on over at The New York Times. One of my favorite comments:

I question if this if the real online NY Times or the fake version. Both versions might keep me informed but the real version just gives me a certain feeling of satisfaction that is hard to explain.

How do we know Prof. Ariely is a fake and an importer? Did he fake his results after lying to all those people about the brand of their sunglasses. Who checked his morality and results after his deceptions?

Someone should do a study on women who wear hair weaves.

It’s Not Me, It’s You, Darling

I purposefully surround myself with only inspiring and encouraging people and things, which brings out the best in me.  One friend in particular deserves an honorable mention. He is the most positive, reassuring, happy person I know. He’s smart, has a great sense of humor, and never has anything negative to say. He is a breath of fresh air. He sounds ugly, huh? But, nope. He’s cute. A great catch, come to think of it. Back to the point. It’s contagious; his positivity rubs off on me. So, be mindful of the vibes you give off. What kind of energy are you spreading?

Read My Lips!

I wanted a space where I could make a big fuss, say what I’m thinking, further discuss what I and my friends are talking about, or, not. Call it two-faced, gossiping, drama-queen-ish, whatever. Here it is. 

CAUTION: read at your own risk. What you’ll find is a whole lot of talk about fashion (or anything else that I find just plain fabulous). Because I love it. It’s always on my mind. Or, talk about any of the 50 catrillion thoughts that cross my mind at any given time, which will often include, but will not be limited to my opinion on something someone else said or did.  The truth hurts. So, I’m not always inclined to say such things out loud, cause I’m a lady.  But, here is where I will exercise my freedom of expression.