it's some form of crude "look at the bush on her" joke along with standard objectification by making sure everyone focuses on the sexual organs of the female mannequin--just like they objectify flesh and blood women in their marketing.

That's how I see it as well.

Plus they kept the titillating tit.


on edit: It might work (as a statement about body hair on women) if the models had their arms overhead & had underarm hair too.

But it's a perfect set-up for them: if it raises enough of a stink, they can fall back on the line that they just wanted to encourage discussion. Wink, wink.

that so many women seem to find this stunt inspiring any hope for change re: the politics of body hair.

It's so easy to dismiss it is a nonsense, throwaway, non-issue. It's certainly very personal. But women's bodies are so policed for conformity... it ties into all the rest of it.

I seems like mockery to me. I don't shop there anyway. How about the male mannequins?

Besides their clothes are shit

"nobody wants a wookie on that cookie" etc.

Last edited Fri Jan 17, 2014, 06:56 PM - Edit history (1)

Oh what am I thinking, of course they did

now THAT would have been surprising.

I feel about it.

I'm conflicted. Maybe if the mannequins shown were not so skinny and "fabulous" looking I would understand it more.

When I think of a natural Woman, pubic hair does not come to my mind at all.

I read that yesterday. I don't recall which retailer it was.

depict women with pubic hair. There certainly are a lot of women with pubic hair, who do not shave or wax. Why not be inclusive of them at least some of the time when depicting women? So, that side of it, I see and understand.

On the other hand, I have read about how one of the leaders of this company has some serious issues when it comes to women's rights. So, coming from the right company or organization, this idea could be good. Coming from that company though, I am suspicious about it and not the least bit impressed with their idea.

Sticking a toupee in their underpants isn't exactly fitting with the overall presentation of mannequins.

I really don't have much more thought on this. sort of a meh. Irony, yeah I can see that. I think it might be a generational thing. To me it did not look gross but, maybe the younger generation thinks it does, which is sad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkin

And yeah, I agree that it's sad.

In general AA's ads sexualize the hell out of women and given that, I think they believe they are doing something clever... yet I don't care enough to figure out what that is or if I care.

I am not upset, disgusted, or feeling positive about it.

I frankly cannot find a single fuck to give about this.