Eight American Apparel ads are banned in Britain, what do you think about it? It's been a rough go for cotton-loving American Apparel these past few fiscal quarters. Britain's Advertising Standards Authority, ASA, (which may or may not be a knitting group of old, scared British ladies) denied the brand permission to print or distribute eight ads from their current campaign. What didn't get cut? The ads where girls actually had on the clothes. ASA's reasoning: "We considered that in the particular context of images which featured nudity and sexually provocative poses, there was a voyeuristic and 'amateurish' quality to the images which served to heighten the impression that the ads were exploitative of women and inappropriately sexualized young women." Underwear ads sort of need to feature underwear (which more or less explains the lack of clothing), but do sweatshirt ads need to feature naked butts? Sex sells and, in the case of AA, it sells clothing that is mostly cotton and rather monotonous. That's a lesson in marketing from Dov Charney. This isn't the first time they've gotten in trouble for scandalous ads. In 2009, British watchdogs were on their case for advertising an overly sexualized 16-year-old model. American Apparel's rebuttal is that these images feature normal, real life women. This is supposedly a powerful antidote to the super-thin models. However, while these models might not be a size 0, they're definitely under a size 4. So what does that teach a girl about what it is to be a "real" woman? If you're "real" sized, do you need to be naked for attention? What do you think? Sexual liberation or gratuitous amateur exploitation? Does it even matter? Do we even care anymore? Peeped on: HUH.