How can sustainability seduce the masses? Just stick a pretty face in the
picture and sell, sell, sell! It's the cheapest trick in the marketing book. Take Metaefficient's
silly "Radiant flooring is sexy" headline last week. Today
Treehugger flaunts a model and urges us to "Get Eco-Sexy"
with her. Harmless and light-hearted enough,and done as part of an ongoing effort to
smash the dowdy image of environmentalism. After all, women's bodies have sold hotrods for decades--not hybrid cars.
But do we have to make Mother Earth into a hot mama for people to treat her
right? Is that what all those ancient goddess fertility icons were about? There's a
fine line between sex-positivity and raunch culture, as
well as between free expression and exploitation. Does slapping T&A on green products defeat the purpose of an environmentally- and socially-friendly marketplace?
Just look to the lovers and haters of Dov Charney, the pervy founder of
the sweatshop-free organic t-shirt shop American Apparel. He’s
a busy man, facing sexual harassment suits from employees, speaking at a sustainable conferences, and so on. Oh, and last year he pleasured himself more
than a handful of times in front of a Jane magazine reporter (she said she
didn’t mind). 
The un-airbrushed looks of American Apparel’s
models hearken back to the “classic porn” heyday of Hustler
magazine—the era when a woman couldn’t get a credit card or mortgage without
her husband’s permission. But enough of those media-hungry 'hos.
What do you think? How sexy—or sleazy—does sustainability need to be?
ummmm... from reading the jane mag article, Dov is not any different from most men in positions of power, EXCEPT that he's open about it, which may, in fact, make him better than supposed devout husbands and CEO's who are banging the coffee girl and strippers while bringing their wives to the Christmas party. I'm not at all surprised, and its actually refreshing for people to be more open sexually. Sexuality is not a bad thing, its the misuse of sexuality that is.
Posted by: miss mo | 2005.10.21 at 01:31 PM
in some ways selling porn is like strip-mining femininity. on the other hand, sexuality is the greenest free-energy technology and is the birthright of the goddess. one woman can turn to prostitution as an act of suicide and another can consciously use her sexuality as an act of liberation, self-actualization and sexual healing. one man can approach a prostitute like a vampire his prey, and another as a sacred goddess of worship.
anything that has tremendous power (like sexuality) will be used and viewed differently by people of varying consciousnesses. like any power source it has the ability to create and/or destroy. those who hold the power must be wise in its use.
i think the challenge of the green movement is to harness sexuality in a conscious manner-- in a manner that the goddess will smile upon. the temple prostitutes have to be returned to their place as priestesses. sex has to be returned from the gutter to the altar. the patriarch must give way to the matriarch, then the two can join in union. technology and nature working together in harmony.
last thing. i think the "organic movement" is failing because it lived on a bunch of "shoulds." we "should" buy organic because its better for us, better for the environment, better for etc. i hate "shoulds." the green movement must be based on "wants," and herein lies the power of harnessing sex. i believe that is at the heart of our wants and can lead us to healthier lives: physically, emotionally, spiritually and environmentally.
Posted by: miked | 2005.10.19 at 10:16 AM
American Apparel makes me wanna barf. I can never get a picture of the scumbag who runs the joint out of my head - how could I possibly want to get anywhere near his threads?
Yeah, the green is sexy thing is a hot thread. I nearly died when ON THE SAME WEEKEND last month, LA Times Magazine (http://www.latimes.com/features/printedition/magazine/la-tm-lansingintro39sep25,1,3741643.story) and LA WEEKLY (http://laweekly.com/ink/05/44/clear-kelly2.php) both focused on sexy green boogers.
Somewhere, Oscar the grouch is getting some serious action!
Posted by: Andy | 2005.10.18 at 01:48 PM
yeah, Claudine Ko in Jane didn't seem to care what Charney did--hey, it made a good story!
curious...what are your issues with the company? you're right, the ads really are no worse than what you see in magazines--better maybe, since the models look more 'natural.'
i've got mixed feelings about all of this...don't favor censorship, and hold no grudges against "hos" (resent the label in fact, but I meant to include CEO Dov Charney as a ho too...and how would people would treat his behavior if he were a she..? oh, guess they're calling him a "scumbag" instead).
this highlights a challenge that'll just get bigger--how do you sell something as saving the world and treating people well when the ads might suggest another story? can you be provocative w/o exploitative? yada yada
it looks like a lot of people find AA a 'liberating' place to work, while others think it's suffocating & hypocritical...but while employees might get paid fairly, he may be the only one getting rich.
Posted by: elsa | 2005.10.17 at 08:51 PM
Did you read the new article about American Apparel in JANE by Claudine Ko? I have my issues with American Apparel, but not because their models are ho-ish -- Many Vogue models are more ho-like -- they're just more airbrush and aestheticized...
In any case, wondering what your thoughts are on the new Ko article :)
And luckily, we're both sexy green gals, yes? :)
Posted by: green LA girl | 2005.10.17 at 07:51 PM