T-Shirts, Socks and Sex.

many

Provocative? Vulgar? Creative? Pornographic? Brilliant?

Which word comes to mind when you first saw the above pictures?

First, let me give you guys a little background information. These pictures are a few of the many American Apparel ads, and yes, as the name suggests, they are just selling clothes

American Apparel is the largest clothings manufacturer in the US. Selling affordable, basic cotton knitwear items, they have expanded to have around 185 stores worldwide. The company is known for a number of policies including promoting immigrant rights and labor policies the company dubs 'sweatshop' free.

However, their provocative and sexual advertisements have also been subjected to harsh criticism and disapproval from the public. Many find that the sexual tone of American Apparels' advertising campaign is offensive and explicit, some even going on accuse the ads of bordering on pornography.

But despite the detractors, American Apparel has also been lauded for their creativity and honesty, especially since they insist that all the photos taken are not digitally enhanced or airbrushed, and their models are often staff working in American Apparel, photographed with all their blemishes and imperfections.

But like all other things, this is subjective, and everyone is entitled to their own opinions. The poster does not need to literally exclaim 'YES I"M SELLING SEX!" We as humans can use our perception and see the innuendoes or symbolisms behind each picture and either take these nonverbal cues as tasteless display of sexual imagery, or an ingenius marketing strategy.

Personally, I feel that although the ads are very sexually charged and provocative, I can't help but admire them for their creativity and uniqueness. The ads served their purpose, which was to make people sit up, take notice, and ultimately, look at the clothes they were advertising. Controversial as it might be, it worked.

What do you think?

Yeouch.

all picture credits to http://modblog.bmezine.com/category/scarification/

The picture above is an example of scarification. As the word suggests, scarification is, well, the act of scarifying. It involved making a cut or incision onto the skin to make a permanent scar on your body, much akin to tattoos.

When i told some friends about this 'new' type of body modification technique i found out about ('new' because scarification has been around for a long time, hasn't it? Tribes have long used scarification as a rite of passage for adolescents to be considered real men, and the youths proudly display their scars as proof of their manhood), reations differed greatly. Some were morbidly fascinated with the idea, even seriously contemplating getting it done, while others grimaced in revulsion just looking at pictures of the scarification process.

Alright, the picture i showed above is quite tame, so maybe many people won't understand why anyone would feel queasy looking at pictures of scarification. Let me help you out.

Looks fun huh?

I was actually thinking the above sentence would be a rhetorical question, but then again, perceptions differ right? I would never want anyone slicing into my skin with a scapel, making deep, purposeful cuts that would definately hurt and bleed like hell, and afterwards scab and leave me with keloid scars. I'm sure a whole lot of people would agree with me, but i'm also sure some would be thinking otherwise. A search for scarification pictures online will give you hundreds, if not thousands of images, all of which come from different people, from different countries and backgrounds. (In case youre wondering, yes i found some photos of scarification done here in singapore as well, the cutting process pictures above, the one with pieces of skin being sliced off was taken from a body mod shop in singapore!)

To end this off, i'll leave you with the completed (and healed )product of my opening picture.


It really is quite pretty, don't you think?

What's in a name?

Right. So the article I'll be discussing is one titled: Threat of violence over use of name 'Bombay' It was featured in a copy of The Straits Times dated Friday, May 16 2008.

The title pretty much says it all. Apparently in Mumbai, there's a big hoo haa regarding the use of the name Bombay, and it's all the doing of a certain Mr. Bal Thackeray; an 82 year old eccentric (although I feel this word is an understatement, a more appropriate choice of word would be in my opinion, psycho) regional politician. 13 years ago, he led the charge to change the name of India's financial capital from Bombay to Mumbai.

Not content with that, Mr. Thackeray is now demanding that the city drop the word 'Bombay' from prominent institutions where the name still lingers, such as the Bombay Stock Exchange, the Bombay High Court, the elite Bombay Scottish school and dozens of other shops and offices - or else.

Police are taking his threats seriously because Mr. Thackeray has been linked to mob violence in the past, and his followers have already taken to demonstrating for his cause, and vandalizing buildings with the word 'Bombay'.

However, Mr. Thackeray has his reasons for his objections to the use of the word 'Bombay'. He's leading this nationalist campaign as he calls the word 'colonially tainted'; being a Portuguese derivation of 'Beautiful Bay'. He feels that Mumbai, the local name of a Hindu goddess should be used instead.


Personally, I feel the whole situation is quite ridiculous. What's the big deal over the issue of a name? Since Bombay has already renamed Mumbai, I don't see the fuss over certain institutions in the city using the name Bombay. Hasn't Mr. Thackeray already got what he wanted? A whole city has already been renamed because of him! Even more so for established, long standing insitutions like the Bombay Stock Exchange and Bombay High Court. For them to change their names because of a party boss's opinion that the word is colonially tainted would cause confusion, hassle and unnessary work. Also, how can the police and government be relied on for safety and protection if the people are subjected to violence and threats just because they have chosen to use the name Bombay?

I feel that the police should be doing all that they can to quell the issue. If they let Mr. Thackeray bully the people into doing what he wants, then what's stopping any other Tom, Dick and Harry from demanding that people name their shops and citys something else?