How old are these models? This makes me feel like a dirty old man.

@weakdome: Who knows. What I do know is that they haven't gotten a good deal on shirts in a while.

I don't see any deals for American Apparel, but their ad is posted in the photo box.

@weakdome: Yeah, seriously. I'm not a guy, but I still feel weird. That boy looks about 12.

@kallawm: Not to mention how uncomfortable bringing up that picture at work made me feel. Icky.

@badhatharry: American Apparel sells jeans?

The one time I don't pull up Consummerist in my RSS reader...Do we need to start putting up NSFW tags on the morning deals?

@AstroPig7: Forget that, I didn't know American Apparel sells porn!

@AstroPig7:

No, they're offering young boys and girls up for sale. Everyone has to make money in a tough economy, right?

Jeans are available in 2009.

@Xerloq: True.

Guys, a few of us read your site at work. Please take that into consideration when you chose your images. Thanks.

@Xerloq:

If NSFW is an issue for you, maybe you shouldn't be browsing the Internet at work.

How do I get the girl in the picture?

@Nogard13: Offer her a lollipop.

Wow, I didn't want to post about the picture, as I wasn't sure if anyone was intrigued by it as much as I was, but apparently, I'm not alone. As for not being NSFW, there's nothing in that picture you wouldn't find in a magazine or on a billboard. So unless you company prohibits reading magazines or looking out the windows, than this is SFW.

@AstroPig7: @Keen314: @hhole: None of you guys have seen their ads? I see a billboard, and I'm looking in my rearview mirror for Chris Hansen.

@Nogard13: How do I get the boy in the picture?

@Git Em SteveDave loves this guy-->: Agreed. It's about as bad as a shampoo ad or a deodorant ad.

@weakdome: The chick is daisy lowe... daughter of gavin rossdale and she's 19.

This picture is the "soft porn" variety that is splashed all over Abercrombie and A|X and malls, coast to coast. I find it objectionable and exploitative and do not consider it safe for work. It should be confined to catalogs, if used at all.

@Marshfield: Yeah. Let me PAY for my exploitation of unnaturally-young-looking people. Stop throwing it at me for free!

I'm confused... What company would be okay with you looking at shirtful jeans advertisements, but not okay with shirtless jeans advertisements? Some of the Gawker arsty sidebars have been more risque than this.

I humbly suggest that the easily-offended get out more. I've seen "worse" (okay, I lied: better!!) on a Thursday night out clubbing.
The pict is more Rorschach Test than NSFW porn, people...

I'm afraid that I have to agree. Seeing someones belly is no cause to accuse the Consumerist peddling porn. Because that's all you can see of her, and since when is it considered "soft core" porn for a young man to go shirtless.

Honestly people.

/exhasperated

@kidnextdoor: Offer him a New Order CD.

Heck you can see more than that looking out the window on a sunny day.

@Marshfield: Methinks the Marshfield doth protest too much.

dude, she's hot.

@DuckFOO:

eff that.

It's not "browsing the internet" it's "pulling up a site with info that I know to be work safe and that should be no different than reading the newspaper at work".

I blindly browse and click around at home. There may be sections of 4chan that are work safe, but I still don't chance it because of the stigma. At work I go to work-related sites and the consumerist is one of them. It is indeed a quandary when something pops up that may not be good in mixed company.

Also, I was going to post "hai guyz is dat sum cp" but apparently a dozen people beat me to it.