Forever 21's Crotch Shots Too Sexy for Facebook

It would appear Forever 21 is too sexy for Facebook! Yesterday I wrote a post about Forever 21′s close up camel toe snap shots of its models in their underwear and included a capture of one of the worst offenders, pictured below, on WTForever 21′s Facebook page.

A long thread shortly ensued where readers and I made jaunty commentary on the glorious camel toe in Forever 21′s product display. We spoke of flesh, bits, arousal factors. A good time was had by all.

Well, it turns out all except Facebook.

When I checked WTForever 21′s Facebook wall this morning I was greeted with the following page:

I assume the violation came from the term about not posting pics on Facebook of a young women's vagina lips quite so clearly outlined.

So, apparently, Forever 21 is peddling g-strings online with product photos so borderline pornographic that even Facebook is calling foul! Check out the slideshow for a few more examples of close up product crotch shots from Forever21.com.

RATE IT!   |  

VOTE

Normal

Nasty

CURRENT TOP 5 PICK YOUR OWN TOP 5

USERS WHO VOTED

NEW! CREATE YOUR OWN SLIDESHOW

It's import to note these photos have NOT been enhanced or magnified in any way. This is the exactly how close the camel toe close-ups are on Forever21.com.

Forever 21, seriously this time, WTF?

For more WTF, visit WTForever21.com and like WTForever 21 on Facebook!

 

Follow Rachel Kane on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@wtforever21

Comments

[anchises868]

03:45 PM on 11/08/2011

Please... it's not like it was years ago where if you were a teenage boy you had to steal a Sears or a JCPenny or (if there were a God) a Frederick's catalog. Underwear's nothing to teenage boys today, I'm sure they saw far more graphic than that with random surfing.

[Rachel Kane]

02:52 AM on 11/09/2011

Certainly true. Yet, Victoria's Secret and Fredericks don't have cameltoe shots in their catalogues. I checked.

[idiocracyisnow]

02:40 PM on 11/08/2011

I appreciate that the pictures were posted. Usually articles are just 'someone posted pictures and someone else is mad'.

Although, the fact that they were posted- publicity stunt.

[Rachel Kane]

02:51 AM on 11/09/2011

I assure you, this is not a publicity stunt. It's just me feeling validated by Facebook's refusal to keep this cameltoe photo up. I spent tireless hours scanning through Forever 21's underwear section online, looking at so many crotches. This is the culmination of those sleepless nights.

[nvmaddog]

11:58 AM on 11/08/2011

Awesome pics. Great work

[choppychop]

11:04 AM on 11/08/2011

I frequently post pictures of my balls wrapped in saran wrap on my facebook account. What's the big deal?

[Rachel Kane]

02:50 AM on 11/09/2011

Thats AWFUL.

Incidently, would you like to be Facebook friends? Your friends receive access to your photos, right? Because if not, never mind.

[kaitlinwrites]

05:43 PM on 11/07/2011

It's pretty bad when your models have to wear underwear under their underwear and you still see lip.

[Rachel Kane]

07:46 PM on 11/07/2011

Or ... is it pretty good?

[kaitlinwrites]

09:06 PM on 11/07/2011

Foiled!

[DSevere]

04:13 PM on 11/07/2011

I don't understand why Facebook is about 50 times more censoring and conservative than Twitter, which is a much, much better social network. Looking forward to the day Facebook goes the way of MySpace...

[Rachel Kane]

07:46 PM on 11/07/2011

Are you on Google+?

[DSevere]

03:20 PM on 11/08/2011

Not yet, I'll probably give it a shot at some time. We primarily use social networking to promote our business (though we alternate promo with personal so as not to be spam-my) so need to check it out to see if it'll be good for that...

[phauxtoe]

03:18 PM on 11/07/2011

its funny most of us pass thru that exact area, but nobody can can see it?

the odd part is that they have nude panties on underneath the displayed panties. usually they even have a panty shield on too to help eradicate the camel configuration!

Why are people so hung up, these are not graphic photos!

[Rachel Kane]

03:27 PM on 11/07/2011

I think they're just kind of unnecessary but I found it funny they were deemed too racy for Facebook and were removed, despite being a product shot on Forever 21's website.

[snsenica]

10:09 AM on 11/07/2011

They are kind of suggestive.

[The Dude67]

10:00 AM on 11/07/2011

You can't post these on Facebook, but a $7.25 per hour TSA can put their hands all over, up in between and all around those body parts - no problem with that.

[pahammer]

09:12 AM on 11/07/2011

Thank you.

[puffmanny]

09:38 PM on 11/06/2011

Made my night complete

[WHO CARES-1952]

08:59 PM on 11/06/2011

Give me a break.........You cannot see any skin up the crotch part.......There is padding.

[Blackstonia]

08:47 PM on 11/06/2011

Eeewww, gross!

[GodsWebmaster]

08:09 PM on 11/06/2011

Like most things in life, if you dont like it, dont buy it. If you dont want to look at it, change the page. Contrived 'outrage' is a worthless use of energy. Those who want to see it will, others will go look for kitty photos instead. Sheesh, advertising, not news.

[ericthehalfabee]

07:33 PM on 11/06/2011

Good lord, there are much more important issues to expend your energy on than repressing people's rights to look at closeups of clothed models.

You've got one Hell of a megaphone there on Huffington's Post young lady. How about using it for good - helping fight political-corporate abuses, for example?

[Eric Gardner]

04:45 AM on 11/08/2011

How many more people need to write about it? Writing does nothing, protesting does! Got Protest?

[ericthehalfabee]

08:49 AM on 11/08/2011

Oh I disagree absolutely. Writing is one of the most powerful ways to motivate masses of people that has yet been devised. Take, for instance, the Bible.