Jason Van Horn / Betabrand

Business as usual? Betabrand's luxurious executive hoodies come designed with the CEO in mind.

By Julia Rubin, Styleite

Much has been made of Mark Zuckerberg‘s affinity for hoodies. He’s been put on GQ worst dressed lists and pissed off Wall Street types, but it’s part of his uniform, and for that we commend him. Steve Jobs had his (Issey Miyake!) turtlenecks, Zuck has his hoodies. And now he has a new option for when he wants to appear formal, without compromising his personal style.

Betabrand (a San Francisco-based online retailer — of course) seemed to have had the Facebook CEO in mind when it came up with its Executive Pinstripe Hoodie. The merino wool (“the same exquisite fabric found in fancy-schmancy tailored suits”) hoodie is dry-clean only and has “luxurious tie-cloth lining, comfy ribbed cotton cuffs, and a pair of roomy front pockets.” The $148 sweatshirt certainly gives new meaning to business casual.

While we applaud the winking ingenuity here, we’re inclined to declare you should stick to a regular ol’ cotton/polyester/fleece blend when purchasing a hoodie. Leave the merino wool pinstripes for, well, actual suits. It’s like sneaky sneakers!

More from Styleite:

Steve Jobs' Decades-Long Love Affair with The Mock Turtleneck
How Much Does The Most Expensive T-Shirt In The World Cost?
What Do You Think Of Time's Controversial Breast-Feeding Cover? 

Change.org

Julia Bluhm, 14, posted a petition on Change.org, calling on Seventeen magazine to commit to printing one unaltered photo spread per month.

By Julia Rubin, Styleite

An eighth-grade student from Maine is taking on Seventeen magazine, and she has garnered support from nearly 25,000 people.

Two weeks ago, 14-year-old Julia Bluhm posted a petition on Change.org called “Seventeen Magazine: Give Girls Images of Real Girls!” which has gained traction online over the past few days. Bluhm is asking the teen magazine to print one unaltered photo spread in each issue.

“I want to see regular girls that look like me in a magazine that’s supposed to be for me,” she writes in the petition letter. She goes on to explain:

Here’s what lots of girls don’t know. Those “pretty women” that we see in magazines are fake. They’re often photoshopped, air-brushed, edited to look thinner, and to appear like they have perfect skin. A girl you see in a magazine probably looks a lot different in real life.

Seventeen

A recent Seventeen magazine cover.

On Wednesday, Bluhm is planning a demonstration outside of Seventeen's headquarters, Hearst Tower in New York. It will involve a mock photo shoot where teens will be snapped in front of the building holding dry erase boards covered with messages to Seventeen. Bluhm also intends to bring printouts of her petition’s signatures to the magazine.

While we agree that excessive Photoshop work is indeed a problem in the magazine world, Seventeen is hardly the biggest culprit. It’s also worth noting that unlike most other mainstream magazines, Seventeen does indeed feature and photograph “real girls” — and with minimal airbrushing.

Do you agree with Bluhm's efforts? Are teen magazines too Photoshopped? Let us know in the comments!

More from Styleite:

This Teen's Prom Dress Is Made Out Of...Cardboard?
Teen Models Sue Agent For Groping Them, Stealing Their Money
Is Katy Perry Over-Airbrushed In These New Adidas Ads?

New research from the London School of Economics suggests images of too-skinny models does psychological damage to young women. Here, models walk the Stella McCartney fall-winter show in Paris March 5.

By Justin Fenner, Styleite

New research from the London School of Economics says that if the U.K. government wanted to prevent fashion brands and talent agencies from using super-skinny models, it would be justified by the fact that imagery of too-thin women actually does appreciable psychological damage to women and young girls.

The Guardian reports that LSE’s study — the first known economic analysis of anorexia — found that reducing the number of images of skinny women on television and in magazines would “lift some of the social pressure women feel to be thin.” And because of that, the study suggests that new laws that put limits on how thin a model can be would be worth the effort.

“Government intervention to adjust individual biases in self-image would be justified to curb the spread of a potential epidemic of food disorders,” they write in their paper, to be published in the academic journal Economica later this year.

“The distorted self-perception of women with food disorders and the importance of the peer effects may prompt governments to take action to influence role models and compensate for social pressure on women driving the trade-off between ideal weight and health.”

Government officials in Europe and the United States have been working to curb the appearances of images of unrealistically thin women in the media over the past few years. In 2008 the French Parliament made it illegal to display images of “extreme thinness,” and Britain’s Advertising Standards Authority has been banning images of skinny women left and right. The idea has even gained some traction here in the United States, but there’s not a law on the books about how thin a model should or shouldn’t appear to be in images.

But now that the research has been done, how long do you think it’ll be before we’ve got a law that says models should look healthy instead of emaciated?

More from Styleite: Victoria's Secret Model Gives Questionable Dieting Advice 
Plus Size Model Poses With Straight Size Model In Controversial Spread 
Was This Superbowl Commercial Tossed Due To A Plus-Sized Model?

T-shirts and other merchandise with similar slogans available on urbanoutfitters.com are being called into question by Irish organizations.

By Justin Fenner, Styleite

Urban Outfitters is taking a lot of flak from Irish organizations that say its St. Patrick’s Day merchandise defames and debases the entire Emerald Isle as a bunch of drunks. And like the Navajo-themed merchandise that came before it, the t-shirts and other products that inspired this anger may be headed off the shelves.

Irish people from all walks of life have responded to Urban’s Irish-themed product lineup pretty negatively, and some are prepared to wage a full fledged campaign to have the items removed from the store. And with products like a beer growler labeled Leprechaun Piss and shirts that say things like “Kiss Me, I’m Drunk. Or Irish, Or Whatever.” their anger isn’t really all that surprising.

Congressman Tim Crowley, head of the Congressional Ad Hoc Committee on Irish Affairs, sent a letter to Urban Outfitters CEO Richard Hayne, asking him, and nicely, to stop selling the products.

“By selling and promoting these items, Urban Outfitters is only fueling stereotypes that many Irish Americans, as well as the people of Ireland, work so hard to dispel.”

“We understand that such items may have been created with the intent of good humor. And, as members of the Ad Hoc Committee on Irish Affairs, we know that Irish and Irish Americans often revel in self-deprecating and blunt humor. However, we believe these items represent a step too far, crossing a line into stereotyping and denigration.”

“We strongly urge you to review your St. Patrick’s Day clothing line and consider its effects on the 35 million-strong Irish American community, as well as its implications for binge drinking. We also hope your review results in the withdrawal from distribution and sale of the items in question.”

But not everyone has been so genteel about getting the products off the shelves. Seamus Boyle, a member of the Ancient Order of Hibernians in America (it’s the nation’s largest Irish organization), wrote in another letter that he’s ready to organize a boycott if the products aren’t removed post haste.

There are those few who use this day as an excuse to over celebrate but that does not give you or anyone else the right to defame and debase a whole race of people by selling the garbage that you display in your stores.

If this is the way you must make your money by debasing a whole race of people I can assure you that with over 40 million people in this country claiming Irish ancestry they will not be your customers after this display of arrogance and disrespect to a whole nation.

Urban Outfitters has faced those kinds of threats before. Last fall when it started selling an assortment of Navajo-themed products that featured Indian tribal prints, a boycott and lawsuit against the company was organized pretty quickly. In response to the pressure, Urban took down some of the products and renamed others to make them less offensive.

Whether that will happen in this case or not remains to be seen, but what we do know is that the people who source Urban Outfitters’ products should probably take some time off and enroll in some racial sensitivity courses. If they want to stay in business, stuff like this just can’t keep happening.

More: Plus size model poses with straight size model in controversial spread

Model's parents sue Urban Outfitters for $28M over racy t-shirt

Unapologetically racist Nivea ad seeks to 're-civilize' black men

The What's Your Nude campaign is targeting the local bra market, which mostly caters to light, fair-skin women.

Are bras not supportive enough … of women of color?

A new Facebook campaign called “What’s Your Nude?" is mobilizing women “fed up over the lack of diversity in bra manufacturing.” The movement — with the simple plea "more brown bras, please" — urges women to contact bra makers throughout the month of February and demand greater representation in the lingerie section.

The issue? Nude bras basically come in one range of light colors (think blush, nude or tan), so women with darker skin tones don't have nearly as many options when looking for bras to match their own skin color.

“Women of color have voiced that they've been thinking this for years, and don't understand why it's taken bra makers and retailers so long to meet this need,” founder Tara Raines, 31, a psychologist living  in Los Angeles, told TODAY.com.

Raines, who is black, was inspired to get active after having difficulty shopping online at major retailers, only spotting a few deeper hues at “exorbitant prices.”  

A quick scan of Macy’s and Victoria’s Secret online show there are indeed a lack of extensive options. (And while several women wrote to Raines that Target carries a wide selection, she says she visited the retailer in Los Angeles last night and was unable to find even one brown bra in the entire store.)

Huong Diep

Tara Raines, founder of the What's Your Nude? campaign, poses with a limited range of bra colors at Target.

Women across the color wheel have taken to the cause – with 2,300 Facebook fans and rising. “Nothing worse than your beautiful clothes having the undergarments distracting the look because they don’t blend with skin tone,” wrote one disgruntled fan on the page. “Everyone should be able to have a naked color bra!” chimed in another. 

Several celebrities have also voiced their support, including comedian Sheryl Underwood, actress Holly Robinson Peete, singer Chrisette Michele, and chef Sunny Anderson.

“The support from women everywhere, all women of all colors, has been tremendous,” said Raines, noting that even Caucasian women have joined the cause, though many of them admit they weren’t originally aware of the problem. “They’re baffled that something like this would still be an issue in 2012.”

Where bigger brands fail, Raines says she has seen an impressive effort by smaller companies, including BeingU.me, a new nude lingerie company. "If mainstream retailers won't work to cater to us, then we want to use the campaign to shine a light on these newer companies.”

More than anything, the campaign sparked a meaningful discussion, which Raines hopes prompts companies to be more inclusive of all women items, ranging from shoes to hosiery to even bandages. “We still have a lot of work to do to get the attention of bra makers so I don't think we'll extend this campaign beyond bras, but we will proudly support individuals and organizations who want to take up those other platforms.”

Rina Raphael is a TODAY.com editor who demands better representation for nude heels.

More: L'Oreal ad banned for making Rachel Weisz look 'misleadingly' smooth
NYT: For young girls, it starts with lip gloss

Loreal, Getty Images

Too smooth? The British Advertising Standards Authority claim actress Rachel Weisz, shown at right at a Jul. 27, 2011 screening of "The Whistleblower", was far too airbrushed in a recent L'Oreal print ad.

By Justin Fenner, Styleite

The British Advertising Standards Authority released a ruling Wednesday banning a print ad for L’Oreal‘s Revitalift Repair 10 because it used a digitally altered image of actress Rachel Weisz that “misleadingly exaggerated” how well the product works. The Authority also asked L’Oreal to stop using post production techniques (i.e. Photoshop) that “misrepresented what was achievable using the advertised product.”

Reuters reports that the initial complaints about the ad, which was released in 2010, came from Jo Swinson, a member of the British Parliament who founded the Campaign for Body Confidence. She’s managed to convince the ASA to ban ads in the past (remember that Julia Roberts ad for Lancome?) but never before has the organization asked a company to flat-out stop digitally altering its images — and L’Oreal has admitted airbrushing the Academy Award-winner's skin to look more even. The decision reads:

“Although we considered that the image in the ad did not misrepresent the luminosity or wrinkling of Rachel Weisz’s face, we considered that the image had been altered in a way that substantially changed her complexion to make it appear smoother and more even.

“We therefore concluded that the image in the ad … misleadingly exaggerated the performance of the product in relation to the claims ‘SKIN LOOKS SMOOTHER’ and ‘COMPLEXION LOOKS MORE EVEN’.”

And when you consider the ASA’s penchant for banning beauty and fashion ads left, right and center, the fact that this one has been pulled from magazines isn’t all that surprising. But what is surprising is that the ASA thinks L’Oreal (or any beauty company, for that matter) will comply with the request to not use Photoshop. A statement from the company says that whether or not they used airbrushing, their product would still work as advertised.

“We believe that the image in the advertisement is a true representation of Rachel Weisz. The product claims are based on extensive scientific research which proved that the product improves 10 different signs of skin aging. We therefore do not believe that the ad exaggerates the effect that can be achieved using this product.”

Take a look at Weisz in the print ad above and in the commercial below and tell us if you think the ad is telling the truth.

Kardashian Sisters Get Seriously Photoshopped In New Denim Ads

Online Retailer Inadvertently Features Nude Man In Kids Ad

Does Taylor Swift’s CoverGirl Ad Deserve To Be Banned?

Getty

The Jean Paul Gaultier spring-summer 2012 couture collection, shown in Paris Jan. 25, paid homage to Amy Winehouse with beehive hairdos, corsets and more from the late singer's signature style.

Designer Jean Paul Gaultier said he felt “compelled to celebrate [Amy Winehouse’s] style” in his latest spring-summer 2012 couture show, but the late singer’s family certainly doesn’t appreciate the tribute.

On Wednesday, during Paris Fashion Week, Gaultier fashioned his models in the late singer's look, complete with beehive hairdos, dramatic winged eyeliner, cigarettes and even Monroe-like facial moles.

"She was so exceptional in her style; how she held her body; the way she dressed, mixing pieces from different decades,” Gaultier told The New York Times of his late muse.

But Winehouse’s father, Mitch, said his family was “in total shock” to see the runway photos, according to The Sun.

“We're still grieving for her loss, and we've had a difficult week with the six-month anniversary of Amy's death,” Mitch, 60, told The Sun. “To see her image lifted wholesale to sell clothes was a wrench we were not expecting or consulted on.”

Getty

Mitch said that though the family is proud of Winehouse’s influence on fashion, they thought it in “bad taste” to portray models smoking cigarettes and donning black veils while a “barbershop quartet” sang his daughter's music on the runway:

"It portrays a view of Amy when she was not at her best, and glamorizes some of the more upsetting times in her life. That's upsetting for her family."

The multiple-Grammy winner passed away at the age at 27 on July 23. Since her death, the singer-songwriter's unique fashion has been mentioned in numerous tributes. Gaultier’s show, however, was the first Fashion Week event to pay homage to Winehouse.

Earlier this year, Mitch created the Amy Winehouse Foundation to help young people struggling with illness, addiction and disabilities. The designer did not offer to make a donation to the foundation, said Mitch, who added “This is purely about Gaultier making money, and that's wrong."

What do you think of Jean Paul Gaultier's collection? Was it inappropriate?

Getty

Getty

Getty

Getty

Rina Raphael is a TODAY.com editor who has never managed to pull off the beehive. (Though she's still hoping.)

More: Gaultier pays homage to Amy Winehouse on the runway
Slideshow: The best of bizarre style
Former supermodel walks runway in 110-pound couture gown

Getty

Janet Jackson, shown here performing on Dec. 5, in Miami Beach, Florida, is not on PETA's good list.

by Justin Fenner, Styleite

PETA just can’t let an old dog rest. The animal rights organization stirred up its nearly year-old campaign against singer Janet Jackson, who added part-time furrier to her resume with a gig designing a collection for Blackglama. Time and again, PETA called for her to denounce fur, and now that she hasn’t, the organization named her the first ever PETA "Grinch of the Year".

The award (if you can call it that) comes with the distinction of having angered PETA enough to have its members formally denounce you. And from the tone of PETA’s spokespeople, they’re not going to let Jackson forget just how angry they are.

“When Janet Jackson had her infamous wardrobe malfunction during Super Bowl XXXVIII, at least what popped into view of 170 million onlookers belonged to her, unlike the animal skins she drapes herself in, which are as dead as her fashion taste and her career.”

PETA also named celebrity fur-wearers Cameron Crowe and Kim Kardashian to the list. We're curious to see who gets added in 2012 — and whether or not it actually makes any difference in whether or not they wear fur.

More from Styleite: British Designer Creates Dress From Thousands Of Cow Nipples  
Personal Assistant Sues Lady Gaga For 7,168 Unpaid Overtime Hours  
Watch: Little Girl Gets Trampled By Insane Air Jordan Shoppers

Proctor & Gamble / Styleite.com

Is Taylor Swift's latest ad too Photoshopped? The National Advertising Division thinks so.

By Verena von Pfetten, Styleite

Following in the footsteps of their ad-regulating colleagues across the pond, the National Advertising Division has banned a CoverGirl campaign featuring celebrity spokesperson Taylor Swift due to excessive Photoshopping. In other words, if you thought Swift’s lashes looked too good to be true, you’re right.

The ad in question was for NatureLuxe Mousse Mascara, which CoverGirl claimed delivered “superior performance” in doubling the volume of bare lashes and offering a 20 percent lighter formula than “the most expensive mascara” on the market. Unfortunately, the lashes on display in the ad aren’t courtesy of this miracle mascara; Swift’s “lashes [were] enhanced in post production” — at least according to the fine print at the bottom of the image.

According to NAD, it is “well-established that product demonstrations in advertisements must be truthful and accurate and cannot be enhanced,” which is to say: Photoshop is not allowed. And while the U.K.’s Advertising Standards Authority has been banning ads left and right, this is the first crackdown by NAD on a major campaign.

NAD’s director Andrea Levine told Business Insider, “You can’t use a photograph to demonstrate how a cosmetic will look after it is applied to a woman’s face and then – in the mice type – have a disclosure that says ‘OK, not really.’”

Case in point: An ad for a Maybelline anti-aging product featuring Christy Turlington and Julia Roberts was banned over the summer for “digitally retouching” their skin.

But not all ads are bad because they’ve been digitally altered. Just last month, the British Advertising Standards Authority banned a Miu Miu ad featuring "True Grit" star Hailee Steinfeld because it “depicted a child in an unsafe position.” Steinfeld was photographed crying while perched on a set of empty train tracks.

Related: Dakota Fanning fragrance ad banned for ‘sexualizing a child’
Julia Roberts’ anti-aging ad under fire for excessive photoshopping
 'True Grit' star Hailee Steinfeld’s fashion ad banned

By Verena von Pfetten, Styleite

Marc Jacobs' ads have a tendency to make us blush, but we never thought they were racy enough to get banned. However, the British Advertising Standards Authority disagrees: They have just shut down an ad for the Jacobs' fragrance Oh, Lola, featuring 17-year-old Dakota Fanning.

In the ad, Fanning is shown holding an oversize bottle of the fragrance, placed right between her legs. Earlier this summer, many criticized Marc Jacobs for what they deemed a provocative and inappropriate ad.

Marc Jacobs

Too grown up? Dakota Fanning is the new face for Marc Jacobs' new perfume, Oh, Lola!

The ASA told the Telegraph:

"We noted that the model was holding up the perfume bottle which rested in her lap between her legs and we considered that its position was sexually provocative. We understood the model was 17 years old but we considered she looked under the age of 16. We considered that the length of her dress, her leg and position of the perfume bottle drew attention to her sexuality. Because of that, along with her appearance, we considered the ad could be seen to sexualise a child."

Coty, the makers of the fragrance, defended the ad, calling it "provoking, but not indecent".

It's certainly provocative — that bottle placement was no accident and Jacobs, at the time of launch, admitted to WWD he was making a conscious Lolita reference, saying, "I knew [Dakota] could be this contemporary Lolita, seductive yet sweet" — but does it cross a line?

More from Styleite: Marc Jacobs Gets Naked To Sell New Cologne
 Marc Jacobs Isn’t Mad We Leaked Photos Of His New Fragrance Campaign
Unapologetically Racist Nivea Ad Seeks To ‘Re-Civilize’ Black Men

Forever21.com

Allergic to silly shirts? Not everyone is a fan of Forever 21's latest collection.

Controversial tween T-shirts sure are everywhere these days.

The other week, JC Penney was heavily criticized for selling apparel that read “I'm too pretty to do homework, so my brother does it for me.” Now another failed attempt at cutesiness has the Internet up in commenting-arms: Forever 21 is featuring a shirt emblazoned with “Allergic to algebra” (at $12.80, it’s still no bargain). It doesn’t stop there, either. Other tops showcase such slogans as “I love school – not” and “Skool Sucks.”

As predicted, shoppers and parents are none too pleased. One consumer even resorted to posting a response — via a Post-it-Note — on the collection.  The note reads “SMART girls are cool. Don’t buy this top.” And change.org just started a petition asking Forever21 to discontinue selling clothing with sexist messages. “Forever 21's ‘Allergic to Algebra’ shirt is yet another sexist message aimed at young women telling them that math is uncool — while bragging about being bad at math is cool,” the petition reads. “Would these retailers ever consider selling ‘I Can't Do Long Division!’ shirts for boys or men?”

Two weeks ago, JC Penney ultimately removed their shirt after mounting pressure. While Forever21 has yet to respond, they might follow the trend.

More: 'Too pretty to do homework' T-shirt sparks outrage
Old Navy Ts get A in team spirit, but F in grammar
Supermodel Coco Rocha: You won't catch me wearing sweatpants

Getty images

Rihanna launched her new scent, Reb'l Fleur, on August 19 in London. PETA takes issue with her shaggy outfit.

Rihanna’s certainly a fashion risk-taker, but did her recent shaggy ensemble cross the line? PETA certainly thinks so.

The animal rights organization is known for its constant fashion protests, but this one is unique in that it’s over feathers. At the August 19 launch of her Reb'l Fleur perfume, the singer donned a bright teal Antonio Berardi top, decorated with lush ostrich feathers, which has since been heavily criticized: PETA claims Rihanna “exploited” the birds for her “dubious looks,” since feathers are often "ripped off" live birds, resulting in "gaping" wounds."

The kicker comes when the controversial group questions how a famous victim of domestic violence could support live plucking.

“We keep hoping that Rihanna, a victim of violence herself, will learn to open her heart and start empathizing with the suffering of others. That includes the animals who are beaten, gassed, electrocuted and poisoned to be turned into fashion accessories."

In 2010, Rihanna promised to go fur-free after PETA named her one of the most egregious fur wearers. In response, PETA said they would be “keeping an eagle eye on what she wears.”

(Looks like someone’s keeping their promise.)

What do you think? Should Rihanna refrain from wearing feathers? Is it equivalent to wearing fur?

Related content: Does this controversial fashion spread glamorize domestic abuse?
Will 'divorce rings' catch on?
Paper eyelashes: Cool or creepy?