Black Maxi - Target, $22 (April 2010)
Black Cropped Cardi - Target, $15 (April 2010)
Yellow Necklace - Vintage/Thrifted, $2 (2008)
Bangles - Burlington Coat Factory, $4 (April 2010)
Wedges - Cynthia Vincent for Target, $30 (April 2010)
Lane Bryant recently had a commercial for their Cacique Intimates line come under heavy scrutiny by ABC and Fox. From Lane Bryant's "Inside Curve" page, "ABC refused to show the commercial during “Dancing with the Stars” without restricting our airtime to the final moments of the show. Fox demanded excessive re-edits and rebuffed it three times before relenting to air it during the final 10 minutes of “American Idol,” but only after we threatened to pull the ad buy." The reason, "too much cleavage".
The commercial shows the gorgeous Ashley Graham looking fierce with her curves wearing a bra and panties for most of the commercial. Hmm, seems pretty much like Victoria's Secret commercials that seem to be on every channel at every time of day. Is this a major case of double standards going on in the battle of "Skinny" vs. "Plus Size". What do you think?
Watch the commercial below:
Want to show support for curves and Lane Bryant? Tweet them @lanebryant, leave a comment on the YouTube Page or on their Inside Curve page.
27 comments:
this made me so angry when i heard about it, as well. i guess skinny girls can't have too much cleavage? only jiggly bits are offensive, of course. ugh.
OOOOH! That makes me so mad! She looks so smokin! I don't think there's anything lewd or "too too" in this at all! Dang, I wish my tummy was as firm as hers though. Sex-ay!
*looking down at my chest*
i am showing more cleavage today at work than i think most of the camera shots of that ad.
i am on the fence about this being a fat versus skinny argument, though. i mean, DWTS and AI both appeal to a much younger demographic, and maybe they are afraid of getting too much of a reaction from the prepubescent boys that are watching the broadcast? i dunno.
i posted on another blog that i felt that other commercials have shown way more skin than this, but it wasn't in a sexual context (Olay Ribbons, for example).
We may never know the real reason behind the decision... i mean... when has a network ever been forthright with their audience? Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction? really?!
I think that ad is classier than most Victoria's Secret ads, but because it has a "big" gorgeous girl in it, it's scrutinized. It's definitely a double standards issue.
To quote the Layne Bryant article, "this smacks of a double standard."
ALL women are beautiful, no matter how big or small.
no doubt- it is a double standard.
what a load of crap! she looks awesome!!
It's a total double standard! I was expecting to see some super sexual ad (it would have to be if it was banned over Victorias Secret) BUT no?! What the heck!....She looks amazing. I could only dream of a body that great looking. An ad like that could do a lot of the self image of women with a little meat on their bones - not to mention Mens perspective of "lane bryan" shoppers. It really is an injustice, and i can only hope that this PR helps LB more than the original intent ever would have.
I think it's pathetic,and that people aren't ready to see a female body that looks adult(as opposed to adolescent) exposed on TV (not trying to body snark on thin women).
I totally support Lane Bryant's commercials. Ashley is gorgeous and does a beautiful job.
I loaded up the LB page and the VS page and showed Hubby and kids and they all said the LB one was prettier and much more tasteful. Son chimed in "those girls on that page [VS] need to eat, they look sick!"
I love my kiddo!
This is ridiculous! That commercial is TAME compared to some BURGER commercials out there (I'm talking to you, Carls Jr.). I cannot understand at all how anyone could deem this inappropriate when compared to any other lingerie (or sexy commercial aimed at straight men) commercial. She is gorgeous and definitely not overly-revealing!
I think this whole commercial business is disgusting. From what I've read, the networks are trying to claim that they don't want to show the commercials during that time slot or during a "family" program. And I could buy that IF they were equally conservative with everything else and IF they didn't already show other, equally (or more) sexy commercials during those same time slots/"family" programming. VS commercials, Desperate Housewives, even Dancing the the Stars show women just as scantily clad.
And what's more, I *know* I've seen Playtex commercials on those channels/times. I don't know if you know the ones I'm talking about - it's fuller-figured women in bras talking about how much they love their chests and their new bras. It's not a "sexy" commercial, the women are more friendly/funny than seductive. So the message I get is: you can only be sexy if you're skinny. If you're not a stick, then you can only be in underwear if it's silly, not seductive.
Basically, I'm pissed.
I gotta say that these ladies look HOT and anyone who thinks otherwise is crazy. I don't like seeing little sunken chests with ribs running around on tv and they have no problem showing that!
and kelly is right there are those 18 hour bras that show this much AND grab their own boobs so what's the double standard?
Like Heidi, I heard the hype first and I expected to see a semi-skanky ad. All I can say is that I'm thoroughly annoyed, that ad was shorter AND showed far less skin then any VS commercial I've ever seen. There has to be a double standard, maybe I just don't get it because I'm not male. I wish some fella would chime in on this and give their thoughtful opinions..
There IS a double standard...but I think there are two sides to the entire endeavor. Personally, I don't like the idea of clamoring for equal opportunity sexploitation. I think we need LESS focus on sexy, sexy, sexy all the time, not more. We have so far to go before the whole woman is valued, not just a body and what someone else can do with/to it.
I heard about this and it absolutely disgusts me. Its so appalling that victoria secret (or any other scantily clad "skinny" models) can be on tv at any time during any show no matter what but the second it's a "plus size" model there is too much cleavage. I definitely think its a double standard and as a "plus size" girl this just pisses me off. I dont have anything intelligent and profound to say, just wanted to voice my opinion on the subject. Thanks for bringing the issue to your blog.
@ Someone-I understand your point but right now sex sells and i don't see advertisers changing that POV anytime soon. I DO wish it was different.
But your point got me thinking and IMO, the LB ad is less exploitative and much more tame then any VS & other sexually driven ads period!
It makes me angry that ABC and FOX are so uncomfortable because these girls are not the usual skinny minnie models AND they have self-confidence! Another example, Do you remember when people were criticizing Gabourey Sidibe because she's Fat and she has the balls to be comfortable in her own skin? I'm afraid for my future daughters for the standards that they will be held up to..
I posted about this on blog today as well. Real women have curves! DWTS is willing to have Pamela Anderson on their show dressed in revealing clothing, but this ad is too much? What is this sending to our youth? Love yourself no matter what God gave ya!
The idea that this would be deemed too racy is preposterous. It's especially preposterous on DWTS, given how sexy many of the dance costumes are.
I don't know if Victoria's Secret airs in prime time on these types of programs, which, I believe are considered family viewing. I watch everything on DVR so I'm not too aware of what commercials are on when.
Great comments, ladies!! Thanks so much for chiming in. Maureen, funny that you commented on VS and if its ads are/were aired during "family viewing". Lane Bryant released a statement late this afternoon saying that ABC did in fact air VS commercials during the same tie slots - "The Victoria's Secret ads, which had aired on Dancing With the Stars prior to the date our ad was rejected, were not subject to the same restrictions. We have records of their ads airing in earlier time slots," a Lane Bryant spokesman said.". You can read the entire release here - http://ow.ly/1CnXt
This BURNS me!!! She looks amazing, and not any sexier than VS models. I agree, double standard.
i love ashley graham. and she looks amazing! fox is seriously hating! or ashley just so sexy that she made them nervous!
She is smokin! It's so typical that a bigger woman would be discriminated against. DWTS just had a dancer in lingerie doing a very sexual dance last week. It was worse than any commercial.
This is news to me. Great discussion. I love what Lane Bryant put in response on their Inside Curve page. The oooooonly thing I can think of is that she is leaving the house only in underwear under the trench coat and before that she checks her phone. She didn't sext Dan as far as we see, but maybe all of that is just too much w/the censors. I am in agreement with everyone. I think there are trashier things shown and said on tv. This was a beautiful spot.
I love how all the networks are now putting out statements denying their refusal to air this commercial. As a well-endowed, plus size lady myself- I think the commercials are sexy! The ladies are gorgeous!
Wow, that was pretty sexy...never expected that from Lane Bryant. I have to agree that VC commercials are just as revealing so I don't understand what the problem is...
It's clear to me that the guys at those networks are turned on by big girls!
They can let the skinny ones go by but when a really sexy gal shows up their antennas start twitching.
No, they shouldn't demand re-works, but big girls should be flattered that they're the ones that turn the censors on enough to get them going.
There was some serious cleav in that ad, but it was more tasteful than the crap VS churns out with their stick-straight models. DWTS is all about skimpy costumes and pushed-up boobs, so they have no room to complain.
Post a Comment