Log In

Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Developer Area

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area



honorh ([info]honorh) wrote in [info]unfunnybusiness,
@ 2010-04-24 10:35:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:another reason to hate people, oh for god's sake, sure we don't need no feminism, wtf?

Plus-sized women are too sexy for ABC and FOX.
Plus size Lane Bryant lingerie ad banned by FOX and ABC

Lane Bryant released a sexy new lingerie ad that features a voluptuous plus size model in bra and panties as she gets ready for a date. The commercial advertises Lane Bryant’s line of lingerie: Cacique, only Fox and ABC chose not to air the commercial. Now Lane Bryant is citing discrimination against full figured models and a controversy has ensued. Is the ad too racy?

Though the ad is sexy, it is similar to Victoria Secret ads that air regularly on television except for one noticeable difference: size! Lane Bryant uses a beautiful plus sized model, Ashley Graham, whose bust is noticeably larger than those depicted in Victoria Secret and other lingerie ads. Is this what caused Fox and ABC to ban the commercials?


Ashley Graham spoke about ABC’s decision not to air the commercial during Dancing with the Stars. She said, “It’s a bit prejudiced. The Victoria's Secret girls can flaunt around their panties all day long. But when there's a bigger woman with a little bit extra, they snipped it out immediately.” She also said that she was told that the commercial had ‘too much skin.’ You may watch Ashley Graham comment on the commercial in the video player below.


Lane Bryant is upset about the ban and posted about it on their official Lane Bryant blog ‘Inside Curve.”

“ABC and Fox have made the decision to define beauty for you by denying our new, groundbreaking Cacique commercial from airing freely on their networks,” the statement continues. “Yes, these are the same networks that have scantily-clad housewives so desperate they seduce every man on the block — and don't forget Bart Simpson, who has shown us the moon more often than NASA — all in what they call 'family hour.'”


What do you think?


Are Ashley Graham’s curves too racy for television?

***

The hypocrisy, it beggars the imagination. I encourage everyone to open the article, because it includes the ad in question. See for yourself why Ashley Graham can sing "I'm Too Sexy" for TV.



(Post a new comment)


[info]anarchicq
2010-04-24 02:40 am UTC (link)
Whoa.
That was beautiful. The only squiggy thing to me was a hot, healthy woman being all sexy and talking about her mother.

That was fucking TAME!

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]jaythenerdkid
2010-04-24 02:55 am UTC (link)
IAWTC. I was expecting something so much...racier, I guess? than that. In the end, it was just a beautiful woman wearing pretty lingerie and being all sexy and stuff. The only difference between this and every other lingerie ad ever is that it was more tasteful.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]honorh, 2010-04-24 03:03 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]jaythenerdkid, 2010-04-24 03:09 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2010-04-24 03:13 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]jaythenerdkid, 2010-04-24 03:19 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2010-04-24 03:51 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]jaythenerdkid, 2010-04-24 03:57 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2010-04-24 08:26 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]reppupu, 2010-04-24 04:05 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]jaythenerdkid, 2010-04-24 04:18 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]reppupu, 2010-04-24 10:39 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]jaythenerdkid, 2010-04-24 11:53 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ekaterinv, 2010-04-24 06:24 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]reppupu, 2010-04-24 10:37 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]tehrin, 2010-04-25 12:56 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]anonyrat, 2010-04-25 02:05 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]evilsqueakers, 2010-04-25 07:01 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2010-04-24 08:27 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]reppupu, 2010-04-24 10:33 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]honorh, 2010-04-25 02:29 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]reppupu, 2010-04-25 06:21 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]evilsqueakers, 2010-04-25 07:03 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2010-04-25 12:12 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]evilsqueakers, 2010-04-25 12:51 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2010-04-25 12:12 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]finchbird, 2010-04-25 02:38 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]reppupu, 2010-04-25 06:34 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ashacrone, 2010-04-25 03:46 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]reppupu, 2010-04-25 06:37 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ashacrone, 2010-04-25 08:51 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]honorh, 2010-04-26 01:41 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ashacrone, 2010-04-26 02:00 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]napalmnacey, 2010-04-25 04:01 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]reppupu, 2010-04-25 06:38 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]napalmnacey, 2010-04-25 06:40 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]greenling, 2010-04-25 10:10 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]mochibuni, 2010-04-26 05:55 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]napalmnacey, 2010-04-25 03:57 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]evilsqueakers, 2010-04-25 07:09 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2010-04-25 12:17 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]napalmnacey, 2010-04-25 12:24 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]chibikaijuu, 2010-04-25 08:00 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]atdelphi, 2010-04-25 08:43 pm UTC

[info]snarkhunter
2010-04-24 03:03 am UTC (link)
That's a hell of a lot tamer (and more fun to watch) than those awful "Victoria's Secret: The Nakeds" ads they're airing right now.

WTF is WRONG with people?

(I think the answer is that this woman is clearly going out to enjoy her a lunchtime quickie, and omg we can't have that! A woman planning to have sex?! NO!)

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]anarchicq
2010-04-24 03:17 am UTC (link)
*Googles*

What the shit?!

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]ahiru
2010-04-24 03:23 am UTC (link)
A woman planning to have sex?! NO!

Not only that, but one of those fatty fat girls. Everyone knows they're not allowed to be all hot and sexy and have sex! They should be sitting at home on their lonely fat asses, crying into their ice cream and avoiding all human contact!

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2010-04-24 03:49 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]amireal, 2010-04-24 01:37 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sandglass, 2010-04-24 03:36 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]kitt_in_socks, 2010-04-24 03:38 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2010-04-24 03:47 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]honorh, 2010-04-24 03:56 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]bienegold, 2010-04-24 04:11 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sandglass, 2010-04-24 04:52 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ladysphinx, 2010-04-24 05:37 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]cinnamonical, 2010-04-24 05:45 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]anarchicq, 2010-04-24 06:12 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]simplefaith, 2010-04-24 06:33 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]alexa, 2010-04-24 12:28 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]randomsome1, 2010-04-24 11:32 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]tehrin, 2010-04-24 11:54 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]finchbird, 2010-04-25 02:03 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]defenestrate, 2010-04-25 04:14 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]cereta, 2010-04-25 10:10 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]influencethis, 2010-04-26 12:12 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ekaterinv, 2010-04-24 05:56 pm UTC

[info]annaham
2010-04-24 03:09 am UTC (link)
How is that racier than most of the stuff that VS puts on the air?

(Reply to this)


[info]sandglass
2010-04-24 03:10 am UTC (link)
Are Ashley Graham’s curves too racy for television?

Are you kidding me? Fuck you!

(Reply to this)


[info]freezer
2010-04-24 03:34 am UTC (link)
As I said in another forum on this topic: I've seen racier ads for Fruit of The Loom.

(Reply to this)


[info]melannen
2010-04-24 03:57 am UTC (link)
I actually did find that far sexier than any Victoria's Secret ad I've been forced to watch, but I think that's because I've long since stopped seeing models who fit the hollywood-airbrushed-ideal as actual people; they exist in magazines and billboards and on the tv machine, not in real life, and as a result are about as sexy as the mannequins at Wal-mart. Any response to them is purely rote at this point.

Whereas the woman in the Lane Bryant ad was different enough that it didn't feel like watching an ad, it felt like a real scantily-clad woman doing real things, which made her both a lot more attractive and made it feel a lot more transgressive, because she was touchable and believable and went outside the parameters I was desensitized to.

(Not that I think that was a good reason to take the ad off the air. But I think it is possible that some of the decision-makers really *did* perceive it as more racy than the VS ads. Or at least got more turned on by it.

...also I am not saying that size-zero models aren't real people, or aren't attractive (my personal tastes aside), I'm saying one of the crappy things about our media culture is that it teaches us to see them as unreal.)

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]altera, 2010-04-24 04:15 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]aloysius, 2010-04-24 04:53 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ladysphinx, 2010-04-24 05:40 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]kookaburra, 2010-04-24 06:22 pm UTC

[info]softgraysky
2010-04-24 05:45 am UTC (link)
Whoa, I love that ad. She's gorgeous. And the ad worked. I'd never heard of lane byrant before, but those bras look like they might actually work for me.

*checks them out*

Gah, almost! Maybe almost enough to count, because I don't think I'll ever actually get the size I need, unless I find someone to make me one individually. (Yeah, go being too small for a 38 around and like, somewhere between H and I for the cup. *makes unhappy face*) But seeing this ad on tv would make me a lot more encouraged and just happier about lingerie in general.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]honorh, 2010-04-24 06:29 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]softgraysky, 2010-04-24 06:05 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ashacrone, 2010-04-25 04:09 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]chibikaijuu, 2010-04-30 08:33 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ashacrone, 2010-04-30 11:19 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sheep, 2010-04-24 07:51 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]lilitu93, 2010-04-24 11:21 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sheep, 2010-04-24 12:21 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]softgraysky, 2010-04-24 06:05 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sheep, 2010-04-24 07:22 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]jujubee, 2010-04-25 12:39 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]chibikaijuu, 2010-04-25 08:04 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]dejla, 2010-04-26 07:22 pm UTC

[info]simplefaith
2010-04-24 06:53 am UTC (link)
I dunno. I do think it's "sexier," than something from Victoria's Secret, but that's probably because I've never found any of the Victoria's Secret models attractive before.

Like, I often hear when people are defending how skinny models are (yeah, really), that the models are, essentially, hangers or walking mannequins, and you're not supposed to really pay attention to them (though that can be difficult when it looks like a gust of wind could knock one of them down). I don't know how true this is, but it would explain a lot. And with this commercial, the model herself isn't just posing and showing of the merch. She's playful and flirty and...did I mention really attractive? I mean, I'm a usually-straight chick and I was like "whoa." Ahem. Anyway. So she's not just making the clothing sexy; she, herself, is sexy (and as mentioned by others, she's clearly about to play out "Afternoon Delight"). And that probably weirded out the boys up top.

So I can't help but think this is less about discrimination due to weight and more about how female sexuality is, apparently, still considered a no-no. Which is, y'know, is a bad enough implication itself. >.>

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]ekaterinv, 2010-04-24 06:03 pm UTC

[info]alexa
2010-04-24 12:46 pm UTC (link)
It should probably be noted that the networks have denied their decision was based on the weight of the model:

ABC says it agreed to air the ads during daytime dramas and after 9pm, and FOX said the Lane Bryant ad (and the Victoria's Secret ad) was too salacious for "family hour," a.k.a 8:00-9:00 pm.


I agree that there is a lot of prejudice against heavier women, in the media and in "real life," but I also think it's entirely possible that this is a publicity stunt.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]jujubee, 2010-04-25 12:37 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]finchbird, 2010-04-25 03:30 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]alexa, 2010-04-25 12:33 pm UTC

[info]harrylovesron
2010-04-24 11:33 pm UTC (link)
ABC’s decision not to air the commercial during Dancing with the Stars. [...] She also said that she was told that the commercial had ‘too much skin.

Too much skin? For airing during Dancing with the Stars? Where they often happily plug the Latin dances as being sexy and steamy, and I'm pretty sure Tom Bergeron has called attention to the skimpy outfits the female dancers wear at least once? THAT Dancing with the Stars?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]deconcentrate, 2010-04-24 11:45 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]jabberwockypie, 2010-04-26 09:42 am UTC

[info]tehrin
2010-04-24 11:48 pm UTC (link)
She looks incredibly beautiful. In the CNN clip, they say FOX and ABC suggested edits be made to the dd. What edits is what I want to know. I don't see anything offensive in it at all.

(Reply to this)


[info]finchbird
2010-04-25 12:32 am UTC (link)
A beautiful, curvy woman who doesn't look like she's starving herself who is wearing sexy lingerie and is obviously in charge of her sexuality. CAN'T HAVE THAT ON TELEVISION.

(Reply to this)


[info]jujubee
2010-04-25 12:34 am UTC (link)
Ok, this makes a lot more sense. I turned on my TV yesterday and briefly left it on Access Hollywood or Inside Edition or whatever it was while I was changing the channel, and the way those brief moments made it sound, the controversy was that Lane Bryant didn't want it aired during DWTS but ABC did anyway. This totally makes more sense than that.

Also, other than having a bit more cleavage and rounder arms, how could anyone look at that girl and think "plus size"?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]evilsqueakers, 2010-04-25 01:47 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]risha, 2010-04-25 02:09 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]risha, 2010-04-25 02:12 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]alexa, 2010-04-25 12:37 pm UTC

[info]evilsqueakers
2010-04-25 01:48 am UTC (link)
Can't comment on the article just yet, since I'm going on a surprise date apparently, but has anyone else noticed the "plus sized" looking lingerie on the website shows some people that are maybe a 6 at most? That didn't put me off (yay 5-for-29 panties) but it was disconcerting since it's a plus size shop.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]risha, 2010-04-25 03:38 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]librarianmouse, 2010-04-25 05:34 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]librarianmouse, 2010-04-25 05:35 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]evilsqueakers, 2010-04-25 06:45 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]librarianmouse, 2010-04-25 10:04 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]evilsqueakers, 2010-04-26 06:52 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]evilsqueakers, 2010-04-25 06:43 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]risha, 2010-04-25 07:08 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]evilsqueakers, 2010-04-25 07:09 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]risha, 2010-04-25 07:33 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]evilsqueakers, 2010-04-25 07:36 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2010-04-25 12:21 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]evilsqueakers, 2010-04-25 12:54 pm UTC

[info]tauira
2010-04-25 02:10 am UTC (link)
scantily-clad housewives so desperate they seduce every man on the block


I see.

Good to know Lane Bryant are taking the moral high ground, here, and not slut-shaming or anything like that.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]risha, 2010-04-25 02:16 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]tauira, 2010-04-25 02:23 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]risha, 2010-04-25 02:36 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]tauira, 2010-04-25 02:43 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]freezer, 2010-04-25 08:07 am UTC
(no subject) - redwarrior, 2010-04-27 11:37 pm UTC

[info]lamperouge
2010-04-25 02:12 am UTC (link)
You know... that tacky PETA ad with all the scantily-clad models humping vegetables was a lot racier than a pretty plus-sized model in lingerie. I don't get what the networks are thinking. 'A'

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]kerryblaze, 2010-04-25 04:58 am UTC

[info]napalmnacey
2010-04-25 04:13 am UTC (link)
*Takes note of model's name* I have a cache of pictures of beautiful plus sized models to help me with my body modelling in my comics (cause I don't want to have run-of-the-mill blow-up doll types, I want a range). This woman is perfect. And sexy. So sexy. *blush*

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]justira, 2010-04-26 07:54 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]napalmnacey, 2010-04-26 08:07 pm UTC

[info]brennalarose
2010-04-25 05:41 am UTC (link)
Well, guess I'm going back to boycotting FOX and ABC!

*makes a note to go lingerie shopping*

(Reply to this)


[info]lazzchan
2010-04-25 06:40 am UTC (link)
I thought she was absolutely beautiful and don't see what's plus-sized about her, except she has a large bust. Wow, just-- *shakes head* There wasn't anything racy about it that twigged me.

(Reply to this)


[info]evilsqueakers
2010-04-25 06:54 am UTC (link)
Okay, now that I've seen the commercial...uh, she's not anything less clad than the stupid Reebox ones where the woman is practically bare-ass naked and promoting a shoe.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]lilgoala, 2010-04-25 12:41 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]evilsqueakers, 2010-04-25 12:57 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]seasleepy, 2010-04-25 07:21 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]evilsqueakers, 2010-04-26 06:50 am UTC

[info]dejana
2010-04-27 06:20 am UTC (link)
I wonder if it's because she looks like a real woman, while the Victoria's Secret models are more easily regarded as imaginary fantasy creatures.

(Reply to this)


redwarrior
2010-04-27 11:36 pm UTC (link)
I still don't believe that's considered "plus-sized".

SHE'S AVERAGE PEOPLE

And yeah, so much fail in this.

(Reply to this)


 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map