For those who haven't already heard, Lane Bryant has revamped it's Cacique lingerie line and are wanting to run ads announcing it's new products. So, naturally they did their research and determined they would get their message to many of their customers if they air an ad during Monday night's Dancing with the stars on ABC. According to Lane Bryant, ABC did not want to air the ad, saying it was not appropriate for prime time. They eventually gave in and said it could air, but only in the last 10 minutes of the show. The reason they felt the ad was inappropriate was because the model "had too much cleavage," and apparently that could be a problem for viewers. Lane Bryant is also claiming a similar reaction to advertisers over at FOX when they tried to purchase a spot during American Idol.
Now Lane Bryant is crying foul because they feel like this is discrimination. The lingerie featured in the ad is pretty generously cut bras, panties, and chemises. They are also saying that both ABC and FOX have been running Victoria's Secret ads during the same slots they were trying to purchase. Victoria's Secret ads often show as much or more cleavage and skin. Lane Bryant points out that a fuller figured woman often has large breasts and that there is nothing offensive about the models body or how it is dressed. They claim the networks are discriminating because the model is plus sized.
Ok, so now you have the facts, as best I understand them. Here's where I go "Huh?" with all of this back and forth from the networks and Lane Bryant. I understand that the networks have the right to decide what could be offensive to their viewers. Yes, the model has more cleavage than an average television actress or model would have. But is it an offensive amount of cleavage? Heck no. Is the model doing anything, suggesting anything, or posing inappropriately? No. And remember that they were wanting to show this during Dancing with the Stars. Now, I'm no prude but sometimes the costumes, or lack there of, make even me uncomfortable. And that certainly has nothing to do with the dancers size, since all of the dancing professionals are very thin.
Here is what I think this means for our society and how it must change. Being plus sized I automatically jump to the side of Lane Bryant and the full figure woman. I would appreciate seeing an ad for Cacique lingerie during a show I watch from time to time and I think the model in the ad is beautiful. But I have to admit when I saw her I thought "sexy". In my opinion it wasn't offensive sexy, but sexy nonetheless. And then that got me wondering, do I think "sexy" when I see Victoria's Secret ads? The answer is that generally I do not. Now I thought that this was because I had seen those ads so many times that I had gotten used to Victoria's Secret models in their underwear so it didn't effect me. But the truth is that I don't personally find them sexy. To me they are pretty, beautiful, and certainly very fit, but not sexy. When I see a woman I think is sexy she doesn't look like a Victoria's Secret model. She is often curvier, with cleavage, and hips. So does this mean that as a society we still think that boobs = too much sex? Do we see a straighter, more up and down figure, and think tomboy? It's terrible, really, that just a minor change in the shape of a womans figure can change what you think of her without even knowing her.
So, I say air the ad, represent both sides equally and maybe we will get to a point where a curvy woman wont be such a shock for the audience. Maybe the curvy woman can catch a break and not have to worry that what she is saying, doing, or wearing is too sexy because she apparently already exudes sex because of her shape. And maybe in doing so we'll get the world to see that all shapes of woman are equally beautiful and equally sexy and if you're going to have a problem with seeing skin then it should be with seeing any skin on any shape.
To see the Lane Bryant ad click here.
To read some current articles about the controversy click here.
No comments:
Post a Comment