ABC Refuses To Air Plus-Sized Lingerie Ad
I got an email this morning about a controversy brewing at ABC, who is refusing to air a lingerie ad for Lane Bryant that features a plus-sized model. Specifically, “a pleasantly plump model [who] gracefully shows off her curves before the camera in a slew of sexy poses.”
(Because she’s sexy she gets to be “pleasantly plump” instead of just “fat.” Got it, New York Post.)
Lane Bryant thinks the net’s executives are a bunch of prejudiced boobs. “The cleavage of the plus-size models, they said, was excessive, and we don’t think that’s the case,” said the source. “It certainly appears to be discrimination against full-sized women.”
Fox also initially refused to air the ad, but then when Lane Bryant argued it was effectively the same as the Victoria’s Secret ad they’d already approved, Fox changed their minds. The ad is reportedly going to air during American Idol this week.
My first thought is that it’s a rarity that a full-figured person is shown as being too sexy for television. But what do you think: is it discrimination? Take a look at both ads and decide for yourself, after the jump.
The Victoria’s Secret ad:
The Lane Bryant ad:
So what do you think?
Posted by mo pie
Filed under: Advertising, American Idol, Celebrities, Fashion, Fatism, Question, Sex & Romance, TV, Video
Email us
I think we should organize some kind of ABC Boycott.
Peace,
Shannon
I don’t know, I guess I do think the cleavage of the plus-sized model is more eye-catching and apparent than of the smaller model. Am I crazy?
OMG, they BOUNCED when she moved!
And as an aside, nice choice of verbiage, NY Post – “prejudiced boobs,” indeed.
Yeah, I call discrimination. Because god forbid a fatty be secure in herself, sexually appealing and wear a bra that’s not ugly. *rollseyes*
I expected the difference would be in how “eye-catching” the cleavage was, as well… until I watched the VS ad. Granted, the VS chick doesn’t have as much to work with, but the push-up bra does everything it can to push her girls up into your face. At this point, I’m having a hard time seeing this as anything other than a glaring double standard.
This is interesting. It’s like, bras and boobs are ok, but not clevage. Because Victoria Skinnypants doesn’t have “clevage” exactly.
I don’t think this is a discrimination thing. Body-acceptance stuff aside, the Lane Bryant woman is sexier, period. Maybe that’s why it raised eyebrows on an executive level in a way that a similar VS ad didn’t.
P.S. I should clarify…it may not be discrimination, but it’s totally still BS.
probably not discrimination based on fatphobia, since the lane bryant model is nowhere near “fat” — she’s sophia loren. curvy and stacked!
It was actually because the model was holding a Blackberry phone at one point and they didn’t have the license to show that. Had nothing to do with her size and they plan to air it again.
But still, I think the networks think that if you’re ANY HIGHER than a size 2, you’re not considered beautiful, which to me is BULLSH…..!!!!
The Lane Bryant model is YUMMEH! :D I’ve *totally* seen more one than one VS ad where the boobs were gigantically huge (maybe just from the ridiculous push-up bra, but whatever). What a bunch of lying liars. The woman isn’t hawking Jenny Craig or apologizing for not being a size 00 so she isn’t allowed to be on TV? F*ck that noise! BTW, when is VS going to drop the “angels” thing? They’ve been doing it for years and it’s T-I-R-E-D.
Oh and about that Lane Bryant commercial………The model Ashley Graham looked HELLA sexy in that ad!!! That face, that figure, that smile……..I was in LOVE!!!!
I think it’s stupid, but probably not discriminatory, since they’re probably going by things like centimeters of cleavage it’s appropriate to show. Well, that may actually be a discriminatory policy, since it would mainly apply to larger women, but I don’t think the intent is discriminatory.
To Lori, while I respect your theory that it’s not discriminatory, I would have to dissagree. Because if they air those skinny VS commercials on the regular basis while banning plus size lingerie ads, that this double standard IS imho discriminatory!!
The whole Lane Bryant ad (the model, the voice over, the “story line”) is much more sexy and suggestive and just plain wonderful than the anaemic VS ad. I love it, and I can understand why ABC has its knickers in a tizzy. Bunch of idiots.
Gee, Panda, how come you’re the only person on the whole internet that knows this? Source? Link? Anything?
If one were measuring exposure or cleavage or whatever, Pamela Anderson would not be allowed on Dancing with the Stars, to begin with. I think it’s simple “we don’t want to air an ad for fat-lady clothes and gross out our fat-hating audience”.
I’m pretty sure that model is too small to wear LB clothes, by the way. She can’t be more than a healthy size 10.
Unless Panda is correct, this is so freaking ridiculous I can’t even fathom it.
Gee, Jezebella, how rude.
http://jezebel.com/5521074/plus+size-lingerie-ad-removed-from-web-after-censorship-by-networks-updated?skyline=true&s=i
When I first saw something about this from the NAAFA e-mail list my first thought was what’s the big deal, Lane Bryant doesn’t even use really plus size models. After viewing the ad I’m still wondering why this would even be an issue. Why are the networks “uncomfortable” with this. Do they only do anorexic looking models with breast implants? If this is size discrimination then our society is as f**cked” as I know it is because the girl in the ad can’t be bigger than maybe a size 12. If that’s plus size then god help us!!
If the Blackberry is the problem, they could easily wipe out the little logo on the phone and air it that way. Then there’d be no excuse to fall back on and we’d see if it’s straight-up discrimination.
P.S. As a straight lady, let me say that ad is ridiculously hot.
Seriously? They have to remind Pamela Anderson to wear panties on DWTS, but the Lane Bryant commercial was too much? Come on ABC, get over yourselves!
I think that she is the epitomy of real beauty. Not airbrushed or edited. Too bad ABC doesn’t see that.
@Panda and @Jezzebella and @byrneout
I realize there is room for interpretation here, but I believe the spokesperson from the linked Jezebel post is referring to the removal of the ad in its original form from YouTube/removal of their blog post on ABC/Fox’s rejection of the spot.
Regarding the ad in general, I bet the rejection was based less on cleavage per se and more on the clear indication that the woman was off to have some Afternoon Delight. The VS commercial has a displayed bustular area, but it’s in the most neutered context it really can be.
Keila – you cracked me up and I couldn’t have said it better…”Seriously? They have to remind Pamela Anderson to wear panties on DWTS, but the Lane Bryant commercial was too much?”
I think the execs over at ABC were so upset that they got hard-ons from a “big girl” that they couldn’t bear to show the ad…lame.
From the Hollywood Reporter:
“Lane Bryant’s controversial new lingerie ad has been given an airdate on Fox, April 28, during the closing minutes of the 9 p.m. edition of “American Idol.” The women’s clothing manufacturer had claimed both Fox and ABC objected to the commercial’s content.
Though the commercial will now air on “Idol,” both client and media still seem peeved. Lane Bryant has accused the networks of bias against large-size women — and the networks have denied such claims, accusing Lane Bryant of trying to milk a non-story for publicity purposes.
[snip]
In a statement, ABC said of Lane Bryant: “Their statements are not true. The ad was accepted. Lane Bryant was treated absolutely no differently than any advertiser for the same product. We were willing to accommodate them, but they chose to seek publicity instead.””
Link: http://tinyurl.com/zcia81
Isn’t it a bit rich to complain about discrimination and size-phobia, when there are comments such as “Victoria Skinnypants” “anaemic” “anorexic looking” – surely the idea of not discriminating or judging because of size applies to women of *all* sizes, not just those in the double digits.
I agree that society has certain ‘norms’ and the woman in the LB ad is further away from those norms than the VS woman, but the comments above don’t move us any closer to accepting all women to be beautiful as they are.
Oh wow she is beautiful! I now want to buy matching bras and panties from Lane Bryant!
I really don’t see what the deal is with the add being viewed as too sexy, it looked up to par with everything else on the TV lately.
I do have a complaint about LB clothes currently though, I keep looking online and it seems everything decent is in limited sizes. Why have a plus sized shop that doesn’t cater to all plus sized women? I wear a 22/24 and am so very emo sad when I click on a blouse and it only is available in a 14/16 and 18/20 or the pants that DO come in my size are not in the colors I want.
*sigh*
Oh, let the fat chick get laid. Jealous much, ABC?
This commercial is no worse than all the other ads on TV nowadays.I hate the one where the man and woman are dancing and he throws the woman on his neck — you have to look at her legs around his neck with half her ass right in the camera. GROSS! And don’t get me started on the tampon/pad commercials.Great thing to sit through while watching TV with a first date.
Seriously, I am a size 4, but this girl is very pretty …and she can lose weight. It would take much cash and plastic surgery for me to be that pretty.
I’m not seeing how this commercial could be too hot for tv. I’ve seen beer ads more suggestive.
I also didn’t see a plus-sized woman in that LB ad.
Byrneout, I still don’t see anything in the article you linked about a Blackberry violating copyright. Again, if Panda is right, how come every article I’ve seen about this doesn’t mention the Blackberry issue??
Ty: yes. She’s not real-world plus-sized, but she is fashion-model-plus-sized. Which means average in size but by no means average in looks.
I think the VS Nakeds ad is WAY more provocative than the LB ad. And THOSE VS models have quite a bit of cleavage. I call discrimination.
Catherine most likely nailed it! And FOX, calling “too much cleavage”? Some of that network’s prime-time offerings have bits of flesh spilling out all over the place; it’s just really SKINNY flesh.
The comments re:costumes on DWTS are spot on: think about how the show dresses the (very curvy) pro dancers & the more well-endowed among the contestants. Nah, this is just plain, old fatophobia in action, and that kind of censorship is a pathetic spectacle indeed. I say, let the cups run over where they may, and may cleavage spill throughout the land!
2 things:
1) The Lane Bryant model is quite a dish, amiright?
2) I do think it would be an interesting study to see if there wasn’t some kind of psychological discomfort with Venus-type women’s bodies. Miranda Kerr (VS) is lovely, but she is very angular, boyish, and not-at-all boobalicious, like VS pretends most of the models are. PUSH-UPS, people. Whereas the LB model’s attributes are very in-your-face (and spectacular). Is there a real case to be made that fuller-figured women are more intimidating? Hmmm…
There was a post about this on Every Body is Beautiful that suggests that the controversy was not over the cleavage but over the Blackberry trademark. I really do think it’s a publicity stunt on the part of Lane Bryant because something doesn’t read right about the entire situation.
This reminds me of conversations I’ve read over at Fatshonista about how the fat female form is over-sexualized and judged as inappropriate. I’m reminded of a story where the writer wore the exact same mass-produced tank top to high school as a thinner classmate, and the writer was scolded for dressing indecently, whereas the other classmate was not.
Fat girls have more flesh, ABC–deal with it!
Great article on this over at Sociological Images that sums up pretty well how I feel about it:
http://contexts.org/socimages/2010/04/23/plus-sized-women-in-lingerie-too-hot-for-tv/
And honestly, I don’t think it’s any kind of overt fat prejudice. I think that whoever at the studio decides what is appropriate saw it and said “That is too racy,” because that girl is HOTT and the implication that she’s going to lunch in just her underwear is HOT, etc.
It’s the same thing you run into when movie ratings boards will give an R rating to a film with fairly graphic hetero sex scenes, but the same exact sex scenes between 2 men or 2 women would be given an NC-17. It makes them uncomfortable and they think it’s inappropriate, so they say it’s “too sexy” rather than “I’m uncomfortable with this because I am uncomfortable with same-sex relationships”
If Lane Bryant were only intending to get the free press over this controversy, which they have been accused of, then why be so tame with their ad?
This woman isn’t rolling around on the floor with “come f*ck me eyes” (pardon the terminology)or giving a striptease – both things I have frequently seen in ads on tv (whether or not they’re selling underwear).
So why is this considered so racy?
I would speculate that it’s less about the presentation of a larger body – we’ve seen larger bodies, albeit rarely. Look at the Playtex commercials for larger-breasted (and generally larger bodied) women. The main difference in these commercials is not the bodies, but the sexuality. We don’t bat an eye when we see a thin woman being presented as sexual bait to draw our interest in a product/service/movie/etc. While I believe there is no singular answer as to why, I think our society has a real problem with the idea of fat women being sexual in any way. Fat chicks in shows are constantly on the hunt for boyfriends to prove that they are lovable and desirable. The fat girls who do beat the odds and get the guy usually get him because he loves her DESPITE her weight. Even a chaste kiss with a fat girl usually completely rocks her world – because who would ever want to touch her, let alone kiss her?
I’m a big supporter of this commercial on multiple levels. It not only shows a fat woman being completely sexy and sensual, but she is obviously comfortable in her body, and most importantly, presents an image of female sexuality that is strong and independent. She’s not the naive/nympho dynamic that we see so often.
OH MY GOD she actually has boobs and cleavage like a normal person and not two fried eggs stuffed into a pushup bra to give them some definition.
I don’t even know what is wrong with this ad, given the amount of flesh actually showing (and she is gorgeous, by the way) compared to the amount of flesh shown by smaller models in many ads. It’s not particularly raunchy, and it adresses the fact that she is strong and sensual and confident and feminine in a way that many smaller, more boyishly shaped models are not.
The Lane Bryant ad reminds me of Victoria’s Secret before they started using full-page photos of Caprica Six having a simulated orgasm in a pair of panties they were trying to sell. Back when their catalogs showed women (okay, hardly ever curvy women, but still) admiring _themselves_ in mirrors, not making slackjaw hornyface at the camera.
Back when the catalog was aimed at women, not men.
Oh noez, women might want to buy their own sexy things that make them feel sexy!
A great contribution by Linda Holmes at NPR, with photos from DWTS:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2010/04/you_cant_just_show_some_ladys.html?ft=1&f=93568166
That is total crap! That woman is absolutely beautiful! The ABC executive jackasses are completely predjudiced! Victoria Secret ads show women practically naked. I love seeing real women in these ads!
aNonnyMoose said: Seriously, I am a size 4, but this girl is very pretty …and she can lose weight. It would take much cash and plastic surgery for me to be that pretty.
That’s being rather presumptuous there to assume that the fat girl can lose weight. Are you sure you meant to say that?
I think this post is awesome. And the controversy is hilarious. This VicSec commercial is tame compared to the last one I saw on TV for the invisibles collection. If that can air, anything can.
(p.s. i would argue on any given awards show nights the networks show way more tatas than either of these ads – but you don’t see them hawing about that. I guess there’s a time and a place for Golden Globes … har, har.)
:)
Pingback: Lane Bryant Model too Much ‘Woman’ for TV? | Feed Me I'm Cranky
Ummm “I think it’s simple “we don’t want to air an ad for fat-lady clothes and gross out our fat-hating audience”.” Sorry – this is one of the sexiest ads I have seen for ages – the idea that they were worried about grossing anyone out is a bit far fetched. There might be something in the fact that it is likely to be scarier for a male tv exec because the VS ad shows your standard “controlled” woman whereas the other is so obviously more self-possessed (and hot!!).
@Jenny Islander: it’s my understanding that VS started its catalog business by targeting men — it’s not that they began by targeting women and then switched. That’s always been their business model.
That said, ABC pulling the LB ad is totally BS. She looks fantastic, and isn’t any “racier” than a lot of other crap in ads. Heaven forbid that a fuller-figured women be happy as she is, apparently!
Also, it would be incredibly easy, to blur the Blackberry logo in post-production — so if that was ever considered an issue it was complete BS. I worked on a TV spot with a cell phone as part of the “plot,” and the production company found a non-logo prop phone for us to use. But a lot can be done digitally after the shoot.
But of course it’s alright to see half naked skinny girls walking around in their bra and underwear, But god forbid if there’s the slightest bit of meat on their bones its considered “fat” blow it out your ass ABC.
Underweight runway models serve as “walking clothes hangers” for fashion designers who want to draw attention to the display of their artistic creations instead of attracting attention to the models themselves. That is why most of them have little make-up on and most have more of a plain face instead of striking facial features. The exception is the lingerie sector where the idea is to promote overall sex appeal. What do I think of the comparison between Victoria’s Secret and Lane Bryant’s underwear ad? I think that the topic of the Lane Bryant ad is more provocative than the ad for Victoria’s Secret ad. The Lane Bryant ad has a beautiful young woman with striking facial features getting ready for a sexual encounter with her boyfriend, getting down to her bra and panties and wearing nothing but that under a trench coat (WHICH she decides to wear in public on her way to his house. This is a type of exhibitionist behavior “hoping not to get caught, but kind of want to in public” thing. The Victoria’s secret ad shows a young woman with more girlish facial features talking about Vic’s newest push-up bra while wearing a pair of angel wings. (Much like their other ads with the runway look and angel wing theme.) The Vic ad discusses a new line of bra; a new product using a new type of filler technology. The Lane ad discusses naughty behavior that a “properly raised” child would not be advised to do. The cleavage remark is valid-there WAS ample amounts of cleavage showing in the Lane ad-along with a full view of how round and supple her breasts were. The other ad had more of a flat chested female on the screen, which others on this blog have commented on having a not much to look at. In the Lane ad there was body language suggestive of sex, and an obvious intention for the female to be presented as a promiscuous female ’bout to “Get some, heh heh.” I can see where the controversy lies. Peta ads have been banned from television because they have decided to use graphic sexual displays as attention getters for their cause. (naked women preferring to go vegetarian-posing with vegetables in a provocative manner, or rather wearing nothing than putting on any leather or fur outerwear. Most of the PETA models were underweight or trim women.)
That may be why they were hesitant to allow it-because of the suggestion. As far as discrimination against an overweight woman posing in underwear, I do not think it has as much to do with that as easily offended fat women want it to. She was very proportionate and extremely lovely to look at. She was indeed a very sexy curvy woman. The remark in the post about the term “pleasantly plump” being taken as offensive; well I hear that all of the time from fat women who describe themselves as that or “fluffy”, even “cuddly with more to love”- cutsie terms that they choose to call themselves instead of just plain FAT or the more technical term-OBESE. Today’s world is SO PC that people will use any term as offensive because for some reason they NEED to be offended-it sets them up for sympathy. Or fills the need for attention if someone consoles them about “what that horrible person said” etc… What would the overweight population LIKE to be called? Should a generally accepted term be put up for national vote so that everyone is happy with the outcome?
Personally, I think that just as some of the Victoria’s Secret models are attractive (some of them have curves too and large frames-take Tyra Banks for example) MOST of Lane Bryant’s models pass the bar and come on top as some of the best looking faces and curves in the catalogue industry.
HOWEVER just note that BOTH Victoria’s Secret AND Lane Bryant are owned by the SAME company-The Limited Corp. As is Bath and Body Works and Ambercrombie and Fitch. AND PLEASE NOTE that Most of Lane Bryant’s models fall closer to the smallest size in their store’s inventory, as do their torso mannequins-size 14. They also take clothes in their store and pin the sides of the blouses (even the bras, ladies)to slim the clothing down and keep them form fitting on those size 14 torso mannequins. So who is more discriminating-the networks, or Lane Bryant for keeping the display of the largest sizes in their store a “secret” from shopper’s eyes? Out of sight out of mind?
“That’s being rather presumptuous there to assume that the fat girl can lose weight. Are you sure you meant to say that?”
Yes, I did mean to say that. It would be more natural for her to lose weight than for me to suddenly wake up as pretty as she without big bucks in surgery. I’m not saying weight loss is easy)been there and lost lots of weight naturally, through diet and exercise, on my own). But maybe she doesn’t *want* to lose weight– the point being,she’s still pretty either way.