Spectre Of Size 12 Woman Having Sex Forces Fox And ABC To Suddenly Realize They Have Standards
Here is the Lane Bryant ad (for underwear!) (worn by and marketed to plus-sized women!) that was apparently too hot for airing during Dancing With The Stars and American Idol because it showed a lady heading off for a "lunch" while wearing only a trenchcoat, some lingerie, and a pair of shoes. Whether or not this is some big publicity stunt that the plus-sized fashion retailer devised is up for debate. Maybe the standards and practices departments at ABC and Fox are simply anti-nooners in general! But it should be known that the store has put up an irritable blog post about the whole thing that also manages to call out those freaky-annoying Playtex commercials.
We knew the ads were sexy, but they are not salacious. Our new commercials represent the sensuality of the curvy woman who has more to show the world than the typical waif-like lingerie model. What we didn't know was that the networks, which regularly run Victoria's Secret and Playtex advertising on the very shows from which we're restricted, would object to a different view of beauty. If Victoria's Secret and Playtex can run ads at any time during the 9pm to 10pm hour, why is Lane Bryant restricted only to the final 10 minutes?
It should be noted that the Playtex ads don't merely show waiflike women, although the ads that have made it to television are pretty "unsexy." For comparison's sake, here is a video that shows off the outfit that Pamela Anderson wore while twirling and pouting her way through last week's Dancing With The Stars. I guess it has a longer hemline than the trench?
(Oh and by the way, in case you were wondering? Lane Bryant is no longer a corporate sister of Victoria's Secret. Both were owned by the mall-monopolizing Limited Brands until 2002, when LB was spun off to Charming Shoppes. I was all set to believe that this was some sort of crazy cross-promotion in which VS and LB would eventually come together and form a Voltron of bra-selling, but alas!)
[Via]
Rawr.
I would like to say the following:
1) I am currently wearing that exact bra. It is a magic bra.
2) Lane Bryant is usually horrifically frumpy, but they sell nice underthings.
ALSO having just watched the commercial, there is nothing "new" about any of the things they show there. They've been selling that lace bra with the scallloped straps for at least 5 years.
I am also wearing that bra, and much agreement with regards to magical properties.
So many times I go into LB in search of a pair of pants or a new shirt and wind up walking out with about seventeen new sets of fun underthings. It's nice to see that they are actually advertising them.
I'd hit it.
The model is hot and it's ridiculous that she's considered "plus-sized." There are all kinds of psycho-sexual reasons why FOX and ABC nixed the ad. I think the rationale they'll stick with is that this ad tells the story of a woman who's going off to have a nooner. This is anti-family values or something. That's what they'll say. The Victoria's Secret ads are all impressionistic and weird but ultimately not emphatically sexual. They're sensual and objectifying, but they don't draw a clear connection between expensive underpants and doing it. Even that campaign where Bob Dylan stalked around a Venetian palazzo didn't have such a clear "let's fuck" storyline.
I'm watching this over and over (heh), and I'm seeing a dark, shadowy road leading to a probably-horrible Bill Clinton joke… but I'm not feeling that sadistic, just today.
Also check out Edyta's costumes
http://www.edytasliwinska.com/
This is another manufactured "controversy," similar to those Kotex ads that were "too hot for the networks to handle." I do not believe that Lane Bryant is my sister in fighting oppression. I resent the attempts of companies to make me buy their products using Jezebel tactics. I do not think that belly rolls are "dangerous curves." My feelings are hurt because Lane Bryant thinks I'm fat.
Well, you need to understand the standards review process at Fox:
1. Is the lady in question at least as haggardly gaunt as Ann Coulter? FAIL
2. Is she willing to do anal (again, like Ann Coulter)? NEED MORE DATA
For ABC:
1. Is it young and boyish enough to catch the eye of Walt Disney? FAIL
If all women on TV looked like that I would never have to use the Internet for anything other than trying to get some kind of sweet syndication deal for the free comments I leave on free syndicated articles written by other unpaid writers.
The weather. Don't forget the weather.
I should also note that this post was brought to you in part by YEARS AND YEARS of watching ads for Enzyte, Viagra, and Cialis. AT MY JOB.
But those only show older ladies who are appropriately gaunt and wearing sensible wrap dresses or v-neck sweaters.
Yes! How is this any more suggestive than throwing a football through a tire swing? I vaguely remember one with the ol' train-in-the-tunnel footage as well…
So when are we going to start seeing Jim Belushi in Fruit of the Loom ads? Progress!
Nic I saw this bumper sticker yesterday
http://www.stickergiant.com/mudflap-man_b5059.html
baby steps, baby steps…
That site has some pretty awesome shit. Thanks!
Charlie wrote on his palm:
Not Her Belly!
Another "yes" vote from the straight-guys section.