So, I love my brother Dan, I really do. You know why? He posted this article in disbelief as well. Now, I admit, I have not tracked down ABC & Fox's side of the story (if it's even up yet since the article and blog post on Lane Bryant's website was posted yesterday) . But I have to say from reading both the article and the blog which said almost the same things, that it's ridiculous. The ad's voiceover isn't exactly risque:
"Mom always said beauty is skin deep. A smile the best makeup and it's whats underneath that counts. Somehow I don't think this is what mom had in mind." "So sexy, so not what your mom would wear"
The Victoria Secret ads are worse and they have commercials running all day long, especially during Prime Time. Then there's Prime Time television. I was watching Castle last night and it had Castle and an actress in bed, her wearing a negligee and nothing else, him topless. Another scene you could see her in just a bra. Yet, they're a-okay.
I'm squishy, and I make myself feel bad for it, society makes me feel bad for, but that commercial has nothing apologetic about it. But it has nothing over the top. She's clothed the entire time unlike some Victoria Secret ads I've seen. The woman in it was definitely attractive, and advertised the merchandise (I liked that blue teddy for instance). The fact that ABC and Fox refused to play it without severe edits and rejections three times, only allowing it when Lane Bryant threatened to cancel their purchase of ad time is horrid. The reason it was rejected so many times? Cleavage!!! Yep! Cleavage. The thing it seems most people stare at. The thing which women willingly go under the knife to increase. The sex symbol of America (perhaps the world? No...some countries prefer asses...) is too large for an American company. Huh...strange, they have Pam Anderson on Dancing With The Stars, who used to be Home of OMFG why aren't they eating your face? boobs. No problem with her. Plus the end of one episode I saw you could practically see the women's underparts, there was no way they could wear underwear in them either, the dresses were too tight and cut too high. No complaints were made of that. Gotta love the double standardization it's being obvious about, since the cleavage excuse was quite thin. Perhaps the fact that Lane Bryant had a good commercial that was rivaling Victoria Secret and Fredricks (except somehow classier, perhaps that was it, the classiness overwhelmed them and had to reject it, but were embarrassed...) made them gasp in shock and someone had a heartattack over it.
Or, perhaps, they were just perpetuating the double standard that is rampantly rampaging this country. So, I stand and plant my little flag in my little kingdom,
I am plus size! Hear me roar! ....and gimmie that blue teddy while you're at it....
On a separate note, I'll post an update on my life's wanderings in a bit, I used up my lunch hour to post this...
#50, 76, 87 91
13 years ago
