And if so, too much of what?
So I came across an article in the Baltimore Sun about a new Lane Bryant’s ad for underthings that caused a bit of controversy when both FOX and ABC gave up a bit of fuss before letting it air because of “too much skin”. Of course, Lane Bryant accused said networks of bias and now crap is hitting the proverbial fan a bit.
There are definitely two sides to every story. Sometimes, one side is really dark and twisted, and the other side is highly victimized. This, I believe, is not one of those cases.
Let’s look at this from Lane Bryant’s point of view. They’re probably looking at this 1) as another example of bias against plus-sized people and 2) as a great opportunity for publicity. We all know what Lane Bryant is and who they serve, but it’s not like their trendy-yet-cut-odd-and-somewhat-overpriced clothes are flying off the racks, you know?
I can definitely see how ABC and FOX can look like bias bastards out to make plus-sized people feel sub-human. I mean, the ad shows a woman in a bra and panties doing stuff. That pretty much describes every ad for shaving cream, soap, lotion, men’s body sprays, beer, music, clothes, women’s perfume, shoes, yogurt and a whole list of other things for folks of all ages, shapes and sexes. So I am a bit confused as to how this one ad is showing “too much skin”. I’ve seen commercials for things where an itty bitty woman in a bra and panties was prancing around, romping with some well-manicured male model, only to realize that it’s an ad for Axe. Either way, I think that FOX and ABC are being a little itty bit picky, and it’s looking a little suspect.
On the other hand, I can look at this from ABC and FOX’s point of view too. I mean, maybe their logic is, “It’s ok for girls with prepubescent boy bodies to flaunt around in bras and panties because, well, there’s nothing to look at. But, with plus-sized models, you have…boobs and hips and stuff that can be seen as…well…alluring.” And that’s an important point to bring up. I mean, flat-bodies girls really aren’t “sexy”. Curvaceous girls…well, it’s different. There’s a certain un-sexuality to most of the models that we see now-a-days. The days of the Tyra Banks Victoria’s Secret model are over and have been replaced with shows of women with bodies that look cast from Ken doll molds.
Is this logic correct? No, but it’s not biased anti-plus-sized hate either. It’s just looking out for who the audience is. A lingerie ad with a size 16 plus sized model can be compared to porn when held up next to one featuring an A-cup size 1 model. And I feel that, as a plus sized lady, we should all be proud of that. (insert “Big girls are coming back in style!” finger snap exclamation here)
Really, is the ad too much? Yes. Yes it is. There’s boobs and hips and skin all over the TV. How did women know that they needed to buy panties before it became acceptable to not wear pants…ever? Let’s get creative, you know? I’m sure that there are less seductive ways to get people to buy things. I don’t feel sexier because this plus-sized chick is half-naked on TV. She’s still white and highly manicured, so really, I don’t “see myself in her”. But do I feel empowered that she’s breaking barriers? Totally. It rocks to see plus-sized ladies making it known that we can be, and are, beautiful too.
Of course, FOX and ABC even attempting to censor someone for sexuality is hilarious. Shall we rewind back to Adam Lambert’s dog-in-heat performance a few months ago or any of the barely there outfits donned by the dancers on Dancing with the Stars? But what-ev. They want to take a stand against over-sexuality? Well then, good for them.
All I know is that they are inadvertently setting themselves up to fail, unless they are going to become the hound dogs of naughty TV and make it a point to not air anything too “inappropriate”. And seriously, with the line ups that these two stations tote, I find that highly unlikely.
So, good luck with not looking like a bunch of hypocrites, ABC and FOX folks. This should be interesting.