Overweight Lingerie Model Ad Banned

BurningAway
BurningAway Posts: 279
in Chit-Chat
I saw a commercial last night for lingerie, im a friggin wierd woman i have dvr so if i see a bikini or lingerie commercial ill rewind the commercial to watch it. Well when i did i realized it wasnt what i had expected to see, the woman was pretty overweight and she was modeling lane bryant lingerie. Apparently i wasnt the only one who noticed because the commercial is banned on alot of stations what do you think about this?


http://www.momlogic.com/2010/04/lingerie_ad_banned_because_model_too_fat_lane_bryant.php

They call her "curvier" then the victorias secret models, i disagree i think beauty comes in all shapes and sizes both woman are curvy in different ways..

Replies

  • vanillacoffee
    vanillacoffee Posts: 1,024 Member
    It is absolutely DISGUSTING that this is banned. No different than any Victorias secret ad. The model is absolutely beautiful. That makes me fear for society that this is banned when VS ads arent.
  • BurningAway
    BurningAway Posts: 279
    It is absolutely DISGUSTING that this is banned. No different than any Victorias secret ad. The model is absolutely beautiful. That makes me fear for society that this is banned when VS ads arent.

    The difference is by about 50- 60 pounds, they banned the ad because the model is overweight im guessing they dont want to advocate being unhealthy. Thats what i gather from cbs on their stance anyways.

    I like it though :) your right she is beautiful.
  • BrainyBurro
    BrainyBurro Posts: 6,129 Member
    you're outraged today by a story from more than 3 years ago?

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/banned_ad_ebQ3Py9fhAuT9k4CeFKixI
  • vanillacoffee
    vanillacoffee Posts: 1,024 Member
    It is absolutely DISGUSTING that this is banned. No different than any Victorias secret ad. The model is absolutely beautiful. That makes me fear for society that this is banned when VS ads arent.

    The difference is by about 50- 60 pounds, they banned the ad because the model is overweight im guessing they dont want to advocate being unhealthy. Thats what i gather from cbs on their stance anyways.

    There is a difference between being obese and unhealthy, and being a bigger person. And there is nothing healthy about how models starve themselves. Respectfully, I think it's a load of crap that someone could say that that ad "advocates" being unhealthy. That beautiful model does not look like she sits at home on the couch and eats chips all day. (Not offense to you, MUCH offense to CBS!)
  • vanillacoffee
    vanillacoffee Posts: 1,024 Member
    you're outraged today by a story from more than 3 years ago?

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/banned_ad_ebQ3Py9fhAuT9k4CeFKixI

    Didnt check the date, just checked out the original link and watched the two videos. I'm not about to storm a store, but it is still just as sad to me today as it would have been 3 years ago!
  • BurningAway
    BurningAway Posts: 279
    you're outraged today by a story from more than 3 years ago?

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/banned_ad_ebQ3Py9fhAuT9k4CeFKixI

    I saw the commercial last night so maybe they have lifted the ban but when i searched for it online the articles that came up were the ban on it.
  • BrainyBurro
    BrainyBurro Posts: 6,129 Member
    you're outraged today by a story from more than 3 years ago?

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/banned_ad_ebQ3Py9fhAuT9k4CeFKixI

    Didnt check the date, just checked out the original link and watched the two videos. I'm not about to storm a store, but it is still just as sad to me today as it would have been 3 years ago!

    maybe... just maybe... the site you linked was going for a sensationalistic headline.

    and maybe... Lane Bryant knew all along that their ad didn't meet those network's broadcast standards and the networks asked them to make minor edits, but Lane Bryant determined that they could get more publicity by turning the whole thing into a tempest in a teapot.

    http://www.popeater.com/2010/04/22/lane-bryant-vs-fox-and-abc-publicity-stunt/
  • BurningAway
    BurningAway Posts: 279
    you're outraged today by a story from more than 3 years ago?

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/banned_ad_ebQ3Py9fhAuT9k4CeFKixI

    Didnt check the date, just checked out the original link and watched the two videos. I'm not about to storm a store, but it is still just as sad to me today as it would have been 3 years ago!

    maybe... just maybe... the site you linked was going for a sensationalistic headline.

    and maybe... Lane Bryant knew all along that their ad didn't meet those network's broadcast standards and the networks asked them to make minor edits, but Lane Bryant determined that they could get more publicity by turning the whole thing into a tempest in a teapot.

    http://www.popeater.com/2010/04/22/lane-bryant-vs-fox-and-abc-publicity-stunt/

    Well played...
  • K_Serz
    K_Serz Posts: 1,299 Member
    It is absolutely DISGUSTING that this is banned. No different than any Victorias secret ad. The model is absolutely beautiful. That makes me fear for society that this is banned when VS ads arent.

    Im glad its banned. Not for the reason that it was banned though. It happens here on MFP all the time. People who are overweight post pics in underwear. No issues. People who are just downright sexy post the same pic in their underwear and they get banned. Makes no sense. Wheres the equal treatment?

    I didnt see the commercial, but I assume it was done tastefully. Its not a secret that Layne Bryants customer base is not the same as Wet Seal so what the hell are peoples problems? So some people dont agree with it and they make it their mission to ban it. Awesome.

    Its pretty twisted that one persons perspective sees beauty and another persons sees pornography.
  • thankyou4thevenom
    thankyou4thevenom Posts: 1,581 Member
    So we're aware this is three years old and that it was done for publicity.

    The only difference in the adverts is one is skinny women flashing flesh to titillate you, the other is a woman who is so confident and secure in her sexuality that she decided to meet her man for lunch in her underwear.

    Says a lot about the adversing standards.
  • DiaryofaFitMommy
    DiaryofaFitMommy Posts: 36
    Craziness
  • TR0berts
    TR0berts Posts: 7,739 Member
    Ashley Graham is absolutely gorgeous.

    That is all I have to contribute to this thread.
  • SoDamnHungry
    SoDamnHungry Posts: 6,998 Member
    Does not seem banworthy.
  • BrainyBurro
    BrainyBurro Posts: 6,129 Member
    Ashley Graham is absolutely gorgeous.

    That is all I have to contribute to this thread.

    yep!

    she's a looker.

    tumblr_mnsiy7KZ361stgfnbo1_500.png
  • ldrosophila
    ldrosophila Posts: 7,512 Member
    Ashley Graham is absolutely gorgeous.

    That is all I have to contribute to this thread.

    yep!

    she's a looker.

    tumblr_mnsiy7KZ361stgfnbo1_500.png

    I think this ad was banned because the government was worried about all the billions of babies that would be aborted onto socks and kleenex
  • TR0berts
    TR0berts Posts: 7,739 Member
    I think this ad was banned because the government was worried about all the billions of babies that would be aborted onto socks and kleenex


    :embarassed:
  • okolo
    okolo Posts: 24
    It is absolutely DISGUSTING that this is banned. No different than any Victorias secret ad. The model is absolutely beautiful. That makes me fear for society that this is banned when VS ads arent.

    Im glad its banned. Not for the reason that it was banned though. It happens here on MFP all the time. People who are overweight post pics in underwear. No issues. People who are just downright sexy post the same pic in their underwear and they get banned. Makes no sense. Wheres the equal treatment?

    I didnt see the commercial, but I assume it was done tastefully. Its not a secret that Layne Bryants customer base is not the same as Wet Seal so what the hell are peoples problems? So some people dont agree with it and they make it their mission to ban it. Awesome.

    Its pretty twisted that one persons perspective sees beauty and another persons sees pornography.

    ^^^^^ - I TOTALLY AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAID!!!! I end up getting this treatment in real life where just because I wear something that fits my curves, (think barbie) I get counseled on my dressing very often as if I'm being immodest, when someone else whose overweight, super skinny or just has a different body proportion wears the SAME thing - they're considered modest. Sucks! Frustrating! makes me wanna scream! I have no control over my proportions and it's not my fault you are thinking of me in an improper way!
    And it';s not fair for me to have to wear a potato sack when no one else has to.

    (sighs - that venting felt good)
  • okolo
    okolo Posts: 24
    And just for the record, I too think that model and the ad is very sexy - just like the VS ads. If I can be a size 16 and look THAT fit - oooohh yeaahh
  • okolo
    okolo Posts: 24
    So we're aware this is three years old and that it was done for publicity.

    The only difference in the adverts is one is skinny women flashing flesh to titillate you, the other is a woman who is so confident and secure in her sexuality that she decided to meet her man for lunch in her underwear.

    Says a lot about the adversing standards.


    ^^^ THAT ^^^

Categories