WATCH THIS AD:
THEN WATCH THIS AD:
Which add do YOU think is more revealing than the next?
The Lane Bryant ad has stirred up major controversy for being "too riskay" for ABC & Fox. The two networks refused to air their spot during their prime time family hour. But Victoria's Secret commercials will be keep playing. Some say it's the message that Lane Bryant sends out. Other say the Lane Bryan spot is in fact too revealing and its a publicity stunt to make news.
MY TAKE:
Being a voluptuous woman myself (especially up top) I'll admit I'm a bit bias.
1) it's okay for a skinny girl to sex up a wall or roll around on a bed, but a full figured woman cannot get sexy for her man?
2) does a skinny girl in a push up bra really show any less boobage than the full figured girl?
3) lets ee if I understand this -the full figured LB model throws on a trench over her panties to meet someone for lunch while the girl in VS ad opens the door to her someone in a hotel room during the day...and the LB ad is the only one with a wrong message here? CLEARLY!
Maybe our society has not come that far from our size 8 "plus" size, jenny craig promoting, jessica simpson is soo fat antics afterall. I mean in a time where a curvy woman who is NOT latina or black gets named Sexiest Woman in America, (Christina Hendricks) do we still find full figured women not worthy to get the same "sexy" label as a thin blonde w/ a boob job. My mistake. Whether its a publicity stunt or not I think it's a step backwards in society when major networks think that us big girls don't deserve to be sold sexy underwear. I mean that is the bottom line here. It's ad to sell underwear. And is it just me or does any woman, regardless of size, who is only wearing on tv still considered revealing? WHAT DO YOU THINK?
No comments:
Post a Comment