think about it
Your cart is empty
Visit The Shop

Indecent exposure

Boobs. Tits. Jugs. Breasts.

This is what the uproar is about? A body part?

A Lane Bryant in the USA, a plus sized retailer. Apparently it was considered too risqué for television.

Honestly, I have to worry about the values dissonance here.

So, it’s totally ok to show violence and swearing, even in television shows and commercials inside of prime time, but it’s not ok to show a woman in lingerie? Or is it just fat women in lingerie? (Yes, I realise, in the ‘real world’ this model probably isn’t considered fat, but she’s certainly fatter than most models I’ve seen in lingerie commercials). It’s totally ok to show sexist advertisements for beer, trucks, mattresses and even toothpaste, but heavens forfend if a bra-covered boob makes its way on to the television set?

Judge for yourself. Indecent?

Lane Bryant commercial

2 thoughts on “Indecent exposure

  1. Okies, first off: that commercial is really well shot ^__^ As a lover of that faux classic look, I was totally intoxicated by that ad!

    Second: The banning of this ad is totally illogical! Especially as the channels that banned it, also air ads for other lingerie companies like Victoria Secret! Those ads are *just* as sexy. But it’s somehow indecent if the model is bigger than a size six?

    Shame on the media.

    Thanks for bringing this up Sonya.

  2. Isn’t it just PRETTY.

    I mean, it’s a LINGERIE ad, people are gonna be in their knickers. And you’re exactly right, Victoria’s Secrets show the exact same type of ads, yet they’re allowed to run. It’s crap.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>