I don't think that add was any different than a Victoria's Secret ad, to be honest. And still, shame on the networks because I've seen beer ads far more scandalous than that.

I think if there's anything "too hot for TV" in this ad, it must be in the dialogue (which, being at work, I didn't listen to); the video just seems like a normal TV commercial. And how is she even "plus-sized"?

I think it is because of her breasts. They are bigger and more prominent because of the "plus size".
I think they would not show an ad with a thin girl with breast that big and just lingerie.

I participated in a discussion on this ad yesterday. This morning, in the shower, I tumbled to a conclusion very near to what you have written.

The threat inherent in this commercial is that this woman owns her sexuality and she uses it for her own pleasure. She's not an object of the male gaze. She's not posed there to be a selfless object of desire.

It doesn't surprise me at all that this freaked the heck out of the networks.

No, the idealized woman is sexual; and this woman is sexual.

This lingerie ad is not different from any other lingerie ad. Its made with straight men in mind, not women.

Until they have an ad that features a woman doing something other than lounging around, flaunting their boobs, waiting for a man to come into their life so they can do something, and walking in slow motion so you can see their boobs jiggle, it won't be any different.

This ad is just as bad and sexist as any other.

As far as destigmatizing different bodies goes...

When I was a size 00, I had cellulite, stretch marks, etc. This woman, who is allegedly plus-size, doesn't. I am pretty sure most women her size- and smaller- do have all that.

Perfect skin? Perfect proportions? Perfect face? No life outside of men? Remind me again why we are supposed to be supporting this ad?

I'm more amused by the fact that the ad is Too Hot for TV, and yet last night I saw these clips approximately 8,000 times on the TV in my college common area while people discussed whether it was too racy to air clips they had just shown.

Boy, the stuff that passes for sociology these days...

The idea that she's going to meet "Dan" for lunch wearing nothing but her underwear and an overcoat is an "overtly sexual" aspect of the commercial that is unrelated to her body size. Maybe that's why it was rejected.

I'm surprised there isn't criticism of the commercial since her motivation is to dress this way for "Dan". Is this commercial not just another creation of the patriarchal establishment portraying a woman as an object for the "male gaze"?

From the article:

Fox sources countered, however, that it frequently asks marketers to re-edit spots just as it did with Bryant as well as with Victoria's Secret ads that have aired. The sources said LB's refusal to comply with requested changes caused the delay that prevented it from airing this week. "Following Lane Bryant's refusal to make requested edits, Fox agreed to air the unedited ad during the last 10 minutes" of next Wednesday's Idol program at 9 p.m., a source said.

The Fox sources said the VS ad that aired this week on Idol complied with requested edits "and was specifically produced to meet Fox's standards for American Idol."

Fox sources also pointed to the fact that they have aired Playtex underwear ads for "full-figured women" on American Idol to counter LB's accusation that the network has a bias against plus-sized females. The sources also stressed that the VS ads air only on the 9 p.m. Idol programs, not at 8 p.m.

In a statement, ABC said of LB: "Their statements are not true. The ad was accepted. Lane Bryant was treated absolutely no differently than any advertiser for the same product. We were willing to accommodate them, but they chose to seek publicity instead."

That's the reasoning Carla Bruni gives that her nude pictures aren't scandalous - she says she has a boy's body - tall, thin, with few curves - and therefore, her nude pictures aren't very sexual. I will find the direct quote, but I can't google those keywords from work!

So, there is something innocent and asexual about very thin women. As the feminine ideal, they are sexy, not sexual. They incite desire, but they do not have it.

I'd change this to "there is something innocent and asexual about how very thin women are presented in western culture/media.

Overall, though, I agree that larger women, particularly those who wear around a size 10-14 US (as most plus size models do) are sexualized. It's something I know that I've internalized as a woman who is in that size range and who has a similar body type to the model in the LB ad.

Seriously? I don't know what my morbidid obeastidy is doing to me?

Big boobs dont make a woman fat. Big bellies do. This woman is missing a big belly so she cannot be fat. But she is super hot.

Are you serious?

Yes, being overweight it unhealthy but their is a such thing as being underweight, that is also unhealthy. Some of the thinner models are TOO thin YET, they still are aired. If you are going to say that the networks denied LB ad because of the unhealthy looking model, then why do they air super-thin models that are obviously overweight and usually had tons of unnatural cosmetic surgery (that I would suppose is not healthy either, at least not compared to a natural woman)?

can you please stop calling this woman fat? jesus I'd give my vagina to look like her.

I agree that she is not fat, but she is plus size.

It is our very culture that has sexualized curves. Its not plus size women fault that they are curvy, does that mean they cannot wear lingerie? Obvisouly not, according to LB. That's why they dedicate their product line to plus size women. I feel that they are making a bold statement by saying "even in lingerie, the plus size woman can be sexy." It is the common thought that plus size women cannot wear lingerie...and when you even think of a bigger woman wearing lingerie, often a negative image is connoted. Lane Bryant has attempted to alter that usual thought pattern...and I applaud them.

Doctor trolls are my favorite kind!

Pretty obviously satire.

LOL! Dr. Ivo Robotnik? Double troll fail!

This is the Victoria's Secret commercial the same networks DID show:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrsrM0DvzyE

The idea that anorexic Victoria Secret models humping the wall and stroking themselves is fine, but a sexy plus size model has "too much cleavage" for viewer's delicate sensibilities... it's ridiculous.

I think the Caique ad conveys a lot about the general fit and attractiveness of the product being sold, and showing it in a normal environment (as opposed to the strip club with strobe lights Victoria's Secret ads like to use) on an attractive model who looks like she might actually shop at LB all appears to be standard procedure.

The LB ad shows model Ashley Graham as sexual also, but in a less direct way. She's not showing any more skin than the VS models, and she doesn't hump a single inanimate object. How is this ad not appropriate? The only answer is because the network execs think sexy chicks with some curves are dangerous?

Graham is a Brooklyn model, size 16, 38D. And I think she's right, when she said in a recent interview, that ABC "can't handle bigger on TV, bigger boobs on a normal-sized woman on TV". (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/banned_ad_ebQ3Py9fhAuT9k4CeFKixI)

Not only am I not getting any kind of sexy from this ad (I don't think it does match up with the in-your-face quality of Victoria's Secret), THAT counts as plus-size?

This ad leaves me with the impression that this woman is a representation of a genuine, grown up, adult human female, who has her own pleasure in mind. The models in the Victoria's Secret and beer commercials look girlish, fake and doll-like; they have been created out of male fantasy-stuff for the sole purpose of pleasing men. The usual infantalization and objectification of women are relevant issues here, because this ad fails to comply fully with those expectations.

A real, adult human woman with sexual autonomy (or any autonomy at all) is terrifying and very taboo. This ad is much more subversive than it looks.

"...they seem more overtly sexual than they would if they featured very thin models."

I think this is the point, but you're interpreting it differently than I do. I don't think that the reason this ad is scandalous is because big women are perceived as sexual in comparison to their thinner, asexual sisters, but because we're simply so unaccustomed to seeing big women partially neud and being told to like what we're seeing. It's more surprising because we see thin, half-naked girls everywhere we look, and we're supposed to like that, but to see a fat woman this way (and being depicted as attractive, rather than humourous or gross, like you pointed out) is almost nowhere. It's not sexuality vs. asexuality, or aggression vs. passivity, so much as it is a different image than we're used to absorbing.

More surprising = more noticeable = more shocking = scandal. We see tons of commercials with thin, sexualized women who are acting in an aggressively sexual way, but we're so used to it, they blend in. In fact, the ladies of many beer commercials are FAR more aggressive and FAR more sexualized than this woman who's simply carrying a certain quiet but confident sexual power.

I think Lisa analyzed the issue very well.

Sorry if someone has already addressed this - didn't have time to completley read all the previous posts, but it occured to me that this ad could somehow distinguish between "women" and "girls" in some way.

"Women" are curvy, voluptuous, making them look, ummm, "mature" is not quite the right word, but may "adult" is better; they are sexual and make decisions about if they will or not use that sexuality. This is a "woman" who might have more experience in intimate realm, and might take charge, and might be more than a passive participant.

"Girls" on the other had, as often exemplified by thinner models with more "boyish" figures are playmates (I'm not referencing magazine Playmates, but instead a type of friend seen mostly/only for fun activities, but not someone to whom you turn when in need of something more)- they exist for men to play with as chosen by the men. They might just be arm candy at the big game, they might be a submissive in the bedroom. They are not often portrayed as quite "adult", and therefore are almost in the stage of constant adolescence, meaning that decisions about their sexuality are made for them. A "woman" is a person, which could be either intimidating or exciting depending on the viewer. A "playmate" is an insert-activity-here blow-up doll, appealing for some, but not a challenge.

This isn't a really well-formed idea, and I'm not trying to bash any body type of woman, but I could see a bit how this ad could seem racy, even though others with similar content have run for everything from beer to perfume to cars. The curvy, large-busted model is seen as an adult who will do adult things with you. The thinner models are blank slates, which are not intimidating.

I can't say I'm up on VS ads and I discovered years ago that the product was not well made, but when I see thin, beautiful models in ads or editorial shoots they often don't seem quite real to me. Given Photoshop, maybe they're not.

The model in this ad, by contrast, while gorgeous, does somewhat more resemble women I see in my everyday life; thus, it's more like a seeing a neighbor undressed. I also wonder if the customary distance between the viewer and subject has been shortened.

But she is hot.

On another note, as far as main-stream models go, I find the Victoria's Secret models to be among the more healthy looking slender women shown in the media... AND after the reference to their breasts being large, actually if you look through the catalog at the variety of clothing they display, many sizes of busts are present. Some models are very busty in the bust-enhancing bras, but then the same model can look almost flat in a regular string bikini (which shows how "well" the bras work, I guess).

Bodies of all shapes are out there, and I think it's a good move to show women who represent a greater portion of society in ads.

lol. This just reminded me of a movement a local radio show host is trying to start on Facebook - M.A.L.E. - Men Against Ladies' Expectations. He was talking about it this morning - He says that most men have beer guts, hair loss and less than the perfect physique, so all men in ads and movies should be such.

I really don't see how this commercial was any worse than a Victoria's Secret commercial. There is an assumption that women are not allowed to want sex, curvey women are already considered deviant, so why should they try to fit into the sexy category laid out by the idealized thin model? I kind of thought the whole point in being a plus-sized model was to embrace deviance and redistribute it in a throw-it-in-your-face way. I think the point of this ad was more so you can be sexy and like food; not everything about the world is out there for me to eat, including sex. Curvey women should not have to try to assimilate into an industry they've been largely excluded from in the first place.

Plus sized does not mean obese. Also, if you look at the history of measuring weight, you'll notice the scale of "normal healthy" to "over weight" to "obese" has changed over time. The way in which we measure weight, BMI, is heavily flawed too.

If people are worried about "health," then they can ask for models that can run up three flights of stairs without stopping. Although I'm a size 20, I can do that, and some of my slender friends cannot. You can't tell health from size.

I too would like to know where they find all these plus-sized women with flat stomachs! It's amazing that America even has a problem with the relative size of women given that "apparently" women all have the same body fat distribution patterns whether they are size 0 or 18. I'm not plus-sized, but the body fat I do have isn't distributed so flatteringly. Women rarely get a chance (at least through the main-stream media) to see an accurate (not to mention positive) representation of the variety in female body types.

Eeks! A troll!

Please take it for 4chan, Trolly McCantSpell.

Kisses,
Simone

What's with the snide derision of her plus-sizedness in comments above? If she's over, what, a US size 14 she is technically "plus-sized"! So she's not a size 22 or whatever, she's still "plus-sized".

Sorry, wasn't going to comment but the first few inverted commas around plus-sized set me off.

Sorry, I've seen that kind of "titillating" and sexy woman (who is thinner and white and young and able-bodied, etc) in so many ads. I'm going to call straight-up fat bias on this one.

First of all, that woman is beautiful.

Second, I think the difference between this ad and ones by Vicky Secrets (besides Vicky Secrets models look a little famished), is that you see her actually take some sexual agency. She's not just lying there passively. She puts on a trench coat over her cute underwear and is heading out the door to somewheres... presumably to get hers.

This might actually have been inspired by... I know... I don't want to say it... but... some feminism.

Girlfriend has some power AND that, as well as her figure, is what's dangerous. You don't want women thinking, especially regular looking women, that they can have some power, sexual agency, and feel good in their own skin.

Now imagine if she'd been a Black woman... Probably would've never even made it on YouTube.

that girl is fine as hell!

I think Lisa is right.. A very thin model from the ads, actually, looks like a 15-year old / like a teenager. I mean, they start modeling from the age of 13 oftentimes. I think it's because they almost look like kids that they don't inspire the same degree of sexuality, or that they seem more pure. And a plus-sized woman is/looks like a real woman would; most real women have shapes, their bodies aren't similar to children's bodies. A real woman (and by real, I mean, a woman you can usually find in real-life) is also a responsible person, someone who accepts her desires and expresses her sexuality, she is most likely independent and is not afraid to express herself, even if men seem to like the "woman - child" personality type too (not just the body-type). The woman-child is innocent, but cute, and does not yet have many opinions of her own, therefore is ready to worship the man's opinions and boost his ego. Ready to listen to her man, like kids listen to their parents.

You cats are HARSHING MY BUZZ!

Haven't any of you ever heard of satire? As in, I'm making fun of the kinds of responses we got the last time fat politics was brought up on this site. Of course I don't believe that.

My talents... rarely ever appreciated.

Robotnik! Give me those Chaos Emeralds you!

Can I just say, with affection, that I love the fact that the post that has four times as many comments as any other post on the front page is the one about boobs?

Booooooooooobies. ^_^

I don't know if anyone's already said this, as unfortunately I don't have time to read all the comments right now, but could it be a simple case of women who weigh more having more cleavage?

I'm really late in the game here but why assume it has to do with the appearance of the woman? I don't have sound here but it looks very clear that she's responding to a "booty call" -- Dan wants to meet for lunch and she's going in lingerie with a big shirt over it. The implied sexual encounter is probably what the stations object to. Victoria Secret ads are very sensual and revealing etc but they do not so overtly refer to sex itself.

Great article, 100% truth in it. It's so true that most men (and lots of gay women) are more attracted to curvy, luscious-body women than very thin ones. There's something VERY sexual in a round hip-butt combo with thick tighs, and large NATURAL breasts (implants always look artificial, like upturned bowls).

Since the marketing business is all about offering without offending, and the thought of a woman who might enjoy sex and actually desire it is deeply offending for most people (society still being founded on the male assumption that women are asexual things to whom sex is a horrible task to be done strictly for procreation), of course a decently, normal-sized woman is going to scare the wits out of the executives.

I think you took a wrong turn. If you wanted the blog for mindless idiots who can't see the world in more than one shade, you should have taken a left a few miles back.

Listen, my girlfriend doesn't have to be beauty queen material. Granted, there can be plus sized women out there that can be kind of cute in a way. But if you're talking about the cutest women in the world, slim will always win over fat. Seen any fat girls in beauty pagents lately? How about super models? Understand, I'm talking about pure beauty here. Morals, that's something else. You're not going to see any fat women in Victoria Secret mags. If I had a girlfriend who was 5'3" tall, 125 pds., cute, and had a nice way about her, I'd be a happy man.

Kunoichi, wow, do I sense something here? Other people here are expressing their opinions and I'm expressing mine. Make sure you're not treating me any different than others. Because, why would you? Some people like fat girls, I like slim girls. Are you fat? Are you taking this a little bit personal? Learn to never pick on one person. Remember, there will always be plenty of people like that one person. To make a person feel like they're the worst person in the world is truly criminal. There are plenty of bad people in the world. Why pick on just one person? That's not smart.

Well, it's your opinion, which I feel in some ways is wrong. And no, I don't feel like I'm being a bigot in the things I've said. It's just another point of view. And I'm sure others feel just like me, and if they aren't saying it here, well, it's still being said regardless. Guess I have some very strong feelings about fat people and what's being shown on tv. But I don't hate fat people or fat women. Just not attracted to them, which is fine.

"In contrast, fat marks a woman as overtly sexual. She is a woman with appetites and, you better watch out, she might just eat you up". Really? Fat marks a woman as overtly sexual? I would think the opposite would be true. I would think a fat woman would feel inferior and have no desire to engage in sex. Who is this woman saying these things? Sure doesn't sound like reality to me.

"This, I contend, is what is so scandalous about plus-sized women in lingerie. They are just too damn hot for TV". Too hot for tv? Really? Or maybe you're living in la la land. I bet a lot of men wouldn't care to see a bunch of plus sized gals in lingerie on tv. Too hot? I think you mean, not interested, thank you very much. Too hot means, good looking, sexy, erotic. Sounds to me like this woman is just expressing her own views and not the views of a lot of people.

I wouldn't show this ad to my husband lol. The lord knows she's spankin' hot.

k--- so I have a completely different issue with this. As a young woman, I grew up with the idea that a woman’s sexuality ended post-birth, or even post-marriage. As I’ve grown older and begun to seriously consider marriage and motherhood, this idea has become progressively more frightening, especially paired with media attention to adultery and the idea that men naturally “get bored” more easily—and acceptably—than women. The dialogue of this add features plenty of subtle to not-so-subtle denial of mothers’ sexuality. While it’s understandably uncomfortable to think of our own mothers as sexual beings, advertisements like this—ending with the slogan “so not what your mom would wear” (or something like that) only help add to the vast mythology of how married women can sacrifice their sexuality and attractiveness. I, for one, still want to hope that as a married woman I can fully enjoy my social, emotional, intellectual, AND sexual life—cute undies included : )
Any thoughts?

I greatly enjoyed reading your discussion of the ad in terms of gender ideals and archetypal roles. "So, there is something innocent and asexual about very thin women." I would like to add there is also something masculine, boyishly, submissively masculine about many super-thin models. I agree that the woman in the Lane Bryant ad is not submissive, and as too dominant for our feminine ideal, she makes many people uncomfortable.

I also think it was a fairly bad ad and LB could've done much better; not that it deserves to be denied viewing.

The whole story reminds me of the deal with the PETA superbowl ad featuring half-naked women dripping gravy over themselves or something. It was obviously rejected (at least the unedited version) and PETA declared it was OMGBANNED. Great publicity. Though this commercial seems pretty tame to me.
The only thing that made me uncomfortable was my interpretation that her mom was a bra-burning radfem back in the days just trying to keep her daughter from the fangs of patriarchy and all that came from it is "LOL don't my boobies look hot?"
Also I don't really get all the hype about her so called autonomous sexuality, all we can deduce is that she's performing an age old straight male fantasy, again the only version of female sexuality ever presented in media. Yawn.

the real woman is the plump

I see what you're getting at and I say that they play it. It's the same as any other commercial showing women in their underwear.

Are you kidding-OMG! I loved the commercial! The model is beautiful and enjoys looking sexy, she is empowered and wants to be intimate with someone--in daylight, gasp!--and she's promoting a line of lingerie that makes her feel that way. Who cares if she's a mother or if her mother was repressed? I don't see this: objectifying women, scadalizing women or women's sexuality by promoting sexy clothing, masculine in any way (despite the model's assertiveness--since when is that an exclusively male trait?), "too dominant for our feminine ideal" (whose?--not mine!), or likely to make anyone but a Puritan uncomfortable.

I'm really weary of suggestions that women who enjoy their curves and enjoy wearing clothing that enhance, or even showcase, their beautiful body (of any shape) are in some way unfit for public acknowledgement via ads, programs, characters in tv/movie, real life, etc.

I think it's great (if indeed this model's "mother" was so repressed, or even if "she" wasn't) that a woman of any shape has come forward to represent and validate so many modern womens' experiences of sexuality and sexual assertiveness, positive self-esteem and self-expression through verbal and non-verbal expression.

forgot to leave my info

I once saw an ad for Target here in the junk mail depicting plus sized women and, the models wearing the dresses and lingerie oozed sex appeal just by looking natural...as a male, I see nothing wrong with this TV advert, what is all the fuss about. It is great to see a woman depicted as what was normal before these idiot designers starting using girls/women "so skinny on the catwalk that if you turned them sideways, stuck their tongues out, they would look like zippers" (I forget who made that origional quote, but it is a very apt description). Size 6 indeed, these designers should be shot drawn and quartered, and that is a light sentence.
No wonder our young girls are anorexic.
But on the other hand it is lovely to see young lads dating young "cuddly girls" again, instead of the waifs because fashion depicts they should be skinny.
"Nuttin' wrong wid cuddly women" a comment heard on a TV sit come years ago, and I totally agree... they can be very sexy ...
Brian

Make that TV sitcom...having a bad typing day today..
Brian

Im a woman myself and i have to say, this commercial was far more sexy than any V.C I've ever seen. This chick's got confidence! SHe's gotta body and she's comfortable in it! Seriously, we need more of these commercials on TV to break the myth that only thin is beautiful. Being FIT can be beautiful, but most models are overly thin so much that there is so much space between their thighs. That freaks me out! 

I love this commercial and now I know where to go to buy me some healthy girl naughties! 

If you think this is hot, you've never been to Russia.