Answered Conundrum Next Conundrum
Is it discrimination for Fox and ABC to refuse to air a plus size lingerie ad?
This ad from Lane Bryant for plus-sized lingerie was supposed to run during ''American Idol'' and ''Dancing with the Stars'', but both Fox and ABC wanted to censor some of the shots of the model's body.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMxyZQfMmM4
Do you agree with their decision? If they already show ads from Victoria's Secret that have a lot of shots of thin model's bodies, doesn't Lane Bryant have a right to run a similar ad with a more full-figured model? Is this discrimination or just the networks exercising their right to air the kinds of content that they want?
Interesting Question?
Yes (9)
No (1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMxyZQfMmM4
Do you agree with their decision? If they already show ads from Victoria's Secret that have a lot of shots of thin model's bodies, doesn't Lane Bryant have a right to run a similar ad with a more full-figured model? Is this discrimination or just the networks exercising their right to air the kinds of content that they want?
- In Beauty and Style |
- |
- Report |
-
Share
RSS
Best Answer Decided by Votes
Marked as Best!
April 23, 2010 03:59 AM
(4)
(3)
Permalink |
Report
Yes, I believe it is discrimination and do not agree with their decision. I sit around watching TV all the time and I see these Playtex and Victoria's Secret that show just as much as that Lane Bryant commercial did. They showed women in their bras and panties. The only difference is that the Lane Bryant commercials had full figured models in the ad where as the other ones show these horribly thin woman. I feel that Lane Bryant has every right to show that commercial. I think it is very well done and deserves to be seen. :-)
Helpful Answer?
(4)
(3)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
Other Answers (24)
April 23, 2010 04:31 AM
(1)
(2)
Permalink |
Report
I think they ae just trying to fit it in with their skinny beautiful lineup. I don't see anything wrong with the ads or anything worse than trying to explain to a five year old what condoms are. Everything is hidden and I think also it is part of the American sexual repression in the culture. Don't the dancing stars show have racy costumes that show more than that.
Helpful Answer?
(1)
(2)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
April 23, 2010 12:32 PM
(3)
(2)
Permalink |
Report
I think it is very discriminatory. They love to parade those Victoria's Secret models out and this Lane Bryant model is not huge. She has a beautiful shape. The commercial is really a very nice one and has nothing that should have been barred from being shown. It just shows how they are shallow and they should have listened to the first words of the commercial. Beauty is only skin deep.
They have no idea what I find appealing. When will these television people realize that not everyone is model thin and gaunt looking.
Helpful Answer?
They have no idea what I find appealing. When will these television people realize that not everyone is model thin and gaunt looking.
(3)
(2)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
April 23, 2010 01:45 PM
(1)
(3)
Permalink |
Report
I read about this yesterday and was not happy with what had happened. It seems ludicrous to me that skinny models can be practically naked on tv and there not be any issues but full figured models (and mind you these models are usually size 12 or 14 - the average size of most women). It's so disheartening really that this would happen. But tv execs have no real conscience. They only care about the sex that sells. I guess I don't understand why this wouldn't be considered sex that sells. How can Victoria's Secret have lingerie runway shows that air on tv and a simple bra and panties shot, which looks not much different than a two piece bathing suit, should throw them into a tizzy. It's really quite infuriating. I would suggest a letter writing campaign but I just don't think the tv people care about what non millionaires have to say.
Helpful Answer?
(1)
(3)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
April 24, 2010 06:03 AM
(1)
(2)
Permalink |
Report
I don't see anything wrong with this commercial at all. If I'd seen in on TV, I wouldn't have thought anything of it. To be honest, I'm still really surprised that this commercial ran into trouble and wasn't aired. Does anyone really have a problem with it? This isn't my official area of expertise, so maybe I just don't get it, but I truly can't figure out what the problem is with this ad. If it's too skimpy, what are they looking for that would make it less skimpy? No matter how I look at it, it doesn't make any sense. Up until this moment, I truly thought our society was fairly liberal with this kind of thing. Apparently not.
Helpful Answer?
(1)
(2)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
April 25, 2010 11:35 PM
(1)
(3)
Permalink |
Report
Sadly, the reason they didn't want this commercial on their station is probably fear of people changing the channel. In a way it is discrimination. The execs at the channel assume that people want to see half naked skinny models, but not half naked models with curves. I bet they based this assumption on a market study of 100 men.
What is weird is that all these women's underwear ads are targeted to a male audience, yet I would be surprised if even 1% of the men in American households shop for women's underwear or make the decision on which women's underwear will be purchased in their households.
It is all about keeping people on the channel during the commercial break, is my guess.
Helpful Answer?
What is weird is that all these women's underwear ads are targeted to a male audience, yet I would be surprised if even 1% of the men in American households shop for women's underwear or make the decision on which women's underwear will be purchased in their households.
It is all about keeping people on the channel during the commercial break, is my guess.
(1)
(3)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
April 29, 2010 02:32 AM
I agree with you that TV execs are just chasing what they think will will keep people watching. I don't agree that men have the limited say in underwear purchases that you suggest, though. As a male it is my experience that women ask me what I find attractive or sexy and purchase accordingly, at least the dressier stuff. This may not affect the purchase of 'everday' wear of course but I don't think this ad was aimed at that part of the market. The actual problem is that TV execs make assumptions more and more based on what they see in the media i.e. skinny almost gaunt models, a kind of circular reasoning you see? The fact, I believe, is that men in general, including myself, actually prefer women with curves and a softness to their figure. Unfortunately, like so many women, they have been conditioned, by the media, into believing that there is something 'wrong' with them for holding such views and often are reluctant to express them.
Report
May 05, 2010 11:12 PM
I disagree that women's underwear ads are targeted to a male audience. I think they are targeted to people who read the women's magazines, such as Cosmopolitan, Glamour, Vogue, etc. I believe those people are women.
I think that women are the harshest critics of other women, so maybe the ones who wanted to edit the ad were women.
I also think the question is skewered. Since the question and so many people mentioned the Victoria's Secret ads, I would like to know if those ads ever appeared on the 2 shows in question. Just because those ads appear on TV in general, doesn't mean they ever aired during those two shows.
Furthermore, just because the question says that they wanted to edit some shots of the model's body, doesn't mean they wanted to edit it because she is a full-figure model. Perhaps they would also want to edit it, even if she were a thinner model. The question seems to be incorrectly making the assumption that just because they wanted to edit the ad, the reason was because it was a full-figure model. They may have felt she was revealing too much cleavage and that's why they wanted to edit it.
The bottom line is that the question really can't be answered without further information, but based on the information provided, I say it is definitely not discrimination against full-figured models.
Report
I think that women are the harshest critics of other women, so maybe the ones who wanted to edit the ad were women.
I also think the question is skewered. Since the question and so many people mentioned the Victoria's Secret ads, I would like to know if those ads ever appeared on the 2 shows in question. Just because those ads appear on TV in general, doesn't mean they ever aired during those two shows.
Furthermore, just because the question says that they wanted to edit some shots of the model's body, doesn't mean they wanted to edit it because she is a full-figure model. Perhaps they would also want to edit it, even if she were a thinner model. The question seems to be incorrectly making the assumption that just because they wanted to edit the ad, the reason was because it was a full-figure model. They may have felt she was revealing too much cleavage and that's why they wanted to edit it.
The bottom line is that the question really can't be answered without further information, but based on the information provided, I say it is definitely not discrimination against full-figured models.
July 09, 2010 07:29 AM
Im going to agree with you there dominicfo ... just not enough info.
You know what the weird thing is, the first time I watched it, I didnt bother to read the question or byline properly, I just watched it. What I saw was an attractive woman in a red 2 piece, with a cell phone and a coat. I instantly took issue with the "beauty is only skin deep" part, and thats it. It never crossed my mind that she was full figured or not ... just a woman. Then I read the question and discussion here before I realized that was the issue. I just saw a woman, a normal (model attractive type) woman.
So ... do I win?
Report
You know what the weird thing is, the first time I watched it, I didnt bother to read the question or byline properly, I just watched it. What I saw was an attractive woman in a red 2 piece, with a cell phone and a coat. I instantly took issue with the "beauty is only skin deep" part, and thats it. It never crossed my mind that she was full figured or not ... just a woman. Then I read the question and discussion here before I realized that was the issue. I just saw a woman, a normal (model attractive type) woman.
So ... do I win?
April 29, 2010 07:13 PM
(1)
(2)
Permalink |
Report
First of all, shame on the networks for banning this commercial!! So, it's not ok for a plus sized model to be on TV modeling a product. Big F-n deal! Is it ok to show the ky jelly commercials for increasing your sexual pleasure, viagra commercials,cialis, and it's ok to for Victoria's Secret models to flash their bony asses in thongs. oh yeah, that's what society wants and thinks that it's the way a woman should look. So much for making young girls more insecure about who and what they should look like. This is also a major reason for anorexia/bulemia that's happening to many as i'm writing this now. SHAME SHAME SHAME on you!!!!The new size of the American woman is 12-16. Big girls sometimes make the clothing look better than non plus size models. Secondly, networks want ratings to keep them going so they can air beer/alcohol commercials..... it's against the law to drink and drive but yet they have the commercials. I don't get it. Grow the F up morons!!
Helpful Answer?
(1)
(2)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
May 05, 2010 12:00 AM
(2)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Sure it's discrimination and discrimination is perfectly legal and ethical. We do it all the time. We discriminate about which is the best grocery story, which is the best route to take to work, which restaurants offer the best food for their money, and which teenagers we can trust our children with to take care of our babies while mom and dad go out on a date. Discrimination is the essence of freedom. It only becomes a problem when government does it. And thank God Fox news the one of the very very few networks that have not yet bowed down to Caesar.
Helpful Answer?
(2)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
May 05, 2010 09:00 AM
You are right that there are forms of discrimination - say, discriminating against certain types of food that you don't like or being discriminating in your choice of vehicle - that are appropriate and legal and a guaranteed part of our freedoms as Americans.
But discrimination is decidedly NOT only a problem when practiced by the government. There are many forms of discrimination between two citizens that are illegal. For example, my landlord can not refuse to rent me an apartment on the basis of my age or race. I can't be turned down for a job on the basis of my sexual identity (unless I want to join the military, in which case I'm guessing you might FAVOR governmental discrimination!). I can't be refused a job because of my gender. We even require business to make their locations wheelchair-accessible, so they can't discriminate against the disabled even accidentally.
These laws are correct and ethical and justified. So, clearly, we can and have made decisions about what sorts of discrimination should be permitted between private citizens, and not all forms of discrimination can be considered "the essence of freedom."
Report
But discrimination is decidedly NOT only a problem when practiced by the government. There are many forms of discrimination between two citizens that are illegal. For example, my landlord can not refuse to rent me an apartment on the basis of my age or race. I can't be turned down for a job on the basis of my sexual identity (unless I want to join the military, in which case I'm guessing you might FAVOR governmental discrimination!). I can't be refused a job because of my gender. We even require business to make their locations wheelchair-accessible, so they can't discriminate against the disabled even accidentally.
These laws are correct and ethical and justified. So, clearly, we can and have made decisions about what sorts of discrimination should be permitted between private citizens, and not all forms of discrimination can be considered "the essence of freedom."
May 05, 2010 09:43 AM
Ion: You are correct. My statement was too sweeping and incorrect. However, I still don't see how Fox News can be accused of unlawful or even unethical behavior for their choosing not to air that ad. This is a privately owned corporation; they have the right to refuse ads that do not conform to their code of propriety. At what point do government-enforced non-discrimination laws become oppressive? Is the next thing coming that churches will be forced by law to ordain homosexuals (a law which I'm assuming you might FAVOR)?
Report
July 09, 2010 07:13 AM
Intelligent debate, thx guys
"they have the right to refuse ads that do not conform to their code of propriety"
Your words fitzroy
Isn't that the problem here really? They will tell you that their code of propriety is based on what is called the social conservative norm. ie: they will choose what we want to see, based on our morals, values and beliefs. If they actually held to that, we would never have this debate.
Its the subjectivness of the application of this policy that becomes problematic. We have seen commercials like this in the past, that show just as much "skin" (as it were). Why is this commercial such an issue? How does this not conform to their code of propriety?
We as a society are ok with this type of display, so what went wrong here. Now the conundrum question is based on it being a full figure model issue, but we dont know that, we dont know why there is an issue. Your statement fitzroy suggests that it is the full figuredness that is beyond acceptability (I know you didn't really, but I'm making a point here).
If it is the body shape of the model that is the issue, than is that not discriminatory towards people who sport a full figure, to disallow the viewing of such a figure on the public landscape? Where is the ethics on disallowing us to see, believe, and have this image as ... well ... normal?
Thats my say, but I will add your comment on actually favouring homosexuality and churches was a bit much. Ion's point was to discuss discrimination, and he never actually
stated an opinion.
Report
"they have the right to refuse ads that do not conform to their code of propriety"
Your words fitzroy
Isn't that the problem here really? They will tell you that their code of propriety is based on what is called the social conservative norm. ie: they will choose what we want to see, based on our morals, values and beliefs. If they actually held to that, we would never have this debate.
Its the subjectivness of the application of this policy that becomes problematic. We have seen commercials like this in the past, that show just as much "skin" (as it were). Why is this commercial such an issue? How does this not conform to their code of propriety?
We as a society are ok with this type of display, so what went wrong here. Now the conundrum question is based on it being a full figure model issue, but we dont know that, we dont know why there is an issue. Your statement fitzroy suggests that it is the full figuredness that is beyond acceptability (I know you didn't really, but I'm making a point here).
If it is the body shape of the model that is the issue, than is that not discriminatory towards people who sport a full figure, to disallow the viewing of such a figure on the public landscape? Where is the ethics on disallowing us to see, believe, and have this image as ... well ... normal?
Thats my say, but I will add your comment on actually favouring homosexuality and churches was a bit much. Ion's point was to discuss discrimination, and he never actually
stated an opinion.
May 05, 2010 08:09 AM
(3)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
I'm not saying I agree with the decision, but I don't think it was discrimination. The woman is not heavy at all.
They probably wanted to edit the commercial because her cell phone has the message, "Meet Dan for lunch," and then it shows her leaving the house wearing lingerie under a trenchcoat. They probably figured that was risque because she was going to meet a man, presumably for sex, wearing nothing but lingerie under her coat.
Helpful Answer?
They probably wanted to edit the commercial because her cell phone has the message, "Meet Dan for lunch," and then it shows her leaving the house wearing lingerie under a trenchcoat. They probably figured that was risque because she was going to meet a man, presumably for sex, wearing nothing but lingerie under her coat.
(3)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
May 05, 2010 05:44 PM
me Helpful Answer? (1)
(2)
Permalink |
Report
I think it is BS! America is full of REAL women, not twigs. Most men wouldn't mind seeing a curvey woman. I think the male execs need to get their heads out of their collective a$$es and realizes that. Women want to see someone who looks like them, not a plastic $30,000 enhanced version of themselves!
Source(s):
me Helpful Answer?
(1)
(2)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
May 05, 2010 10:18 PM
(3)
(1)
Permalink |
Report
what? this is rediculous. That woman is BEAUTIFUL!!!!! there is nothing wrong with that commercial. It is probably just as dominickfo..said. It was her leaving the house in a trenchcoat in nothing but undergarmets, presumably for sex. but none the less, there are WAY worse commercials on the air. And why in size 12 considered plus size. That is crap. Do you notice how when you go shopping, you can never find a size 12? That's because most of the female population is that size. Believe it or not, if you take a pole, men LIKE curves. And to skyethepie, you are a complete PIG!!!!!
Helpful Answer?
(3)
(1)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
July 13, 2010 03:30 PM
Average women from the US might wear a size 12, but average women from Europe, Asia and Latin America wear something smaller. The model's figure does well to represent an average US woman, between the poles of teenage / athletic figures and the morbidly obese McBodies. It would seem unreasonable and unlikely for most any network to pull parts of an add because of of being lewd, but rather, it seems quite plausible that a size 12 women baring her figure is not what is considered sexy. What you or I feel is or isn't sexy isn't relevant here, what does matter (to them) is marketing data -- and marketing information states that thin is sexy, sexy things sell, so thin is in. Again -- it's not what you, I or anyone else 'personally' wants, this is just the reality of things. If it were not so, media personalities would 'look' more like the average person who shops at Wal-Mart, sits in their can for 8 hours a day while they earn their living and doesn't have form-flattering clothing. Ya know, like the rest of us! :)
Report
May 06, 2010 07:09 PM
(1)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Well, this is indeed a conundrum, because it is blatant discrimination. The commercial shows less and is done in more taste than multiple other commercials. And yet, do we, or the government have the right to force any television station to air or not air paid commercial advertising? I certainly wouldn't pay those networks, since they never aired the ad, I would also send them a bill for the time and effort and expenditures surrounding the creation and dispersion of the advertising material to them - only to have them back out on the deal.
This ad doesn't show as much off the female form as others do (or as much as reality shows do), the only change is that the woman is 'reality size' not an airbrushed, starved-to-death shell of herself who wears a size -0-.
Now a personal note: (here comes the prude in me) - Viagra, drug ads of any kind, personal lubricant ads, male enhancement pills, underwear (yes even Fruit of the Loom) ads, sanitary napkins, etc. NONE of those ads belong on TV, put them in a flyer in the Sunday news and give it a plain brown wrapper. Where has our 'properness' gone? No more does anyone think of saying "Oh I will tell you later, it is not a subject for mixed (meaning gender) company." Instead people just blurt out everything, where has our sense of manners gone? I don't want to be in public and hear about what tampon or hemmarroid treatment you use! Get some common sense back!
Helpful Answer?
This ad doesn't show as much off the female form as others do (or as much as reality shows do), the only change is that the woman is 'reality size' not an airbrushed, starved-to-death shell of herself who wears a size -0-.
Now a personal note: (here comes the prude in me) - Viagra, drug ads of any kind, personal lubricant ads, male enhancement pills, underwear (yes even Fruit of the Loom) ads, sanitary napkins, etc. NONE of those ads belong on TV, put them in a flyer in the Sunday news and give it a plain brown wrapper. Where has our 'properness' gone? No more does anyone think of saying "Oh I will tell you later, it is not a subject for mixed (meaning gender) company." Instead people just blurt out everything, where has our sense of manners gone? I don't want to be in public and hear about what tampon or hemmarroid treatment you use! Get some common sense back!
(1)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
July 09, 2010 08:08 AM
Zoinco,
I will defend to the death your right to have and speak your opinion freely and without judgment or prejudice ... but I dont have to agree ... isnt freedom cool that way?
Unlike Sandy above, your opinions are yours, and you do no harm to another while sharing them.
We as a society have actively chosen to loosen the strings of our conservative past. Where it is fair for us to not want to see the things you express in your 3rd paragraph on TV, for others, these things are ok. Other people would not be OK with not being able to make their sanitary napkin choices, based on the info they receive on TV. They want and need the open market concept and access to product marketing, to finalize their choices.
If it wasn't for the Viagra ad's, there would be a large market of men and their partners who would continue to suffer from dysfunction. Do they not have the right, to not just choose between available pills, but even knowing they exist? For many people it was and is the commercials that taught them that help is there. Keep in mind that for many, TV is the only media of choice.
The Sunday news is going by the wayside, all newspapers are losing huge market share, its the way of the past. If we brown bagged the taboo to that medium, wouldn't we lose the freedom of informed choice?
The hard question to you is ... are you in fact creating a discriminatory shell around a more conservative view, than is the reality of our society?
Personally I agree with some things you say, in many ways your issues, as well as the exploitation of women as perpetuated in the commercial here, is the reason we turned off the cable to the tv. We just dont want it in our realities anymore. We choose to live our lives, not watch others do it for us, We choose to make purchase choices on what we want and need, based on the value or appropriateness of the items we find, not because of a marketing style or catchy commercial.
Thanks for your comments,
I only hope to enlarge and focus the debate
Report
I will defend to the death your right to have and speak your opinion freely and without judgment or prejudice ... but I dont have to agree ... isnt freedom cool that way?
Unlike Sandy above, your opinions are yours, and you do no harm to another while sharing them.
We as a society have actively chosen to loosen the strings of our conservative past. Where it is fair for us to not want to see the things you express in your 3rd paragraph on TV, for others, these things are ok. Other people would not be OK with not being able to make their sanitary napkin choices, based on the info they receive on TV. They want and need the open market concept and access to product marketing, to finalize their choices.
If it wasn't for the Viagra ad's, there would be a large market of men and their partners who would continue to suffer from dysfunction. Do they not have the right, to not just choose between available pills, but even knowing they exist? For many people it was and is the commercials that taught them that help is there. Keep in mind that for many, TV is the only media of choice.
The Sunday news is going by the wayside, all newspapers are losing huge market share, its the way of the past. If we brown bagged the taboo to that medium, wouldn't we lose the freedom of informed choice?
The hard question to you is ... are you in fact creating a discriminatory shell around a more conservative view, than is the reality of our society?
Personally I agree with some things you say, in many ways your issues, as well as the exploitation of women as perpetuated in the commercial here, is the reason we turned off the cable to the tv. We just dont want it in our realities anymore. We choose to live our lives, not watch others do it for us, We choose to make purchase choices on what we want and need, based on the value or appropriateness of the items we find, not because of a marketing style or catchy commercial.
Thanks for your comments,
I only hope to enlarge and focus the debate
July 09, 2010 04:00 AM
(1)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Sandy all i have to say is your a B*TCH! wtf is your problem...Charray7 you are beautiful do not listen to what that crazy lady has to say she obviously has self esteem issues to be talking crap to someone who she doesnt even know:)
Helpful Answer?
(1)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
July 09, 2010 05:14 PM
(1)
(2)
Permalink |
Report
Pleeeeeeeeeeeease.
Yes the ad is a little risque, but c'mon. It's no more inappropriate than anything Victoria Secret runs. And yes, I like any girl with curves, sexy thin ones or plus sized ones, but maybe I'm in the minority of men who don't have a particular type. Beautiful is beautiful, and I feel bad for larger curvaceous women that feel bad about their bodies.
No problem here!!
People, show some intelligence and run that ad!!!
Helpful Answer?
Yes the ad is a little risque, but c'mon. It's no more inappropriate than anything Victoria Secret runs. And yes, I like any girl with curves, sexy thin ones or plus sized ones, but maybe I'm in the minority of men who don't have a particular type. Beautiful is beautiful, and I feel bad for larger curvaceous women that feel bad about their bodies.
No problem here!!
People, show some intelligence and run that ad!!!
(1)
(2)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
July 09, 2010 11:22 PM
(2)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
This in no way is discrimination. I am not a plus-size model in fact I am a size 0! However, I believe it is not discriminatory because the commercial is inappropriate and cannot be compared with Victoria Secret commercials. VS commercials do not advocate women to go out half naked, this commercial does. And to top it off this commercial makes it look that plus size woman should go out nearly naked. That is bad. So for the plus size women who think this is inappropriate... hahaha... the commercial is banned to benefit you! If the commercial was similar to VS commercial perhaps it wouldn't have been banned! when I say VS i do not mean the models i mean the way the commercial is done. And the commercial has nothing to do with it being plus size. Plus size women get over yourselves! Because size 0 girls have just as a hard time as you girls to fit in. After all, we are all women. And from a size 20 yrs young women to another 20 yrs young women, plus size or not beauty will always come from within not the lingerie you wear! BTW the plus size girl is beauty I wish i had curves like that! But i wasn't blessed like so. Overall though I do not like the commercial or any lingerie commercials and this one am glad was banned because yet again women are being advertised in a wrong way!
Helpful Answer?
(2)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
July 10, 2010 08:54 PM
(1)
(1)
Permalink |
Report
I think the ad was very tasteful. It did not reveal anything that has not been on Television before. Full-figured is very diffrent that being Fat. A full-figured women could have large breast meaning a size D or larger, small waste maybe a little belly and thick legs. A fat women has big everything, not meaning that is a bad thing, because you have some beautiful fat and full-fugured women. Some men would love to see ads like that on TV just as others like seeing Victoria's super model in thier bras and panties. I thik It is just a stigma that some people think fat or full-fugure women should run and hide. But I think you should embrace who you are and stop letting ofther dictate to you what the the difinition of beautiful is. I have heard a lot of men say I would never date or marry and women like that , but it not what is on the outside that matters but what is in the heart. I think a lot of people miss out on thier blessing because they let other dictate to them what is best for them. So I think the ad should have ran. Do what you feel is right for you, tell every one else to kis the crack of your ass, and do what makes you happy even if it is dating a fat or full-figure or small women it your choice.
Helpful Answer?
(1)
(1)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
July 10, 2010 09:16 PM
(1)
(1)
Permalink |
Report
yes of course its discrimination, i just don't understand why they wanted to censor some of the models body...There was absolutly no reason for that, nothiing that should not have been showing was i mean come on now we see lingerie commercials all the time showing exactly whats was in this one the only difference is the size of the models thats it, nothing else except this one shows plus size models wearing plus size lingerie in witch i loved the commercial it was nicely done, an i think there should be more an they should of thought of it along time ago, why should us plus size women not be able to watch commercials like this on t.v it just shows that plus size women are sexy too an that are places that we can go to find lingerie in our size instead of always seeing lingerie commercials for skinny women and well i'm all over the place i'm just up set that society is so racisist with many thing including plus size women in lingerie commercials i don't think they should be able to get away with that and something should be done on be half of the plus size women an our part of the population they should be suied for discrimination thats it an be made to air the commercial an any other that come along.
Helpful Answer?
(1)
(1)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
July 11, 2010 03:23 AM
(1)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
The VS commercials are much racier than this but I would not want to see either of them while watching Idol or Dancing with my younger children. The above states this commercial was to be aired during these shows and I would not be for it. However, I think it's a great commercial and should be aired during a more appropriate time slot. I would doubt that VS ads would be aired during these shows either - but I don't know - I haven't watched them regularly enough to know what ads to appear. Victoria's Secret and Lane Bryant are owned by the same parent company so it's not a VS gets to and Lane Bryant doesn't sort of thing. . . and I don't think it's a size of the model issue - I think it's the shows and time slot they requested. IF they had allowed VS and not Lane Bryant, than I would be ticked. So there's a few too many holes of information in this.
Helpful Answer?
(1)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
July 11, 2010 04:30 PM
(2)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
I think it's the ad that discriminates against Moms. It says it's something Moms wouldn't want. How do they know that? Do they think Moms don't know how to appreciate nice underwear? What a cruel thing to say against Moms. I'm a mom and I like nice, sexy underwear. They should change the words.
Helpful Answer?
(2)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
July 12, 2010 07:35 PM
(1)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
It's true the woman in this commercial was beautiful. This commercial wasn't banned because of discrimination - it was probably deemed inappropriate because it shows a woman leaving her house half naked to meet a guy named Dan for "lunch".
So the issue here isn't discrimination...that's a cheap card someone would like to pull. The issue is that the commercial was deemed inappropriate based on the content of the advertisement, not the woman or the lingerie she was sporting. (The lingerie might have been an issue if too much of a percentage of her cleavage was shown - just another possible reason, not stating that as fact though.)
Helpful Answer?
So the issue here isn't discrimination...that's a cheap card someone would like to pull. The issue is that the commercial was deemed inappropriate based on the content of the advertisement, not the woman or the lingerie she was sporting. (The lingerie might have been an issue if too much of a percentage of her cleavage was shown - just another possible reason, not stating that as fact though.)
(1)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
July 13, 2010 01:42 AM
http://www.wvwnews.net Helpful Answer? (1)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
I would say without a doubt its discriminatory in nature. All day long, crap and perversion, so its pretty obvious that when they want to show a beautiful, voluptuous woman, of classical beauty......It doesnt meet the ideals of the people who own the networks, that ideal being sick, anorexic and a total slut.
Wake up America, discrimination laws are only for "minorities" and homosexuals. They want your daughters to be anorexic little whores with no pride or self esteem, ashamed of themselves thinking they are fat.
Yep this woman says it all "
What's totally sad to me is that our society has become so unbalanced that whilst the majority of the developing world is busy starving to death, we have to tip toe around all these fat pigs for fear of insulting them, even to the extent that we now have fat adverts to sell them oversizede clothing to contain their oversized bodies.... what happened to just being healthy and being proud of being thin and healthy?"
The reason little monkey races in the 3rd world are starving is fat american women oppress them. Yes all girls should starve themselves and barf in a bag so they can meet your sick liberal idea of beauty, I call it, Auschwitz Chick, the holocaust's is in vogue.
Source(s):
Wake up America, discrimination laws are only for "minorities" and homosexuals. They want your daughters to be anorexic little whores with no pride or self esteem, ashamed of themselves thinking they are fat.
Yep this woman says it all "
What's totally sad to me is that our society has become so unbalanced that whilst the majority of the developing world is busy starving to death, we have to tip toe around all these fat pigs for fear of insulting them, even to the extent that we now have fat adverts to sell them oversizede clothing to contain their oversized bodies.... what happened to just being healthy and being proud of being thin and healthy?"
The reason little monkey races in the 3rd world are starving is fat american women oppress them. Yes all girls should starve themselves and barf in a bag so they can meet your sick liberal idea of beauty, I call it, Auschwitz Chick, the holocaust's is in vogue.
http://www.wvwnews.net Helpful Answer?
(1)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
July 13, 2010 03:20 PM
(2)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Plain and simple, you cannot call it discrimination unless you are certain as to why they chose not to air the commercial. You can infer that they did it because the model was a full figured woman but unless you have proof then this debate is pointless. Bump
Helpful Answer?
(2)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
July 14, 2010 07:07 AM
(1)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
The only time that that woman looked fat was in the dress thing looking in the mirror
I'm a guy and I don't know much about what looks good on people
however even I could tell that the dress didn't capture her (I'll be it sexy) body
and Daniel (I think) I wanna hear ure thoughts
I wanna know if what I just said is offensive
bc from what I've read u know
(I promise no sarcasm)
I'm in jh and I wanna know if women will find this offensive
from
(I love parens)
Helpful Answer?
I'm a guy and I don't know much about what looks good on people
however even I could tell that the dress didn't capture her (I'll be it sexy) body
and Daniel (I think) I wanna hear ure thoughts
I wanna know if what I just said is offensive
bc from what I've read u know
(I promise no sarcasm)
I'm in jh and I wanna know if women will find this offensive
from
(I love parens)
(1)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
Answer this Question
View All Beauty and Style QuestionsAsk a Conundrum
Please visit these retailers to purchase Conundrum or find the wine at these fine restaurants:
-
1321 Main St
-
1115 Main St
-
699 St Helena Hwy
-
1991 St Helena Hwy
- Twitter currently unavailable
moftary
That said, there are great bodies of thin ladies (go check sharapova's) and she's a tennis player, 100% healthy with zero eating disorders like your preferred style of girls.
And for god sake stop being a teenager c--t and take things personal. The woman only spoke her opinion and you can always do the same with a little bit decency without a personal attack.
BTW the topic is all about "is it discrimination between Victoria's secrets and LB?" and which models has better shape which might be the only difference between the two, considering the same amount of cleavage and body exposure.
All the best!
david1964
you truly believe the model in that commercial is fat ... thats what you said ... ' you call a fat woman "full figured" '. That woman tho is, also outside the average, she is what society says is "beautiful" in the eyes of an imaginary marketplace. I will admit that (damn) she was cute ... and smokin hot ... but you ... you simply call her fat, unhealthy and lumped her into a catagory close to obese. Yes, I mean that ... by commenting to Charray7 in that way, you also included that model. If they dont 'fit' your ideology of beauty, it is gross ... now go watch that commercial again.
The next time you need to lash out at a lady like charray7, who is simply exercising her right to speak on a subject, try to think and respond like an actual functional human, and dont attack on the first sentence (ie: You're fat). From that moment on, nothing you said mattered, because ... you dont matter. She has a right to her opinion, and has the right to share that opinion without harassment. If you had just calmly responded to her comment in a way that respected these rights, then I would not be typing this ... you attacked her based on who she is in YOUR EYES, not her comment. You would have beat a black man in the 50's just due to the color of his skin. Yes ... that is what you actually did here.
You are ignorant, judgmental, single minded, crass and cruel, bigoted, prejudiced and discriminatory.
You see women as tools for your exploitation, bodies to be used, wombs to carry your seed (shudder). You are a throw back, a caveman, and a dying breed. Please speed up the process of ridding the planet of vermin like you, and shoot yourself in the head before you make the horrible mistake of allowing your genes to propagate (sorry ... to many big words ... die, and dont have kids).
In case you need to know, I am male, healthy, and have a beautiful and loving family around me ... and we are making a difference in this world, by try to end the hate that crap like you dish out.
Enough ... You dont exist now.
Charray7, thx for your comment. One angle you haven't thought of, is this type of commercial simply a continuation of female exploitation, full figure or not? And are you ok with that?
david1964