Big Boobs Stop Major TV Networks Cold: The Pictures, Video You Weren’t Supposed to See
When did network televisions start banning big boobs?
I really can’t remember a time, until now. In case you haven’t heard, ABC and Fox banned a Lane Bryant ad for Cacique, its new plus-size lingerie line.
The reason: too much cleavage.
Talk about getting your panties in a bunch.
Here’s Lane Bryant’s statement from their Inside Curve blog:
ABC restricted our airtime and refused to show the commercial during “Dancing with the Stars.” Fox demanded excessive re-edits and rebuffed it three times before relenting to air it during the final 10 minutes of “American Idol,” but only after we threatened to pull the ad buy.
Yes, these are the same networks that have scantily-clad housewives so desperate they seduce every man on the block, and don’t forget Bart Simpson, who has shown us the moon more often than NASA, all in what they call “family hour.”
For years network television stations have aired scantily-clad women grinding and busting out of their tops. The irony is that the Lane Bryant ad was supposed to air during Dancing With the Stars, which, ahem, has plenty of half-naked women running around on stage.
How many people watch CBS’s annual December Victoria Secret’s Fashion Show? It is always a big hit and topped the ratings (along with the Christmas special, Rudolph) back in 2008. Ironically, what topped Victoria Secret’s Fashion Show last year? The hit television show about losing weight: The Biggest Loser. (The Biggest Loser scored a hefty 10.3 million viewers, while Heidi & Co. brought in about 8.3 million at CBS, according to a Film.com post.)
Maybe television executives should take a cue. Change your attitude and get real.
The average American woman is 5-foot-4, weighs, 140-pounds and wears a size 14 dress. At six-feet tall and more weight than I care to share, I’m certainly not the standard size. Never have been and never will be. For goodness sake, I was taller than my 5-foot-2 Italian-heritage mother in third grade. Third grade! (I remember standing in Catholic church, while in grade school, and having someone from the pew behind us, think that I was my father’s wife because I was adult size at such an early age. Talk about mind-boggling and embarrassing.)
Victoria's Secret Fashion Show that aired December 2009 on CBS
As Jezebel so duly noted, it is far healthier to be fat and active, than thin and not. I certainly agree. As I noted in earlier posts, I like to keep active. I was a Division I rower in college, did the Chicago Triathlon last year after coming back from two bad car accidents and a nasty fall down a flight of basement stairs that resulted in back surgery. But less than a year later, I was back at it, working out and competing in the triathlon, despite taking four months of high dosage steroids because my left leg went numb, which certainly hasn’t helped my case. I think all of us would love to be just a little bit thinner, but let’s be realistic. There certainly is a double standard for men and women. Just look at how many fat, obese men are seen naked or half naked on television.
So here are some of the photos from the ad, screen captures I took of the video. I challenge you to look at them, really look at them and decide if they are worse than anything any of you have seen on network television.
New York’s WPIX interviewed the model Ashely Graham who starred in the commercial, airing it today.
“When it comes to a little bit extra, they can’t handle it,” Graham told WPIX about the network stations not wanting to see a curvy woman in an ad.
Click here to see the video interview.
As mentioned earlier, Fox eventually decided, after changing some of the original ad, to air the commercial in the last 10 minutes of American Idol.
Here’s the ad that has caused so much controversy. See for yourself. There really isn’t much to talk about, except the networks’ decision not to air it. Maybe they should think about their decisions the next time, before they air a Victoria’s Secret ad for it’s new Naked line. It’s completely hypocritical and everyone knows it. The networks are naked in the boardroom, and it isn’t pretty.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
MIKEY LIKEY! Throw out your Cosmopolitans and Glamour Mags. Ladies, get out there and show us what the real world looks like.
Thanks, Mike. Glad you appreciated the post.
In response to another comment. See in context »I’m loving this; the imams say women are causing earthquakes and now breasts are so terrifying they can’t be shown on television. I can hardly wait for the next, fresh inanity.
Totally agree with you Dawn. The Lane Bryant model is as beautiful and as sexy as the Victoria Secret models and the ads are in better taste. Boo ABC and Fox! People want to see women who are not underweight in ads and on television.
True / Slant needs more articles about boobs.
With pictures, of course.
Boobs.
[yes, we are all perpetually teenaged boys]
wow, the model is super hot. it’s ridiculous how body image has changed in the last thirty years. a woman like this used to be considered voluptuous and now we have nothing but these skinny-assed starved beanpoles as the “ideal” so that every little girl in american now flirts with bulemia. a sick joke.
I generally prefer a slimmer, more athletic build, but if anyone can bring voluptuous back in style, she can. I agree with you. She’s gorgeous!
In response to another comment. See in context »The ad wasn’t banned because of breasts. It was banned because it’s totally subversive. We can’t have women loving themselves the way they are, can we? It would mean the end of advertising as we know it!
An underwear ad portraying a woman with ordinary proportions getting banned? What next? An end to Erectile Dysfunction commercials? I can only hope…
Ms. Reiss,
In previous blogs on this nature, I have made this observation, people often confuse “big” with “overweight”. I think Queen Latifah exemplifies this point, she is tall and big boned but not at all overweight. So too with this model, she big but she is definitely not overweight. In just about every dimension you can name, she exceeds the standards of “advertising beauty” but she is of what appears to be an entirely healthy weight for hear build.
You wrote “As Jezebel so duly noted, it is far healthier to be fat and active, than thin and not.” This quote is not apropos of this advertisement as that dichotomy is not at issue. Fox seems to have objected to the fact that this very fit and attractive women was simply larger, broader shoulders, wider hips, thicker thighs, than their standards. I do not believe that there is any question of her being “fat”, just big.
Thanks for commenting, David. I agree that some times people misconstrue fat for big and there is a difference. Maybe I should have delved into more of that in this post, to clarify my position. Obviously there are different viewpoints on what is considered “fat” and what is considered “big.” Sometimes they overlap, some times not. I do understand the difference, on a personal level. Even when I was a ripped athlete in college, I was still big, or big-boned as some people like to call it. I’ll never be tiny or waif-like. It’s just not in my genetic structure. It really bothered me during my childhood and teenage years. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve gotten noticed because of my size, especially since I’m 6-feet tall. It’s like you’re a walking billboard and there really isn’t anything you can do about it but embrace it.
In response to another comment. See in context »Great. Post.
I forgot all about “the family hour’. What retarded President was that, Reagan? I can’t believe we still have those laws reminds me of the ‘Hays Office’ era in Hollywood. Are the networks still that afraid of the FCC? If the FCC won’t get involved in internet law why care about TV, it’s all over cable anyway. They drop an f-bomb on SNL and it’s headline news. Smaller government? Close the FCC.
Simple. Much of america can identify with the bigger woman. Victoria Secret models are abstractions, fantasies. This is too real and hits too close to home. The networks get scared when showing something real and piss themselves.
So double or triple-D breast implants that are completely out of proportion to model and actress size 2 bodies are cool, but the real deal is not? The hypocrisy is ludicrous.
[...] ad was supposed to air during Dancing With the Stars, which, ahem, has plenty of half-naked …Read More… [Source: women naked - Google Blog [...]
Of course the network is being silly, puritanical, and hypocritical not to air it, but don’t fool yourself: this ad is not a celebration of plus-size women, or a victory for real women everywhere…it is a celebration of their breasts.
The ad basically shows one full figure close-in shot at the beginning, then boobs for the rest of the ad. (Except for a long shot where she has to cover herself with a trench-coat so we don’t have to see the horror of plus women revealed.) And what can this possibly do for the self-esteem of plus-size women who don’t have large cup sizes?
Maybe the networks have a limit on the number of square inches of skin that can be shown.
Actually, I didn’t even notice she was “big” (well, not ALL of her) until several viewings. I thought the objection must be that while her mom told her what’s inside counts, in reality she needed to go to lunch in bra and panties to please her man Dan.
She’s hot and she’s real which makes her very, very sexy.
Inexplicable decision by the networks.
It’s a nice post,thanks for sharing!
http://www.cosplaypub.com