Breast Expansion Archive Forum
Announcements => Breasts in Commercials and Advertising => Topic started by: Torqumada on April 21, 2010, 04:56:30 PM
-
Here. (http://www.youtube.com/lanebryantcurves) It has a real woman in it!
Torqumada
-
The only reason an ad like that is deemed unfit for network TV is because the networks are tired of getting their asses handed to them by the FCC, which increased fines by over 10x after the infamous Janet Jackson/Justin Timberlake Super Bowl "Wardrobe Malfunction" . Ever since, the FCC is constantly deluged with complaints by uptight fundamentalist Christian organizations like the Parents Television Council who claim to speak for everyone when in reality they only speak for themselves. They're basically the only ones who even bother with wasting their time on inconsequential crap like complaining about TV content -- all the rest of us normal people are too busy with our regular lives and other important things than to get all spun out about what's on TV -- so our voices are never heard but these PTC people make sure that theirs are and they get their way as a result.
Those who scream the loudest, even if they are in the vast minority, always get the most attention.
-
That's so lame. I see nothing there that is more racy then the typical VS tv spot. Maybe those are only shown on cable and after a certain time, but still - that commercial is not over the top in any way.
I am surprised that some more voluptuous women have been showing up in some other ads though.
-
Lane Bryant correctly points out that these networks who said this commercial was too racy for the time slot Lane Bryant wanted seem to have no problem running equally or more racy commercials from Victoria's Secret or programs like Desperate Housewives in the same slots. So, what's the real problem here?
Torqumada
-
Less guesswork. More info. ;)
http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/2010/04/21/lane_bryant_lingerie/index.html (http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/2010/04/21/lane_bryant_lingerie/index.html)
-
If this was indeed rejected -- and this is not some calculation to manufacture controversy -- my own suspicion is that the Lane Bryant name continues to be strongly associated with pregnancy, and that a lot of people are still all weirded out at the idea of women with some maternal vavoom to them slipping on a slim crisp blouse and bouncing on out for some whookita-whookita. Me, of course, I say: more, more, more!
-
Suggestive advertising is a great danger.
-
And the password is: Whookita.
-
The only reason an ad like that is deemed unfit for network TV is because the networks are tired of getting their asses handed to them by the FCC, which increased fines by over 10x after the infamous Janet Jackson/Justin Timberlake Super Bowl "Wardrobe Malfunction" . Ever since, the FCC is constantly deluged with complaints by uptight fundamentalist Christian organizations like the Parents Television Council who claim to speak for everyone when in reality they only speak for themselves. They're basically the only ones who even bother with wasting their time on inconsequential crap like complaining about TV content -- all the rest of us normal people are too busy with our regular lives and other important things than to get all spun out about what's on TV -- so our voices are never heard but these PTC people make sure that theirs are and they get their way as a result.
Those who scream the loudest, even if they are in the vast minority, always get the most attention.
I agree, DJPFC. Organizations like those don't even represent Christians, let alone the general population. Take Ohio and Texas, two very religious states who are among the 5 or so states where a female can go topless. Females can show their breasts in those states because those states are/were very conservative and pro-freedom. I say were because Ohio's is not very free anymore, its gone downhill big time in the last decade and I'd bet women lose this right there soon.
-
its obvious.
the women have curves and cleavage.
the ladies (who i appreciate dont get me wrong) on the victoria's secret ads and full shows they will run do not.
clear double standard.
-
Those who scream the loudest, even if they are in the vast minority, always get the most attention.
That was why government was supposed to be limited. So no matter how loud they screamed they'd be out of luck unless they could convince others not to watch.
-
its obvious.
the women have curves and cleavage.
the ladies (who i appreciate dont get me wrong) on the victoria's secret ads and full shows they will run do not.
clear double standard.
But they will allow those same women in the VS ads to run around in padded push up bras to showcase added cleavage. But a real women with big natural heavy boobs that has cleavage without help is considered obscene.
-
And the stylemasters who like to chant "big boobs are out of style, small boobs are in" will be spewing their claptrap in 3... 2... 1....
Who knows what the rationale truly was. And I'd like to say we are all potentially agents of change, but who do we take this to? ABC and Fox? :-\
Take Ohio and Texas, two very religious states who are among the 5 or so states where a female can go topless. Females can show their breasts in those states because those states are/were very conservative and pro-freedom.
Wait what? Topless? As in, someplace other than one's own home or a gentlemen's club?
Where exactly? On the beaches? The local charity car wash?
I'm not trying to be annoying, I'm genuinely curious. Living in Texas but not being originally from here, I wouldn't know where to start looking for this. Or more accurately, where to keep my radar on for such occurrences. :)
I remember when a women went topless in public in the Toronto area many years ago, and that created enough of a stir that the laws were changed to allow women to go topless the same way men go topless.
-
Take Ohio and Texas, two very religious states who are among the 5 or so states where a female can go topless. Females can show their breasts in those states because those states are/were very conservative and pro-freedom. I say were because Ohio's is not very free anymore, its gone downhill big time in the last decade and I'd bet women lose this right there soon.
Yeah, wait a sec. I lived in Ohio for three years and missed this loophole?
Rob "Let me see em' baby. It's legal" Classact.
-
I thought it was legal in NYC because some jogger wanted to be able to take her shirt off in the park. I seem to think it was a high profile case some time ago.
-
The only reason an ad like that is deemed unfit for network TV is because the networks are tired of getting their asses handed to them by the FCC, which increased fines by over 10x after the infamous Janet Jackson/Justin Timberlake Super Bowl "Wardrobe Malfunction" . Ever since, the FCC is constantly deluged with complaints by uptight fundamentalist Christian organizations like the Parents Television Council who claim to speak for everyone when in reality they only speak for themselves. They're basically the only ones who even bother with wasting their time on inconsequential crap like complaining about TV content -- all the rest of us normal people are too busy with our regular lives and other important things than to get all spun out about what's on TV -- so our voices are never heard but these PTC people make sure that theirs are and they get their way as a result.
Those who scream the loudest, even if they are in the vast minority, always get the most attention.
The great thing is that FCC does not mean much anynore on these issues. The internet and cell phones and lots of other technologies and innovation assure that the message can get through. I just watched the commerical. The women in it are terrific.
Lane Bryant is no doubt laughing all the way to the bank. They may have even deliberately provoked the censors.
-
They may have even deliberately provoked the censors.
But how? The only thing I can think of that's remotely provactive about that spot is because she "Walks out the door" in basically her underwear. But that's only because I'm "looking" for something. I bet if I watched a bunch of VS ads I could pick out something more provocative then that.
I don't think they set that commercial up to cause controversy and ultimately "not" to be aired. Its not like a Go Daddy spot.
-
Christ, those VS ads the girls look like live action Playboy spreads. What with all the sultry poses and soft moans the models seem to be having sex with ghosts.
The excuse that the LB ad was more suggestive and therefore innapropriate is just bunk. All this deliciously voluptuous model is doing is tooling around the house getting dressed and openly admiring her own stunning pulchritude.
Much more likely is that huge breasts, round butts and wide hips are just so viscerally stimulating that the network nannies find it more sexual and therefore unacceptable.
-
It has nothing to do with her being bigger.
It's all the near slow motion shots of her tits jiggling around.
-
I get that, and in the screen cap posted above it looks like that bra is a cup too small so they *could* get a little more jiggle out of her. She's spilling some and the center piece isn't flat against her chest.
But I think VS girls show just as much jiggle. Its only considered "obscene" when there's a big set of juggs doing the jiggling.
-
Its only considered "obscene" when there's a big set of juggs doing the jiggling.
I don't get that either. How does a woman with bigger than average boobs equal obscene? Aureole? Fine. Nipple? I might give you that too. But banning just on the basis that the chick is more top heavy? Ridiculous. It's like that GoDaddy Superbowl commercial from last year with Danica Patrick. The chick in the green top didn't even undo her jacket, it was just hinted, and the whole commercial was "shut down". I doubt it would have been if say......Gwen Stefani was playing the role.
-
Well- while you're all looking at the girl, and the fact that she's topheavy and all of the other legal claptrap, I'll point out the way I thought the commerical might be obscene.
The voiceover saying that mom wouldn't approve and then walking out the door in her bra, panties, and a trenchcoat like she's going to seduce her husband at work might be the part they object most to. If kids were to see that, the commerical basically says 'Tell your mom to go fuck herself- if you look this good in lingerie, you should wear it to go be naughty and see your boyfriend.'
Now- that said- that chick is very very hot.
-
You're only allowed to show boobs if they're meant to sell products to men.
-
I don't get that either. How does a woman with bigger than average boobs equal obscene? Aureole? Fine. Nipple? I might give you that too. But banning just on the basis that the chick is more top heavy? Ridiculous. It's like that GoDaddy Superbowl commercial from last year with Danica Patrick. The chick in the green top didn't even undo her jacket, it was just hinted, and the whole commercial was "shut down". I doubt it would have been if say......Gwen Stefani was playing the role.
I agree it is ridiculous, but I think the Go Daddy ads are just hype. The very first one was too hot for TV I'm sure, but I think now they just play off the initial hype and plan on having you only see the first ten seconds and then go to their website and see the rest, which is nothing to write home about.
The "Have you enhanced" spot they had with all the big implanted models in court would probably be the only one that is literally too hot for TV.
-
Anyone know who she might be?
Torqumada
-
But how? The only thing I can think of that's remotely provactive about that spot is because she "Walks out the door" in basically her underwear. But that's only because I'm "looking" for something. I bet if I watched a bunch of VS ads I could pick out something more provocative then that.
I don't think they set that commercial up to cause controversy and ultimately "not" to be aired. Its not like a Go Daddy spot.
Dude the censors might have been paid off to censor it. I tell you it worked like a charm for Lane Bryant. I watched CNBC for a hour and a half today while working out. They did tons of trailers on their report on this with parts of the comercial played over and over.
-
I agree, DJPFC. Organizations like those don't even represent Christians, let alone the general population. Take Ohio and Texas, two very religious states who are among the 5 or so states where a female can go topless. Females can show their breasts in those states because those states are/were very conservative and pro-freedom. I say were because Ohio's is not very free anymore, its gone downhill big time in the last decade and I'd bet women lose this right there soon.
Ohio is about as religious as a typical state, according to a recent Gallup poll: http://www.gallup.com/poll/114022/state-states-importance-religion.aspx?version=print
65% of Americans in 2008 considered religion important to their daily lives, including 65% of Ohioans and 74% of Texans (Texas tied with Kentucky for 10th-most-religious state, and the top 9 were also in the South; Ohio tied with Maryland, Florida, and Pennsylvania for 22nd, and only 4 states had fewer than half saying it was important: Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont, all in New England).
-
As has been said, you can't advertise with real breasts.
You can have a flat woman pushed up to her chin for Victoria's Secret writhing on the floor moaning "Sexy" over and over (yes, that commercial exists). But someone with actual curves? BAN IT OMG THINK OF T3H CH1LDREN!!!
RandomX(Muttermuttermutter)
-
Yeah, wait a sec. I lived in Ohio for three years and missed this loophole?
Rob "Let me see em' baby. It's legal" Classact.
According to this link its legal statewide in 6 states.
http://www.gotopless.org/page.php?4
You didn't go to Comfest in Columbus, OH did you? There are plenty of bare breasts there and its at a city park.
http://gotopless.org/news.php?item.25.1
I've heard there are a couple of topless beaches in Ohio and one lady used to get harassed once in a while for mowing her grass topless. The police couldn't do anything. I heard it wasn't much of a site.
I like the quote below, although I think most of the people on this site wouldn't quite agree with it.
As a friend of mine put it: "Comfest is where you'll see more naked boobs in one place than you've ever seen before, yet you wished you hadn't seen any of them."
http://www.last.fm/event/631836+Comfest
-
DROOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!
What I would do to that woman!
Too bad the women who shop at LB aren't half that spectacular!
What bugs me is that if you watch any Viagra, Cialis, or those god awful enzyte ccommercials, they are 4151453452345234 times more suggestive than the LB commercial. I thought it was tasteful unlike the go-daddy commercials, which are just raunchy.
-
ultimately it comes down to a underlying control freak nature of american culture.
Way too many people who think it is their duty to control how their neighbors live, what their neighbors are exposed to, etc and so forth for their neighbors' own good.
-
ultimately it comes down to a underlying control freak nature of american culture.
Way too many people who think it is their duty to control how their neighbors live, what their neighbors are exposed to, etc and so forth for their neighbors' own good.
And witness this thread, the Christians take a lot of heat for this. But the Muslims are the ones making death threats (as happened just this week to SouthPark's Parker and Stone) and carrying them out (on Theo Van Gogh for example.) You can criticize or make fun of or blaspheme Christianity and you will not be physically threatened for it. Islam not so much.
-
And witness this thread, the Christians take a lot of heat for this. But the Muslims are the ones making death threats (as happened just this week to SouthPark's Parker and Stone) and carrying them out (on Theo Van Gogh for example.) You can criticize or make fun of or blaspheme Christianity and you will not be physically threatened for it. Islam not so much.
I was reading though this thread, watched the commercial in question, compared it to V.S. spots, even read the related articles and descriptions on the referenced sites. I was happy to see a balanced open and frank discussion developing. I could see several different ways this issue could be considered. I was actually enjoying the thread.
Then I hit the above quote.
It felt like someone just ran into the room and yelled, "I love bananas!" and ran out.
What the...?
I was about to move on and read another thread and let it roll off, but it just stuck in my logic circuits. So, that statement has motivated me enough to write.
And witness this thread OK- let us really witness this thread, which means fully read and comprehend the meaning and share the basic tenets of the content of the thread, the Christians take a lot of heat for this. as well they should as they constitute the majority of the population complaining, have an established history of these actions and statements and have multiple active groups set up to make such statements. But the Muslims are the ones making death threats -What does that have to do with this discussion? Really! I am sorry but I have heard Christians make death threats too. and carrying them out - Again, everyone is attempting to carrying out their stated intents some are successful and others not so much, like I intend to write a rebuttal to the above text. You can criticize or make fun of or blaspheme Christianity - yes you can, just as you can do to most anything, there are people that do that every day, just as there are people that go on and on about gun ownership, abortion, gay marriage, school vouchers, public health, drug use, banning books, or praying in public school... to name a few, but we are talking about bras. and you will not be physically threatened for it. Ah, yes you will. Islam not so much. Not so much means not as much as Christianity.
I actually feel better now. Oddly I want to eat a banana...
The stronger the belief the more rigid the thought.
-
I don't really know too many straight guys that wouldn't find the woman in that ad incredibly sexy.
-
Anyone know who she might be?
Torqumada
The model's name is Ashley Graham:
The Sun: "Busty model ad too hot for TV" (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2945072/Busty-model-ad-too-hot-for-TV.html)
-
The model's name is Ashley Graham:
The Sun: "Busty model ad too hot for TV" (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2945072/Busty-model-ad-too-hot-for-TV.html)
Thanks. Anybody know how tall she is? Its tough sifting through all the Resident Evil 4 and the blond from Model Mayhem info.
-
Dunno how tall she is, but I found this sweet blog post about her (http://corpulent.wordpress.com/2009/07/10/women-i-love-ashley-graham/).
-
Yeah, I saw that. Lot's of great pics of her there. She's gorgeous.
-
I believe she is 5'4". Wow, that's a lot of goodness in a small package :)
-
Wow really? I figured she was close to 6'0 feet, even without heels.
-
I got that 5'4" from a site that nearly dropped a Trojan horse onto my machine, so take that as you will :)
And I knew I had seen Ashley somewhere before: she was one of those models from the GLAMOUR shoot (http://linkblur.com/?http://editorialpursuits.wordpress.com/2009/10/01/glamour-lizzie-miller-plus-six/) with all those plus-size models nekkid.
-
My eyes just had a heart attack. :o
-
Now that, my friends, is a woman.
-
Now that, my friends, is a woman.
Agreed! :o
-
Now that, my friends, is a woman.
Quoted for Truth.
Purrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!
-
Now that, my friends, is a woman.
-
Wow. What a woman. Those hips. ;D
-
And witness this thread, the Christians take a lot of heat for this. But the Muslims are the ones making death threats (as happened just this week to SouthPark's Parker and Stone) and carrying them out (on Theo Van Gogh for example.) You can criticize or make fun of or blaspheme Christianity and you will not be physically threatened for it. Islam not so much.
Depends on what era of Christianity you decide to look at. Saying the sun was the center of the solar system could get a man killed by church once upon a time. Then there are all the self proclaimed christians in the USA that cheer on the warfare state and hope bring about a third world war. Anyway ultimately organized religion is a power structure. It doesn't matter which one it is. Once there is an organization, an institution, it becomes a haven for control freaks to tell other people how to live and control information.
The organization hardly has to be that of religion for the control freaks either. Secular government works just as well, even better for them. The details of a religion, a government, or anything else don't matter to them. The control does. They want control of what ever institution can wield legal violence which is usually the state (with or without the religion component). That doesn't mean religious beliefs aren't useful to control the masses. They have been for many thousands of years.
The biggest control freaks are currently trying to get the world into an environmental religion from which they will control every aspect of our lives. Mixing flim-flam beliefs with a little science. It's like the old eclipse scam but on a much bigger scale. Most everyone knows the sun comes back after an eclipse now, so the scam is more complicated but still a scam none the less.
-
And witness this thread, the Christians take a lot of heat for this. But the Muslims are the ones making death threats (as happened just this week to SouthPark's Parker and Stone) and carrying them out (on Theo Van Gogh for example.) You can criticize or make fun of or blaspheme Christianity and you will not be physically threatened for it. Islam not so much.
Most Muslims don't do the death threat thing. Only a very small, severely radicalized portion of them go to that extreme. The vast, vast majority of Muslims are not remotely that way so it's unfair to lump them all together. Every single one of my muslim friends would never dream of such things. That said, where the Muslim world does come up short (IMO) on this issue is in condemning those extreme radicals who do go the death threat route. IMO, I don't think there's enough condemnation or outrage from the Muslim world at large when they hear such things from their more radicalized brethren.
That also being said, yes, Christians take a lot of heat, but I think deservedly so, because a hell of a lot of them tend to do dick-ish things like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgMr_Zc3OtA
Going around self-righteously claiming that your religion is better than everyone else's while simultaneously denigrating everyone else's religion is something for which you should take heat. If the roles were reversed, and some Buddhist was on TV talking about how Buddhism is better than Christianity, I can only imagine how up and arms the right-wing Christian community would get about how this is "yet another attack on Christianity". Yet when they attack someone else, it's perfectly okay.
-
I think this thread needs more pictures of Ashley.
-
She needs to just turn around and show us that tookus in a thong or something one good time.
-
I think this thread needs more pictures of Ashley.
You can see her nipples in the upper left hand picture.
Torqumada
-
she's 5'9"
-
She reminds me a little of both Sara Ramirez and of Eva Mendes. What a luscious woman. Why she's not on these two sites, is beyond me:
Listverse: "Top 10 Hottest "Plus" Sized **28**" (http://listverse.com/2008/05/22/top-10-hottest-plus-sized-**28**/)
The Judgment of Paris: "Plus-Size Model Survey" (http://www.judgmentofparis.com/survey.htm)
-
Most Muslims don't do the death threat thing. Only a very small, severely radicalized portion of them go to that extreme.
<i>Same is true of Christians. And I am not a Christian myself, FWIW. </i>
Going around self-righteously claiming that your religion is better than everyone else's while simultaneously denigrating everyone else's religion is something for which you should take heat.
<i>Islam scores worse than Christianity on this one, too</i>
And the funny thing is that by now it is clear that Chrisitan activists had nothing to do with this ad being "pulled". One of the networks denies they refused to run the ad. The only way Crhistian activistare are responsible for this is if they on the management team at Lane Bryant. ;)
-
You can see her nipples in the upper left hand picture.
Torqumada
Is the photo of her in the leather dress on the right photoshopped to give her a smaller waist? Either way she is crazy beautiful!
Thank you for pointing that out about the nipples by the way.
-
Here is another.
Hawkeye
-
she's 5'9"
Source?
-
Another montage of this gorgeous woman. I just google imaged her to get these.
-
Everyone seems to have an opinion, no matter how unimportant. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/23/bill-oreilly-lane-bryant_n_550279.html)
-
*mumbles incoherently, drooling*
-
Everyone seems to have an opinion, no matter how unimportant. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/23/bill-oreilly-lane-bryant_n_550279.html)
O'Reilly refused to form an opinion on the issue, stating "I don't care."
-
Ashley Graham is back!
YouTube: "Lane Bryant Save 40% Off Commercial" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQvatVRUB_A)
I will try and find a higher-resolution version of the ad.