[Torqumada]

Here.  It has a real woman in it!



Torqumada

[DJPFC]

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.

[Feral]

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.

[Torqumada]

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

[gonZo]

Less guesswork. More info. 

http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/2010/04/21/lane_bryant_lingerie/index.html

[DruulEmpire]

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!

[gOOber]

Suggestive advertising is a great danger.

[ROUNDandHEAVY]

And the password is: Whookita.

[1]

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.

[Real]

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.

[zeo]

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.

[Feral]

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.

[MasterDragonfly]

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.

[robclassact]

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.

[Feral]

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.