There exists a never ending barrage of images constantly informing women about what men think is sexually attractive (and telling men to what they should be sexually attracted). This is why the “ideal” body type in 2010 is different from the cultural “ideal” in 1950 and so on into the past until you get to Botticelli and his large-bellied, slope-shouldered, thin-necked creations.
But there’s nothing more confusing to me than the images I receive, and have received my entire life, about a large bust. Characters like Al Bundy and Butthead seem to like big boobs, but I can’t find one, button-up white oxford shirt (a staple piece!) because clothing designer makes one that will fit me.
Is a large bust attractive, or is it unattractive? Is it lewd, or somehow illustrative of an over-sexed woman? Or is it more representative of a matronly, handsome matriarch who wears housecoats and tasteful floral prints? And why is it ok to show half naked skinny women with small boobs (squeezed and pushed within an inch of their lives in bras trying to make them look bigger) on television, but not ok to show a similarly-shot, larger woman in her underwear.
This is the latest scandal on the big boob front. Lane Bryant, the “plus-sized” clothing company, shot a commercial for their new lingerie line. Here it is:
Just for fun, let’s see a Vicky’s commercial :
Hmm… one shows a sexually charged woman prancing around her house in her underwear, getting ready to meet her man for a presumable lunchtime tryst. Not super offensive. The other presents women as fantasies, and even says there are thousands of them. Among them: girl-on-girl action, pool table action, circus action, bondage action, food action (if that reads like the tags on an adult website, I think that’s where the director got his inspirations). Both commercials feature plenty of cleavage. The difference? Victoria’s secret commercials are played on heavy rotation on network television, while the Lane Bryant commercial was rejected from certain time slots on ABC and FOX.
The central objection? Lane Bryant’s well-endowed underwear models revealed cleavage that was just too ample. The low-down, from Ad Week:
In a post on LB’s Inside Curve blog, the company complains that “ABC and Fox have made the decision to define beauty for you by denying our new, groundbreaking Cacique commercial from airing freely on their networks.” . . . The post also claims that ABC “restricted our airtime” and refused to air the spot during Dancing With the Stars, while 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.”
The post continues: “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.’”
The ad depicts several attractive, plus-sized models in the latest line of Lane Bryant lingerie. Ample cleavage—which Bryant says was a problem for the nets—is on display in the ad. “The networks exclaimed, ‘She has . . . cleavage!’ Gasp!” the post states.
Oh! Ample cleavage… As opposed to socially acceptable cleavage, like that of Pamela Anderson who is currently competing on Dancing with the Stars. The ad was banned from running on ABC during that show’s timeslot, as is proved by these ABC documents recently obtained and posted online.
So, just to be clear:
Good cleavage =
Bad cleavage =
Okay. Time to start looking for turtlenecks and sports bras. Got to get to the mall!
