It’s no secret that we are living in a world where our outward appearance, even the things that we have no control over, dictate the ways in which we are viewed, judged, and treated by others. As a girl that developed “early”, I learned this lesson at a young age. I can remember walking down the hall in the 4th grade and having a handful of older girls say that I looked slutty. You don’t know my Mom but let me tell you, as a 4th grader, there was no way in hell I was wearing anything less than an oversized t-shirt and shorts that came to my knees. A stylish t-shirt and shorts but full coverage all the way. In my 4th grade mind this equation stood: showing “too much” skin = slutty, so how was it possible for me to be slutty*? I was about to realize that even growing breasts, something that I would have eagerly stopped if I could have, can be construed as a “slutty” act by others. I felt betrayed by my body and spent many years learning that I “couldn’t get away with” wearing what other, less busty, girls were wearing or else other people would “get ideas” about me.

I was brought back to that moment of being a confused 4th grader when I heard about Fox and ABC banning a new lingerie commercial from Lane Bryant. After watching the commercial, I couldn’t understand why any network, other than perhaps Nickelodeon, would ban it. So, I decided to watch a few Victoria’s Secret commercials for comparison. And then I watched the Lane Bryant commercial – again. Compared to Victoria’s Secret, the Lane Bryant commercial looked downright modest. So what would cause these networks to ban the Lane Bryant commercial?Yes, Fox has since reconsidered their stance and agreed to air the commercial but what would cause their initial reaction?

Source

According to Lane Bryant, ABC refuses to air the commercial because their model is barring too much cleavage. Well, yes, her breasts are larger, as is her entire body but  it seems to me that the Lane Bryant model is proportionately showing the same amount of skin as Victoria’s Secret models do. Is the image of the Lane Bryant model more sexually explicit because she is a larger woman – because her breasts are bigger? Or was that just their “gentle” way of saying that they weren’t interested in showing plus-sized models in underwear on their networks?

2010 Victoria’s Secret commercial directed by Michael Bay

2010 banned Lane Bryant commercial

Ultimately, I have to commend Lane Bryant for not giving in to the professional version of bullying perpetrated by ABC and Fox. By refusing to change the commercial, to a version that would put more emphasis on the model’s face and none on her body, I think Lane Bryant has sent the right message. You don’t want to see a fuller sized woman? Well, that’s your issue not mine – we’ll just take our business elsewhere. We, the consumers, need to do the same and support business that actively consider the identities and needs of their customers.

Now how long before someone offers the weak excuse that the real reason they don’t want to see the Lane Bryant ad is because it depicts an “unhealthy” lifestyle? Because there’s a lot of that going around lately.**

*I hate this word for all that it has done to tear down girls and women. I also find it to be a vague descriptor with no concrete meaning.

** I find the really interesting analysis/conversation often happens in the comments section.