I'm not a big fan of lingerie ads, especially the Victoria's Secret commercials, since they perpetuate the objectification of women's bodies, and they uphold a ridiculous standard of beauty.
The Victoria's Secret images, in particular, reinscribe the idea that women need to have big boobs and be ridiculously skinny in order to be beautiful. That said, I like this Lane Bryant ad simply because the model is NOT stick-thin and has curves. But really, ABC, are you objecting to cleavage or to the fact that the model is more than a size 2?
Come clean, you scumbags.
UPDATE: Of course, Sociological images has a truly excellent and much more nuanced analysis. Check it out here.
Posts
3 comments:
I rather object to the second to last line, "So not what your mom would wear." if I got it right. Would it kill the next generation to know that their mother's wore something lovely and colorful? Or is this just a throw back to not wanting to believe that our parents had sex regularly? Who knows.
Oh, and there IS a WHOLE lotta cleavage going on!
SoCal Kelly
Fat-wa. Good one, NYP.
well, SoCal Kelly, you're right: there is a whole lotta cleavage going on--but there is also always lots of cleavage in Victoria's Secret ads, and they air those all the time. I think the difference is the size of the woman--and perhaps her breasts, too. :)
Post a Comment