The recent Lane Bryant ad controversy, where ABC and Fox either pulled the spot or demanded editing, caused
uproar all over the Internet. Some said that it was unfair to allow skinny women prance around in lingerie, while a very attractive (but not size 2) woman is considered "too hot for TV." So this brings the question: What if the ad was for a clothing store focusing specifically on shorter and small-framed women? Would they pull the ad because the woman happens to be very tiny (say, a 28A), and therefore makes the ad look like child porn? Even if the woman in the ad is and is portrayed to be in her late 20s? Or would it just fall under the radar, because we see skinny people in ads all the time?
Small-framed women have a very hard time finding lingerie in North America. Major brands don't carry anything smaller than a 32 band size. Anyone smaller than that will need to go to a specialized store - and even then, the small sizes are few and far between. This is NOT the case in Europe and Asia. Even Britain seems to carry more 30s than Canada and the United States. There are some boutiques which sell smaller sizes, but even there, selection is only regulated to a small handful of brands. Sometimes, even these places try to make women buy larger band sizes and smaller cups. Even lines which are supposedly petite usually start at 32 (
Triumph Canada has one - cups for these bras are usually slightly closer together and the band size is slightly smaller - still, a 32 in petites is bigger than a 30 regular). No wonder most women wear the wrong size! In the "real world," many people don't even realize that some adults need small band sizes - to a typical Canadian or American, hearing that someone is a 30A or even 30B would make them think "what is she, like 12?" This sounds like a somewhat nice way of saying "she can't be a 'real woman,' can she?" How is this any nicer than "Whoa! She's fat!" or taking an ad down because it looks like porn? Hey, at least the latter just means that the ad is sexy. Small framed, especially small framed and small chested women can't really be sexy because they might "look illegal" according to some interpretations. That can be seen as far worse than someone who is, say, a 42DD being "too sexy" for regular TV.
I guess my point is that any comment from the "other side" is shot down. It's as if the comments don't matter, or, at least, matter less. This is not fair. Being small-framed, especially small-framed and small-chested can be just as difficult - if not MORE difficult - than larger women. At least larger women are "allowed" to be sexy - as long as you have a proportionate frame - while it borders on being gross if you are small all over. It's unlikely someone with a small band size (i.e. smaller than a 32) will ever be able to find sexy lingerie because some parent will complain that "real women" don't come in that size and that the lingerie was really intended for some 11 or 12 year old. Even if the store or brand clearly targets small-framed adults. Sad.
This is also posted in
Prospere Magazine.
