Blogger Sarah Chiwaya tweeted the councilman, expressing her thoughts on the topic, bringing up the fact that Victoria’s Secret ads can be seen in NYC with scantily clad thinner models, where kids can see them. The councilman did not have a response to that.
We spoke to Sarah about her Twitter conversation with Greenfield and she had this to say:
“I understand the Councilman’s religious objections, but he is a politician in a city where it is perfectly legal for a women to be topless on the street. None of the women in the #ImNoAngel ad are even partially nude. Moreover, he describes the campaign as “R-rated,” when there are plenty of Disney princesses in G-rated movies wearing clothes (or seashells) that are just as revealing. So what’s the difference that makes these ads so objectionable?
Councilman Greenfield insists that he’d protest VS ads too, but when I asked him for his record of doing so he had no response. There are tons of ads on NYC transit that objectify thin women; one that immediately comes to mind are the disembodied fake breasts on plastic surgeon ads in seemingly every subway car. I’d say those are far more problematic. This is not the first time curvy women in lingerie have been treated as obscene while thin women exposing just as much have gone without controversy – I think there needs to be an examination of why it always plays out this way. There is nothing obscene or R-rated about a woman in her bra.”
Not only are the ads being debated but also the campaign itself. There are those who support the message of #imnoangel and those who think Lane Bryant is not showing enough body/size diversity within the campaign by using models that are a size 16.
In her post, she strips down to her own Lane Bryant underwear, stating: “I’m posting these to point out the fact that because of the TYPE of fat body I have, Lane Bryant would never, ever use a body like mine in a campaign.” She also invited other plus size women to post their own images on social media with the hashtag #ImNoModelEither.
“Why are we so damn excited that six flawless plus models who have been photoshopped to death are representing the plus size woman?”
She goes on to discuss how she feels that Lane Bryant missed a great opportunity to reach all of its customers by including more size diversity:
“The #ImNoAngel campaign is a watered down attempt to make big girls feel good about themselves. But no one in that ad could have been bigger than a size 18. That leaves out a very important cross-section of Lane Bryant’s customer base. They carry sizes 14-28. Why aren’t the models in the campaign representative of that diversity?”
Sarah Chiwaya, the blogger we mentioned above who took on Councilman Greenfield on Twitter in defense of the train ads, also wrote her own blog post, supporting the campaign:
“Yes, they are professional models, and not representative of all plus women, but this is a huge step in the right direction. This is a giant national campaign. For many around the country, this might be the first time they’ve seen plus size bodies celebrated on this scale. When you’ve seen one narrow definition as sexy all your life, it can take a bold statement to get you thinking. For scores of women, #ImNoAngel is doing just that.”
There have been other bloggers and women who have showed their support for the campaign by posting images of themselves wearing #imnoangel t-shirts on social media and stating their own empowering statements.
So we want to know what you think. Is the #imnoangel campaign a positive thing for plus size women? Is it a step in the right direction? Or does it lack size diversity? Should Lane Bryant have used customers versus models? Should they have used models above a size 16?
Please sound off below and let us know what you think!