Colorado. Runner. Yogi. Fucking hilarious, like, 17% of the time.

I realize I'm a little behind the curve here, but what the hell is wrong with this commercial of a very sexy woman in her underwear?

If you object to commercials with semi-naked women period, fine. Object away.  I'm sure you'll hate this, for example:

However, if you (like the advertising decision makers at ABC) object to the Lane Bryant ad but not the Vicky's Secret ad, I'm a little confused. Are plus size women somehow more naked than skinny women? I'll admit there's more of the Lane Bryant model (in places that I sometimes wish I had more), but there are like four women in the VS ad, so on a skin for skin ratio VS is definitely the worse offender. Plus, those women sort of look like they're orgasming in waterfalls, and the LB woman is getting ready for a date (albeit a risque one). Are there other guidelines they're using that I'm missing?

One of Lane Bryant's supporters (not the company themselves, as far as I can tell) created this rebuttal ad:

I don't necessarily think this is the right response. Body acceptance means all bodies, y'all - yes, sometimes skinny woman go to unhealthy lengths to be thin, but sometimes they don't. Sometimes curvy women are sedentary and big eaters, and sometimes they aren't. The whole book-cover-judger thing goes both ways, right?

dirty bird

you're making that up