Quick Hit: PETA’s Ad Banned from the Super Bowl

PETA’s incredibly ridiculous ad trying to convince all those hot wing munchers to convert to vegetarianism during the Super Bowl has been rejected. Shocker. It contains thin white woman prancing around in their underwear rubbing vegetables all over their perfectly toned bodies. I’m not even going to post the video, cause it’s, well, inane. Suffice it to say that, once again, PETA proves it has no notion of intersectional exploitation.
Thanks to all the readers who let us know. Why can’t PETA spend some of that money hiring community blogger lorenc to talk about his actual experience being a dude vegetarian? See his smart post below.
And other community posters take:
Peta’s New Strategy
Peta Denied Commercial Airtime

and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

64 Comments

  1. Ariel
    Posted January 30, 2009 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

    Not about vegetarianism, but definitely about humane treatment in factory farms etc. They could also propose a bill to the legislature about no-kill treatments. They can start a no-kill policy for their own shelters. They can fundraise. See how much money they spend on shocking advertising? How much of that money could have gone to funding shelters or starting new ones? What they do is counterproductive.
    Oh, and taxing meat is an awful idea. Vegetarianism discriminates against the poor anyway.

  2. LurkerJen
    Posted January 30, 2009 at 5:08 pm | Permalink

    People here have already mentioned how the ads used naked women only, but what really bothered me was how they were just further promoting the “pornified” view of sex, ie that it’s for male pleasure only. The vegetables that the models were caressing/licking were clearly stand-ins for penises. Notice you didn’t see the women themselves experiencing sexual pleasure.

  3. rhowan
    Posted January 30, 2009 at 5:40 pm | Permalink

    The individual models may not be or feel exploited, however Peta is exploiting a standardized form of female sexuality to promote an entirely unrelated cause in a way that many people find objectionable.
    (also, the commercial wasn’t banned for simple nudity, it was banned because the models were portrayed having sexual relations with vegetables)

  4. rhowan
    Posted January 30, 2009 at 5:52 pm | Permalink

    “Notice you didn’t see the women themselves experiencing sexual pleasure.”
    I would actually disagree with that assessment. In particular, the scene at the end with the asparagus looks like its intended to be orgasmic.

  5. timothy_nakayama
    Posted January 30, 2009 at 10:03 pm | Permalink

    If you know you’re really smart, but people keep calling you dumb, are you going to try to change that perception? No, because you would have enough self confidence to know that you are smart, and being perceived as dumb means people underestimate you thus giving you the upper hand.
    A probably reason why men do not get offended is because it gives them an excuse. Ie. For instance, being unfaithful to their partners. How many times have you heard “That’s men and that’s how they are” said by a well-intentioned person who has internalized such a stereotype.
    That’s also why men generally don’t get offended by “dumb” portrayals of lazy, idiotic husbands and superwomen wife on TV shows…it gives them an excuse for not helping out “MEn can’t clean up after themselves. It’s SO True!”
    Nowhere is this more apparent than the harsh reality of rape, where as we all know, most unenlightened people tend to blame women for wearing scantily clothes, etc….as if men can’t control their lust. So this is yet another excuse, by saying “Men can’t help it!”
    These examples are just why I think you won’t find men complaining in droves about how the media paints them as “beasts” that are guided by instincts rather than reason.

  6. Megs
    Posted January 30, 2009 at 10:20 pm | Permalink

    I am not saying that nude is equal to degrading I am saying that PETA has a history of degrading women in its publicity stunts, and this commercial is sexist maybe I need to make that more clear. Why not use men? Why use only thin white women and their bodies to get a point across? Or why not have these women calmly speaking and trying to make their point, and again I ask what is PETA’s point?
    Sexism degrades women…That was and is my point, and this episode, in PETA’s long list of pointless point making, that respect is degrading to women…

  7. Megs
    Posted January 30, 2009 at 10:27 pm | Permalink

    This is not criticizing women for their choices it is criticizing PETA for their choices to use women to make a point that no one knows what it is…

  8. Megs
    Posted January 30, 2009 at 10:36 pm | Permalink

    I would not dare speak for anyone else, but for me I am not criticizing the ad for the nakedness I am criticizing the ad for using FEMALE nakedness to get attention without actually making its point.

  9. Salad
    Posted January 30, 2009 at 11:26 pm | Permalink

    Meat will cost a lot more if it isn’t produced intensively in factory farms. look at the price increase for organic free range. Does that mean that animal welfare standards also discriminate against the poor?

  10. Ariel
    Posted January 31, 2009 at 12:00 pm | Permalink

    All I know is that I grew up poor and that a bag of salad ($4) or apples ($3) cost way more than a pound of of frozen ground turkey meat ($2). Especially if you’re cutting corners. I’m not saying we eat a lot of meat, but can sure as hell afford more of it. We mostly eat pasta. We eat a lot of pasta.
    You can make six meals out of six pounds frozen ground turkey, and that’s feeding five people at the most. You can have two bags of salad and you only get one meal out of that feeding the same amount of people. It’s simple mathematics. Go to a grocer.
    Oh, and you’re leaving out lunch meat, like cotto salami. That’s way cheaper than a head of romaine lettuce. And will last me longer too.
    So yes, taxing meat is awful, and I’m pretty sure that it’s another publicity stunt from PETA, like the breast milk issue. Taxing meat is bad because it’s not the same as cigarettes or alcohol, which can lead to death and accidents. For a lot of people (whether you like it or not) meat is a sustenance, including the poor.
    I do agree that factory farms need to be more humane in their practices. I won’t argue that. Even while California passed Prop 8, I did rejoice when they passed the law for more space at chicken farms. But forcing vegetarianism on the lower classes with taxation is unacceptable. It’s no different than forcing other ideologies on to them such as, oh I don’t know, abstinence-only education. Or refusal of birth control. Or telling them that abortion is murder. If people choose to be vegetarians, and they can make it work, no matter what their class, then fine. More power to them. But *nothing* should be forced on to them.

  11. Salad
    Posted January 31, 2009 at 2:11 pm | Permalink

    Notice that I compared the price of meat to the price of rice and beans because they are both sources of protein. Rice and beans have always and will always be cheaper than meat.
    It’s really a shame that fruit and vegetables are priced out of the range of poor families, because vegetarian or not, everyone need those in their diet. There have been multiple studies that have linked health problems in poorer communities to the inability to afford healthier food. It’s quiet short sighted to just focus on how they are cost prohibitive. There’s a pretty clear imperative for our society to subsidize healthier food options for poorer people. Revenues from the meat tax could go to this.
    I don’t really understand what counts as forcing ideologies on people. You seem to think it’s perfectly acceptable to force ides about what’s humane on the way farms do business, regardless of the fact that it’s going to cost them a lot of money. You presumably don’t think there’s anything wrong with the price of chicken going up if it means giving the birds more space (which I assure you it will) but if the government instituted a meat tax to fund health and environmental issues (also increasing the cost of meat) you’d equate that to forcing an ideology.
    Creating incentives for a more plant centered diet is not like denying birth control. For one, producing meat costs us a lot. Animal agriculture is the number one culprit behind greenhouse gas emissions– more so than all the cars on the road in America. It’s energy inefficient as well, I could go on. There are health costs which disproportionately effect the poor.
    Also, we have certain ideas about the acceptable treatment of animals. In this country you can’t hold dog or cock fights, you can’t kill and eat cats, you can be thrown in jail for mistreating a pet. These aren’t universally accepted ideas and could easily be constructed as forcing cultural standards on people. Except for the fact that humane treatment of animals has a solid ethical basis. I can tell from your post that you view farm animals as little more than commodities and that forcing vegetarianism on someone to you is some sort of grave injustice. Have you considered that by eating meat you’re forcing your will on sentient creatures? You’re not just mandating their killing, but their agony in intensive farming. Except for a perfunctory nod to animal welfare standards you haven’t factored their experience at all into your argument.
    I think we need to get over this vegetarian elite thing. Worldwide, only the wealthiest countries can sustain a meat based diet and they do it on the backs of the poor– whether its the poor rural towns situated near factory farms that have to deal with the pollution from animal sewage or the undocumented illegal workers who overwhelmingly make up the workforce in slaughterhouses, who must work in horrid conditions and are threatened with deportation is they try to unionize and are fired when they are injured on the production line.

  12. Velderia
    Posted January 31, 2009 at 8:08 pm | Permalink

    Ironically after I read this I came across CNN’s take on it, and they took a small, funny portion out of this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFNTpPupUHE
    So funny. XD
    And they do make some interesting points though about who the commercials are really directed at.

  13. jjgirl23
    Posted February 2, 2009 at 7:24 am | Permalink

    I don’t see how they think this helps them, though?
    It makes me embarrassed that I was ever vegetarian, to be honest.
    Peta’s a joke… that’s all the publicity they’re getting because of this ad. I haven’t heard any “wow, that PETA sure is swell, I’m going to become vegetarian.”

  14. jjgirl23
    Posted February 2, 2009 at 7:29 am | Permalink

    Yea, you said it best.

184 queries. 0.614 seconds