PETA Ad Dubbed Too Sexy for Super Bowl

How dare you subject our kids to this when they are watching 275 pound men slam into each other or playing Grand Theft Auto. For Shame. For Shame.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is the same PETA that has killed 2/3 of the animals they've "rescued" and explicitly rejects the call for their shelters to be no-kill. The same PETA whose vice president claims that her use of insulin does not make her a hypocrite because she "needs [her] life to fight for animals". The very same PETA which finances arsonists.

Given their hypocritical behavior and their frequently contradictory statements, coupled with their irrational and sensationalist PR campaigns, it seems abundantly evident that PETA's primary purpose is to make lots of money for its executive management.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

PETA realizes that in this superficial, bourgeois, low-culture, fashion-obsessed consumerist paradise we have created called America, the only way to get anything done is to advertise, and not just to advertise, but to advertise to the lowest common denominator.

So they make a lowbrow ad with sex as its selling point and aim it directly at the center of the bellcurve in the USA. If McDonald's or Nestle can pervert the family image to sell tainted products, PETA can pervert the sex one just like any beer advert does.

Personally, I hate it all and I'm sick of advertising more than almost anything on this earth save maybe cars being literally everywhere, but that is the game one has to play now in this country, now that nearly everyone in it has been stupidified and made shallow by advertising and marketing beyond any acceptable cultural limit.

If you've got something to sell, be it an ideology or a product, your best bet is to make your ad as dumb and vapid as possible, preferably with some ultra-hot model woman front and center moving her hips and giving alluring "I want you" eyes, some slick groovy tune, and soap-clean post-edited camera work. Sickening, but true.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just another thing that makes me wonder about our sanity and our lack of principle!

We allow these money lovers to destroy our kid's minds, women's rights and our integrity, with this disgusting advertising. There is no hope for us anymore - we are all paying the price for our lack of integrity and laying ourselves open to abuse by these characterless idiots.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

PETA - PEOPLE EATING TASTIE ANIMALS

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

who hasn't fantasized about a woman downing a cucumber in one gulp?! hypocrtites!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why be distracted by such stupidity when our nation and the world is in danger from elite masters who are actively working to kill or enslave you. This is just a worthless distraction.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm shocked and offended...And keep in mind that I'm still miffed about the JJ fashion incident.

The real question ought to be whether these things work, and what demographic they're going after. Are guys who are into football and babes who do naughty things with vegetables prime candidates for conversion?

"Dude! Check out this ad on YouTube that they wouldn't show during the Super Bowl. Pretty hot, eh?...You know what?...Instead of hot wings and pork rinds, we should have sliced veggies and dairy-free dip at the party this year."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ah, yes, the PETA ad is too sexy but the beer and car ads as well as the scantily clad cheerleaders shaking their booty--that's fair game and perfectly acceptable for family viewing.

**eye roll**
What a bunch of hypocrites!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Anyone else getting sick and tired of letting others decide what is and isnt good for us?

RT
Privacy Center

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Glad to see that our 'saintly' animal defenders can go toe to toe with corporate sleazebags. And to think many liberals look down on pro life advocates and their tactics.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Veggie Love," PETA's Web site says, was for a coveted Super Bowl ad slot, so the hypersexed imagery could be taken as a tongue-in-cheek poke at all the other football adverts that try to draw a correlation between really hot babes and Dr. Scholl's insoles.


God, what a cop out isn’t that what they all say? Just pretend you’re making fun of the next guy, everyone blames each other and then they go on to insist that we the people want this. Actually I don’t want it. It is gratuitous. There is a time and place for sex and it is not in a living room full of relatives or friends at a Sunday gathering. I think the real fact is these supposed creative people who make ads for a living actually aren’t that creative at all as evidenced by their total lack of any ideas besides naked women or even children to sell all things from designer underwear to vegetarianism. God get a life, it gets old at some point. I don’t need sex shoved in my face 24/7.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

First let me say that I am a vegetarian and that I am quite dedicated to animal rights. Secondly, let me say that I despise PETA.

This ad was not meant to be aired. It was meant to be rejected, so that there was controversy over it... far more than if it had aired. Now everyone and his/her brother will be looking up the ad online to see what all the fuss is about. Along with their constant parade of nude women... celebrities if they can get them... in cages slathered in body paint to protest circuses, PETA wants to talk about ethics. PETA has no ethics. They are media manipulators whodo a disservice to those who stand against both animal cruelty AND this kind of sexist, exploitive tripe in advertising and on television.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's the same old stuff it seems - women with fashionable bodies and faces that look more like paintings. Now I'm so thin that even my bloke thinks I look better with my clothes on; others have the opposite problem, but we still manage to have lovely sex lives, albeit out of the public eye. It's the presumption that beauty and good sex go together that makes many of us women get narked.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oh the horrors! As a long time feminist and woman, who has lived it--not speculated--as the author can only (being a man)do, I say give it a rest. The ad IS satire and it calls attention to the plight of animals who suffer far more in every way on this planet than human beings do of any sex.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

[sexy music over]
When she suh-lides that bunch of asparagus southward, or does her intimate thing with a pumpkin, it just makes me want to get ... uh ... healthy ...

- - - -

According to some well beyond PETA, even plants have feelings – so, has anyone considered how the asparagus feels about being used in this way?

And even more disturbing: these veggies are dead, so does that make the acts in the commercial necrophilia?

This, obviously, is a controversy that will not go away ...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cattle, chickens and all the animals that supply our meat would have no reason to exist. some would be in zoos, some set free and their numbers would greatly deminish. Existance is much better than non-existance, so saying that not eating meat is helping animals, is wrong. Yet we should think of all creatures as brothers as the indians do.

Treating animals with respect and allowing them a proper living space with the abilty of liveing a good life is the best we can do for them. In nature animals usually lead stressfull lives being tramatized and eatened by preditors. We need laws to protect their comfort and to provide as normal a life as possible for them and without the constant threat from predators.

That's what Peta should be all about, not depriving people of nutrious food or causing the animal deaths and chaos that would be the case if we were all vegatarians.

There is nothing wrong with Sex. Too bad we as a society cannot handle it.

Bill Dake

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When did this happen? When did the crazy PC police who can't get laid decide all displays of attractive human beings were sexist?

Sex and sexiness doesn't not equal sexist.


Saying things like women belong in the kitchen cooking for men is sexist.

Saying women shouldn't be President because during their periods they are too emotionally unstable is sexist.


Showing scantily clad women playing with vegetables is not sexist.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This article was posted yesterday and appears again today as a separate article, although by the same person. Yesterday's posting seemed to be couched in the spirit of "what's the big deal?" and the resulting comments were pretty much a chorus of the same sentiment with people throwing tomatoes at my "prudish" post.

Today the author gives us a lead-in that the ad is exploitative etc. and the choir is now singing a different song, mostly agreeing with his characterization which seems different from how he introduced the article yesterday.

I wonder if this is some kind of experiment by Alternet? Anyway I've decided to copy my comments from yesterday since the conversation is ongoing even though yesterday's thread seems to have been terminated. I want to add that I was in the minority on this subject yesterday but today find myself a member of the majority it seems but I wonder what caused the shift?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The tormented slaughter on your plate is exponentially more offensive than some parody ad by PETA.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Even if NBC had allowed the PETA ad to air during the Super Bowl, it would have been a colossal waste of PETA's money, since the Super Bowl draws a predominantly male viewership that would have ignored the ad's central message: that people stop eating meat and become vegetarians.

The fact is, 85 percent of Americans who are vegetarians are women; every effort to date to get men to switch to a vegetarian diet has been met with fierce resistance.

Much of that resistance is rooted in homophobia; it's no secret that a disproportionately high percentage -- perhaps even a majority -- of male vegetarians in America are gay and bisexual men.

NBC might, therefore, have had a another reason to reject PETA's ad.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

http://www.goveg.com/feat/chewonthis/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let me get this straight. The ad is terrible, sexist, and offensive to women, but we're all supposed to watch it ourselves right here, right now, via the link supplied, so we can all complain about how terrible, offensive, and sexist it is. How many times are we supposed to watch it, just so we can see how terrible, offensive, and sexist it really is? Why don't we just not watch it, period, and not give PETA any more publcity than it's already had over this?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sex sells. PETA has taken a lot of flack from feminists from within the animal rights movement for some of its tactics, like its use of supermodels and the "We'd Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur" campaign. However, most of what PETA does (protecting and rescuing animals; sending letters and petitions to the heads of corporations; promoting veganism as a crucial part of a nonviolent philosophy, i.e., a cruelty-free lifestyle, etc.) wouldn't get attention. The media thrives on sex and sensationalism--not balanced debate on serious moral issues.

In her 1991 book, The Sexual Politics of Meat, Carol J. Adams notes that throughout human history, beginning with the hunter-gatherer tribes, meat has been associated with male violence and masculinity, people with power, the aristocracy, etc.

Meat is associated with male virility, whereas vegetable and nonmeat foods are viewed as women’s food. "Meat is a symbol of patriarchy" writes Adams bluntly. She cites a fictional illustration from Mary McCarthy’s Birds of America. Miss Scott, a vegetarian, is invited to a NATO general’s house for Thanksgiving. Her refusal of turkey angers the general.

According to Adams, "Male belligerence in this area is not limited to fictional military men. Men who batter women have often used the absence of meat as a pretext for violence against women."

Adams compares "The Rape of Animals" to "the Butchering of Women," as well as "Sexual Violence and Meat Eating." She quotes the organizer of a "Bunny Bop" in which rabbits are killed by clubs, feet, stones, etc. as saying, "What would all these rabbit hunters be doing if they weren’t letting off all this steam? I’ll tell you what they'd be doing. They’d be drinking and carousing and beating their wives."

The Feminists for Animal Rights newsletter (Vol. VI, Nos. 1-2, 1991) cites EarthSave as stating that taxpayer subsidies to the livestock industry in California for 1991 totaled $24 million, while the yearly budget for child welfare was only $125,000.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

PETA exists to make concerns about animal welfare look ridiculous. That's all they do.

They probably receive their funding (which seems enormous) from Gillette.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...but I find nothing offensive about sexy women, even sexy women being paid to use their likeness in advertising.

As to these beautiful women being (ab)used for Superbowl ads to sell things and why Budweiser doesn't choose to advertise with steamy-hot men.....it's marketing, stupid.

Given that there are exceptions, of the billion or so people that watch the Superbowl, what percentage are women that would want to both drink Budweiser AND have it sold to them by male models? I would venture it's a much smaller percentage than the number of men that guzzle this swill and love to see scantily clad supermodels, and as Superbowl advertising comes at a premium, companies have to reach their constituency in a cost effective manner, no?

I suppose it would be much less offensive if the smokin' hot women were being chased around by beer-weilding Fabios in banana hammocks? You know, so that all sides are represented. I think it's funny that we progressives have such a conservative streak in us, beauty is beauty. It's been flaunted for one thing or another since the dawn of time. It's a fact of life.

Beautiful people are nice to look at. Prudes and feminists are the only people that have a problem with it. I won't even include unattractive people in that statement, because there's plenty of unattractive folks around that enjoy them some supermodels, both male and female.

I do understand that a woman doesn't necessarily want to see another woman in her underwear, the only thing that "offends" me about male supermodels in Speedos is not wanting to see a guy's junk, so I can understand that aspect. But it doesn't bother me much either, I've got this magic wand called a remote that instantly changes the picture to something else, and then back when I'm sure the threat has passed. It's fucking amazing stuff. I would recommend one to anyone that is offended by anything that may pop up on their television screen, some TVs even come with them!!!

If you're looking for a platform or something to complain about, complain about the number of pharma ads plastered on television. It's no surprise the number of TV shows that involve hospitals, Pfizer and Wyeth et al are probably funding 75% of television nowadays. THAT, sir, is ridiculous. Right now, I've got COPD, depression, high blood pressure, restless leg syndrome blah blah and blah.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Remember the scene in Fast Times at Ridgemont High when Phoebe Cates demonstrates fellatio with a carrot?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In my view, if this article was not extremely sad it would be extremely laughable. Because of this, it is the very last article I am reading on this site.

Facts: several women are taking part in filming a commercial with only underwear on; they are playing with vegetables with sexual allusions.

Yeah, you are right: this is the end of the world and PETA are war criminals!

First of all, these women took place in the filming without force, with their free will. The author obviously assumes these women were very stupid, because they were (allegedly) extremely abused without even noticing it.

The fact is that nobody has suffered, nobody was hurt and nobody was abused. Quite contrary to how non-human animals are being treated so that humans could have meat for dinner. They were tortured, abused and killed in most horrible ways. Without their consent, of course!

It seems that showing naked (or better, half-naked) human body is insulting and evil!??? This is nonsense! Where are we? Is this some fundamentalist pseudo-leftist sect or what?

Tell you what: there is absolutely nothing wrong with (consensual) sex, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with (consensual) nakedness!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I've been vegetarian since 1982. I attended my first anti-vivisection protest in the spring of 1985, as anti-apartheid demonstrations rocked the UC San Diego campus. I first got interested in promoting vegetarianism in mainstream society after reading John Robbins' Diet for a New America (1987). Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, it makes veganism seem as reasonable and mainstream as recycling.

Half the water consumed in the U.S. goes to irrigate land growing feed and fodder for livestock. Huge amounts of water are used to wash away their excrement. U.S. livestock produce 20 times as much excrement as does the entire human population; creating sewage which is 10 to several hundred times more concentrated than raw domestic sewage. Animal wastes cause 10 times more water pollution than the U.S. human population; the meat industry causes 3 times as much harmful organic water pollution than the rest of the nation's industries combined. Meat producers, the number one industrial polluters in our nation, contribute to half the water pollution in the United States.

Joanna Macy, author of Despair and Personal Power in the Nuclear Age, depicts America moving towards a vegan diet in her foreword to Diet for a New America:

"The effects on our physical health are immediate. The incidence of cancer and heart attack, the nation's biggest killers, drops precipitously. So do many other diseases now demonstrably and causally linked to consumption of animal proteins and fats, such as osteoporosis...

"The social, ecological, and economic consequences, as we Americans turn away from animal food products, are equally remarkable. We find that the grain we previously fed to fatten livestock can now feed five times the U.S. population; so we have become able to alleviate malnutrition and hunger on a worldwide scale...

"The great forests of the world, that we had been decimating for grazing purposes, begin to grow again. Oxygen-producing trees are no longer sacrificed for cholesterol-producing steaks.

"The water crisis eases. As we stop raising and grinding up cattle for hamburgers, we discover that ranching and farm factories had been the major drain on our water resources. The amount now available for irrigation and hydroelectric power doubles. Meanwhile, the change in diet frees over 90% of the fossil fuel previously used to produce food. With this liberation of water energy and fossil fuel energy, our reliance on oil imports declines, as does the rationale for building nuclear power plants..."

Joanna Macy admits, "This scenario is wildly, absurdly utopian. It is also clearly the way we are meant to live, built to live." What could possibly make it a reality? "It is this very book!"

Paul McCartney says, "If anyone wants to save the planet, all they have to do is just stop eating meat. That's the single most important thing you could do. It's staggering when you think about it. Vegetarianism takes care of so many things in one shot: ecology, famine, cruelty. Let's do it! Linda was right. Going veggie is the single best idea for the new century."

Roberta Kalechofsky of Jews for Animal Rights says:

"Merely by ceasing to eat meat
Merely by practicing restraint
We have the power to end a painful industry

"We do not have to bear arms to end this evil
We do not have to contribute money
We do not have to sit in jail or go to
meetings or demonstrations or
engage in acts of civil disobedience

"Most often, the act of repairing the world,
of healing mortal wounds,
is left to heroes and tzaddikim (holy people)
Saints and people of unusual discipline

"But here is an action every mortal can
perform--surely it is not too difficult!"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The author is a real nitwit prototype, who as a man rants on about his supposed hatred of the 'objectification of women'. He smells of closeted Ted Haggardness anti-sexuality himself. The ad actually was a perfect counterpoint to the Miller beer commercials that will be aired on National TV, but the author misses that all together in his rush to supposedly save women. Do women really need men like this on 'their side'?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I really resent how PETA capitalizes on the stigma of fatness in their "humanitarian" cause. I am just so sick of PETA calling fat people ugly when I know what their average rank and file member looks like! Really, I would never donate a dime to this group. As as for them being advertising geniuses, just because people watch the sensationalism does not mean they are going to stop eating meat.

I have said it before and I will say it again. PETA could care less about animals. They are just using the issue to get attention for themselves. They are messed up souls wounded by humanity that are just using the animal rights cause to work out their own issues.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NEW ANGRY WHOPPER FROM BK OWNS
NOM NOM NOM.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

are vegetarian, because of religious reasons. Most of us who are strict vegetarians are spiritual characters. The sexy near nude women bumping broccoli is not exactly who we really are. Most of us are more abstemious types. The types who refrain from various types of excess. I guess it's hard to market Gandhi, Lord Krishna, or Buddha.

I had to drop PETA on my myspace, because of all the offensive pictures they posted. I had to friend up with a more low key vegetarian group.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This article and the ensuing debate here are hilarious. I always knew there was a strong Puritan / Moral Majority strain in the left, and the feminist left.

PETA is attempting to make vegetarianism seem fun and sexy to a mass audience. If they succeed, the world will be a vastly better place for humans and animals alike. Even for uptight "feminists" who disapprove of the way some people choose to express their sexuality.

Thank God for free speech.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I generally like anything that pushes boundaries and buttons. Good for PETA. They were the ones that came out with the nude model image with all the meat cuts marked out in grease pencil on her body. As a former meat cutter (union, mind you, best job ever), I thought it was the MOST poignant pro-vegetarian ad ever. Bar none.

The ad in the vid, total fun. Pre-pubescent kids aren't going to pay it much attention anyway. You wanna see exploitive, watch Coors and other 'Merkaaner "beer" ads... Some people have entirely too much damned free time.

'Merkaans really, you're just not the sharpest tools in the planetary shed, Get in touch with that, okay? You people really REALLY have sexual issues. So many therapists, why don't you employ them to help you get over yourselves?

But for me the more important question is, WTF is the "super bowl"? Is there some family holiday I've been missing all these years?

It's not the World Cup or anything, so who gives a shit?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I liked it so much, I went to the fridge and made myself a veal sandwich with lamb gravy and a side of italian pork sausage.

mmm-MMM! That's good eatin'

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...is somehow degrading? You un-enlightened barbarians. You and the Christian Coalition are all cut from the same cloth. Your sanctimonious pontifications are couched in different "isms" than the hateful "Jesus Warriors" but your message is essentially the same: Expressing sexuality openly and unabashedly is somehow "dirty" or "shameful."

There's hope, but not much, for this generation...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Eating Our Future: WSPA report reveals global impacts of factory farming

Did you know if Americans cut meat out of their diet for just a single day, it would save over 200,000 tons of food and nearly 2 million tons of CO2-equivalent emissions? That amount of food could feed all of the estimated 2 million displaced people in need of food in the Democratic Republic of Congo for at least 6 months, and the carbon emissions saved would be more than enough to cancel out the emissions from flying all of that food to the Congo.

This is the conclusion reached by calculations commissioned by the World Society for the Protection of Animals, or WSPA, in conjunction with their new report Eating Our Future: the Environmental Impact of Industrial Animal Agriculture, released in November 2008, just in time for Thanksgiving. The report and accompanying data show how industrial animal agriculture, or factory farming, not only causes the suffering of billions of animals, but is also a major contributor to climate change, scarcity of resources, and global problems such as poverty and disease.The report concludes by recommending a reduction in meat consumption and moving toward smaller-scale sustainable and humane food production methods.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...seeing as PETA doesn't want humans eating anything that actually demonstrates their classification as an omnivorous species -- especially if it can be marketed as cute and appealing (as opposed to those naughty sexual veggies who are simply asking for it?)-- they've turned to re-branding fish as "sea-kittens," a strategem fiendish in its cloyingness:

http://www.peta.org/sea_kittens/index.asp

Here's a link with Stephen Colbert's assessment of that (you'll have to c&p then remove the break after "videos/", as this site's so bloody unreasonable with its HTML):

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/ 215975/january-15-2009/tip-wag---monkey-on-the-lam

And that's just about the response that their slanted propaganda deserves. They're the equivalent of human "pro-life" groups that picket and pander with great show of emotion and graphic imagery, yet don't give a hang about other people (or people in general) once they're past risk of abortion. It's just the same thing but in cute widdle animal form.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Vegetarians and especially vegans make a great display of their point of view, which is being against meat. People who do consume meat immediately get defensive when faced with this point of view - with good reason. They are attacking our sustenance!
If you want to make a person angry and defensive, do something to threaten their food supply. This reaction is on the most primitive (real) level.
For this reason alone, the tactics of the anti-meat groups will be ineffective.

But most people (regardless on their stance on meat) can agree on some things. Such as:
* Factory farming sucks.
* Abuse of animals for experiments needs to be ended.
* Wasting water to raise animals in marginal environments needs to be ended as well.

I don't fight for any of these causes, but I try to vote for them with my purchases.

Anti meat people will never get anywhere with ridiculous campaigns like calling fish 'sea kittens', telling people (especially kids) that it is wrong to go fishing. People have *always* gone fishing regardless of time or place in history, pre-civilization, or geographic location. Likewise, people have always gone hunting. People have raised animals for food and materials for millenia.

I would like nothing more than to live in a world where I could fish in clean waters, hunt in healthy woods and get good food from farms that didn't abuse their animals or land.
Maybe we can work towards that instead!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

http://www.veganhealth.org/b12/hcy

The mortality rate of vegans and non-vegetarians is identical, with vegans having somewhat less heart disease but more than 2.2 times as many neurological and mental illnesses. Since the study merely compares vegans to all non-vegetarians and many, if not most, non-vegetarians eat an unhealthy diet that contains a lot of red meat, saturated fat, and processed foods, this is hardly an endorsement for veganism. The longest-lived people on earth, like the Japanese, eat a moderate amount of lean meat. The mortality rate of devout Hindu and Jain Indians, as I've already noted, sucks.

You want to go crazy, blind, and spasmodic before dying a hideous death as you suffocate on your own drool rather than having a heart attack? Hardly seems like a good trade. There are only a couple of cancers (bladder and brain) that might pack as much pound-for-pound agony as MS, Alzheimer's, or ALS, but even those cancers are likely to kill you a lot sooner.

Now, do all you kids really want to experiment with your long-term health by adopting veganism? Contrary to popular belief, you don't stop growing at age 17 - you continue to gain muscle and bone mass well into your 20s, even into your 30s for some people. Your brains - those juicy, omega-3 dependent brains (mmmm....brains....) - are still developing. Do you want to risk ending up with a lighter, weaker bone structure and a slowed mind because of a misinformed lifestyle choice you made when you were 18?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...what about those really lame and degrading Godaddy ads that manage to make to the Stupor Bowl every year?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I have no doubt that PETA's ad is intended to mock and shock. That's their modus operandi, has been for ages.

What are they mocking? The way media uses women to both to sell products and to narrowly define femininity.

What's wrong with mockery? The unwashed masses won't "get" it. After all, when you're looking at about seven acres of hot skin, your brain is wired to react to it viscerally, not intellectually. it's a pretty sure thing that PETA's irony will zip right over the heads of their Superbowl audience, should the ad actually air.

That's nothing new. PETA's past efforts to reach the public have also been loaded with irony and mockery, and there PETA sits, comfortably on the fringe of American discourse. Most Americans either don't know what PETA is or feel revulsion for it. Far from shaking the comfortable assumptions which permit animal cruelty to flourish, they have placed themselves beyond the playing field where most minds are made up.

They seem to prefer that, too.

Perhaps on some level, PETA fears its own success, and so embraces a self-defeating strategy. After all, if we all hopped on their bandwagon, they'd have no reason to exist.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Super Bowl day has the highest rate of domestic violence than any other day of the year, in America!

PETA stupid decision to run this ad...I would never support PETA because of it.

Can you picture some guy beating on his girlfriend or wife because she walked in front of the TV while he was watching football - in the background the PETA commercial is running...

He's punching her and screaming at her, 'You fat pork eating b*tch why can't you be a sexy vegetarian like those babes on the PETA commercial...then he breaks her jaw.

: (

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Just because using women's bodies as virtual stand-ins for sex gets you attention doesn't make it right."

So why not rant against The Media(tm) in general?

"We may have come to expect that from beer companies, but not organizations fighting for justice."

So because you expect it you'll shrug, but admit it, you just don't like PETA, or animal activists, or vegans -- especially powerful, well-funded activist vegans -- so they can't do what others get away with? I call that unfair prejudice, no matter what I think of sexy ads no matter who produces them.

Lastly: oh, lighten up. It's a funny, spoofing ad. Since when did we get all Puritan? Too late to close the barn door now. You know, the Europeans laugh at our odd double-standards with sex. WE get all high-and-mighty moralizing about showing it, but we're all doing it like crazy on the internet, in motels, dirty dirty dirty. Pulleeze. Grow Up, America. And spend more time helping animals and less time ranting about those who actually put their money where their mouth is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The money spent on this stupid day for this stupid business - it isn't a game except in so far as the rip off artists on the field and in the office towers are taking money from a bunch of neanderthals - oooops - maybe that isn't such a bad thing - now that I think about it.

As of Thursday there were still 3,000 unsold tickets. They should give them away to people who can't afford them. Not likely. The greed heads on the field and in the owners boxes aren't likely to give anything to anyone anytime soon.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thought ad was clever, cute, creative. The messed up kids today, are messed up because their parent shove down there throats, total nonsense, then, when the get older, the backlash from the crap parents are feeding their kids, turns them into rebellion, and unrealistic expectations, depression, path to drugs, etc.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm not a PETA fan, and I'm not even a vegetarian. I find many of them to be self-righteous and annoying, although I do respect anyone who makes a moral or even health-related choice of any kind. But the outrage at this video is pretty silly.

I watched the video and found it to be hilarious. And I most definitely did not think it was "objectifying" women. I once happened across a "professional" wrestling show (very, very briefly and accidentally) during which the announcer said, "Bring on the ho's" and a group of scantily clad young women appeared. Now THAT is objectifying and very insulting. In comparison, the PETA ad is pretty innocuous.

Funny how sex is so vilified by both the Christian right and (apparently) some leftwingers as well, as evidenced by all the "OH! MY! GOD! Sex for sale!" kind of articles and their responses here on Alternet, but violence in media and entertainment is pretty much ignored.

Boxing, pro-wrestling, and even less violent sports like football cause injuries and death from time to time. They are far more inherently dangerous to the participants than prostitution. I say "inherently" because if prostitution were legal, much of the danger would be alleviated, but the actual physical damage in contact sports is always there.

What about shows like Criminal Minds or the CSI series that have very detailed, graphic, horrific scenes? I am opposed to censorship of nearly any kind, and I think people should be allowed to engage in any activities that don't hurt others, so I am not advocating the elimination of wrestling or boxing or TV shows that depict explicit violence or gruesome details. I'm just pointing out that, in the American culture, violence is acceptable to many people who become horrified at sexual images.

I wonder if it ever occurred to those who were so offended at the sexual content and misuse of women that it could just as easily be said that this ad really makes fun of men. After all, it implies that men are so gullible, stupid, or mindless that they would stop eating meat just because they saw some beautiful women having illicit relationships with vegetables. Pretty insulting, no?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The women in that video "chose" to be a part of it, nobody forced them to participate. Quite the opposite of all those voiceless animals in the meat industry whose lives peta is trying to spare, they have no choice in the matter, they are confined, brutalized and murdered against their will, and completely powerless to stop it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This was 15 seconds of risqué entertainment that certainly got my attention. So, PETA runs a sexy, tongue-in-cheek pro-vegetable ad and I'm not supposed to laugh uproariously and watch it again? It was great PR and it certainly beats throwing blood on fur coats. I'll never look at broccoli the same way again…

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

then maybe people would realize that if PETA has millions of dollars to spend on a superbowl ad, people would stop giving money to them. But in reality, PETA never planned to have it air. They depended on, and are getting what they aimed for. Free PR. This is not the first year PETA did this, and looking at the response this ad is getting, it won't be the last.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Whatever else you want to say about them, OBJECTIVELY: PETA's execs don't make big salaries. Their founder and President makes $30,000 year to run the largest animal rights group in the world, and something like 80 percent of their staff make less than $30,000/year. Their top earner is their general counsel, and he makes about $85,000 (that's paltry compared to what he'd make at the vast majority of similarly sized NGOs). Anyway, they get an A+ for how they spend money from all the charity watchdogs, and their staff is working there out of commitment, not for the money!

And of course this is subjective, but I think that the group does superb work. Check out the HBO special "I am an animal" about their founder, or the New Yorker feature by Michael Specter from 2003 (Google it). Or just check out the annual review on their Web site. This lambasting is really based on nothing.

I am, of course, a PETA supporter!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

PETA run by feminists.. that explains why the very premise of the ad is an out-and-out lie:

Look here
and here
and here

There's lots more.. I am tired of pasting links.

Vegans are sickly and vacuous. Yuck.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Removing the "big-eyed kitten" emotional appeal, the "more serious" ad doesn't stand a lot of close examination :
"heart disease begins in childhood," and most often and most strongly in response to inherited genetics, not diet.
"meat and dairy makes you fat," sort of like carbohydrates, especially the simple (like PETA) sorts.
"because in every package of chicken there's a little poop." Have you ever looked at FDA guidelines dictating the permissible concentrations by weight of rat feces in flour? It ain't just chicken, dear, there's a little poop in everything you eat, and a lot of it in the ads you see...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am still pretty stunned. I had to run the video six times, pausing on some of the most horrifying images, just to convince myself that what I was seeing on the screen was actually there! Still a bit unsure, I should reconfirm and also share with some friends to see if they share my outrage.

Am I the only one who saw the silent pleading in the eyes of the enslaved lingerie models?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I almost snorted soy milk out my nose when I saw this!!! This was very funny! risque veggies! It did sorta beat those lame brain beer commercials.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]