Peta Ad That Was Banned From Superbowl

[lame54]

http://features.peta.org/VeggieLove/Default.aspx

[boston bean]

1. to sell veggies all they use is sex sex sex. well i think it's a little weird to see

someone almost making love to a head of cabbage..

[XemaSab]

4. I find it ironic and disturbing that they rely so much on objectifying women

:(

[EyeofRamen]

7. I know.

Can't we save animals AND respect women?

[Hello_Kitty]

10. And I'm still not seeing frat boy type men going vegan en masse.

It's clearly their target demo with these stunts yet it's failing to bring about the desired behavior change.

[seabeyond]

12. had girls in lingerie, on a bed, on a corner street downtown amarillo. in feb. result?

a bunch of yeehaw cowboys making crude comments then ordering their hamburger as the girls simply looked stupid.

[EyeofRamen]

19. And cold, I'll bet.

[Warren DeMontague]

25. If I have to choose between meat and sex, meat is going to lose.

Every time. :shrug:

[Hello_Kitty]

29. What does that have to do with what I posted?

I'm sorry to tell you this but the models in the PETA ads aren't going to have sex with you.

Advertising =/= Reality

[Warren DeMontague]

32. Whatever you say.

You're right, they're not- I'm happily and faithfully married.

But when I was single? Hey-- I'm no Christopher Lee, but I did all right. :rofl:

[CLANG]

60. All PETA models have sex with me in my dreams

And since I sleep about half the day away, I'm a happy camper!!

[superduperfarleft]

61. Right on!

Dumb broads need to lighten up!


:sarcasm:

[CLANG]

62. I disavow your use of the term "dumb broads".

[Mojeoux]

89. The creepiest Super Bowl Ad ever.....................

Was the same year they all freaked out about Janet Jackson's boob. The ad was for an erectile dysfunction medicine, an it was the first time the danger of a 4 hour hard-on was announced on TV.

Now we even have Frank Gifford doing ads for a product to make his dick bigger.

Yuk, they freak at a boob, but we are swamped with mental images of the penises of old men.

[CanSocDem]

133. Short memory...???

Or did you just want to post something?

Janet Jacksons "wardrobe malfunction" happened accidently during her performance in the half-time show.

But.....whatever works for you.


.

[seabeyond]

134. accidently my ass.... lol. oh my.... , lol. nt

[Mojeoux]

137. Um, CanSocDem, the creepiest S.B. ad ever, was the same year as the "malfunction."

Did you think I said that JJ was in an ad? No it was just the first time that an erectile dysfunction ad mentioned the dangers of the 4 hour hard-on.

My point is that JJ showed her boob, (on purpose or not) and people freaked OUT. However references to 4 hour boners seem like something you would want to protect innocent ears from as well and no-one made a peep.

Creepy double standard IMO.

[boston bean]

13. that's what I meant, but you put it much better....thank you..

[Warren DeMontague]

21. Personally, I find women in lingerie less offensive than comparing chickens to jews in the holocaust

But I'm funny, that way.

[Hello_Kitty]

31. Have you given up meat because of them?

If not, the campaign has failed in its goal.

[Warren DeMontague]

33. No. But I also have not progressed in my enlightenment to the point of getting outraged

when I see attractive women in lingerie.

So PETA is not the only group that has failed.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[boston bean]

78. So do you like to watch women in lingerie almost fucking cabbages and carrots? nt

Don't be so obtuse

[Warren DeMontague]

82. No, absolutely not.

I like to watch the cabbages and carrots fuck EACH OTHER.

[boston bean]

94. good, so you now understand how you failed to get the point.

[Warren DeMontague]

107. Right, I have stubbornly refused to be re-educated, and as such am still irritatingly un-outraged by

the PETA ad with the scantily clad women with the vegetables.

Of course, silly conflations of food and sex have been going on since long before 9&1/2 Weeks, so PETA is hardly original, there.

Why don't you tell me, in one simple declarative sentence, what exactly the point is that I "failed to get"?

I bet you can't.

[darkstar3]

109. That is so wrong on so many levels...

and I laughed my ass off. I'll never be able to look at my nephew's DVDs again without laughing.

[Warren DeMontague]

111. Sorry, really, I am.

On the other hand, Veggietales is kinda watered-down religious right agit-prop, IMHO. Personally, I prefer to educate my kids on the Classics.

[darkstar3]

Oh don't be sorry,

I agree with you about the VeggieTales, and that's part of why it's funny.

[XemaSab]

102. I'm not saying that there aren't other problems with their message

I'm saying that we, as liberals, can only focus on one thing at a time.

The oppression put on women and the oppression put on Jews should not divide us, ya know? :hi:

[Warren DeMontague]

108. The difference, as I see it, is that sex isn't oppression. The Holocaust was.

They're not the same, they're not even close to similar.

On one hand, you had 6 million men, women, and children who were brutally and systematically murdered, and PETA was saying that the the Chickens at Col. Sanders are the moral equivalent. Yes, that is offensive.

On the other, you have a fairly goofy ad using scantily clad women to make a point that vegans have better sex lives. Now, not everyone likes scantily clad women, but most people do like sex. I wouldn't have a problem with the ad if they had used scantily clad men... in fact, they probably should make some of those, too.

People who equate sex, nudity, or eroticism in their myriad forms with oppression... I'm sorry, I don't get it.

[darkstar3]

110. Well, I'm thinking that people here would be much less offended, exploitation-wise,

if the ad had shown a few guys in bikini-cut briefs alongside the girls. Maybe the woman making herself into soup could have been a man. I think the point is that this isn't exactly equal opportunity, much like so many other ads that use sex to sell the product.

Have a think on this: When was the last time, outside of an ED ad, that an ad campaign used MEN as sexual objects to sell an item? For fuck's sake, they sell bras to women by showing commercials entirely made of half-naked women in arched poses...

[Warren DeMontague]

112. I agree about the men. I think they should have them in the mix, for sure.

It wouldn't bug me.

As for the bra ads, though, I'm not sure women would buy bras if they were being modeled by hairy dudes. :rofl:

[darkstar3]

113. Well, I'm not suggesting that hairy or even "manscaped" dudes model bras,

I'm just not sure that women in their underwear splayed over chairs and arching forward and back is the greatest way to get women to buy the product.

[Warren DeMontague]

120. If it wasn't, the ads wouldn't exist.

Trust me. The people who make those ads know what they're doing, and who they're selling to.

[darkstar3]

124. You've never heard of a failed ad campaign?

You're telling me that every ad on TV is effective simply because it exists?

[Warren DeMontague]

127. PETA's got us talking about this one, and they didn't even have to run the ad.

Look, I understand that there are some people who get annoyed, upset, irked and/or angry when they see scantily clad, attractive people. But I think the numbers for folks who like it (of both sexes) are higher.

[darkstar3]

130. PETA has us talking about how asinine they are. I wouldn't call that a success.

And numbers don't make something right.

[XemaSab]

117. I spend a lot of time researching religious fundamentalists

Like I said, oppression is not a contest, but there's a lot of oppression of women happening in the US (not to mention around the world), and we're 51% of the population.

[Warren DeMontague]

121. The places where women are the most oppressed, they can't be seen in public without a burka

much less on tv in lingerie.

Like I said. Sex and sexuality do not equal oppression.

[darkstar3]

125. Spoken like a true Howard Stern egalitarian/feminist.

[Warren DeMontague]

128. You can toss out whatever labels you like

Fact remains, people have sex, people like sex, people like sexy, attractive people, and lots of people don't see sex as oppressive, dirty, wrong, 'base', what-have-you.

[darkstar3]

131. And you continue to think that people here mean sex is oppressive.

Sex isn't the issue. Do you understand that?

[Warren DeMontague]

141. No, the issue is attractive women in lingerie that many people find erotic.

You can go on and on about how "sex isn't the issue", but the fact is, the folks clutching-pearls over this commercial wouldn't find ANY erotic display, and graphic (or even near-graphic) visual of sex or sexuality in any form or combination "non-offensive". No, the issue isn't sex, it's just that some people can't deal with it not being censored or hidden.

Because, for instance, noise about how this is geared toward the patriarchal dominant paradigm yaddda yadda aside, I've said I wouldn't have a problem with the same commercial involving men. Hell, a man fucking a stalk of broccoli. Wouldn't bug me. At all.

Your idea to make it "better" involved a lot of wink-wink nudge nudge implied sex. Well, that works for some people-witness the popularity of romance novels- but other people like direct visual eroticism. They do.

Can you come up with a way this commercial wouldn't have been offensive to you, and yet still involve visual displays of eroticism and (near) nudity? I'm betting you can't.

[darkstar3]

143. For me personally?

I already stated elsewhere that the commercial wouldn't have been nearly as sexist if they'd been equal opportunity about it. The point I was making downthread with my "wink-wink nudge-nudge" example is that displays of eroticism are fairly useless in getting important messages across. They work to sell products, not ideas and lifestyles. If the commercial had been 50/50 or 100% men, it would still be shit because it fails miserably to advance PETA's supposed primary goal of the ethical treatment of animals.

Furthermore, your admittance that this commercial wouldn't bug you no matter the gender makeup of the cast doesn't mean you can accuse people offended by it of pearl-clutching. (Which BTW, many here would call that a sexist remark.) You're making an incorrect assumption about me and others who think the commercial sucks, and that assumption is borne out of your (purposeful?) conflation of the problem of sexism and the concept of sexual activity.

[Warren DeMontague]

147. I think there are people here who think any display of nudity or eroticism is inherently oppressive.

What would be preferable to pearl clutching- "finger wagging"?

There's a difference between not personally liking something, even thinking it "sucks"... and being offended by it to the extent of wanting to argue it out of existence. Mind you, there IS a small, dedicated pro-censorship contingent here, not to say that you're part of it.

I simply don't agree that portrayals of women in lingerie in a sexual context = "sexism". But I agree, they could have put some men in there, made it more inclusive. :shrug:

[darkstar3]

148. You're starting to understand.

The problem is, you're still trying to isolate too many parts of the commercial and claim that people are objecting to certain parts. Let me see if I can clarify...

I simply don't agree that portrayals of women in lingerie in a sexual context = "sexism".

Neither do I, and if you'd bother to ask them instead of painting their position for them you would see that most people here are on the same page. It's not a question of the depiction alone. It's a question of the depiction combined with the exclusivity, the absurdity, the supposed target audience, and finally the fact that so many are so quick to shrug off any question of impropriety and say "hey, sex sells, get over it" when this commercial isn't sex.

Let me repeat that last bit: This commercial isn't sex. Sex is two (or more) people engaging in acts that are generally impossible to get past the censors. This commercial uses (note that word) the sexual appeal of women exclusively. Forget about what the commercial implies about the horny sluts willing to fuck vegetables just to get off (I know you already did), and think about the use issue.

Is a commercial that uses the bodies of women and nothing else in order to make money* substantially different in any way from pimping?

*I know THIS commercial was more about awareness, but I'm talking concepts here, and let's not ignore the fact that PETA would be happy to accept donations brought to them by this ad.

[Warren DeMontague]

151. Actually, my point originally was to the people who AREN'T on that page.

Trust me. There are people here- I'm not saying you're one of them- who will go on and on about the outrage of this or any similar graphic depiction of anything pertaining to sex (I'm not going to call it "sex" because even though I may be talking about something that is contained inside the Venn Diagram of "sex" I will be accused of claiming it is the ENTIRE Venn Diagram)

...upon being asked, okay, what graphic display of erotic human nudity, sex, or sexual activity would you NOT consider offensive, oppressive, or outrage-worthy, and there aren't any. It's not a question of "broader inclusion", it's a question of not liking it to the point of being outraged it exists. Period.

And that was the gist of my original, one line post.

Is a commercial that uses the bodies of women and nothing else in order to make money* substantially different in any way from pimping?

I don't know. First off, did the women leave their bodies before appearing in the commercial? Did their consent have nothing to do with it? Is it meaningless that they chose to be in the commercial? Would it still be pimping if it used men, too?

Is porn "pimping"? Most porn, unless it's free, "uses" the bodies of people to make money.

Personally, I don't care what it's called. Consenting adults can use their own bodies as they see fit, I think, and that includes getting naked in front of a camera for money, or a cause they believe in, or both.

Also, you keep calling the women in this commercial "sluts", "hos" and "whores". That's not the impression I get, and I suspect the women in the commercial don't feel that way about themselves or their sexuality. Since we're all supposed to be engaged in deep reflective paradigm-challenging soul-searching, here, maybe you should ask yourself where you get those labels for these women? :shrug:

[darkstar3]

157. Then you should address them specifically.

Your first two paragraphs are a generalization painted with a broad brush. I recognize that there are DU members who seem practiced at taking outrage, but if you want to be taken seriously, you need to put your broad brushes away and address those posters and those problems specifically. We, you and I, are having this conversation, and I am trying to make you understand that, whether they practice it or not, people have a right and multiple reasons to be offended by this shitty commercial.

Now, as to your other points...

First off, did the women leave their bodies before appearing in the commercial?

Another flip and absurd response designed to deflect from the topic at hand. Swing and a miss.

Did their consent have nothing to do with it? Is it meaningless that they chose to be in the commercial?

Many prostitutes "consent" to being pimped, and "choose" to be prostitutes. That choice and consent doesn't negate the fact that they are being pimped, and it doesn't serve to legitimize the industry or make it safe.

Would it still be pimping if it used men, too?

Yes, that's how pimping and prostitution works. The fact that you consider prostitution to be an exclusively female profession is problematic.

Is porn "pimping"? Most porn, unless it's free, "uses" the bodies of people to make money.

Frankly, yes, for the most part. There are exceptions to that rule, but I don't think you're ready to process that level of nuance yet.

Personally, I don't care what it's called. Consenting adults can use their own bodies as they see fit, I think, and that includes getting naked in front of a camera for money, or a cause they believe in, or both.

Believe it or not, I agree, but that's where that earlier mentioned nuance comes into play. Did those consenting adults choose to get naked in front of a camera for money, or were they coerced into it by someone who's going to make more money off the deal than they will? How a person ended up naked on camera is much more important than the simple fact of filmed nudity.

Also, you keep calling the women in this commercial "sluts", "hos" and "whores".

No I don't, and once again I find myself correcting what I think is a deliberate misreading on your part designed to shift the focus of the debate. I did not call anyone in this commercial any such thing as a slut, but rather attempted to demonstrate that this commercial's depiction of women is problematic, and could (and probably would) be seen by many as "slutty behavior." I have no doubt at all that some poster-child for misogyny referred to them as such as he showed the video to his buddies on his phone.

[Warren DeMontague]

158. Okay, so you don't give a shit about consent, & you don't think adults can make their own decisions

about their own bodies.

"Were they coerced"? Why don't you ask them? Or better yet, since they're adults, why don't you give them the benefit of the doubt, instead of infantalizing anyone who makes a choice you, personally, wouldn't agree with, and assume that they -not you- are capable of making their own decisions?

I did not call anyone in this commercial any such thing as a slut, but rather attempted to demonstrate that this commercial's depiction of women is problematic, and could (and probably would) be seen by many as "slutty behavior." I have no doubt at all that some poster-child for misogyny referred to them as such as he showed the video to his buddies on his phone.

Classic. The only person here saying this stuff about these ladies is YOU. I realize that you may have have spent an awful lot of time in a Womens' Studies Class being told this is gospel truth, but doesn't it seem odd that you have to conjure up some cell-phone wielding boogey-man to ventriloquize the "sex is dirty, women who like sex are dirty" nonsense?

[darkstar3]

161. Doesn't it seem odd that you have to twist what people say to make your point?

Again you show you have no grasp of social psychology, and while I have never actually taken a women's studies course, I do know that your jibe regarding it speaks more about your personal failings in this area than most of what you've said so far.

Read #159, and say goodnight Warren.

[Warren DeMontague]

165. I'm not twisting anything. It's clear that you think anyone who makes choices you don't like is

incapable of consent, and needs your protection.

That's exactly the argument anti-choicers make.

[seabeyond]

167. may be the anti choicers, but not mine. you ignore what is being said to you, fabricate

your own statement. not to mention totally ignoring the argument to your point that men dont think of these women as whores and sluts

[Warren DeMontague]

169. Are "men" a monolithic entity?

I'm a man, and I see a sexy woman in lingerie, and honestly, the word "whore" or "slut" doesn't enter into my mind.

You've got an extremely over-simplified (not to mention incorrect) cartoon view of the world, and you're tilting and windmills that aren't there.

[Warren DeMontague]

20. Yeah, but it's fun to see the anti-meat fundamentalists square off against the anti-sex ones.

:popcorn:

[Hello_Kitty]

36. It's sad how you equate sex with objectifying women.

It must be so frustrating to you when the walking fuckholes (AKA women) insist on having opinions and expressing them and even have the audacity to consider themselves to be fully human.

The nerve of them!

[Warren DeMontague]

37. It's sad how you equate any and all depiction of sex or sexuality with objectification.

See, I can toss around meaningless gibberish terms with the best of them.

[Hello_Kitty]

40. And you define sex as conventionally attractive young women in various poses

Which is typical of your ilk.

[Warren DeMontague]

50. You know an awful lot about me, don't you?

Clearly.

[Hello_Kitty]

57. I know that you think images of women designed to arouse heterosexual men are "sex"

And not just something that heterosexual men find sexy. Your definition of sex erases the desires of straight women and LGBT people. It is truly a mark of privilege to believe that your experience is the default human one. But of course the culture that surrounds us hasn't given you a reason to believe otherwise.

[seabeyond]

59. never mind. i agree with you, though. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

81. I think the desires of straight women and LGBT are sex, too.

And for the record, if it was "conventionally" unattractive women, or men for that matter, who were having implied sex with vegetables, I would be equally un-outraged at the PETA ad.

You should see the parties we have, down at the Ilk Lodge.

[CLANG]

63. And what's wrong with that? Oh, wait, don't bother.

[Hello_Kitty]

65. Defining it as "sex" and not simply "what straight men find sexy".

Really, your experience as a straight dude is not the universal human one. It just seems like it is because straight dudes have run the world for so long.

[CLANG]

66. Not sure what you're yammering about.

[Hello_Kitty]

73. That really doesn't surprise me.

[jtown1123]

67. this talk is way above people's comprehension on this thread.

Do you read Jezebel by the way? Much more enlightened witty discussion on this topic.

[Hello_Kitty]

74. I do read them. Great site.

Will definitely have to check out their commentary on this.

[Marr]

70. You seem to be reading a lot into a simple word.

Where did those posters assert that their own personal interest was the only valid one? Do you really think anyone who says, "sex sells" instead of "images of conventionally attractive women in provocative poses sell" is a self-centered, oppressive ass, denying all other persuasions?

[Hello_Kitty]

72. Because words have meaning

I'm responding to a poster who characterized critics of PETAs marketing tactics as "anti-sex".

[Marr]

79. Ah, ok-- I do see your point now.

I don't really agree, but I do understand your position.

[Warren DeMontague]

84. Okay, Anti-Some Sex, then.

Unless what some straight men might find sexy is EXCLUDED from the category of "sex".

Either way, I have to assume this means you'd have no problem with the ad if it contained, for instance, a man fucking a stalk of broccoli.

[Lucian]

93. Who cares if it was weird.

It was hot.

[sudopod]

97. That there's what you call 'social commentary' nt

[superduperfarleft]

2. Just like it gets "banned" every year....

Yawn.

[FourScore]

3. That ad is ridiculous. Good grief! n/t

[Supply Side Jesus]

5. PETA's pathetic attempt

for relevancy and attention

[bluestate10]

145. The organization uses shock, stridency and arrogance.

As currency. Frankly, they turn me completely off. I care not that they use attractive women in their ads, I would not watch the ads. And I would not watch any of the street demonstrations. I eat meat, but prefer 100% vegetables for many meals. Peta is example one of the Left of how stridency can turn off people that may otherwise be open to discussion.

[seabeyond]

6. jeeezus, we made it a whole couple of weeks without seeing this crap on du. nt

[lame54]

9. can't last forever

[seabeyond]

11. yup. always someone... lol, to put this sexist garbage up. nt

[RKP5637]

8. If modified some to get past the censors it could have communicated an

important message. I would have focused more on getting the message out than initial images sure to stop its airing.

[seabeyond]

14. ya. this is off last years banned commercial. women fucking veggies. important message. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

23. People fuck. Some people even fuck veggies.

I really don't understand what's so upsetting about it.

[seabeyond]

24. of course you dont understand. that is clear. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

27. You could have a guy screwing a zucchini up there, it wouldn't bother me.

Maybe not an eggplant, but certainly a smaller member of the squash or melon family.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

68. Absolutely. It isn't the veggies and sexual innuendo that upsets the poster...

they're really upset at the fact that the public, as a whole, loves looking at half naked sexual women. They're really pissed at THE VIEWERS... not the people having sex with veggies... people willingly portraying tehmselves like that. lol.

[seabeyond]

77. i bet you could find some black men willing to subjugate themselves to ridicule and degradation.

i bet there will be an audience that will love the portrayal and degradation of the race. and i bet people would not air it without the majority being up in arms.

[Warren DeMontague]

85. I agree that sex can be ridiculous, but why do you seem to believe it's degrading?

I don't.

[Hello_Kitty]

80. "the public, as a whole"

Straight men are not the entire public.

[Warren DeMontague]

86. Okay, well, lots of straight men like to look at attractive women in lingerie.

And apparently that bothers the crap out of a few people.

[darkstar3]

115. Lots of men like to watch porn, but we don't put it on TV.

Yet.

Yes, "sex sells", but there's a right way and a wrong way to use that, and there is absolutely no reason that prime time advertisements should contain 'batin material.

BTW, these types of commercials don't just oppress women. As a male I find it anywhere from tedious to flat-out insulting that some ads-holes think they can lead me around by the cock. By letting these little fuckers play constantly to our baser instincts, we allow them manipulative power over us.

[Warren DeMontague]

122. Honestly, I'm more upset by violence than I am by sex. I'm not terrified of human sexuality showing

up on tv.

The ad didn't air, actually, so the point is moot. But where you see fuckers playing with your baser (baser? according to who?) instincts, I see a mildly clever point being made about veganism being sexy or leading to a better sex life, which is something a lot of people think is a good thing.

Now, I'm not vegan, but it's undeniably better for people to eat less animal fat, for instance. I lost a lot of weight when I made some major dietary changes about 10 yrs ago, and one of those was cutting out red meat. Being healthy is sexy, and conversely, there's nothing less sexy than being dead.

[darkstar3]

126. You purposely miss the point.

I'm not terrified by sexuality showing up on TV either, as you can see from the faux ad that I crunched out below, but current depictions of sexuality on TV are REMARKABLY one-sided. Step back sometime as you thumb through the channels and take a look at what you see. Every other woman is hoe'd up while the men dress the same as they always have. Sitcoms abound with fat-guy/"hot" wife pairings. Shows with more "equalized" casts are very one-sided on who they show off. Take note of the costuming decisions on older shows like Friends, Dharma and Greg, and other sitcoms and note the disparity between male and female displays and accentuations of secondary sex characteristics. Watch a few sex-charged action movies and note the distinct difference in the amount of nudity and the focus of the camera.

The clear and unabashed message of nearly every media outlet in the world is that straight male sexuality is the dominant paradigm and that said paradigm should be constantly played to. It boils down to the same old thing: Please cock, make bank. It's more psychological, but not fundamentally different from the days when employers would blatantly and without fear of repercussion tell their female employees to show more skin if they wanted to get ahead. The message we send to women through books, television, music, and film is that they are sexy only if men find them so, and that they can find no other or greater worth than that approval.

So what's my point? It's OK that "sex sells," but as with everything, there's a right way to make that work. You can sell sex without depicting one particular gender subject to the approval of another, or worse, as whores.

[Warren DeMontague]

129. "costuming decisions on older shows like Friends, Dharma and Greg"

Maybe you need to watch different shows.

Only shows I watch with any regularity, these days, are on AMC. Mad Men, Breaking Bad. Okay, Archer is a guilty pleasure.

Beyond that, I'm pretty much a Science Channel/Nat Geo/Smithsonian type of guy. So perhaps the problem with the dominant paradigm is that it hasn't discovered the channel changer.


Also, who told you that sex was "base"? :shrug:

[darkstar3]

132. I merely pulled well-known examples.

That you purposely ignored my point about the pervasiveness of this problem shows that you are desperate to ignore it. Your post lacks any meaningful response to #126.

[Warren DeMontague]

142. Or, it means you watch crappy, middle-brow tv.

Could mean a bunch of stuff.

[darkstar3]

144. And again...

Your post lacks any meaningful response to #126.

[Warren DeMontague]

149. Okay. Post #126:

current depictions of sexuality on TV are REMARKABLY one-sided. You're right. They are. I'm all for broadening that. One thing that's nice is that the conversation about sexuality in our society has gotten much more tolerant and open-minded in recent decades.

Every other woman is hoe'd up while the men dress the same as they always have. First off, I don't think dressing sexy, or dressing in lingerie, or being naked, or having sex, makes a woman a "ho" (a hoe?) ... I don't know about "ho'ed up", but I do know that what men and women seem to like in terms of what they see sexually or erotically seems to be, in many cases, different. Are you saying you'd like to see channels full of buffed dudes in speedos? More power to you, but given (for instance) that the primary consumers of Playgirl magazine have been gay men, you may be in the minority. Another example: Lots of men like to look at naked women or half-dressed women. When a guy does that- like Congressman Christopher Lee (not to be confused with Saruman/Count Dooku Christopher Lee)- the guy is widely held up as an object of ridicule.. not by men, mind you, buy by women whose universal reaction seems to be "yuk".

Good Christ, look at Cosmo. Do men buy that? No. Women do. And what is all over that magazine? Sexy women.

Get it? I don't think women like looking at half-naked men, or maybe they prefer their guys in business suits, but the fact that you're not seeing them on tv may be more a reflection of womens' preferences than anything else.


I hate to beat a dead horse, but I've managed to make it through over 4 decades on this planet without ever watching an episode of either "Friends" or "Dharma and Greg". Honest. So I can't speak to the costume choices therein. Most sitcoms I've seen reflect what people in the real world actually wear. Now, maybe the people in the world wear that stuff because the tv tells them to, or the people on the tv wear that stuff because the people in the real world tell them to. Actual reality, as well as human sexuality, is a lot more complicated than the over-simplified ideological position papers on topics like "patriarchal male gaze" that come out of, say, Smith College.

The clear and unabashed message of nearly every media outlet in the world is that straight male sexuality is the dominant paradigm and that said paradigm should be constantly played to. See, but you're making the mistake of imagining that there is some grand conspiracy. I agree- most of the graphic sexuality you see is geared towards straight men. Seems the answer to that is to offer more choices to people who are interested. But I don't think that PETA is, in any way, shape, or form, part of the world patriarchal media outlet consortium.

The message we send to women Who is this "we"? See above.

You can sell sex without depicting one particular gender subject to the approval of another, or worse, as whores. If you saw that ad and thought "whores", that's in your head. That's not what occurred to me.

[darkstar3]

155. Allright, so we go point-by-point.

I'm glad you finally admit that depictions of sexuality in media are remarkably one-sided. We're getting somewhere.

"hoe'd up" or "ho'ed up" is a term coined by a friend of mine from college, who stated every time that she was putting on her makeup and other "hey guys, look at me" accessories that she was "getting all ho'ed up."

This concept of clothing, accessories, and makeup being solely for the attraction of the male eye is important, because THAT'S what sells Cosmo magazines. Sure, there's a woman in a slinky dress on the front and half naked women in ads in the magazine, and the entire reason those women are there is because they serve as examples of what all women should be. If you show this much cleavage, if you have no blemishes at all, if you have big boobs or a pushup bra, etc, etc...then you will be attractive, and valuable to men. This entire subject, including the problems of Cosmo and so many others, is well covered in a book by Naomi Wolf. If you want to understand more about why women are depicted in Cosmo and other magazines, and what I'm talking about with regard to other media, grab a copy of The Beauty Myth.

I'm not assuming that there is any type of conspiracy, I am simply observant of the fact that the society of this nation is incredibly unforgiving when people stray from their gender roles, and the accepted gender role for women since a time long forgotten is to serve men, and that includes sexually. Just watch some Mad Men for examples.

The "we" I am speaking of is society in general. And I grow tired of seeing you (purposely?) miss idiom, syntax, and context. That applies to my usage of the word "whores" as well. I didn't refer to the women in the ad as whores, I was saying that depictions of women in advertising often border on the problematic image.

[Warren DeMontague]

156. There's a difference between missing your point, and not agreeing with it.

Your definition of a "whore" as a "problematic image" seems to gel with an attractive woman, scantily clad, engaging in sex or faux sex.

I see that, I don't see "whore". I also don't see a problem. I don't think images of men engaging in sex or faux sex are "problematic", either.

Mad Men is an excellent example of how far society has come. One of the reasons I like that show is that I'm old enough to remember some of the incredibly accurate period details that they nail. It's worth noting that the progress hasn't come by stamping out expressions of sexuality, but rather by liberating them.

Listen; I've heard the entire "male gaze" spiel, already. Believe me. Sorry, I'm not buying any of it. (Speaking of advertising) Human society is an organic, ground-up phenomenon. If people don't want to listen to the messages they get in Cosmo, they can get their messages from another magazine. If that magazine doesn't exist, they can publish one. If there are enough people who agree, they will say "holy shit" and change the way they dress, etc.

In the meantime, though, I think women buy Cosmo (at least, the women who DO buy Cosmo) because that is what they want. The women who buy books by Naomi Wolf buy those because that is what they want.

[darkstar3]

159. You're not just disagreeing, you're attempting to redefine what I've said.

"Seems to gel" was a weaselly way for you to try and circle back around to the single idea of sex, isolated from the rest of the problems inherent in the ad. You're desperate to put words in my mouth, and I'm not interested.

The rest of your post demonstrates that you have no grasp of sociology and social psychology. It also demonstrates that you have reached an impasse. I will not continue to debate with someone who has closed their mind and continues to restate their hypothesis as a supporting argument. I leave you with the recommendation of Naomi Wolf's book The Beauty Myth, and suggest strongly that you read it.

[Warren DeMontague]

160. I've said all I'm gonna say, in the other post.

Peace.

[seabeyond]

163. what is passed around. kim K. video calling her a ho, hit it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=9619925&mesg_id=9619927

this is the lie continually perpetuated. men arguing what you are arguing continually saying i dont see her as a ho. yet.... whenever there is a thread of a naked woman she becomes a thing to be used by the men. always a ho to be used. it happens so consistently, i feel it takes an awful lot of work to present such hypocrisy. the turning women into hos is so consistent, i laugh in amazement as men argue that they dont think of any woman that presents her sexuality as just that.

it is the mixed message of virgin/whore that has permeated our society. and men that rant about the pearl clutchers continually ignore.

hit it.

what does that do for some male who in no way will get a woman that hot, to say, i would hit it. it empowers him. makes him feel worthy. taking her to a thing to be used. a nonperson. hit it. wow.... such a man, makes me all a quiver. men make this "hit it" comment for his fellow men. you know, i know why this man does it. hubby and i have talked about it. from a womans perspective, they sound like fools. pathetic. men dont get it. for their buddies, they are all that.

but to suggest that men are not seeing strippers, porn gals, these gals as things to be used is a laughable crappy argument. men prove over and over that is simply not true.

[Warren DeMontague]

166. I'm watching the ad again,and trying to imagine the sinister patriarchal coercion

that must have been involved in forcing these poor helpless waifs and maidens, clearly incapable-of-making-their-own-decisions, to submit to this degrading exploitation against their will.

[seabeyond]

168. again, a whole bunch in your post that was never said.... making things up, again. again

you ignore the point that men dont see these women as whores and sluts.

[Warren DeMontague]

170. " ignore the point that men dont see these women as whores and sluts."

No, actually, I made that point. The only people describing these women that way are approximately two posters in this thread, you and darkstar3, and I have to assume you're both women.

[seabeyond]

135. womans sexuality is for men. mens sexuality is for themselves. men own womans sexuality.

that is the issue and you clarified it really well.

i was watching a nook/kindle commercial last night. man and woman sittin by pool. the woman is in a bikini. the man is in a tshirt and long baggy shorts. that is the consistency in tv

[darkstar3]

138. People tell me I have a knack for clarification.

It's too bad that I recently found out I don't like teaching

[seabeyond]

139. do they.... they tell me the opposite, bah ha hahaha

but i always appreciate and value those that are so good. then i can say, see see, that is what i am talking about.

bummer to the teaching, or not.... nifty quality to have

[Warren DeMontague]

152. So what you really want is to see more guys in speedos, in tv commercials.

As long as we're clear.

[itsrobert]

17. PETA doesn't really want to pay the $3000000 to air it on the SB

They do this every year as a publity stunt. People want to see the 'ban' ad out of curiosity. It's not the only group that does this sort of viral marketing.

[blondeatlast]

18. You got it--and even the ads that do make it are designed to get

people talking (witness the Pepsi ad where the jogger gets beaned by a full can).

[RKP5637]

34. Thanks, good point! n/t

[WCGreen]

15. Why are they trying to sell veggies like this....

This kind of putient sales is usually restricted to Beer Commercials...

[Warren DeMontague]

28. I know. Won't someone think of the children?

Please, please. Think of the children.

[Coyote_Bandit]

16. Not all vegetarians

share PETA's agenda. Some of those who do don't agree with their methods.

[Warren DeMontague]

22. Given the shitty state of health in the US, anything that gets people eating broccoli is good.

Oh, I know... SEX = OPPRESSION! How do we know the broccoli didn't get that poor helpless lingerie-clad woman drunk before taking advantage of her?

[snooper2]

26. Yeah, I know a lot of women who use asparagus to get off

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Warren DeMontague]

30. Good grief. They must grow some big asparagus where you live.

I mean, c'mon.

[Matariki]

35. What was with the blindfold? That all looked rather piggish.

Can't believe there are people who defend those assholes. I guess for one issue people, the idiots at peta can do no wrong.

[Warren DeMontague]

51. I think blindfolds are a fairly common kink.

Broccoli, probably not so much.

[garybeck]

39. Card carrying member of Peta.

They're just trying to get your attention. I have no problem with that ad. They might have pissed you off but they got their message across.

If an organization that promoted an ideal you believe in did something similar would you be as upset? What if an environmentalist organization did something like that and there was a study that said environmentalists have more/better sex.

I think people who are not vegetarians have a problem with Peta just because of the issue, much more than the delivery.

It's obvious what they're doing, and it's effective. They are being "in your face" creating controversy. Sex sells. And even negative publicity is good, as long as you succeed in getting your point across.

evidently there's a study that shows vegetarians have better sex. I don't see any reason not to exploit this information, to help achieve their goals of reducing meat eating in this world, which to me is a good thing.

[seabeyond]

41. i use to support peta. i dont anymore. ya right... that accomplished what they were after. nt

[superduperfarleft]

42. So why is the conversation about PETA and not about abstaining from meat?

Also, you'd think an animal rights organization would be encouraging people to go vegan, not vegetarian (there really isn't much difference between flesh and milk/eggs), but whatever. At least your membership dues helps keep Ingrid's rent paid.

[garybeck]

45. uh....

not sure where to start with that....

first off, there is a huge difference between meat eating and vegetarian. if everyone stopped eating meat but still did dairy products, there would be much less factory farming, cruelty to animals, and environmental degredation due to the meat industry. You have to realize that most people who are vegetarian but still eat dairy... it's not like they/we completely replace our meat intake with all dairy. most people eat some dairy but replace most of their meat intake with other things like beans and tofu.

and regarding your comment about Ingrid's rent getting paid... PETA is a non-profit organization. If she was in it for the money she'd be doing something else. Her salary is not tied to the profits of the organization in any way.

have a nice day.

[superduperfarleft]

47. As to your first point

"first off, there is a huge difference between meat eating and vegetarian. if everyone stopped eating meat but still did dairy products, there would be much less factory farming, cruelty to animals, and environmental degredation due to the meat industry."

How exactly do you figure? Dairy cows are turned into hamburger when they're no longer producing, and their calves are stuck in veal crates. Laying hens are regularly slaughtered once they no longer can produce eggs (and then there's the stories about male chicks being ground up alive in a wood chipper, or being stuffed into a bag that is then thrown in the garbage so that the chicks suffocate under the weight of each other, because no one needs male chicks in an egg-laying operation). And you don't think dairy cows and egg-laying hens suffer on their own?

And anyway, do you absolutely NEED those dairy products? Will you shrivel up and die without cheese? Seems to me the best way to prevent cruelty to animals is to quit eating them altogether. By being a vegetarian, and not a vegan, you're still supporting the exact same industry just as if you were a run-of-the-mill omnivore.

"and regarding your comment about Ingrid's rent getting paid... PETA is a non-profit organization. If she was in it for the money she'd be doing something else. Her salary is not tied to the profits of the organization in any way. "

So is the Susan G Komen Foundation, or the United Way. Doesn't mean that they aren't getting loaded off of the donations of well-meaning individuals such as yourself. You're much better off putting your money (and preferably your time, if you have it) towards local rescue groups as opposed to the bloated corporate behemoth that is PETA. Or better yet, at the very least just go vegan and stop participating in the animal-exploitation industries which you claim to oppose.

[garybeck]

52. again, I'm saying that

when someone becomes a vegetarian and still eats dairy, their overall intake of animal products decreases. when demand decreases, production decreases.

i'm not advocating dairy intake. i'm just making a point. often a lacto diet is a stepping stone towards vegan anyway. if you are saying there's no difference between a diet that is mostly meat and a vegetarian who eats a couple eggs a week and some cheese, I think you need to rethink that argument.

i agree 100% with you that it's much better to be full vegan.... but i disagree that vegetarian and meat eating is the same. you have to look at the quantities involved.

also let's get back to the advertisement.... there is nothing in there that suggests people should eat eggs and cheese. It's all broccoli and pumpkins. and if you look at peta closely I believe they push vegan much more than vegetarianism.

like it or not, Peta has done some amazing things, including getting some abusive factory farms shut down. I applaud the work they do with sending people into factory farms undercover with cameras to expose the abuse. they also had a hand in busting that horrible company that was importing "pets" from Africa and S. America bound for pet stores and living in horrible conditions. to be true, their choice of advertising style is not my favorite thing about them. I like to look at what they accomplish and for that I continue to support them.

and I agree that there are other organizations that promote my ideals. I support them as well. My favorite is the Farm Sanctuary (http://farmsanctuary.org/). They do amazing work.

peace

[superduperfarleft]

56. But it's NOT strictly a matter of quantity.

It's like making sure you're only buying non-sweatshop products from Wal-Mart. You're still supporting the industry which turns right back around and exploits the people you're attempting to help. It's as much an argument of economics as it is of the individual choice to go vegan.

And PETA's victories are regularly overshadowed by the most tone deaf, socially retarded marketing department I think I've ever seen. That's not to diminish the impact on those individual animals that were helped in any way, but as part of the larger picture, not only does encouraging people to eat animal products (which their endorsement of vegetarianism and so-called "compassionate" slaughter indirectly does) continue to perpetuate animal exploitation, their insensitive (to say the least) portrayals of women and people of color distracts from their message and makes the conversation about PETA as opposed to helping animals, which in turn further dilutes the popular concept of animal rights.

I'm not trying to berate you into abandoning PETA, just trying to put another viewpoint out there.

[CLANG]

64. Good point, I'll only eat steak on Fridays!

[FLPanhandle]

44. That's the same justification all groups that like to push their morality onto others use.

Anti-abortionist groups have the same mindset.

Some people wouldn't choose to have an abortion, but wouldn't dream about pushing that choice onto others.
Some people are rabid anti-abortionists and want to push their moral choices onto others.

Some vegetarians choose to avoid meat and wouldn't dream of making it their "goal of reducing meat eating" for others.
Some vegetarians are rabid and want to push their moral choices onto others.

I have lots of respect for people that make their own personal choices without trying to tell others that they need to follow their personal rules.

I have no respect for those that want to push their moral choices onto me.

[garybeck]

46. Personally I let people make their own choices.

but someone has to speak for the animals who often live in horrible conditions and are basically subject to torture.

the ad in question makes no judgments about people's choices, no guilt trips, no threats of damning you to hell if you eat meat. in fact I think it's kinda funny. I'm surprised people are offended to tell you the truth. Would you rather have them just show a video of the horrible conditions that cattle are subject to, treated like objects? Do you think animals should be tortured and treated like manufacturing objects? Would you prefer a 30 second commercial just showing a veal calf sitting in his hut, tied down and unable to move 24 hours a day, which is what they experience? In the whole scheme of things I think this ad is quite tame.

[FLPanhandle]

49. LOL

Those "studies" are about as convincing and as unbiased as climate deniers "studies".

How is your statement "someone has to speak for the animals who often live in horrible conditions and are basically subject to torture" different than the anti-abortionist who says "someone has to speak for the unborn babies who die horrible deaths"?

BTW, you can be against factory farming without being against people eating meat. They aren't the same thing.

[garybeck]

55. "you can be against factory farming without being against people eating meat"

I'm not against "people" as you suggest. you are correct that you can be against factory farming and not necessarily against eating meat. however, you have to realize the truth is that even the best "non-factory" farming methods are still far worse on the environment and resources than vegetable farming. organic grass fed is better than factory farming, but it doesn't touch vegetable farming in terms of resources required to produce a given amount of protein/nutrients.

I won't take the "LOL" personally but if you want to engage in a thoughtful respectful discussion with someone I suggest not starting out by laughing at them.

[FLPanhandle]

69. Fine.

However, if you want a thoughtful respectful discussion, you keep can't keep changing the topic.

First you stated your goal to reduce people's meat eating.
Then, you are all for choices, but you are speaking up for factory farmed animals.
Then, it's not about factory farming but the environment and resources.

Fine. Let's have a discussion about the environment. Why not be pushing to reduce human populations, since that is the single biggest factor destroying the environment and using resources? Let's tackle why people shouldn't have more than one child or have no children, since that impacts the world far more than if they eat meat.

The reason that environment argument fails with vegans/vegetarians is that they only use the environment argument when it furthers what they really want...which is people not eating meat. Maybe you are different though.

[superduperfarleft]

48. I'm not defending this ad by any means, but how exactly is one "pushing their moral choices onto you

by simply pointing out the benefits to the environment, your health, and animals that going veg*n may provide? How is it any different from trying to convince people to conserve energy or vote Democrat? Are advocates of those things also "pushing their moral choices" onto you?

[Warren DeMontague]

53. Just out of curiosity: Why can't you just write "vegan"?

What's with the asterisk?

[superduperfarleft]

54. It's meant to encompass vegan and vegetarian.

I already pulled my fundie vegan thing in another post today, so I was trying to be more inclusive.

[FLPanhandle]

71. Very good question

One I'm having to think about.

It's hard to describe why some pushing of personal moral choices onto others is reprehensible in some areas (e.g. anti-gay marriage efforts, anti-abortion groups, anti-meat eating groups), and when is it considered an acceptable behavior.

I don't think any ad saying "Voting Republican is morally wrong" would convert anyone, even if I might believe that.

I like questions that make me think.

Personally do you view anti-abortionists efforts to protect the unborn as equivalent to PETA? Are both acceptable? If not, why?

Good Question.

[superduperfarleft]

75. Personally, I don't see too many similarities.

I only see that equivalence brought up on left-leaning messageboards to distract from the fact that people just don't like PETA's core message, for whatever reason. On some boards, more right-leaning ones, comparing PETA to the anti-abortion movement would be seen as an compliment. Points should be able to stand on their own, not be dependent upon trying to tie the opposition to some unnamed evil group because you think your audience or your peers will be receptive to that (kind of like the tendency of certain conservatives to try and tie the left with the Nazis, or the tendency of fucking EVERYONE to call anyone with whom they disagree a Nazi). I dislike anti-abortion protests because I disagree with their cause. You dislike PETA protests because you disagree with their cause. Why not just say that? There's no need to try and draw an equivalence.

As for me, wholly unaffiliated with PETA, if you brought the subject up, I would gladly tell you why I abstain from eating or using animal products for ethical reasons. If you asked if I thought you should go vegan, I'd absolutely tell you, "Yes," and if you continued to be interested (at least in humoring me), I'd give you plenty of reasons why. Is that considered forcing my morals upon someone? How is that any different from me explaining why you should vote for the Democratic candidate over the Republican candidate (or, as has been the case lately, why you should vote AGAINST the Republican candidate)?

For the record, I agree with what PETA claims is their cause, but I don't like their marketing campaign, which seems to rely on some combination of making spectacles of themselves, animal snuff films, and white male heterosexual privilege.

[FLPanhandle]

123. I think the similarity is the fact both groups push their agenda in your face unbidden.

"As for me, wholly unaffiliated with PETA, if you brought the subject up, I would gladly tell you why I abstain from eating or using animal products for ethical reasons."

That's the key point. If someone asks or inquiries, then you wouldn't be "pushing your morality". If unbidden you yelled at someone eating a hamburger that "meat is murder", then I call that "pushing morality".

Same with abortion. Some keep to themselves and provide their viewpoint if asked. Some have to hand out pictures of fetuses to schoolchildren unbidden.

I consider the latter group to be "pushing their morality".

[Matariki]

58. I don't get the "pissing people off" with "getting their message across" equivalence.

Pissing people off has more the effect of turning people off to the message.

I doubt many people find pets's exploitation of women in any way "effective". I think the apologists for peta are terribly deluded in that respect.

[darkstar3]

114. "They might have pissed you off but they got their message across."

No, they really didn't. It is quite possible to lose the message entirely due to sheer idiocy. "In your face" advertising needs to be conflation free, and also, PETA needs to understand that a very large part of the audience they were supposedly targeting with that ad has the one or both of the following problems:

1. They are unlikely to be swayed by any kind of "study", find vegetarians and vegans to be joke material, and have no problem at all taking the claim that vegetarians have better sex as a challenge as they bite into that cheeseburger they grilled for gameday and make a note to fuck the hell out of wifey later. (The question of "will they do it well", or "will they simply fall asleep" is irrelevant due to their mental state.)
2. They tend to be unable to "engage both brains at once."

I could have written a better ad that exploited this supposed study in 5 minutes, and I'm not even in advertising. Picture this, just off the top of my head:

You start with a black screen that says "Monday" in a nice font, as some random classical track plays. The scene picks up as the camera shows a man and woman shopping together at the supermarket (oh the horror!), picking out various fruits and vegetables. If you want to be "in your face" you can spice it up as they give each other knowing looks while picking out the more phallic ones. We then cut to them running up the stairs to their 5th floor walkup with arms loaded with produce, but shot from the point of view of a fourth floor neighbor. The neighbor's door shuts, and then we cut to the neighbor and his spouse having a dinner of steak or chicken while the raucous sounds of sex from above nearly bring down their ceiling. Lather, rinse, repeat for a "Tuesday" and "Wednesday" session, possibly with some timing changes, and on Wednesday night have the light fixture above the dinner table fall right into the centerpiece. The voiceover can take care of mentioning the study, and at the end we can put up a screen that says "5-a-day. Supercharge YOUR sexlife."

5 minutes, off the cuff, and I didn't have to use softcore porn to do it. Where's my check?

[LadyHawkAZ]

43. Gee, how sad.

An ad that treats both vegetables and women like meat was banned from the Super Bowl.

Now, only the millions of users on the Internet will ever get to see what PETA really thinks of vegetables. And women. Especially women.

I'm heartbroken.

:sarcasm:

[kctim]

76. What a disgusting ad

I am shocked and outraged!
Please send all similar links for um, er, in-depth research to aide in my fight against it.

[flvegan]

83. Yep, this thread went about as usual.

DU is DU today.

[Warren DeMontague]

87. Wouldn't you be a little freaked out if it wasn't?

I mean, in a world as crazy as ours, sometimes a little predictability is nice.

[flvegan]

90. You make a good point.

A very good point.

[seabeyond]

95. peta went about as usual, hence the same response. peta got what they were looking for

nothing new there.

[flvegan]

96. They did, really.

Lots of free press, discussion (including the "outrage" by the usual cast). And not just here. PETA plays folks every year for free press come Super Bowl time. Thank you for playing!

[seabeyond]

99. i that makes you proud? smarmy repugs do the same. teabaggers. christian coalition

it is called lack of integrity. some people are consistent in their disgust of lack of integrity. some people are hypocrites, applauding when it is something they support. condeming when it is something they oppose.

so take your bow.

[flvegan]

100. I can't take pride in it

as I can't take credit for it. I just watch the usuals twist over it, and I laugh.

People who WANT to be outraged will just do so, and many times at the drop of a hat. You might be able to more apply your smarmy repugs, et al to just that.

Again, for playing? Thanks.

[seabeyond]

101. why would we stand up for anything flvgan as long as you are there for a good laugh

and snarky, thanks for playing. why dont we all back off everything, sit down and shut up to avoid your good ole belly laugh at our expense.

oh wait... i dont care. speaking out against this bullshit is more important to me.

[flvegan]

103. Whoa, whoa.

When did I say you or anyone else should back off? People need to stand up and fight for what they believe in, regardless of what others think. If I view something in a way another doesn't, that doesn't mean I think anyone should sit down and shut up.

Seriously, and I say this with all due respect, I don't have to agree with you on this topic in this situation. I can appreciate that you (and others) are quick to wade into the fray. I find it funny, just like much of DU likely finds it funny that every single time a thread about PETA, pit bulls, Sea Shepherd, eating meat, veg*ism, fur, etc I'm going to show up. You could post a poll in GD about how I'm going to show up and react in any of the above situations as a new topic. It would be hilarious!

[seabeyond]

106. thank you, for the clarification. nt

[JI7]

88. Do they ever have Men in these type of Ads ?

[flvegan]

98. In their ads? Yes.

In their Super Bowl ads, no I don't think they do. I could be wrong though.

[JI7]

104. not just in ads but similar to how they show the women

[flvegan]

105. Absolutely.

Their "Ink Not Mink" campaign for starters. Google it.

[Balbus]

91. Hot!

[Lucian]

92. That video made my celery go from limp to crisp.

Damn.

[darkstar3]

116. To comment directly on the ad itself,

it's shit. It's designed to do the same thing that PETA blood-throwers and other stunts of theirs do: increase chatter about PETA and their outrageous tactics. That's the reason it's shit, because it does nothing to advance PETA's supposed agenda for the animals and serves only to increasingly divide the populace on PETA's tactics. The conversation once again is about the organization, and not about the animals.

Shock value has no staying power. PETA's decision makers need to be lectured all day on awareness-raising.

[cleanhippie]

118. Who is the biggest attention whore: PETA or PALIN?

[bluestate10]

146. Give me time to flip a coin fifteen times, first to eight wins. nt.

[Skip Intro]

154. PETA has a cause far greater than Palin.

[slackmaster]

119. They never had any intention of running it during the Superbowl. PETA couldn't afford to do that.

Producing something that you KNOW wouldn't fit the network's standards for content and claiming that the ad was "banned" is just a cheap way to get publicity. Anyone could do that.

[CanSocDem]

136. For the amount of money ....

...spent on SuperBowl advertising, I'm sure some of it went to determining who the core audience would be.

As for sexism in advertising.......Hello??? Have you been asleep for a 100 years???

It's all about sales. There's no morality in sales.....


.

[Countdown_3_2_1]

140. Six animals died for my meals today.

This commercial is such crap. I stopped believing PETA's lies/propaganda years ago when they came out and said eating meat makes men impotent. Bull!

OK, for breakfast it was eggs and bacon. 1 (2 if you count the eggs)
For lunch it was a sub, with turkey, ham and beef. 3
Dinner was Chinese with sesame chicken and some duck dish (forget the name). 2

Look people, if you want to be a vegan/vegetarian, fine. Just don't lie to me and make up crap like vegetarians have better sex.

[Inchworm]

150. Mmmmm, I wanna be asparagus! +edit

Too bad I'm more like a green bean :P

:rofl:

Edit: omg, don't let the clip roll while you continue elsewhere. I heard "poop" and a bunch of other stuff. I felt like I just got outta church and Jesus doesn't love me. The poop giggle did make me smile though.

[Skip Intro]

153. Yay PETA. They do what they do better than anyone. And the message was clear. Good job PETA.

[darkstar3]

162. And what exactly is it that PETA does?

The last I checked, PETA's only real skill was making people talk about how much PETA does or does not suck. I don't see them raising much awareness in the general public for the ethical treatment of animals.

Shock value has no staying power. That's why shock jocks keep having to push the envelope or bow out of the business. That's why Stern couldn't stay on public radio, and that's why Limbaugh and Beck increasingly sound like dangerous lunatics.

[superduperfarleft]

164. "They do what they do better than anyone."

I hope you mean attention-whoring and distorting the public perception of animal rights, because other animal advocates that work hard at things other than fundraising might disagree.