This bit of “news” may or may not be another brilliant PETA stunt (damn, they’re good)—but supposedly NBC nixed a luscious Super Bowl ad claiming that “vegetarians have better sex.” I was going to write another poem, but then I came across PETA’s list of NBC’s purported editing requests—pure poetry of its own:
- licking pumpkin
- touching her breast with her hand while eating broccoli
- pumpkin from behind between legs
- rubbing pelvic region with pumpkin
- screwing herself with broccoli (fuzzy)
- asparagus on her lap appearing as if it is ready to be inserted into vagina
- licking eggplant
- rubbing asparagus on breast.
Keats couldn’t have said it better. Yeah, go ahead, watch it:
‘Veggie Love’: PETA’s Banned Super Bowl Ad
Martha Stewart blisters meat industry in Thanksgiving show
Comments
View as Threaded
RaySmith55 Posted 4:39 am
27 Jan 2009
Second, I don't know how effective this ad actually would be; it's tone appeals to people who probably have no interest in being vegetarian regardless.
Also (and this is perhaps my most pressing question), does anyone know what studies they are referring to?
Permalink
latenac Posted 5:53 am
27 Jan 2009
Permalink
Ted Clayton Posted 6:52 am
27 Jan 2009
Maybe PETA is an undercover operation to make a laughingstock of the animal rights movement.
If not, they're doing a geat job of impersonating one.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 12:40 pm
27 Jan 2009
It does however, have great appeal towards the target audience: fat, football-lovin' guys who also love scantily-clad women.
Ya know the old sayin': when ya can't beat 'em, join 'em!
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 1:57 pm
27 Jan 2009
And no, I have the pulse on East Texas rednecks and they'd laugh at the suggestion the babes were any good, since ... we're talking PETA, the biggest joke in the world to them! These people kill deer and yellowfin tuna just to make PETA squirm.
And I ain't eating broccoli now because I know it's been THERE. Great job kiddos. Say, are you kids J-majors?
Onward through the fog
Permalink
randino Posted 9:34 pm
27 Jan 2009
Come on, grad students. You have a gift right in front of you!
Randy Cunningham
Cleveland, OH
Randy Cunningham
Permalink
sje333 Posted 4:49 am
28 Jan 2009
Maybe the guys and gals exploiting sexy women to sell cars and boats don't get shut out of major media outlets by the other advertisers. If I didn't have better things to do, I would watch the superbowl and count how many of the advertisers are promoting the exploitation of animals.
Permalink
sje333 Posted 4:55 am
28 Jan 2009
Permalink
marylounoble Posted 8:15 am
28 Jan 2009
Marylou Noble
Portland, Oregon
Marylou Noble
Permalink
latenac Posted 8:39 am
28 Jan 2009
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 8:43 am
28 Jan 2009
I think we should go with the whole "telling the audience they're morally repugnant" thing!
grist.org
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 9:38 am
28 Jan 2009
Victual Reality
Permalink
kamerick Posted 9:51 am
28 Jan 2009
Permalink
marylounoble Posted 10:14 am
28 Jan 2009
Marylou
Marylou Noble
Permalink
Ted Clayton Posted 10:17 am
28 Jan 2009
Elite & wealthy figures in Hollywood, etc?
Millions of misguided animal-lovers?
Weird - whatever the answer.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 11:39 am
28 Jan 2009
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 12:19 pm
28 Jan 2009
And, pray tell, which feminist groups were thinkin' of a large-scale alliance with aniaml-rights activists to begin with?
This ad didn't "preclude any coalition" between animal-rights activists and feminists.
What precluded such a coalition was the fact that they have totally different agendas.
Duh!
Methinks ya may be blowin' it a wee bit outta proportion.
The feminists have much bigger fish to fry than PETA.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 12:43 pm
28 Jan 2009
PETA rocks!
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
latenac Posted 7:51 pm
28 Jan 2009
If this is how vegans want to market themselves and their cause then they shouldn't be surprised at the backlash they get. Yes people talk about this and they get free PR as a result which is why I wish NBC had said, OK we'll take you're money but in the end it just makes them look like a bunch of nuts. I know not all vegans agree with PETA but guess what, this is the most vocal voice you have for your movement.
Permalink
Russ Posted 7:59 pm
28 Jan 2009
Surely your feminist solicitude doesn't magically spring into being the moment it's an advocacy group using standard advertising techniques?
Permalink
Backcut Posted 9:57 pm
28 Jan 2009
I would also think that vegan women also tend to be sensitive to being looked at as a "piece of meat". I think PETA just wants to be the equivalent of Paris Hilton, where any publicity is good publicity.
Grist, on the other hand, seems to use these types of items to distract from other difficult items to defend. More than once I've seen issues buried with "fluff" by the "Grister's Faithful", to keep their viewers from seeing certain kinds of responses and evidence.
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:08 pm
28 Jan 2009
An actual organic gardening woman cooking a nice meal, that's sexy. "Sex smells" (to quote famous internet DJ, Marnie Castor), that's a better phrase to characterize real life and passion.
The aroma of real food goes right along with the aroma of real sexuality.
Wake up PETA, smell the sex.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
latenac Posted 12:17 am
29 Jan 2009
However, I can't believe that PETA defenders or anyone who supports environmental causes would resort to "Well the other guy does it" as a defense. Poor logic and only makes it easier to say, "Well you know he's eating "sea kittens" wrapped in bacon, so why shouldn't I?" "My neighbor has a Hummer why shouldn't I?" "China and India aren't cutting carbon emissions, why should I?" etc., etc. But I guess this is what happens when one picks one single cause to champion fanatically without regard to its ramifications or effect on the community around them.
Permalink
Russ Posted 12:33 am
29 Jan 2009
So if that was the goal, it worked. As for convincing the undecided, probably not so much.
Peak Oilers love Oily Cassandra (Grist story here: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/5/7/17111/15550), or at least I do :), but I doubt it's done much to spread the word among the uninitiated.
More like USO, to fire up the troops.
@ latenac: Owning a hummer or cutting emissions are serious actions. Core actions touch on principle, and there you're right, "the other guy does it" is no defense.
But here we're just talking about tactics.
(I.e., I haven't heard that PETA ever embraced the sort of feminism which condemns this sort of thing. As for what kind of internal disputes over it they may have among individual activists, I have no idea.)
Permalink
latenac Posted 1:16 am
29 Jan 2009
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:45 am
29 Jan 2009
There's a very beautiful english chef (in the deeper sense of the term), I can't remember her name. If PETA wants to use the sexual impact of food to sell the message, they should learn from her.
I think PETA should have an online cooking show with a real woman like her who really epitomizes how sex and food and life all blend together. There's a non-exploitive way to tie the holistic message all-together, without being sexist.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
jas Posted 3:04 am
29 Jan 2009
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 4:31 am
29 Jan 2009
That's just the thing though. This ad was meant to reach out to groups that traditionally wouldn't be targeted by vegans.
Expansion of target groups.
Or, at least that's what it would be if feminists were a target of vegan groups to begin with.
Which they're not.
I know plenty of people involved in the feminist movement, and very few of them are vegan.
Seriously, stop tryin' to link the two.
They are two entirely seperate causes.
Most feminists are not vegans and don't wanna be vegans. They really don't care at all 'bout the vegan community unless if it does something like this that "offends" them for some reason.
So if the feminist movement doesn't really "support" the vegan movement, then why should PETA worry about offending them?
It's not like PETA will suffer as a result.
They won't.
Like I said, the vast majority of women aren't vegans. And they still wouldn't turn vegan or support PETA if they decided to do away with the "sexy" ads.
So why should they do away with the ads?
Permalink
latenac Posted 4:45 am
29 Jan 2009
The ad objectifies more than just feminists, it objectifies women, period. Who I am guessing are the vast majority of PETA membership. I don't know for certain but I'd be willing to bet money on it. So my point was using objectification of the gender that probably sends in the most money to you to show the horrors of the objectification of animals is hypocritical at best.
And why anyone would think that sex would be better with vegans from this ad is beyond me. I just came away thinking vegans prefer to masturbate with vegetables and I should probably think twice before going over for dinner.
Permalink
Russ Posted 6:23 am
29 Jan 2009
In comparing it to corporate advertising, "the other guy does it", I was just wondering if there were any of those here who are full of moral dudgeon wherever the profit motive is not involved, but are willing to excuse anything done in the pursuit of profit.
That is, those whose priorities are 180 degrees wrong. There's all too many of those in America.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 6:37 am
29 Jan 2009
There is nothing wrong with including sex in the whole panoply of human experience, in fact excluding it as kristian puritan/talibanistas do causes all kinds of problems related to repression.
I think eating less meat ought to be identified with a healthier more fullfiling life, in all its glory, especially its erotic glory. I don't find this artificial glamour presentation appealing, though I'm sure it is not the fault of the model herself.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
SailorOnHorseback Posted 2:41 am
30 Jan 2009
I implore all to get into what is actually objectification and I think they toe the line, (maybe step over).
In this ad no smiling sexy guy ever shows up and I think the ad deserves credit for that. The reason why is that a guy at the end would typify that women need to please men with body modification and look like these girls. Given the asparagus scene, which is much more a sex toy than anyone else, its showing these women happier by themselves, presumably eroticising with their veggies. You can be happy-ER and beautiful-ER by yourself with your veggies--no man required, no pleasing required--its for you.
Compare that to a Kool ad and you're doing a lot better. A Kool ad will tell a woman a man will find her sexier IF she uses their brand name product--aka--you're not sexy now. Beer ads will often tell the guy the same--they need an accessory to lure ladies. To convey this, they often have a smiling sexy guy show up at the end, or ladies once the beer arrives.
Regarding the model choice: given that the subtext of a veggie diet is health and beauty...it seems appropriate to use women that are attractive but don't look like they need to have their body weight monitored (like fashion models do) or are pumped with silicon (like porn models do). They look healthy, normally busty, and though a nearly impossible body type to achieve, the ad doesn't imply one NEEDS to; like a kool ad does with their men at the end. I really don't see it as any worse than an exercise equipment ad with the perfect lady or guy with ripped abs. Perhaps even better as even in those ads there's usually a male-female encounter where both look happier because they're ripped and exercising. Also, there is a direct product purchase they'd like you to make. This rings much more like a sexed up public service announcement than anything else.
A parting shot: had they conveyed guys doing the same thing alone with their veggies/fruit...they would have avoided a lot of criticism. To do that they would have had to get through a lot of homophobia and issues surrounding the male form in sex--apple pie anyone?
As it is...brilliant cost benefit business decision to get all the publicity for the ad, without paying the superbowl ad price.
Permalink
latenac Posted 8:38 pm
30 Jan 2009
It's telling any women who watch if you are a vegan you can look this way b/c look at the man next to you how he's drooling over this. If you want him to drool over you that way then you better buy our product "veganism". I think it's a stretch to think that eating a vegan diet alone will get you the bodies of the women they have in the ads but that's what the ad is implying.
It not sex that's the problem I'm all for well done eroticism and don't object to nudity, however this is objectification. This is what PETA does in all of its promotion.
I do agree with your very last statement though.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 12:06 am
31 Jan 2009
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 2:24 am
31 Jan 2009
Aren't ya bein' just a bit hypocritical here?
I doubt commercials for women's bathing suits and lingerie get this much attention, and they "objectify" women just as much.
The difference is, one is aimed at a male audience, and the other a female audience.
So why do some (not all) women fell it's okay to be "objectified" when they are the target or the product/promotion appeals to them, but that's it not okay if the advertisement is aimed at the opposite gender?
Permalink
Ted Clayton Posted 2:25 am
31 Jan 2009
Not on your asparagus stick!
It's PETA, not the ethical handling of animals that comes up, um, short by my measure ;-)
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 2:58 am
31 Jan 2009
This is not a criticism of Grist, it is not an animal rights venue. Just saying that it's odd to see folks taking it upon themselves to critique with such emotion the effectiveness of a campaign for a cause which is not particularly their own. Touch a nerve, does it? I remember a similar tone from the mostly white males who tried to dismissed the 'strident' feminists for making such a fuss back in the day. To misquote Laurel Thatcher Ulrich - "Well-behaved animal rights activists rarely make history".
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
latenac Posted 4:03 am
31 Jan 2009
Your logic and other's is similar to the logic after the invasion of Iraq for other countries who wanted to oppress a group, well the US is dealing with terrorists that way so it's ok for us to label someone we don't like as terrorists and get rid of them. If you want to have the moral high ground about animals then you need to make sure you aren't sacrificing other morals in the process otherwise you just end up hurting your cause.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 12:32 pm
31 Jan 2009
This may be slightly off-topic, but if it is the case that most women object to being "objectified" in such a way, then why do such lingeries, makeup, and fashion ads continue?
If there was enough objection or outrage amongst the female population, then wouldn't companies that make such products be forced to halt such advertisements?
Yet the ads continue, so if there is any objection to 'em by the female population, then it's quite small overall, correct?
Also, another quirk I have with certain feminist groups is how they disagree with "objectification" of females, but for some reason don't apply the same standard to male "objectification". That just seems odd to me.
Permalink
turanga leela Posted 7:21 am
01 Feb 2009
The medium is the message. We are not talking about opera here. We are talking about the Super Bowl.
Frat boys aren't the only ones who watch the Super Bowl.
Women were clearly not the intended audience for this commercial.
Let's be honest here. Sexism has long held a comfy, and at many times dominant, position in the environmental movement. The next time I see yet another "resistance is fertile" T shirt or poster I think I'll hurl. Women are not Mother Earth. They are individual humans with thoughts and feelings, not symbols, just like men are. Learn. Accept.
Vegetarianism/veganism and feminism are connected semantically according to Carol Adams and Carolyn Merchant--women are oppressed by being "naturalized," nature is oppressed by being "feminized." But that doesn't mean that all feminists and all vegans are (or should be) aware of the semantics.
The director of PETA is a woman who considers herself a feminist.
Was no one offended by the sprawling, McMansion-esque setting or the copious waste of water? Think of all the energy used to make that vast space comfy for a naked body. The horror!
What specifically was sexist about this particular commercial? The body size of the woman? Weight is not a feminist issue. The setting of standards for one person by another is partly feminist, but is mostly about control and censorship of lived experience via the Panopticon (Foucault) in an image obsessed culture. Was it the sex? What is sexist about sex, specifically autoeroticism and exhibitionism? Humans desire one another sexually. That's about it.
Permalink
turanga leela Posted 7:24 am
01 Feb 2009
Permalink
briseboy Posted 2:53 am
03 Feb 2009
You all must be aware that PETA was just using the best method to attract attention, although you may have overlooked their (not just Ingrid's)immense sense of humor.
You are NOT threatened by beauty nor sexuality.
You ARE threatened by glorification and valorization of violence.
What a hilarious ad! From a vast distance I recognize adolescent feelings. In 8th grade in an even more censorious and puritanical time, I once gave a speech on the subject of "How I love to rest my eyes on girls."
No censorship will ever change this useful male occupation/attribute.
Permalink
Backcut Posted 3:23 am
03 Feb 2009
...
Yeah, I thought so ;^)
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
SailorOnHorseback Posted 9:32 am
03 Feb 2009
What exactly is the criteria one sets for objectification? Is the use of any woman in a swimsuit to sell swimsuits to women objectification?
As a swimsuit maker if you run an ad do you need to show aesthetically UNPLEASING women (by this generation's standards) to avoid objectification?
If you apply the same question to menswear...does that leave us with rectangular robots and manikins modeling clothes to avoid objectification? Bender from Futurama doing the beer commercials?
If objectification is making someone or something into an object and "De-humanifying" them, then is the mere act of showing a woman or man on TV as beauty objectification?
Is the statue of David objectification? Its a figure that makes the male form into an object, presumably so the creator could stay patronized and continue eating as well as get future patronization.
If any actual progress is to be made by femenists or guys against calvin klein ads, some feminists should define a standard for objectification. That's pretty tricky and the Supreme Court couldn't do it (back in the day) to create a definition of pornography and decided on "I know it when I see it" resulting in supreme court justices watching porn in the bottom of the justice building to "decide" if it was porn or not. Pretty hilarious. but I digress... ( maybe a definition is out there?)
my questions are regarding objectification:
a. did the producers make money off of showing women? (no...they don't sell a product that can be purchased and that they get a dollar from).
b. did they put in unnecessary gender roles of superiority and inferiority? (no, there's no lack of a man, no lack of a woman)
Any others?
Permalink