Hello Beautiful!

It looks like you're new to The Community. If you'd like to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

sexy banned PETA superbowl ad

bittbitt Raw Starter

Hey so we all know vegetarians have better sex, right?




  • joannabananajoannabanana Raw Newbie

    i watched this a few days ago and i started cracking up!!! it is pretty raunchy and does depict women in a purely sexual manner, but don't most tv shows and commercials do that anyways? i do feel like it is more inappropriate than most commercials, so i understand why they aren't airing it during the superbowl. i wouldn't get all mad seeing it on tv though. i wish i would've gotten the chance to audition!!! how fun would it be to jacuzzi with veggies?

  • I'm not sure it was too sexy. After all, I'm sure there are other commercials out there that are just as (if not more ) explicit. It was probably that the message was too hot to handle for most of those who play and watch the Superbowl. Too many carnivores might get upset!!.

  • I like the commercial. I think its stupid they banned it. It's no worse than a Victoria's Secret commercial. But I agree that it would prob offend all of those meat eating football fans.

  • CarnapCarnap Raw Newbie

    I am not even going to click on the link. I am so sick of seeing naked women everywhere, it is ruining society. I mean come on, half of you that come on here say you've had eating disorders.

    It is not the intellectual thought "they are treating women as sex objects" that should be revolting you, but the social, material result that this kind of thing has on society.

    For Durkheim, one of the first sociologists, psychology did not exist. Society has such a strong hold on us that if society doesn't change, the number of suicides, anorexia, etc. won't change.

    To go further into an analysis of how trash affects us would necessitate a reflexion on how women unconciously react to seeing other women uncovered. If you see the world in terms of power relations, I think you will definitely see how this kind of thing spawns competition in women. The effect is almost physical. I'll let you think about the rest.

    I won't even talk about how this gargage affects male sexuality, ruins marriage, basically makes our society even more capitalist...

    I feel very strong about this.

  • TomsMomTomsMom Raw Newbie

    It was not "banned" in any way. It was not accepted. Big difference:-)

    As an old, creaking, gray-haired feminist, I find it vulgar and sexist. As a film major, I find it to be crap. I wish someone with experience in film would make a good, fun, rockin' vegan commercial for once. I get so tired of PETA's self-indulgence.

  • ZemphiraZemphira Raw Newbie

    You know I consider myself a strong, independent, feminist woman and I wasn't offended over that commercial. I agree that the commercial is rather trite but not any more offensive than Victoria's secret and other such commercials (as someone else pointed out already). I applaud women who embrace their sexuality and feel comfortable enough with themselves to express it freely.

    The film industry in general is sexist and promotes poor self-imagery for women. We shouldn't blame PETA for this.

  • CarnapCarnap Raw Newbie

    I really don't care to debate this morning, but I think if you read what I said you will find there is no place for "a strong woman comfortable in her sexuality expressing it freely". All of that feminist ideology is backward, to use a word that will make me look extreme.

    Miss, if you genuinely thought about my comment, I think you will see that your statement will be turned inot "an instinctually narcissistic woman IMPOSING her sexuality on the world".

    Like I said before, I'll keep it brief for you to think about.

  • I didn't watch the commercial, but I'm not sure why people are surprised by this. PETA has been degrading women in their ads for a long, long, time *shrug* It's one of the reasons I don't care for them. They could get their message out there in so many, BETTER, ways.

  • CarnapCarnap Raw Newbie

    Yeah. I mean, why promote a healthy lifestyle by using diseased methods of manipulation.

  • Because sadly, that's what gets the attention of 98% of the population. Throw a naked women in the equation and suddenly people care, heh.

  • SuasoriaSuasoria Raw Newbie

    "Not accepted" isn't the same as "banned" in this context?

    There were some mildly raunchy commercials during the SB, but none quite as gratuitous as this. But I have a hard time condemning PETA for using this exploitive tactic among others in their bag of tricks - like throwing paint and die-ins, it gets attention.

    The main problem I see is we live in a Puritanical society that gives this undue attention to female nudity and suggestive content in the first place. PETA didn't create that. I'm not sure they can even be blamed for perpetuating it.

    It doesn't matter to me if it's Victoria's Secret or PETA - what matters is why we find sexuality and nudity vulgar and degrading and socially undermining, and why we let it affect us to the point of plummeting self-esteem, eating disorders, etc.

  • CarnapCarnap Raw Newbie

    Blah, blah, blah.

    It has nothing to do with the American pudor, or "puritanical ideals" you are droning on about.

    I live in France where people are libertines, they display ads that are more raunchy than you could dream of all throughout the street, the TV, etc.


    You know what? The French women are the most bitter, angry and competitive people I have ever seen. You do the math.

  • gratefultobegratefultobe Raw Newbie

    Whoa Meditating, That post was DISGUSTING and you went after the wrong person. Carnap is the one who has been most vocal about not agreeing with this crazy mainstream acceptance of what some woman are reducing themselves to.

    Would you please consider editing your post?

  • TomsMomTomsMom Raw Newbie

    (I can't get my HTML crap to work, so nothing is quoted as I meant.)

    ""Not accepted" isn't the same as "banned" in this context?"

    Nope. That is why there are two different words.

    "There were some mildly raunchy commercials during the SB, but none quite as gratuitous as this. But I have a hard time condemning PETA for using this exploitive tactic among others in their bag of tricks - like throwing paint and die-ins, it gets attention."

    I'm not talking about language. I'm talking about stupid, low-brow commercials made by PETA.

    "The main problem I see is we live in a Puritanical society that gives this undue attention to female nudity and suggestive content in the first place. PETA didn't create that. I'm not sure they can even be blamed for perpetuating it.

    It doesn't matter to me if it's Victoria's Secret or PETA - what matters is why we find sexuality and nudity vulgar and degrading and socially undermining, and why we let it affect us to the point of plummeting self-esteem, eating disorders, etc."

    What are you talking about? Who said that nudity in of itself is vulgar? Do you mean you honestly cannot tell the difference between someone who truly celebrates the beauty of the female form, and a moron from PETA who thinks this childish mess is representitive, somehow, of strong women? I'm not trying to be mean, but I don't think you know what "feminism" means. You're attempting to claim that a real feminist will openly and willingly embrace the exploitation of women. I am seeing an entire generation of young women who are so dumbed-down, they are actually offended by the real thing pointing out a fact.

    Frankly, this is why I belong to more serious, grass-roots animal rights groups. PETA, besides killing animals, is obsessed with money, movie stars and above all, itself. I see more chuckleheads in this group than I can shake a stick at.

  • MeditatingMeditating Raw Newbie

    GRATEFULTOBE - You are right. The information I posted is absolutely disgusting. But it isn't disgusting because I wrote it. It is disgusting because it is actually happening out there and it is a result of the constant advertising and sexploitation of women and how it shapes the way girls see themselves. I intended to state it in a way that graphically illustrated how shocking and disgusting it is because pretending it is anything less is a form of sticking your head in the sand and that never helped illustrate a point. There have always been issues that society failed to address until they rose to a critical level because frank discussions revolted the public. I suppose I could say I am sorry if it made you uncomfortable but I am not. I wasn't being vulgar for the sake of being vulgar. Making someone extremely uncomfortable about this topic is the point. It is suppose to shock you. If it didn't, then something would be wrong with you.

    As for my directing one of the paragraphs to CARNAP, after reading your post I did go back and look again at what she stated. I directed that paragraph at her due to the statements she made in post #7 herein and did not even notice her post #4, which does indicate that she understands the problem and her later post was out of context without considering the former one. As a result, I have removed her name from that paragraph.

    CARNAP, my apologies to you for not paying attention to all your posts beforehand. In post #4, I think you brought up a very good point on how these images make women feel they need to compete with each other. I suspect these young girls are trying so desperately to be the most sexually desired of all that they are willing to stoop to any low and mimic anything that they have been led to believe men find desirable in women. It is just heartbreaking to know that girls so young are doing this all over the country. I am relieved I am not raising a daughter although I will be having a granddaughter in three months and, given the decline in the sexualized portrayal of women over the last 40 years, I am sick at the thought of how her generation may conceptualize what a desirable woman is.

  • gratefultobegratefultobe Raw Newbie

    Look, I wouldnt be doing the right thing if I said nothing to the filth you posted in post #13 paragraph 4 and still wish you would consider removing it. Not for me, (I have already forgotten more horrific sexual garbage than anyone should ever have. But indeed that is the world we live in) but for our 12 or 13 yr. old friends who share this site with us.

    And no, I am not so naive as to think they havent already been subjected to massive amounts of desensitizing images, speech and actions from their peers at that age, but do WE have to add to that HERE?

    TRUTH BE TOLD, WE AGREE. I just think you could have left some of that shit out and been more considerate to those who are interested in this sight for the lifestyle support.

    I'm really disappointed that our 'hosts' and other members dont see fit to remove this as well. When a looser tried to leave links to porn sites in a post it was complained about and removed very quickly. This is right up there w/ that.

  • MeditatingMeditating Raw Newbie

    GRATEFULTOBE - You may think I don't appreciate your position but I do. And just as much as I can agree with you in certain respects, it isn't the only legitimate perspective. If you want to notify Ray or Kandace, I won't be surprised if they remove it. I thought about that possibility after I wrote it but before it was posted. But then I remembered that on this site it was okay to discuss using oral sex as a means to ingest enough vaginal secretions or semen to satisfy our B12 requirements without a disclaimer in the intro and without any objection from anyone in any way. Given that, it didn't seem too inappropriate.

    Other than the language, how is the actual act I described any different? As for the act itself, the only difference other than the way it was portrayed is the purpose for which it was done and the choice of execution. Since that last sentence explains the difference but was properly sanitized for our mental viewing, did you find it as revolting as my earlier description? No it wasn't because sanitizing a topic changes its meaning entirely. When you used the word "shit" earlier do you think it would have had the same impact if you said "poo-poo?" Words are often intended to provoke. I am sure there are people that are offended by your comment too but not nearly as many who would be by a description of minors engaging in what many see as a repulsive sex act. But wait, that sex act is now viewed as mainstream and not considered repulsive by many young girls, no matter how nastily it is portrayed, due to the impact pornography has had in objectifying women.

    I am not sure how you can equate a stark, graphic commentary on the negative impact pornography has on young girls with someone posting a link to a porn site. Context is everything. There is a big difference between a seductive rape scene in a movie and one intended to evoke horror at the act before them. I actually think it is a perspective problem when you see them both as the same. The difference is how you present and describe them and that difference is why you are offended. I didn't just use those words because I liked them. They don't mean the same thing as "oral sex following a completed act of anal sex."

    However, I would agree that the majority is with you. Few people will bother to examine why they have a strong revulsion to something. Just like counseling, when you come to understand why a thing has a strong impact on you, especially if it is negative, you can get past your emotions and finally address the issue. This is why rape and incest were completely taboo topics for so many years. The ugly images offended our sensibilities so much that women had to suffer quietly for centuries before societies could begin to put aside our personal discomfort with the topic and begin to address the issues. A surprising number of people still struggle with it today and choose to blame the victim instead. It is always easier to blame the victim because she is the messenger that made you confront the ugly topic to start with.

  • MeditatingMeditating Raw Newbie

    There is some frank but nonetheless accurate discussion in this post about the impact of public sexploitation of women on young girls' behavior. Please don't read this post if you aren't able to deal with the topic. Since there have been frank discussion about other topics on this site in the past, I assume that honest discussion about sexual exploitation of young girls would be allowed with a disclaimer.

    The big difference between this commercial and something like a Victoria Secret commercial is the product. The product sold wasn't vegetarianism, it was better sex and that was plainly stated. There is nothing wrong with sex, but there is a time and place for that material, even if publicly displayed. Many families watch the Super Bowl with their children and I would not want my 6 year old watching that commercial.

    If you have overlooked the impact of these images on how they are used in our culture to define the roles of women, you should think again. While women certainly should be free to express their sexuality, that is not the same thing as the sexual exploitation of women which is all the PETA commercial was about. I don't recall seeing any males in that commercial so it wasn't about sexual expression in general.


    I was probably just as horny as the next 12 year old girl but never felt this was how I should "express" myself. The continuous portrayal of woman as sex objects "objectifies" women and demeans our value. The constant barrage of sexually explicit images of women is what is driving these young women to see themselves this way. They are told this is what it now means to be a feminist and be truly liberated. This is just a perverted form of psychology to convince girls/women to exploit themselves sexually when it is not in their best interest. Who benefits from that notion? Do you honestly think it is the females in this country?

    We don't have to become indiscreet and gratuitous with our sexuality in order to prove that we aren't sexually repressed. That belief is reserved for two kinds of people: Those who are convinced that sex is a woman's primary asset and she isn't much good for anything else, and insecure woman desperate to demonstrate their value so they have been duped into the same notion.

  • Meditating- bravo to you

    PETA's as guilty as the rest of the businesses who ran sexually exploitative ads during the Superbowl and/or any other time. I only wish the Dorito's ad with the model whose clothes get blown off, Danica Patrick's "enhancement" ad, and the numerous other ones that expoited women were judged in poor taste just as Peta's was. We women need to demand better of our society, our men, ourselves. Promoting vegetariansim by ANY means possible is no better than any of the other people or businesses who exploit in horrendous manners all in the name of selfishness and greed for power and/or profit. The end does not jusitfy the means. In the end, the means are all that will have mattered.

    *Having said that, I can still see the humor in the ad. :)

    Not that this would make it "right" or codone exploiting anyone merely as sexual objects, but at the very least PETA should have had male models posing with veggies, too.

    And I wonder if the ad would have been disallowed if they'd had more clothes on the models.

  • Blue_EyesBlue_Eyes Raw Master

    Way to go Meditating, You have a great way of saying things I always enjoy hearing what you have to say.

    Gratefultobe If you are really worried about the kids on this site think of it this way. they will read what meditating wrote and see that that behavior is wrong and if they are involved with it maybe they will get out of it or it they know someone in that sitution they will do something to help them out.

    Hiding things from kids to "protect" them often does more harm than good. And in the case of those kids that she is talking about. seems someone has negected to talk to them about sex and what wonderful people they are and what respecting oneself is all about.instead they let them loose to learn on their own.

  • gratefultobegratefultobe Raw Newbie

    Wow, my apologies. & thanks for questioning if I really cared about the younger people. Best to all, Mary

  • Blue_EyesBlue_Eyes Raw Master

    gratefultobe, sorry I did not mean to imply that you did not care about the young i believe you do very much. I was just trying to point out a different way of looking at the situation. I don't always word things the best way and I am sorry if I upset you.

  • gratefultobegratefultobe Raw Newbie

    Thank you but I'm feeling squarely misunderstood every which way I turn lately so...lol who knows hormones? family?


  • MeditatingMeditating Raw Newbie

    GRATEFULTOBE - I wouldn't be that hard on you and please don't be that hard on yourself. It isn't hormonal or abnormal to be outraged by what I wrote. I promise I understand where you are coming from.

    I am a professional advocate and I have to sanitize everything I say for public consumption. Sometimes it feels like a noose is pulling against my throat, especially when I feel passionately about the topic. This topic evokes outrage and disgust in me. I want to shake the world and say. "Wake up and look at this." I just wanted to say it exactly the way it felt, horrible and dirty.

    I am honestly shocked that anyone got the point I was trying to make. I thought I would be verbally stoned and I almost didn't post it. I just have this stainless steel spine that says never back down if you truly believe. It was born of being an abused child who was always denied a voice. I have found the best therapy is to have a loud voice now. It is a curse.

    If it was painful for you, please know it was painful for me too. But honest debate is always a good thing. Even when it hurts.

  • It is sad but true about middle school kids now. I have a friend who teaches 5th grade and she hears about acts discussed here but luckily hasnt seen it. It makes me scared. I am also disappointed with the PETA Ad but not surprised at all they chose that route. After all sex sells and makes people remember the Ad, which is the main point of marketing ;()

  • I agree with everything that Medidating is saying. I remember being in middle school and hearing of such acts, though not exactly understanding the full extent of the seriousness of the issue.

    This is perhaps where most traditional "feminists" would disagree with me. I do not think that pornography in and of itself suppresses women. There are cultures in which looking at porn is strictly prohibited and punishable, yet these cultures are some of the most repressive ones around, where women are treated as second class citizens. In Afghanistan, for instance, and several other Asian and Middle-Eastern countries, it is not uncommon for women to face execution for being victims of rape. Yet when you hear of these countries, porn is hardly the association. Think of the Victorian ages, when purity was something to be desired and chastity was valued in women. Were women truly valued and treated equal, despite the fact that there wasn't so much demeaning pornographic garbage objectifying them? No, they were treated as property whose sole duties were to her husband, and whose virginity was essentially sold to the husband by the father who guarded it. From such examples we can see that porn alone does not constitue degregation of women. Porn+media+sheeple+standardized social constructs+double standards do however add up to the examples we are seeing today.

    Societies change, and along with social change comes a new set of values. Whereas previously chastity was considered a desireable characteristic of women, today explicit depictions of sexuality and willingness to please men have taken its place. However, whatever it may be, the aim of defining "the perfect woman" and assigning her to her roles is, in essence, what creates the objectification we see today and have always seen. Whatever the social values may be, as long as they are fulfulling this premise, they are contributing to this continual cycle of degregation, opression, and quest for the "more powerful" sex to obtain unlimited power.

    It is disturbing to imagine what Meditating has written in her post, but unfortunately this is really what is happening to today's youth. I believe that when women abide by the values of a repressive society which desires to "put them in their place" they are supporting it by saying "YES" to this objectification. I can only hope that more young women start to realize this and move away from this axiom.

  • As a woman I am offended by the ad and don't support PETA at all. They have a good cause but unfortunately have a history of behaving worse than the animals they claim to protect. Additionally, they somehow seem to think the way to do this is by a) exploiting women instead of animals or b) degrading women who wear fur, eat meat etc (however for some reason men seem to get a pass...)

    And it is worse than a Victoria's Secret commercial. It's obviously suggesting using women in sexual acts with food. It's also not "celebrating a woman's sexuality and expressing it freely" as this commercial is clearly to pander to the fantasies of carnivorous men. It's exploiting women, and I cannot even begin and the commercial can be viewed as "liberating". That one is lost on me.

    I am a woman and I want to be viewed as a complete person with a mind, a soul, intelligence and body. Too bad so many are so brain-washed in this culture they can't even see what is wrong with this commercial. Not one shot shows a woman above her (bra-clad) shoulders. I agree Carnap, Meditating, and many others above. I am a little saddened (perhaps hopelessly naive?) to see that it is only women thus far who are upset with the commercial. I thought there would be some intellectual, spiritual and balanced male souls who would see our position too.. :( I'm not saying there aren't any, just no voices yet it seems. And if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem - to those who "don't blame PETA, blame society." You are part of the problem if you perpetuate and propagate a poor message.

    PETA has such a great cause. Too bad they want women to trade places with the animals, so to speak.

  • Who is not blaming PETA and blaming society? Just curious to know.

  • ZemphiraZemphira Raw Newbie

    That would be me.

    I think several of the women on this thread need to learn to chill and embrace their sexuality (not to mention femininity). Or maybe we should start up another thread so they can post some long-winded and overly analytical posts on how lipstick is a misogynistic tool whose sole purpose is to degrade women? We could create a whole separate forum and label it drama queens.

  • CarnapCarnap Raw Newbie

    Not that I agree with some of the other posters, but you need to ... well, you need a better education to teach you how to join a debate without making a fool of yourself. No one is saying anything about mysogyny. At least I wasn't. Even if women conciously choose something, I was mentioning how the thing affects them unconciously given human nature (rivalry that gets pent up and then this frustration turns against the person and turns into anorexia, etc. Basically it is Nietzsche's theory on why people turn to religion).

    I mean, it is basic evolutionary thought right there for you, which is pretty much as easy as you get and not to mention the type of thought that you will see in every Pop science publication of our generation.

    I am not a drama queen. If you are referring to me, shut up. You obviously did not understand a word I said if you are drawing conclusions like that. Never did I say anything about women being opressed or any other stereotypical pseudo feminist bs of the sort, in fact, quite the opposite. I insinuated that it is women that are torturing other women through ignorance of their own nature.

    If I were a drama queen I don't think I'd be where I am today, a place that rather requires someone very serious and posed.

Sign In or Register to comment.