Chicago Sun-Times
A hearty stew of offbeat sports and pop culture.

Did PETA go too far? Is licking a pumpkin too sexy for Super Bowl Sunday?

| 37 Comments | No TrackBacks
peta_pumpkin.jpg

An advertisement that had been scheduled to air during this Sunday's Super Bowl has been nixed by NBC due to its sexual content.

The ad -- brought to us by animal rights advocates PETA -- features models in lingerie fondling and caressing sundry vegetables against their bodies.

NBC sent a letter to PETA stating, "The PETA spot submitted to Advertising Standards depicts a level of sexuality exceeding our standards."

This isn't the first time PETA has gone controversial in the name of publicity. A Sun-Times photo gallery explores some of the sauciest and scariest past PETA campaigns.

The ad in question is titled "Veggie Love," and PETA is featuring its banned ad on the organization's Web site.
Watch the ad for yourself:


'Veggie Love': PETA's Banned Super Bowl Ad

What do you think? In light of Janet Jackson's famed "wardrobe malfunction" a few years back, did NBC make the right call in banning the ad?

No TrackBacks

TrackBack URL: http://blogs.suntimes.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/19058

37 Comments

Wow. Too racy for TV.

Reading this article made me hungry for a big, juicy cheeseburger.

Well, at least they didn't have a cucumber...

What's wrong with cucumbers? What are you doing with cucumbers?

The next thing you know PETA will want the ball made out of watermelon.

Yep, too racy for TV. It looks like they're making love to the vegetables. The right-wingers would have a field day.


Reminds me of a late night at the Sigma Kappa house 8 years ago!!

Not bad, catches your attention. In Europe this ad would be considered childish.

This ad is great, and I am a hetero woman. Do you mean to tell me we can have a group of fast middleaged men sitting around singing "Viva Viagra" but this won't be shown?

Actually, I think it is very funny.

How can vegan's have better sex? They don't believe in "meat" ;)

A) No, they didn't go too far.

B) This commercial was an obvious attempt at publicity (Look at me, mom!).

C) Unless their ad agency is run by preschoolers who have yet to learn the difference between peanut butter and paste they knew this ad would be rejected by the networks.

D) Not that I'm complaining but the use of these ladies in the campaign will help further ensure that PETA will further help young ladies feel bad about themselves. You know, I know, it's a joke but there are people who aren't as swift and those are the girls who will interpret this message.

It's harmless. In America we can show horror movies at three in the afternoon with a beautiful girl getting chainsawed, body parts everywhere, very disturbing. Even commercials for horror movies are far more distasteful than this. Either we have our priorities completely mixed up, or we're still metaphorically burning witches at the stake.

If veggies make them horny, just imagine what a Polska Kielbasa would do for them!

It's no more explicit than the average Victoria's Secret commercial, so I don't see what NBC's problem is.

So am I to understand that anything sexy cannot be shown on television but violence is alright? Who is responsible for setting the standards anyway a bunch of nuns? Stop censorship!

B) This commercial was an obvious attempt at publicity (Look at me, mom!).

The direction to the agency was probably something along the lines of this:
"So, we want you to create an ad for us. Realistically it's never going to air, so make it 'sexy'. Go too far, the whole point of this ad is to drum up publicity and then release it virally with a sob story about how the networks hate us."

Good call on taking the ad out of the line up for Sunday.
I do have to say the women are very sexy and it makes me want to become a veg. LOL

Who doesn't like watching a bunch of hot half naked girls? Like common people.

Common people who doesn't like watching a bunch of half naked girls? It's not hurting anyone.

Give me a break, all the other racy garbage on TV and this is a problem! Have you ever watched Family Guy? As for "helping young ladies feel bad about themselves", you've gotta be kidding me. How about this, how about parents of young ladies do a better job of raising those young ladies so they don't have such eggshell personalities? Just a thought known as "parental responsibility". And if parents think that's the message it sends, how about explaining that to their kids.

NBC is just running scared after the boob incident.

I TRY NOT TO BE TOO QUICK TO JUDGE, BUT THIS IS PRETTY DISGUSTING AND EVERYBODY WILL KNOW THAT THE AD HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH VEGTABLES. WHY DOES THERE HAVE TO BE ANYTHING LIKE THAT ON THE SUPER BOWL.... WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO THE BEAUTIFUL CLYDESDALE HORSES ??? TOO TAME ??? I HOPE THIS DOESN'T MAKE IT ON TV DURING THE SUPERBOWL, UNLESS IT'S PUT ON THE PLAYBOY CHANNEL....6

Why shouldn't it? it's nowhere nearly as explicit as some of the commercials that i've seen. Beyonce was rubbing all over herself in that crappy 'upgrade' commercial. That's not suggestive, that's just preverted. THIS is suggestive, meaning that only those old enough to understand it should be old enough

The video did have some top notch female. However, it's pornography with vegetables. How nutricious

looks like what's on tv already. thank u & good nite!

Jason,

Come on, sir. There is a metric ton of naughty things (and don't misconstrue, I love it all) going on in this ad that rightfully isn't being allowed to air. It has to do with common sense and whoever created this without question knew it wasn't going to air. If you want an amusing, and extreme, comparison take a look at this clip from Boomerang. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xnq1QnbP-K8 It's on French, I apologize but it makes the point (but it is absolutely hilarious. Especially coming from the 7UP guy...).

And as far as the young ladies comment, I agree too. We're not talking about those of us who know better but since there is a disproportionate number of women who are afflicted with eating disorders, media messages being one cause of them, all I am saying is that if you're cool with objectifying your females then the comment wasn't aimed at you.

Have you consider the children who are viewing this ad? Why do we have to view stripers performing with assorted vegetables.

You have got to be kidding. It's OK to show people and horses farting but not OK to show people enjoying veg. I think its the message. NBC doesn't want to lose its revenue from super market chains.

Does PETA really think that people, football fans no less, are going to reevaluate and change their lifestyle and eating habits based on a "better sex" claim ? Get real.

Crap ad. Zero effectiveness.

Apperently every ad and commercial is making girls feel bad about themselves. sex sells everyone knows that. Why not, i mean everything is objectifying women. The way i see Women should embrase their sexuality and if that's being half naked in a commecial then fine by me... That's their choice to "objectify" themselves. And don't tell me as a man that you did not like that commercial.

Amanda,

Oh, I loved it.

I dug it completely, actually. No harm no foul. But again, my point isn't the objectification of these women, per se, Lord knows they made a lot of money (at least I hope they did) but if you're a group like PETA and say that you're a progressive organization dedicated to hippie ideals of peace and love for animals then isn't it a little hypocritical to consciously, and on purpose, use only women who are socially defined as great-looking? They obviously have no problem with it and want to use this in their favor but I'm just pointing out that their fight fire with fire isn't a very solid approach, however whimsical it may be.

Jaime Foster, you hit it right on the head. We can show CSI in prime time, but god forbid a sexy, well done, funny commercial is banned during the Super Bowl. I wrote a paper in college about how America has it backwards when it comes to being okay with violence in the media while at the same time covering up nudity because it's "offensive." By the way, I wrote that paper in 1991. Times haven't changed.

Well then, they should ban cheerleaders.

I think it is cool from entertainment angle. The Art of Light is used well here. But it is too quick from the view of art, and ambiguous in sexaule imply. But it is a little strained to relate this to vegetarian.

I am glad ad was banned - It kind of contradicts Peta's message in general. I'm tired of feeling a little uncomfortable about what is shown on television. We have all become desensitized.

And to think there are still some hollywood idiots till doing stupid ads for PETA like aALEC BALDWIN and PAMELA ANDERSON i mean they blow away the money donated to them by persons who think their helping animals when all PETA dose is to spend it spends 95% of its money on propeganda and idiotic protests proving that only a complete jerk has anything to do with them

PETA definitely goes too far! Some high school and even middle school students are planning to "Go Topless on Spring Break for PETA."

If PETA truly cares about animals, they need to focus on that, not encouraging young girls to flash!

Leave a comment

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Kevin Allen published on January 28, 2009 10:10 AM.

Robinho roundup: Footballer arrested on rape charges was the previous entry in this blog.

Ex-Lion Sean McHugh: Watching the Lions lose is exciting is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Pages

Powered by Movable Type 5.04