by Grace Chu

Columns

Currently Recapping

Popular People

TV Shows

Movies

Featured

Members who are age 26

	OneWom...
	ArtsyAmy
	Stacy
	pivot
	Lakikibo

PETA's new ad gets banned for abuse of vegetables

Grace Chu

Animal rights organization PETA has never shied away from controversy. The latest is their new ad, "Veggie Love," which was deemed to be too hot for television and was nixed from the coveted Super Bowl ad lineup.

The ad features models in lingerie displaying their affection for various items plucked from the produce aisle. Although it is doubtful that this ad will convince anyone to give up prime rib, it might make certain viewers jealous of the pumpkin:

Even if you find the ad distasteful, is there anything in the ad that is so harmful to viewers that warrants its removal from television? Scenes just as racy and over the top appear regularly in episodes of Gossip Girl, for example. (Anyone remember the scene where Marcus was in the throes of passion with his stepmother?)

Furthermore, unlike many of PETA's previous ads that displayed women in cages or portrayed them as pieces of meat — ads that are degrading because they place the women being featured in a position of powerlessness and/or liken them to animals — the tone in the advertisement is lighthearted and playful. After all, the concept of sexualizing asparagus and pumpkins is absurd on its face. If Truth can display hundreds of body bags in its anti-smoking public service announcements, why can't a woman have a little harmless fun with produce?

Here are some snippets from the e-mail from NBC to PETA detailing the reasons why the ad failed to meet NBC's standards:

:12- :13- licking pumpkin

Was this a problem because pumpkins cannot consent to going to first base?

:13- :14- touching her breast with her hand while eating broccoli

How mortifying.

:22- screwing herself with broccoli (fuzzy)

Can you imagine being the executive who had to write the line "screwing herself with broccoli"? I can imagine her sitting in her swiveling chair thinking, "Four years of college and two years in an MBA program led to this?!" On a side note, the woman wasn't "screwing herself with broccoli." She was rubbing the broccoli on her stomach.

:23- asparagus on her lap appearing as if it is ready to be inserted into vagina

Wow, if she thought that woman was intending to stick that entire bunch of asparagus into her hoo hoo, she is more than just a little ambitious about the limits of the female anatomy.

:26- rubbing asparagus on breast

Is this like rubbing two pieces of flint together? If someone tries this at home, will a fire break out?

Yesterday, Whoopi Goldberg performed a re-enactment of the banned advertisement on The View, a performance that highlights the silliness of the advertisement.

Whoopi never fails to make me laugh, and just between you and me, I think I like Whoopi's version better. What do you think of NBC's reaction to the ad?

Grace Chu's blog

Submitted by

Grace Chu

on January 29, 2009 - 12:47pm.

TAGS ::

Oh PETA

Submitted by

Gina (35 posts)

on January 29, 2009 - 1:10pm.

I lost all respect for them when they sent a letter to Ben & Jerry's asking them to substitute cow's milk with human breast milk for their ice cream.

And throwing paint on people who wear fur is just....ugh.

Breast milk? Gross! And

Submitted by

BuckeyesBandit (120 posts)

on January 29, 2009 - 7:17pm.

Breast milk? Gross!

And Whoopi's re-enactment was f-ing hilarious!

Banning the ad is silly

Submitted by

faith_in_buffy (140 posts)

on January 29, 2009 - 1:24pm.

It was funny and didn't make me think the women were actually going to shag the veg. Lots of adverts are about sex anyway.

PETA can be pleased that ppl are still going to see the advert even though it prolly won't convince ppl to replace meat with veg.

Whoopi's version is amazing, maybe that will convince ppl.

"My life's like a romantic comedy that's never romantic! Or comedic! My life is nothing like a romantic comedy!" - Caitlin (Cashmere Mafia)

As a vegetarian, I find

Submitted by

Ms Eres (57 posts)

on January 29, 2009 - 1:27pm.

As a vegetarian, I find PETA and their methods distasteful. This ad? Weird, but nothing worse than other commercials that are shown.

I admit their methods are

Submitted by

Sara Sawdon-Collings (130 posts)

on January 29, 2009 - 1:33pm.

I admit their methods are often counterproductive but I don't find the paint throwing any more "ugh" than wearing fur in the first place. It's not the way to get people to stop wearing fur I admit but it's not like the people wearing it are innocent.

I think the reason PETA often use such ridiculous tactics is that it draws attention to an issue that wouldn't otherwise get a lot of press.

PETA is useless

Submitted by

Matthehippie (2 posts)

on January 29, 2009 - 7:26pm.

Yep. nothing wrong with throwing paint on fur coats at all except that that's simply one more fur coat to be replaced, continuing the fur industry. I honestly can't think of one single way that action is productive. Press isn't everything, anyway. PETA should start with the "Ethical treatment of animals" part by fighting corporate farms, not attacking individual people.

I like the ad

Submitted by

MarissaQ (32 posts)

on January 29, 2009 - 1:34pm.

I really like this ad. I'm telling you, if I saw in on tv it would make me happy. I like it because the women seem powerful and in control of their sexuality. It also reads kind of gay to me (YAYAYAY) in that it's only women and esp with that "go veg" thing at the end. Silly NBC. It's not lewd, it's lighthearted.

umm thats it?

Submitted by

sibabae (42 posts)

on January 29, 2009 - 1:37pm.

umm thats it? there was nothing wrong in my eyes about that commercial. its better than some of the commercials that are out there right now and much better than alot of daytime and primetime episodes that are shown. i actually laughed at it and have already sent a link of it to my friend who is a vegeterian. :) i know she would get a kick out of it.

not so thrilled.

Submitted by

mPod (111 posts)

on January 29, 2009 - 1:42pm.

not the best commercial, defo not offensive. i think durex did a much better job with the veg-sex concept and they did it first:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRWjxdvArPE

Seriously

Submitted by

DerangedBeanie (103 posts)

on January 29, 2009 - 1:45pm.

If you are going to ban this, you might as well ban Victoria's Sercret ads, the KY his and hers, and the Trojan commercials.

The View

Submitted by

Aidan P (193 posts)

on January 29, 2009 - 1:49pm.

Whoopi had me cracking up with her reenactment. That was awesome. And even though I rarely agree with PETA's methods, I agree that this ad is no worse than many others on television, not to mention television shows.

Yay!

Submitted by

jordan-writes (283 posts)

on January 29, 2009 - 1:54pm.

Go Vegetarians! We have better sex!

Love this!

Submitted by

Jackster (248 posts)

on January 29, 2009 - 1:59pm.

Great commercial! Oh to be asparagus...

I HATE how strict censorship is. Its not even that bad. People need to get over it. I mean, after seeing Janet Jackson's Tig o' Bitty, this should be nothing.

But this commercial definitely gives me a lezzy vibe. I like it. They could easily replace the text in the commercial with this... "Studies show that lesbians have better sex. Go Vag."

tee hee

Submitted by

the_Rad_Seed (532 posts)

on January 29, 2009 - 2:16pm.

Jackster said 'tig ol bitty' heh... I'm 12.

http://radisthenewblack.blogspot.com/

stoogle?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0QxB3z2qgU

Actually, I am offended by

Submitted by

kathy (53 posts)

on January 29, 2009 - 2:48pm.

Actually, I am offended by this commercial...not once did I see a big fat, cucumber or a nice long hard, zucchini being used sexually...I mean, c'mon girls..we all know if we are to date the produce department then we certainly would not pick the broccoli or asparagus for crying out loud. Vegetable discrimination is what this is.

Maybe they just banned it

Submitted by

eboshi12 (11 posts)

on January 29, 2009 - 2:50pm.

Maybe they just banned it because they finally realized that the PETA people are insane. Humans are animals too, so why don't we try to stop our own suffering before we fixate on anybody else's. The grizzly bears and the harp seals could care less about us.

I think PETA is ridiculous

Submitted by

pacificmay (7 posts)

on January 29, 2009 - 4:07pm.

I think PETA is ridiculous for the most part, but stopping human suffering and stopping animal suffering are not mutually exclusive. Being a vegetarian/vegan doesn't stop you from helping humans as well. It's not as if you have a certain ration of "caring" and you use it all up caring about animals. I’m a vegan and I also work as a counselor and volunteer with several human based organizations. Many of the vegans and vegetarians I know do tons of work helping humans. We should all be trying to end suffering, human and animal, wherever we see it. Furthermore, the great amount of damage the meat industry does to the environment means that helping animals by reducing or stopping eating meat actually helps humans as well! Care about animal suffering or don't, but saying it takes the focus away from human suffering is not valid.

Caring is not innate to human nature.

Submitted by

Nothing (489 posts)

on January 29, 2009 - 8:51pm.

Caring must be taught. Some people learn that we must care for our planet and the animals that share it with us, others are taught that animals are not as important as humans. While I'm not a vegan, or even a vegetarian, I do believe we must take care not to abuse the environment or animals. PETA is a bit over top. I have known several women who bought into the PETA mentality and they did animals no favor. I agree that by caring for animals we are not saying that caring for humans is any less important. It's only by caring for animals that we learn just how important the entire planet, including other humans we don't know, all evolve together. Showing empathy towards animals is showing empathy toward humankind as well.

Re bears and harp seals: I

Submitted by

Sara Sawdon-Collings (130 posts)

on January 29, 2009 - 3:49pm.

Re bears and harp seals: I think....THINK...now just a hunch but aren't we supposed to be a lot more intelligent than other animal species and have some awareness of the harm we cause to other creatures?

I also don't feel bears and seals are encroaching on my personal freedom that much...I mean I'll stand corrected if someone comes accross a bear with a human rug in its front room.

Booya!

Submitted by

Jackster (248 posts)

on January 29, 2009 - 4:07pm.

Glad I wasnt the only one offended by that comment. Kudos for responding.

Just because humans are more important doesnt mean that we should forget about animals all together. There is enough people in the world to focus on all the problems of the world, not just one. And mistreatment of animals if a definite problem. Animals dont have voices so we must speak for them.

I liked it

Submitted by

Puff (16 posts)

on January 29, 2009 - 3:58pm.

I think they were just worried that PETA would beat Budweiser for best commercial lol.

Whoopi Goldberg is just too funny

Submitted by

Christa O'malley (246 posts)

on January 29, 2009 - 4:12pm.

I think PETA should stick to protecting animals and not saying if you’re a vegetarian you have a better sex life? Just silly to me....

Christa K. O'malley, RN, BSN, ACLS Pediatric ICU and Neonatal ICU

while I consider PETA and

Submitted by

A Muse (522 posts)

on January 29, 2009 - 4:27pm.

while I consider PETA and their methods borderline lunatic I don't get the NBC outrage concerning that ad. you can read into it what you want and the statement

"screwing herself with broccoli."

indicates that a man has probably written that response. Would a woman consider rubbing broccoli on her stomach screwing? I highly doubt that.

Canning that ad is ridiculous. Does NBC stand for Naturally Born Celibate?

------------------------------------------------------
Films, tv, games, travel, sport, books - everything you want to chat about on The Trial Run. Make new friends or meet old ones

Nothing wrong with it...

Submitted by

SaturnaliaGirl (152 posts)

on January 29, 2009 - 4:46pm.

I'm not even gona take the ''I've seen worse'' angle, because frankly I didn't find it too racy at all, but rather kinda funny and cheek in tongue, nothing more. (I nearly cried when I saw Whoopi's reenactment, it was hysterical, ROTFL...)

But if I were going with the whole 'there are other racier' adds out there, then that is definitely true as well. I mean, even daytime is much more racy. I've been following this NAtalia/Olvia storyline in Guiding Light (and I truly detest soaps and daytime, but there isn't much out there, so I'm watching just the clips of them together) and today's clip kind of made me laugh out loud. There's a part of some other storyline that got in the compilation vid and it shows just at the end, a straight couple just after having sex on the floor of the kitchen, with like a whole bunch of apples all over the floor around them...I had just seen the PETA add and when I saw that I was..PETA has already had an impact on daytime! LOL

Here's the clip (it's just right at the end at 4:37): http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=fTtHn3ADHs0&NR=1

PETA

Submitted by

Anonymous

on January 29, 2009 - 5:14pm.

I have no idea what the superbowl commercials are like because we don't really get them here in Canada, and I don't watch the superbowl unless my mom is around ('cos she likes the superbowl). But yeah, I wouldn't air that commercial either. All the examples used for counter argument don't relate to the superbowl and if they have that many viewers than they have an obligation to families to keep it light. Especially after some of the controversies they have faced. I know some families don't censor TV for their children, but some families do and people have to respect that.... or face lawsuits lol.

censorship?

Submitted by

A***da (827 posts)

on January 30, 2009 - 6:25am.

So you honestly think the Super Bowl won't be airing any overtly sexual commercials or budweiser commercials? Why would promoting vegetables be more offensive to your child than promoting nearly see-through victoria's secret products or mindless alcoholism? Why aren't those companies sued when their commercials are aired during sponge bob?

I think the reason it was banned is because the stereotypical super bowl audience is beer-guzzling meatheads with their steaks and ribs and hotdogs and burgers all cooked up and ready to go. God forbid an animal rights organization gets enough airtime to actually maybe make half of a difference.

~~http://invisibleone-lestweforget.blogspot.com/~~

censorship

Submitted by

Anonymous

on January 31, 2009 - 12:34am.

A child reading the words "vegetarians have better sex" is not a promotion of vegetables.

censorship...

Submitted by

A***da (827 posts)

on January 31, 2009 - 1:08am.

true, but how is that worse than an herbal essences commercial or the trojan commercials or male enhancement commercials or beer commercials?

Yeah, I'd much rather have my child witness a woman emulating an orgasm than read the word sex.

~~http://invisibleone-lestweforget.blogspot.com/~~

censorship

Submitted by

Anonymous

on January 31, 2009 - 1:47am.

What kids channel is this where children watch these commercial in between their programs? On all other networks not catering to children, the only solution is to let children watch regardless of commercial content or not allow children to watch or make a complaint when there is an inappropriate commercial. The Superbowl has millions of viewers so the networks have an obligation to families with children watching to censor their commercials.

censorship

Submitted by

A***da (827 posts)

on January 31, 2009 - 2:02am.

You have no leg to stand on if you're trying to tell me that during children's shows and cartoons, that the media isn't also targeting the audience their mothers represent. Every time I babysit I get nausiated by the sexual innuendo and pressure to be beautiful and lose weight in commercials that are not only creating a false sense of reality for the children but also encouraging their mothers to lose their baby fat, be "beautiful" and cater to their husband's carnal desires. Of course the media should have a responsibility to keep their corruption to a minimal however you can't tell me that having a child targeted audience filters out all the superficial and sex-starved bullshit these babies are seeing before they even understand it. No, they shouldn't have to be exposed to sexual things, I agree with that, but I also don't think the argument against this commercial has any justification in comparison to the sickening things they're exposed to every day.

~~http://invisibleone-lestweforget.blogspot.com/~~

censorship

Submitted by

Anonymous

on January 31, 2009 - 4:07am.

Okay, I agree with you on this one but it is a different issue when it comes to PETA and commercials during the Superbowl. I'm referring to networks airing programs with mass viewers having a responsibility to censor their commercials for children. The basis is whether or not there should be censorship to protect children.

censorship

Submitted by

A***da (827 posts)

on January 31, 2009 - 5:06am.

YES.

There should be censorship to protect children.

AND the women that are being exploited.

A million times yes.

But it's unfair that they are picking and choosing what to censor based on their shareholders. Before they decide it's ok to censor peta for using the same marketing strategy as every other corporate company, it has to be considered wrong on ALL its fronts. No progress will be made at all until women aren't seen as objcets, as just an attention ploy...until all women realize we're just as, if not more, capable as a man to rule the world and appreciate the sacredness of our bodies and minds. Until women refuse to be used as the sex-doll fantasy that will rake in some man-owned company billions of dollars that she'll only see a fraction of, nothing will change. Women need to be empowered before the exploitation and the NEED for censorship to end will stop.

Until then, they shouldn't pigeon-hole the vegetarians.

Seriously.

~~http://invisibleone-lestweforget.blogspot.com/~~

Veggie Love

Submitted by

Angela (137 posts)

on January 29, 2009 - 5:19pm.

i thought that was a fun video it should air..i like it! =]

wow

Submitted by

WonderWomanLesbeau (12 posts)

on January 29, 2009 - 6:06pm.

I don't know how it effects vegetarians....but you're right...I'm now jealous of a pumpkin ;) lol

Soo

Submitted by

Risha (30 posts)

on January 29, 2009 - 6:32pm.

Im not a big fan of PETA but this commercial was funny

Harmless

Submitted by

Aiden (57 posts)

on January 29, 2009 - 6:35pm.

I don't see a problem with it, other than it being incredibly stupid. It's no worse than anything else on TV. I just wonder when PETA will go away... Their methods are so distasteful and to be honest, a lot worse (sometimes) than what they are fighting.

...

Submitted by

A***da (827 posts)

on January 30, 2009 - 6:32am.

How are they worse?

Admitedly they're more the Black Panther org of the Animal Liberation movement but what they do is geared to attract attention to things that the every day human being either ignores or is completely oblivious to. If they weren't around to take the incentive, much of the time there wouldn't be one taken. I'm not saying I agree with every single strategy they come up with but I also don't think it's fair to say they're anywhere near worse than the fucking fur farms they're protesting by staining a coat.

Did you know that cats and dogs are sometimes skinned and sold as faux fur? Fucking sick.

~~http://invisibleone-lestweforget.blogspot.com/~~

Is it true that vegatarians

Submitted by

JesseStone (43 posts)

on January 29, 2009 - 7:13pm.

Is it true that vegatarians have better sex? And where were the studies found exactly?

When my best friend saw the

Submitted by

sirdykesalot (57 posts)

on February 4, 2009 - 7:29pm.

When my best friend saw the commercial, she said the same thing. She also said that she is having better sex now than when she was a vegetarian.

hahahaha, that has got to be

Submitted by

Pingu88 (31 posts)

on January 29, 2009 - 7:39pm.

hahahaha, that has got to be one of the funniest things I've seen in a while... I'll have to ask my friends as at least 2 of them are vegetarians and ask if they have better sex... like some have already said, how exactly can they test for that? :-P

Not really

Submitted by

Harhar (294 posts)

on January 29, 2009 - 8:07pm.

Vegetarians have better sex? Not really, I don't think. I was a vegan for a month or so (does that count), I think my sex drive before and after remains the same. Probably I did it wrong?

But agree with the others comment regarding the re-enactment, it was funny.

vegetarians

Submitted by

robin4 (957 posts)

on January 29, 2009 - 8:33pm.

yay vegetarians! :) heehee

vegetarians taste better ;)

Whoopi Goldberg Is Hilarious!

Submitted by

Anonymous

on January 29, 2009 - 8:40pm.

www.myspace.com/lunakiss7.com

I'm cracking up at Whoopi's re-enactment of the PETA ad. Love it!

There's nothing wrong with the ad. I think it's kinda hot. But, I still don't like PETA.

A line taken from my poem "She" It is SHE who awakens my soul..."

thefemininedivine.blogspot.com

Now if the ad included violence against women

Submitted by

Nothing (489 posts)

on January 29, 2009 - 8:43pm.

it would have been ok to run. After seeing Whoopi's reenactment on the View I thought surely, there had to be more to it. I see there was not really much more. In fact, as much as I've been appalled by PETA's previous ads, I really enjoyed this one. PETA will be getting a lot more coverage because NBC banned the ad though, so it's not going to hurt them. It seems to me NBC was upset that a woman might be able to pleasure herself. If a man had been included in the ad, it might have gone through. You can be sure it was a bunch of men who refused to run this ad.

Exactly!!

Submitted by

Keeva99 (259 posts)

on January 30, 2009 - 1:18am.

" It seems to me NBC was upset that a woman might be able to pleasure herself. If a man had been included in the ad, it might have gone through. You can be sure it was a bunch of men who refused to run this ad. "

Precisely what i was thinking!

...

Submitted by

A***da (827 posts)

on January 30, 2009 - 6:34am.

Amen.

~~http://invisibleone-lestweforget.blogspot.com/~~

That was silly

Submitted by

i rock the avies (56 posts)

on January 29, 2009 - 9:16pm.

As much as I enjoy seeing lovely ladies in scanty panties, I thought the commercial was pretty ridiculous. Ethical treatment of animals? How about the ethical treatment of women? Apparently, we put out for vegetables these days.

I'm not one for censorship and I'd let the ad run, but it was stupid. Then again, when an organization uses a Kardashian as their spokesperson, you can't really expect too much.

haha

Submitted by

A***da (827 posts)

on January 30, 2009 - 6:40am.

I'm pretty sure it was supposed to be more empowering than exploitive. No, I don't agree in any way shape or form with women letting themselves be objectified, but in this case I think a lot of strategy is behind it... it's women using what they obviously know will capture the typical "manly man's" attention to force it to an issue they care about, and I personally respect that majorly... maybe it's hypocritical or naive in a way but I really really believe that these women are self-aware enough to know what they're doing and are not being exploited.

Like it was earlier stated, there were no men in the picture to associate with the power of their sexualities...

~~http://invisibleone-lestweforget.blogspot.com/~~

Everything about this

Submitted by

ACertainJustice (58 posts)

on January 29, 2009 - 11:35pm.

Everything about this article made laugh. I love and respect everyone's opinions, but the fact that some woman licking a pumpkin could be so controversal....

I think the world's a bit to serious now a days, i mean the add comes with a grain of salt yes, but it's peta, it's not like they are advertising for strippers.

Personally, i think whoopi did a great job in explaining it, lol

*Let no man bring you so low as to make you hate him* -Booker T. Washington

*sucess is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm* -Churchilll

Go Daddy's

Submitted by

Tscgrad06 (95 posts)

on January 30, 2009 - 2:27am.

commercials are the one that make me cringe every single year. While I don't like the wearing of fur, leather, or anything like that I find PETA and some of their methods to lose the whole damn point. When I was younger my mom told me "You may be right, but you can end up wrong in the way you present your argument." TsC

Recent blog posts

New forum topics

New Comments

word
22 sec ago
welcome!
1 min 19 sec ago
hahah thz funny
1 min 44 sec ago
nope
2 min 3 sec ago
^^^^
4 min 13 sec ago
Word
4 min 10 sec ago
hey if she doesnt want tyler
6 min 51 sec ago

Welcome to AfterEllen.com!

by Grace Chu

Featured

PETA's new ad gets banned for abuse of vegetables

Recent blog posts

New forum topics

Active Topics

New Comments