Thursday, January 29, 2009
Touching her breast with her hand while eating broccoli
It's only with inauthentic regret that I apologize, in the past few days, for posting on subjects of prurient interest.
But it's hard to ignore a virile video which has created the double-controversy of being banned from the airwaves for the Superbowl broadcast, and angering feminists because it objectifies women while encouraging people to abandon meat as a foodstuff.
I respect vegetarians. Some of my best friends are vegetarians. I am not. I will eat most things that don't move, and some that do.
The ad in question is suggestive, though hardly pornographic. They would have been smart to add a nearly naked handsome young man to the mix.
There's a longer discussion needed. Are any ads which use these tactics worth banning, or should they be protected as free-speech? When does the erotic cross the line into objectification? What's a man to do when he sees an ad like this and his lizard brain is saying, "Well, yes, give me veggies!" Is a vegetarian lifestyle the appropriate lifestyle for all of us? And what's wrong with a little chicken now and again?
BTW, here's the hamster on a piano, referred to in one of the linked articles.
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Who woulda thunk it: Soft vegetable-porn! Maybe they shoulda photographed some cute heifers being artificially inseminated. And, from the carnivore/omnivore side, someone blasting some mega broccoli farts, seems just right for Super Bowl. How about a scratch and sniff for the odor of urine after just one tiny stalk of asparagus...This low brow message from PETA is not my pasta primavera and lowers my opinion of the group!
First: Nothing can lower my opinon of PETA.
Second: On the subject of banning this crappy ad, I'm thinking this nothing-burger ad would have passed the morality test had they not tagged it with the "S" word. America really needs to get over its habit of drawing attention to such human traits as sex and nudity. Making a big deal of it, makes it a big deal. Like telling a kid not to do something...which they ultimately will do out of spite, or because someone brought it to their attention.
Anyway, I don't know if that was very well written. I'm tired. But I do know this...I've seen hornier Coca Cola commercials.
No matter what strategy PETA employs, their message is totally obscene to the “pro-obesity” corporate special interests.
Once again some advertising creative genius has managed to dupe the public into watching a "banned" ad and starting yet another meaningless conversation steeped in stereotypes and anger. I can assure you this ad was intentionally made to be banned and to garner as much media attention as possible by going "viral" on youtube. I'm sure it also received numerous hits on main stream media outlets, news organizations, blogs (even this one) and the like. It really isn't a question of free speech protection. That would be the easy way out and exactly one of the avenues that the promoters want you to take thereby keeping their ad in the media spotlight whilst innumerable pundits and bloggers insert their two cents. The question is how and why the media and public are so easily and cheaply conned into generating such a buzz about a total non-issue. Why doesn't PETA or their ilk actually engage the public in a rational conversation about ethics and health instead of relying on cheap stunts and over the top publicity? Because they're too far down on the food chain (pardon the pun) to get any meaningful public notice. Sad, but true. It's best to ignore this crap and concentrate on real newsworthy stories.
Post a Comment