Sports

PETA Super Bowl ad too sexy for NBC

by Amy Judd | January 27, 2009 at 10:34 am

1507 views | 15 Recommendations | 12 comments

Super Bowl executives at NBC have pulled the plug on a PETA commercial that shows sexy, scantily clad models getting intimate with vegetables, as they say that is shows a level of sexuality that exceeds out standards.

The ad carries the tagline 'Studies show Vegetarians have better sex'.

In one shot, one of the models even rubs a pumpkin over her pelvic region.

Says a PETA rep: "PETA's veggie ads are locked out, while ads for fried chicken and burgers are allowed, even though these foods make Americans fat, sick and boring in bed."

1 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend This comment thread is now closed

Geneva B

at 10:43 on January 27th, 2009

"I'm...too sexy for the veggies...too sexy for the veggies..."

Jörn Guy Süß

at 14:03 on January 27th, 2009

Right. Said Fred. Fred is the pumpkin.

JeffHuang

at 11:46 on January 27th, 2009

I didn't know theres a standard on sexual content for a super bowl commercial.

Jörn Guy Süß

at 14:06 on January 27th, 2009

There isn't. It is cultural Pumpkinophobia. The fear of bulging objects. ;)

ålicanto

at 12:08 on January 27th, 2009

veg*an do it better.. ever heard about ITALIAN veg*an?

ålicanto has contributed a photo to this story.

eastvanray

at 14:52 on January 27th, 2009

I am pretty sure that if the pork industry tried to run the same commercials but with women licking sausages and dry humping roasts they would be denied too.

con10t

at 06:13 on January 28th, 2009

The 'pornography of communication' in action © Jean Baudrillard. When humankind inhabits a world of information overflow, its character is akin to pornography. I suppose that is why pornography always looks more like medical photography than anything erotic. In the story here, Cynically, I hope that the producers had thought of adding a disclaimer about the possibility of yeast infection. In any event, it's one more reason to call TV a 'boob tube'.

erichews

at 03:46 on January 29th, 2009

My guess is that the ad agency knew darned well this ad wouldn't pass NBC's 'standards'. What they wanted was publicity above and beyond what a simple ad placement would have garnered them. Mission accomplished. And all without spending the extra $2 million to actually run it.

Honestly, I see no difference between this and any number of past GoDaddy and Victoria's Secret ads that HAVE run. Ah, double-standards.

Rhonda J Mangus

at 11:25 on January 29th, 2009

erichews, that would be my guess to "... that the ad agency knew darned well this ad wouldn't pass NBC's 'standards'. What they wanted was publicity above and beyond what a simple ad placement would have garnered them. Mission accomplished. And all without spending the extra $2 million to actually run it."

However, I don't agree at all that there is no difference "...between this and any number of past GoDaddy and Victoria's Secret ads..." There is a big difference and the ad definitely does not belong on prime time (my opinion:)).

Thanks for the story, Amy:)