(no subject)
Jan. 28th, 2009 08:40 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
blahflowersHere's the PETA advert that's apparently not going to be shown during the Superbowl because it's 'too sexy'. I would have thought a more valid reason would have been it's 'too shit', but then I suspect it's rather difficult to make pumpkin lickin' look sexy.
But it does seem that PETA are incapable of doing anything these days unless it involves naked women in it somewhere. The 'action' against cows milk had a couple of naked pregnant women in a stall somewhere a few years back, classy! Are all PETA advertising campaigns now worked out on the basis of how they will use breasts to campaign against cruelty to animals?
But it does seem that PETA are incapable of doing anything these days unless it involves naked women in it somewhere. The 'action' against cows milk had a couple of naked pregnant women in a stall somewhere a few years back, classy! Are all PETA advertising campaigns now worked out on the basis of how they will use breasts to campaign against cruelty to animals?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-01-28 09:56 am (UTC)ITA that they can't seem to have any advert without naked women now, and that it's a bit creepy. I know sex sells, but other stuff sells too, you know?
no subject
Date: 2009-01-30 02:24 am (UTC)I am fed up of ads where women get ecstatically aroused by or involved with non-sexual things instead of other human beings. Shampoo. Fabric conditioner. And now vegetables. Makes us look stupid. Satisfied by the presence of a broccoli floret. Yeah right, that makes me want to touch myself.
But the ad has usefully convinced me once and for all that there is no use giving PETA's publicity tactics any kind of benefit of the doubt.