Father Tony

Two Girls, One Pumpkin

Filed By Father Tony | January 27, 2009 1:00 PM | comments

Filed in: Entertainment, Media
Tags: PETA, PETA naked women, PETA Super Bowl ad

See, this is what's wrong with America.

I am told that the following PETA ad was rejected for use during the Super Bowl.

This is a great ad. Stylish, sly, elegant, sexy, focused, memorable and humorous. And I'm not even straight!

I like its ambiguous editing. Definitely two women involved, but it is not clear if they are stalking the produce together or separately. Men, by omission, must be defined as meat.

I'm sure the ad was rejected because it is just so damn sensual. Surely not because of some persistent human/vegetable sex taboo. (If you have never involved some kind of plant matter in your love-making, whether solo or with others, I suspect you're in the minority. Come on now, those with your hands up, no peanut butter? Olive oil? Ha. I thought so.)

Let's cut to the moral chase here, America. This ad is not going to harm your children. Shapely women undress on the TV screens of our country every five minutes of every day of the year. Food and sex are constantly paired in TV ads, albeit with less vavoom.

I think what happened here is that some TV execs with unresolved guilt over private sex with a vegetable were alrmed that a green light might expose their dirty secret. That is the usual story behind censorship.

Enjoy, and know that no cucumbers were harmed in the production of this post.

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


That commercial is so wrong on so many levels.

Jason, continue. (And know that sometimes, I like to sound only one note so that everyone else can fill in the real melody.)

As a relatively non-preachy vegetarian, it baffles me how irrationally upset it make some people to even discuss the idea of vegetarianism. It's also really cool to rip on PETA without actually knowing much about their larger mission, so I look forward to hearing more of that.

Oh, please. Somebody saved PETA a lot of money. The point is lost in the quick cuts and close-ups. Excellent style, no substance. Reminds me of the early Infiniti ads.

Does PETA realize that women will see this ad? This does not make me want to take up their cause. They sacrifice women for the sake of animals. Not on my paycheck they don't.

I'm going to guess that not too many people would be convinced to go vegetarian by this ad. Being vegetarian requires introspection, self-control, and a mild amount of abnegation, which is pretty much the opposite of the message this ad is sending.

And, yeah, PETA doesn't seem to be all that great at finding allies, especially since they just laugh off feminist concerns and continue to produce ads like this.

Perhaps they should have just used this ad to convince people to call fish "sea kittens"? Then it would have been completely useless and no one would feel bad if they wasted their money.

I loved it.
Sensual, erotic without being tasteless, and. well, the women were....ummmm...'very attractive.'
and what was it about?

I don't take issue with the fact that this is a pro-vegitarian/vegan ad *waves her little vegan pride flag* what I do have a problem with is the objectification of women in this piece. Sex sells (this isn't new, in fact, one could argue how unoriginal this ad is) but I'm not quite ready to have any cause advocated by sexual objectification.

While I understand the pull to promote the "Look at these boobies bouncing around. Do we have your attention now? Good. Bouncing Boobies=no meat. Repeat. Got that? Want more boobies? Then put down that ham sandwhich" school of thought, it also insults the target audience.

This ad isn't clever, it isn't being pro-sex or sucessfully satrical. It is just degrading.

Yes, well that was strange. So we shouldn't think of animals as objects but it is now ok to objectify the women here.
Kudos for trying to present their vegagenda but strikes all around for their massively distasteful treatment of women.
Once again these folks have lost site of the big picture in the vagaries of tunnel vision.

Vegagenda vs. Vagenda: Why are they even pitted against one another?

It has that cheesy T&A, beer commercial/ Whitesnake video sexist vibe going for it. PETA do some good things; they have some good education campaigns, but stuff like this really tends to turn people off.
I know quite a few feminist vegans who have toyed with the thought of actively campaigning against them, like Friends of Animals have done with their "Lettuce Respect women and animals" campaign".

In arguing for veganism, PETA often emphasizes humans' moral imperative against the exploitation of animals for food, clothes, and entertainment. So why would PETA choose to endorse vegetarianism by similarly exploiting women?

Father Tony, you say that "Men, by omission, must be defined as meat." I disagree. Although they're not visible in the ad, men aren't omitted at all.

By saying that you liked the ad even though you're not straight, you're clearly identifying the target audience as straight men. Straight men definitely are not omitted; this ad is all about them. This ad is saying hey beer-drinking football-watching straight men, vegetarianism equals women and vegetables as consumables, i.e., sex and food.

Sure, food and sex can go together. But let's look at the choices made. It was a conscious & highly political choice to have only women in this ad. PETA's not trying to excite any straight women into being vegetarians.

Notice how the camera focuses on these women's isolated body parts-- sounds like meat to me! Serve me up some rump roast in panties! Young, white meat only!

In trying to be so "stylish" and "elegant," this ad only reinforces exploitative views of women-- apparently the trade-off for not exploiting animals. PETA: Eat women, not animals!

Louisa, you may have gotten to the core of this.

A Vegetarian advert, and what do they show? A meat market.

I personally don't feel insulted by it - a little jealous maybe, but not insulted. Many women do though. As if the only thing women are good for is as instruments to give men pleasure.

Had it not been for the history of male oppression of women, and had it not been for the continuing slavery of women in many barbaric nations, then the libertarian in me would have said "what's the harm?".

It was so over-the-top though, so much a self-parody, that I have difficulty taking the issue as seriously as it deserves. We have more important things to concern us. Background like this doesn't help, so yes, we should register our objections. Then move on.

Robert Ganshorn Robert Ganshorn | January 28, 2009 8:53 AM

Fr Tony I think your typo is most revealing and from what I have seen above no one has mentioned it.


..."TV execs with unresolved guilt over private sex with a vegetable were alrmed..."

How close to all rimmed it that?