“PETA’s ad—which features a bevy of beauties who are powerless to resist the temptation of veggie love—was deemed too hot for the Super Bowl XLIII. NBC rejected the ad because of concerns over “rubbing pelvic region with pumpkin.”

Kelly O—formerly a Stranger staff photographer, music writer, Drunk of the Week columnist, and more!—finished art school and a soul-crushing internship at a corporate advertising agency in Detroit,...

25 replies on “Lunchtime Quickie”

  1. Oh geezus.

    First of all, I’m not giving my diet the credit.

    Second. . . PETA is like the embarrassing drunk uncle of sane vegetarians.

  3. Lame with a capitol L,A,M and E.
    I would reject that add based on the theme music alone.
    However banning that add because of the pumpkin is dumb.

  4. Yay PETA!

    Probably didn’t want to spend all that money for superbowl airtime anyway so they added a dash of controversy and got everyone to watch it for free.

    Watch and learn, my pretties, watch and learn…

  5. PETA didn’t seriously think that ad would make it into superbowl advertising, did they?

    Were they unaware of all the idiotic controversy about Janet Jackson’s revolting tit?

  8. PETA has often stupid and ridiculous advertising and stunts, but that’s how they raise money from rich people and celebrities. They do a lot of great work still, like their “tax meat” plan to fight the #1 cause of global warming and obesity that Obama is implementing at the factory farm level (but, unfortunately, not at the consumer level).

    http://www.taxmeat.com

  14. I knew it! PETA is actually a secret mouthpiece for the Veggiesexual agenda! That means they’re in league with all the characters from Family Circus!

  15. “PETA is like the embarrassing drunk uncle of sane vegetarians.”

    Oh god, totally.

    Even after becoming vegan I’m embarassed of PETA.

  16. if i may play devil’s advocate for a moment —

    television advertisements are almost always corporate propaganda; once in a while they’re political. nowhere is the corporate pollution more evident than the super bowl.

    PETA is a non-profit organization with a message that their members evidently endorse.

    so my question is this: what justifies banning the exchange of ideas? why is corporate propaganda deemed safer than a non-profit corporation without an agenda to make themselves rich?

    KUDOS TO PETA. i’d much rather hear and consider ideas that i may disagree with than suffer through yet another appeal to my sexuality, or my livelihood, or whatever, in an effort to get me to buy more crap that i don’t need.

  19. I wonder if PETA is riffing on the early 20th-century meaning of the “vegetable love”, which was primarily associated with teh gays (in particular Oscar Wilde.) Vegetable love = a Platonic, unconsummatable relationship (commonly practiced by homosexuals, natch.)

  20. What’s funny is that PETA just helped pass an animal rights law in California. After passing a string of similar laws in other states in prior years. Hi-LAR-ious.

    Free media. Public engaged. Laws passed. Agenda achieved. Funny funny joke! Ha HA!

  21. Saddle-backing: Sexual relations with Curbitaceae or other gourd-like squash for moral reasons dictated by a strange cult-like religion loosely based on Jainism.

  24. Aren’t vegetarians like 70% women? Why would you appeal to people who make up, at most, 30% of your target demo?

    Unless…unless, somehow, an activity doesn’t have prestige unless it’s male-identified?

Comments are closed.