Quantcast

Too Sexy: PETA Ad Not Allowed On NYC Airport Walls

petaadairportscan.jpg The company in charge of advertising for JFK and LaGuardia airports—JCDecaux North America—is the latest to reject PETA for one of their proposed campaigns. We're told by the animal rights organization that the pictured ad was rejected for being "too sexy." A spokesman for PETA also explained:

The ad, which PETA had hoped to display near the full-body scanners that will be installed at the two airports, shows an airport security X-ray scan of a trim woman wearing a bra and panties that are printed with the words "Be Proud of Your Body Scan: Go Vegan." Many studies have shown that eating a vegan diet helps prevent obesity and heart disease. Bob Cilia, executive vice president of sales and marketing for JCDecaux North America, told PETA that the company doesn't "accept nudity or political ads" and added that although he has seen ads that are more risqué, he was just following policy by rejecting PETA's ad.

Well, it's better than the official imagery being used for the scanners, and it's not like the model is wearing flying pasties!

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

Comments [rss]

  • Nikki100

    The problem with the body scanner ad is that it is very misleading. When you go through the body scanner everything is visible. In fact, the scans are so clear that they can tell if a man has been circumcised. The TSA agents look for anything unusual such as a deformity or a colostomy bag so they can share it with their buddies and have a big laugh. Not to mention that you are getting a massive dose of radiation. Now PETA, you would be against radiating animals, so why do you condone it for humans? And now there is a backlash against the scanners from pilots, airline staff and the general public. Do the research yourself, these scanners are unsafe and violate your privacy.

  • Dr. Rosset

    Before you advocate a vegan diet you had better read up on the consequences to young men and women that go beyond eating disorders. The darkside includes death, damage to internal organs and the bones when putting children on this diet. For boys the soy is a real problem and its the only vegetable that comes close to the complex proteins found in cows milk. Where this concept for animal rights comes from is Hitler who used it against his opposition. Singer the leader of the animal rights movement has espoused this line of thinking not because he cares about animals or humans, but just to see how far a strange idea can be carried out in society. His last article in the New York Times called on all of our young people to neuter themselves and then party down until the last human being dies out. The main identifier of a cult is that it requires you to remove meat from your diet on the pretext that it is cleansing. However the real purpose of the cult in having you stop ingesting meat is because meat rebuilds the body and the brain through a balance of complex proteins and essential nutrients in combination with VB12. VB12 and these essential nutrients rebuild the cells of the brain. When you are out of balance and low in VB12 your thinking becomes irrational and your behavior responses are overly emotional.
Here are some recent examples of the consequences of eating a vegan diet on children and young adults:
In a heartbreaking case of parents forcing a vegan diet on a 12-year-old girl in
Scotland. She has been admitted to a hospital after a life-long vegan diet 
left her with the spine of an 80-year-old. Raised on strict vegan meals since birth, the young child is said to have developed a
 severe case of rickets (a degenerative bone condition) and numerous
bone fractures as a result of her nutritional deficiencies. Sadly,
this is not the first time a child has suffered a vegan-related 
health calamity.

    In a similar case five years ago, a 15-month-old child was taken into
foster care after a strict vegan diet left her with internal
injuries, broken bones, missing teeth, and rickets. And since then,
at least two vegan children have died from similar complications. In
one Florida case, a 5-month-old girl was still at newborn weight when
she died from malnutrition. Her siblings were severely malnourished,
and at least two had developed rickets.

    These grievous examples show how important it is to exercise caution
 when promoting vegetarian and vegan diets —especially for children. How many children must suffer in this country due to these ignorant and strict adherence to dangerous diets

    A vegan diet may lack vitamin B12, found only in animal foods; usable
 vitamins A and D, found in meat, fish, eggs and butter; and necessary
 minerals like calcium and zinc. When babies are deprived of all these 
nutrients, they will suffer from retarded growth, rickets and nerve 
damage.

    As animal activists tout the supposed superiority of meatless eating,
it’s important to note that a vegan diet can be downright dangerous
 unless it’s undertaken with extreme caution. Not all people can digest
 protein from plant material and especially children. Extra steps like vitamin
 supplements and careful planning are particularly crucial for kids,
since their bodies are not fully developed. Yet vegan activists at 
PETA and the woefully misnamed Physicians Committee for Responsible
 Medicine (PCRM) continue to push vegan diets on children.

    Some 12 million infants and young children die each year in
developing countries from complications of marasmus (protein-calorie
deficiency) and kwashiorkor (severe protein deficiency). Diarrhea,
dehydration, and infection are generally the immediate causes of
death in malnourished children. Kwashiorkor manifests clinically with
stunted growth, mental apathy, edema, a desquamating patchy rash, and
pigment changes in the hair and skin. Children with marasmus
typically retain mental alertness and do not have edema or rash.
Autopsies of children dying of kwashiorkor and marasmus show
pancreatic atrophy or fibrosis and fatty changes or fibrosis in
the liver.

    Malnutrition is one of the many risks when raising infants on a vegan 
diet.

  • jmelton

    This ill-informed rant by "Dr. Rosset" (who, if a doctor, is certainly not one with any knowledge of nutrition!) engages in ad hominem attacks against the likes of PCRM without addressing the data that not only they, but many mainstream sources such as the American Dietetic Association, present that a vegan diet is generally very healthy. A few case studies of people who suffered health damage as a result of a poorly-planned vegan diet says absolutely nothing about the healthfulness of a vegan diet. It is possible to eat either a healthy or unhealthy vegan or non-vegan diet, but on the whole, those who follow a vegan diet have quite low rates of heart disease, Type 2 diabetes, and other health maladies that are commonplace among those following the typical animal product-heavy diet.

  • boogpowell

    Just had a delicious bacon cheeseburger.

  • Cannibal

    me too!

  • Although their advocacy is good but we need to follow the rules of other institution. The rules are rules no excuses.

  • youngpro

    as if to say 'going vegan' will give you this paid model's body.

  • Guest

    Exactly! Shouldn't PETA be forced to add a "results not typical" disclaimer?

  • Guest

    PETA is traitorous to the human race. If we weren't supposed to eat cows, they wouldn't make the same noise we make when eating them. "Mmmmmmmmm... Ooh, that was a damn good steak!"

  • Cannibal

    this we agree on

  • Love Your Life

    Fuck animals… I love meats, leather shoes and belts. I would like to think this applies to most men. The women… meat lovers, skin bags half the size of their bodies, furs and skin jackets, skin boots that cover their entire leg. Good examples to target women. Oh yeah… FUCK PETA!!!

  • thefacts

    Sexism is not exploitative? I guess you are not a woman.

    "it's not exploitation in a similar sense that the food industry exploits animals"

    Again, the usual PETAphile argument equating animals to humans.

  • Dogsbody

    I assume your post was meant as a reply to mine...

    Firstly, the issue of "sexism not being exploitave" -I thought I'd explained fairly clearly what I mean by this the first time round. It is "sexist" in the sense that PETA uses images of women, not images of men (if that is what constitutes sexism). But it is certainly not exploitative (unless anyone can actually explain how this picture "exploits" anyone).

    Its pretty easy to think of plenty of examples of sexism that do not involve exploitation, and vice-versa, so I don't know why you think the two necessarily go hand in hand.

    As for "it's not exploitation in a similar sense that the food industry exploits animals" - again, I think it's fairly obvious the first time round. You were suggesting that what PETA is doing in "objectifying women" is somehow comparable to the things it campaigns against. Even I were to accept that this picture is some form of exploitation, I would seriously have to be mentally deranged to think that this exploitation is in anyway comparable to how livestock is treated.

    "Again, the usual PETAphile argument equating animals to humans." Wha?? When did I do such a thing?

  • camera_club

    pretty cool ad if you ask me. mention the word "vegan" and you guys spiral into a shit storm of repressed guilt and refusal to acknowledge all the fatty meats you stuff your face with is directly related to those fat rolls you're so ashamed of

  • ides_of_march

    PETA aside, those nudie scanners are a disgrace to a free country.

  • robingee

    Time to get to the gym, idesy!

  • Lupe

    Like them or not, PETA does come up with some creative ads. They got an award this year for two of their commercials - one about Thanksgiving and the Super Bowl ad they did with the naked ladies and vegetables.

    I think people get a little too freaked out by nudity in this country. Every time PETA comes out with a sexy ad, you'd think by the outrage that we'd stepped back into Victorian times. Lighten up, people.

  • robingee

    I disagree. If PETA used women's bodies occasionally to make a point it would be one thing, but constantly with the naked chicks! I mean, come on PETA, seriously. I know they have used men before but always with humor (i.e. David Cross) and for an organization that is so socially conscious they should really cool it with the sexist ads. It's overkill.

  • Dogsbody

    "you'd think by the outrage that we'd stepped back into Victorian times"

    Absolutely - it's not even like this photo is provocative in any way. If she was in in a suggestive pose, or was built like a pornstar, then maybe I could understand everyone's hoop-la about this exploiting women.

    And people's outrage is so selective... are people equally upset about every image of scantily dressed women, or just when it involves PETA?

  • La Flama Blanca

    "Absolutely - it's not even like this photo is provocative in any way. If she was in in a suggestive pose, or was built like a pornstar, then maybe I could understand everyone's hoop-la about this exploiting women."

    Cute. You obviously don't watch a lot of porn, gramps. ;)

blog comments powered by Disqus

send a tip

tips@gothamist.com