PETA Ad Nixed By Airports & In-Flight Magazines

On the heels of Scottevest CEO Scott Jordan’s rant about Delta denying his ad in their in-flight literature comes news that PETA is having trouble finding airline magazines and airports that will run the ad seen here.

The ad attempts to spin a vegan-positive message out of the growing number of full-body scanners, and the fact that both females and males have had too much revealed by the devices’ all-seeing eyes.

It was first smacked by the denial hammer in May, when Southwest said it was too inappropriate to be included their in-flight magazine. And it’s not having any more luck.

Writes Jaunted.com:

The issue recently resurfaced as PETA attempted to get the ad placement on the walls of New York’s LaGuardia and JFK Airports, specifically as close to the actual security check as possible. These airports don’t have full-body scanners yet, but they are on the list for upcoming installation. In this case, it’s the ad company–JCDecaux–and not the airports that rejected the ads, so keep your eyes open for the X-Ray underwear girl at other airports.

What do you think of the ads? Is it that they are too risque for family-friendly reading or are the airlines and airports just trying to downplay news about full-body scanners?

PETA’s Naughty Body Scan Ad Rejected from In-Flight Magazines and Airports [Jaunted]

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. mister_roboto says:

    All PETA is about is making ads, and collecting money to defend domestic terrorists. They want “total animal liberation” that includes pets.

  2. hotcocoa says:

    Hate PETA. They want fair treatment of animals and continue to objectify women as pieces of meat. I’m surprised they even have the woman in underwear in this ad, usually they strip them butt naked. Do they honestly not see the irony in their actions?

    • pop top says:

      But don’t you understand? Humans are terrible. Animals never have wars. You can’t hug your kids with nuclear arms.

      (/hopes someone gets the reference)

      • Aennan says:

        /touched by grim reaper/

      • wiggie2gone says:

        cue more Family Guy references

      • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

        Actually, there is a huge ant war going on in California as we speak. With a defined but constantly shift battle line.

        http://articles.latimes.com/2001/may/10/news/tt-61455 was the only thing I could find quickly, but I listened to an NPR interview with an expert.

        • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:
        • pop top says:

          I hope you posted that as a joke…

          • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

            Actually no, I was serious. Is there something wrong with learning something new? Science is fascinating.

        • MrEvil says:

          Back in the 70’s we had this great pesticide called Heptachlor. Its a dry powder that is VERY adept at annihilating ant colonies. It’s use though, was as a seed treatment. A few dumbass farm hands who had a Carmex habit get mouth cancers and our best weapon against the Fire ant menace is banned.

          My dad still has a couple cases of this stuff he has preserved in an old Milk Cooler out on the farm. Sprinkle roughly a teaspoon of it right near the entrances to the colony and the ants will track it all over their nest, eventually to the queen and the entire colony will be dead in days.

      • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

        Family Guy. Awesome!

        But to be serious, I had a neighbor who hated hearing about me using traps, etc… to catch mice or whatever. I never understood this because I have seen what my cats do to a mouse when they catch it. It usually consists of 15 minutes of them toying with the poor creature until they bore of it, and THEN kill it. Tip: Angel is NOT whispering into this mouses ear.

    • Cheap Sniveler: Sponsored by JustAnswer.comâ„¢ says:

      You mean, women are not just meat? But, PETA treats them like meat, right?

    • Dre' says:

      Nice try, but I know a few overweight vegetarians. Here is a hint: there is no meat in bread or beer.

    • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

      Women choose to objectify themselves. Animals do not have a choice. Big difference.

      • Cheap Sniveler: Sponsored by JustAnswer.comâ„¢ says:

        .Kitties in bikinis? huh?

      • hotcocoa says:

        You are right that no one is forcing these women to strip and get naked.
        But no one is forcing PETA to be sleazy and use sex to push their agenda either. How can you have women wearing lettuce leaves on the street hold up signs that say “support ethical treatment of animals” and not expect people to say wtf? What does a naked/barely covered woman have to do with animal rights???

      • pop top says:

        Would you say that women are asking for it? Or in fact, deserve it?

      • veritybrown says:

        Women wouldn’t be making the choice to objectify themselves if there wasn’t a pay-off in it for them. And there wouldn’t be a pay-off in it for them if men didn’t want to see women as objects.

        Note that many domestic pets “choose” to be pets because there’s a pay-off in it for them: they get food and shelter and affection. Until my psychotic neighbor started shooting at neighborhood cats, mine were free every day to go make a life for themselves in the wild as feral cats. Oddly enough, they always chose to come home.

        Like most environmental organizations, PETA thinks animals ALWAYS matter more than people do. If any animal species started killing its own young at the same rate that human beings do (through abortion), the eco-freaks would be having a conniption and screaming for millions of dollars to find a solution to prevent it from happening. People, however, are expendable in the minds of these crazies. Have you seen the 10:10 video?

        I’m not in the least surprised that PETA would run an ad objectifying women. Women are people, and people don’t matter.

        • Kryndar says:

          Trying to not get sucked into this off topic rant, my rant that is, but I think it is going to happen. Okay, preamble, I can only speak for myself here, I do not know how other men think and are not trying to speak for them. I take issue with your statement of “And there wouldn’t be a pay-off in it for them if men didn’t want to see women as objects.” I think that that is assuming a lot about how people view the situation. It is entirely possible for a man to see an attractive women and recognize that she is attractive without viewing her as an object. Almost all advertising uses attractive men and women, adds like this simply take it to the next level. That is not to say that it can no be considered inappropriate and demeaning but I would not say that ads using sex appeal as a selling point are nessesarially objectifying anyone. That being said one could certainly make the argument that this ad does as it cuts off the woman’s head from the photo thereby, arguable, removing the personality. That being said I hate these sorts of ads PETA puts out and this was mainly a rant about the term objectification, sure some men may objectify a women in an ad but I would argue that an ad using sex appeal is not necessarialy objectifying within itself.

          • veritybrown says:

            I think you pointed to the answer yourself: this ad is clearly objectifying women by cutting off the woman’s head.

            As for the general idea of linking the commercial manipulation of female sex appeal with “objectification,” I really hate to come down on the ultra-feminist side of this, but do you really think that when most men see a sexually appealing woman in an ad, they’re giving a single thought to her intelligence, her opinions, her feelings, or any non-sexual means of relating to her? Ad designers are counting on the likelihood that men will have a Pavlovian reaction to the female body, and will buy the product because they subconsciously want to “own” the model’s sexuality–not the living, thinking, feeling model; just her sexuality.

            Men don’t buy Playboys so they can find out how kind and intelligent the models are. A sexy woman in a centerfold is a far less demanding imaginary sex partner than a real woman. The man who pays money to use this image as an imaginary sex partner is, in a very real sense, objectifying her. Yes, she is well paid for it. But there wouldn’t be a market if there wasn’t a demand.

            • Kryndar says:

              I’d say that pornography and erotica are a whole different kettle of fish. I personally think that advertising that uses sex to sell is not within itself objectification, it may be done with the assumption that some men, or women, down the line with objectify the model but that is still by the end consumer. I was going to briefly mention some of my views on porn and erotica but that would, I think, turn this into FAAAAAAR too long of a post. I could also get into objectification of men but again different kettle of fish and frankly I’d rather leave this exchange as pleasant, civil, and short. Errr that is not to say I am trying to stop you from saying anything else but as is I think our difference of opinion on objectification is rooted in exactly how each of us defines it.

        • brianary says:

          Sorry, but people *are* objects–however remarkable–otherwise I challenge you to transcend your body to become a being of pure intellect. This ancient nonsense phrase must die.

          “Like most environmental organizations…”? This is the sort of statement that makes me suspect that PETA is a strawman funded by Fox.

  3. momtimestwo says:

    I like it! But I’m vegan and don’t look anything like that. The ad isn’t as in-your-face and shocking (and offensive) as some of their others.

  4. pop top says:

    Turning women’s bodies into political statements isn’t working out for them? How terrible…

    Also, being vegan doesn’t necessarily mean you’re healthy. I’ve met plenty of vegans/vegetarians that were anemic or constantly got sick or didn’t eat a balanced diet but still maintained they were healthy because they didn’t eat meat (or animal products as well in the case of vegans). More power to people who want to be healthy, but you have to be smart about it no matter the diet.

    • Slave For Turtles says:

      The vegans I knew were fat (not plump, mind you) and grumpy despite plenty of walking/biking to and fro (“we’re so eco-friendly that we don’t even use mass-transit” sort of folks). Not exactly poster children for the life-style.

    • YouDidWhatNow? says:

      I have never met a vegan/vegetarian that looks “healthy” to me. There’s a reason why people eat meat – we’re supposed to.

      And, on the flipside, while there’s plenty of fat omnivores rumbling about, there’s plenty of them that are in good shape too. I wonder…is the hottie that posed for that photo a vegan?

  5. GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

    They endorse and actually kill pets. Is that not enough reason to not run their ads? To say that I abuse my cats and dog because I keep them as pets is idiotic. To actually kill animals rather than adopt them out so they don’t suffer the abuse of being a pet is even idioticer.

    • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

      Okay, I was neutral on PETA until you said this.I had no clue about this. I looked up their position on pets and it is absolutely the most idiotic thing I have ever seen:

      http://www.peta.org/about/why-peta/pets.aspx

      Our relationship with animals benefits both us and them. I can tell you my little pug is quite happy sitting curled up at my feet. He has never suffered an ounce of misery. He is well kept and loves us as much as we love him.

      What assholes.

      • Cheap Sniveler: Sponsored by JustAnswer.comâ„¢ says:

        Peta would like your little pug to roam free. Think of it, Packs of wild pugs, roaming FREE, just like they did in ancient times!

        Except, Pugs were created by humans, and could never survive in the wild. Sorry, PETA.

        (BTW, packs of wild dogs eat )

        • Cheap Sniveler: Sponsored by JustAnswer.comâ„¢ says:

          Packs of wild dogs eat MEAT

        • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

          Actually, because they were created and abused by man, PETA believes it is more humane to kill them then to have them suffer trying to survive.

        • JulesNoctambule says:

          I think the combined cuteness of a pack of pugs would have the power to stun their potential prey into submission in seconds. They’d thrive.

        • Conformist138 says:

          Interestingly, in this case, PETA prefers they all die. Pugs can’t live wild. They can’t mate properly without human intervention (mostly the birthing is a problem, but actual copulation can also be difficult). It’s just what happens when a species has been selectively bred for so long. For this reason, PETA thinks they are unworthy of continued existence. They love animals, but not if those animals now have their very evolution tied to humans.

          My pug is the most spoiled brat imaginable. If someone put him in the woods to fend for himself, he’d be pissed about not having his bed and teddy bear. Try telling him that he’s better off either out in the wild or dead, I imagine he would disagree.

  6. Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

    This is the first PETA anything that I am not offended by.

  7. shepd says:

    I wasn’t aware that eating a diet that, without effort, lacks basic nutrients would improve your body scan.

  8. KillerBee says:

    PETA isn’t interested in actually having anyone run the ads. They get their message out by simply making media outlets like this one to run stories featuring ads they “might run” or are supposedly “trying to run”. They’ve done this countless times with billboards, now they’ve moved on to magazine ads.

    Wake up, Consumerist. You are a pawn in their little game.

  9. FatLynn says:

    I don’t think that is risque at all. As much as I hate PETA, I am going to side with them over the TSA on this one.

  10. Cheap Sniveler: Sponsored by JustAnswer.comâ„¢ says:

    I proudly support PETA!

    Wait, that doesn’t stand for

    People for the
    Eating of
    Tasty
    Animals?

    Never mind.

    • Anri says:

      Ahahahahaahahahahahahahahahaha. Ahahahahahahahahaha. Hahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahaha.

    • PAZ002 says:

      If that is what PETA means, then I am a true blue supporter of the cause.

    • Framling says:

      Oh man, now tell the one about ‘vegetarian’ being the Indian word for ‘bad hunter!’

      I just never get tired of these same jokes, no matter how many hundreds or thousands of times I hear them!

    • katsuyakaiba says:

      I thought it means
      Popsicle
      Eating
      To
      Anybody

  11. pecan 3.14159265 says:

    PETA has used all sorts of tactics to promote its idiotic view of what is right. It promoted veganism because of ethnics…poor animals, they should be allowed to roam free as the wind, never to be confined by horrible, evil humans. Then it went with the “veganism is better for the environment” tactic*. Now it’s all about being skinnier – and as a side effect, equating veganism with being healthier* because hey, if you were a vegan, you’d look skinnier and associating skinniness with healthiness isn’t a stereotype at all or anything…I don’t think much of PETA anyway, but this time they’re really getting dangerous because they’re perpetuating assumptions society already makes about body size.

    * Who knows, veganism may be better for the environment or your health – but PETA’s methods are often insane so the message (regardless of how much truth it has, if any) is lost.

  12. apd09 says:

    I find PETA to be a PITA.

  13. sufreak says:

    I agree with PETA on some things. I don’t think animals should be cruelly treated. But I don’t think its natural to assume people shouldn’t eat animals.

    Animals eat animals. And we have those sharp meat eating teeth that carnivores have. And some flat plant eating teeth. Combine them, we are omnivores.

    As for PETA using women, naked, etc. Good for them.

    Its not about objectifying as much as getting attention. There’s nothing wrong with being attracted to a female (or male) body.

    And if you see something attractive, you pay attention. If the ad says women are stupid, have no brains and should only be used for physical pleasure, thats different.

    Relax a bit people.

    • hotcocoa says:

      Er, you act as if they do have ads with naked male bodies. How many ads do they have with men? I can think of *one* with Pink’s husband from years ago. They reduce women to sex objects all the time and try and convince people to treat animals fairly…yeah no. Nothing more than ridiculous attention seekers that undermine their own cause with their stupid ads.

      • sufreak says:

        Actually, they have ads with male bodies. They’re not as common, because frankly speaking, male bodies aren’t as attractive. (This isn’t a gay thing, its an aesthetics thing). The female body is curvy, smooth and flows. The male body doesn’t.

        Women aren’t as interested in products showcased by men. Otherwise, Cosmo, etc, would have men on the cover. But they have attractive women. (I agree, it sets a bad unattainable example for girls, but that’s a different story.)

        • hotcocoa says:

          I love how you speak for all women in some sweeping statement. I love the male body. I will take a statue of David over Venus any day, so your logic doesn’t really hold up.
          Anyways, women are on women’s mags because they showcase clothes, hairstyles, etc. for their targeted audience. How could you have men on Cosmo displaying the latest “fashion?”
          And we’re not talking about ads in general, we are talking about PETA pushing naked women. Two different topics.

        • JulesNoctambule says:

          ‘male bodies aren’t as attractive’

          Maybe not to you, but I happen to disagree.

    • BarbiCat says:

      Gee, thanks for mansplaining that to us! I guess we can stop bothering our tiny little brains with issues like the sexual exploitation of women in advertising, and go back to the kitchens, eh? I’m so glad to know you’re watching out for us wimmenz here, otherwise no one would be around to tell us what not to get offended by.

    • BuyerOfGoods3 says:

      Please, please – show me one PETA ad with a Naked Man and i’ll switch to Vegan.

  14. dolemite says:

    So much irony.
    #1. Airports implemented the full body scans, and they are far more intrusive than the ad, yet they tell us the ads are “inappropriate”? What does that make your nude scans? Mega-inappropriate?
    #2. Airlines are hurting for cash, coming up for fees for using the bathroom on planes, yet they are turning down advertising dollars?

    • BDSanta2001 says:

      Scanners are to “protect” us from terrorists. Wouldn’t make much sense to run a Taliban ad in an airport. PETA are domestic terrorists.

  15. cmdr.sass says:

    The real reason they won’t run the ad is because it would offend muslims and that’s the last thing we want to do at an airport.

  16. aloria says:

    I have known plenty of vegetarians and vegans who were fat little chunks. You can get fat on pretty much any diet if you eat too much or too fattening foods. Hell, french fries are vegan.

  17. Moosehawk says:

    Thanks PETA for constantly reminding me you are most useless and most idiotic organization on the face of the earth.

  18. Hoss says:

    Risque? I haven’t seen a girl with that much underwear in years.

    • Cheap Sniveler: Sponsored by JustAnswer.comâ„¢ says:

      You obviously have never lived in Utah, and have never seen “Magic Undergarments”

  19. quieterhue says:

    Whether or not you agree with PETA’s tactics/values, the denial of this ad on “appropriateness” grounds is highly dubious. There are ads showing scantily clad women all over the place. Ask yourself this, if the Hawaiian Tourism Board wanted to post an add showing a woman in a pooka shell bra and grass skirt, do you think they would be refused? Hell no.

    • evnmorlo says:

      Maybe what’s inappropriate is that she’s not naked. Those underwear both undermine efforts to make the public comfortable with strip searches, and weaken confidence in the scanners to detect weapons.

    • veritybrown says:

      Do you really think that “appropriateness” was the real reason it was denied? If a group of neo-nazis wanted to run an ad in their magazine, don’t you think that the publisher would grasp at ANY possible reason, no matter how inoffensive the actual ad was, to tell them no? I don’t blame Delta or Southwest at all for not wanting to associate themselves with PETA.

    • Duffin (Ain't This Kitty Cute?) says:

      I would have respect for the airline if they didn’t approve the ad due to it’s untruthful message. Veganism isn’t healthy by any means. Humans are meant to be omnivores. Whether you want to eat free range chicken or not is up to you, but to soley eat vegetables and nothing else, not even milk or eggs is not healthy or natural.

      • psm321 says:

        Believe whatever lets you sleep at night… let’s ignore the fact that the vast majority of apes (who have teeth and digestive systems very similar to humans — the argument people like to use) don’t eat meat

        Of course PETA is stupid about it… I think everyone can agree on that

    • hotcocoa says:

      A quick search on Google to the official site http://www.hawaiitourismauthority.org doesn’t show any women like you describe, it actually shows women in Hawaiin print outfits and tube tops/tube dresses so um yeah. Non-issue. I think they think ahead about that stuff.
      I think someone should look at the ads that are in the magazine already – do you see Vidtoria’s Secret ads or ads of that nature? If those are missing, it’s safe to say PETA was just looking for attention yet again.

    • IThinkThereforeIAm says:

      Maybe the real reason is that this ad further highlights the whole “we can see through your clothes” issue…

  20. Miz_Ivy says:

    I don’t care that the add is risque, I care that it is totally misleading. Being vegan is not going to give you a body like that–in fact, the opposite is more likely to be true. If you eat no animal products you usually have to eat an insane amount of calories daily to fulfill your body’s nutritional (mainly protein) requirements. Though I am sure there are exceptions, everyone I have known that started eating vegan blew up like balloons. When I was vegetarian for two years, I gained quite a bit of weight myself as my diet consisted mainly of bread and potatoes. Though there are ways to eat healthy while being vegan, being vegan does not automatically equal healthy.

  21. ElizabethD says:

    Whatever one thinks of PETA, I cannot find anything remotely R-rated (or even PG-13) about this ad. Objectifying women? Sure, but if that were the only criteria, a crapload of ads currently running in magazines would never see print. So no big deal on that score.

    • veritybrown says:

      I think the real question for the magazines *is* want people think of PETA. Do they really want their readers to link PETA with Delta and Southwest? Admittedly, it would be more courageous to come right out and say, “We won’t accept ads from your organization because we find your philosophies and actions objectionable.” But considering that PETA is a violent eco-terrorist organization, can you really blame the publishers for trying to find any remotely plausible “good excuse,” instead of offending (and possibly provoking) them with the truth?

  22. Donathius says:

    Whenever I hear “Think of the children” types of arguments my mind flashes back to some of the cartoon characters of my youth. Minor characters like Minerva Mink from Tiny Toons and Hello Nurse from Animaniacs. I think Minerva was only in one cartoon but it stuck in my mind because she was hot and they kept nearly showing her naked.

  23. A42NT1 says:

    What a great idea… next time I’m going through the airport body scanner security line, I’ll come prepared with aluminum foil letters “FUTSA” taped to my ample gut. Sure, the ensuing body cavity search will be an inconvenience, but oh, the laughs!

  24. tkates says:

    The underwear is fine. The delusion that going vegan makes you skinny is not.

  25. tkates says:

    The underwear is fine. The delusion that going vegan makes you skinny and hot is not.

  26. pitchblack1138 says:

    I think it’s important that everyone know that the full body scanners DO NOT LOOK LIKE THAT. They don’t see your underwear or your private parts, all they see is a OUTLINE of your body and if there is anything metal or otherwise hazardous on your body. It shows up as a colored area. Different materials show up in different colors. My sister is a TSA officer.

    So yeah I think TSA has a good reason to not run this ad, obviously it has already misconstrued the public on what a full body scanner does.

  27. JulesNoctambule says:

    I know a lot of vegans. Only two of them are even remotely attractive; the others are extremely cranky, miserable people who have this wilted look about them. The BO doesn’t help, either.

  28. BuyerOfGoods3 says:

    As a fat person who still eats meat – They are NOT attracting any new consumers by plastering naked/half naked skeletons anywhere.

    I thought about Vegetarian — And specifically decided not to, in part, because of PETA and all of their crap. Oh yeah, and because I still like Chicken.

  29. shawnamuffin says:

    This is absolutely disgusting. PETA probably values its female supporters, no? Well, then, it shouldn’t support shallow, anti-feminist valorizations of the body.

    Also, the violation of human rights implicit in body scanners shows how PETA doesn’t give a darn about human rights.

  30. Peacock (Now In Extra Crispy) says:

    This is what PETA does. They never expect to have any of their ads actually run. They thrive on the press exposure they receive from having their ads get rejected. Doesn’t matter what medium–print, outdoor, television. They get way more impressions this way than they could ever afford to pay for.

    They’re despicable. But press-savvy.

  31. yevarechecha says:

    Some PETA loon accosted me while I was eating lunch last year and asked me to sign a petition against McDonald’s. I refused because I disagree with most of their message and all of their tactics and don’t want them getting my name. The loon then loudly accused me of torturing chickens and started lecturing me until a random guy sitting nearby snapped, “I was thinking about signing your petition until you said that to her. Get lost.” Loony then accused him of torturing chickens, too.

    So PETA accomplished the impossible: making me feel sympathetic towards Mc-freaking-Donald’s. If I hadn’t already been eating something, I’d have gone and bought 6 boxes of chicken McNuggets just to spite that jerk.

  32. The Marionette says:

    Wait, so doing a full body scan isn’t too risque, but the ad is………?

  33. Tongsy says:

    Stop giving these dinks press.

  34. MrEvil says:

    I don’t know if I find Vegans all that attractive. Though I do hear some folks are into women who look emaciated.

    Give me a gal that can go toe to toe with me at the buffet any day.

  35. LordTwinkie says:

    This woman has no meat on her bones, no curves at all, what cup size are those? B’s? No thanks!