[...]Sex Sells . . . What Else is “New”? – Jack & Jill Politics[...]…

below youโ€™ll find the link to some sites that we think you should visit…

[...]we like to honor other sites on the web, even if they aren’t related to us, by linking to them. Below are some sites worth checking out[...]…

below youโ€™ll find the link to some sites that we think you should visit…

Here are some of the sites we recommend for our visitors…

below you’ll find the link to some sites that we think you should visit…

[...]we came across a cool site that you might enjoy. Take a look if you want[...]……

[...]here are some links to sites that we link to because we think they are worth visiting[...]……

Interesting post %BLOGURL%. Here’s a link for thanks….

This post was not designed, nor should it be interpreted, as a pro-PETA piece. At no point in this post do I endorse the politics or history of PETA and their ad campaigns. To me, that's a separate conversation altogether that exists independent of the issue of censorship. In fact, I could easily see PETA engaging in the same type of “all-or-nothing” political hyperbole that is censorship (wouldn't be surprised if they have already).

This was a rant against censorship (as I have written about before), not a defense of PETA. I simply used the PETA ad because (1) it was the most recent example of censorship; and (2) it's relevant given the Super Bowl weekend. I used two other examples of sex and censorship (Janet Jackson and Terrell Owens) where I think critics went too far in their protests.

Furthermore, as far as I can tell, NBC banned the ad, NOT because of a concern for women's rights or a dislike of PETA's ad history, but because they objected to the sexually suggestive content. This implies that, for NBC, this was about “sex.” As such, I really think they canceled this ad for fear of backlash from the Christian Right rather than a fear of women's rights groups — but who knows? (I've seen theories that they might have banned it for corporate interests as well). I'm more concerned with the motives behind NBC's response and the powerful forces that made them ban the video (those same forces would probably like to ban a lot of other things as well).

Either way, I maintain my opposition to censorship. Anyone who has watched the Super Bowl knows the inherent contradictions at play when applying decency standards to an event that is built, in large part, upon sex, violence and alcohol. Stations tend to be selective in their censorship and that's a dangerous thing regardless of politics.

I also agree with those of you who said this was a publicity stunt by PETA. Still, the issue of censorship is important to me (even when the subject's motives aren't as pure as they pretend).

But I thank you all for your interest in my article. Hope you enjoy the Super Bowl. I'll be rooting for the Steelers.

This post was not designed, nor should it be interpreted, as a pro-PETA piece. At no point in this post do I endorse the politics or history of PETA and their ad campaigns. To me, that's a separate conversation altogether that exists independent of the issue of censorship. In fact, I could easily see PETA engaging in the same type of “all-or-nothing” political hyperbole that is censorship (wouldn't be surprised if they have already).

This was a rant against censorship (as I have written about before), not a defense of PETA. I simply used the PETA ad because (1) it was the most recent example of censorship; and (2) it's relevant given the Super Bowl weekend. I used two other examples of sex and censorship (Janet Jackson and Terrell Owens) where I think critics went too far in their protests.

Furthermore, as far as I can tell, NBC banned the ad, NOT because of a concern for women's rights or a dislike of PETA's ad history, but because they objected to the sexually suggestive content. This implies that, for NBC, this was about “sex.” As such, I really think they canceled this ad for fear of backlash from the Christian Right rather than a fear of women's rights groups — but who knows? (I've seen theories that they might have banned it for corporate interests as well). I'm more concerned with the motives behind NBC's response and the powerful forces that made them ban the video (those same forces would probably like to ban a lot of other things as well).

Either way, I maintain my opposition to censorship. Anyone who has watched the Super Bowl knows the inherent contradictions at play when applying decency standards to an event that is built, in large part, upon sex, violence and alcohol. Stations tend to be selective in their censorship and that's a dangerous thing regardless of politics.

I also agree with those of you who said this was a publicity stunt by PETA. Still, the issue of censorship is important to me (even when the subject's motives aren't as pure as they pretend).

But I thank you all for your interest in my article. Hope you enjoy the Super Bowl. I'll be rooting for the Steelers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-fGuio_Jyw&NR=1

They do use women, because it isn't only women who have sex. Couldn't they get the point they are trying to make with veggie eating couples with healthy kids versus unhealthy childless couples?

I do think you have a lot of age range for the superbowl and it should be kid and grandma friendly. Now they can run that add on USA during the later hours while people are watching the syndicated runs of Law and Order to offset the violence and gore.