Sign up for our free newsletter
Free D.C. news, delivered to your inbox daily.
So, Pamela Anderson‘s new commercial for PETA, which features the former pin-up screening airline passengers for “prohibited” leather, fur, and animal products, won’t be shown on the CNN’s Airport Network. According to the New York Post, “PETA planned to debut the spot tomorrow at all three Gotham-area airports, and later this fall in the other 45 major airports serviced by CNN. But the network wrote to PETA saying it’s ‘particularly sensitive because children make up part of the demographic in airports.'” PETA, banned? You don’t say.
Let’s see: We have a Transportation Security Administration screener turned into a sexy Halloween costume. We have that TSA screener repeatedly assaulting people. We have what looks like some illegal search and seizure. We have an unintelligible racial stereotype. We have butts. Why wouldn’t anyone want to show this thing in an airport? Probably because airports hate animals!
The Post says that the “propensity for nudity by PETA has backfired this time,” but seeing as PETA dedicates an entire online television station to screening its banned ads, I’m betting this is a strategy, you guys. Whenever PETA produces a “too hot for TV” ad, it gets to drum up some viral press over the injustice, but skips out on shelling out the cash required to actually show the thing on a network.
Since other PETA banned ads feature a man clubbing a woman to death, animatronic cats fucking, and women appearing to stuff asparagus into their vaginas, Pammy’s short-shorts and belt play actually fall on the Lighter Side of PETA. Which raises the question: If PETA produces its ads in an attempt to get banned anyway, why doesn’t it skip the soft-core stuff and start filming straight-up animal-friendly pornography? It’s a sad day when I have to give PETA pointers on how to more effectively exploit women in order to save the chinchilla.