New Pamela Anderson PETA Ad: Banned in Montreal!
Finally, someone is taking issue with Pamela Anderson's body.
The actres flew to Montreal this week to publicize her latest PETA ad, only to be turned away by the city. Canadian officials denied a permit for the unveling because they claim the bikini-based billboard is somehow sexist.
Said Montreal film commissioner Daniel Bissonnette, whose office laid down the law:
"It is not so much controversial, as it goes against all principles public organizations are fighting for in the everlasting battle of equality between men and women."
Anyone care to make sense of that statement? Do any men feel discriminated against by the following ad?
As seen here, the poster reads: "All Animals Have the Same Parts. Go Vegetarian."
We're pretty sure that's inaccurate, however. We've never seen a cow or pig with silicone in their breasts. Moreover, Pamela's parts haven't stopped many men from eating her.
Replied the actress to the controversy: "In a city that is known for its exotic dancing and for being progressive and edgy, how sad that a woman would be banned from using her own body in a political protest over the suffering of cows and chickens. In some parts of the world, women are forced to cover their whole bodies with burqas -- is that next?
"I didn't think that Canada would be so puritanical."
Snaps, yo! Your move, Canada.
** To get a close look at other examples of PETA wasting its money on celebrity-based ads, visit our nude PETA picture album today!
Related Posts
- Penelope Cruz Sort of Strips Down For PETA
- Olivia Munn: Nude For PETA!
- PETA to Janet Jackson: You're Nasty!
- POLL: What Was the Worst Celebrity Marriage Ever?
November 6th, 2010 7:15 PM
To, Dear Pamela madam....we always appreciate your work... we are running a govt registered trust to help the poor children and animals....somtimes govt will provide some monetary help to us..but most of the time we face difficulties...if you help us by way of donation we shall greatfull to you...please contect me in my email-pinkumonikashyap@gmail.com.
July 19th, 2010 6:48 PM
She certainly doesn't look as if she objects to being sectioned off like cuts of meat. She looks proud of herself. The ad isn't condemning anything. It's just getting off on itself. Again. I'm so sick of PETA's photographs of naked women in chains and cages, and more, and more. It's exactly like soft porn images we've been "exposed" to for years. But, at least they're not on billboards.
July 19th, 2010 12:22 PM
TO Tara-God I thought you people were supppose to be liberals and ase suppose to accept this kind of shit???
July 19th, 2010 12:58 AM
Someone please drop that stupid PETA bimbo and her PETA boss Newkirk into the jungle with crocodile, water buffalo, hippos, lions, leopards, and see how long they survive. How about a new Survivor series with one tribe PETA and the other tribe celebrity hunters like Mr. and Mrs Nugent, Lee and Tiffany, people who join PETA have no clue about mother nature and what cruelty realy is.
July 16th, 2010 6:59 PM
also, this ad did not require her to be naked or in a bikini.
she could have been fully clothed and it did not require any sexuality in order to get the message across.
in fact i think it would have been more shocking and effective if they showed her digitally pulled apart into sections or something...they could have been much more creative than this.
it's just pathetic that the easy go to method is always sexualizing a woman in order to get attention. sure pam chose to do this, but when has pam ever made intelligent decisions? or decisions that empower women? or decisions that didn't play into the stereotype of the sex kitten? it's all about her image and pr, she is a loser who should know her time is up and her fake boobies are old news.
July 16th, 2010 6:53 PM
i dont care if she is wearing a skimpy bikini, she might as well be naked, i mean seriously.
this is not a 'good cause'...peta is a bunch of lunatics who, as HiltonHater pointed out, could spend their money on saving animals rather than sticking up large billboards of naked/close to naked celebs. there is no way this ad is going to convince people to stop eating meat!!
perhaps their money might be better spent on education for locals in countries where they hunt endangered species. that i could support.
THAT would be a 'good cause'.
July 16th, 2010 6:45 PM
The issues are one in the same, miley and pamela. Do you no think little girls would be able to see a giant billboard in the middle of the city? Do little girls not have eyes? Do little girls not look up to older women, especially sex symbols in hollywood, for an ideal of beauty and as role models as well?
Why is it that for you, only miley is the clear choice for all girls out there? I get that miley is young and pamela is old, but that makes no sense. I was a young girl once, you never were. I can tell you for a fact that when i was little i wasn't looking at just younger girls as an example of femininity for me to learn from. I looked at all women.
I did actually watch baywatch growing up, as did a lot of other girls. From that show, and pamela specifically, i learned it has become so much more the norm and the goal in society to have big fake boobs. It has become more normal for guys to expect this, and want it from the media they are being targeted by. Girls see all of this an
July 16th, 2010 12:21 PM
TO TARA: One-I am not MALE and two-Pam is CLEARLY not naked!! Pam has been a long time supporter of PETA and this is probably the most conservative pic of her out there plus she is doing for a good cause! No one made a peep about the two naked guys with a naked girl in between them-that was way worse than this one and that picture was never pulled.
P.S. I would also love to see more naked guys than girls...
July 15th, 2010 5:24 PM
I love steak
Rank: Staff Member
July 15th, 2010 4:39 PM
@Tara: You're absolutely right that sex sells and that's where this comes from.
But that's a VERY different issue than sexism. Sexism implies that one gender is suffering through unfair favoritism being showed to the other. That has nothing at all to do with the ad in question here, or with your overall point of body image.