Comments on: Kim Kardashian Pimps Herself Out For Fast Food – We Roll Our Eyes

By: herwin

herwin — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 07:44:56 +0000

yeah, you’re so right. Peta gets banned not because of some kind of offense sex thing but because Peta’s adds are offense to the disgusting meat industrie.
I hope all these sex obsessed veggie Peta Bashers out there take notes and see how many good things Peta does without any nudity.

http://www.peta.org/mc/NewsItem.asp?id=14063

By: kristin

kristin — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 03:04:28 +0000

they did make a sex free ad – the “Grace” ad for thanksgiving, and that was banned as well. the special interest groups control all major media.

By: Dana

Dana — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 04:01:21 +0000

Regardless of what she looks like on the outside, any woman (or person, for that matter) that openly supports a terrible and cruel industry is just plain ugly to me.

By: Veggie Love, la pubblicità di Peta bloccata per contenuto erotico

Veggie Love, la pubblicità di Peta bloccata per contenuto erotico — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 21:19:54 +0000

[...] tra corpo nudo e vegetali il messaggio erotico è troppo forte. A proposito di Veggie Love, su Ecorazzi ne risollevano la questione ora che è uscita una pubblicità simile per un fast-food: perché [...]

By: &raquo Veggie Love, la pubblicità di Peta bloccata per contenuto erotico - Gregambiente

Mon, 28 Dec 2009 08:18:22 +0000

By: Oscar

Oscar — Fri, 25 Dec 2009 16:01:49 +0000

This is a stupid post, obviously the PETA advert is a little or actually far more below the belt.

Although Kim’s ad does show a little bit of skin it is still clean and at least suitable for all audiences, the PETA video is a pathetic attempt to attract attention.

And of course Kim is hot,

By: herwin

herwin — Fri, 25 Dec 2009 06:04:31 +0000

me too, i roll my eyes !
There is only one way to find out if the Peta add gets banned because of obscenity (rolling eyes) or because its a , well, a Peta add. Dear Peta, next time make a decent sex free add and if it still get banned, its obvious. Also would be cool if ANY Peta add, (a non provocative add) would be shown at the Superbowl.

By: LLamar

LLamar — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 18:45:32 +0000

Because the Carl’s advert is just a few cleavage shots while the other appeals to my prurient interests because it is so much more? Not only do you get a shot of, well, a lady’s labia (which I can’t seem to pause on! damn YouTube!) but also some suggestive stuff with… Is that bok choi? Flown in from Bangkok no doubt.

By: Michael Parrish DuDell

Michael Parrish DuDell — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 18:27:34 +0000

Personally (and I’m not saying this is Ecorazzi’s stance) I have no problem with using sex to sell products.

However, as somebody who’s job it is to point out when people in the entertainment industry act in green and in not so green ways, I felt an obligation to give Kim a slap on the wrist for supporting an unsustainable, cruel industry. I guess, in short, I do believe it’s perfectly okay to “pimp” oneself out for a good cause, but not for crap like Carl’s Jr.

By: james

james — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 17:57:15 +0000

Ban them both due to exploitation. Not of Kim Kardashian, she’s bought and paid for and happy about it. Whatever price she had has been met.

Due to exploitation effects for the rest of women, including my daughter growing up in this.

Most studies show women control the majority of consumer purchasing decisions, don’t they? Start wielding those dollars with some collective force, I’ll help.