You know, the Super Bowl is so fresh that every single commercial is even on, you know, some next-level entertainment.—will.i.am
Censoring ads in the midst of a program built upon violence seems a little more than hypocritical
I’ll admit to enjoying a bit of football, but, like millions of other people across the US, the primary reason I watch the Super Bowl is for the ads. Rarely do I care at all about the outcome of the game, though I generally hope that it isn’t a complete blowout. What is much more entertaining for me are the increadinly creative commercials that show especially during the first half and at half-time. I watch those ads with rapt fascination and, unless the game is unusually good, fall asleep somewhere in the third quarter.
Teasers for this year’s ads are looking especially promising. Already, we’ve gotten hints from Christopher Walken, Alec Baldwin, Dan Marino, Jeff Goldblum, and Lil Wayne, among others, that have me absolutely salivating to see the delightful pitches coming forth. There are also a fair number of first time Super Bowl advertisers putting up the $5 million-plus for a 30-second spot. Amazon, Bai, Shock Top, Pokemon, and SoFi are among the rookies who are putting it all on the line during this game.
Who we won’t be seeing during a two-minute timeout is People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA). Their ad, titled Last Longer, focuses on the health benefits of not eating meat and how that, in turn, allows one the stamina to be more effective in bed. Sounds like the perfectly targeted ad for a Super Bowl crowd, doesn’t it?
Apparently not. CBS network censors, working under guildelines from the NFL, deemed the ad too explicit for television.
We’ve seen Super Bowl ads censored before; that part is definitely not new. The NFL takes a very prudish view toward any overt sexualization that might distract from the bone-crushing, concussion-inducing, permanently-disabling activities taking place on the field. Furthermore, we have seen just how terribly upset half-drunken moms can get at the mere 0.001-second slip of a nipple. They’re all so terribly worried about having to explain procreation to their precious little children, but don’t seem to have any issues with open acts of violence being referred to as sport.
Let’s be clear: I’m not a fan of PeTA. I’m very much a carnivore and while my personal sexual exploits are best left unmentioned, I assure you that it is arthritis, not my diet, most likely to limit the duration of my activity. PeTA is well known for their over-sensationalism and this ad is yet another example of that tactic.
Still, I cannot help but fnd it extremely hypocritical that this ad is banned from the Super Bowl of all places. Football is nothing but overt violence disguised as sport. Each year, the devestating effects of concussions and other injuries are demonstrated as debilitating in the lives of those who once played in the Super Bowl. Rumors are swirling that this may well be the final game for Denver quarterback Petyon Manning because of the life-threatening injuries he received and the punishment his body continues to endure. So, we’re okay with all the violence going on for the better part of three hours, but we’re not good with 30 seconds of simulated sex?
Please, tell me I’m not the only one who has difficulty making any sense of this decision. Don’t give me any BS about the children, either. If they’re old enough to watch grown men attempting to kill each other, they can handle a little fake nookie.
There is a time and a place for everything, and I sure wouldn’t run the PeTA commercial during the first two hours of weeknight prime time family comedies. But to censor implied sex while endorsing blatant violence, whether in a game or a scripted police drama, is not just hypocritical but about as immoral as television can possibly get. So, since CBS and the NFL won’t show you the ad, I will. Here you go:
