Jackie gave me the heads up on this latest treat.

It’s a typical food/sex ad.

Women and food.  Food and sex.  Women and food and sex. Food as pleasure.  Women as food.

Victorian women were advised not to be seen eating by their mothers since eating food meant one ingested (and defecated) said edible and this was considered sensual and, goodness knows, a good Victorian girl was not a sensual or sexual creature.  Only bad girls had the inner flame of sexuality burning.  Food could ignite that passion and cause a good girl to go bad.

Carl’s Junior has played on this age-old Victorian sentiment for quite some time by depicting overly sexed and objectified women as the edible and eating the edible.  The bad girl ( as in sexual) for the taking.

This is typical Carl’s Junior (who can forget Paris Hilton and her burger or the tag line. “If it doesn’t get all over the place it doesn’t belong in your face” with two dudes slobbering all over the innocent burger).

Ugh.

Flashback:

PETA’s sexy veggie ad has been banned from the Superbowl, sparking controversial debate on both sides:

NBC states: “depicts a level of sexuality exceeding our standards”

Says a PETA rep: “PETA’s veggie ads are locked out, while ads for fried chicken and burgers are allowed, even though these foods make Americans fat, sick and boring in bed.”

Courtney at Feminisng.com:

PETA’s incredibly ridiculous ad trying to convince all those hot wing munchers to convert to vegetarianism during the Super Bowl has been rejected. Shocker. It contains thin white woman prancing around in their underwear rubbing vegetables all over their perfectly toned bodies. I’m not even going to post the video, cause it’s, well, inane. Suffice it to say that, once again, PETA proves it has no notion of intersectional exploitation.