I've heard Baywatch babe Pamela Anderson called a "piece of meat" before.  But I can't say I've ever considered her divided up into sections of meat such as tri-tip, porterhouse, or prime rib. But apparently PETA has.  Here's their current ad campaign:I must admit that she looks delicious.

Pamela Anderson is no newbie when it comes to PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals).  She is a staunch vegetarian and animal lover-and to her credit, she really does stand behind her beliefs.  As such, this is not her first ad with the somewhat zealous animal protection group.  Remember this pleasant commercial?Oh, wait... YouTube has marked this commercial as containing "content that is inappropriate for some users, as flagged by YouTube's user community," so you'll have to find it yourself.  You have to confirm your age.  I'm not going to comment on how messages like that make me feel-that's not the point of this article.

Let's just say that the video in question turned me off of eating chicken for a few hours.  Then I marinated some in a great Jamaican jerk recipe that I have, grilled it up, served it with plantains, black beans, and rice, ate it, and went to bed all warm and fuzzy.

As a side note: It's not that I don't find this stuff wrong in a sense.  It's just that we've got a global nation of people to feed.  And a great deal of these people like meat.  I'll admit to being a hypocrite when it comes to killing things-unless it's seafood, that is.  I really don't want to kill anything.  I try not to even step on spiders (that's bad luck).  But we have to feed millions of people, and the ugly downside of it is the processing of massive amounts of food.

When the latest PETA campaign, with Pam almost wearing a nice little nothing bikini and marked with sections showing how to properly butcher her came out, it caused quite a stir-particularly in Montreal, Canada, where it was deemed as sexist.  CelebTV offered brief coverage of this decision:I agree with the final line in the video, by the way.  I'm not finding this ad sexist at all.  I do find it a bit confusing, however.

Let's take a look at the ad copy: "All Animals Have the Same Parts."

Okay.  We're all animals.  Humans just happen to be more evolved.  But...

I don't have flippers.  Nor do I have hooves.  Or horns.  Or four stomachs.  Or a tail.  Or wings (though that would be cool).  Or webbed feet.  Or deadly stinging barbs on my hind legs like a duck-billed platypus (yep, they have those-crazy, innit?).

However, I do have a highly developed brain (have fun with that in the comments section guys-it's a freebie), walk on two legs, drive a van, have thumbs, and can articulate myself in more than just grunts and squeals-at least most of the time.

The most pressing problem I see with this ad campaign is that portions of Pamela Anderson are... augmented.  There are a lot of "artificial ingredients" mixed in with this meat, if you get my meaning.

I guess my question is, "Do animals have silicon, collagen, and/or (in some cases) metal/plastic in their bodies?"  I've never encountered a deer with luscious, full lips.  Nor have I seen a chicken with breasts made of bags of liquid.  And I hope they've developed bionic knees for horses.  That would make me happy.

Throw a hippie-chick into the campaign-someone with less plastic.  It wouldn't make this person any less eye-catching.  That's what casting directors and photographers are for.

My second problem involves those crazies out there (like Jeffrey Dahmer, for instance) who would look at the picture of Pam Anderson above and see this:While I admire her spirit and determination, I just can't picture a scantily clad Pamela Anderson-with or without a butcher's diagram plastered on her-to be anything but pleasing to the eye.  She is a very attractive woman, silicon and all.

Am I being sexist?  Possibly-because I'm a guy, and guys like looking at attractive women.

But is the ad itself sexist?  No.  It has a goal.

Does it obtain this goal?  No.