I was so angry after reading this article that I felt impelled to smack the living crap out of something. Fortunately, a puppy chanced across my path, so I kicked it along the pavement until a lorry drove past, then I hoofed it under the front wheels. I feel so much better now.

There ain't no barn owl getting anyplace near my winkie, or anything else with a beak. Pass me another chicken breast darlin.....

I've recently gone vegan, having been vegetarian for nearly 20 years. I'd have converted sooner but have also been consistently put off by shouty holier-than-thou vegans who yell "Murderer!!!" at you if you happen to mention that you quite like cheese. I like to believe that veganism goes hand in hand with a sense of liberalism, but the sad fact is that the Vegan Nazis give the rest of us a bad name.

It's a poor and lazy ad, and PETA's 'sexy' (read: objectifying) advertising is as depressing to me as the next person.

But, re your objection to 'images of violence against women' - the 'violence' is clearly framed in terms of a consensual sexual relationship. I really don't think this ad does anything to promote domestic violence.

I would think about converting were it not for steak, lamb, pork, beef, chicken, fish and bacon sandwiches.

I think my girlfriend may breathe a sigh of relief that I won't be 'knocking the bottom out of her' as a result.

Don't forget the women in cages, supposedly intended to highlight how animals suffer in captivity.

I think it's time to stop pretending PETA is an animal rights organisation and accept that it's the plaything of some individual who gets a kick out of this stuff. No bdsm organisation would put up with such an abusive attitude. This gives everyone a bad name.

Samuel Palin, have you ever seen an advert about domestic violence or rape? I'm guessing from your comment that you've not, since the beginning of this advert deliberately uses the style of a public information ad as a narrative device to make its reveal more 'edgy' (yuck). The shots of a woman, head bowed, walking slowly along an unremarkable street; the muted colours; the immediately recognisable symbol of the neck brace; the at-first serious voiceover, there's probably more but I don't want to watch the ad again to pick them out. The fact that a consensual relationship is depicted later doesn't change the style of ad that PETA is clearly referring to.

I didn't see that at all when I first watched - I saw a generically 'sad' pathetic fallacy - but I take your point upon rewatching.

H - I take your point, and I see what you mean upon rewatching. It is tasteless either way.

Look I personally don't think it's FUNNY that someone might gyrate against an owl! These animals deserve to life FREE in the WILD without some creepy human trying to RUB THEMSELF up against them. I am a firm believer that HUMAN/ANIMAL sex should only take place when the animal is capable of consenting. This could be acceptable for animals such as the dolphin which can clearly derive pleasure from an encounter with a human and will often make the first move, but a BIRD OF PREY!!! Firstly even the largest bird of prey, an eagle or a condor, would not really be large enough or the correct shape to indulge in SEXUAL CONGRESS WITH A HUMAN! Even if it is not "Full Sex" and just taking the owl and rubbing it against you this still makes me VERY UNCOMFORTABLE just reading about it. Human animal sexual interaction should be limited to those intelligent enough to indicate consent and large enough to indulge in the encounter without damage to either human or animal, eg: Dolphin, Great Ape, Horse, Elk, etc. Anything else is UNACCEPTABLE. This is no laughing matter.

I agree wholeheartedly with the comments about the links to abuse and objectification of women. But another point, sorely missed, is that I have slept with meat eaters, vegetarians and vegans and at no point was I put in a neck brace. Nor did their eating habits influence the effectiveness of their lovemaking. It's blatant false advertising and should be reported to Ofcom etc.

This video is a new low, even by PETA’s standards. I am a vegan, and every vegan I know hates PETA for their exploitation of women, their bullshit attention-seeking tactics (remember the sea kittens nonsense?), for their welfarist stance (they’re an animal welfare organisation, not an animal rights one), and for the fact that PETA’s sole aim now is PETA’s continued existence. They exist to make money.

So don’t judge vegans (and indeed veganism) by PETA. In fact, most of PETA’s staff aren’t even vegetarian, let alone vegan.

Also, it’s rather ridiculous to joke about abusing animals because you’re annoyed with PETA. Threatening violence against owls, geese and pandas because you take issue (quite rightly) with the trivialisation of violence towards women makes no sense at all.

I fail to see what is wrong with sexy violence when there is every indication it is consensual. She isn't portrayed as abused, merely injured in an act of gratification.

I find this a deeply disturbing ad, and it's yet another reason why I'm no longer a member of PETA. It seems ironic (and offensive) that an organisation which aims to prevent the objectivisation of animals feels it's OK to objectify women in order to achieve that aim. And the point isn't whether the woman in the ad is in a consensual situation or not. The point is that she's being objectified.

Only in your mind Mr (or Mrs) Lou. There is absolutely no implication the woman is being abused against her will. If you are seeing "battered wife" in this particular inkblot that is a matter for introspection, not justification to condemn Dr Hermann Rorschach.

Some women (and indeed some men) like sex to be violent, rough, and in some cases vicious. There is a whole BDSM industry out there to cater to them. The notion that poor fragile little women who enjoy this activity need to be protected from even their own desires is, to me, inherently antifeminist and extremely patronizing.

The response to this ad is a misplaced moral panic.

I have never knowingly had sex with a vegetarian or a vegan but I agree with georgianafleur - if Peta's claims of sexual potency don't stand up (?) to scrutiny then this is a clear violation of the advertising code.

Demona this is true. I can't help but feel that PETA missed a trick with this ad campaign. If they wanted to sell veganism with sex there are much better ways. I am not going to go into details of how carrots, cucumbers, or hollowed out turnips could be thrust into this.... discussion... here but the, erm, rammifications are obvious.

I would kill a seal if it looked at my children funny. Seriously, they have been known to sexually assault penguin.

@ josephCape
.= PETA win.
Or alterantively they open themselves up to the ridicule that the advert deserves?

Horses for courses I guess. And I don't mean that in the French way.

Having handled rescued and captive barn owls I can attest to the sharpness of their talons; best kept well away from any sensitive flesh...

I'm not a vegetarian though I do try to ensure that animal products I buy do not involve unnecessary suffering. On that note I really think Helen Lewis should research the production methods of foie gras before she smothers herself in it. Dr. Ward Stone, wildlife pathologist with the NYSDEC and Adjunct Professor at SUNY has on several occasions conducted post-mortems on birds that died from force feeding. In September 2005, he wrote, "...the short tortured lives of birds raised for Foie Gras is well outside the norm of farm practice. Having seen the pathology that occurs from Foie Gras production, I strongly recommend that this practice be outlawed."