Maybe I'm just a liberal hippie freak, but I see no problem with nudity...ever...at all. I don't really see why a guy can take his shirt off in public and I can't take off mine. You won't catch me showing off my goodies for a guy to do something for me (although, I DO see where that line of thinking comes from, because it's true.  If you want to abuse your power of femininity, it is possible).  But I don't do everything I do for people to be attracted to me or to think of me as a sexual object.  Maybe this commercial isn't to have girls feel bad about themselves or for guys to drool over.

This commercial isn't sexual to me, I don't see a naked woman waiting to have some man have sex with her, I see a naked woman, alone, in a pool.  I guess sexuality is in the eye of the beholder.

We all know PETA is for the ethical treatment of animals...it's in the name, so I thought a commercial expressing the other side - the benefits other than saving the animals - was good.  Plenty of vegans are vegans because of health benefits, this commercial showcases a few of the many benefits of a vegetarian diet...which is the point, isn't it?

Wow,
Maybe we should write Clinton and tell her to stop working on her platform and just flash her tits. Maybe if she did her debates topless (or better yet, hired a young perky 20-something yr old to get naked & speak for her) more people would pay attention to what she is saying.
Hell,... maybe if we all took our tops off, went to the oval office and sat on Bush's lap, we could end the war or have constitutional rights restored. (^_^)d

I know I am being a hyperbolic smart ass, but it is only to make a point.

Why is it that pundits/media talking heads feel the need to also comment on what Hilary Clinton wears or her haircut or her "chubby" legs, rather than focusing solely on her platform and political record? Is it because other political figures like Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, and Karl Rove (or fellow presidential candidates) are all so smoking hot? (grrrr... (~_^))
Or
Could it be because males are, generally, judged on and acknowledged for one or all of these things: career/their word/actions/belief system/achievements/etc., while females are, generally, judged by and acknowledged for either their mothering skills or what they look like and their potential as a sperm depository?

Why is almost every single man, that appears in PETA ads, clothed and using wit and articulation, rather than their bodies, to promote veg*nism?

If you check out the other testimonials by celebrities, you will find that A.S isn't the only woman shown with (at least, intermittent) clips of them naked, set to music. In contrast, ALL of the men's clips are devoted to making intelligent & informative points - despite their 30 sec limit and their added burden of clothing. (~_^)
Nearly half of A.S.'s 30 seconds is taken up by slow-motion body shots and the rest is filled with her voice over images of her naked body, her poised to crawl kitty-style toward the camera (haha), etc.

Is this ad sexy? Yes. Do I have anything, at all, against sexuality? Hell NO!
This isn't about antisexualism. It is about disproportionate sexualization in media... and how there shoild be no room for that in organizations such as PETA.
This one ad, on it's own, might just be scoff-worthy & dismissible (to some), if PETA had not methodically fueled (and fed off of) the sexual dichotomy for years. These testimonials are nothing compared to many of PETA's other ads. If you haven't been following their media for years, do a search and it will be difficult to come up with a handful of naked/ sexualized men (believe me, I've tried)... whereas, there are a great amt. of naked/sexualized actresses, models, playboy bunnies, porn actresses...

Are the men's testimonials (or ads, such as the one posted earlier, with Joaquin in the market) less influential because they are not naked? They may not be as sensational or striking, but well-made points are def more influential, to real conversion, than the fleeting desires elicited by the superficial beauty of human flesh.
Watch their recent "State of the Union Undress" and tell me that is totally cool, and how much people are going to be listening to the very valid points she is making, while she is stripping and the camera is zooming in like they are shooting for "Girls Gone Wild". (Though it is followed by a really great and touching musical video, including footage from "Meet Your Meat", that is worth seeing.)

If PETA was all about tapping into the allure and fundamental animalistic desires of (all)human sexuality, that would be one thing. They are clearly not. They, too often, portray the cerebral/sentient/humorous in men and the sexual in women. 
This is a complete perpetuation of the sexual dichotomy. "Man" is (worth) this. "Woman" is (worth) that.
As much as I love animals, speciesism is not the only thing that is fundamentally wrong with this world. I also find other "isms"... sexism, racism, heterosexism, nationalism, etc.... worth fighting and, at the very least, abstaining from.

Would the masses be cool with dark skinned people being betrayed disproportionately in one way and light skinned people another, if it saved some animals? I don't think so. Yet most people wouldn't have questioned the validity of an organization using some ads with such racial elements, or even given the ads a second thought, 50 years ago.
The PETA ads in question are accepted, because their gender-specific associations are culturally acceptable and echoed throughout most all media and society, at large.
It is not overt sexism. It is a cyclical continuance of dichotomic sexual characterization.... which can and does lead to sexism.
I think it's important to make that distinction.
Most forms of (or food for) sexism and racism, these days, are covert- at least, in U.S. Yet this can, sometimes, be more dangerous, because it is much easier to digest and become, or continue to be, a societal norm.
------------------------------------------
If it has not already been made abundantly clear, in this & previous posts: I am not talking about all PETA ads. They have some really good ones, like those on the site dinkfeet posted.... most of the other testimonials, etc.
------------------------------------------------

Bottomline: I just don't see any reason that the sexual dichotomy should be perpetuated for the sake of animal rights.

Really excellently well said, SubVersa.  I'm in complete agreement.  This line in particular deserves restatement, because it's a point that a lot of people, here and elsewhere, seem not yet to have appreciated:

Is this ad sexy? Yes. Do I have anything, at all, against sexuality? Hell NO!
This isn't about antisexualism. It is about disproportionate sexualization in media... and how there shoild be no room for that in organizations such as PETA.

The problem with this ad is not that sex doesn't belong on television.  Those of us who find the ad problematic aren't objecting because we're socially or sexually conservative or dislike nudity or sex.  The problem is the way the media represents the role and value of women as opposed to the role and value of men.

Really excellently well said, SubVersa.  I'm in complete agreement.  This line in particular deserves restatement, because it's a point that a lot of people, here and elsewhere, seem not yet to have appreciated:

Is this ad sexy? Yes. Do I have anything, at all, against sexuality? Hell NO!
This isn't about antisexualism. It is about disproportionate sexualization in media... and how there shoild be no room for that in organizations such as PETA.

The problem with this ad is not that sex doesn't belong on television.  Those of us who find the ad problematic aren't objecting because we're socially or sexually conservative or dislike nudity or sex.  The problem is the way the media represents the role and value of women as opposed to the role and value of men.

If the disproportion is the only issue, then would it be okay with you if PETA showed an equal number of ads showing men in a sexual way? I think that's what many of the people (girls/women) were pretty much arguing for at the start of this thread (hence the Casy Affleck, David Duchovney, etc. pics).

Really excellently well said, SubVersa.  I'm in complete agreement.  This line in particular deserves restatement, because it's a point that a lot of people, here and elsewhere, seem not yet to have appreciated:

Is this ad sexy? Yes. Do I have anything, at all, against sexuality? Hell NO!
This isn't about antisexualism. It is about disproportionate sexualization in media... and how there shoild be no room for that in organizations such as PETA.

The problem with this ad is not that sex doesn't belong on television.  Those of us who find the ad problematic aren't objecting because we're socially or sexually conservative or dislike nudity or sex.  The problem is the way the media represents the role and value of women as opposed to the role and value of men.

If the disproportion is the only issue, then would it be okay with you if PETA showed an equal number of ads showing men in a sexual way? I think that's what many of the people (girls/women) were pretty much arguing for at the start of this thread (hence the Casy Affleck, David Duchovney, etc. pics).

For my part, that would fix it for me.

OK, so I tried to read through all the posts that I missed on this topic but there were a lot so forgive me if I'm just saying something that was already said. 
I know a lot of people (myself included) who think that PETA's adds can be a bit over the top.  The one that shows a human baby being clubbed instead of a baby seal, or the one that says "if your Daddy fishes, he is a killer so don't be surprised if he kills your pet dog or cat one day."  That is not a direct quote.  It's adds like these that scare people and make them think that PETA is crazy extremist organization.  Therefore their message is lost.  You need to be able to appeal to different audiences.  The majority of the Texas audience, I would think, would not be swayed by the animal rights argument of veganism so a different approach was needed.  The Alicia Silverstone add takes a different approach, makes a different argument, and I for one think it's great.

If the disproportion is the only issue, then would it be okay with you if PETA showed an equal number of ads showing men in a sexual way? I think that's what many of the people (girls/women) were pretty much arguing for at the start of this thread (hence the Casy Affleck, David Duchovney, etc. pics).

I wouldn't have been bothered by it, if much of their publicity wasn't hinged on selling the sexuality of females alone. As I've suggested, I prefer an informative approach on an issue like animal rights, but I wouldn't be turned off by their repetitive sensual approach if the sexual appeal of both males and females were used, proportionately... or even at all. (Digging up far less promoted/circulated pictures of 2 or 3 naked or half naked guys does little to argue equal representation.)     

Though, if this was PETA's only approach, I would be annoyed. But that, as we all know, isn't the only thing PETA puts out there, and much of their work is commendable- like their more informative ads, their exposé on factory farming, etc.
I understand the potential of the more superficial ads luring people to where they can finally be exposed to their more potent and pertinent material.
I don't have a problem with use of sexuality in general (and certainly not on any kind of moral level), but I still think it is a lame, sensationalist, dumbing-down of the issues. To me, it is like a campaign with glossy naked male/female models saying, "I'd rather take my clothes off than torture detainees!" (I know that's less clever & relative than the fur clothing/naked thing... but you see the point I am making?) Sure, it would, at least, bring the issue of torture to people's attention. I can't disagree with the underlying message... I would just be dissapointed by it "lying under" the superficial sensationalism used to appeal to the desire to be cool, trendy, sexy, etc. rather than appealing to the the human capacity for empathy, logic, etc.
It would be inappropriate to use sexuality to draw attention to the genocide in Darfur, our constitutional rights being systematically stripped away, the benefits of medical marijuana, censorship & bias in corporate media, the need for election reform, etc.

Ending specisism and animal suffering is not sexy or fashionable... it is logical, caring, intelligent, etc.
(I may be turned on by others who have the same perspective and do what they can to help.... but that is differnet than sexualizing the issue, its self.)

BUT if their sexualization was just lame and not harmful, I would probably support them, as I do other animal rights organizations, because of all the other wonderful things they contribute to the cause.

It would be inappropriate to use sexuality to draw attention to the genocide in Darfur, our constitutional rights being systematically stripped away, the benefits of medical marijuana, censorship & bias in corporate media, the need for election reform, etc.

This is an interesting point, but I think the flaw in it is that the ad is for a vegetarian diet, and is showcasing the health effects on the human body rather than atrocities committed to animals. The nudity is connected to that aspect of the vegetarian diet, plainly showing it can cause vibrant health and a great bod, rather than the all too familiar sickly vegan image. I don't know the figures but I'm willing to bet that the health approach is the best way to reach the average person in regards to becoming vegetarian.  Nudity would not be connected to those other issues.  This commercial is made for TV, a visual medium for the most part. I do think that all the issues you mentioned are gravely important though, as well as animal rights.  I'm not sure a tv commercial is the best way to cause a public outcry enough to change anything though..

Have we all seen this?

The ex-Mrs. Marilyn Manson.  I guess she's an expert on animal's needing birth control.  Thank God she and her ex didn't breed.  I don't think that ad is going to get any one to take their dog to be fixed.  Did she pay for making of the ad herself?  If not, PETA will throw money at any thing just to get a little attention and in this case, it's not positive attention.