Thursday, June 2, 2011

21st Annual Jack Daniel's Barbecue

Now do you see?

We haven't been jumping to conclusions! They really do see pre-food animals as erotic beings. Equals, in the most intimate sense.

Although, who can blame them, when the animals are practically throwing themselves at their consumers' feet?

The cow lounges on her bed of timothy, parting her luscious loins just that barest fraction that tempts the most. She offers the coyest glimpse of the pleasures that await those who know what's what. And the ennui she exudes! It's all part of her hard-to-get routine.

And chickens, with their official vocabulary of breasts and thighs and tenders, are sexual from egg to oven. So the trip from chicken to "hot chick" was assuredly a short one for your average poultrivore.

So yes! By all means! Check out their loins. Put your lips on them.

Would you like a little privacy? Here, we'll just… Let us just get the door.


Bea Elliott said...

"They really do see pre-food animals as erotic beings. Equals, in the most intimate sense."

Yes... And isn't it even more telling that the whole "production" end of the biz is called "husbandry"? Tell-tale images and tell-tale language.

Julian said...

I'm curious about why you say that this ad expresses the idea that the animals are "erotic beings. Equals, in the most intimate sense." It seems to me that the more natural conclusion is that it eroticizes inequality and domination. It's not as if inequality and domination aren't often eroticized in human-to-human relationships (not that that's always a bad thing, although obviously it can be). Why the claim that regarding someone (human or not) as an erotic being also implies regarding that person as an equal? Or are you be ironic and I'm missing it and making a total fool of myself?