So, Pamela Anderson’s new commercial for PETA, which features the former pin-up screening airline passengers for “prohibited” leather, fur, and animal products, won’t be shown on the CNN’s Airport Network. According to the New York Post, “PETA planned to debut the spot tomorrow at all three Gotham-area airports, and later this fall in the other 45 major airports serviced by CNN. But the network wrote to PETA saying it’s ‘particularly sensitive because children make up part of the demographic in airports.’” PETA, banned? You don’t say.

Let’s see: We have a Transportation Security Administration screener turned into a sexy Halloween costume. We have that TSA screener repeatedly assaulting people. We have what looks like some illegal search and seizure. We have an unintelligible racial stereotype. We have butts. Why wouldn’t anyone want to show this thing in an airport? Probably because airports hate animals!

The Post says that the “propensity for nudity by PETA has backfired this time,” but seeing as PETA dedicates an entire online television station to screening its banned ads, I’m betting this is a strategy, you guys. Whenever PETA produces a “too hot for TV” ad, it gets to drum up some viral press over the injustice, but skips out on shelling out the cash required to actually show the thing on a network.

Since other PETA banned ads feature a man clubbing a woman to death, animatronic cats fucking, and women appearing to stuff asparagus into their vaginas, Pammy’s short-shorts and belt play actually fall on the Lighter Side of PETA. Which raises the question: If PETA produces its ads in an attempt to get banned anyway, why doesn’t it skip the soft-core stuff and start filming straight-up animal-friendly pornography? It’s a sad day when I have to give PETA pointers on how to more effectively exploit women in order to save the chinchilla.

Matthew Yglesias thinks the numbers in CNN’s widely-circulated Internet sex survey have been blown out of proportion. Yglesias says the numbers—which reported what percentages of men and women would sooner give up sex for two weeks than the Internet—are actually not terribly high. Forty-six percent of women and 30 percent of men reported that they were willing to stay abstinent for a fortnight in order to keep connected.

Personally, I’d go further and say that the numbers are stunningly low. Speaking from a high place of authority on this matter—I am a sex blogger—choosing Internet over sex for two weeks is a no-brainer. The reason is because time in the sexual realm is so different from time in the Internet world. If a single person goes two weeks without sex, it’s not out of the ordinary. If a blogger goes two weeks without posting, she’s likely dead.

I think we have to consider the possibility that 56 percent of women and 70 percent of men are just lying so that CNN thinks they’re cool. Here’s a follow-up survey: How many of these people have actual sex every two weeks? And how many are incurable Internet nerds refreshing Fleshbot on their RSS feeds every two hours?

Photo by slushpup.

* “Wine guru” Amy Monroe writes on Serious Eats about the rise and fall of organic Chilean wine “Palin Syrah.” According to Monroe, the dry, white pepper tinged wine used to be the top seller of San Francisco’s Yield Wine Bar. “But after Sen. John McCain tagged Sarah Palin as his running mate,” Monroe writes, “sales of the wine with the conservative’s inverted name plummeted.”

* An 18-year-old woman was killed in Northeast yesterday after refusing to cook a hamburger. The victim, Tanganika Stanton, lost her life for resisting the advances of a street harasser, believed to be 19-year-old Terrence J. Jones. Stanton’s death is an extreme outcome of a situation that is a routine threat against women in this city.

*Feministe blogger Jack on who deserves to meet Bill Clinton.

* The New Gay has a re-cap of Monday’s GLOV (Gays and Lesbians Opposed to Violence) reformation, while CP’s Jule Banville follows up on assault victim (and GLOV member) Todd Metrokin.

Photo by Darrow Montgomery