The three chosen images illustrate Carol J. Adams’ argument in The Pornography of Meat and the themes discussed in Antennae about how animal consumption intersects with the objectification of women. The first image, showing a turkey body arranged like a woman, embodies Adam’s idea of the absent referent, where an organism’s identity is erased to allow for consumption. Labels for parts of turkeys using terms related to female anatomy such as breast, thigh, leg highlight how both women and animals are diminished into body fragments meant primarily for male enjoyment. Similarly, the second image features a pig dressed in burlesque attire titled Hoofed Temptress, establishing clear connections between women’s sexualization and meat marketing strategies. As Adams claims animal’s bodies are feminized while women’s bodies become animalized, making both consumable. This image highlights that advertising often depends on representing animals sexually thereby equating femininity with allure combined passivity.
In the third image, Ludacris is shown biting a woman’s leg as though it were food, which clearly blurs the distinction between human and animal flesh. This image supports Adams argument that women, like meat, are portrayed as objects to be consumed. It highlights power dynamics in consumption, men assume the role of dominant consumers while women similar to animals are positioned as what is being devoured. Antennae further elaborates on this concept by stating that portraying women as meat emphasizes larger patriarchal structures linking masculinity with control and appetite. The scene’s setting a table filled with fried meat visually equates food with the female body, implying both serve a similar purpose satisfying male appetites.
These images highlight the complex connection between sexism and carnism, illustrating how both women and animals are denied of power and turned into objects for male pleasure. The visual language used in these advertisements and cultural depictions supports Adams’ claim that sexual violence and meat consumption are interconnected through language and image. The line between human consumption and non-human is intentionally obscured, strengthening a patriarchal system where men force dominance by using their power to consume.
https://media.glamour.com/photos/67a6615c79ad2afa88f56977/16:9/w_1280,c_limit/alix-earle-carls-jr.jpeg
This advertisement showcases a woman dressed provocatively consuming a burger, an example of a common theme in fast food promotions. Adams contends that such image remains the link between meat consumption and masculinity while dehumanized women simultaneously. She claimed, women’s bodies, like animal bodies, are offered up for consumption both visually and literally. The model in the ad isn’t shown as an active participant but rather as part of the show, her sexualized portrayal is meant to attract a male audience, supporting Adams’ argument that women are posed to be eaten just as animals.
The politics of meat. (2010). Antennae, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54792ff7e4b0674c74cb719d/t/55dc8dace4b0ad76d7277cb7/1440517548517/ANTENNAE+ISSUE+14.pdf
Philosophy Now. (n.d.). The Pornography of Meat by Carol Adams | Issue 56 | Philosophy Now. https://philosophynow.org/issues/56/The_Pornography_of_Meat_by_Carol_Adams
Great post. I think it’s so interesting that we, as a species, are okay with consuming anthromorphized animals, but cannibalism is so taboo. The image you chose of Ludacris is a great example. The overall message is women are visually pleasing enough to eat. Meanwhile, Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571 victims were so afraid of being ostracized for their cannibalism in their plight to survive, that they kept it a secret for decades. This hypocrisy reinforces the hierarchical attitude humans have toward nonhuman species. Humans eating other humans is shameful, but humans eating nonhumans is just agriculture.