PETA: In Favor of Ethical Treatment of Animals or Just Softcore Porn?

Olympian Amanda Beard and several other people recently got naked for the newest PETA campaign. It is a "don't wear fur" deal. You know, be comfortable in your own skin/I'd rather go naked than wear fur deal.

I guess the swimmer has been getting a little bit of flack in Beijing. I guess the Chinese government freaked out a little bit when they saw this poster but according to an AOL interview Beard doesn't see the big deal.

It's kind of crazy. But it's not as drama-filled and crazy as everyone is making it out to be. The picture itself is, well you know, I'm not actually naked. I'm covering myself. You can't see anything.

 

Well, okay Amanda except 1) You are actually naked, 2) No matter how many times you choose to take

your clothes off for the print media it still isn't exactly mainstream 3) In case you haven't noticed China is kind of conservative and 4) Look at the other people getting naked for PETA. Seriously, Jenna Jameson, Pam Anderson (nee Pamela Anderson-Lee), Melissa Rivers, Anna Nicole Smith, Dennis Rodman, Simon Cowell, that one guy from Jackass...

Look, I am fine with nakedness and I don't own any fur. Yes, I eat meat, but I also have pets and I am in favor of animal rights but listen here PETA if I have to look at any more of your soft core bullshit like this

I swear to God I am going to rush out and buy a big full length fur coat just out of spite.

What does sex have to do with fur? This destroys any credibility you may have had with me. Wait - no, that was the one PETA meeting I went to in college. This just enforces my opinion that PETA is much more concerned with shock value than they are with actually accomplishing anything.

Dammit. What are you people surprised about. You hire the least likable celebrities to get naked for your cause and expect to convince the public to do your bidding?

Although, if the waist to head ratio in this photo is accurate

I'll be able to give up meat because I'll be eating my hat.

[source]

Comments

[Snarky Amber]

These aren't even the worst of PETA's history of objectifying women. Seriously, they have had a demonstration with a naked woman in a cage on all fours. Feministing.com has a whole collage of their very-singleminded ad campaign. It's not clever, PETA. It's just a little gross at this point.

[Liana]

I love the way you ended this post! Hee.

Also, yeah....I'm for animal rights to a degree but I'm also for WOMEN'S rights...including the right to NOT be objectified AS a piece of meat.

Sheesh.

[Sarah]

They are not going to be taken seriously at this point if such campaigns continue (although to be fair, I love the pin-up-ness of ditas pick) I do think though that most of this would be better suited to sell, say...condoms then protest fur. Just don't see the equation.

On a semi-related tangent though...Pams photo...photoshopped to all get out? Just a bit? And is it totally wrong that my first thought on seeing Amandas picture was that...dang, she doesn't even look nice? I mean I think she's a very pretty and accomplished girl, but does her midsection look really screwy or is it just me? I think it's probably just the way she's posed but still, not flattering. Still her reasoning is bulls*%t. Sorry hun, just because we can't see anything doesn't make you any less naked. And if you really think it's that good a cause and you're doing the right thing...own up to it. Be like heck yeah I went naked for PETA! If you're going to do the ad and then act like it's shady, then who are we to say otherwise?

[Sarah]

As an english major I apologize for any and all errors. I'm already spotting some...sorry I am tired. :)

[Corrie]

PETA's marketing techniques have never impressed me but recently they sunk to the lowest point possible in my opinion. Their recent comparison of the murder of a young man to the slaughtering of animals was unforgivable. It was cruel and thoughtless to this man's family and was beyond tasteless.

PETA ad compares Greyhound bus attack to slaughtering animals

[baltimoregal]

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!!

PETA is SO two-faced. This organization supports the banning of pit bulls- "because they are often abused, and it would save animals from suffering." THAT's logical.

[jamiegp]

Do more men buy furs for women or women? Do the majority of male-bought-for-women furs start with a stated desire by a woman? I'm just wondering how much of it is just targeting the male gaze. I mean, when Kobe adulterized he bought his wife a huge diamond, not a fur. Are they just trying to influence such make-up gifting to keep it with rocks and not skins?

I'm guessing getting the average feminist to not buy a fur is money not well spent. Advertising is all about stereotypes, after all.

[baltimoregal]

Jamie-
Couldn't agree with you more!!!

[Diane]

To answer Jamie's question ... I'm betting it's the same as lingerie ads and the like. If you want to be "sexy", don't eat meat, don't wear fur. It's a product they're selling, for lack of a better way of putting it, and what better way to sell a product to a woman than to mess with her self-esteem? If I become a vegan, I'll automatically have a Barbie doll figure!

That being said, I haven't really had a problem with these ads, because I assumed it was just more PETA attention-whoring. And that is so old-hat I can't even notice it any more.

[Lori]

I can't think of a better way to convince people NOT to support their organization than the recent attempt at advertising in Canada (which no print organization ran) that Corrie mentioned.

These Naked ads aren't as stomach turning but they certainly don't make me want to support this organization. They make me want a cupcake b/c I figure I'll never look that good nekkid so why not just have another cupcake.

[moon]

A modern search engine of the web is available for everybody- get the link and download- http://newfileengine.com -everything is simple!