If sex sells, then why don't they show sex? Or male nudity? Is male nudity somehow less shocking or attention-grabbing? Their justification seems to fall short not just ideologically but practically as well. What they mean to say is that "this creates controversy and puts our name in the news, which makes us think that we're helping!"

And here's the other thing--if sex sells, aren't they selling animal cruelty? By sexualizing meat, how is that supposed to turn people OFF from meat? I don't see how "that snake woman is sexy" leads to "python purses are bad"--it seems more like people are saying, "python purses are bad...so stop likening women to them." Wouldn't it be more effective to use humans (of any gender) in non-sexualized poses, so that we could actualyl be horrified by the images, and thus by the corresponding animal situations?

Also, it reads like a form letter. Way to phone it in, Newkirk. We should "forgive" you your bikinis and shock tactics? Then you admit they're transgressions. Knock it off.

Oh, PETA. You're so embarrassing, so shameful, so unproductive, and you can't even see it. Signed, a long-time vegan.

Personally, I think their worst advertisement was for spaying/neutering. It featured an African-American man holding a dog with the slogan "Spay your b**ch." Even I was shocked that PETA is just that clueless.

I have no idea what the message even was with the udders thing, unless the idea was to make me want to barf. I guess that would work if they made me want to throw up when I thought about milk, but all it did was make me want to barf when I see beads and hear house music.

The only logically consistent promotion is the one with the "Spice Up Your Life" line.

I've heard PETA reps say that they use attractive women to elicit sympathy by placing said women into the habitats associated with farm animals. Well why not use people with leukemia or similar illness instead? I have a lot easier time feeling bad for someone with a respirator and IV tubes than some overpaid model any day of the week. Hell you could make a lot better ad with sick people too:

"Steven has a progressive illness related to environmental immune disorders that requires he be fed increasing doses of antibiotics or he will get sick and die; just like the cows/chickens that normally live in this cage."

I'm a meat eater, but I do believe people are disconnected from the food they eat. I can absolutely support informing people about their choices as well as the impact on our environment and the ecological footprint of a meat intensive diet and health issues as well. But PETA is, to me, about on a similar level to clinic protesters.

PETA's argument is thus: "We know it's wrong but everyone else is doing it!"

The way I see it is this: if you are going to claim that what you are doing is soooo important that you are above criticisms for sexism, you better have some DAMN compelling evidence that your sexist ads are effective. The idea that sexism is justified would still be debatable, but the debate might at least be worth having. There is zero evidence that anyone is convinced by PETA's ads to do anything at all, and I suspect that is because while they may grab headlines, they are not compelling in any significant way. Unless you can show me some evidence that your sexism has caused a single person to give up meat eating, then no, asshole Peta president, I am not inclined to look past it.

How does "sex" (i.e. women's bodies) even sell PETA's mission?
By marketing in this way, PETA alienates a lot of animal-loving feminists, who are potential allies. Many feminists are into animal welfare causes, even vegans, but they don't support PETA because of this sexist bullshit.
The sort of people who are interested in staring at naked women in cages may stand around and gawk for ten minutes, but after that they're lost.
Do they care what PETA stands for, or have any interest in animal rights? What's the point?

My personal favorite is from the picture on the top left - with the woman underneath the plastic wrap. Apparently after lying in the sun underneath the plastic wrap for so long, the young woman (apparently an intern) was feeling sick and dehydrated, but the PETA person there told her to stay in there until they were done.

Someone commented that they won't treat animals like that, but they'll do it to their interns.

I've a question for the Feministing community:
What are the other animal welfare groups that are not a)terrorists or b)racist and sexist?

Destra The SPCA is pretty rad, but they are not focused on dietary issues. Also there are some differing opinions on what animal welfare is as opposed to animal rights.

Even Newkirk has made conflicting statements on the subject, not that this should come as a surprise to anyone since she uses animal byproducts to treat her diabetes.

Wiki has a pretty comprehensive listing of animal welfare groups:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animal_welfare_groups

You can go through and check out which ideology fits with your own personal thoughts the best.

Ugh, I hate these stupids campaigns, and I'm a vegan. Where are all the naked men in cages??? Why is it that they have women stripping to protest fur but not men? At least if they had men and women it'd be fair, not that naked people sitting in cages is the best way to convince people to go veg anyway...

Destra/Logrus on the animal welfare group thing:

The problem I have with the SPCA is that their shelters are "kill" shelters - if an animal doesn't get adopted in a specified amount of time, it is killed by the shelter.

However, there's lots of great no-kill shelters around. I believe San Fran is a no-kill city, and there is probably a non-kill rescue group/shelter in your city/town.

RE: Nude Men and PETA

I did a GIS just to satisfy my curiosity for "nude men peta" and I came up with one, only one, advert featuring a nude male celeb; It was David Cross.

Now I love David Cross, I mean really really! But not only is his presence not numerically comparable to that of women used; his overall physical appearance isn't what most would consider "sexy" (unfortunate since he and I have some of the same physical traits), and his level of celebrity is certainly not on par with some of the women used (Alicia Silverstone, for example) by PETA.

Does anyone think that a reason more famous men don't go in for this is that the popular myth is that vegetarianism is antithetical to machismo?

OK, upon further search I did find one PETA ad with two really sexy guys making out. But a) it's not really shooting for the same demographic coverage as nude/semi-nude women, even if a lot of het women do find man/man stuff pretty great and b) I'm not even sure if it is a real ad or if it was a design project.

Here is the link, semi NSFW if you work someplace really uptight,: http://bp1.blogger.com/_zbjqMnpFubQ/ReUz6HmefxI/AAAAAAAAA5k/QoWsVgbS96w/s1600-h/gay_PETA.jpg

And I also found these images through the same blog. Actually some of these guys are pretty good looking (well, two of them are) but still nothing to compare with the glut of female flesh PETA pushes:

http://zyklon1985.blogspot.com/2007/04/when-men-go-nude.html

revsocialist:

Some ASPCA shelters are no kill, I wish they all could be, but the fact is if you look at the numbers then dollar for dollar the SPCA, even with kill shelters, puts more animals in the hands of loving families than pretty much any other org out there (barring specialty operations which deal with one specific breed, etc). The sad reality is that adopting animals is just like adopting kids and as they get older or if they have special needs it becomes next to impossible to find people who will take on the responsibility.

Also the term no-kill is somewhat misleading. While a "kill shelter" usually euthanizes based on a time limit (usually tied to budget/resources) all shelters do kill sick and diseased animals as a precaution; and nearly all kill animals with serious social rehabilitation problems. I'm sure you and most other folks here know this, but just in case someone reading this didn't know.

Destra, you could also check out HSUS. They do a lot of impact litigation, promote veganism and veganish-ism, work on local initiatives to protect circus animals, Endangered Species Act advocacy, a wide range of stuff.

I used to get solicitation letters from PETA all the time (it must have been the Veg Times subscription) and I would always use their postage-paid envelopes to send them letters about how they'd get no dough until they renounced their sexist advertising. Didn't make any headway but they did eventually stop wasting their postage on me.

@ Logrus: My guess is because their PR department has based their advertising campaign around the idea that women are more likely to empathize and read the written word and thus will not need the visual stimulation to be persuaded. Men on the other hand, in their minds, don't bother to read and only care about sex and thus are more susceptible to do whatever the 'pretty naked lady' tells us to. As a vegetarian myself, I sort of have a love-hate relationship with PETA; I think their arrogance and vainglorious attempts at morality are nauseating yet I respect them for their general cause. But I do have a question just out of curiousity:
Despite the blatant sexism employed in their ads, will anyone be happy should their campaign produce a wave of converts (to a vegetarian/vegan lifestyle that is); will the end justify the means?
Personally, I am finding it more and more difficult to feel outrage over advertiser's methods because 'a scorched earth' policy is what I have come to expect from those in power (be they political or material). And what else can I expect from a group who used Pamela Fucking Anderson as a 'spokesperson' (read: inspiration for 'bare truth' campaign) for their cause for so long.

I can't explain why, so I'm not expecting to convince anyone else, but I've never been offended by PETA's use of sex appeal in their ads. I've been offended by other things that PETA does, but the women featured are consenting adults. I guess I see it as the lesser of two evils.

Besides, I like that they're appealing to a different demographic. It's not like 90% of the omnivorous population pays any attention to traditional animal welfare ads, and most of the ones who do are making fun of them or complaining about them. So if nothing else, at least PETA's thinking outside the box.

I'll tell you who makes a good animal welfare ad, Sarah McLaughlin. I can't hear "Arms of An Angel" w/o reaching for a damn tissue.

I'm getting choked up right now just thinking about it, and I'm a real mean jerk; I can only imagine how people with feelings react to that commercial she does for the Humane Society. You put her in front of some chickens and a cow and KFC/Sizzler stock would plummet.

Louise, how are they thinking outside the box? They are using women's bodies to sell their 'product', just like everyone else out there.

And what is the different demographic they are appealing to? I'm just confused by your comment.

I think PETA's ads suck and I don't understand in the least how they are supposed to convince anyone to stop eating meat.

I did a GIS just to satisfy my curiosity for "nude men peta" and I came up with one, only one, advert featuring a nude male celeb; It was David Cross.

I saw a PETA ad several months ago that featured that dude from Jackass...Steve-O, I think. It was one of those "I'd rather go naked than wear fur" ads. So, I guess that makes two.

thiskissbelongstome:

All the cosmetic companies and fashion labels may use women's bodies to sell their product, but it's not common for charities and non-profit organizations. Most animal welfare organizations will have an ad with, say, some kittens on it. Cute, but not clever, and unfortunately not very effective.

They're appealing to people who are attracted to naked women--by and large, straight males. It's not nice that the world works this way, but eating meat is seen as a sign of masculinity. I barely know any straight guys who are vegetarian, and they get a lot of shit for it, mostly from other guys. If PETA can change this stereotype, I say more power to them.

Frankly, I'd be willing to tolerate just about any marketing tactic employing consenting adults if it means animal welfare would improve. But that's just me.

So if nothing else, at least PETA's thinking outside the box.

Using women as a stand-in for sex (or “sex appeal”) to sell a product is as old as advertising itself. There is nothing new or original about objectifying women, it’s the exact opposite of thinking outside the box.

sarah mclaughlin:

Jesus, I'll admit to laughing at Steve-O's antics but why would anyone try and associate themselves with that junkie. At least the chewing gum people kind of mock his status as trash.

Whoops, I meant to type ShelbyWoo.

There's something that I've noticed on this site, and it confuses me a little. I'm not trying to start trouble, just looking for an explanation.
Why is OK for women to be sexual when talking about sex workers, but not in this situation? How are these women doing anything more anti-feminist than clothing models or dancers? (for whom everyone showed support in this post http://community.feministing.com/2008/07/sex-workers-vs-feminism.html)
Thanks

revsolcialist:

Please do not fall for the deceptive label "no kill." It reminds me of the term "pro-life." It inaccurately paints the "other" as "pro-kill" or "pro-death."
The only reason "no-kill" shelters can call themselves that is because they turn A LOT of animals away. Sick, disabled, old, and animals with serious behavioral issues are not always offered shelter. The "kill" shelters accept all animals, and so must euthenize in order to make room. Most animals sent to "kill" shelters are given a short amount of time (to find a home) before they are put down.
It's very sad, but it's an economics issue and has nothing to do with the "morality" of the organizations or their staff.
If you want to help homeless animals, donate time and/or money to LOCAL animal rescue organizations. The HSUS and SPCA are wonderful, but if you want to positively impact the lives of animals in your immediate area, search for breed-specific rescues or specific shelters. They need all the help they can get, just to keep the electricity going.

Logrus:

I can't watch that Sarah McLaughlin commercial. The second I hear the music I know what's coming and have to change the channel. Don't worry; it's not that I wish to remain ignorant. I already give more than I can afford to the beagle rescue (where I got my boy).
I feel the same way about half the programming on Animal Planet.

GeckoLover, nobody is criticizing the women featured in PETA advertising/marketing. We are criticizing PETA for using women's bodies to *somehow* convince people to get on board with their mission.
And the women in the ads are not "being sexual," anyway. They are not expressing their own sexuality or taking part in pleasurable sexual experiences - they are modeling.

SarahMC: I can't watch Animal Planet since it's become so heavily saturated with those "Animal Cops" shows.

Animal cruelty is one of the triggers for my PTSD. The first time I saw one of those shows I had a rage attack like I hadn't felt since I saw Reginald Denny stop at an intersection to avoid running down pedestrians and get beaten for a reward.

Those stories on the Animal Cops shows are just so sad. I think it was Heroes Week on AP last week; the majority of the commercials just made me want to cry.
I love a happy ending, but I am filled with rage when I hear about another asshole who's hurt or neglected a poor animal. Either that or pure hopelessness when I learn about some disaster that's negatively affected innocent animals.
I still love AP; it's one of my favorite channels. I'm glad they promote animal welfare awareness; it's something I care about a lot.

Has anyone seen the ad that features a young women being told by her parents to go out and have sex, comparing not neutering your pet to encouraging your teenage daughter to go out and get pregnant? It was made by PETA, and basically compares young women to pregnant, breeding animals. I think the language of the ad as well as the message (your labrador, like your teenage daughter, needs to be sexually controlled) are tasteless and sexist. I was hoping it might show up here.

http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/video.asp?video=abc_the_talk_psa&Player=wm

People who are anti "kill" shelters need to really think about what you're supporting. As previously mentioned, no-kill shelters turn away hundreds of animals to be sent to in some cases 100% kill shelters (generally dogs).

Also, is it really more humane to keep alive a dog who is literally being driven mad by the lack of stimulation? Dogs and cats get depressed, paranoid, sometimes aggressive, sometimes almost lifeless from a life of boredom. In many cases a needle is much more pleasant than years of being passed over, getting so little attention and stimulation.

Finally, I can say first-hand that it's completely ridiculous in terms of disease control. The vet clinic I work for desexes and rehomes kittens for the cat's protection league. When you have literally hundreds of kittens, kittens coming out of your ears every damn year if you count the SPCA's, it is just wrong not to be aggressive about culling kittens with flu.

Think it sounds harsh? I can tell you right now I've spent plenty of time crying over killing kittens with ringworm at the SPCA (if you don't every damn animal in the shelter will get it), and this kitten season fluey cats.

We were sent two extreeeemely cute kittens by CPL. They got snuffly, we treated them, they appeared better. A week later, we find ulsers on their tongues - calisi virus.

Thanks to not wanting to put down those two kittens, we had 20 kittens contract flu. This means they have to be put to sleep or treated for weeks so that they are bigger and harder to sell at the end of it - and given calisi cats carry the virus for years, it will spread to any cats at that person's home.

It puts every staff member's cats at risk, handling these kittens. Because of those two, VERY cute kittens, we had to put down about six kittens who just kept getting it back and back, worse and worse.

People who work for kill shelters don't like killing animals. The fac they're willing to work in incredibly despressing (but rewarding) conditions for shit pay means that damn right they probably care more than most people. But they're realistic, and it is just not even remotely realistic to keep alive every animal that comes in.

In a similar vein ...

In Jon Morrow's latest post on Copy Blogger "How to be Interesting" he states,

"8) Show a (half) naked woman: Ever noticed that a disproportionate number of advertisements feature a scantily clad woman? That’s because it works. It draws the attention of not only men (as you’d expect), but also women. For whatever reason, nearly everyone finds their attention drawn to it. Here’s proof that it even works with blog posts."

Check out the entire list at http://www.copyblogger.com/how-to-be-interesting/

Until the systematic killing of millions of animals a day in order to satisfy our palates ends, then I would say bring on the nudity. There are other uses of sex and nudity that are far more insipid than the message PETA advocates, so I would say that we need to choose our battles. PETA is not the enemy.

Until you can tell me how brutal racism and sexism in ad campaigns has a positive effect how can you even try to justify the ads?

"Sex sells?" What exactly does sex sell? It's not like PETA makes convertibles or something.

Their ad campaigns are preaching to their choir, a group of people who believe that prevention of animal cruelty by almost any means necessary is okay. At the end of the day comparing slaughterhouses to gas chambers and women to dogs isn't going to win you many supporters.

In actuality PETA has probably been incredibly marginalized by these ads, because sane, normal people who oppose animal cruelty don't want to associate themselves with a group that gets its jollies off putting women in cages in their underwear.

How are these women doing anything more anti-feminist than clothing models or dancers?(for whom everyone showed support in this post http://community.feministing.com/2008/07/sex-workers-vs-feminism.html)

And the women in the ads are not "being sexual," anyway. They are not expressing their own sexuality or taking part in pleasurable sexual experiences [...]

@ Destra: The SPCA and The Humane Society are two credible animal welfare groups who don't alienate women by stripping them and sticking them in cages.

Yes, I'm sure those women were forced into those cages at gunpoint.

Destra, animal welfare groups seek to improve conditions for animals without questioning the basic right of human beings to own and eat animals. Animal rights groups do want to improve the conditions for animals, but also want to END zoos, circuses, and factory farming altogether.

Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
Farm Sanctuary
Californians for Humane Farms

Plug any of those phrases into a search engine, and you'll get to some good folks. I am a PETA member, and PETA hears from me regularly about their ads. I also give the bare minimum to maintain a voice in PETA, and direct most of the money to PCRM, Farm Sanctuary, and In Defense of Animals.

Lottie, NOBODY GIVES A SHIT WHAT THE MODELS DO. It is not about the models being "mistreated."

On No-Kill:

Actually, there are shelters that don't turn away sick animals, and don't kill any animals. In fact, I work for one. We take in any animals we have space for, regardless of medical or behavioral history.

All the commenters are correct that there are MANY shelters that mis-use the "no-kill" lingo. However, this doesn't mean they're all fakes. Yes, there are issues of space at "no-kill" shelters, but this doesn't have to be the case, if more shelters (and cities) supported this.

I invite those of you who defend PETA's practice of using naked women in their advertising to supply some evidence that it actually works to change people's behaviors or bring in money for their cause. As you can see, their campaigns ALIENATE many people who AGREE with their stances. And there is no proof that horndogs who like looking at naked women are at all convinced to alter their lifestyles by PETA's tactics.

My son rescued three abandoned kittens. They were very young and still needed to nurse. We weren't in a position to take proper care of them and we were getting discouraged when these people came to the resuce:

SARA’s mission: love, life, food, shelter Southern Animal Rescue Association, SARA, provides homeless companion animals with unconditional life – food, shelter, love and life in a permanent, safe, and healthy environment, despite special health needs or temperament. We seek loving adoptive homes for our animals, but when adoption is impossible, the animals live the rest of their natural lives at the sanctuary in the company of other animals and human caregivers.

SARA Sanctuary

Lottie, NOBODY GIVES A SHIT WHAT THE MODELS DO. It is not about the models being "mistreated."

You know... Context.

And yet, revsolcialist, you continue to demonize the majority of so-called "kill shelters," which only operate that way due to lack of funds, space and human capital.
It's very nice that the "no-kill" shelter you work for does not need to turn away any animals. I have not spoken ill of "no-kill shelters," because none of these shelters do what they do out of some moral conviction. ALL shelters are necessary.
But your experience says nothing about those "kill shelters" that do not have the luxury of housing and caring for an infinite number of animals for an infinite amount of time. Want to help animals? Advocate for spay/neuter programs and donate/volunteer to whatever shelter/rescue you can (which I'm sure you do).
Stop perpetuating the myth that "no-kill shelters" are SUPERIOR to "kill shelters" because of some misinterpretation of their motives on your part.

All the cosmetic companies and fashion labels may use women's bodies to sell their product, but it's not common for charities and non-profit organizations.

Louise...clothing kind of requires a human body to wear it, otherwise we'd have no idea what it looks like, and a large portion of the fashion industry is menswear...how is that even remotely comparable to charities using women's bodies? how is that relevant?

Which comment, Lottie?
PETA alienates women (like me) by stripping OTHER women (you know, people of my sex) and sticking THEM in cages. It is not an issue of whether PETA mistreats or abuses the women who work for them. It is an issue of how PETA portrays women, period.
You know... reading comprehension.

It makes me very sad that animals are still considered by so many people to be more important than women.

Oh yes, Farm Animal Sanctuary! They also do good work! And then there's always your local shelter, which is providing homes for neglected and abandoned animals in your own community. I am such a softie for my local shelter, where I found my two dear cats.

Personally, I find PETA's ads to be far more scummy than garden-variety objectification. By trying to cross "drool over the happy sexy women" media with "pity the horribly mistreated creatures" messaging, what they're ending up with is "drool over the horrible mistreatment of these sexy women". I'm reminded of those Captivity movie ads.

Loise,

I think your point about masculinity and meat eating is very interesting.

I think it is incredibly important though that as someone noted above, not all of those women are models, some are PETA interns. No one should be put in the position of showing up to intern for a cause you care about, hoping to use your brain to make a difference, and being told by the boss to get naked and in a cage for the cause.

I would say that I am actaully not offended by the snake or the rabbitt ad really, it is more the cage ones that frustrate me. I guess I think they are assuming in conceptualizing those protest that people will look at the caged women and think "wow that's messed up," and ignoring the extent to which are society fetishizes helpless/restrained women.

Again, if they can show me any evidence that these ads are effective I think it would be an interesting debate, but right now it just seems pointless to me.

I get what you're saying, Sarah. I'm addressing more than one thing here.

First:

PETA alienates women (like me) by stripping OTHER women (you know, people of my sex) and sticking THEM in cages.

See, I'm kind of guessing that the women stripped themselves and got in the cages on their own. But I could be wrong.

Next:

It is not an issue of whether PETA mistreats or abuses the women who work for them. It is an issue of how PETA portrays women, period.

For the record, I'm not defending this practice on the grounds that I think it's good marketing. I'm not actually defending it at all. Personally, I think it's stupid and counterproductive for reasons you gave as well as other reasons stated elsewhere in this thread. So you see, I actually agree with you on that point. Try not to alienate allies, will ya'? ;-)

But - separately from that issue - I also take issue with people assuming that they get to define "being sexual" expressing sexuality or pleasurable sexual experiences for other people.

I think that covers all my comments in this thread so far. Any questions?

Oops! It didn't cover all my comments. I forgot about the plug for the animal sanctuary that took in the kittens my son rescued. I hadn't considered it part of the discussion, actually.

Sorry if leaving it out caused any confusion.

Ugh, I hate these stupids campaigns, and I'm a vegan. Where are all the naked men in cages??? Why is it that they have women stripping to protest fur but not men? At least if they had men and women it'd be fair, not that naked people sitting in cages is the best way to convince people to go veg anyway...

I'm not sure about the naked men in cages...it could be because since hens produce both meat and eggs, that the chicken rearer puts them all together in cages? Im not sure whether they kill the male chicken before that or not.

But the reason for the fur one is pretty obvious. I dont think many men in the US wear fur. Not sure about the rest of the world, especially in colder climates, though.

Now if they had a "Dont wear leather" campaign, I'm sure that can be applied to men as well as women.

But Lottie, are you presuming these models are being sexual or otherwise getting off by stripping and getting painted or put in cages? Shouldn't we hear from the models before drawing conclusions one way or the other as to what their motivations are? Your comments here seem much more prescriptive and presumptuous than anyone else's here on that score. I think it's safe to assume that as PETA activists these women are motivated by animal rights concerns. That's all I've seen anyone assuming here, aside from you.

To everyone going on about how the PETA campaigns are using consenting, paid women as models:

Yes, for the professionally photographed magazine and billboard ads the models/celebrities were probably totally on board with what was going on, and more than likely were well treated and made quite comfortable on the set, not to mention doing what they signed up to do. The women in cages, however, who you'll notice are not professionally photographed but are generally parts of, for lack of a better term, street performance, may or may not have had the same treatment. Remember the thread on this site a few months back dealing with the naked intern wrapped up as meat? Remember the passerby (police officer, maybe?) who asked if she was okay, and she said that she was hot, uncomfortable, dehydrated, dizzy, and nauseous, and her boss told her to suck it up and stick it out? That, friends, is NOT CONSENT. And yeah, she could have torn the cellophane off, stood up, and said, "Fuck this shit, I'm not getting heat stroke for you," (heat stroke is ass, btw, for those that haven't experienced it), but more than likely she was young and inexperienced, had worked hard to get the internship, and felt intimidated by the possibility of getting a bad review or even losing her position. Or maybe she couldn't do that at all. Industrial plastic wrap is pretty strong, especially when it's a couple layers thick. Her health was put at risk, and even if she consented without coercion at the beginning, when she expressed discomfort they should have stopped and let her up.

I would just like to point out that PETA does have some lesser known campaigns involving men:
http://www.lettuceladies.com/broccoli_boys.asp

Personally, I am not offended by the ads involving naked women. I don't feel the need to defend them either. PETA has done great things for animals but I don't think any major accomplishments were due to ads such as these. Even though naked women are aesthetically pleasing to look at, some would argue more so than the male form, I think they would gain more ground with more marketing directed specifically at women. The majority of vegetarians are female anyways, and if a naked Joaquin Phoenix can't make a girl go vegan, nothing can. :)

I also don't think it's a great stretch for some vegans/vegitarians to justify the objectification of women because they believe that it is equally as unjust as objectifying a cow. Not that cows are sexy, that it is a living creature as opposed to food.

I personally don't like this approach to spreading their message. I like the argument that if they were sincerely interested in reaching people, they wouldn't limit their ad campaigns to just sexy women. Ever seen Dolce & Gabbana ads?

I just have to say that the udders-for-breasts picture is SERIOUSLY disturbing. I'm going to have nightmares now. Thanks, PETA.

But Lottie, are you presuming these models are being sexual or otherwise getting off by stripping and getting painted or put in cages? Shouldn't we hear from the models before drawing conclusions one way or the other as to what their motivations are? Your comments here seem much more prescriptive and presumptuous than anyone else's here on that score.

I found that presumptuous (expressing sexuality or having a pleasurable sexual experience and modeling are not mutually exclusive) and actually agree that only the women, themselves, can speak to that. I wasn't the one drawing any conclusions about the women. I was addressing a conclusion which had been drawn by someone else.

I think it's safe to assume that as PETA activists these women are motivated by animal rights concerns.

That's all I've seen anyone assuming here, aside from you.

They should be trying to humanize animals, but all these ads do is dehumanize women.

yup, fer reals. I understood (maybe misunderstood) what you quoted differently. These women are engaging in performative acts, so their intent is not as important as their effect on the audience. What these women are communicating is not sexual expression, it's political marketing. I do think you're making up an awful lot in your response to the bit you quoted, while undercutting the value of the one thing we *do* know with any amount of certainty about why these women are doing what they are doing, i.e., wanting to spread a message. It sounds like you're grasping for reasons we shouldn't criticize PETA and what you've come up with sua sponte isn't very compelling.

Has anyone seen the ad that features a young women being told by her parents to go out and have sex, comparing not neutering your pet to encouraging your teenage daughter to go out and get pregnant? It was made by PETA, and basically compares young women to pregnant, breeding animals. I think the language of the ad as well as the message (your labrador, like your teenage daughter, needs to be sexually controlled) are tasteless and sexist. I was hoping it might show up here.

I've seen that. In fact I tried to make a community post about the commercial as something PETA did right.

The commercial is hilarious (to me). I thought it got it's point across using humor and hyperbole.

As someone who has pets and does not have kids, making a comparison of a child to a pet is not all that far off.

For me, the comparison was that in encouraging their teen daughter to have sex without giving her a way to prevent pregnancy (as many do with pets) was as controlling as someone restricting a daughter's sexuality. Both are controlling the aspect of the daughter's choice.

I think, in this ad, PETA found a way to make the point that we would be appalled by the things we do to animals if we saw those animals as being more similar to humans WITHOUT resorting to using nude female bodies. I thought it was a step in the right direction.

I think many of the comments are missing the overall point, and this comes up frequently regarding outrage over PETA.

To some extent, PETA is trying to yank us down from our pedestal. We are belching, farting, dirty, stinky, hairy primates. Women have breasts that lactate, as cows do. I know, it's quite a shocker, but I think PETA tries to render the food industry and animal cruelty more transparent. Granted, in some cases, perhaps they skirt a taste boundary. Yet, these are life and death issues on a massive scale. I find no objection to a little objectification when trying to resist the machine that boils millions of chickens alive every single day.

Ok, maybe I'm just naive but I didn't read these ads the same way most people here seem to have. I thought some of the ads seemed to be saying that the way animals are treated is as disgusting as pornography, rather than attempting to sell through sex. Did anyone else have this as their first reaction?

But Shaun, it's always the objectification of WOMEN!
It seems as though PETA views men, and men alone, the audience for all its advertising and demonstrations. The Male Gaze is at work here. Women are merely props.

Fine, women are objectified and used as props. The point I am trying to make here is that when you compare slaughter and death on a cold, massive, industrial scale versus some naked bodies, I would rather end the slaughter first, worry about the bodies later.

In addition, men might be the only audience, since the stereotype persists that men must eat red meat and tend to the grill. If we change some men, fine. On the other hand, hetero-normative assumptions are made regarding these ads. What if they are also "attractive" to women? Yet, why is it sexual attraction that is automatically the first response? I would say viewing human beings as just another animal is another powerful message here.

shaun said:
"Fine, women are objectified and used as props. The point I am trying to make here is that when you compare slaughter and death on a cold, massive, industrial scale versus some naked bodies, I would rather end the slaughter first, worry about the bodies later."

Aaaaaaaaand, some women aren't as okay with your minimizing attitude towards objectification.
Fine, women are objectified and used as props, but get over it, ladies, we're talking about the slaughter of animals here!
Yeah. No. PETA needs to knock it right the fuck off.

As much as PETA needs to knock it the F*** off, as some would say, I counter that American people need to knock their meat-eating off and stop feeding their fat a**es. Outrage over objectification is understandable and completely justified, but when compared with industrial food production and the fur industry, it is eclipsed.

Granted, it is never an either/or scenario. That is, one does not occur at the expense of the other. The outrage, however, is misplaced when we consider what is at stake.

The outrage is not misplaced or eclipsed and women should not have to suffer through being degraded and objectified so an entity like PETA can reach out to oblivious frat guys.

PETA has obviously chosen men as a more important audience to reach and women have fallen into the predictable roles as props, objects and means-to-an end.

As a vegetarian, I will never support PETA for this simple reason and I relish the opportunity to talk smack about them whenever I get the chance.

Women are an audience as well precisely because they talk smack about PETA. We are all audiences of PETA, we merely experience different reactions. Talking smack is still talking, so keep expounding their message. Again, however, the assumption is that only men are turned on by these messages. What about women?

Ah, Shaun, you have seen the light! "What about women?" you finally ask. Oh, wait...

Women have internalized the Male Gaze to the extent that whether we're straight or gay, we're supposed to be turned on by women's bodies and women's expressions of sexuality. That the female form is objectively "more beautiful" than the male form is accepted as fact even by hetero women!

What about men reveling in their bodies for women's entertainment and pleasure?
Hetero men don't seem to get the same "enjoyment" out of taking it off for women.
Men are always subject, women object.

AYEEEE HAAAAATE PEEEETAAAA!

And I'm vegetarian.
They give us a bad image, collectively. They're crazy, self-righteous eco-terrorists who have no business judging anybody!

Like they said on South Park: "PETA doesn't care about people, only animals."
Can't it be both?

That being said:

Destra:

ASPCA & Farm Sanctuary are two of my favorite animal groups who I trust and support.

Shaun: Your point is valid. So why can't they yank men from their pedestal as well? (Answer: because it doesn't "sell".)

@MissRachel: Wow, the "Broccoli Boys" feel like a cheap attempt by to PETA push aside objections to the "Lettuce Ladies" because they can claim to be objectifying men and women equally.

However: the Broccoli Boys web page is just a small subset of the Lettuce Ladies website. There are only 3 Broccoli Boys versus 13 Lettuce Ladies (two of whom are celebrities). And to top it off, while the women are clothed only in lettuce leaf bikinis, the men have nary a vegetable in sight and get to cover up with white cotton undershirts and green boxers.

And ohmigod, there's a video of a Playboy model TOFU WRESTLING. wtf? Stay classy PETA.

I will not get into the subject/object debate here. Although men in some cases, white men in particular, have the privilege of disembodiment, they are not ALWAYS the subject. They can also be the object, as in action films where the body is constantly on display. Wait, what am I doing?

So, yes, I will say once again and end my participation in the debate here as plainly as I can and agree to disagree: animal cruelty is objectionable to such a degree as to eclipse the dispute against objectification. Sorry, I just don't care in this specific case.

Weeeeeeelllll, you're on a feminist forum, shaun, does it surprise you that the ladies don't like being objectified and we take it seriously?

And men in action movies are generally the subject because they are the ones who are acting, the eye-candy women on the sidelines are the objects because they are being acted upon.

I, for one, am not turned on by PETA's tactics. I also don't read Maxim magazine or listen to Dane Cook. Clearly, I'm not the correct demographic for PETA even though I'm a hardcore vegetarian.

ElleStar-
I am usually grateful for your calm and pragmatic approaches in these threads, but the bit about "making a comparison of a child to a pet is not all that far off." was off. I can see how people without children might think of their pets as kid-like in regards to the feeding/watering, sheltering and general care of animals, but the parallels pretty much stop there.
Shaun-
I'm not sure why you'd come to a feminist web site to argue that the food industry is waaaaay worse than the objectification, demoralization and consumption of women.
And, I find the statement, "...viewing human beings as just another animal is another powerful message here," as 33 different kinds of ironic on a site committed to the humanization of women and people of color. PETA isn't proving human beings are "just another animal," they're using women as a vehicle for the tenor of a metaphor that affects the lives of billions of women all over the world. And we're working hard enough as it is to be viewed as equal human beings, let alone getting out of the category of animals.

ATTENTION!
Don't even bother to argue with Shaun. He shows up in every PETA thread on the site and harps on the same old argument that women are less important than animals (Personally, as a vegan AND a woman, I don't appreciate either one being ranked).
I don't think I've ever seen him comment on any other Feministing thread.
I'm guessing he works for PETA or something. He is a waste of time.

Shaun,

Does it not strike you as a tad condescending to show up on a feminist blog and just tell everyone that we are upset about nothing? That even though we may find these images objectifying to the point of being difficult to look at, we are just all incorrect but thank god you have shown up to point out our silliness? I am not saying that you should join the criticism of these ads if you don't see a problem with them. But if you are going to post on a feminist blog with the hope of convincing anyone, at least acknowledge the limitations of your perspective, that society doesn't get off on the sight of you in a cage, that you haven't spent your entire life being objectified, so maybe listen to how women experience these ads instead of just jumping in to tell us our experience is not important?

I would also say that if you are going to make a "the ends justify the means" argument, you need to demonstrate that these ads accomplish any ends at all. Otherwise you seem to be arguing tht objectification is ok because even though it doesn't actually stop animal any suffering, at least it helps PETA get in the news.

Oh boy, I do not work for PETA, I just have strong opinions about this issue. I am not a feminist, however, but I am a pro-feminist. The one question is, am I a man or a woman? It seems as if I am being coded male based on some of the replies.

Maybe your last name is Patrick, but I suspect it's your middle name. I can see it by scrolling over your username. It shouldn't be a mystery why you're being coded as male, anyway. Your privilege oozes.

kmg:

I clearly stated several times, using bold and italics for emphasis, that I was addressing the issue of sexual expression separately from the issue of criticizing PETA for this particular publicity stunt, if you will. It's something that struck a chord with me and I was addressing it on the side. My thoughts on that are completely unrelated to what we know about the situation with PETA. Given that, I don't see how it could be interpreted as "undercutting the value of what we do know".

My comments about sexual expression had nothing to do with the subject of PETA. It was purely a side topic. I'm confused as to why this seems to be such a sticking point since I specifically said all this last night in the comment you seem to be responding to.

It sounds like you're grasping for reasons we shouldn't criticize PETA and what you've come up with sua sponte isn't very compelling.

It is possible to address more than one point per thread. That is what I have been doing. And I clearly stated as much.

Lottie, I'm sorry to have misunderstood you. I have reread what you wrote and still don't find that you were as clear as you seem to think, but I regret the misunderstanding all the same.

@rhowan - I just wanted to bring the Broccoli Boys campaign to the table, that's all.

kmg:

It happens. Like I said elsewhere, although this is a wonderful medium and I love it, it's easy to get crossed signals. I'm sorry if I wasn't as clear as I thought I had been.

No hard feelings, though, I hope.

Signing off now. Back in a couple of days. Thanks again and take care!

@MissRachel - Oh, sorry, I only included the "@MissRachel" in my comment so people could find which comment I was writing in response to. I didn't intend to come across as critical of anyone but PETA. I really appreciate you posting that link.

What really amazes me is that, in my anecdotal experience, almost all animal rights activists are women. Great way to turn your primary source of volunteers and money off from your cause, PETA.