Cold Fission wrote:
Just for the record, they use naked men too. Why is being naked for a good cause bad at all. If it was just him giving an interview it wouldn't attract as much attention.
Maybe because of that extra attention it reached more people who would have otherwise bought fur.
I have no problem with nudity of either sex, but in an advertising campaign it can come across as tawdry and exploitative. The tactics with which a product is advertised and sold affect the way that the product is perceived, and if those tactics seem sleazy or desperate they can poison the message. Remember, it's not about how you or I as individuals feel about the ads. It's about how the general populace perceives them, and if that perception is negative, extra attention isn't a good thing.
Cold Fission wrote:
Its a good thing. No harm done. Maybe some religious people get mad because it's lewd or something....
It's not just religious people. It's also people who feel that nudity is an insufficient proxy for actual substance, people who think using sex to sell is cheap or lazy, people who don't want their children exposed to near-nudity, etc. And if enough people are turned off by the ad instead of engaged, there IS harm done. I honestly don't know if that's the case, but it's a danger.
Cold Fission wrote:
And i think using funds for spreading the message is very important. Because it stops the problem at it's source.The people.
I want to open or help fund an animal sanctuary some day but it's not solving the problem, it's just trying to clean up others messes.
PETA is attacking the root of it all. Power to them.
Agreed, it's definitely important. But we can still have constructive discussions about how best to achieve our common goals.