Guest Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 Friends of Animals' current issue of Act•ionLine is now online. Click here to go to the main page, or just click on the article links below.In My ViewFeature: Liberate Your Chocolate: Buy Fair Trade8th Annual London Vegan FestivalProtecting a Species, But Disrespecting a MovementMovement WatchCheers and JeersRestaurant Reviews: Melanie's Vegan Eden, Providence RI & Radha, NYCThe Wisdom of Respect: The Michigan Nature Association Holds Fast to Its EthicsNews: For 80 Years, Cowboys Conquer the Chincoteague PoniesUpdate: What New Year's Fate for Canada's SealsNews: Moby's Appearance at Gallery Opening Benefits Friends of AnimalsAnother Bad Year For Alaska's Wolveshttp://friendsofanimals.org/img/actionline/2006-winter-cover.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
compassionategirl Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 My heart broke for the sea turtles that were slaughtered in Mexico for their eggs, despite harsh mexican penalties against poachers. I remember seeing a scene in a commercial for World Wildlife Fund where a heartless bastard was cutting through the shell of a sea turtle while the animal was still alive! The turtle literally turned its head and was looking up at his torturer, helpless, terrified, in pain and dying at the hands of this ass$%^. who was hacking away at his shell. I gotta tell you though, I am a woman and I dont have a problem with that ad (which I have a sneaking suspicion doesnt surprise you Daniel). But my first reaction is that sex sells, and the women that participate in this and Peta ads are doing so in an informed, voluntary manner (I assume). There is no duress, coercion or exploitation. I am sure most other women are going to disagree with me and call me an anti-feminist, but, so be it. I would have no problem starring in a sexy ad if I thought the slogan made sense. The slogan "I'd rather go naked than wear fur" makes no sense and doesnt tell people what they can do as practical alernatives to fur. Its just stupid. But this Mexican one that says "My man doesnt need turtle eggs", featuring a beautiful, sexy woman, hopefully will get some people's attention, thereby being productive, and doesnt seem to me to be stupid. Then again, I havent really thought about it for longer than it took me to type this post, so I am open to hearing counter-thoughts. This was my initial reaction though. I am prepared for the backlash and onslaught of harsh words that will be waiting for me in this thread by outraged people when I sign back online! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 im sure that we have had this conversation before, but when johanna (member on VF, captain of German rugby squad, and player of the year ) was asked to do a peta photo shoot, they said that it would just be a normal photo shoot, her in rugby kit, and with lots of fruit. when she got there, they asked her to take all her clothes off, which obviously she was very upset by. she didnt, and stuck to the original plan, though was quite shocked by the whole thing. im not sure that peta are always honest with their 'celebs' and i wonder how many of them were coerced into doing the photos using similar tactics to those detailed above. jonathan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
compassionategirl Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 yes, i do recall that from a previous discussion we had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 im sure that we have had this conversation before, but when johanna (member on VF, captain of German rugby squad, and player of the year ) was asked to do a peta photo shoot, they said that it would just be a normal photo shoot, her in rugby kit, and with lots of fruit. when she got there, they asked her to take all her clothes off, which obviously she was very upset by. she didnt, and stuck to the original plan, though was quite shocked by the whole thing. im not sure that peta are always honest with their 'celebs' and i wonder how many of them were coerced into doing the photos using similar tactics to those detailed above. jonathanThat is f^cked up! But it does seem to fit a pattern with that particular organization. Alicia Silverstone purportedly refused to pose naked, although she did pose in a toxic pleather outfit for the organization. Britney Spears was going to do an ad, but Dan Mathews, who apparently pimps celebrities for PeTA, told the press Spears would be naked. Spears never agreed to do that and pulled out of the ad, refusing to work with PeTA on any future projects. So it seems we can question whether these women did "choose" to take part in such ads. (Cindy Crawford did a PeTA ad as a favor for a designer, not because she cared about animals.) As to the claim that "sex sells," even if the people in these ads are not coerced or coaxed (manipulation is not always force), that doesn't make it a non-issue. What is being sold is the objectification of a particular sex. The message that is being promoted is sexism and misogyny, not animals rights. I don't think we should be treating persons, human or nonhuman, like commodities. Putting aside the moral problem, there is no evidence that this sort of marketing strategy is an effective form of advocacy. Anecdotal beliefs and observations are not valid evidence. And the amount of news ink, website hit, and phone calls PeTA gets from these stunts is not evidence of change. I actually believe it is counterproductive. Since PeTA started the "I'd rather go naked" campaign, the group's flagship sexploitation campaign, fur has made a very major comeback. In the case of the turtles and their eggs, the ad is promoting exactly the type of thinking that is behind the mass-killings. The psychological theory that the campaign is based on, that it speaks the language of the people eating the eggs, is flawed. It is only reinforcing the sexualized thinking of the egg eaters. People know when they are being manipulated, and that is what the "sex sells" approach is trying to do. It is also one reason why it will fail. Education would prove much more effective than sex-based manipulation. These people need a reason to think about why they shouldn't do something, and regardless of what the sex mongers think the ads aren't thought provoking. Let stop selling sex and start cultivating respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
compassionategirl Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 Wow, that was a very thoughtful post. I will have to think about it before I can address it. Your arguments are certainly with merit. The only thing that I will say for now is that you seem to be suggesting that the comeback of fur and Peta "sexploitation" (like the I'd rather go naked campaigns" are correlated somehow. Isnt that really conjecture though, leaving aside all the other arguments you raised against sexploitation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_raVen_ Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 As to the claim that "sex sells," even if the people in these ads are not coerced or coaxed (manipulation is not always force), that doesn't make it a non-issue. Amen! And I'd add that just because some women exploit themselves doesn't make it any less exploitative, nor less harmful for ALL woman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now