I find it hard to believe that anybody these ads are targeted at will take the time to read "Lambs suffer and die in live export" The image has almost nothing to do with the message. I don't get how these are effective.

PETA's single issue focus drives me nuts! We'll exploit women and who cares about how Joanna Krupa's jewels were mined and manufactured? Not PETA.

What bothered me the most was in the ad implying that pubic hair was disgusting, the "girl" the underwear is on is so thin that it looks as though there is nothing underneath it. The left strap (I guess you would call it that) is actually sticking out on the bottom, as though they just laid the thong out on a table, took a picture, and then added the body. There is no way a woman, living or dead, would look that flat in underwear, no matter how thin they are.

First of, you can have divided opinions about the bikini / fur thing, which admittedly is not one of PETA’s more tasteful or clever campaigns. I can accept someone objecting to this campaign although not on the grounds given by Naomi (I am almost certain this is a “real” woman, although the “fur” of course is not). As for the rest of the post, here are some thoughts:

What always amazes me when people get worked up about PETA campaigns is not only that PETA's objective and the relationality of the campaign’s goals versus the offence people are taking are entirely overlooked (read Peter Singer's Animal Liberation Chapter 1 & 6 if you don't know what I am talking about), which in itself is not the biggest issue – you can be a hardliner after all, but that the exact same people who are oh so deeply offended by campaigns such as the ones depicted do not cry out nearly as loud, if at all, when they are literally bombarded by at least as sexually charged ads for underwear, drinks or some other banal product, or in TV shows, movies and so on – all in all something that is literally inescapable in most Western cultures. Presumably showing women (AND men!) naked or scantily clothed for a good cause is repugnant, but paying them to show them in the same state of undress to sell your product and make more money is not? The reason for this, of course, is that money is non-ideological as we all know. Let me rephrase this slightly, just to make sure I get the point: If Eva Mendes is naked or the next best thing in pretty much every movie she has ever made for no reason dictated by the plot at all, but quite obviously only to capitalize on / exploiting her sex appeal that is OK (she was payed after all), if she or any of the other women or men participating in PETA campaigns of their own free (!) are shot in non-sexual (pornographic), but erotic postures (there is a difference), wearing nothing or next to nothing it is not?! Similar arguments could of course be made for Joanna Krupa, Holly Madison and others (I did not bother to look every model up) whose careers are essentially based on a great willingness of being naked, or at least got started that way.

What also strikes me is that the first reaction to a naked or near-naked woman always seems to be “sexist.” How can you uphold such an attitude in the fight for equality? Is it not in essence forbidding a woman to “use” her body any way she wants – which in my opinion is a goal worth fighting for that stands much higher than an automated response of political correctness and fossilized role and behavior patterns –, including for a cause she deems justified (again we are not talking about receiving money to be portrayed in a debased posture so that some CEO or stockholder can make much more money than the model was paid)? Isn't that kind of thinking incredibly sexist – much more so than showing attractive people, who in some, maybe even most, cases happen to be female, in attractive ways? What the original poster overlooks is that PETA is not some mysterious force pursuing “the objectification of women for their own purposes,” which might be a justifiable argument if they were putting some kind of pressure, such as an economic pressure, on these women, but that the women (and men) are all volunteers who are not paid, and thus are not subject to violence (direct, economic, social, or other), but individuals who choose to use their time and their looks for a cause they deem worthy.

It also strikes me that I might be the first one who recognizes the fallacy in the original poster's "argument" of sexism against women when she starts showing campaigns that do feature (near) naked men. Surely, I am just the first one to comment, and I admit it seems almost rhetorical, but for the sake of clarity: How exactly do pictures of near-naked men debase women? On the contrary, could we not realize - if we opened our eyes and minds wide enough - that the men are depicted in essentially the same way, a way which for women is sexist? Maybe we might realize that PETA after all is not an abstract, secret chauvinist society out on a quest to debase and sexualize women, but a group comprised mostly of volunteers on a quest to stop unnecessary cruelty to animals in meat farms, fur farms etc.

Me thinks that some people need to open their minds just a tiny little bit. Maybe just wide enough to allow for a distinction between using your body to achieve an objective you deem worthy, such as ending unneccessary cruelty to animals carried out only to allow for puny human goals, first and foremost saving 2 cents on a pound of meat, even if you might be unlucky enough to be a sexually attractive woman, and having your body used by someone, i.e. a corporation trying to sell their product by buying sexy / sexist images, products which quite possibly were produced under degrading and objectionable conditions to animals, humans, the environment etc., for which of course you will have to fall into the same category (young, sexually attractive man or woman). Of course one could start an argument about the normativization of beauty in our society, but this is quite a different debate and given the realities of PETA vs. non-PETA ad campaigns, only the latter of these two scenarios to my mind seems objectionable. Perhaps, once they're at it, these people who try to open their minds, could also attempt to work out a distinction between sexist and sexy or, if you prefer, sexually charged – these categories are by no means the same. There may be grounds to object to the use of sexually charged images to sell anything, products OR ethical choices, but this again is another debate – please at least do not use the word sexist if you object to erotic imagery in general.

After all these objections, here is a non-sexist interpretation of the above ads, but one which allows for sexiness: The message of these and similar campaigns to me is clearly that these women and men (there are many more examples of naked or near naked men in PETA campaigns than the ones shown here, examples which also capitalize on these men’s sex appeal) are beautiful and admirable. As a result you may want to imitate them or at least look at them long enough to listen to what they have to say, and this is the central point, they do not want to be objectified, but are actual subjects with a message, they want to make you aware of something that in their opinion is going seriously wrong in our society and stand up (and undress) for the issues the specific campaign they support targets. The message is clearly not please degrade us or please look upon us as objects, but please look at the issue we target. If the original poster is appalled at seeing a woman caged that is exactly the point of the poster! Unfortunately, however, neither she nor any of the previous readers who have bothered to comment manage the mental transfer the campaign calls for: if it is wrong to keep human beings in such conditions, cages which are so small that they cannot even stretch or reposition themselves, how is it right to keep other sentient beings in such conditions?

So as not to be apologetic or unrealistic let me conclude that PETA clearly is using sexually charged imagery to call attention to its goals and to be noticed in a society that is - excuse my French - over-sexed and under-f***ed (excuse the stars, I find them ridiculous, but I do not want the politically correct word police to censor my comment), and it is using the very same mechanisms used in selling products. If, however, the only thing you notice in these campaigns are people in yellow bikinis then maybe that is an issue YOU should resolve rather than blaming the volunteers or some mysterious abstract non-person called PETA out to objectify women all over the world.

PS: I am not saying you cannot object to some of the PETA campaigns even on grounds of sexualizing women, but please do try harder and above all be more discerning.

Jangan bertaruh seluruh anggaran Kamu cuma dalam satu game judi. Risikonya sangat besar. Sebarkan anggaran dalam jumlah besar dalam game sehingga kesempatan Kamu buat menang hendak bertambah. https://www.markasdomino.com/ Cuma buat pemain pendatang baru, dengan cuma lumayan US$ 50 pembaruan di tiap meja.

Hi, I was searching for a similar topic and found your website using Google, your site is up here, and it looks good. I bookmarked it on Google bookmarks. 토토사이트