I cannot tell a lie: I’ve often been the girl in the back of the classroom praying that no one brings up PETA because it’s almost impossible for me to sit and listen in silence to how great they are. I get it, they have a great message and I’m sure great heart’s deep down, but if I’m ever going to fall off of my high horse when it comes to stereotyping it would be with regards to PETA maniacs.

We’ve all been asked many a question by PETA and for me it’s been a tireless, endless barrage of answer after answer that I can never deny but that comes out the same every time: Yes PETA, I love animals… No PETA, I don’t want to see lame cows dragged through their own feces on the way to the slaughterhouse… Yes PETA, of course I can’t imagine what it would be like to be stuffed in a tiny, tiny cage with 25 other chickens who can’t move off of top of each other to relieve themselves.

I get it! I truly, unfortunately get it! I am one of those people who tears up when Feed the Children commercials come on and who used to have to ignore the fact that the steak on my plate wasn’t synthetic material but the flesh of a real live cow. I am moved by all of this on a regular basis so much that at times you could manage to label me a bleeding heart, if things are packaged the right way to hit that nerve! But PETA has pushed me to the edge on many occasions and especially lately I’ve come to realize that their tactics are anything but tasteful or heartbreaking. They’ve taken the ability to shock in the past to great lengths offending many, many different groups in our society, including Catholics and the Jewish community comparing the Holocaust to animal cruelty and showing a not so modest Joanna Krupa covering what she can with a crucifix.
In the 1980s PETA jumped on the sexploitation bandwagon early and started their campaign featuring scantily clad (a.k.a. butt naked) women endorsing the ban of fur use and harvesting. Some of the ads include famous actresses such as Jenna Jameson, Alicia Silverstone and Christy Turlington all proclaiming that they’d “Rather go naked than wear fur!” Well hell yeah they would… and so would I. But I am missing the relevance here. But alas, I am not so naive to believe that all advertising has to make sense, especially when it involves Holly Madison’s breasts hanging in front of your face or a funny phallic symbol (their entry for a condom wrapper contest put on by the NYC Dept of Health.)

They seem to be taking the use of sex in advertising to a whole new level though these days, which unfortunately for them bit them in the ass when trying to get their Veggie Love commercial into a 2009 Super Bowl time slot and they were rejected. I came across the ad the other day that was harping on the fact that the consumption of meat = impotence, self loathing and failure… the consumption of veggies = best sex of your life with multiple women on a daily basis (according to PETA.) I have to say, kudos to then their marketing strategy. Who wants to be impotent when all it means is having to give up Carl’s Jr. 6$ burgers, filet mignon and chili cheese fries? (Umm… the marjority of men watching the Super Bowl feasting on hamburgers, hot dogs and sucking vienna sausages off of toothpicks.) But in America these days who can resist the naked bod of a Victoria’s Secret-esque model rubbing themselves, whether it’s with your hand or a cauliflower?

The attention that PETA seeks PETA gets, but in the past they’ve done it with billboard sized posters of calves being slaughtered, chickens cramped into small pens and veal calves incapable of supporting their own weight. I agree that this was always something that bothered me a bit, just because it’s hard to remove yourself from the images when you know that in one way or another in your life you’ve supported these inhumane acts, voluntarily by consuming these animals after they’ve suffered, or involuntarily by not signing the PETA petition because those harping petitioners annoyed the hell out of you. But I feel like regardless of how a lot of people feel these ads are giving them a sort of attention, but probably not the attention that they want. Getting people to look at the naked women on their television screen or on a billboard will get you some eyes on the ad, but that doesn’t by any means result in them giving up the burgers. I don’t see how legs that go forever and airbrushed cleavage foster the compassion that we’re supposed to feel for veal calves.

I understand that the use of sex in advertising is something that has become all too common in the U.S. of A. today but I think that when it’s linked to something that should be fighting for the exploitation of all living beings to stop, maybe PETA should rethink it’s strategy. I came across an article when doing research for this post questioning whether it’s possible to be a feminist and support PETAs simultaneously after looking at their newfound love for the sexual inuendos and bare skin in their ads. Unfortunately, they’ve gone beyond using naked women to convince men to support the cause and have gone onto attacking the women themselves. An ad from 2000 portrays the unkempt nether-regions of a female model announcing to any questioning women that indeed, “Fur Trim: Unattractive.”  It surprises me, and many more in the feminist community,  that PETA would go to such lengths to gain respect for the animal population at the expense of the female human. I find it ironic that they would support the idea of a clean, shaven, “fur trim free” woman as the only kind that could be deemed attractive or appealing when what we should be supporting is the acceptance and appreciation for all life in any body whether it be furry or not! If the animals they’re trying to save should be allowed to don their fur, then why not the everyday woman? Let’s see some variety and appreciation for the modern woman who comes in all shapes, sizes and races. We’ve seen Angelina’s bare cheeks on far too many occasions so if you’re going to do it then let’s pay homage to the other women out there who are fighting your fight everyday in the real world.

Many women’s take on PETA ads have been focused around the idea that they’re not sexist, but in fact giving women the ability to expose themselves in a positive light for a good cause, considering there’s no sex involved, and the women are on their own terms shedding their fur coats for a good cause. And to a degree I can understand this: Do what you’ve got to do to fight the good fight for the animals that can’t speak up themselves, but come on PETA. What it comes down to for me in the end is not the fact that PETA has used sex, scare tactics and shock factor to get people into the vegetarian sack but the way that they’re taking advantage of the fact that people are going to use the sexist point to fight them, and they know that more often than not they’ll get away with it because the women in the ads are baring their bods for a good cause, and not for sexual purposes. But it’s clear that regardless of the lack of stereotypical pornographic nature of the ads they’re feeding off of the fact that people will look because of the skin shown. One of the most disturbing ads that I found that contradicts any claim by PETA to stand up for their use of women’s bodies as their tool for activism versus a tool for sexual attention, this video of their “State of the Union Undress” showcases Marissa Lewis as she strips down and touches herself quite suggestively giving her speech claiming that “it has always been [PETA's] policy to show people as much as they need to see in order to make them stand at attention.” And indeed… they showed people as much as they needed to see, and then some, as at the end of the video right before the typical PETA clips the woman stripped down to the buff baring breasts, bottom and giving a quaint wave to the cameras. I know that at times it’s shocking to show only the abused monkey and the abandoned kitten in a video calling for activism, but after this video it’s clear that they’re using the bodacious and almost unrealistically beautiful bodies of these actresses and models beforehand based on the fact that people are drawn to any sort of peek under their skirts, whether for a good cause or not.

“This is not about about whether someone should or should not chose a vegan or vegetarian lifestyle. This is not about fur or faux fur. This is about a blatant marketing strategy and the exploitation of women to achieve their desired results.” Elena Centor

Although I agree that the appetite for nudity may surpass the appetite for fruits and veggies in the hearts of many Americans there are other ways to accomplish getting respect for the lives of animals, which what I was pretty sure was PETAs goal all along, sans the naked chicks. It seems a little more important to me that they fight for their cause with articles “Ringling’s Baby Elephants Tied Up and Electro-Shocked by Trainers” being posted above their State of the Union Undress on their websites homepage.

Human Society
ASPCA
FARM