The woman who was butchered and meat-hooked using photoshop for the ad featured in my last blog post may or may not have known how the image of her body would be used by advertisers.
But Canadian-born actress Pamela Anderson, whose boob-jobbed breasts famously drew millions of viewers to the infamously bouncing-down-the-beach TV series Baywatch, volunteered to be drawn and quartered by anti-fur lobbyists PETA for this protest piece, which was recently banned in Canada:
The Best Of Intentions…?
Pamela and PETA may very well have noble intentions (I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt here), but their continued
used of the female form (almost always revealingly and tantalizingly unclothed), as an
attention-getting strategy is, in my humble opinion, distasteful.
On its website, PETA proudly displays its growing list of overtly sexual, and possibly-designed-to-be-banned-and-so-perhaps-not-surprisingly-banned advertising
including the two below, both reportedly not accepted to be run during recent Superbowls. The banned ads can be found on the PETA site in a section disturbingly called "The Peta Files."
Exhibit 1 is soft porn with vegetables:
A Tenuous Link At Best
Despite being vibrantly sensuous, sexy, and attractive (as well as a vegetarian), I find the link between mostly naked women ("making it" with pumpkins, brocolli and asparagus), and the anti-fur lobby, to be tenuous at best.
And, while I’ve become increasingly inured, and simultaneously incensed, at the sight of naked women attached to everything from machine guns to motorcycles, I draw the line at our objectification to ostensibly save the pelts and flesh of our furry little friends. Puh-lease PETA, give me a break!
As Rachel from Glasgow, Scotland, commented on the mailonline story which featured the Anderson ad:
"I think it’s really hypocritical of an animal rights group to fight against the degradation of animals, yet they degrade humans in the process.”
Don’t get me wrong. I’m as much an animal lover as the next gal; my Mom’s cat Pia Roma is the latest in a string of pets whom I and my whole family have dearly loved for more years than I care to count.
Likewise, as I’ve already said, I’m a vegetarian.
Nevertheless, I don’t think flaunting flesh with veg is the most effective way to get the anti-fur, anti-meat message widely accepted. Principles PETA, prinicples. Ya’ gotta’ stick to ’em! And that goes for you too Pamela Anderson. Keeping more of your clothes ON increases your credibility, not vice versa.
Titillating Tactics: Do They REALLY Work?
Exhibit 2 is a third-rate take-off of third-rate soft porn; it advocates
the substituion of zuchinni for sausage (!):
There’s something to be said for the argument that ANY exposure is good exposure.
Clearly PETA’S titillating tactics increase the likelihood of its message being viewed, along with the ample, and undoubtedly airbrushed ass-ets of Ms Anderson (compare the ‘All Animals Have The Same Parts’ cartoon with the real-life pic that accompanies the article and tell me what you think….).
Ironically, this blog post is a prime (no pun intended) example of just how effective the "sex sells" strategy can be. You’re reading it after all, aren’t you?
But: does more seeing more human skin prevent people from purchasing less animal skin?
And: does seeing more human flesh encourage people to eat less animal flesh?
Ummm… I’m not convinced PETA. Nope. I’m not convinced at all…