Silly PETA Stunts

[Tim Gier]

This seems to me to be a ridiculous and offensive stunt to pull, and one not at all helpful in the cause of animal rights.  What do you think?

JACKSON, Miss. -- Two animal rights activists garnered more attention than expected Wednesday when they were taken away in handcuffs by Jackson police.

 

A vegan bodybuilder and a scantily clad woman snuggled up on a bed in downtown Jackson. The pair are members of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, known as PETA. Their public display at North President and East Capitol streets was intended to promote a vegetarian lifestyle.

http://www.wapt.com/r/26807102/detail.html

[Angela Wesling]

PETA has amassed an impressive body of research extolling the virtues and benefits of fostering animal rights.  The tragedy is that they have completely and consistently undermined their integrity by distinguishing themselves to the public as radical weirdos not to be taken seriously, and that renders anything with their name attached to it equally as radical and unreliable.  It's sad, because PETA puts out a lot of information that I would like to use to educate others and I feel that I can't because the name PETA has become synonymous with foolishness.

[Sharron Woodward]

I think PeTA should fire their advertising company / people.  They just keep sinking to new levels.  I thought adverts were meant to advertise something - usually what they are selling.  PeTA must be selling inanity cause there it is larger than life.  The animals deserve so much more.

[Lisa V]

Hmm ... why ridiculous and offensive? I don't think it's that terrible, but maybe I'm missing something and you could explain your view. I see it as performance art. The two people involved appear to be consenting adults and are doing nothing that can't be seen on any beach. It's obviously a Valentine's Day theme and PETA members are doing this in places all over the world. And, they've used the word vegan.

 

Giving Temple Grandin an award? Yeah, I thought that was ridiculous and offensive. This, eh, not so much.

 

 

[Sharron Woodward]

What does 'Vegans Make Better Lovers' have to do with animal rights?  What does it have to do with the horror of factory farming, or of 'research' or the zoo or a multitude of other areas where animals are abused & tortured & slaughtered. There are a billion ways to promote veganism & I find it quite shallow & void of anything meaningful when they promote it this way. 

[Lisa V]

Sharron, I can see where you're coming from and respect your opinion. Maybe you could explain why you think the PETA campaign is shallow or void of meaning.

 

I guess I've always thought of being vegan as something that encompasses my whole life and anything I do and not always about being against something. It can be about being for something, too. Yes, I'm against animal farming, and vivisection, and zoos, etc. But I'm also for people being healthy and happy and whole ... which is part of, and impossible without, being vegan. And that was what I saw depicted ... two healthy, seemingly happy people promoting veganism.

[Sharron Woodward]

As a feminist I am offended that PeTA use naked bodies (usually women) to bring attention to their organisation.  As a vegan activist I am offended that they get lost in the hype of their own celebrity.  I want them to show some maturity & some meaning to their campaigns.  Animals are dying, are caged, are tortured etc & they seem to believe that breasts & vaginas bring home that point.  I am sorry that my posts seem to be PeTA bashing as that really wasn't my intention.  I understand that they are held in high regard but I just can't fathom their reasoning behind some of their campaigns.

[Carolyn Bailey]

Bruce Friedrich ~ Vice President of Police and Govt. Affairs at PeTA will be our guest in ARZone in 2 weeks. Remember these questions, and submit them for Bruce to respond to in 2 weeks.

 

[Jordan Wyatt]

I personally find it offensive, while I used to somewhat appreciate any "stereotype breaking" Vegan activism, now I would disagree, I would find this offensive.

 

It reminds me of this stunt, with two WOMEN kissing each other, while supposedly being all clever about blood flow for Vegetarian men etc.  Quite rightly, the conservative host points out that men were not featured kissing, was this not meant to be about men and "love making"?

 

The idea of hiring two women to kiss for several hours at a time, probably having shifts right?, and then using some idea of "vegetarian men having better sex lives", its far from the message!

 

I'd put it in the "all hunters have small..." category, its not funny, its probably not true, so why focus on this one tiny aspect?

 

video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yjb5vSvLBmg

 

The local "Largest Animal Rights Group" SAFE have had displays at "wild food festivals", where cooked insects, sexual organs of mammals etc are eaten.  They went with "tasty Vegan gonads", with the tagline "be a REAL food lover", showing a man and women made from vegetables in the throes of passion.  I found it offputting!  And the idea of selling deep fried "soy balls and a sausage" for a couple bucks, ugh! 

I dont see "sex" as having any part of promoting Animal Rights, for me its about friendship.

[Cameron B]

Looking at what they do from a purely marketing point, their tactics are spot on and brilliant.

The organisation's sole purpose is to increase the public awareness of their particular brand. We have all heard that adage any publicity is good publicity. With this group it is spot on.

Every time that they create some sort of media event, it is pretty much a given that people on both sides of the animal rights arena will start talking about it online.

This inturn could lead to the voyeurs out there to have a look at the website to see what else they can find, which results in more hits to their site and an improvement in their search engine rankings.

Also, being the welfarist organisation that they are they can use every protest that gets media attention as further proof that they are doing 'their bit' for the animals in an attempt to solicit more funds from the potential/current contributor.

IMHO, if we want to stop this organisation and their tactics, we should all take a leaf out of the Harry Potter books, and not mention their name. Just the same way that the characters don't mention the name of Lord Voldamort (apologies if it is spelt wrong)

Keeping in mind, I am not saying what they are doing is right. I am just saying that from a purely marketing perspective, they are spot on.

Just my $1.95 {allowing for inflation and the $Au:$US being so good :)}

 

[Angela Wesling]

I see your point.  It draws attention to the overarching topic of animal rights, where attention is greatly needed.  Yet, I can't tell you how many people I have come into contact with that say their only experience with animal rights or vegetarianism/veganism has been through PETA, and that they do not take them seriously or are put off by the way they conduct themselves.  From what I have gathered, they see PETA as representing a fringe group, or a radical minority.  PETA does not do what is in their power and their budget to appeal to a mass audience.  Shock value can be effective, but all the PETA campaigns that I am aware of try to shock people in a different direction than one that is focused specifically on the well being of non-human animals.  Sexually racy ads do nothing to draw attention to the topic of securing the rights of animals, but get people talking about the nature of the ads themselves.  They could show videos like the ones Mercy for Animals produces, or the ones HSUS puts out.  Those campaigns do more to draw attention to the topic of animal rights and the consequences of not respecting rights to the life and liberty of animals, as opposed to naked vegetarians getting it on and causing what is generally seen as a disturbance, or a nuisance.

 

PETA is a very large organization.  They could focus their resources in a much more informative and productive way.  Instead, they are simply seen as the Howard Stern of the cause.  Controversial, yet ineffective and distracting.

 

What good is giving exposure to an issue when the reason to reject it is embedded in the method of communication?  

[Tim Gier]

When I say this stunt is ridiculous, what I mean is that as measure purportedly designed to call attention to the cause of animal rights (or protection, if that's what PETA's about) then, given that the message is actually about human needs, wants and desires, it does no such thing.  When I say that the stunt is offensive, what I mean is that displays of overt sexuality and sexual behavior have the effect of reducing complex and meaningful human interactions to the level of "shock value" advertising, robbing those interactions of their deeper values, objectifying persons in the process.  

 

Considering that the social movement for animal rights is, at its base, about other animals and not us, and about no longer objectifying other moral persons, this stunt appears to be in opposition to those principles.

 

This stunt was not about forwarding the interests of other animals, not was it about protecting their rights. It was about forwarding the interests of PETA, and establishing their "brand".  It may be supposed that by promoting PETA, PETA will indirectly lead people to consider the broader issues of animal rights (and protection), but that assumes that people will be so intrigued by this stunt that they will investigate PETA further.  I don't know why we should think that's true, and given that it doesn't appear that this particular stunt challenged anyone to give actual thought to other animals, I don't see what good it serves.

[Tim Gier]

I do not for a minute doubt that PETA does much good in the world, or that the individuals involved care a great deal about other animals; I'm sure they do.  I also get what you're saying about different tactics needed to reach different audiences.  Still, this particular tactic isn't one I support.