It’s an attention thing.  PETA likes getting front-paged, and sex sells. 

And this is hardly the third time anyone has used women in the shower to sell their products.  It’s the only place you can honestly begin to have women prancing around virtually nude without being flatly condemned for outright pornography.  It doesn’t work, but it at least gives the waffer-thin veneer of excusability.

There was a blurb about this where the two young ladies appeared on the San Francisco (heavily LGBT) dance radio station to promote the event. One of the announcers pointed out they’d probably have gotten a better reaction if they’d put two naked MEN in the shower.

Funny PETA doesn’t seem to push hot male ass as a lure to veganism.

Zifnab, it’s not that anyone uses naked women, it’s that PETA repeatedly does.

PETA among many, many others.  Sex sells.  It’s a cruel reality of life.  When you’ve got half the Playboy Mansion as your spokeswomen, it was somewhat inevitable that you’d take the more risque route.  But PETA gets more exposure with one nekkid-fun-time girl ads than a dozen repeated-cow-mutilation videos.

Keep in mind that PETA’s original iconic push was against fur clothes.  The “I’d rather be naked than wear fur” theme has been embedded in the organization since, what?  The 60s?  They’re just going with what they know works.  No more surprising than watching another set of Calvin Klein half-starved druggie commercials.

Depending on how much money PETA spends on these stunts, this could be an inefficient use of resources. 

But I have a hard time seeing anything especially offensive about the nudity. The natural way to see this seems to be in Lady Godiva terms, where the woman gets naked to protest some injustice and thus occupies a morally superior position in virtue of her nakedness.  Which is neat, because being morally superior by being naked doesn’t happen that often.

Speaking of PETA, does anyone else think Pamela Anderson looks like she has three arms in that sidebar ad?

Damn, now I wanna eat lobster and kick puppies while wearing fur and high heels. Like Cruella DeVille.

I hate it when people use “sex sells” as a defense.

If it’s sex that sells, then sell sex and stop exploiting sex and people’s bodies to push something else.

“Speaking of PETA, does anyone else think Pamela Anderson looks like she has three arms in that sidebar ad?”
Ya, I saw that too… there must be someone behind her (which leads me to wonder what the link is really about… but I’m leery of giving anyone I don’t support page hits for their sheer outre-ness)

Zif, it must be nice to think you’re smart without needing strong evidence for it.  You didn’t even read the post.

How did the idea that women need to rethink showering practices become part of the zeitgeist?

It’s the only place you can honestly begin to have women prancing around virtually nude without being flatly condemned for outright pornography.  It doesn’t work, but it at least gives the waffer-thin veneer of excusability.

Don’t stop being a hater, Amanda.

I love the caption next to the pic of the showering women:

A passer-by is intrigued with the protest by Colleen Higgins (left) and Cassandra Callaghan of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, who are showering on the street to demonstrate their argument that not eating meat can save energy.

No, he’s intrigued by the possiblilty that he might see boobies - he’s straining to see over the top of the shower. How about stopping him a block or so away and asking why those women where showering in public? I’m guessing he doesn’t have a clue.

Just because PETA uses naked women all the time, doesn’t mean it works in terms of pushing their agenda. Mabye it would if their agenda was to titilate heterosexual men, but I seriously doubt any one turns vegan after seeing one of their “demonstrations.”

If it’s sex that sells, then sell sex and stop exploiting sex and people’s bodies to push something else.

:-p You’re never going to make it in marketing.

redlegphi,meat production eats up ludicrous amounts of energy and other resources,the amount of square acres of land it takes to feed ten people with grain can feed only one person if the grain is used to produce meat instead,factory farming is energy intensive,yadda,blah,etc.None of this has to do with Phoneys Excessivly Trolling for Attention exploiting women as wankfodder.

Mabye it would if their agenda was to titilate heterosexual men

I’m not at all convinced that that ISN’T PETA’s agenda anymore.  In fact, I’ve long thought that PETA’s top eschalons have been infiltrated by the part of the membership that joined not out of any great ethical principle for helping animals, but because they thought that being animal rights activists was a great way to “score with the chicks”.

The national PETA organization seems to do more damage these days than anything else.  And their antics continue to ensure that people continue to see animal rights activism as the type of immature activity that sophomoric college students partake in before they grow up.

OTOH, after reading the Mother Jones article about NRA spies in the gun control activist groups, the paranoid bit of my brain is beginning to wonder if the cattle industry might have infiltrated PETA just to make their opposition look immature and ridiculous.

More to the point, how did I miss that Jezebel post in which Allure magazine tells me how to take a shower properly!

More to the point, how did I miss that Jezebel post in which Allure magazine tells me how to take a shower properly!

Oh, it’s great. Very simple, easy to follow instructions. Good thing, ‘cuz I haven’t showered for years for fear of doing it wrong.
I love the recommendation to use “creamy bodywash” on your groin. Uh, no thanks, I prefer to be irritant-free down there, thank-you!

The only connection between showering and vegetarianism is generated by the slogan: “Clean your conscience: go vegetarian!”  In other words, there really isn’t any.  (Amanda was being non-literal above, I think.) 

Of course, there wasn’t any connection between nudity and lower taxes on the peasants either, so I still consider PETA to be following the Godiva model.

redlegphi:

It has something to do with a clean conscience…I think.

Hello, PETA? Your message is not being effectively communicated!

PeTA is run by furries.

Sex sells.

so where are all the naked, showering, ripped-torsoed dudes?

I think we need a lolcat for this: “showerz. ur doing it rong.”

Zif-

You’re right, I wouldn’t make it in marketing because I’m not the type who believes that profits and attention justify how I got those profits and the attention.

I’m also not so creatively bankrupt and lazy to slap boobs on a product or message so that people might more likely notice it. I’m an artist, I can come up with better ways to make a point or get attention without exploiting sex and people’s bodies.

If an organization wants to sell me on their product with sex, I had better see two people actually having sex.

Well it’s more that fantasy sex sells IE the implicit promise that yes, you!!! could fuck one of these hawt ladies!!! (if only you cared more about animals.) Show two people fucking and the person watching is automatically not one of those people and hey, no sale. It’s crass, but I get it. But there’s no good reason you couldn’t at least put two strapping young dudes in another shower so everyone has something to look at.

This obviously is a stupid PETA thing, but they do directly say what they’re trying to get at:

‘Clean Your Conscience: Go Vegetarian’

and

‘1 Pound of Meat= {obscured} Gallons of Water’

I don’t get the high heels thing either.

Zif, my background is marketing and I can tell you that using T & A is not as effective as it used to be.  The law of diminishing returns and all.  When you have a landscape that is literally saturated with nearly nekkid women the impact gets attenuated.  Still, you’ll get dudes to perk their eyes up if you put some boobies in their face but if they don’t remember your product 30 seconds later, you have failed.  You’ve also failed when they remember you but never buy what you are selling.  PETA’s been doing this sexist shit for decades now and it hasn’t changed consumer behavior in any significant way.  Like another poster pointed out upthread, it’s highly doubtful that the good ol’ boys who crane their necks to see the boobies in the latest PETA stunt become vegan as a result of it.  So what’s the point?  Other than giving PETA another reason to exult in their smug cleverness.

I don’t get the high heels thing either.

It’s to sexualize them further.

Women are the sex class, after all. So of course, a naked women is considered to be ‘selling sex’. That’s considered the primary purpose of her body. And hetero males get to consume it, because they’re the only customers that matter. =P

Ding ding ding ding ding.  Precisely. 

PETA ads are very clearly not aimed at straight women or gay men, they’re aimed at the “important” people:  straight guys.  Everyone else can go fuck themselves, as Dick Cheney loves to say.

Before I clicked the link, I was trying to work out whether PETA has advanced its cause to the point of protecting the bacteria and fungi that grow in your shower stall (in high heels you would step on fewer of them).

I’m rather literal-minded, and PETA is crazy. It’s possible.

where are all the ripped dudes? This might seem simplistic of me as I’m a rather simple guy but if you want attention you go with naked women as that appeals to the het male audience, naked females dont upset het or lesbian women too greatly and only homosexual men would have no interest. So its not a problem or a selling point for 90-95% of people.

naked men scare a lot of het men and thats why you dont see it. I also see a lot of posts on various blogs about the male form or the penis being ugly, rare to see that when the topic is boobies.

Oh, give a man a nice pair of size 10 heels and let him in the shower for a change…

and only homosexual men would have no interest

Yeah, not like there are many homosexual men in SAN FRANCISCO.

So if a pound of meat equals some number of gallons of water, does that mean PETA thinks it’s OK to eat meat as long as I skip that number of showers or baths?

I think it’s also possible that the “sex sells” idea has been inverted in the minds of the people at PETA doing these stunts, so that it becomes a way to get naked in public view without addressing the problematic issues that usually accompany naked women in a patriarchy. They’re not doing it for exhibitionism or to turn anyone on, they’re doing it For A Cause.

PETA makes my brain hurt.

How is wasting a bunch of water in some half-baked stunt supposed to drive home the point that people shouldn’t waste water ... by going vegetarian, which has approximately zero connection in most people’s minds to water rights/conservation issues.

It’s kind of like the way they “liberate” domesticated animals into the wild, knowing full well that they’ll be killed.  Whee!  Save the poor widdwe creatures by sending them off to their deaths!

The other thing that makes my brain hurt is that PETA consistently uses female nudity to drive forward their ideas, except that every PETA member I’ve ever met was a heterosexual woman.  I even remember seeing the “I’d rather go naked than wear fur” ads in Seventeen magazine and the like when I read that stuff back in junior high.  How are sexy images of naked women supposed to cater to their primary demographic, exactly?

With all the donation money PETA takes in and that’s all they have to show for it?

Somebody’s getting really fucking rich.

Amanda, Don’t you have control over what goes in the sidebar? Sorry if I missed something.

Funny PETA doesn’t seem to push hot male ass as a lure to veganism.

Naked man with a “rather go naked than wear fur” sign:

http://blog.peta.org/archives/2007/04/naked_peta_dude_1.php

Dozens of naked men and women together for a PETA demo against wearing fur:

http://www.stern.de/politik/panorama/609050.html?cp=1

David Cross naked for the anti-fur campaign:

http://www.furisdead.com/feat-cross.asp

Ron Jeremy semi-nude, covered by a sheet, for the spay/neuter campaign:

http://www.helpinganimals.com/f-ronJeremy.asp

Here’s an interesting sample. An unaffiliated website looking for naked and scantily-clad PETA protesters found plenty of men to showcase. Still significantly more women, but as veg living is more common among women, they may be the majority of PETA volunteers.

http://www.asylum.com/2008/02/28/taking-it-off-for-a-good-cause-the-worlds-most-naked-protesters/

Lol at the cute guy in the speedo with “Security” written across his chest.

PETA’s approach is misguided for other reasons.

I’m vegan, and I think PETA has set the animal rights movement back in a big bad way.  And their continual use of objectifying women really just underscores the patriarchal subject/ object bullshit that undergirds much animal use and abuse—that other living beings exist so objects to be used and consumed by the [male] subject.  They have contributed to the stereotypes of animal advocates as being frivolous, not to mention that shit like throwing paint on a fur coat is NOT going to make it’s purchaser rethink their decisions, it’s going to make them think that animal advocates are assholes. Plus they do stupid contrary bullshit like encourage people to eat at KFC now that KFC has a “veggie” chicken sandwich.  Bish pls. 

Friends of Animals, those people are worth your time.

Friends of Animals, those people are worth your time.

Very much so. Agreed that PETA gives people frivolous excuses to avoid becoming vegans.

Ron Jeremy is hot male ass?

omg, I missed that caveat didn’t I? But David Cross! There were also ads featuring Mola Adebisi, Marcus Schenkenburg, Dennis Rodman, Kristoff St. John, Ethan Zohn, and if you like that sort of thing, Tommy Lee. Schenkenburg went nude in Times Square as well.

To take Donna’s point a bit further, not only does exploiting women not work well when the men you titillate don’t give a shit about the message or product, but also when the women who see your exploitative sexist ad *do* bother to remember your name and message and decide to ban and boycott you.

True enough.  I haven’t run out and purchased an arm-load of Snog t-shirts, despite their valiant attempts to insinuate that girls will run around half-naked in them.  And I’m no more vegan today than I was ten years ago, despite being exposed to a fair number of PETA ad campaigns.  Sex doesn’t sell nearly as well as it once did.

That said, if you’re wondering why you don’t see naked guys…  There’s the historical reference, for starters.  The original PETA campaign was targeting fur coats traditionally worn by women.  Yeah, guys wore them too, particularly the leather suede stuff PETA was also loudly against, but the Playboy protest was first and foremost about girls protesting girls wearing fur.  Beyond that, a bunch of naked guys in the shower sets off the “omg, teh ghayz!” alarm.  So girls never get to see a bunch of hot guys protesting animal rights because guys tend to be giant homophobes.

Sex doesn’t sell nearly as well as it once did.

Silly rabbit. 

Seriously, GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD.  The issue isn’t “sex sells.”  The point isn’t that it doesn’t work as well as it used to.  The point is that it’s a lot more fucking complex than that, and you can’t simply dismiss sexist advertising with those two syllables, as tempting as it might be.

The original PETA campaign was targeting fur coats traditionally worn by women.  Yeah, guys wore them too, particularly the leather suede stuff PETA was also loudly against, but the Playboy protest was first and foremost about girls protesting girls wearing fur.

Wait, let me get this straight.  PETA wants to convince women to stop wearing fur.  They want to use “sex” to “sell” this message.  So they get a bunch of naked women to appear naked in Playboy?  Wow, if you’re right, then PETA isn’t sexist so much as so stupid they probably hang chewing and swallowing instructions up in the office lunchroom. 

Beyond that, a bunch of naked guys in the shower sets off the “omg, teh ghayz!” alarm.  So girls never get to see a bunch of hot guys protesting animal rights because guys tend to be giant homophobes.

Sets off whose “omg, teh ghayz!” alarm?  Because to me it seems like if PETA is planning its campaigns to appeal to women to stop buying X predominantly female product (fur coats), or to stop buying X product because demographic research shows that women tend to do most of the household shopping and are the ones you want to appeal to if you’re trying to convince someone to buy or not buy something, or even because women are the bulk of your membership and/or more likely to be interested in animal rights and vegetarianism than men, why does it matter whether men will be freaked out by the ads?

The original PETA campaign was targeting fur coats traditionally worn by women.  Yeah, guys wore them too, particularly the leather suede stuff PETA was also loudly against, but the Playboy protest was first and foremost about girls protesting girls wearing fur.

Like Opo said, if your goal is to get women to stop wearing fur, and you advertise that goal with ads like “Pamela Anderson’s Extreme Video” with a picture of her mostly naked, you are the worst marketer in the entire fucking world.

Let me try and explain this to you, guys:  straight women are not interested in seeing other women naked.  Really.  Until it started being discussed here, I had no idea the Pam Anderson picture led to a PETA ad, because the idea of seeing Pam Anderson naked has no appeal for me, so I was never even tempted to click on the ad.

If I am the target audience for this ad, why would they run an ad so unappealing to me that I won’t even bother to click on it?

Oh, and while we’re talking about the sexism of PETA, can we mention the women who had red paint thrown at them while the men wearing fur or leather were not similarly assaulted?  Because apparently you can physically attack a woman in the street and be socially accepted, but you’d be crossing the line if you did the same thing to a man.

Wow, if you’re right, then PETA isn’t sexist so much as so stupid they probably hang chewing and swallowing instructions up in the office lunchroom.

Let’s not fall into the false dichotomy trap.  Given the evidence over the years, I’m perfectly willing to believe that the higher ups of PETA are both sexist and stupid.

Oh, right, I forgot for a moment that Pandagon is a both/and blog.

Though I’ll also add that I’d wager PETA belongs more in the self-aware sexism column than in the “wasting money on the worst marketing ever” column.  They know what they’re doing and who they’re trying to appeal to.  My best guesses for the rationale behind their ads:

1.  Naked women are used to sell all sorts of products to women, generally personal care, fashion, cosmetics, and other tools mainly used to make women feel bad about themselves.  Thus we can use naked women in our ads to guilt women into thinking they’re not good enough, just like Gillette, MAC, American Apparel, etc etc etc use sexuality to make women feel like they’re not pretty enough.

2.  For the original Playboy spreads: while women wear most fur coats, the stereotypical assumption is that men buy them, or at least control the purse strings on big ticket purchases like that.  Rather than waste a lot of time and money convincing women not to want fur (though we’re working on that, too), why not go right to Daddy and offer up sexy naked ladies in return for him denying his materialistic little airhead of a wife/girlfriend/daughter/whoever what we may not be able to convince her not to want?

See how much more sense that makes than “sex sells”?

Seriously, GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD.  The issue isn’t “sex sells.” The point isn’t that it doesn’t work as well as it used to.  The point is that it’s a lot more fucking complex than that, and you can’t simply dismiss sexist advertising with those two syllables, as tempting as it might be.

Ultimately, yeah you can.  If you want to combat the tendency to throw female flesh up as a sales tactic, you have to understand why it is used and why it works.  You’re never going to get rid of naked people being used as marketing gimmicks, but you can at least curb the tendency if you can give people effective alternatives.

Wait, let me get this straight.  PETA wants to convince women to stop wearing fur.  They want to use “sex” to “sell” this message.

They use sex to get attention.  That’s the root of the problem.  If PETA thought it could get more exposure, more air time, and more eyeballs by using cuddly kittens and adorable farm animals in its marketing campaigns, I imagine they’d shift routes.

why does it matter whether men will be freaked out by the ads?

Get a group of naked women in a shower to protest something.

Get a group of naked men in a shower to protest something.

Tell me how long before each group gets arrested.

Naked women are used to sell all sorts of products to women, generally personal care, fashion, cosmetics, and other tools mainly used to make women feel bad about themselves.

Hence the book Skinny Bitch, which thinks that increasing women’s guilt and shame about their bodies is the best way to get them to become vegans.  Don’t become a vegan because it’s better for the planet or because you like animals—no, become a vegan so you can be really, really skinny and lord it over all of your fat, unattractive friends!

And that’s not even mentioning the incredibly bad science in the book.  Apparently, menstrual cramps are all in our heads and taking aspirin just makes you dependent on it so you need to just suck it up and ignore pain.  Seriously.

Get a group of naked women in a shower to protest something.
Get a group of naked men in a shower to protest something.
Tell me how long before each group gets arrested.

And your argument is that PETA’s use of naked women has nothing to do with sexism?  Are you even reading your own comments?

Get a group of naked women in a shower to protest something.
Get a group of naked men in a shower to protest something.
Tell me how long before each group gets arrested.

Again: in SAN FRANCISCO? Don’t be a fucking moron.

If you want to combat the tendency to throw female flesh up as a sales tactic, you have to understand why it is used and why it works.

Exactly.  Which anyone who simply dismisses sexist advertising as “sex sells, what else is new?” is attempting to avoid doing.  Don’t analyze any of this, just allow it to wash over you.  Wow, you’re so right.  Maybe if I buy some American Apparel leggings, men will want me just like they want the girl slouching spread-eagled across the back page of my local alt weekly.

Oh, and last I heard, public nudity laws apply equally to men and women.  As do most other charges direct action protesters are arrested on—if you live in some bizarro jurisdiction (the Ferengi homeworld, maybe?) where women are allowed to be naked in public but men aren’t, you can just arrest the women for “disorderly conduct”, or “parading without a permit”, or “causing a public disturbance”, or maybe some sort of noise violation or blocking access to nearby businesses.  I’m female.  I’ve been arrested protesting.  Of course, I was wearing clothes at the time, so maybe that was my problem?

Let me try and explain this to you, guys:  straight women are not interested in seeing other women naked.  Really.  Until it started being discussed here, I had no idea the Pam Anderson picture led to a PETA ad, because the idea of seeing Pam Anderson naked has no appeal for me, so I was never even tempted to click on the ad.

If I am the target audience for this ad, why would they run an ad so unappealing to me that I won’t even bother to click on it?

Mnemosyne, it’s easy to decide if you are in the target audience or not. Since you’re aware that animal-based diets are unethical, are you considering going vegan? If so, then you’ll do it regardless of PETA’s antics. If not, then it doesn’t matter if the campaign doesn’t engage you. Just don’t pretend that you could potentially be reached if you’ve already decided that you cannot be.

Since you’re aware that animal-based diets are unethical, are you considering going vegan? If so, then you’ll do it regardless of PETA’s antics. If not, then it doesn’t matter if the campaign doesn’t engage you.

I think you underestimate how alienating PETA’s antics are.  I wouldn’t go vegan if you could prove it would extend my life by 100 years because I hate those motherfuckers so much.

I don’t believe that animals are my moral equals and there just isn’t any scientific evidence that veganism is inherently superior to either a well-balanced omnivore diet or an ovo-lacto vegetarian one, so, no I probably wouldn’t be convinced by a non-nude campaign.

Nice to know that I can only complain about sexism if I’m a vegan.  I guess I’d better start submitting to my husband since I still allow meat to pass my lips.

I wouldn’t go vegan if you could prove it would extend my life by 100 years because I hate those motherfuckers so much.

And even if you’re not quite that alienated by them, the bottom line is this—why would I click on a link with naked Pamela Anderson to learn about the benefits of veganism?  If I’m turned off by the objectification of naked women in advertising, they’ve officially lost me.  Shit, if I’m at work (or otherwise not in a position to visit a potentially NSFW site), they’ve lost me.  What does veganism have to do with sexual objectification?  Approximately nothing.  The only people who would click through on that ad are people who would otherwise not be interested in learning about veganism, but who are hitting your site in hopes of more nekkid laydeees.  When they don’t get that, they’ll head over to a porn site. 

If PETA was really all about raising awareness about the benefits of veganism, they would be pursuing radically different marketing and activist strategies.  For instance the strategies that every other group I’m aware of which is legitimately trying to do such a thing, which tend to involve vegetarian potlucks rather than public nudity direct action and earnest recipe pamphlets rather than glossy porno ads.  The potlucks and recipe pamphlets have attracted the interest of a lot of people, and their numbers are growing.  PETA’s strategies are about attracting donations, not creating grassroots change.

I don’t believe that animals are my moral equals

That’s okay.

In the USA if you are not homeless there’s no situation where you have to choose “my life or the nonhuman animal’s life.” It’s not like you would blowtorch a dog for fun. It’s no better to kill for taste. They don’t have to be like us to deserve certain things from us.

Nice to know that I can only complain about sexism if I’m a vegan.

Come on, that’s not what I meant. It’s just that if you were interested in the injustice you’d already be moving in your mind, not letting a petty difference with one affect how you treat another. I totally agree with you that there’s sexism here and I think you can see it from the way that the upper levels react to criticism on this issue. I’m not a PETA supporter, I’m just thinking about how large organizations work:

If PETA was really all about raising awareness about the benefits of veganism, they would be pursuing radically different marketing and activist strategies.  For instance the strategies that every other group I’m aware of which is legitimately trying to do such a thing, which tend to involve vegetarian potlucks rather than public nudity direct action and earnest recipe pamphlets rather than glossy porno ads.  The potlucks and recipe pamphlets have attracted the interest of a lot of people, and their numbers are growing.  PETA’s strategies are about attracting donations, not creating grassroots change.

I wish I could mod that comment up.

a petty difference

Not petty. I don’t know what I was thinking.

I think you underestimate how alienating PETA’s antics are.

I don’t, but the people who volunteer their time do. The whole organization probably has to dissolve. I don’t think its name can be salvaged.

Come on, that’s not what I meant. It’s just that if you were interested in the injustice you’d already be moving in your mind, not letting a petty difference with one affect how you treat another.

I said that I wouldn’t click on the ad because it offered me a naked Pamela Anderson; you then argued that I wouldn’t become a vegan anyway because I disagree with PETA.  That’s missing my point that because they tried to entice me with naked pictures of Pam Anderson, I never even got close enough to the ad to realize it was a PETA and not a porn ad.

When your supposed target audience assumes you’re advertising pornography and not animal rights and so doesn’t even click through, that’s a pretty Epic Fail.  Unless, of course, your target audience is doodz who want to see naked boobies.

you then argued that I wouldn’t become a vegan anyway because I disagree with PETA

I’m not sure what that means, but it’s not what I said.

You know better than to blowtorch an animal for fun. Just the same, you know better than to kill an animal just for taste. You aren’t starving, your family isn’t starving.

Whatever your reason (habit), you’ve chosen to stick with needless violence and killing. You hardly need the excuse that “some cult of naked vegetarians offended me.”

Ron Jeremy semi-nude, covered by a sheet, for the spay/neuter campaign:

Ron Fucking Jeremy??!?

I’m not sure what that means, but it’s not what I said.

What you said was this:

Mnemosyne, it’s easy to decide if you are in the target audience or not.

Again, the fact that I wasn’t interested in clicking on an ad that promised nude pictures of Pam Anderson is a hint to me that I was not the target audience for this ad.  The target audience for this ad was people who want to see Pam Anderson naked.

Please explain what naked pictures of Pam Anderson and veganism have to do with one another, and why my reluctance to click on an ad that promises to show me nude pictures of Pam Anderson means I want to torture animals with blowtorches.

Whatever your reason (habit), you’ve chosen to stick with needless violence and killing. You hardly need the excuse that “some cult of naked vegetarians offended me.”

Yes, yes, you’re oh-so-morally-superior to me.  Glad to have been able to make your day.

Yes, yes, you’re oh-so-morally-superior to me.  Glad to have been able to make your day.

So you admit that you’re happy with your violence, and the only thing objectionable here is that I’ve brought it up. God forbid you should take responsibility for your own actions instead of blaming others for mentioning the possibility that you are not quite perfect and (we all) could use a little ethical work that might make the world a better place for everyone.

I like how no one is allowed to mention your violence.

Again, the fact that I wasn’t interested in clicking on an ad that promised nude pictures of Pam Anderson is a hint to me that I was not the target audience for this ad.  The target audience for this ad was people who want to see Pam Anderson naked.

I said don’t pretend that you can be reached if you’ve already decided that you can’t be. I am not defending the PETA ad, and haven’t once yet, so I’m not going to now. You want me to? I don’t give a shit. Not interested. But what you did was posture as though you could somehow be convinced to become vegan, and this ad is deterring you from that. Don’t lie. You aren’t interested in being vegan because you like the taste of animals’ bodies. PETA isn’t deterring you from anything you might have otherwise done. So don’t pretend that you’re potentially receptive to the message if it were better delivered. You aren’t.

Please explain what naked pictures of Pam Anderson and veganism have to do with one another, and why my reluctance to click on an ad that promises to show me nude pictures of Pam Anderson means I want to torture animals with blowtorches.

Once again you have proven yourself to be among the most dishonest people here, Mnemosyne. I said nothing of the sort. I said you don’t want to torture animals because you know better. But as you’ve absorbed our culture’s “moral schizophrenia,” you kill for taste even when you would never torture for fun, as though one of these actions is acceptable. To expand on this:

To take Francione’s hypothetical, imagine that there’s a nasty bastard named Simon the Sadist who gets off on torturing a dog by burning the dog with a blowtorch. Now, as a non-facetious question, ask yourself: is there anything wrong with this? If you’re like us, you can’t say “hell yeah!” quickly enough. Anyone with any moral conscience whatsoever can see that there’s plenty wrong with this scenario. As far as we can tell, Simon is subjecting a dog to horrible torture, and it is clear that the dog suffers for this torture. It squeals in pain, it recoils, and it pulls away. Were we to ask Simon why he was torturing the dog, his only response would be that he enjoys doing it, that it gives him great pleasure.

This seems objectionable to most reasonable people. Here’s a whack-job who’s torturing dogs because he feels like it and enjoys it. Beyond that, he can’t really give us any other reason. We’re going to venture a guess and say that you don’t have to be a vegan to find this deeply problematic. But why do we find it so very problematic? If asked, most reasonable people would say the dog feels pain, and would agree that dogs should not be subjected to undue pain. The dog knows that he’s being tortured and has every interest in not being tortured further. Seems pretty clear, right? In the end, most of us would simply say that there’s no need for it.

In addition, most people would likely extend this kind of thinking outward to other animals as well. Most folks would say that we shouldn’t blowtorch cows or pigs or chickens or anything else either. And when we see these kinds of animal abuse cases, we’re usually completely shocked by them. This kind of blatant torture and death feels unnecessary to us, because we understand that at some level animals suffer. Most people—whether vegan or not—would understand these kinds of problems and object to them.

If most people can agree that these things hold, then how can most people eat meat, dairy, and eggs? If we can agree that animals should not face undue suffering for our pleasure, how can we justify killing animals for meat? As many vegans show, it is completely feasible to live a healthy and vital life without animal products of any kind. Considering that we can live quite well without animal products, our consumption of animal products cannot be chalked up to anything but preference and tradition. And if we truly have an interest in keeping animals free from suffering, our preference for meat is no more valid than Simon’s preference for blow torching animals. Period.

Despite this, somehow we’re in a place where we see killing, dismembering, and consuming animals as ok, and blowtorching as “bad.” Where we see blowtorching as capricious, we see our desire for the byproducts of animal exploitation as “tradition” and “the natural way.” Yes, it may be “tradition” to eat meat, but it is also “tradition” in some parts of the country to exclude women from certain jobs, to deny same-sex people the same rights as straights, and to discriminate against people of color. As for the “natural way” argument, how come we never hear anyone talking of “the natural way” when bears eat infants (as recently happened in New York State), or when crocodiles bite people? Also, what is so “natural” about going to a grocery store and buying a bloody hunk of flesh wrapped in styrofoam and plastic?

At this point, some of you out there may object to this whole hypothetical by arguing that Simon is in fact torturing animals while the animals that are used for our food are not explicitly tortured. True enough, animals are not routinely blow torched on their way to the average meat eater’s plate. Nevertheless, they are (variously) de-beaked, castrated, and de-horned without the aid of anesthetics as routine parts of meat, dairy, and egg production. This says nothing of the completely deplorable conditions that farm animals live in, often with limited space, light, and fresh air. To take just the example of egg-laying hens, chickens are often packed 7 to a tiny cage, and not allowed to move outside of that cage until they go to slaughter. In addition, male chicks are routinely discarded in dumpsters—alive. Aside from this, animals are frequently slaughtered by having their throats slit. Though part of modern slaughter methods includes incapacitating the animals, this incapacitation is not always effective.

In short, contemporary agricultural production practices subject animals to conditions that essentially enslave the animals to our whims. We may not explicitly blow torch animals in food production, but the other methods used aren’t much better. And why? Because people like the taste of eggs, dairy, and meat. There’s simply no other reason.

Let me know when people going vegan actually does anything to improve the lives of animals raised for food.

Let me know when you learn the basics of supply and demand.

And Will, your insinuation is that if one animal is going to be murdered tomorrow, then it’s okay to murder two. I hope I don’t have to explain why that’s not how ethics works.

there just isn’t any scientific evidence that veganism is inherently superior to either a well-balanced omnivore diet or an ovo-lacto vegetarian one

There’s evidence that it’s just as good, so once again, you have no excuse except for your habit and taste.

I’m not sure how you got from “tastes good” to “deserves to die”, though.

Should anybody still be reading this thread, here’s coverage of a protest by Friends of Animals, against PeTA. There’s an interesting discussion over at that thread, speaking of many of the issues covered here, so I’ll just point:

http://www.animalperson.net/animal_person/2008/08/on-peta-versus.html