What are your views regarding the use of seminude models in the animal advocate movement?

Question

Do you think male and female "models" are represented differently?

Is using nudity a legitimate awareness raising tool or simply another means of exploitation?

What do you think would be a more effective advertising/awareness campaign?

Answer 1

I personally don't see it as any different than the thousands of other companies who use semi-nude models to promote their products......and let me just say:

I don't like it when THAT happens either.

I don't want women wearing the equivalent of a handkerchief promoting ANYTHING.  What's funny is that many of these women are probably the same ones who run around whining about how no one takes them seriously or how they're always looked at for their body and not their talent.......well, gee whiz.......I wonder why.

I'm not saying that women can't dress in a way that is s**y....but I think it's offensive to people in general to think that the only thing that will convince us to buy a product or support a cause is s*x.  So much for valuing our intelligence....these ads ask us to use a brain from a different part of the body and that's insulting when we have a perfectly good one in our heads.

i'm not concerned with objectification.....as far as I care, these women DO IT TO THEMSELVES by choosing to model in such a way.  I AM concerned, however, with the dumbing down that is occuring today (I have noticed it very much here in the US) as well as the double standard that is applied to these models.  They need to choose between, "look at me, I'm s**y and naked!" and "look at me, I can be taken seriously."

It ticks me off that we're teaching our children to buy something or support a cause because it's "s**y" or "hot" or whatever else you want to call it rather than directing them to causes because doing so will make them a better, more well rounded individual.

By the way....I'm ALL FOR celebrities supporting a cause.  If you want to see what it can do for you, check out what Oprah's support did for Obama in the early stages of the US presidential race.  Somehow I think it would have been less effective had Oprah stripped her clothes off at an Obama rally.  Celebrities can do a lot to further a meaningful cause, but they need to do it in a tasteful way for the sake of those who are looking as well as their own dignity.  There are plenty of celebrities who advocate causes in a tasteful, classy way.....for example:  Joaquin Phoenix and his Thanksgiving ad for PETA.  That ad encouraged people to use their intelligence and morality to choose a better path.....much more effective (IMO) than encouraging people to find that path through sexual arousal, lol.

EDIT:  Great question by the way....I enjoyed answering this one because I got to basically throw a fit for a few minutes.

EDIT:  "Trolls a no-life loser":  You've said exactly what I was trying to say....the model is not being exploited because they chose to involve themselves with that project......the public is the victim of exploitation.  I couldn't agree more.

I concur.  We're just looking at it from a different angle.  I agree that the public is being exploited.  I also agree that what the models represent (women, men, activists, etc.) are being exploited.........though I do NOT agree that the models themselves are.

Answer 2

I don't think that seminude models should be used to advertise everything. It's not legit and it seems to me like just another means of explotation! Even though "s*x" does sell, and i've seen that with P.E.T.A, If people can't find it in their hearts to join the animals advocate movement just by becoming a vegetarian or veg@n then it's their loss. Even though I think other things could be used that are more effective in awareness. We as a socoiety are just more receptive to seminude beautiful people than anything. So I really don't blame P.E.T.A or anyone else.

Answer 3

I think it is more to draw more attention to the cause than what would simple placards, banners etc would do.

Answer 4

I'm going to use PETA as an example, but there are countless other charities that use the 's*x sells' thing.

PETA is an animal advocacy charity that uses seminude models in their campaigns. They know that ''s*x sells''. I do think PETA are exploitative of women. s*x draws attention, and they are an attention seeking organisation, in my opinion.

An animal rights/advocacy group or charity doesn't need to use seminaked models. It's quite degrading. It cheapens the whole image.

A more effective way to advertise would be to be genuinely passionate about animals, without any ulterior motives. Fortunately there are charities out there that don't need to use sexual imagery to promote themselves.

Answer 5

I can see why Hugh Hefner and Larry Flynt would want to advertise their products with seminude models, but PETA?  It doesn't really make sense why a 'charitable' organization would be presenting themselves this way.  What's next?  A strip club run by the Pope?

I'm not really offended by the use of seminude models (sorry, I'm just not), but I am offended by how the models are used (does that make sense?).

As far as male and female models being represented differently, undoubtedly they are.  Mostly because I've never seen the ads using men as models (they may exist, but I've never seen them).  And I'm sure that they don't quite have the same effect on people.

Using a literal definition of 'average'... half of all the people in the world have below average intelligence.  Do you see now why s*x sells?

Regardless, Pamela Anderson and Alicia Silverstone aren't people I would be willing to learn life lessons from.

Answer 6

I personally think that it is just another type of exploitation.

Answer 7

I could care less one way or another.  I would expect just about anything from that group of wingnuts though.  I guess that it is ok to exploit humans.

Answer 8

I view it as a cheap stunt to get a few seconds of media attention and to hide the fact your agenda has glaring inconsistencies lurking just below the surface.

Answer 9

i dont like the word phrase "exploitation of women" bandied about too loosely. fact is that keeping women from doing these things if they want to is far more exploitive. and nudity doesnt bother me and i imagine it doesnt bother the people who do it.

that being said, peta has a tendency to use it as a cheap gimmick and that is sad and takes away from the seriousness of their message.

Answer 10

The wrong way to go.  It's like trading one evil for another.

The more effective tasteful way to use asthetics as an advertising campaign is to show good looking male and female vegetarians fully clothed or at the least in bathing suits.

We can all relate to wanting to be seen fit and in shape at the beach but not spread-eagled.  It's sending the message that objectification is ok sometimes and that's not the case.

Edit- I like the idea of seeing good looking vegetarians all in the same tee-shirt saying Compassion is super s**y or something like that.  If you want to sell looks there's a tasteful way to do it.

Answer 11

was a model a long time ago.  i think using whatever tools we have at our disposal is what we need to WAKE-UP the masses, to inhumane treatment of animals.  and i do not know how effective we were - we used to load up a limo with our cow, some chickens, and our lil' piggy and go down tolocal McD's and park & walk bossy the cow with her sign-"Please do not eat me-you drink my milk that makes me your MOM"  -  we also had a sign that read "would you eat it if you had to Kill it Skin it to eat it?"  we even went to the Chart House restaurant in Malibu with Bossy.  that was thru the 70's- we even had a restaurant in Topanga Cnyn.  called "Love animals Don't Eat them."

thse days i'm thinking raising awareness by example is effective too.  good question!  :)

Answer 12

I think it all comes down to the old addage 's*x sells' and if it's going to promote a good cause- why not use it to it's advantage. I don't think males and females are represented differently- they're both represented as meat- posessions- as what we're 'supposed' to be or strive to be at least. (not that i agree with that)

As far as effectiveness- I'd like to see the Peta animal curelty commercials that are shown in the U.S which can be viewed on the Peta organisations website. Turned me off eating meat and certain other things like Mars chocolate.

But each to their own.

Answer 13

I agree wholeheartedly with hellinore_rigby's answer.

Answer 14

I have no problem with it. The thing to understand though is that it's the audience being exploited, not the model or any group they are connected to outside of the marketing campaign. They are using sexuality and subliminal urges to manipulate the audience. That's the exploitation.

Males and females are SOMETIMES represented differently depending on the audience they wish to exploit. Some wish to exploit the audience's sexuality while other times the marketer wishes to exploit subliminal urges such as insecurity, compassion or territorialism, just as examples.

EDIT: Having researched briefly since answering, I recognize we may be using different definitions of the verb exploit:

http://www.wordreference.com/definition/...

Indy---having read the definitions of the word, I think you and I are responding using verb def #1, but the question is more likely related to verb #2.

"keeping women from doing these things if they want to is far more exploitive"-agreed.

Answer 15

Good question.

Personally, it doesn't bother me. I think the human body (both male and female varieties) are beautiful and should be celebrated and admired.

That said, I think it is totally up to the individual to decide how they want to celebrate and admire their bodies. If certain veg*ns are absolutely in love with their dietary lifestyle and they want to support a certain cause by using their body, it's their decision.

A few of these answers make it sound like PETA kidnapped these folks and held guns to their head in order to make them pose. They are adults and they can determine if they want to participate.

As far as  the *concept* of sexual exploitation is concerned (on any level), I highly doubt that people are going to one day jump up and become veg*n just because someone was half naked on a website. Most veg*ns have very strong convictions about WHY they are such - reasons that go beyond the influence of a campaign along the likes of the Lettuce Ladies or Broccoli Boys.

I am not sure their exact motivation with the advertising, but if it raises awareness for the veg*n lifestyle, I'm fine with it.

Answer 16

My views if they actually have a point of view and show something that can help the moment, I have no problem. Male or female if they are okay with being nude or partially nude it is fine. Most of PETA's semi-nude models to me have nothing to do with the movement and actually in a way exploits women. But some of theirs actually seem okay because of what they represent. Such as:

http://personal.r2-d2.cz/kaminky/0030/Ve...

And their anti-fur shots.

But a lot of animal rights and vegan rights use nude or semi nude both equally male and female, more professional than PETA. I have no problem with nudity when done right.

http://pressesc.com/01172366456_top_5_pr...

Photos 1 and 4.

http://flickr.com/photos/mutephotoblog/2...

Answer 17

It's protesting the exploitation of one group of beings (animals) by exploiting another group (women). Inexcusable hypocrisy.

Yes exploitative nude pictures get attention - from the dirty mac brigade. I doubt they've converted one person to vegetarianism or veganism and if they had, the end wouldn't justify the means.

Peta is the only animal advocavy organisation I know of to do this, and I despise their exploitation and objectification of women's bodies

They repeatedly show women's scantily-clad or naked bodies, presented as meat and/or helpless victims.

The fact that the women concerned  have consented is irrelevant. It's the harm such images do to ALL women that matters. The harm they do ALL women by agreeing to be displayed as meat or as a helpless victim or as an available morsel presented on a bed of salad.

The difference between this and Peta's pictures of naked - or, more usually, near naked - men says it all. The men's pictures are to show how hunky veg*n men can be; they are strong, looking the camera in the eye, displaying their muscles. Seen a Peta picture of a woman like that? Nor have I - they're titillation or they're victims (usually both). It sends a message - or reinforces one - about ALL women. About sexual availability and passiveness, for example.

And while it's true other organisations use naked women to sell stuff - and of course that is despicable too - it is even more reprehensible when it's a campaigning organisation aimed at stopping one sort of exploitation which tries to achieve this by indulging in another.

Makes me so nostalgic for the 1970s and 80s when they wouldn't have got away with this c**p - women wouldn't have let them, we'd have been picketing, leafletting...they'd have dropped that campaign like a hot brick, if they'd ever dared start it in the first place.

**EDIT: Indy and TANLL - the fact that the model is taking part willingly doesn't mean there's no exploitation - those willing models are colluding in degrading and exploitative images of women's bodies which depict them as compliant, helpless, victims... typically they are presented as cuts of meat, or lying provocatively on a bed of lettuce, or just generally writhing in an apres-rape position. The message is availability. The harm is to ALL women.

The only comparison I can think of to draw at the moment is 1930s films where a handful of black actors Uncle Tommed it up - they were doing it more or less willingly, but they were harming, and colluding in the exploitation and stereotyping of, all black Americans