Saturday, August 9, 2008

Nude Jena Jenson PETA AD, Exploitation Ok For Women and Not Animals

image

H/T Free Womens Blogs.

PETA, PETA, PETA...what can I say. I think that your goal of ending the abuse of animals is laudable. I believe that we need to treat animals humanely but why you continually refuse to extend the same privilege to women continues to astound me. Did you not realize that women are animals to and therefore by continuing to exploit us  to advance a political position you are flouting your own principles?

I understand that this is a program to promote spaying and neutering but how does a naked woman add to our understanding of this objective? It doesn't..it simply draws the eye in without relaying any significant message that raises consciousness. Those that stop to look at this advertisement will look at her body, and totally ignore your message, and that would seem to me to be counter to your goals. So PETA stop pimping pussy and calling it social action...you put yourself on the same level as the makers of those horrendous "girls gone wild videos". 

15 comments:

Linney Shvede said...

I agree that sometimes they cross the line...

Scott said...

Its Jena Jameson btw, but I get the drift. PETA is against unfair treatment to animals but doesn't have a problem exploiting women.

However, either Jameson is ignorant or doesn't have a problem with what she is doing, or she was paid rather well. Take your choice, because from that picture, she is enjoying it. Its all about choice, and she made hers.

nia said...

That's PETA for you. They just released another ad comparing the slaughtering of cows to the man that got decapitated on the Greyhound bus.

Renee said...

I find this practice to be completely disgusting. Even if the women are willingly participating trading on female sexuality this way is nothing more than pimping pussy.

Chat Blanc (aka Sandy) said...

I understand PETA is trying to grab as much attention as possible and has employed shocking tactics for many, many years, but I find it absolutely incongruous (and pandering to the lowest common denominator among us) to use sex and flesh to promote their ideals.

I especially agree with and like your last sentence! Kudos! :)

Scott said...

Renee

"I find this practice to be completely disgusting. Even if the women are willingly participating trading on female sexuality this way is nothing more than pimping pussy."

I'm going to have to disagree here, Jena Jameson is a self made millionare. She chose to use what the Lord gave her and, well the rest is history. She doesn't have a pimp, she has the final call an everything.

Just say no ladies, thats all you have to say, the more of you that just say no, PETA and other agencies out there will find it less attractive to use you in their ads.

Wenbin Nah said...

I find that the ends justify the means. It is a creative advertisement, which twists and links the main attention grabber to the point it is trying to make.

And there is also no denying that it is more effective in attention grabbing as compared to a more run of the mill advertisement.

Queers United said...

sorry i disagree, im a pro-nudity, pro-porn feminist. these woman choose to be in these ads, and its for a noble cause. the fact is sex sells.

Renee said...

@Queers United

i support the women choosing to pose in the ads and validate their agency. I cannot support PETA using womens sexuality repeatedly to make their political point. Exploitation for a cause is still exploitation.

Blogger said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Danny said...

Exploitation for a cause is still exploitation.

That begs the question, "Who gets to define if its exploitation or not?"

The Furies said...

First of all, I believe this thread was about PETA being assholes again, not about whether Jenna Jameson was forced into this, because we all know she wasn't. But that's not the point, is it? The point is PETA exploiting one group to end the exploitation of another.

But anyway, since some misogynists upthread went there, tell me why PETA doesn't exploit men in the same way? The fact is, the only way a woman stands a good chance of making money is by selling her body because women still are generally not allowed to be CEOs (yes, I know there are a few, very few, exceptions) can't be president of the US for all intents and purposes, and face tons of discrimination in well-paying jobs such as engineering and computer science. So while SOME women choose to participate in these sorts of bullshit, their choices are made in a world that affords them fewer opportunities than men, because if you're a woman and you want to get rich and you're not the heir to L'Oreal and you're not Oprah, you just might have to sell your body.

Oh, and Scott, note that I said SOME women make these decisions even though you make it sound like all of us are. And even though only a small number of women participate in this bullshit, all of us suffer for it because we then get treated like meat walking down the street and in clubs and in the workplace, and we get eating disorders and mutilate our bodies to look like these asshole Uncle Tom women who are so fucking airbrushed that they don't even look like that in real life, and we generally loathe our bodies and spend more time and money trying to look good than trying to get ahead. And also, rocket scientists upthread, ONLY A TINY PERCENTAGE OF WOMEN are even able to "benefit" from selling their bodies like this. That's because only a tiny percentage of women are thin, tall, white or light-skinned, clear-skinned and and straight- and thick-haired enough to get paid to do this shit. What do you suppose would happen if a woman with an ordinary body, say 130-140 pounds with a pudgy belly and stretch marks from childbirth approached PETA seeking to get paid big bucks by modeling for them? They'd laugh her out of the office, that's what they'd do. I absolutely cannot believe that so many people who claim to be progressive and/or feminist are perfectly okay with supporting the flagrant discrimination inherent in shit like this. You all have effectively said that any woman who isn't absolutely stunning doesn't deserve as many opportunities as women who are stunning. I mean, why not be racist if you're going to judge people and only give them opportunities based solely on looks? It's not like being born blonde with a high metabolism takes any special effort or training, yet you have so-called feminists here proclaiming that somebody born a certain way deserves privileges that others don't get. And that's fucked up.

Oh yeah, and I still want to know why PETA doesn't use men like this. If selling one's body were really such a great idea, men would be just as involved. But oh wait, they have other ways to get rich, ways that won't dry up the second they get a wrinkle or get physically disfigured in a car accident.

Elaine Vigneault said...

GGW used underage, drunk (thus nonconsenting), inexperienced women to make money and sell sex.

PETA uses adult, consenting women to advocate for animals.

There's a BIG difference.

Anonymous said...

This is so blatantly pornographic, I am really shocked. It's irrelevant whether these women are paid (big money) to consent to this. It's irrelevant whether "sex sells". It doesn't make it right.

There are heaps of better ads they could have used instead of this one - two happy normalish-looking adults (not porn-star-blond-chick) cuddling/kissing. I don't care if they're both naked. So long as it's showing real "sex" not just a solitary hot naked chic. This would much better represent the ad's message (it's not about masturbation-sex but 'normal' sex because too much sex = too many babies)

Women are animals too, so so much for defending the rights of animals, PETA.

Terrence said...

I really don't get why some people complain so much about ads like this. As long as it doesn't go too far, I'd classify this as some really creative advertisement. I doubt even any self-respecting advertisement agency in india would deny how effective a poster or banner like that would be.