Kez said:

You know, I think any attention just encourages them to get worse. I'm ignoring them completely from now on.

PETA: Pornographic, Exploitative Tripe, Always.

Posted on 20 February 2009 at 11:19 AM

JENNIFER DREW said:

PETA are so desperate they're having to resort to pandering to heterosexual male fantasies of lesbian sexual activity, which only exists in order to arouse men. Lesbian sexuality is never presented as being about women's sexual desires but always men's! Men's heterosexist myths again.

PETA your time is up we see through your incessant misogyny and it is time you changed direction.

Posted on 20 February 2009 at 11:29 AM

Aimee said:

Why do they feel that their target audience is heterosexual men? Is it okay for women and homosexuals to eat meat, is it? Or are men the most important group? Oh... wait...

Posted on 20 February 2009 at 11:36 AM

Sabre said:

What can we do? Can we organise some mass petition to urge PETA to give up sexism? Send them angry letters? Protest?

If you put 'PETA' into Google Images every picture on the first page is of a semi-naked woman. And most on the second page. And the third, fourth...

I'm so annoyed!

Posted on 20 February 2009 at 12:17 PM

Mary Tracy9 said:

Well, they are clearly campaigning for...

What are they campaigning for again? The right of straight women to play lesbians for the menz?

Talk about a message being completely lost!

Posted on 20 February 2009 at 12:22 PM

Azure said:

Anybody else hear 'we're straight' toward the end of the clip? I forgot lesbianism was a spectator sport solely for male enjoyment.

Nice one, PETA. I feel inclined to go and buy something from KFC or a kebab van just to spite them now.

Posted on 20 February 2009 at 12:27 PM

Anne Onne said:

Evidently, PETA is actually setting up a very clever (read: inane) viral marketing campaign for a lad's mag.

They should stop pretending to care about animals, and just transparently announce that their actual raison d'etre is to make money off women's bodies. There's a real market in it, so I hear. Since they're into insulting minorities, they'll be pleased to know that the lad's mag (and general media) offer many opportunities.

I'd suggest refusing them the oxygen of publicity, but they're so well-known and so publicised that not talking about them on one blog really doesn't take the wind out of their sails.

Kez: Sounds like a competition: come up with as many variations of the acronym PETA that sum up what they're really about.

My contribution is: Pernicious, explicit, tastelessly antagonistic. Not as great as yours, but they deserve as many epithets as they can get. I wonder what it must be like to actually care for animals AND people and work for them. I imagine it's getting harder and harder to justify remaining with such a group when there are so many others that actually respect people.

Posted on 20 February 2009 at 1:16 PM

maggie said:

I don't understand the rationale behind these series of adverts.

I would like to say that I don't care, I give up, I'm off for a meat pie...but, damn you PETA, I do care. Phish.

The whole thing is pandering to the young white male, though the odd white grandad is throw in for titilation (?) as in the absurd milk advert.

Are they campaigning for freedom to produce adverts that pander to 'every boy's dream'? Or is there a clever subtext to these pointles fantasies that my 'tiny little mind' is failing to get?

Posted on 20 February 2009 at 1:39 PM

Saranga said:

*headdesk*

Posted on 20 February 2009 at 1:41 PM

polly styrene said:

Can I suggest Azure that if you give in to the craving for KFC, (I wouldn't recommend a kebab, they're really bad for you) you send Peta the wrapper at:

PETA EUROPE LTD.
PO BOX 36668 LONDON
SE1 1WA:

And tell them why

Posted on 20 February 2009 at 1:45 PM

emma said:

They are targeting the vegie lifestyle to men and using women to promote that. Im not saying i think its right but isnt it patronising to men to use this promotional campaign-isnt it saying we can sell you anything as long as it involves sex, all you want is sex, your not a thinking person who can make intellectual desicions about why it might be a good idea to become a veggie.
Dont women get feed the same treatment. oh buy this product we have it in pink and its fluffy.
Its about using the lowest common denominator

Posted on 20 February 2009 at 2:36 PM

Jaime said:

Polly Styrene, you are an absolute genius!

Posted on 20 February 2009 at 2:41 PM

Mary Tracy9 said:

Pornographic, Exploitative, Total Assholes?

Polly, why are kebabs bad for you? I rilly rilly like them! (I'm not a vegetarian, PETA put me off entirely)

Posted on 20 February 2009 at 2:47 PM

awg said:

Doesn't Peta stand for people Easting Tasty Animals.
Doesn't that make sense.

Posted on 20 February 2009 at 3:52 PM

Hazel said:

Who are the people behind these campaigns?

I constantly hear criticism of PETA as an organisation for these campaigns (highly deserved) but I rarely read about the people in charge - the people making these decisions. I would like to hear if Ingrid Newkirk (PETA's president and co-founder) has ever responded to the sexism of the campaigns done in her organization's name.

Posted on 20 February 2009 at 4:40 PM

Amy said:

PETA

Patriarchal Exploiters, Trainwreck Ads :/

Posted on 20 February 2009 at 6:12 PM

Kez said:

Pathetically Empty, Trite "Activism".

Although I have to say People Eating Tasty Animals* gets my vote so far, purely for the irony factor......

* And isn't it sad that PETA's campaigning causes guilt-ridden nearly-vegetarians like me to suddenly start making like gung-ho carnivores?

Posted on 20 February 2009 at 7:38 PM

Azure said:

Polly - That's brilliant! I think I'll have to start doing that whenever I eat anything meaty.

Posted on 20 February 2009 at 9:26 PM

Sappho said:

PETA are just completely weak. I hope they feel that they've done a good job, taking the usual tactic of lesbianism as some sort of exhibitionist tool, to arouse male fantasies, just to raise some point (what point?) Anyway, how are they gpoing to efficiently promote vegetarianism if they are using sexed- up means? Where's the link between the two?

Posted on 22 February 2009 at 11:35 AM

Amy Clare said:

I've seen a lot of these type of PETA ads... all are sick and stupid.

However, animal rights is a worthy cause. Just because PETA have got their marketing ridiculously wrong, it doesn't mean that animals aren't still suffering in their millions due to the meat trade. You're not going to 'punish' PETA by eating KFC. You're just contributing to the cruel factory farming industry, like millions of others. All the people who commented that PETA put them off vegetarianism - grow up. A decision to give up meat should be based on a sincere concern for the suffering of animals, not spite for misguided adverts featuring fake lesbians.

There are plenty of other animal-friendly organisations which don't use sexist advertising... BUAV, the Vegan & Vegetarian Societies, etc. Regardless of the marketing used, the issue is still the same.

I'm a feminist and a vegan... the PETA adverts really p*** me off but I'm not so childish as to start eating meat again because of it. It wouldn't matter how offensive PETA's ads got, nothing could convince me to contribute to such a horrific industry.

Posted on 22 February 2009 at 4:24 PM

Kez said:

Amy Clare - I think you are misunderstanding what people are saying here. I don't think most people are seriously saying that PETA put them off becoming vegetarian, or that they will eat more meat out of "spite". Of COURSE animal rights is a worthy issue and ethical treatment of animals is important. However I think a knee-jerk reaction against such crass tactics as are used by PETA is perfectly understandable, it doesn't mean someone is seriously going to go and eat a KFC if they wouldn't normally do that anyway. (Though I also don't think they would be put off doing so by PETA's campaigning!)

I think the people (including myself) who have made such comments are just trying to illustrate how PETA are, in fact, doing their cause a disservice by their choice of advertising. I certainly fail to see how they are going to persuade anyone to become vegetarian, based on the tactics they have adopted, and in fact they completely undermine the seriousness of the issue.

Posted on 23 February 2009 at 9:16 AM

polly styrene said:

Apparently the average kebab contains nearly 7g of salt, and 62 g of fat, of which 30g is saturated fat, Mary Tracey.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7852168.stm

Posted on 23 February 2009 at 11:40 AM

Sabre said:

PETA: People for the Exploitation of Tits and Ass

Posted on 23 February 2009 at 1:44 PM

Lara said:

What has this to do with the ethical treatment of animals?

I'm so confused by all this I think I'm going to order some new fur for next winter.

Is it wrong that I care more about the treatment of people than animals?

Posted on 24 February 2009 at 2:17 PM

Cara said:

Lara - no, it isn't wrong. I feel the same way. It's not that I want animals to suffer, but they are not people. I don't get extreme animal rights activists.
I had a summer job collecting money for charity as a student, for people, and the number of people who said 'oh I won't give to people, but I will give to animals'...priorities skewed maybe?!

Posted on 24 February 2009 at 4:10 PM