"sex sells sex"

[Sarabi]

Carol J. Adams, author of "The Sexual Politics of Meat" (and other feminist/vegan writings), wrote a blog post about PETA's use of naked women (http://caroljadams.blogspot.com/2009/07/as-far-as-i-can-learn-susan-b.html). This part sums it up:


People say, “Sex sells.” I say, “Sex sells sex.”

She also argues that it is harmful to both animals and women.

[Roxy]

I disagree with her and thinks she sounds very judgemental.

[Sloth]

People say, “Sex sells.” I say, “Sex sells sex.”


In a previous debate over Peta's use of these tactics, that was almost the exact phrasing I used.

EDIT: Actually, I think I remember deleting the post due to not wanting to get into a massive scrap with someone o_0

[Sarabi]

I disagree with her and thinks she sounds very judgemental.
"very judgmental"? What is judgmental about what she says?

[Poison Ivy]

I love the last paragraph on her blog...

"I don’t believe animal advocacy needs naked bodies to make its point. Animals can be compelling on their own, if we were to give them a chance and a real voice."

...and couldn't agree more.:)

[fiamma]

Animals can be compelling on their own, if we were to give them a chance and a real voice.

And how do you propose we do that? Unfortunately pictures of vivisection, cruelty to animals or cute fluffy bunnies just don't have any effect on some; there is no one-size-fits-all solution to improving animal welfare.

I dislike the fact that the blog writer seems to suggest women are somehow pawns in the hands of PeTA; women can and do choose themselves how they want to use their bodies. And why does a woman showing off her body always have to seen in negative terms? If Che Guevara wants to use her body as a weapon in the battle for rights, I don't see the problem. Neither does she, obviously; she chose to do it after all.

[Sarabi]

fiamma, women can and do also choose to remain victims of sexual abuse (granted, they don't - usually - choose the sexual abuse itself, but they stay in harmful situations). I don't think that makes it acceptable.

Have you ever met anyone who went vegan because of naked women on the street? I'd like to repeat Adams' words:

sex sells sex.

And I think it distracts from the issue.

[Poison Ivy]

And how do you propose we do that? Unfortunately pictures of vivisection, cruelty to animals or cute fluffy bunnies just don't have any effect on some; there is no one-size-fits-all solution to improving animal welfare.

I don't know fiamma, you are right though that there is no one-size-fits-all solution, but I know that when I have shown people some of the Peta 'naked' adverts the message behind it was completely lost behind their interest/amusement at the nudity.

Fair enough, that may be indicative of the people I know but the message getting lost in favour of the nudity does concern me. At least Earthlings and other documentaries about factory farming/slaughter methods/vivisection have made people think rather than just providing titillation for thirty seconds.


And I think it distracts from the issue.

Me too.

[Roxy]

"very judgmental"? What is judgmental about what she says?

Generally the whole tone of the post. Women fought for the right to do with their bodies what they would like. Now when women choose to take their clothes off for a good cause, they are judged by a large number of the population.


I dislike the fact that the blog writer seems to suggest women are somehow pawns in the hands of PeTA; women can and do choose themselves how they want to use their bodies. And why does a woman showing off her body always have to seen in negative terms? If Che Guevara wants to use her body as a weapon in the battle for rights, I don't see the problem. Neither does she, obviously; she chose to do it after all.

Well said.

[snivelingchild]

I've never thought that nudity was a specifically effective ploy, but I don't understand why it gets people's panties in a twist. (lol) I love being naked, and I love animals. Combining those two? AWESOME! Honestly, I think we should be doing naked protests to fight our right to be nude in public. I think it's dumb we are required to be clothed. Maybe THAT's why everyone seeing naked protests as sexual, because we can't hndle the thought of *gasp* a naked body in a non-sexual context. Showin some skin? might as well be gettin freaky in a school classroom.

[fiamma]

^ Brilliant post, couldn't have said it better... :thumbsup:

[sandra]

I'm not sure about the nudity thing, I don't think women should be used in this way. :(
I also don't understand why some women complain about women using makeup and wearing heels, and yet they think it's 'ok' for women to go around taking their clothes off! :confused:

[Sarabi]

I've never thought that nudity was a specifically effective ploy, but I don't understand why it gets people's panties in a twist. (lol) I love being naked, and I love animals. Combining those two? AWESOME! Honestly, I think we should be doing naked protests to fight our right to be nude in public. I think it's dumb we are required to be clothed. Maybe THAT's why everyone seeing naked protests as sexual, because we can't hndle the thought of *gasp* a naked body in a non-sexual context. Showin some skin? might as well be gettin freaky in a school classroom.
But it's NOT a non-sexual context. The entire purpose of the naked bodies for PETA is to re-sexualize them to promote animal rights/welfare. I'd like to see someone argue that PETA's Superbowl ad was a "*gasp*... non-sexual context."

[snaffler]

People are not shocked or taken by nudity or sex as tool of selling any longer, on music channel R&B stars parade around as though they are in porn sets and dress similar and that was on day time music tv which kids see, no one has ever spoke out about this and I am surprised.

So using sex and provocative images to sell AR issues will have little effect what makes me sit up and help a AR campaign is hard evidence gathered by clever covert activists that is FACT, as hard as it is to watch it makes the blood boil and my action reaction kicks in without hesitation.

Seeing someone like Jenna Jameson in kinky pleather saying "I am pleathered not leathered" is not going to work for the average Joe in the street.

Seeing a victim of the leather industrie having it's skin mechanically reomoved in one of those disgusting mass slaughter production factories no matter how gross it is to watch will make me stop wearing it and fight back.

[snivelingchild]

But it's NOT a non-sexual context. The entire purpose of the naked bodies for PETA is to re-sexualize them to promote animal rights/welfare. I'd like to see someone argue that PETA's Superbowl ad was a "*gasp*... non-sexual context."

hmm, I was thinking more about the ones where people get naked and lie down in big meat trays or paint themselves as bunnies in cages. I don't remember that superbowl ad, but I DO like sex! :thumbsup: :D I like it, and think it should be done more and referred to more. Then maybe more people would have healthier thought patterns about sex and have healthier relationships and we can talk about sex, and encourage it in these healthier relationships. (sorry, kind of stream of consciousness at the mo; readable sentences are for another day for me it seems, lol)

[snivelingchild]

I also don't understand why some women complain about women using makeup and wearing heels, and yet they think it's 'ok' for women to go around taking their clothes off! :confused:
Now, I'M confused. That doesn't seem contradictory at all. Naked is natural and beautiful. Makeup and heels are my preference because they're not natural, and in my opinion, less beautiful. To me, it makes sense for a nudist to not like those things.

[Sarabi]

hmm, I was thinking more about the ones where people get naked and lie down in big meat trays or paint themselves as bunnies in cages. I don't remember that superbowl ad, but I DO like sex! :thumbsup: :D I like it, and think it should be done more and referred to more. Then maybe more people would have healthier thought patterns about sex and have healthier relationships and we can talk about sex, and encourage it in these healthier relationships. (sorry, kind of stream of consciousness at the mo; readable sentences are for another day for me it seems, lol)
That's a big maybe. I think mainstream culture has already gone through its uber-sexualization and sexual freedom stage, at least in this country. The problem is not sex itself, but sexual objectification. PETA putting up an ad about "vegetarians have better sex" and showing video of women masturbating with broccoli and lettuce is not going to be taken seriously, but might turn some meat-eaters on if it doesn't piss them off. What message do you get out of that? "Vegetarians masturbate with broccoli, so straight white guys should have sex with them"? I don't think there are going to be women (who aren't even the target of the Superbowl) saying, "I want to become a vegetarian so I can go down on broccoli."

Big meat trays may be something else... I'm not sure how that would be sexual objectification.

[Roxy]

Peta use shock tactics to get people's attention. That's what they do. Sometimes they do it very well and sometimes I think they do it in poor taste.

Personally, I would take my clothes off for the animal rights cause. It's my body and if I choose to go naked to raise awareness, then that's my choice. Just as I think it's been the choice of all of the other men and women who have taken their clothes off for the cause.

What about all those people who do the naked run around the time of the running of the bulls? I think that's awesome!

[snivelingchild]

^ me too, I'd love to do that one!

[Roxy]

We could let all our floppy bits flop in the breeze whilst running for a good cause! :)

[Mahk]

Sex sells sex. Sex also sells perfume, beer, vacation/holidays trips/cruises, or in this case, scandalous for its day in 1921, tire valve caps:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/SchraderAp1921.jpg

...the list is almost endless. Does it work? It would seem odd for ad agencies to spend billions and billions of dollars on a technique that doesn't work and believe me they test the effectiveness of their various techniques constantly. What does the scantily clad woman have to do with tire valve caps? Nothing! Just like naked PeTA women and men have very little to do with AR. It doesn't have to make any sense whatsoever in order to be an effective ad campaign.

Sex also sells meat, by the way, take for example how meat-eating is tied in with masculinity and machismo in this current US TV commercial:
Z8_wr0tGP_0

Alternative link, if that's not working, here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8_wr0tGP_0).

I'm offended how my gender is portrayed (obectified?) as loud, obnoxious, grunting savages that eat meat.

It's not just in this ad either; at work my male coworkers often brag about their meat consumption as if it is a right of passage into manhood and how they can "out do" the others.:dizzy: [No, they aren't doing it in front of me because they are trying to offend my vegan sensibilities, they are just "into it".]

[Roxy]

I hate that ad and I hope I never see it on TV.

[Mahk]

It's disgusting on many levels. I see it almost every week :sad: I pretty much only watch one network TV show so it must play on that: 30 Rock.

[Sarabi]

Oh, yeah. Because PETA just really, no REALLY, tests the effectiveness of its ads and wouldn't use them if they didn't work. *major eye roll* PETA's latest ad:

http://www.feministing.com/archives/017289.html
http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk34/feministing/peta-save-the-whales.jpg

[BlackCats]

^ Actually that is very offensive. :mad: