PETA starting a porn site!?!

[BunkyVegan]

From: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20095557-501465.html?tag=re1.channel

"The animal rights group, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is raising eyebrows with plans to launch a pornography website. The site will take advantage of the new .xxx top level domains. Peta.xxx will be a hub for sexually explicit content and, weirdly enough, animal abuse."

Just in case anyone needed another reason to shake their heads at this (in my opinion) HORRIBLE organization that unfortunately makes the animal rights movement look bad. :mad:

It is an extremely BAD idea for people to look at footage of animal abuse after/while looking at pornography, particularly young people or people who already associate sex with power/domination or violence. I just can't wrap my head around some of their tactics and how they could possibly think that drawing attention for doing extreme/stupid stunts like this actually helps their cause.

Maybe I'm overreacting, but I really think this is a stupid idea that is of absolutely NO benefit for the animals, and could have dire consequences. There's a reason why hedonistic serial killers often start out by torturing animals when they are young, and it involves an early association between arousal and violence.

[pat sommer]

The fact that you do feel Peta's tactics are not necessary paradoxically proves to me that they have succeeded.

You don't remember before Peta what the media was like for (mostly against) AR. That Peta could tarnish the AR image that they themselves should be greatly credited for creating out of dust, is a reflection of the movements maturity.

Not that I am asking you to change your opinion in the slightest; just sharing the vantage point of one oldster :wink_ani:

[fondducoeur]

I find this very disturbing...and Bunky you bring up some very valid points. I can't imagine why they thought this would be a good idea.

[pat sommer]

it is true: we can't imagine... could ask them...

But the fact that we aren't the only ones talking about this development is probably the the answer to why they thought it was a good ides.
Nothing has to become of the site: the attention has already been achieved.

Getting the media to get the AR message out for free is the backbone of the Peta budget. Money can then be spent on educational material, R and I, and lobbying.
First you grab the public's attention then you start a rational conversation.

[Korn]

Peta seems to belong to the (luckily) decreasing amount of people who believe in the myth that all PR is good PR.

[pat sommer]

PR good for what is the question. Should we only strive to look respectable scientific and righteous?
That there is a group of bad-ass bikers being celebrated for their brand of animal justice, ain't takin' nothin' away from me, a mainstream advocate.

Porn is not my cup of tea. Apparently, it is appealing to a large segment of the public. Just another demographic to be exploited for the good. And speaking of exploitation: at least I reckon the content of the proposed site will be created by willing contributors. What consenting adults get up to in the privacy of their world wide web is not for me to judge.

[Andy_T]

I think that Gary Francione's comment "Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks did not have to say >>I'd rather go naked than sit in the back of a bus<< or similar and that PETA's activism can belittle the cause of animal rights activism does have some merit.

Objectifying women (even if they willingly do it themselves) to protect animals creates a troubling message, much more so (IMO) in the context of creating a porn site. Let's be honest, I see very few people praising the merits of porn sites, even in (less puritanical) Europe.

Best regards,
Andy

[Korn]

Should we only strive to look respectable scientific and righteous? No, but a) Peta isn't even close to risking appearing to0 scientific, and b) there's a lot to be found between those extremes (starting a porn site and eg. documenting the health aspect of a vegan vs. a meat based diet). If you only look at this forum, there's a lot of easy to understand scientific info which would have had great impact if Peta had tried distributing some if it. They don't even seem to try much.

I don't think anyone would leave Peta if they wouldn't start a porn site, but many will not join them if they do. Peta - with it's hundreds of thousands (some claim two million) members looks like a major failure to me. And - are they actively trying to get their own members go vegan?


Will anyone in the mood for seeing sexual pictures or movies go to a site which also contains media showing animals that are abused? What does Peta expect... that people watch porn first, and then go to the animal abuse section? Oe vice versa? In either case, maybe people who is attracted to the idea of seeing animal abuse and sex in any combination should consider donating their brains to science....

Imagine what such a large organization could have done if they instead of constantly wanting to shock people would do what they could to at least help their own members go vegan...

Have you seen Peta ever promote the fact that the 20+most common cancer types are associated with an increased intake of animal products? Or that, in spite of what most people seem to assume, that non-vegans have more nutrients to pay special attention to than vegans, since standard, non-vegan food diet often is lacking in a number of them?

I'm not really looking at the many silly things I think Peta has done, isolated. I'm looking at what such a major organization have done compared with what such a large group could have been doing. Their stunts don't even have to be 'scientific' - but they seem to fail in delivering what the world currently needs the most, from a vegan perspective: mass media which addresses the reasons most people keep supporting the meat industry (including most of Peta's own members, from what I've heard).

If people are inspired to eat great vegan food and know that it's as healthy and tasty as the food they currently eat, a lot more people will go vegan.

For every single person who goes vegan, hundreds of animals are saved, and the likelihood that their own kids, if they'll have some, will be vegan will also increase. Peta may assume that if they get more people to visit sites with a Peta logo on, more animals will be saved. That's a very optimistic viewpoint since they haven't even managed to recruit most of their own members to an animal friendly lifestyle.

Wearing a Peta sticker or button doesn't have much effect if the person wearing it is eating a cheeseburger...


I think that Gary Francione's comment "Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks did not have to say >>I'd rather go naked than sit in the back of a bus<< or similar and that PETA's activism can belittle the cause of animal rights activism does have some merit.
...and I still wonder if anyone thinks that Gandhi, Martin Luther King or Mandela would have achieved more if they would have pulled down their pants while giving their speeches.

[harpy]

I don't think I am particularly puritanical, and of course I haven't seen this new site, but based on what they have done in the past I find their "sex sells" approach exploitative (regardless of whether the people pictured have volunteered). Getting people into the habit of viewing one another as objects affects everyone in society, not just the participants.

I'm also a bit sceptical that supporters they attract that way are going to stick with it for the long term, because what has attracted them has (as far as I can see) nothing at all to do with the real issue. Won't they be more like the people who tried vegetarianism or veganism to please a partner and then dropped it when the relationship ended?

[spanna]

I don't know much about PETA, the campaigns with some hypocritical famous people just made me not take an interest.
But would using a porn site which is produced by a supposedly ethical/moral company make porn more acceptable??
Maybe Shelter and Oxfam mightstart doing the same thing!!

[hedge]

Animal porn of any form is despicable (I'm sure we all agree on that) but the fact that PeTA would stoop to this level is sadly not surprising or shocking to me in the least.
PeTA has harmed the AR movement (and yes, I remember what things were like before PeTA) since Ingrid lost the plot around 1985.

[Andy_T]

Animal porn of any form is despicable (I'm sure we all agree on that)

Indeed! That's why I never watch the Discovery Channel!

Best regards,
Andy

[Andy_T]

The whole idea (watching porn with horrible animal pictures in-between) somehow reminds me of the therapy in "A clockwork orange".
I don't know if that is what PETA have in mind, other than getting notoriety (I don't use the word publicity in this respect).

Best regards,
Andy

[spanna]

Yes there is something very messed up in the psychology of putting porn and animal abuse together...

[Gwydion]

I'm with Pat on this one. Reaction reaction reaction. I doubt very much they would follow through with it, at least not to the extent we are assuming they would go to. Even if they are purposely leading us down that route of thought. Reaction.

(Sorry if I read you incorrectly Pat)

If they did, than wow - would think even less of them than I currently do. Not that that matters to them much in the grand scheme of things.

[Korn]

I doubt very much they would follow through with it, at least not to the extent we are assuming they would go to.
I agree, and I actually don't assume that it will be as crazy as what is mentioned in the original text: "a hub for sexually explicit content and, weirdly enough, animal abuse." I assume that it can't possibly be that crazy. But I still question (and more) Peta's endless attempts of doing anything they can just to get publicity - while ignoring doing loads of things they could have been doing.

[BunkyVegan]

I wasn't around before PETA became a household name, but I agree that (at least from the research I've done) there seems to have been a change within the AR community in terms of a greater focus on veganism vs. vegetarianism, and the abolishionist approach vs. welfarism. My concern is more with how the rest of the world views us. I've noticed that a lot of people who hear the words 'vegan' or 'animal rights' immediately associate these ideas with PETA, and it's not a good association. They find PETA to be irritating, attention-seeking hypocrites and think that every vegan/AR supporter is the same. I have a feeling that at least some of the hostility that meat eaters feel towards vegans is directly because of PETA.

[BunkyVegan]

I assume that it can't possibly be that crazy. But I still question (and more) Peta's endless attempts of doing anything they can just to get publicity - while ignoring doing loads of things they could have been doing.

I agree about PETA not using their time, resources, and fame wisely. That is my biggest beef with them, along with how they have likely caused a lot of people to write-off veganism because of their public persona. And I really hope that the site either will not come to be, or if it does will not be as bad as it sounds. They already have nuditiy on their other site(s) (eg. that state of the union parody with a woman stripping off all her clothes)... so if they are planning to go through with the new site, I wonder how much worse it will be. :eek:

[DiaShel]

First of all, there are a ridiculous number of porn sites out there so who in there right mind would go to one that puts in shots on animal abuse? Secondly, as the article mentions that Pavlov effect. I don't think it's a good idea to condition people to get turned on when seeing animal abuse.
I think the whole thing is publicity. I wouldn't be surprised if there is no site.

[maggielassie]

Pornography is the degradation, the objectification, the exploitation and the hatred of women. It sexualiazes violence against women so as to render it invisible or 'desirable' to the viewer. Most pornography "actresses" are survivors of childhood sexual abuse. They did not get the chance to get into a better lifestyle, just like many other women who have been pimped into prostitution/trafficking. Most prostitutes & porn "actresses" experience PTSD (which enables them to act in a certain way so that they can go through the 'job' they're doing). Porn promotes beliefs that women "enjoy" being raped, humiliated and other horrible things...

It is very shameful and disgusting that Peta is doing this. Trying to fight one form of abuse by promoting another form of abuse is not going to work. As a feminist, I'm never going to support Peta now, that's for sure. I'll prefer other pro-vegan organisations that respect both animals and women...

[pat sommer]

To that I ask to be saved from myself: women obviously can't be trusted to make decisions regarding their own bodies.
Yes, there is abuse out there. Can we not throw the baby out with the bath water?

[pat sommer]

It is sad that frivolous campaigns and nudity have tarnished the image of AR and is hurting the movement.

It is counter-productive having celebrities promote veganism, making it faddish and shallow.

Glamorous cooking shows and magazines depict the vegan diet as expensive, elitist and out of reach to the general public.

Welfare organizations are stealing people away from animal liberation by supporting attitudes of dominion over animals.

Radical elements are causing the public to shun AR as too extreme, even violently misogynistic.

Deeply entrenched wealthy Orgs are losing members by there constant delivery of horrific images.

Local groups that can barely tread water are turning people off by their lack of success.

Self-proclaimed experts in scientific/health fields are causing a rebound effect with their preachy attitude and unattainable goals.

Hippy-dippy alternative lifestyle folks are just living proof that veganism is too difficult in real society.

The chronically sick or overweight vegans portray the lifestyle to be one of deprivation necessary only in extreme circumstances.

Bourgeois middle-aged AR campaigners turn off the young generation with their 'pet' cause instead of promoting a new world order.



I guess that just leaves Korn and me and Gary Francione left, eh?
...and they sure ain't sure about me.

[AzureAngel]

Secondly, as the article mentions that Pavlov effect. I don't think it's a good idea to condition people to get turned on when seeing animal abuse.

I have to agree with you there. I personally do not want the porn I watch to be associated with it!

I find that once people start to talk about porn they immediately start going on about how porn objectifies women etc etc and frankly, I think that is just getting a bit old and silly now. I personally know a few people (2 women and 1 guy) in the porn industry and it has changed a LOT over the years. It is a legitimate business and if you choose not be part of it or watch it, that is your choice. I hate it when people just attack pornography without taking into consideration that it is used for many good things such as repairing marriages and relationships that need a little spicing up. It also pays very well and BOTH sexes' rights are looked after in the legitimate porn industries. It is the same as a vibrator... That said, it is a private thing between most people. I dont know many people who watch it with other people other than their partners, barring the odd fraternity of guys watching it together etc. So yes, making this weird connection between animal abuse and this is just a stupid move, that to me, as Dia said, sounds like a publicity stunt.

[Korn]

It is sad that frivolous campaigns and nudity have tarnished the image of AR and is hurting the movement.

It is counter-productive having celebrities promote veganism, making it faddish and shallow.

Glamorous cooking shows and magazines depict the vegan diet as expensive, elitist and out of reach to the general public.

Welfare organizations are stealing people away from animal liberation by supporting attitudes of dominion over animals.

Radical elements are causing the public to shun AR as too extreme, even violently misogynistic.

Deeply entrenched wealthy Orgs are losing members by there constant delivery of horrific images.

Local groups that can barely tread water are turning people off by their lack of success.

Self-proclaimed experts in scientific/health fields are causing a rebound effect with their preachy attitude and unattainable goals.

Hippy-dippy alternative lifestyle folks are just living proof that veganism is too difficult in real society.

The chronically sick or overweight vegans portray the lifestyle to be one of deprivation necessary only in extreme circumstances.

Bourgeois middle-aged AR campaigners turn off the young generation with their 'pet' cause instead of promoting a new world order.
If we would stick to promote veganism as what it actually is, and not throw in all those other 'extras' as if they were baked into being vegan, things would simply be a lot easier. It's not expensive being vegan, it's not unhealthy, and one doesn't have to be OK with porn/AR-combos or organizations supporting criminal activities to be a vegan. This is *not* complicated ...it's easy.

Of course mentioning that well-know people ('celebrities') are vegans makes sense - especially for those who falsely believe that their are the only vegan around. But Peta seem to, repeatedly, be stuck with choices which aren't smart. There's a simply limit to how much effect Pamela Anderson has on people's decision-making, and if Peta manages to generate a large group of 'weekend-vegans' who go back to a standard diet/lifestyle once they become circa 25, they have both succeeded and failed. The succeeded-part is great, the failed part need to be looked at.

The main reason I think Peta is worth criticizing, is that they (claim to?) have all these members - which give them more power and responsibility/importance than any other vegan friendly group on the planet.


I guess that just leaves Korn and me and Gary Francione left, eh? If the majority of vegans and potential vegans support Peta's porn-stunt and the many other weird ideas they've had, your right.

[Korn]

Pornography is the degradation, the objectification, the exploitation and the hatred...
On a deeper level this doesn't even have (only) to do with porn. It has to, IMO, one well-known dilemma for anyone who wants to 'market' anything: Shall we market what we want to market, os shall we throw in all kinds of stuff just because it's fun, may work, will give us some press or because we feel like it? Or, in short: Is all PR actually always good PR or is that only a myth?

There's site called Natural News. It's quite good at tracing down some studies documenting interesting facts about 'natural' vs. 'unnatural', or 'environment-friendly vs. 'causing damage to the environment', if you will. But - whoever runs it, now and then throws and relatively generous portions of comments which have this fanatic flavor, and also uses the site to promote his anti-Barack Obama views etc, distribute videos of himself rapping and so on. This is a private site, and he can do what he wants. But if Peta does the same, with 2 million people funding them, I think it's important that they don't thrown in a lot of stuff which doesn't represent the cause in question, or even throw many people away with no real gain.

Maybe these two million people support the porn/AR-idea? Don't know. If they do, it's just too bad they there isn't an equally powerful pro-vegan group doing things differently.

Maybe the people on Peta's announced porn site really want to be naked models for a good cause? That's possible. But if they are talked into it, and at 35 regret that they did this because images and clips still float around on the net, the situation isn't that far from plain exploitation. If you at 30 don't get a job because someone finds that you have a porn background, those who possibly talked you into this when you were 19 should have beed doing some more thinking before they convinced you, if that's what they did.