PETA starting a porn site!?!

[BunkyVegan]

From: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_1...ag=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.

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

[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.

[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.

[whalespace]

One of the best things about entirely consensual porn, is how it enables people to consider sex without involving other people in a potentially upsetting learning process.
Perhaps it is naive to ignore all of the exploitation in the industry which "porn" has become?
Maybe creating such an example, where no living creature is exploited [including the diets of those involved] is just a simple way of demonstrating the difference between 'pleasure' and exploitation.
Maybe a few people would associate sex with animal abuse [perhaps they already have]. Maybe most would see a choice between 'fulfilled' vegans, and animal abuse.

Maybe PETA think other AR groups, and vegan groups have got other angles covered? Maybe there are just some highly sexed members in the PETA crew, and they are the most persuasive at their general meetings... Haha, when i've been in teminally boring committee meetings, i've thought
"..no wonder local authorities get ridiculous proposals through; which creative types would ever sit through this joy killing dirge of depression?" I guess PETA won't change their tactics until the necessary "right minded" types attend PETA committees and talk sense into them.

[missbettie]

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?

I really like this. I agree 100%

[sandra]

In my humble opinion..........animal abuse is wrong and pornography is wrong. There is no place for either in a civilised world.

[missbettie]

i think there is another thread about porn somewhere... i think this is a topic that everyone is going to have different opinions on.

[BunkyVegan]

I'm not personally opposed to pornography, but I should say that I haven't done much research into the issues that surround the industry. I imagine there is a real problem with regulation in that many of the girls are vulnerable and are being taken advantage of to some extent, or they are unstable and are making a decision they will regret later. But I think the solution to that is regulation, not doing away with pornography all together. I bet that (based on my limited experience with only a couple different free sites) the girls probably feel a lot of pressure to engage in degrading or painful activities if they want to make a career out of it, or make good money (because in nearly every video they seem to really treat the women like pieces of meat, and do a lot of 'extreme' things that I would certainly find degrading were I to engage in them with a stranger, on camera... sorry, I don't want to be too explicit, but I'm sure anyone who has watched porn knows what I'm taking about ).

Back to peta: I don't mean to undermine the things peta has accomplished, like doing undercover investigations (I think they were the first to do this, and are responsible for much of the footage we have today). But they also do a lot of harm by pandering to our societies desire for T&A in every image we see, engaging in really juvenile smear campaigns (for example this), and not using thier resources wisely (using it on the aformentioned tactics and welfare reform instead of focusing on veganism, like Korn was saying). The vegan/AR cause is an intellectual and ethical cause, and I don't see how using these tactics will get people to shift their own ethical paradigm. Having a woman undress will get people to watch and maybe listen to what the woman is saying, but is it actually going to change the viewer's mind about thier use of animals?

When people ask me why I'm a vegan, I say that I've always been an animal lover and been against animal cruelty, but what turned me into a vegan was when I learned about: 1) the extent to which animal agriculture involves cruelty and suffering, and 2) the extent to which that suffering is unneccesary (ie. that we have no nutritional need for animal products). People understand that on an intellectual level and it appeals to their humanity, because most people do not condone animal abuse and are horrified when they learn they have been contributing to it without any 'good' reason. That is what will get them to make a lifelong change... but even if someone is going to change their eating habits for superficial reasons, I'd rather it was because they wanted to seem intelligent or ethical than because they want to be thin or because "vegetarians make better lovers." The former requires them to do additional research in order to accomplish their goal and defend their position, and is more likely to result in them eventually agreeing with the ethical argument.

And one more thing (sorry this is so long ): when I first read the story about peta starting this site, I pictured this juxtaposition of a typical porn video where it's shot from the mans point of view, looking down on the girl, etc. and an undercover video in say a factory farm, which is similar to a POV camera shot, of a guy abusing a pig or cow and laughing about it with the (undercover) cameraman. Assuming the pornographic material would be like this (which I doubt it would, as others have pointed out), what I was afraid of was the implicit association between the two because of similarity in the themes of domination, degradation, etc., or the arousal in the viewer. It was a sort of a knee-jerk reaction for me because a large part of my degree has been focused on cognitive processes and associations that are below our level of awareness, so I'm very aware of the issues and it's always on my mind. However, I think the author of the article was incorrect to bring up classical conditioning though because the videos of animal abuse are not a neutral stimulus (for most people anyways), and conditioning also depends on repeated exposure. The other big issue is desensitization to the violence in the animal videos )

Okay, my rant is over now... sorry for taking so long but I thought I should better explain myself.

[maggielassie]

women obviously can't be trusted to make decisions regarding their own bodies.

No, no, not at all. Women can be trusted. Many of their choices can be shaped through being socialised under patriarchy though, and the choices many women make prior to entering prostitution might not really be 'free' when they have survived sexual or physical abuse, are victims of economic deprivation or are addicted to drugs. I've got a couple of friends who used to volunteer on a project to help prostituted women exit the 'job'. I see NO difference whatsoever between pornography and prostitution (except the use of a camera in one). The pimps that own multi-billion dollar sexual exploitation industries are the ones who cannot be trusted. A mainstream society that constantly promotes female subservience for male approval (via socialised gender roles and other things) cannot be trusted. And a society in which one in three girls is sexually abused by the age of 18 (source: here; other sources from other countries say 1 in 4 or 1 in 5) certainly cannot be trusted. Not all survivors of child abuse end up in prostitution but some do...

[maggielassie]

In my humble opinion..........animal abuse is wrong and pornography is wrong.

I agree, Sandra.

And using the abuse of women to try to make people aware of the abuse of animals is not going to work. When I see what goes on in factory farms, I see similar kinds of abuse as the ones that go on in pornography...

There is not a chance I'm supporting Peta after knowing this. Everything gets 'pornified' these days, i.e. advertisement, fashion, music videos, mainstream films, and now even Peta. It does not surprise me one bit. I heard all that stuff being talked about in my sociology classes. The degradation and objectification of both women and animals is now more mainstream than ever. Carol J. Adams (a vegan) is one of the best authors on the link between the abuse of women and the abuse of animals: http://www.caroljadams.com/spom.html Her work is great...

[missbettie]

as far as i'm aware the porn industry is pretty protective of its employees. from everything i've learned these women do have a choice, women in prostitution generally do not have a choice and it is not regulated making it dangerous. pornography is nothing like protitution.

whether you agree or not with the act or the industry, the bottom line is these people are adults that are making their own choices. at least as far as i'm aware in the USA....don't know about other countries.

I really don't feel like there is anything wrong with porn...would I want my SO spending all his time looking at it? no, but if its up your alley and you get your kicks from it, who am I to judge.

And oh boy, do those people make TONS of money.

soooo off topic, I didn't even read about the Peta website. I like Peta ok, but they do, do some stuff that is a little odd....but I think they do a lot more good than harm at this point. and i'm sure this is just some sort of publicity stunt....they are kind of a PR mess...

[maggielassie]

pornography is nothing like protitution.

Miss Bettie, I'm not trying to be mean or anything, but I'm sorry I have to respond to a couple of your arguments with a few quotes I know about.

Here is what one woman in the pornography business said about the link between pornography and prostitution:

"We're prostitutes . . . There are differences. You can choose your partners, and they're tested for Aids - you won't get your john to do that. But we're prostitutes: we exchange sex for money."

~Chloe, from Martin Amis' "A Rough Trade."

MissBettie:

do those people make TONS of money.

The pornography producers (pimps) make the most of the money.

"[T]hese girls are going to find people telling them they're overexposed. The typical line is something like we can't pay you a great deal of money because you're not a name yet. Then when they use you in every damn thing around and you become dependant on the income, they tell you we can't pay you very much because you're overexposed. [These girls] They're setting themselves up for a really bad experience... These new stars shouldn't depend on hardcore as a full-time income. The directors are gonna grab them, chew them up, and spit them out real fast."

~Candida Royalle, ex-porn performer become producer, Interview, Adult Video News, July 1985.

It is true there are the few 'stars' like Jenna Jameson, but it is not always the case. Jenna Jameson reported in her biographical book that she had been gang-raped when she was a teenager by the way...

"Again, recall that most women in this [pornography] industry are very young. Women in their early twenties are likely to be washed-up, considered too old for "Just 18" or "Teen Sluts". However they got where they are, the fact remains that (as Gail Dines puts it) "No woman was put on this earth to be hurt or humiliated in order to facilitate male masturbation."

~Rebecca Whisnant, in the book Not for Sale (Spinifex, 2004).

It is a form of abuse and degradation just like another. I know we might not agree on this but I just know it is... Peta is so wrong...

[pat sommer]

Well, Peta could be making more of its mass media resources to get the vegan message out. Oh wait, those messages go out for FREE by the mass media... they then should be choosing more appropriate messages for distribution by mass media outlets...

Anyone catching on? Have you seen any of the numerous Peta press releases that aren't scandalous? You might find them in a journal or trade paper...

[DiaShel]

Yes, pornography is like prostitution because they have sex for money, but that's it. The women have a lot of control. They pick what they do and with who and even get paid much more then the men. Oh that's right, men are porn stars too. Why are we only concerned about women here? There is no difference in that industry.

Of course the producers get paid more, this is true of any industry.

[harpy]

I don't think all pornography, or at any rate all erotica, treats women and men as objects, but I would say some of the Peta materials I've seen do. By "treats as objects" I mean something like "encourages the viewer to think of the person primarily as a source of sexual gratification for themselves, rather than as a person". I don't think that's ever justified because of the negative consequences of thinking about other people that way.

However as has been said let's hope Peta have turned over a new leaf and are not going to do anything like that with their new site. I certainly think it's a good idea to register the .xxx version of one's domain before someone else does. *ponders suiting the action to the word*

[CoolCat]

There is exploitation in any industry, but we don't stop wearing shoes all together because a 6yr old chinese girl is making some of them. Why should porn be treated any different than the other industries.

How is using your body slaving away working in steel, on a production line, or even sitting at a desk for 8h straight any different than using your body for porn? Are boobs and genetalia really that more special? Sure there are health risks, so is there in wrecking your back carrying heavy loads, or your lungs getting filled with dust or toxins. Health hazards has to be addressed in any industry. We started to wear clothes to protect ourselfs from the environment and now we have this weird mental state that taking them off is wrong, dirty or obscene.

How is porn producers making tons of money different than a factory owner making tons of money. If porn actors are underpaid that is no different than factory workers getting underpaid. Most employees will run into the "you have no experience" as well followed by the "we could get younger people for cheaper" when they ask a raise later on.

When National Geography Channel shows lions or some other non-human animal doing it on camera, they get an award for best nature film or something. When human animals are doing it on camera they are perverted, exploited, pimped,... . What's with this double standard. Those lions weren't even asked consent. I don't think they are really bothered by it though since they were just doing it in plain sight. Like most if not all non-humans animals. It seems that we are the only ones making a big deal out of it. We can't even breastfeed in public without turning heads and people getting outraged. WTF is wrong with us. Where did we derail like this?

If we would live in a warmer climate, and run arround naked like some native tribes do/did, and just do it in front of our kids, peers and elderly without shame nobody would think about pointing a camera at it to make money. Maybe some National Geography Channel reporter would to get another price for his outstanding documentary, but most people would consider watching that boring.

I don't know what PeTA is up to or how they would link animal rights with porn. If they do porn with furries it could be good for some laughs at the wierdness of it hehe.

[leedsveg]

The only time I've been involved with the "porn industry" was when I was 16 and working with a team of lads round about my age. We decided to club together each month and buy Playboy. After about 4 months, enthusiasm seemed to wain and we just stopped buying it. Looking back, I just assumed that (for me) it was a bit of a phase I went through and I just "grew out of it". Others on the forum will have had, or perhaps are having, other experiences and views.

Not remotely wishing to knock, or be patronising towards any other forum members.

Leedsveg

[maggielassie]

Originally, pornography does not mean "depiction of sex." The word "pornography" derives from the ancient Greek "Porne" and "Graphos". "Porne" means "prostitute." "Graphos" means "writing." Too often when they try to describe the origins of the word, dictionaries translate pornography as "writing about harlots" or "depiction of prostitutes." Thus, pornography is the documentation of prostitution.

Pornography has nothing to do with 'erotica', which means "sexual love" in Ancient Greek.

I think we will never agree on this. No, I do not believe that women have any kind of real "power" within the pornography industry; not in a mainstream pornography industry that treats them as objects and exploits them; not in a patriarchal society. The producers make the most money. Most of the women (apart from the few 'stars) are very young, like just 18 or something, and they tend to have a brief "shelf life."

This is my last post in this thread. I oppose pornography because it is simply wrong...

Bunky vegan:

the girls probably feel a lot of pressure to engage in degrading or painful activities if they want to make a career out of it, or make good money (because in nearly every video they seem to really treat the women like pieces of meat, and do a lot of 'extreme' things that I would certainly find degrading were I to engage in them with a stranger, on camera... sorry, I don't want to be too explicit, but I'm sure anyone who has watched porn knows what I'm taking about ).

This is exactly right.

Here is one quote (ironically) from someone who is pro-porn:

"Most girls get their first experience in gonzo films -- in which they’re taken to a crappy studio apartment in Mission Hills and penetrated in every **** possible by some abusive a**hole who thinks her name is Bitch. And these girls... go home afterward and pledge never to do it again because it was such a terrible experience. But, unfortunately, they can’t take that experience back, so they live the rest of their days in fear that their relatives, their co-workers, or their children will find out, which they inevitably do."

~Jenna Jameson, in her book How to Make Love like a Porn Star (2004).


This is a subject that is very triggering to rape survivors, which is why I am going to leave this thread with just two more quotes that I've always found pretty telling on how women might feel about being in any form of prostitution:

"As has been well documented in psychological investigations of other forms of torture, overwhelming human cruelty results in fragmentation of the mind into different parts of the self that observe, react, as well as those that do not know about the harm. [...] In prostitution, she is depersonalized; her name and identity disappear. She shuts down her feelings to protect her self. [...] Whether she is coerced at gunpoint, or whether she "acts the part" in order to survive for so long as the mask takes over -- either way, she doesn't stay a whole person. She constructs a self that conforms to the masturbatory fantasies of johns, a self that smilingly accomodates verbal abuse, sexual harassment, rape and torture. Over time, the prostituted self takes over more and more of the rest of her. She is disappeared. The harm she experiences in prostitution is made invisible... [...] Dissociative disorders are common among those in escort, street, massage, pornography, strip club and brothel prostitution, and frequently accompanied by posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, and substance abuse. [...] One would make the same prediction for other types of prostitution... [...] Dissociation permits psychological survival, whether the repeated trauma is slavery, military combat, incest, or prostitution. Dissociation is an elaborate escape and avoidance strategy... [...] Drugs, alcohol, and other addictive behaviors potentiate dissociation, and they obscure the reality to the dissociated person. The high rates of depression among prostituted women tell us however, that none of these strategies fully shield the traumatized person from despair, demoralization, and hopelessness. [...] Many women with dissociative disorders who have been prostituted appear to be re-enacting and mastering some aspects of childhood trauma. Sometimes women feel that in prostitution they are in control of when sex acts [...] take place, with whom, and where, and furthermore they are paid for it. [...] In order to survive the brutal commodification of their sexuality in prostitution, women dissociate, and appear to accept the view of themselves as sexual commodities."

~ Melissa Farley, clinical psychologist and researcher (whose research on prostitution has been used by state governments, as well as by advocates and organizations providing services to prostituted and trafficked women), in her book Prostitution, Trafficking, and Traumatic Stress (2003).

"For me, porn was about my pain in my life as a child. And I was completely acting out. [...] I felt disconnected from my body, and I felt high a lot and I felt angry."

~ Traci Lords, former porn performer (and survivor of child sexual abuse), interviewed by Larry King on CNN, July 14, 2003.


I'm done with this thread. I completely see why many people don't agree with me: the whole Western society protects pornography, so this does not surprise me. I used to be completely unaware of the content of most mainstream pornography myself, until I saw a slideshow about it in a criminology class at Uni (yes, pornography is a topic in criminology in UK, along with prostitution). That's when I saw how woman-hating the message of pornography really is (it is not always easy knowing about the real message of pornography, in its wrongful representation of women). It is not always easy (including for women, sure it wasn't easy for me) to understand that we live in a thoroughly patriarchal society...


DiaShel:

Why are we only concerned about women here?

Men can be also objectified by pornography, but the power relationship is not the same under patriarchy.

I've said my bit re the original topic, and I've explained why Peta is absolutely wrong in doing this...

[AzureAngel]

Maggie you are really now using this forum as a personal attack area on an industry that you do not know enough about. In some countries and cases, yes it is still a source of exploitation, as is true for many things. BUT the mainstream pornography, no matter what the origin of the word is, is heavily regulated and the people involved have much more say. I am sure there were mistakes made in the past but that is true for a lot of things. I think it is a good idea to let this go now and I hope you do, before enemies are made unnecessarily.

[missbettie]

I agree

[leedsveg]

In my humble opinion..........animal abuse is wrong and pornography is wrong.

Both are definitely not for me.

lv

Edit: Now leaving the thread as the idea of porn bores the pants off me.

[DiaShel]

There is exploitation in any industry, but we don't stop wearing shoes all together because a 6yr old chinese girl is making some of them. Why should porn be treated any different than the other industries.

How is using your body slaving away working in steel, on a production line, or even sitting at a desk for 8h straight any different than using your body for porn? Are boobs and genetalia really that more special? Sure there are health risks, so is there in wrecking your back carrying heavy loads, or your lungs getting filled with dust or toxins. Health hazards has to be addressed in any industry. We started to wear clothes to protect ourselfs from the environment and now we have this weird mental state that taking them off is wrong, dirty or obscene.

How is porn producers making tons of money different than a factory owner making tons of money. If porn actors are underpaid that is no different than factory workers getting underpaid. Most employees will run into the "you have no experience" as well followed by the "we could get younger people for cheaper" when they ask a raise later on.

When National Geography Channel shows lions or some other non-human animal doing it on camera, they get an award for best nature film or something. When human animals are doing it on camera they are perverted, exploited, pimped,... . What's with this double standard. Those lions weren't even asked consent. I don't think they are really bothered by it though since they were just doing it in plain sight. Like most if not all non-humans animals. It seems that we are the only ones making a big deal out of it. We can't even breastfeed in public without turning heads and people getting outraged. WTF is wrong with us. Where did we derail like this?

If we would live in a warmer climate, and run arround naked like some native tribes do/did, and just do it in front of our kids, peers and elderly without shame nobody would think about pointing a camera at it to make money. Maybe some National Geography Channel reporter would to get another price for his outstanding documentary, but most people would consider watching that boring.

I don't know what PeTA is up to or how they would link animal rights with porn. If they do porn with furries it could be good for some laughs at the wierdness of it hehe.

Love this post. I agree with you 100%.

[Korn]

There is exploitation in any industry, but we don't stop wearing shoes all together because a 6yr old chinese girl is making some of them. Why should porn be treated any different than the other industries.

Many will see it the other way round: since many people boycott animal products for ethical reasons, go for 'fair trade' products for ethical reasons, boycott companies which are known to cause massive damage on the environment - why should products produced by 6 years old Chinese girls be an exception? Two wrongs doesn't make a right. If all the unethical activities in the world world should serve as an excuse or alibi to keep even more unethical activities happening, how relevant doesn't that make veganism, as in "Why not exploit animals when humans are being exploited?" But there are people who have publicly said that they don't mind work in the porn industry, and that they are not exploited.

I still think porn as such and Peta's stunt here needs to be seen as two different topics. It's also important to differentiate between 'naked' and porn. Peta doesn't launch a nudist site. And I don't think the 6-year old chinese girl reference holds water, because Peta (due to the E in pEta, for 'ethical') most likely wouldn't let 6 year old chinese girls work for them - and at the same time publish it as their next big stunt.

How is using your body slaving away working in steel, on a production line, or even sitting at a desk for 8h straight any different than using your body for porn?

Not that "different' as such would be an argument pro/con anything... but many people will answer your question by saying that porn is different than most other work / and that pornification of sex not necessarily is a good idea. Most people will also say that having sex is very different than working in a steel factory (because it often involves love, ecstasy, being very open emotionally and so on). Some will also say that once a 18 year old can be seen in a porn setting, the likelihood that she may be 'objectified' in her private life - or even raped - will increase as well.

Ask any random person sitting at a desk if she is OK with you watching her in a sexual setting... if the answer usually doesn't end up with 'sure, that's no different than any other job', the answer from these people is that 'having sex (even with one self) is different than other "work"'.

Try this: ask any person two questions: first, if s/he can show you her hand. Then, ask her to take off her panties. If the answer is yes to the first one and no to the second, genitalia is different (for that person. It is for most people). And I'm saying this as one who does not support the idea that nudity or sex shall be made into something perverted or taboo. Nakedness and sex is natural, but that doesn't mean that an activist organization launching aporn site is a good idea - or that "porn is sex".

But again: I'm not discussing that "If A wants to show B her genitals for money, she should be put in prison or behaves unethically". If a bunch of activists want to start a porn site, nothing can stop them anyway - and maybe they even would take some traffic from sites which don't have the word ethical in their vocabulary at all: this thread is about whether it's a good idea that the largest pro-vegan group on the planet shall be the group which starts such a site. I'm pretty sure that if my son prints out a Peta link and brings it to school, and want the class or his teacher to check that site out, this will be more difficult in the future if it contains link to Peta's porn sites, or if Peta will become known as that weird AR group which also runs a porn site.

We started to wear clothes to protect ourselfs from the environment and now we have this weird mental state that taking them off is wrong, dirty or obscene.

Good point, but again - it isn't a nudist site they are planning.

When National Geography Channel shows lions or some other non-human animal doing it on camera, they get an award for best nature film or something. When human animals are doing it on camera they are perverted, exploited, pimped,... . What's with this double standard. Those lions weren't even asked consent.

If someone would film a couple having sex on a beach and send it on TV without asking permission, it would be very different from sending a documentary about lions. For various reasons, I don't think the lion example is relevant in this context. The same goes for the taboofication of breastfeeding.

Same people criticized The Vegan Society, in a thread here on VF, for not standing up against GM. They were against the massive spread of genetically modified products, and therefore wanted VS to campaign against it as well. Although I'm very critical against GM, I don't think it's Vegan Society's business to start campaigning for other stuff than veganism. And in the same way, I don't think it wold be good if they (or Peta) would start a porn site. It doesn't really matter if many vegans would be OK with nudity, it has nothing to do with lions or breastfeeding - it's just that it will push a lot of people away from their message for the wrong reasons . Vegans being a very small minority (one or two percent of the population?), there's plenty of stuff that pushes others away from the idea of being vegan anyway - what we do is already seen as very 'special' (maybe even 'extreme') by many people.

Since the greatest way to influence as many as possible, which would be essential for any activist, I guess (otherwise she wouldn't be active, I guess?) is to influence "influencers" (teachers, governments, writers, media etc), I think the animal rights movement has to continuously keep having reality checks. And reality tells us that being associated with porn may not be a smart move if you want others/"influencers" to take you seriously.

There's no reason to convert the vegan or AR organizations into some hippie movement which promotes free sex, nudism, ethical porn, legalizing of marihuana, free public transport, allowing 15 year olds to vote, banning of all non-organic food, free meditation training and anarchist literature for all kids and - and so on.

People who want to promote all that should just do it - but not hijack the organizations they are members of; organizations dedicated to a specific cause, and have them all promote everything else they think is great.

[whalespace]

Get the juxtaposition by now? I'm going to credit PETA with some intelligence. Seems they are in a 'legitimate' position to apply mental torque with their proposals.
There are clear paralells between animal exploitaion and human exploitation. The existence of sexual motivation, and the existence of hunger need not lead to either rape, nor to the predation of living animals.

Sex is sex. Sure enough, porn is as much prostitution as marriage is [let us not get hung up on the money, eh?]. Humans use whatever they can identify... love it, hate it , recognise it. No need to conflate sex with other human needs [except perhaps childcare].

Possibly the reasons that so many people find sex so difficult [shocking] to talk about in rational ways are the same reasons that so many people fail to engage lucidly with issues of animal abuse?


Also "AR", and possibly veganism could easily be worse for one's career prospects than photographic evidence that one has had sex! There are many many mainstream jobs from which I am barred due to my understanding that the management are evil flesh eating conspiratorial incarcerators of mammals.

I'm all for integration of opinion and ideas in discussion. Persistently asserting that two or more factors are one and the same thing, when those things have been successfully separated in context, is not so elegant.

Edit: I think I was being too diplomatic; I might replace "childcare" with "reproduction".
That sentence should clearly not be taken out of context.

[sandra]

Maggie you are really now using this forum as a personal attack area on an industry that you do not know enough about. In some countries and cases, yes it is still a source of exploitation, as is true for many things. BUT the mainstream pornography, no matter what the origin of the word is, is heavily regulated and the people involved have much more say. I am sure there were mistakes made in the past but that is true for a lot of things. I think it is a good idea to let this go now and I hope you do, before enemies are made unnecessarily.

I agree entirely with MaggieLassie and I don't believe she is saying anything that should make her 'enemies' this is only a discussion afterall. I also happen to believe she knows what she is talking about and therefore her opinions are valid.
The bottom line is that pornography and Peta's use of it is very distasteful. Whether people are being exploited or not, we should not be viewing pornography as a worthwhile activity. Would we all like to be viewed in other aspects of doing 'natural' things like going to the toilet? Why not? Just like having sex this is also a 'natural' function.
Wanting to take part in pornography, either directly or by viewing it is tant amount to perversion in my opinion. Notice, I said 'MY OPINION' so please don't make an enemy of me.

Both are definitely not for me.

lv

Edit: Now leaving the thread as the idea of porn bores the pants off me.

Ha ha! It bores me too Leedsveg. Plus, I feel if people have to resort to pornography to help them in their sex life they must be doing something wrong.

[harpy]

I agree entirely with MaggieLassie and I don't believe she is saying anything that should make her 'enemies' this is only a discussion afterall.

I'm not sure I agree 100% with MaggieLassie, but I feel she is perfectly entitled to express her opinions, regardless of whether she has first-hand experience of the industry.

being associated with porn may not be a smart move if you want others/"influencers" to take you seriously.

I do agree with this ETA though I'm not sure "porn" is the right word for the type of material I've seen Peta use in the past.

[CoolCat]

... (truncated)

Korn I see you put a lot of effort in your reply to my post and I appreciate that. My rant was more "how it could be" whilst you approached it from the "how things are now" angle. I agree if you query people you will get the responses you anticipate. Plenty of people seem to be lacking the ability to think outside the box, or even envision that there is no box.

Normalizing porn, nudity, breastfeeding... is indeed different than PeTA starting a porn site in the real world but I don't want to restrict myself to a world I don't agree with. If we would have a bit more common sense instead of being all so damn hypocrite, faking outrage and going "oh my god" at things simultaneous because we think it is expected of us and we want to keep appearances up and not risking standing out in the herd we would be moving forward a lot faster as a species. Or maybe I'm just the odd one out that isn't adapted


About the shoes:

I think you misinterpreted what I said. I didn't promote that using shoes from child labour is ok or acceptable at all. Or that the existince of unethical (child labour, animal parts,...) shoes is any justification for unethical (insert all the reasons,..) porn. But just like we don't stop wearing shoes all together because of it we shouldn't dismiss all porn. If the porn industry has more issues currently than other industries than normalization might reduce them to the level of that of the other industries. Being weird about porn hasn't worked so far.

[sandra]

If we would have a bit more common sense instead of being all so damn hypocrite, faking outrage and going "oh my god" at things simultaneous because we think it is expected of us and we want to keep appearances up and not risking standing out in the herd we would be moving forward a lot faster as a species. Or maybe I'm just the odd one out that isn't adapted

I would just like to make it clear that none of what you said above applies to me, with regard to my attitudes to pornography. Not that I am suggesting you were trying to imply that of course.
I do feel however that just because someone objects to pornography it isn't in order to 'keep up appearances'.