Has PETA gone too far?
Dec 3rd, 2009 by BohemianMoon
Submitted by Web-Boy:
There are a lot of organizations out there that really grind my gears; some are exploitative, others are fanatical, and some are just confrontational. None, however, irks me more than ‘People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals’; now, don’t get me wrong, I’m for the ethical treatment of animals. Heck, I’m for other people being for the ethical treatment of animals; I’m even for those persons forming a group that is for the ethical treatment of animals. But does PETA have to be so audacious in its advertising, so radical in it’s message? I’m a normal human being, I need to be gently introduced to change; taking such a schismatic stance only frightens me away. There is a proportional relationship between poignancy of action and good-taste which PETA often just gets wrong. Their radical adverts have a tendency to be overly blunt and brash, showing their cards too early. Unlike aid organizations or organized religion, which adhere to the stylings of effective advertisement and lure you in slowly, until you’ve built up enough of a tolerance to with-stand the brunt of their actual message, PETA decides to go full crazy at first chance. Like a toddler throwing a tantrum, they billboard frank depictions of animal cruelty or throw faux-blood on fur coats, actions which, due to the general apathy of their target demographic, really only serve to captivate the ‘bleeding hearts’ and ‘tween vegetarians; all others are driven away.
That being said, their advertising usually has a semi-coherent message: ruining fur coats with faux bloods beings attention to the face that ‘fur is [technically] murder’, the Thanksgiving Day commercial called ‘Grace’ highlights the main meal of the day in relation to the abhorrent condition of many factory farms, naked sit-ins… pay tribute to communing with the animals (or some shit like that). Their most recent advert departs from this time-honored tradition of ‘making sense’ and dives into the cess-pit of ‘what the fuckery?’.
Now, I can see what they are trying to do here. PETA is drawing on it’s honed skills of shock in order to generate publicity and outrage, this time trying to upset a different demographic (namely the Catholics and the AFA) than is their custom; by iconoclastically clashing stark nudity with the Judeo-Christian conception of the Seraphim, not to mention a large cross which barely covers the aforementioned “angel’s” nether bits, they can generate a great furor among those that still hold some things sacrosanct. With nudity alone, you upset the social puritans; with sacriligeous imagery, you upset the religious; combine the two and you can manage to piss off an entire subsection of the American populace. That seems to be what is at play here; PETA created an advert whose sole purpose is to create as much bad press as possible. Hell, the ad even only very peripherally ties in animals with the copy text of ‘Be an Angel for the animals’, such that it ends up sounding like the animals were an after-thought.
If you haven’t already identified the model for the advertisement, she’s Joanna Krupa, whose only claims to fame include being a playboy model, playing bit parts in even more dimunitive films and having competed in ‘Dancing With the Stars’. I can understand the draw of staring in a controversial advertising campaign; ‘no publicity is bad publicity’, especially in show business. However, Krupa claims that she is a practicing Catholic and is acting suprised that the Catholic League has officially condemned her irreligious propaganda; quoted, “I’m doing what the Catholic Church should be doing, working to stop senseless suffering of animals, the most defenseless of God’s creation.”
Does this look like a defenseless animal?
How about this?
To be fair, the papacy has said precious little on the topic of animal abuse over the last two centuries (during which the animal rights movement first came to be); the Bible itself, aside from parables regarding Lions and Lambs, also has null prescriptions for the proper treatment of animals, lest you count instructions for how to properly prepare them to be consumed. This is all fine and well, too, since anyone with a decent moral compass needs no commandments to tell them not to torture animals and the Abrahamic religions have been generally more concerned with assuring the redemption of the human soul (which has certainly kept their hands full).
And talking about hypocritical religious organizations whose actions have directly contradicted their professed message allows me to segue into my next point, being that PETA is probably the worst organization to trust with the safety of animals. According to the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, PETA euthanized 91 percent of the animals surrendered to it, or picked up as strays, in 2005, compared to a 55 percent average for the state of Virginia. Further, PETA explicitly encourages the euthanasia of certain breeds of companion animals, such as pit bulls and rottweilers. During 2008, PETA found homes for just seven out of the 2,216 animals taken in, so they euthanized or transferred 99.997% of the animals that they took under their care (for the record, they only transferred 34 animals that year). Clearly, all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.
I’m not saying that PETA is a force for evil, nor am I saying that there shouldn’t be organizations campaigning for the better treatment of animals; I believe this to be a necessity and I would like to see more political lobbying done on behalf of animal shelters. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that PETA has done a lot of good over the course of their existence; however, the fact remains that the vast majority of their annual operating budget (some $36 million) is spent on advertising, thereby chastising Americans for eating meat, drinking milk, and wearing animals (something that our ancestors have been doing for the past 150 million years and the very thing that helped to raise us up to a position of sentience from the primordial ooze). These things do not an evil person make, and PETA desperately needs to get its priorities straight. Remember, baby steps.
The point is, sex doesn’t sell. Especially sex juxtaposed with animals.
What are your thoughts?
Excellent essay WB. I loathe PETA with a capital L. And you are correct, PETA does nothing to actually SAVE domestic animals, but they kill a hell of a lot of them per year. For the life of me I don’t understand how anyone can support this organization.
People who blindly support PETA need to find out what PETA really is, who runs PETA and where their donations really go. If they did that, there would be no more fucking PETA. And on a superficial note..I hate their stupid naked ads.
wtf is wrong with these people i am all for animals but this is way too far
Great article!!! I heard the same figures you did on HLN yesterday. It just blew me away. I can’t believe they are destroying animals. They don’t have any shelters for animals that I am aware of.
Talk about hypocrites.
I saw this sick picture yesterday and wanted to scream. This ad is disgusting.
Is this a way for PETA to actually get the word out about animal abuse? I think not. They should take their clues from The Human Society, the people that are truly for the animals. I am a proud supporter of THS.
They actually save the animals and continually try to adopt each one of them out to good homes. Not take them in just to destroy them! They also can acoount for the contibutions they recieve, not like PETA.
Thank you WB for a great article !
Thanks webboy!
I have mostly hated PETA’s ads for a long time.
This is too much.
I wasn’t aware of much of what you wrote in your ‘essay’ actually. I thought these animal nazi’s did anything and everything to SAVE animals.
I get the not wearing fur thing but they aren’t very trustworthy if they are talking the talk without walking the walk.
Hypocritical much, PETA?
WB, your post was outstanding. I have heard about PETA and how controversial it is, but I had no idea that they were taking things to such a wildly outrageous level. As a matter of fact, I had never even seen any of their ads until this one which you posted. This ad serves NO purpose and I am adding PETA to my ever-increasing list of ATTENTION WHORES. Attention whores with frightfully poor taste. Thanks for enlightening me!
Marvelous post Moon. I saw this ad yesterday and was totally nauseous. PETA has gone too far – AGAIN.
great… webboy.. you spoke words that needed to be spoken. I’m all for animal rights also. But I do believe that peta does take it too far for the shock value. The more they have the shock, absurd, and grueling ads. The more people will notice them. It doesn’t take much to get someones attention span. Specially a male with a good looking chick almost half nude protesting animal rights. Look at the other half nude woman posing about I rather not wear fur or nothing at all.
I wish they just keep it plain and simple suport your shelters, animal rights, wildlife etc… We dont need all that houpla.
Web Boy ~~What can I say. Superb and BRAVO!
Most excellent post WebBoy! I don’t see animal rights in that ad for sure. The thing that get me is that with any cause I’m usually supportive however, as in politics, the message is lost in the poor presentation.
Most people I know in Rescue don’t have a lot to do with PETA. They are too busy actually rescuing and caring for animals to get involved with the politics and manufactured situatuons.
Wonderful article Web Boy! Very eloquently said.
I remember last year when PETA used one of the Kardashian girls nude to promote their agenda on a billboard.
I don’t get it. Instead of making me want to get behind anything they are trying to do it makes me look at them as porn promoting anti women organization.
This latest promotion is way over the top. They need to be banned.
I didn’t know they were even a blip on the radar anymore, til now. My radar re: PETA, went out, when for shock value, they started throwing cans of paint (or dye) on the women who were wearing fur of any kind. All the money they put into outrageous ads such as this, would be better spent on our animal shelters and wildlife refuges’. I sure wouldn’t give PETA the time of day, much less a penny of my $$. I think they have a ‘hidden’ agenda. Serious, who wouldn’t be turned off by an ad like this?
I actually thought it was an ad or something about Victoria’s Secret……I don’t see where the lady in the photo has anything to do with animal rights…yep, over the top.
Hi web boy you are a credit to your mom
they need to be indicted.
an excellent post indeed. I can’t abide
hypocracy and dictatorship that is in a
nutshell what this PETA organization is
a bunch of flipping hypocrates who go
around telling people what they can eat
what to wear ( which according to them
is NUThing
The embarASSing queen ASSociated with
PETA is that pretentious tramp Of the trailer
park the one & only Ms. Pamela Anderson.
& What a role model she is too ! Pullleeese !
Give me a break PETA people and don’t
tell us how to live our lives what we can &
cannot eat wear buy et al. I m not buying
your b/s & it’s got nothing to do with
religion heck I know that’s a bunch of
nonsense just like the B$ scam you got
going solicting $ or else cute lil puppies
may perish. Darwins efforts were for not.
If you must insist on forcing your idiopathic
views I must insist that you FUCK OFF !
Excellent article, Web Boy! I didn’t know Peta euthanized so many animals and what a huge amount of money goes into its ad campaigns. I also support the ethical treatment of animals–but I find the ad to be ridiculous. Why all the naked babes? Doesn’t make sense to me–all they seem to be going for is shock value and publicity. When an organization seems to care more about the power and fame/infamy of itself than the actual work of helping mistreated animals, I have to question its motives and agenda.
Ingrid Newkirk, the founder of PETA, is not interested in animal rights or rescuing animals. Her real agenda has always been to end ownership of any animals so they can live without dependence on humans. PETA does not save homeless animals, they destroy them. In 2005 two PETA workers in NC were charged with 62 felony cruelty to animal counts, and 16 counts of illegal disposal of animal remains, for taking pets from shelters in several NC counties, claiming they would find homes for them, and then promptly destroyng and disposing of them. Newkirk also supports the ALF (the Animal Liberation Front), classified as a domestic terrorist group by the government for bombing businesses and research laboratories.
For more than 20+ years, Newkirk has stated PETA’s agenda, in her books and in numerous interviews, as shown in these quotes:
“Probably everything we do is a publicity stunt … we are not here to gather members, to please, to placate, to make friends. We’re here to hold the radical line.”
— USA Today, Sep 1991
“We are complete press sluts.”
— Ingrid Newkirk, in The New Yorker, Apr 2003
“I will be the last person to condemn ALF [the Animal Liberation Front].”
— The New York Daily News, Dec 1997
“Would I rather the research lab that tests animals is reduced to a bunch of cinders? Yes.”
— New York Daily News, Dec 1997
“One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals. [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild … they would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV.”
— The Chicago Daily Herald, Mar 1990
“I don’t use the word ‘pet.’ I think it’s speciesist language. I prefer ‘companion animal.’ For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship – enjoyment at a distance.”
— The Harper’s Forum Book, Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223
“The bottom line is that people don’t have the right to manipulate or to breed dogs and cats… If people want toys, they should buy inanimate objects. If they want companionship, they should seek it with their own kind.”
— Animals, May 1993
PETA wants to distract the public from it’s real agenda with controversial ads like this one, and stunts like asking the University of Georgia to replace its bulldog mascot, Uga, with a robotic dog!
PETA is receiving millions in donations from people who believe they’re helping to save animals, but that money is being spent on huge ad campaigns like this one, not toward rehoming abandoned animals.
Gator~
Thanks for those. Ingrid Newkirk is dangerous and a full fledged loony tune.
“I don’t use the word ‘pet.’ I think it’s speciesist language. I prefer ‘companion animal.’ For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship – enjoyment at a distance.”
— The Harper’s Forum Book, Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223
I actually like and use the term “companion” but I don’t differentiate that companion with the “animal” description at the end.
I do call our babies “fur babies” as well so I do differentiate those companions from human babies, but I feel the same for them as I do my son, but in a different way. I would not leave my son, depending on his age, for the day unattended, but I have no problem with doing so for my cats once they are a about 5 months old. The dogs, we don’t leave for more than a few hours or so – maybe 5 tops – when we were in South Florida, if we were gone for a full day and of course overnight, then the dogs went to doggie day care camp and had a blast. We didn’t have cats then, but I would actually feel ok leaving my cats overnight with just a check in from a neighbor – the dogs, no way. Cats are relatively independent, self sufficient and sleep upwards of 18 hours a day.
Ok, that was a bit of rambling, lol. But the point that I was trying to make is that companion animals have been domesticated for 1000s and 1000s of years – could you imagine feral populations of all previously domesticated animals running free? But I guess PETA would all like them killed off so they could no longer breed at all – I have to wonder then what there would be to “enjoy at a distance”.
I actually find that PETA may have done themselves a dis-service in running this ad. Most people do not take the time to read ads, just look at the picture and move on. I would bet if polled, most people would say it was a Victoria’s Secret ad run for the Christmas season!
I will say I saw this on E news and the pic in larger form shows animals at the bottom/at her feet.
WebBoy–you are an excellent writer and the apple of your mother’s eye for sure. Thank you for giving me something so wonderful to read and pull me in emotionally with.
As a Catholic I think she’s brain damaged in agreeing to do that ad while the cross. I’m not a puritan but the cross is something sacred for me. You wanna make a bet they’ll never do anything in that genre that can be connected with Islam–boy if they did they’d all be dead.
As a parent I can’t even begin to think how this is in any way shape or form something our children should be exposed to in terms of animal rights. And what a lovely role model for our daughters to aspire to huh? My girls are gorgeous but they’re brilliant and creative and funny as well and I want that part of their beauty to shine bright.
I love pets, we don’t have any because one of the girls is allergic but c’mon that’s awful. I’ve never been a fan of peta and I never will, that ad sickens me plain and simple.
Linda~
I will say I saw this on E news and the pic in larger form shows animals at the bottom/at her feet.
Yes it does, but as WB said, in the picture, the animals themselves seemed like an afterthought and not a part of the total and complete composition or message, IMO.
Irishmom3~
Great post, thanks!
My girls are gorgeous but they’re brilliant and creative and funny as well and I want that part of their beauty to shine bright.
Exactly! And lets not forget that dumb is forever
#23 Moon
Oh, I agree. If it was a reputable organization, I’d even try to cut them a tiny bit of slack, but as it is, the picture, as well as the intent behind it, is offensive to me. How PETA is still in existence, is beyond me.
I so dislike PETA! They do euthanize more animals then any “no kill” shelter. At the same time we as Animal lovers need to NOT buy puppies from stores etc. Yes, are we still rescuing them when we do that sure are BUT you are giving them money to keep their places going…….if you really want a purebreed buy from a reputable breeder – they are out there and/or adopt from a rescue or your local pound etc. My husband I did adopt a puppy from a local animal shelter (that was/is SO GROSS) I had to rescue a dog from there it broke my heart – 3 thousand dollars and 6 weeks later we had to put her to sleep – So always beware. In our case we are working VERY hard to raise money for the animal shelter – trying to get people voted into office who care (it’s county run) – They don’t even quarantine and they put 5 to 6 dogs in one kennel. Our poor puppy had distemper… PETA doesn’t care about our little local shelter at all. I wrote/called/emailed them along with Oprah and Ellen and everyone I could think of…..NO RESPONSE FROM ANYONE …The only people that even responded to me was the ASPCA! I LOVE THEM now! PLEASE still go to your shelter but just make sure the dogs are quaratined and have been seen by a vet. the cats we got from the shelter had been given shots and had been fixed. We got a puppy from another shelter and she was only 6 weeks so no shots yet but she was not in the general public just with her siblings and momma. I always have good luck with shelters except for that one time – Like I said I just want everyone to be careful! The pound we got our RIP puppy from had a disclosure that “if they are sick and you can’t afford it bring them back” I thought nothing of it. Now I know. We of course did NOT take her back – we loved her and did what we could. When the needle went into her my husband and I were holding her. She KNEW love. IF we brought her back they would of just “killed” her. LOVE TO ALL ANIMALS AND LOVE TO ALL YOU ANIMAL LOVERS!!!
DISGUSTING AD,
TRAMP,
AND
A SLAP IN THE FACES OF RELIGIOUS PEOPLE!
Disgusting, kHate, Khate~
DISGUSTING AD,
TRAMP,
AND
A SLAP IN THE FACES OF RELIGIOUS PEOPLE!
Enough already, please. You keep posting on Musings in a rather short and strong fashion, in addition to making up a new email address for each moniker you choose – how do I know that this is the same person? Your energy is the same, but other than that, so is your IP address, lol.
You are welcome to post here, but please choose one moniker and stick with it as well as a working email address. So you know, I do not allow anonymous comments here, so choose a moniker other than that, please. Also, please tone it down – there really isn’t any reason to scream. We all can hear you in lower case letters
Thank you and welcome to Musings!
I never pay attention to their ads. What makes me so angry is they get all up in arms about not killing bugs and other stupid things while they are euthanizing puppies and kitties in the back of their van.
I just can’t understand why the stars support them. Obviously they have never asked any questions about their euthanization program.
This just makes me sick. I sent an email to Jane Valez Mitchell because she always has PETA on her show. I haven’t heard anything back from them. I will no longer be watching her show.