PeTA is well known for their use of naked models to promote their various causes and has drawn applause from some and fire from others who see the animal-rights group as exploitative. So here is PeTA's latest ad and I want your take on if this is cool in your books, but I'll stick my 2 cents in because it's my blog and I can.
This hot mama is the immensely talented Olivia Munn and like most of us, she can't stand live animal performances. Circuses are inherently abusive because animals cannot consent to ridiculous tricks and are abused from birth to force them into compliance. And none of us should be teaching our children that animals serve to entertain us by dancing on balls. In Olivia's mind, going au naturel is kind of a statement for the freedom that elephants are denied via forced servitude. Yes, she is very attractive and we do enjoy looking at her and it draws us into reading the fine print, but it is her body and her choice to be naked to make a political statement. Nobody is putting a gun to her head or torturing her with a cattle prod in order for her to do this. Nor is she being spoon fed cocaine to make her perform a la a porn victim. She is free while truly victimized women as well as the animals she chooses to stick up for are not. It is not a crime to be beautiful, but some see it as offensive for women to intelligently own their own bodies and use them to make a point.
Personal prudishness does not equal exploitation.
Now for you people: Is my assessment of PeTA and Olivia Munn fair or is my head in my ass? Is all human nakedness pornographic? And does this sort of advertising bother you? Does context play a part or is the medium the message? Let me hear it.
I don't find the picture/ad pornographic at all. PETA is long known for using beautiful woman with very little clothing on to get their message across. Now, do I agree with many of PETA's actions and viewpoints? No. But I don't see any harm in this whatsoever. And we all know sex sells, so if it gets somebody like me to look at the end which I otherwise wouldn't, it's done its job.
ReplyDeleteI think it is quite the opposite. There is a difference between being a victim and being a volunteer. Victims have no choice and no power over what they are subjected to. Volunteers take total command of their choices and stand up for what they believe in -owning their power, and in this instance their body. Pornographic, please - where's the money shot?...I don't see it. I see a beautiful woman with a natural (not stick thin)body, owning her body, her space, her power and her position...Touche madmoiselle. I can only hope that more American women stand up for what they believe in and stop voluntarily becoming victims of what society dictates is appropriate and/or stylish. Thanks, Mica for getting my blood pumping about something.
ReplyDeleteI'm happy to see someone use their beauty & nudity to serve a purpose other than making money for themselves. I don't support Peta extremism but think that an innocuous photo of "implied" nudity (we don't actually see nipples or genitalia) used to spread/reinforce the stand point that animal focused circuses are wrong is great. Use your nudity, as long as it isn't to sell me a beauty product, especially if it's tested on animals.
ReplyDelete