subscribe: Posts | Comments

PETA ad vilifies women’s pubic hair


Summary of story from MS magazine, November 8, 2011

An animal rights’ group has been criticised for equating areas of the female body with the animal parts that it campaigns against.

The latest advert from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) features a picture whose shock value lies in its resemblance to a woman’s body part.

The image shows an open fur-trimmed purse in the shape of a woman’s vagina.

Is there a dilemma here?  It’s a bind in which PETA keeps putting feminists (see WVoN story), as well as other women and women-loving people. Does “it’s for a good cause” excuse exploiting, dehumanizing and sexualizing women?

Do we want to get behind animal rights when they’re packaged as caged, unclothed pregnant women on all fours, women marked up as cuts of meat, women being beaten with baseball bats, and (more than once) the likening of our natural pubic hair to clothing made from the skinned fur of slaughtered animals?

Again PETA vilifies a woman’s natural pubic hair and encourages women to go “furless” and “bare” because, apparently, our vaginas in their natural states are just as disgusting as wearing dead animals as coats.

  1. Expecting sanity from PETA is rather like expecting honesty from David Cameron – a lost cause.

    Probably best ignored rather than given additional publicity. Clowns make me wish I wasn’t a veggie!

    Don’t envy you the comments you’re likely to get, though . . .

    • They make me wish I wasn’t vegetarian too, Ron! At least they aren’t as prominent in the UK as they are in America; we only see their ad campaigns through websites making fun of them.

      I thought one of the most shocking things about this is that they really are advocating women removing our pubic hair, not just making one of their usual crappy mixed metaphors – the sponsor of the campaign is some waxing company that’s donating a % of its profits from doing Brazilians. W T, and indeed, F?

      • Another fine example of issues being played out on women’s bodies. But really, shouldn’t we be applauding PETA, not only are they better morally than any of us (as they keep telling us) but they also look better – after all, none of them are fat and none of them are hairy and of *course* both those things are hideous… PETA really annoy me.

        • I know a woman who used to work for PETA & now works for another animal rights charity. She said she didn’t like their advertising strategy – weird how they keep doing it when I’m sure it must make many of their staff uncomfortable. They’re like the Dov Charney of the animal rights movement.

          • I suppose it does get them attention but surely they’d rather get their message across? There’s going to be a significant minority who will see a PETA ad and not get past ‘Whoah, boobs!’.

    • Like what? PeTA are a bunch of fruitloops? I had a rather heated discussion about this on Facebook with one of their supporters. I was invited to consider the good they have done. I feel it is rather overshadowed by their hatred of women. I don’t support them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *