Did you see the coverage of the PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment Of Animals) protest against KFC last week?  Three women, wearing only underwear and some tape to cover
their nipples, were protesting inside a cage outside the KFC
restaurant on George Street, Sydney.

They had a banner that read: "Chicks agree, boycott KFC".

Also last week, PETA was trying to recruit Big Brother housemate, Brigette, (the one with the big boobs) with her "big assets" to pose nude in one of their signature ads.

Last week I read a thought-provoking article by Josephine Tovey criticising PETA for its repeated use of the naked female body to generate media attention for the plight of animals. The ads and part of the article are posted after the jump…..

According to the article:

This is the sophisticated publicity technique the organisation
has been perfecting over the past decade, with scores of their
campaigns using the female body to try to raise awareness about
animal rights. Not in a John-and-Yoko, dimply-bottoms-out-for-peace
kind of way, but in a "put a hot naked chick next to a product
you’re trying to sell" way.

Last year in the United States a semi-nude woman painted to look
like a snake protested outside an exotic leather goods store in
Florida, while in Washington, bikini-clad protesters sat in cages,
holding egg-shaped signs that read, "Chicks Suffer for Eggs". Then
there was their internet video campaign, which featured a young
women addressing Congress about animal rights – while
stripping.

Whether or not you think the campaigns are sexist, they do raise
a bigger question of whether this is really an effective way to get
a message across to your audience.

it is hard to understand why PETA still
uses the oldest, laziest and, many would argue, most sexist trick
in the book. A feminist commentator, Ann Friedman, summarises the
message behind these ads: "It’s OK to buck the stereotype of real
men eat red meat, because here are some naked ladies to reassure
you that you’re still a superhetero manly man!"

Indeed, the not-so-subtle message behind these ads is that
animal rights are not just for those with hairy armpits and
dreadlocks, but are sexy, fun and mainstream. Or it could just be,
"Hey look over here! Boobies! And by the way, battery farming is
bad!"

But it’s the last part of that message that usually gets lost,
as most people tend to focus on the first half. If it did work,
every 14-year-old boy in Australia would be demanding tofu for
dinner.

A straw poll on the meaning of Monday’s PETA demonstration among
friends at the pub threw up responses including "the Catholic
church’s treatment of women" and "an ad for a new line of lacy
underwear". Attention was grabbed, but the message was lost….

Mostly, I like what PETA does. I’m one of those hypocritical animal
rights people who wears leather, used to be a vegetarian, now eats meat
but never veal or duck. But Josephine made an excellent point I’d never
considered before……are PETA exploiting women to help animals? Or do
their good intentions justify the means?

Ironically, Jenna Jameson – the porn star – is one of the few who kept her clothes on!