|
has through their own free-will chosen to "exploit" their own sexuality or nudity to further a cause they believe in.
It's their body and their choice.
I can't argue that the ads are in good taste or even effective, but I can argue that exploitation requires the non-complicity of the exploited. Willing participants in pornography aren't exploited either. Both are objectified certainly but that's the point in the case of the PeTA ads...it's intentional, in-your-face (and some media theorists argue tongue-in-cheek) objectification meant to reflect the organizational position that use of animal products is also objectification of a living thing. Not condemning or condoning the delivery, just saying I understand the message.
It's "inhumanity" is a mirror reflection of the worst offenders of animal cruelty. People pay more attention to staged exploitation and objectification when it is directed at women than they do when actual exploitation and objectification is directed at cows, monkeys, pigs, whales, cats or fish.
Certainly, as an animal activist and a vegetarian, I support that message.
(Disclosure: Chan790 was offered an interview with PeTA for a position in PR/Communications months ago which he declined for reasons of not wanting to work to create promotional campaigns he thought counterproductive.)
|