Must We Objectify Women to Save the Animals?
Saving the puppies shouldn’t require us to see a Playmate’s puppies. By Jennifer Armstrong
PETA’s done it again with its latest ad, which depicts Playboy model and Dancing with the Stars contestant Joanna Krupa as the porniest looking crucifix-wielding angel ever. (Is it me, or does the strategic placement of the cross actually make this dirtier? And don’t get me started on those creepy wings.) The Catholic church got a little hot under the clerical collar about it, which shouldn’t even shock the puppies in this really weird, totally nonsensical ad. As Mary Elizabeth Williams at Salon’s Broadsheet pointed out: “Yes, posing naked with the central symbol of Christianity over your crotch. Who could have imagined what would happen next?”
As far as I’m concerned, this campaign plays like a blatant attempt on PETA’s part to ruffle a new set of feathers … erm, creepy fuzzy wing things (and like an endorsement of Krupa’s bikini waxer’s mad skills). They’ve been playing the naked card for years, and while that may be losing its shock factor — thus the necessity to predictably offend a new group — that doesn’t make it right. Yes, naked, hot women sell stuff. (And occasionally shirtless men, though they’re more about cool tats than salacious nudity.) No news there. But there’s a strange dynamic at play here, wherein somehow PETA can justify what would otherwise be blatantly sexist objectification and/or thoughtless use of religious imagery because … well, it’s for the puppies! It makes me think back to those “Save the Boobs!” ads a few months ago that featured a bunch of folks ogling a chick in the name of breast cancer awareness. PETA’s been progressively upping the ante on its ads, from the more I’m-naked-because-I’m-so-granola Alicia Silverstone spots to those softcore veggie-fetish ads that got pulled from the Super Bowl.
Honestly, it might be at least almost acceptable if any of the ads at least tried to tie their provocative imagery in with their actual point. (“Be an Angel for Animals” hardly requires nudity, nor even a crucifix.) At this point, what would really be shocking is if PETA came up with a way to sell its perfectly legit cause without the T and A.
What do you think, Sirens? Is naked female flesh okay when there’s a greater good at stake? Tell us on our message boards below.
Jennifer Armstrong is the co-founder and editorial director of SirensMag.com.
For further reading: Sexism Shows Up in the Darnedest Places, Faith and Feminism
December 4th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
I have a hard time condemning PETA for using this tactic among others in their bag of tricks – like throwing paint and die-ins, it gets attention. Joanna Krupa is a lovely woman and cares deeply about animal issues. If she’s not feeling exploited, why should I feel exploited on her behalf?
The real problem is we live in a Puritanical society that gives undue attention to female nudity and suggestive content in the first place. PETA didn’t create that. I’m not sure they can even be blamed for perpetuating it.
It doesn’t matter to me if it’s Victoria’s Secret or PETA – what matters is why we find sexuality and nudity vulgar and degrading and socially undermining, and why we let it affect us to the point of plummeting self-esteem, eating disorders, etc.