Sure, sex sells, but it shouldn’t sell ideas

Sex sells. It sells alcohol, it sells Abercrombie ‘ Fitch, and now, it even sells altruism…. Sex sells. It sells alcohol, it sells Abercrombie ‘ Fitch, and now, it even sells altruism.

I discovered this during a recent visit to the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals Web site. It all looked innocent enough until I began to inspect some of the images.

I clicked on one and was alarmed to find that what popped up on the screen looked more like a Playboy centerfold than an ad for what I once thought was a respectable special interest group. Aside from a few crazy antics — throwing red paint on fur coats, claiming that chickens are as intelligent as dogs — PETA is responsible for some very positive activism. They have rallied against cosmetic companies’ animal testing, neglectful pet stores and pit-bull fights.

But there, on screen, was Pamela Anderson in all her typical naked glory, holding her arms across her supposedly silicone-free breasts as she faced sideways, with bold text proclaiming: “Give fur the cold shoulder.” (And I thought flotation devices like that were only necessary when rescuing poor, little animals from oil spills!)

I was a bit stunned. After all, PETA is supposed to be all about eliminating exploitation. I had just taken it for granted that the group was against the exploitation of humans as well as animals.

I wish I could say that this was the only naked woman I encountered in the PETA advertisements. Unfortunately, as I perused the ads, the group’s credibility slipped lower and lower. While some of the ads featured men in various states of undress, the number of naked women was vastly disproportionate. And the female body was presented far more sexually, in animalistic poses.

The use of naked, sexualized women to promote a cause not only casts a bad light on the group that is exploiting these women, but also a bad light on the target group of consumers.

We have sunk low enough that it has become necessary to use sex to sell not only products, but ideas as well. Apathy is so deeply ingrained that ideas must now be marketed with the same vigor and shamelessness that has been reserved for Tommy Hilfiger ads and Budweiser billboards.

This exploitative advertising implies that the average person can’t be swayed by a simple presentation of the facts, like the ugly reality of fur coats, lab animals and a KFC supplier’s animal abuse.

Instead, we have to be lured into the cause by glossy, semi-pornographic photos. Australian model Imogen Bailey is chained up an a sexual pose; Anderson is clad only in a push-up, lettuce-leaf bra; and model/actress Dominique Swain is writing lines on a schoolhouse blackboard while nude. PETA marketing probably sold this advertising campaign by claiming that the pictures would catch people’s attention. And, as the old adage goes, any press is good press.

Unfortunately, while this may work for Abercrombie ‘ Fitch, it doesn’t necessarily work for an animal rights organization. PETA’s consistent use of the sexualized (and sometimes plastic surgery-enhanced) female body leaves a worse taste in my mouth than a bucket of tortured chicken. If PETA desires to set animals as equals to human beings, then the organization ought to accomplish that by bringing animals up to human level — by proving their ability to feel pain and emotion. Instead, these advertisements bring humans — women, mostly — down to animal level, by exploiting them and using them as sexual objects. Any cause worth fighting for shouldn’t require such a sleazy campaign. The facts should sell themselves.

It’s sad to think that a group with such a nice, altruistic goal could subscribe to the idea that exploiting sexuality is really the best way to forward their cause. And it’s sad to think that these supporters — Anderson, Swain and Bailey, among others — considered this to be the best way to make a stand for all the abused and mistreated animals out there.

Perhaps the saddest detail in all of this, though, is that this campaign may actually work. People who never would have been swayed by pictures of bleeding animals may just find the new, hipper and edgier image of PETA convincing.

Ginger McCall likes both nakedness and animal rights, but not nakedness for animal rights. Send her your thoughts at gpm5@pitt.edu.