Opinion: PETA’s dirty tactics

(Courtesy photo)

The opinions represented in this article do not necessarily represent those of the staff of CUIndependent.com nor any of its sponsors.

The Super Bowl means two things: football and commercials.

Every year there are companies trying to out-ad one another, and this makes for endless entertainment for viewers.  However, sometimes there are ads that are too hot for the airwaves and never make it into the middle of the famous game. This was the case with PETA this year, and it raises several questions about the ethical conduct of the group.

By no means is violence against animals fair or morally correct, but PETA reveals hypocritical practices in their promotion techniques. PETA is an organization based solely on the protection of animals from exploitation and violence, but they have no problem with the exploitation of women. It’s clear that PETA does not mind manipulation of certain groups as long as it benefits their cause and rakes in publicity.

The explicit commercial that was banned from the Super Bowl features women sexualizing vegetables in an attempt to promote vegetarianism. It is a prime example of PETA’s exploitative tactics. The women wear bikinis and suggestively rub themselves with the veggies. It is not uncommon for advertisers to use sex to sell their product or idea, but an organization that specifically supports the rights of a certain group would benefit from opting out of those types of techniques.

PETA recognized the Super Bowl audience as young, red-blooded American men, so they decided upon an extremely sexual approach. It is unfair that an organization, known for their severe judgments and public condemnations of fur-wearing celebrities and public figures, objectifies women to gain publicity.

The banned “Veggie Love” ad is not the first time PETA has employed sexual tactics to promote their cause. On their website, there is an entire section dedicated to past advertisements deemed “too hot for TV.”

One features young women flashing their breasts in a girls-gone-wild style, only to reveal they have utters. In another, two women, portrayed as airheads, try to seduce a man only to discover he’s impotent because he eats meat. The objectification of women that PETA uses is difficult to ignore. They are portrayed as nothing but sexual toys and are used for nothing but the perpetuation of PETA’s agenda.

By far, their most famous advertisement is their “I’d rather go naked than wear fur” campaign, which the group has solicited celebrities to partake in. These advertisements are arguably not as offensive as their more recent commercial, but they still serve to reveal the same flaw. PETA condemns unfair treatment, but then actively engages in it with every advertisement that they release.

PETA continually uses nudity and sex in their campaigns, which doesn’t correspond in any way with their mission. The celebrities wouldn’t need to be naked in order to advocate animal rights, and the infiltration of sex into their ads takes away from their otherwise worthy cause.

They are known for dousing fur-wearers in red paint, pies and flour as a means of protest.  Some of their tactics are extreme and have caused backlash. Besides their advertisements, PETA has engaged in exploitation by using scantily-clad women dressed in only lettuce as their spokespeople. On the “Lettuce Ladies” website, PETA further demeans women with their description of the models.

“Some of these ladies you’ve seen before. With others, it’s your first time. Before peeling off the layers, leaf by leaf, find out what turns them off, and how to really turn them on.”

It is difficult to understand what a Playboy model’s turn-ons and turn-offs are has to do with violence against animals.

Their choice of words and overall approach is deplorable and completely void of subtlety. According to PETA, the use of animals for materialistic reasons is a cardinal offense, but using women for monetary gain and publicity is acceptable and even encouraged. By sexualizing and dumbing-down their efforts, they trivialize the importance of animal rights.

PETA’s hypocrisy is undeniable and strips them of their credibility as an advocate for anyone. They are doing a detriment to the entire campaign for animal rights.

Having a hypocritical advocate is worse than having no advocate at all.

If PETA stopped focusing on the mistakes of others, they could have a chance to recognize their own flaws. Animals do not deserve to be treated badly, but they, and no one, deserve protection at the expense of others. PETA is an organization based on double standards and cheap tactics. It becomes clear that fur-wearers and meat-eaters are not the only ones with blood on their hands.

Contact CU Independent Staff Writer Devon Boen at Devon.boen@colorado.edu.