PETA and Porn
PETA has always used nudity, for example of Alicia Silverstone, to attract young people--read boys and men--to the cause. But now it has the services of a hard core porn "actress" pushing synthetic leather called "pleather," with the clear allusion to "pleasure." From the story:
SHS to the reporter: Animal rights--as opposed to animal welfare--is hardly a "saintly end," as it interferes with medical research to cure cancer and, with the moral support of PETA, terrorizes animal researchers. It also seeks to create an explicit moral equality between animals and people. But never mind, the media are congenitally clueless.Adult movie superstar Jenna Jameson is best known for hard-core pornography but her latest sexy pose is for a good cause - animal rights.
Using her sinful reputation for saintly ends, Jameson has joined forces with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), in a new campaign promoting the use of synthetic leather alternative, Pleather.
Of course, PETA and Porn will not reduce the use of leather one iota. It is merely part of PETA's constant, and I must say brilliant, drive at attention grabbing, which brings in donations, and the media fall for it every time. (As does SHS, I suppose.)
I think this also illustrates PETA's generally subversive nature--and not just about the human/animal relationship and relative moral worth--in that it intentionally adds to the growing respectability of pornography in the culture.
Twas a time when feminists and general society rejected pornography as intrinsically objectifying to women. Now its stars are celebrated and seen as respectable social commentators and worthy of emulating--and extolled by the anti-humanists over at PETA.
Oh, did you see the other day that one in four teenage girls has a sexually transmitted disease?
Labels: PETA and Porn
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 7:15 AM
11 Comments
11 Comments:
This reminds me of PETA's State of the Union Undress, where women strip to complete nudity while preaching on animal rights and PETA's supposed success in the previous year.
I'd link to it, but I don't want to promote people watching it. Adults can google it if so inclined.
Basically, the "speech" is accompanied by not just stripping but digitally-added hoots, hollers and wolf whistles.
Isn't it funny that an organization opposed to eating meat would have no issue with treating women like meat?
Jacque -
Doesn't surprise me they treat women like meat - women are humans and humans are worthless to them.
One big complaint I saw on one of their websites was that the Super Bowl one year wouldn't use one of their commercials. The website complained because the best kinds of ads have sex in them, and the PETA ad had a bunch of sexy women hitting on an obvious nerd-boy who was apparently a vegan, ignoring the buff stud who ate meat and wore leather.
They always like to use sex in their ads because they want to both cause a stir and attract the eyes of the (in their opinion) easily exploitable - young people. Young men are attracted by the sex, and young women are attracted by the glamor of being sexy and standing out from what they're "supposed" to be - so they both like these ads.
Blah.
I beg to differ with you, sir, and I'm going to REFUTE your post. It's nothign personal, I just don't care for your flip ways.
I am a solid Republican, and I have always believed that the porn industry should be left alone.
Why? Because the world is a marketplace, and only by making it taboo do we incentivize them to get disgusting in their acts and draw viewers in.
If we let the marketplace decide, it won't matter if they show a dozen women slathered all over some beefy stud--the marketplace will determine whether or not that is kosher.
And teenage girls have STDs not because they are having sex--it is because there is a worldwide epidemic of adequate cleaning products that eliminate STDs from toilet seats. Teenage girls aren't THAT promiscuous, for crying out loud. I was a teenage boy once--and I never even met a girl who was willing to have sex, let alone with me.
Anti-bacterial resistant STDs are infecting young ladies because the toilet seats aren't being cleaned properly. The science is there--educate yourselves people and don't let your daughters go to the bathroom at truck stops.
Uh, thanks Norman. Lysol. Yes, that's the ticket to all our woes.
Thanks for your flip answer! It reveals you to be ignorant of what the problem really is, and that is the widespread proliferation of bacteria that is resistant to chemicals that can kill it off.
The rise in the use of anti-bacterial soap in schools is coupled with a rise in veneral disease and you think that's a coincidence?
I guess thinking wasn't your strong suit when they figured you for a man of the law.
Norm -
You're not familiar with Penn and Teller's "BullS***" on Showtime, are you?
Now, Penn and Teller aren't on one side or the other politically - they don't believe in global warming, they don't believe in the war on drugs. They're not religious, and they respect the rights of all people to believe whatever they want. They think that bilking the public out of money for funerals is way evil, and they think that it's stupid to worry about curse words.
And they have explained why toilet seats aren't the cause of STDs, complete with research and with a web site where you can read up more on what the science says as far as they're concerned.
I'm sure you're welcome to disagree with them, with me, and with Wesley, but dude, I bring up the BS program because the science is *right there* for everybody to read. And they provide links to people who disagree! Anybody who wonders knows where to start to do the research.
Since it's all right there, and since I've been to the website, and since I've read what they had to say (I was bored, stuck home sick with the flu, and I'd read the bit about reincarnation and NDEs twice), um, how can you say that Wes is not a thinker? Lots of thinkers are out there putting out their ideas where the common chick like me can read 'em.
So here I am, reading the research, and I'm not seeing where you're going with this.
Dude, unless you can find solid evidence to refute what I see as scientific evicence to the contrary, I think you shouldn't pick at Wesley about not being a thinker. I can back up Wes' attitude with research. Where's yours?
te, think on this morsel for a moment--
In all of human history, people have had sex. People had sex long before you and I were here and they will be bumping the uglies and doing the nasty long after you and I are gone.
Recently, bacteria (which make up the bulk of STDs) have developed resistance to anti-bacterial products.
Recently, increases in bacterial infections of ALL kinds have increased.
Ergo, how you can you say that the increase in STDs is NOT related to the prevalence of products that purport to kill bacteria? You can't.
But if you don't think you can't get STDs from a toilet seat, fine.
I, for one, don't go around getting life advice from "Vegas performers" and I tend to be a man of science.
Enjoy your festering, pus-exploding open sores, sir.
Okay: That's enough about whether STDs are caused by bacteria on toilet seats. That is not something we can resolve here and it is taking us away from the point of the post. Thank you all for your participation and cooperation.
Norm said: "I was a teenage boy once--and I never even met a girl who was willing to have sex, let alone with me."
He then goes on to say that STDs are largely a product of microbial resistance to antibacterial products as opposed to actual promiscuity.
Judging from these two comments I can see that asking Norman for sex advice is like asking Stalin for free market economics advice. It's clear that Norm has little experience with sex; either he was ugly as a post so girls never asked him for sex growing up, or he had such an ingrained sense of entitlement that the girls were utterly turned off by his personality.
For the rest of us normal Americans, girls generally start having sex by their mid teens to early twenties. Since lasting families are no longer the social ideal thanks to tabloid TV, promiscuity is in fact rampant, whether Norm wants to believe it or not.
Now maybe Norm is valiantly trying to defend the honor of American women by intimating that STDs are caused by agents other than sex, but here's the rub: the rise of STDs coincides roughly with the advent of the sexual revolution of the 1950s and 60s - a couple ofdecades before antibacterials became as widespread as they are now.
Norman Rogers -
It's been a while so I doubt you'd notice (as nobody goes back to re-read the old posts but me), but I'm a miss, not a sir. Just an FYI.
As for open sores and such, I'm in perfect health except for two sprained ankles. Limited sexual exposure will get you that. And, um, unless I mis-read my literature, there've been talks about VD since the beginning of time - it's a frequent topic of amusement in plays and literature (I majored in English Lit). It's just more noted in today's societ because there are more of us around.
Sorry. I can link you to a number of plays from early Greece and England if you'd like - ones that mention tons of VD...
Oh, and as to the performers, they backed up their topics with scientific information. Sorry again.
I have traveled extensively in the Orient--even lived briefly for a time in Hong Kong when I was working for my Father.
The thing you have to believe is this--if you touch a woman, you'll get whatever disease she is carrying. So avoid that. Build healthy relationships with people who can prove they don't have diseases. Maintain those relationships.
And, if it doesn't work out, never get horny and walk around with several hundred dollars. It just leads to trouble.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home