Banned PETA Ad with Pamela Anderson. Photo credit: http://www.dailymail.co.uk
Sex sells. We’ve all heard this adage, maybe more frequently now thanks to the Mad Men series on AMC. Scantily-clad models adorn everything from billboards to commercials to soda bottles - and if you think America is explicit, try traveling outside our borders. Other countries like Brazil are much more open to racey advertising. And what’s so wrong with that?
In my opinion, there is an important difference between expressing oneself in a way that exudes confidence, i.e. dressing in a way that makes one feel sexy, and perpetuating an image of submissive women who need to fit an ideal body type to be accepted socially. (The same goes for men).
Pamela Anderson’s new campaign with PETA has gotten some mixed reviews in publications around the world. And PETA is no stranger to less than stellar press for radical protest tactics. Hey, all press is good press, right? Maybe not. Montreal banned the ad (shown) and labeled it “sexist”, right before it was pegged to be unveiled. This might be taking a more puritanical approach, but do they have a point? Ms. Anderson has this to say:
“In a city that is known for it’s exotic dancing and for being progressive and edgy, how sad that a woman would be banned from using her own body in a political protest. In some parts of the world women are forced to cover their whole bodies with burqas- is that next?”
I’d like to point something out. Nowhere in this media controversy are animal rights mentioned. The “progressive and edgy” advertisement has distracted, not focused, the media’s attention on the real issue at hand. PETA and other similar organizations may need to look further than the “all press is good press” concept for the main fact that it is only applicable to celebrities and brands who just want citizens talking about them. But in order to get people to support - or at least not despise - the vegan cause, these extreme tactics are not working – they are in fact the fastest way to alienate potential converts. The animal rights movement is supposed to be about empathy, not shock value. It’s not “progressive” to trade one cause (animal rights) at the expense of another (women’s rights). Do you think a person attracted to Pamela Anderson is going to drop their meat-eating ways just because she drops her pants (and everything else), or is it just more material for the ole’ spank bank?
PETA’s imagery in ads take on the personification of a “mainstream” and oftentimes god-like body image in association with a vegan lifestyle/diet. It’s a dangerous game to associate unattainable body images with any sort of lifestyle that has an already restrictive diet at its core, regardless of the good intentions behind it. In a world where obesity is at an all-time high, and highly reported on, there is a quiet problem still lurking:
- One in 200 American women suffers from anorexia
- Two to three in 100 American women suffers from bulimia
- Nearly half of all Americans personally know someone with an eating disorder (Note: One in five Americans suffers from mental illnesses.) Source: http://www.state.sc.us/dmh/anorexia/statistics.htm
These may be the new associations with hot models–girls “going veg” and thinking that “only if I stop eating meat/dairy can I be good looking enough to be like Pamela Anderson.” That is not at all in line with the values of a vegan lifestyle. Perpetuating unhealthy eating habits for the sake of social acceptance goes against the holistic approach that should be the promotional tool to attract new vegans. It’s not just a diet, it’s a way to cleanse the body and feel better about your footprint on the earth. And it’s a liaison to giving up all animal products for human consumption, which would be lost on the person struggling to be a size 2 to make it onto the cover of a magazine.
I’m not professing that all people who go vegetarian based on extreme advertising would do so for the wrong reasons. I’m not saying all people with eating disorders do so out of conscious decisions based on advertising. And I’m not saying progressive advertising is unnecessary to reach a new demographic. I disagree with PETA’s choice of advertising methods because their campaigns contradict certain vegan values in order to be edgy and shocking, and they exploit the mainstream ideals of beauty that women in America deal with daily. I don’t advocate the ban of these ads or any others, but I do suggest a change in strategy. Just think about the implications.
TALK TO US: Does using sexy women (or men) to advertise a cause cheapen the issue or is it a good marketing tool to help reach the masses? Does a movement like animal welfare need to be associated with sexual images of models and celebrities in order to make Main Street feel compassion? Should vegan businesses hold themselves to a higher standard than beer brands and men’s cologne?
