TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 3 °C Saturday 25 May, 2013

Column: PETA uses shock tactics? Of course we do. We have to.

Animal rights group PETA are to launch an .xxx website that will juxtapose pornographic sexual images with pics of animal cruelty. PETA’s manager explains that they have to be provocative to get their arguments noticed.

Mimi Bekhechi

IN PREPARATION FOR the new .xxx web domain that will launch later this year, businesses are rushing to pre-register their websites to prevent cybersquatters from creating X-rated rip-offs of their brands. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals’ (PETA) US affiliate is also signing up.

They’re launching a graphic “not safe for work” (NSFW) website that will open people’s eyes to the hideous cruelty being inflicted daily upon billions of animals exploited in the meat, fur and circus industries. Some of the most graphic videos not allowed on TV will be debuted on the site: cruelty to animals laid bare.

Yes, a PETA US triple-X site is a provocative idea – but that’s the point! PETA and our affiliates worldwide have gained a reputation for bold actions because we are willing to go where few organisations dare, as long as we remain true to our mission: making people aware of issues affecting animals.

Nude models, male and female, have paraded through the streets proclaiming, “We’d rather go naked than wear fur!” They have gone out in nothing more than a dab of body paint to protest the cruelty of the fur industry and lain nearly nude inside Styrofoam containers labelled “meat”.

It’s our racier actions that get people to pay attention

Compassionate US adult-film stars Sasha Grey, Ron Jeremy and Jenna Jameson have posed in our ads promoting spaying and neutering companion animals – reminding the public that “too much sex can be a bad thing” and showing that you can be interested in extreme sex and still care about animals.

While it would be comfier to hold a news conference in our office attire and have animal-related issues widely covered, in a world of nonstop multi-platform media, it’s our racier actions that get people to pay attention to the plight of animals. And getting the word out can mean the difference between life and death. In the UK alone, approximately 900 million land animals are bred every year for the sole purpose of having their bodies chopped up, stamped with a label and stuck into cellophane packages on supermarket shelves.

Like us, every one of those animals has a unique personality and feelings, and they form families and friendships if given the chance. But filthy factory farms deny animals everything that is natural and important to them, condemning them to living in their own waste in cramped cages, stalls or sheds until, terrified, they are loaded onto lorries bound for the abattoir.

People shouldn’t be shocked to learn of PETA US plans to register the PETA.xxx website. It’s as important to reach people who visit triple-X sites as it is to reach sports aficionados or music fans. And while many people are opposed to pornography, judging from the massive popularity of X-rated sites, a great many more enjoy taking a peek at what’s getting everyone so hot and bothered in the first place. The job of PETA and our affiliates is to show as many people as possible why stopping the truly obscene abuse of animals is something worth
bothering about.

So we hope that people who gravitate toward NSFW sites will have a look at PETA.xxx, while those who might find it objectionable are invited, as always, to visit PETA.org.uk. Whether through titillation, offense or something in between, PETA and our international affiliates will continue to do whatever we can to draw attention to animal suffering and create a kinder world for animals.

Mimi Bekhechi is manager of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).

PETA to launch pornography website>

Read next:

Comments (23 Comments)

  • PETA are a bunch of Hypocrites. There are shelters all around the world that don’t even have a fraction of the budget they have and have no-kill policies while PETA put down thousands of animals each year in their own shelters. Maybe if they didn’t waste their money on ridiculous publicity stunts they could actually protect more animals rather than kill them.

    Reply
  • They’d have to be careful, otherwise they might look like a bunch of tits.

    Reply
  • I dont get the picture. What does a steak and baths got in common.

    Reply
  • I grew up on a farm & I see both sides of the argument. My dad always treated the animals with respect & they returned it. Animals don’t deserve the treatment they get in some places.it’s barbaric. People have lost touch with where our food comes from & need to wake up. I eat meat but I damn well know where it came from. If you see some of the places in the US & south America where cattle are reared & slaughtered it would frighten you. Thats why the meat is so cheap. Europe is much stricter on the treatment & health of animals & we are much better for it.PETA go about it all wrong I think but I know why they do it.

    Reply
  • The racy stuff doesn’t really work anymore, PETA come across as shock merchants rather than having any interest in animal rights. By rights they should be the organisation that people turn to for quality comment on animal rights but for many people all they see are the antics. PETA are irrelevant.

    Reply
  • Whatever ‘message’ you intend to relay always gets lost in your ‘bold’ tactics. ‘Shitty’ can be freely interchanged with ‘message’ and ‘bold’.

    First of all…this world you wish to create wouldn’t be any kinder towards anything than what we have today. You believe in total animal liberation, an unsustainable and infeasible concept. Ingrid Newkirk said it herself in Vogue’s 1989 September issue, “Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we’d still be against it.”

    Secondly, all of you can kindly feck off. Without medicine tested on animals, medicine made with animal products…I would have died a thousand times over. So would hundreds of millions of other people unfortunate enough to have contracted debilitating or life-threatening diseases. You’ll only get your wish over our dead bodies, literally. Then again, you aren’t willing to condemn the ALF, so I don’t have much doubt you’d be willing to throw us into the fire to create a ‘kinder world for animals’.

    I call your organisation PUTA nowadays. Pricks for the Unethical Treatment of All. That’s also what Newkirk calls you guys and girls, anyway. Media PUTAs. Her words, not mine.

    Reply
  • In all honesty now, if you were going to watch porn, you wouldn’t choose the site you knew were going to show images of abused animals.

    Reply
  • Eimz T 24/09/11 #

    Isn’t the head of PETA an insulin dependent diabetic? Any guesses how such treatment was developed?

    Reply
  • Check out the Bullshit episode on PETA. See just how many animals they put down… and how they hire a guy to teach people how to make bombs…

    Reply
  • If a cow could eat you, it would!

    Reply
  • Humans are omnivore’s, tens of thousands of years of evolution have designed us to eat meat and vegetables. We no loonger go out and hunt down our own meat- well most of us don’t anyway, just as we no longer have to gather berries and the like, we farm them, or others do it for us. That said, I think its fair to say almost everyone agrees that we don’t want any distress to come to animals, if you’ve seen any of the documentries about how some of these “factories” process chickens it can be disturbing to say the least. The fact is we all want that nice juicy steak, with no chemicals involved, but don’t show us the process, these days we’re now removed from the “nastier” side of it. When we see PETA doing their “thing” we may agree with some of what they say, not wearing fur, treating animals with some decency- we still want to eat them though, but when PETA begin to do silly things like parade around naked in order to gain media exposure they loose all credibility.

    Reply
    • No we’re not designed to eat meat – we’re designed with the ability to consume a little bit of it. There is a large difference between those two. Our colon for example is far too long and it takes roughly 2 weeks for meat to pass through it completely, leaving many rotting toxins as it leaves (imagine leaving a steak in your window for 2 weaks – would you want that in your body!!). This is why we need such large amounts of fibre – to aid the body clear itself out. But we eat so much meat in our society that the body just can’t cope. On the other hand, carnivores are designed to eject waste meat within 24-48 hours of ingestion. Meat is linked directly to many diseases us humans suffer from. But it’s not the meat itself that causes the damage – it’s our own body’s inability to efficiently deal with it that causes the damage, and when you add in the fact that we consume about 800% more than our bodies should theoretically be able to deal with, you end up with a situation whereby half the population will die of cancer – it may not be curable, but it is avoidable for the most part. I agree with you about PETA being silly though.

      Reply
  • Nothin like a bit of cow for Sunday dinner. Medium rare, straight from the Pan.

    Reply
  • blonde bombshell with big jugs…blonde labrador being beaten with a stick…hmmm i can see its appeal to decent ‘ethical’ types (???)

    Reply
  • so all this is fine but 13 people complain about child cruelty images on an advert and they are removed! Seriously I dont agree to cruelty to animal or human, but a child or a cow???

    Reply
  • So I”ll keep eating meat and PETA will keep getting pretty women to take their clothes off? We have a deal.

    More seriously, PETA have registered this site purely for the publicity, just to get us having this conversation. But look at the comments. People dislike and disrespect PETA. Their publicity-first approach overshadows the issue, overshadows the animals. I strongly believe there would be more public concern and pressure for the ethical treatment of animals if it were not for the unrealistic extremists clouding the issues.

    It is not possible to ban the eating of animals, but it is possible to greatly improve the conditions in which they are kept and the ways in which they’re killed.

    Reply
  • As someone who cares for animal welfare I have to say that personally I do not appreciate these shock videos.. It’s just because images of animals being tortured upsets me..

    As for someone who has no compassion for animals, I don’t think it would make much difference to them.. They probably wouldn’t bother watching it anyway..

    If they’re suggesting that they’re going to use sex based media to make their point.. Well that seems a bit twisted to me.. But perhaps I read the article wrong!!

    One way or another, PETA have their priorities muddled.. In some countries they actually need fur (while we were all complaining about our -10C last winter in Siberia it was -35!!)
    In terms of nutrition meat is not essential, and most certainly should not be eaten with the frequency most would eat it.
    As far as animal testing goes, with cosmetics it’s wrong, people should be able to volunteer, at least they have a choice.
    For medical testing it does show the testers lack of knowledge of basic human nutrition.. With the exception of primates, guinea pigs and bats all mammals produce their own vitamin C, in rather large doses.. This alone brings the whole "using animals to test drugs" model into question. As in the doses vitamin C is produced in the body of say, a rat, vitamin C is a very potent anti oxidant, and has many effects on the physiology of the body..

    Bottom line is, animal cruelty is animal cruelty, if the animals are treated humanely it’s one thing, but I don’t think being kept in factory farms, or having nail polish remover poured in their eyes, or alloxan injected into their pancreas to give them diabetes is really humane, do you?

    Reply
    • Eimz T 25/09/11 #

      First of all the use of animals for cosmetic testing is ILLEGAL and isn’t done, in the EU at least.

      Animals are used for much more than testing drugs in biomedical research and I can tell u that vitamin c levels play a very small part if any in pharmacokinetics. There are very strict guidelines in place dictating the use of animals in biomedical research and violation of a researchers animal licence results in criminal conviction under the cruelty to animals act.

      If the use of animals for legitimate scientific research is so wrong I’m sure you’ll forego any medical treatment next time you’re ill as it ALL was developed in animals. Off to the local homeopath it is.

      Animals deserve to be protected. Cruelty to innocent animals is deplorable. But PETA and their misleading propaganda, shock tactics and terrorism have none of my respect or attention.

      Reply
  • Juxtaposing porn with crude images of animal abuse? Love it. Nothing gets me more turned on than a bj and a burger

    Reply

Add New Comment