Celebrity T&A in PETA Campaigns
The folks at PETA have launched a couple new media campaigns featuring Dita Von Teese pushing animal birth control for pets and Alicia Silverstone languidly peddling vegetarianism. The Silverstone spread - the text of which is all about me, me, me - strikes me as the sort of narcissism that makes vegetarianism shade so easily into unbearable moralism. I've never heard of Von Teese, but the message that we can and ought to subject animals to surgery in order to protect our own moralistic sensibilities strikes me as counterintuitive. At least we might have been given an argument? On top of those complaints, this use of celebrity and, especially, tits and ass, in what must be an effort to make the cause "sexy!" and "fabulous!" just reminds me of the shallowness of other recent attempts to be fashionably political. Naked women are just a means here, a means to sell something to an audience.
P.S.: (Added a short while later.) A helpful comment by Rachel Hawthorn prompts me to offer a clarification. On PETA.org we learn "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), with more than 1.6 million members and supporters, is the largest animal rights organization in the world" (stress added). This suggests that the PETA-folk conceptualize "ethical" in a rights-based way. My perplexity is about how performing pre-emptive surgery on an animal is compatible with its presumptive rights (to, say, bodily integrity or freedom from pain ... ). Here is more from PETA.org:
"Why Animal Rights?The thrust of this list is that animals are not ours for the purposes mentioned. Why then is it our decision to intervene in animal lives for surgical purposes? It is not obvious that we have a right to perform surgery on any animal in order to prevent the possible or even likely future suffering of other animals.
Almost all of us grew up eating meat, wearing leather, and going to circuses and zoos. We never considered the impact of these actions on the animals involved. For whatever reason, you are now asking the question: Why should animals have rights?
* Animals Are Not Ours to Eat
* Animals Are Not Ours to Wear
* Animals Are Not Ours to Experiment On
* Animals Are Not Ours to Use for Entertainment
* Animals Are Not Ours to Abuse in Any Way"
So, even aside from the sexist advertising campaign, I don't find the underlying justification on offer here at all persuasive.