Kerri Bystrom

Kerri Bystrom

WRTG 3020-589

28 July 2011

Rhetorical Analysis Draft 2

SEX!

And animal rights

The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is an organization fighting for the rights and humane treatment of animals. They are seen as compassionate saviors. They are also seen as extremists and a nuisance. Their campaign tactics also have two very different views.

PETA has had many campaigns over the years including “Kentucky Fried Cruelty,” “McCruelty,” “Cut Class, Not Frogs,” and “Animals are Friends, Not Food.” A long standing crusade involves nude celebrities with sayings such as, “I’d rather go naked than wear fur,” and “Be comfortable in your own skin.” These advertisements have fully nude participants, with items barely covering only the most private of areas. Khloe Kardashian, Johanna Krupa, Roselyn Sanchez, Eva Mendes, and Holly Madison are among the dozens of celebrities who have been a part of this campaign (peta).

The majority of these celebrities are women wearing nothing but a stern look. An article written for savings.com is about misguided advertising and notes that PETA desperately seeks attention and stands by the idea that “sex sells” (dealtown). Is the exploitation of sex and females an appropriate way to persuade an audience? Is this particular case an exception because of the contrast between animal skin and human skin?

Maneesha Deckha wrote an article about PETA and its use of female objectification in its campaigns. She states that “feminists have criticized the [advertisements] repeatedly for relying on sexism to advance animal issues” (Deckha 3). Her research reports on the “ethical question of how a group which advances a social justice agenda…may interact with-whether by disregarding, not addressing, harnessing, or exploiting-other social-justice causes”(Deckha 3). Deckha argues

that the use of women's bodies to "sell" animal rights must be read in its discursive context, and that women's bodies will not always figure in the same way in animal rights campaign imagery. The presence of female sexuality in PETA campaigns should not be read immediately as sexist and problematic and may instead be productive and subversive for an intersectional feminist ethic. (Deckha 4)

Deckha’s article had an elaborate opening explaining many aspects of animal rights and social issues. This introduction helped establish her ethos as a knowledgeable writer. She’s directing her argument mainly toward feminists, but also to the general population. She concludes that these advertisements “need not be a first choice for feminists working in animal advocacy as to the type of campaigns that should be preferred, but neither should they be categorically dismissed as simple exploitation” (Deckha 26). The logos involved in this article helps Deckha’s arguments. Her paper has seventy-two cited sources.

Playboy model Holly Madison was involved in one of the “I’d Rather Go Naked” advertisements. She made a promotional video about her photo shoot and to also tell her fans her feelings on animal rights. Madison is generally in the lyrical frame; praised for her good looks, there is usually not much more involved in her admiration. Her video can be found on youtube.com, and there are many different comments listed below it. Madison’s goal in the short video is to persuade the viewer to remove fur from their lifestyle. This video is a step out from the printed fur campaign photos and puts a voice behind them. Madison is an advocate for animal rights and finds the “I’d rather go naked” campaign to be effective and one she wants to be involved in. Her involvement deters the idea of exploitation of women, but is it effective advertising to the viewer? One of the responses stated, “Good for her, speaking up against cruelty to animals.” Another viewer, Tahlia350, found the sex appeal to be the focus of the promotion:

If they'd rather go naked than wear fur’ then why the hell are we trying to stop the fur trade. I'd rather have the fur trade keep going and have naked vegans on the street than stop the fur trade and have no vegan titties. This is just going to convince people to NEVER stop the fur trade. Free vegan titties FTW! (youtube)

Another commenter didn’t agree with the values of the model, and therefore the ethos of PETA was damaged. Moran007007 commented, “She is completely fake. She slept with 82 years old grandpa Hugh Hefner just for money. She doesn’t have any moral value. PETA shouldn’t use a prostitute [to] promote their message” (youtube).

Khloe Kardashian was another participant for the fur campaign. She also has a youtube video about the unveiling of her advertisement. This video appears to ruin her ethos because the people closest to her don’t seem to have a clue about animal rights. It makes Kardashian appear as if she wanted fame from the advertisement, but doesn’t advocate animal rights in any other part of her life. One of the viewers, WinterHaven, commented, “Let's face it-SEX SELLS-so why not use it to sell the public some COMPASSION for a change, and if it takes a sexy ad to do that, then I'm ALL FOR IT!” (youtube2). This person agrees with PETA that if used for the right reasons, there is no problem in using sexuality to gain attention.

The video has an interview with Khloe Kardashian’s mother, Kris. Her mother doesn’t appear to know what to say, and her credibility diminishes, taking her daughter down with her. A comment below the video was posted by RainyDayzBaby and stated

Could you possibly be any more superficial & desperate for PR? How many furs do you have in your closet? No wonder your girls have such a sincerely sad addiction to attention - look who their example is. Khloe's participation in this campaign is so insincere, it’s nauseating. (youtube2)

The advertisements for PETA’s fur campaign certainly do one thing; gain attention. The question however is if the correct message is presented. Some of the celebrity participants don’t have the ethos needed to appropriately portray an advocate to animal rights. Depending on the viewer, these advertisements would be satirical. Humor exists in the light of a celebrity that not many people can take seriously. This however, may still persuade the viewer to look at the message involved. Sometimes the message is completely looked over, especially with the amount of sex appeal in the ads. A pubescent teenage boy however, may pass the photos along to his friends, and one or two of his comrades may take note of what the campaign is really trying to get across.

Peta, . "Peta." PSAs by Campaign: skins n. pag. Web. 26 Jul 2011. <http://www.peta.org/mediacenter/ads/print-ads-skins.aspx>.

dealtown, . "The KFC Diabetes Campaign and Other Misguided Charitable Donations." savings.com 29 Jun 2011: n. pag. Web. 28 Jul 2011. <http://www.savings.com/blog/post/The-KFC-Diabetes-Campaign-and-Other-Misguided-Charitable-Donations.html>.

Deckha, Maneesha. "Disturbing Images." Ethics & the Environment 13.2 (2008): 1-36. Web. 26 Jul 2011

"Playboy's Holly Madison: I'd rather go naked than wear fur." youtube. Web. 2 Jul 2011. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgAccOLOfk0>.

"Khloe Kardashian Ad Unveiling." youtube2. Web. 26 Jul 2011. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJdIR3GI3Pk&feature=related>.