Peta's Advertising Tools

PETA’s advertising tools are based on the pretense that people like looking and talking about sexualized bodies (Rose, 109). Their theory is that the controversy over the images will either appeal to an audience or make the opposition talk about it, therefore inherently talking about animal rights. Although many people do talk about the PETA ads, the actual purpose for them gets lost in the controversy of the image. The contention with the advertisements is not just because they show naked women, but because of how they portray them. For example, in PETA’s “All Animals Have the Same Parts” campaign, they depict a naked or nearly naked women with labels on their bodies of what body part it is. British journalist Lucy Watson posed naked, sitting …show more content…
This means that even though the PETA ads are out there to do good, there are unintended effects that are incredibly harmful to women. Interestingly enough, one of the covers of “Rolling Stone” that Hatton and Trautner analyzed depicting Laetitia Casta shows her in an almost identical position as Lucy Watson in the “All Animals Have the Same Parts” advertisement. On Hatton’s and Trautner’s sexuality scale, the Casta cover scored a fifteen out of a twenty-three point scale with ten or above points being hyper-sexualized. This means, according to the scale, the Watson advisement scores similarly, therefore, scoring way above the hyper-sexualized mark. Just because Watson’s image is for an ethical cause, doesn't make it any less susceptible to the harmful effects of the oppressive natures of the pictures. The hyper-sexualization and meat references of women in PETA advertisements has unintended and dangerous consequences that take away from the main focus of stopping animal