Unseemly Bikini Lines: A Defense of PETA (was hmm...)

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 6/11/2002 2:46:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

macktivist writes:

 

 

>

>

>

>

>

> I was hoping to spark some dialogue with yesterday's

> post about new synthetics vs. used leather, Newkirk's

>

 

Hi Erin : ) I am glad you wrote the above, as I have been meaning to respond

to your comments about PETA's ad campaign featuring the rather hirsute woman

who has chosen to wear her bikini " au natural " (i.e., no bikini waxes for

her, thank you!). The illustration bears the caption: Unsightly fur trim.

Erin, I too consider myself a feminist. As such, I share your concern

that women are made to feel that they must conform to a certain body type and

have perfectly smooth bodies, etc. This phenomenon is especially distressing

to me as I consider what a loss of time and energy this represents. Women

who are constantly thinking about their weight, etc. are not free to be

thinking about more important things.

As a feminist, however, I was not troubled by PETA's anti-fur ad. I

think that PETA has a limited budget and tries to get the maximum " media

play " for their " media dollar. " It is very hard to get noticed amid of the

throng of interests clamoring for media attention. PETA seems to

deliberately use maximally provocative ads and uses them to good effect to

focus attention on the plight of animals.

Please, Erin, consider the target audience for PETA's ads. The vast

majority of American women would be horrified to go to the beach looking like

the model in this PETA ad! Yes, this is a sad commentary on the pervasive

influence of Madison Avenue (amongst other things).

However, by choosing an image that is at once sexually provocative,

outrageous and for most American women, true (i.e., most American women would

consider having abundant pubic hair protruding from a bathing suit bottom to

be very unattractive), I think PETA succeeds on a number of scores:

 

First, the image is, as stated, provocative. As such there is a high

likelihood that people will talk about the ad. This means people who

otherwise would not think about it, are now thinking about, and discussing,

wearing animal fur.

 

And second, on the fashion front (and yes, some people really are that

shallow), PETA has hopefully mentally linked a socially unattractive (again

to most women) image to the image of wearing fur.

Also, I don't think the ad is any worse than PETA's " I'd rather go naked

than wear fur " campaign. This ad features models that meet the prevailing

American standards of beauty. If they didn't, not as many people would look

at them and they would not have the influence that they do.

Studies have shown that most people like other people who are

good-looking better than those who are not as good-looking (and they think

they are smarter, too ), and what is considered good looking is culturally

relative. This pretty much sucks, but it is a reality.

Television, magazines, billboards, etc. daily bombard women (and men)

with images of what is and is not socially desirable. I think the very minor

extent to which PETA may have contributed to this onslaught greatly pales in

comparison to the potential good that may have come from this advertisement.

Anyway, I do understand why you were distressed by the ad, and I doubt

that I have changed your mind, but I did just want to speak my piece.

Stephanie