Does This Animal Rights Ad Go Too Far?
Posted by: Susannah Breslin
Filed in:
news
7:10AM, Tuesday June 30th 2009
In America, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals are well known for their shock-tactic ads, but they’re not the only pro-animal rights organization willing to go overboard with advertising in order to bring attention to the cause. Wakker Dier, which means “Animal Awake,” is a Dutch organization that’s Europe’s PETA counterpart. For their campaign, they hired Dutch Playmate and fetish model Ancilla Tilia to play the part of a stripper who gets clubbed and stripped like an animal. Watch it, after the jump, but be forewarned it’s fairly graphic.
While PETA’s ads have a tendency to be more silly than shocking, this ad is a real eye-opener. But does the video get across the organization’s mission? Does watching a fetish model get “clubbed” and “stripped” make people more sensitive to animal rights? Or does the viral path this ad will take mean more people will be thinking about animal rights than they were yesterday? [ANIMAL via Copyranter]
TheFrisky.com is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment Digital Network
Riley
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 07:55 am: [report]
It does have a good shock-value, but the point is lost when they compare a person to a fish. Lost on me anyway.
If you can prove to me that a fish is capable of feeling pain and of at least minimal higher-order thinking, then sure, great ad.
CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 08:26 am: [report]
Stop clubbing baby seals!
I mean stop taking them to clubs! They don’t like the house music, seriously.
avalari
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 09:05 am: [report]
Actually, I think it’s pretty clever.
Ginger
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 10:06 am: [report]
I agree with Riley. Maybe it’s wrong to put some animals above others, but when I found out that commercial was about fish (instead of, say, seals) it made me care a little less.
sam04
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 10:14 am: [report]
@Ginger: You’re so right! Fish aren’t cute like baby seals or puppies. We should totally only support animal rights movements that focus on adorable, furry things.
mlyway
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 11:10 am: [report]
Well I think it’s kind of biased, I mean they are abusing and ripping out the organs of a woman, comparing it to a fish…but why not a man? Is it because it’s more expected of society to see women being beaten and subjected in that way?
And whether the animals/fish are cute or not, they still deserve fair and ethical treatment when they are being killed.
maroon
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 11:19 am: [report]
@riley- i think you mean sea kittens. it’s only a one-letter-off comparison to sex kittens, in which case it may make more sense to those who trust in PETA
sam04
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 11:21 am: [report]
Hrmm.. to me “fair and ethical” means not killing them in the first place.
mlyway
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 11:24 am: [report]
Well if you are going to kill an animal for meat, one should use most parts of it, and should wait until the animal is no longer moving before pulling out the organs.
GreenAura
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 11:30 am: [report]
“Fish aren’t cute like baby seals or puppies.” Well, maybe your child isn’t as cute as so-and-so’s child, so I’m going to treat your child differently. Fair? Ethical? No.
GreenAura
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 11:32 am: [report]
I retract!!! I had to go back and re-read to understand your sarcasm. My bad. (PS Frisky… why can’t we delete our own comments to save from semi-embarrassing situations such as this???)
CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 11:35 am: [report]
@GreenAura: I’d be happy with an edit button.
PinkRanger
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 11:45 am: [report]
It never ceases to amaze me how common the whole “naked woman” theme is in PETA ads and ads for other animal rights groups. Exploitation of animals is detestable, but exploitation of women is just fine. I feel like the shock of this ad does the opposite of what they intended, instead of understanding their points, I’m just disturbed by the comparison.
avalari
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 11:45 am: [report]
Fish are friends. Not food.
sam04
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 11:48 am: [report]
@GreenAura: I can understand how my sarcasm might have been overlooked there. There are actually some people who comment on this site who make ridiculous statements along those lines… and mean them.
Riley
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 11:49 am: [report]
@Sam04 - Hop off the high-horse if you’ve ever had your house/apartment sprayed for insects. Sure, they aren’t cute and furry, but should they be gassed and poisoned because you are inconvenienced? Have you ever used produce that wasn’t pesticide free? You just contributed to insect genocide again. Herbicide? You condoned the murder of millions of weeds, and who is to say that a weed isn’t a flower?
My point and the one Ginger agreed to, was that it is an ill-comparison. I’m not pro-animal abuse, but saying that catching and gutting a fish is the same as a woman is childish in its absurdity. Sort of like my statements above.
GreenAura
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 11:56 am: [report]
@ Riley: What is a weed but a plant whose virtues have yet to be discovered? (sorry, but I saw the perfect op for my fave quote)
mlyway
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 11:57 am: [report]
This has nothing to do with killing insects. People do not eat them, and they get killed accidentally all the time on the sidewalk. But killing insects when they are inside a home, rather in the natural outdoors, is fair, but it is best to bring them outside, rather than killing them in the first place.
Riley
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 12:18 pm: [report]
@Mlyway - People don’t eat insects? You mean you don’t.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0715_040715_tvinsectfood.html
http://planetsave.com/blog/2008/06/03/eat-insects-help-the-environment/
Animals get killed accidently on roads and highways all the time, even the cute and furry ones. Does that somehow validate anything?
mlyway
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 12:23 pm: [report]
Well not many people choose to eat insects. Obviously there are cultures where some insects are delicacies. But there are billions and billions of insects. Unfortunately, there is no way that they cannot be killed. And of course there are other animals that are killed accidentally. I just think that animals that are going to be used for meat, clothing, etc should be treated with some respect when killed and when being ripped open.
_jsw_
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 03:00 pm: [report]
I agree that animals which are in any way sentient should be treated with at least enough respect when being butchered that they are not in pain, and that, as humans, we have ethical responsibilities beyond those of, say, every other predator on Earth, none of which pay any attention whatsoever to the agony of their prey.
However, I think it’s a bit much to compare the clubbing and live evisceration of a human to the gutting of a fish. It’s such a stretch that it makes the ad ridiculous. Had it been for seals (or even the octopus, which seems at least somewhat self-aware), it would have made more sense to me. I’m not sure the typical fish has any awareness whatsoever, so, for me, the ad fails to deliver its message.
sam04
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 08:32 pm: [report]
@Riley: I’m not on a high horse, thanks very much. I was merely mocking the suggestion that fish weren’t as worthy of support as, say, seals. I didn’t actually comment on the validity of using a woman in the ad.