Erin, thank you for your posts. I've been seeing them circulated in the animal rights community, and everyone is glad that you wrote them--and that you engaged in the protest and conversation with Ingrid Newkirk.

Well America is overweight.... No doubting that, no p*ssyfooting around that fact. I eat meat and will never stop, but people need to eat their veggies...

And realize that a proper diet isn't a coca cola and a big mac.

The human race is not designed to be meat eaters, plain and simple. Compare the anatomies of carnivores to herbivores. Please don't believe me, check the science out yourself. 

Yes if you go vegetarian and that means losing the dairy also-it is full of fat and indigestible protiens you will drastically lower your intake of highly saturated fat.

That is just the way it is. 

So the Peta ad is not far from the truth. 

I'm always wary of "People shoulds...." 

I became a vegan so I could lose weight, and I discovered other reasons to continue, as well as the successful weight loss.

Being vegan because you care about the animals, or the earth, or your health, is no less a "personal need" than wanting to lose weight.

Many people who become vegans still don't understand a healthy diet.  I think there are a whole raft of reasons to become vegan or head that direction - all of them valid and important.

I am an omnivore.

That said, if I go too long without meat, I just don't feel right.

To each their own.

And more than half the US is overweight and trying diets right left and center.  So get them to try veganism just to lose weight and we'd have lots more success as a movement than we have trying to get them to care about others.

Since when is hurting someone's feelings a good way to promote change? Shall I make fun of you for being so insensitive? I doubt it would help you.

And why should animal "rights" never trump human rights?

I'd ask the same as Judith. Animals have the same feelings as humans. They feel pleasure and pain the same as humans, and they feel love and fear the same as humans. The only difference is that animals can't express them in words like humans can.

What's wrong with the quality of mercy, to show it toward creatures that share our feelings, or do your "rights" trump that?

Lisa, I'm not going to argue with you on every point where we disagree because I've been having this argument in posts and comment threads for days, and I'm worn out. But because you mentioned the wool issue as an aside here, I would like to point you to one of many places where you can find out why breeding and using sheep for wool is a problem (even beyond the fact that once sheep stop being used for wool, they end up at the slaughterhouse):http://animalplacesanctuary.blogspot.com/2009/08/wool-is-not-as-natural-as-you-might.html 

Your welcome to your opinion miss sullivan but please dont assume that simply because I dont ally myself with peta, that Im not for humane treatment of animals...Especially since in most if not all cases, it would be illogical to treat them with cruelty.

Yes I do have my own opinions and clearly do not need permission to have them, but thanks. Please do not assume that I was referring to you, Thomas, because if I were I would have mentioned your name and/or replied specifically to your comment. Interesting that you felt the need to respond as if I were.

But after re-reading your original post, this one IS for you:

http://www.peta.org/factsheet/files/FactsheetDisplay.asp?ID=107

 http://www.peta.org/about/victories4.asp

 and for a more personal cause that hit close to home for me as I loved both of these clothing stores...both of which are still to this day fur free! :-) 

http://www.peta.org/mc/NewsItem.asp?id=5554

...but I guess those examples are also "looney tooney...In a bad way," right?

And while thinking of it, I disagree with your comment that animal rights should not trump human rights. (The billboard did not infringe anyone rights, no more than people demanding a removal did.) And if all animals were to have the same "affirmative action" that minorities and women are given and maybe even MORE rights than we humans have, even for just a period of time to get the real point across, then I doubt that Peta would feel the need for a billboard at all. 

There's the issue right there.  "...[it] means nothing to me" you say.

Just because it doesn't mean anything to you doesn't mean other people will not be affected by this. 

Just like you expect other people to see your point of view and respect animals, then you should be open enough to hear other people's concerns.

A social issue has something to do with society, not an individual person necessarily.  It's like saying: "since Barack Obama was able to become president, all minorities are OK now".

Juan, I think you're making some asumptions about Lisa Scudiero here. She is simply expressing and commenting that she likes it and that yes, the sex of the figure means nothing to HER. She did not state that no one will be affected by this. Further she didn't state that she was NOT open enough to hear others concerns, as clearly she did hear them (err read them) as she read then commented on the article.

Whose looking down now, Juan? Maybe you are the one who needs the patronizing lecture on listening to other's concerns.

Juan, I think you're making some asumptions about Lisa Scudiero here. She is simply expressing and commenting that she likes it and that yes, the sex of the figure means nothing to HER. She did not state that no one will be affected by this. Further she didn't state that she was NOT open enough to hear others concerns, as clearly she did hear them (err read them) as she read then commented on the article.

Whose looking down now, Juan? Maybe you are the one who needs the patronizing lecture on listening to other's concerns.

Lisa #2,

My response is like that because the first thing people do in blogs like these is explain how it is not a problem for them, so other people should stop whining or complaining.

Now, I will agree, I am making that assumption and it is wrong to assume Lisa Scudiero was thinking along those lines.  I should not just assume Lisa Scudiero was thinking too selfishly.  I stand corrected. 

I still feel it's important, though, to make sure people can see the whole picture, not just look at an issue from their own point of view.  I will try to approach people without assuming the worst, and be nicer about it.

However, I would recommend you also listen to others (and take your own advice) and try to control the angry teenager inside of you.  It wouldn't hurt you to stop acting so smug.

Oh I guess I now need your permission to be angry now, Juan? Or deal with the consequences of being called names? I'm clearly listening to others, I'm just not agreeing with the majority on this issue. So are you upset that I have the audacity to actually have an opinion and express it, get angry, disagree with you AND a vagina?  

Please stop pretending that you are representing and understanding all women and their rights as you definitely are not representing/understanding mine.

And sorry all for double posting the same comment, my pc bogged down!

Lisa, don't worry, sometimes I get my posts duplicated too :-\

No, you don't need my permission to get angry (or Thomas', or anyone else's).  And I'll be honest, I admire your passion for your cause. 

Your comments can be constructive.  For example, I can now see I don't have to assume the worst from people who are expressing a personal opinion.  But I could easily dismiss anything I can learn from you just from your tone.  That is what I meant when I said "control the angry teenager".  Not "don't get angry", but rather be careful how you get it out if you want me (or anyone here) to actually listen to you and take you more seriously (if I didn't take you seriously at all, I wouldn't be arguing with you).

Also, the only reason I was being patronizing is because you were being too.  I was trying to find a way to get through to you.

I am sorry if what I said makes you think I have something against you having a vagina.  I wouldn't ever say something to attack you as a woman.  That's kind of a cheap shot.

You can have your own opinion, but the way you're spreading it is by being patronizing yourself, and trying to fight people here.  If you expect others to not be patronizing and respect you, then you can start by being nicer yourself.

Also, I am not pretending I understand everything that is wrong with women's rights.  Not even you know everything that is afflicting women in the world.  Don't take away my opinions just because I'm a guy.  I know I'm doing something right, if not for you then for my mum, my sisters, my girlfriend, etc.

"Fight people?" I think you're assuming again. But I will try not to assume that its just going over your head.

For the record this is the lastime I will respond to you here as it is sooo far off topic, so if you like in the future feel free to contact me directly. I dont expect anyone to do anything, here in regards to myself. So if you (or others) do not respect me,  (which I feel you do not by your childish name calling, etc.) thats fine. Its not my problem but rather yours. I am here to express my thoughts, views, and at times challenge other's as they do my own and I will not stop or change my approach on here or otherwise and you have no right to advise me to do so. Got it? I didnt think so.

Fail.

Miss oliveira...While I will agree that animals (Not just whales) should feel insulted by being compared to us humans...Putting the whole of the blame for obesity on just over eating is nothing short of playing the "blame the victim" game in my opinion...Im sure theres more to causes of obesity than just overeating and/or lack of excercise.

And yes...It aint just some women that are obese...Some men are too.

It is offensive to women in particular because it IS the figure of a woman.

Moreover, a fat man gets farther in life than a fat woman.  Double standard?  YES!  A terrible one.

This ad helps reinforce the idea that if a woman is fat, then she is no longer a potential sexual object, and thus loses her value.  It's really messed up.  Women should be valued for more than their sexual potential.

RE: " If you struggle with your weight maybe STOP stuffing your face..."

If you are struggling with making constructive comments, maybe STOP sharing your opinion. 

Has it occurred to you that many people who are overweight have been so since childhood, and there is much more involved than just food? People are not overweight just because they are not vegetarians.

This billboard is relying on cheap, grade school humor. Come on, "blubber?"

The billboard is not constructive and it is offensive.

Jill, I wanted to comment here about your post. People ARE responsible for what they eat, and should realize that to be fit, they should exercise. However, people don't always know what is IN the food they are eating, and that is a greater cause for alarm. Several years ago, a group of scientists and nutritionists were trying to find the reasons why our population is getting heavier, inspite of the fact that we know so much more about nutrition and more people are actually engaged in sports and physical activities. What they have found is that there is new meaning to the term empty calories. Processed and 'fast foods' have very little nutritional value, and they are loaded with many chemicals and additives that do two distinct things: 1. they don't fill you up; therefore, you eat more. 2. they not only do not give you adequate nutrition, but they also INCREASE your appetite, so therefore, you eat more.

I do not know when this study was done, nor do I have the specifics, but I do remember reading the report. Perhaps this is something the food industry has hushed up through the years. I did my own personal 'research', and I came to understand that whole foods, unadulterated, gave me the energy and fullness I needed to get me through the day without overeating. As a result, I have been the exact same weight for 20 years. I am slightly overweight, but that is due to my disability.

I have believed for a long time, the the purer the food (the less that is added to it), the better for your body, and the healthier you'll be.

"However, people don't always know what is IN the food they are eating, and that is a greater cause for alarm"

Which is the greater cause for alarm, that there are unknown chemicals in our food, or that people don't know about these chemicals?  Personally the greater cause for alarm I feel is the ignorance.  Its systemic - and its not just about food.  

But - where its not ignorance, what is it?  You and I both know these facts you just told me, and I've known it about as long as I can remember.  You probably have too.  

I'm most worried about a worldview, definitely perpetuated and indeed created by the industries selling to us.  Maximum profit for minimum cost which translates to minimum value.  They make us feel bad psychologically and physically, make us dumb and helpless.  You know, like children, and like victims.  

So, you're right.  Its *not* your fault.  Its your *responsibility*.

I think its pretty important if you are going to cite studies that you back them up with something like a link or any evidence at all, really.

The population is getting heavier because of a system that takes artificially cheap energy and sells it to us in various forms.  Its kept cheap by subsidies and tax breaks.  Those pay for the wars to keep the access open.  The extra weight is, as you know, stored energy.  Where did that energy come from?  The sun, in the form of oil.  We take out the oil, convert it into fertilizer, spray it on the fields, the sun provides energy to grow them, then we burn oil for energy to harvest the crop and get it into our mitts.  We have far too much and so its accumulating around our midsections.

We are really eating the future.  

Oh I think that the message that they wanted to get across actually made it across....the minute an ad is considered and is debated on whether or not it should be banned/removed etc...makes it all that much more important, it is like those really stupid adverts that you may remember seeing in the past, why do you remember them? because they were just plain stupid or crap.

"We can understand the message because we are sensitive to the issue..."

Really? how sensitive do you really have to be to understand that the advert is about going veg and evolving to a healthier diet?  

Gotta love the onion!

If you read a little more clearly, you'll notice I didn't mention anything about exploitation. Jill, I think you projected this yourself. I think that's for another topic.

I'm referring to the overall media pressures of advertising, and the perceived messages, which are as just, if not more, insensitive to the reality that people come in all shapes and sizes, just like they taught me in kindergarden. Who's to judge then?

If I see an advertisement of a naked woman saying: "this is who I am, I accept myself, this is how I define my sexuality and I'm taking it back, I am in control of it now, it is ok for me to desire sex, I can feel pleasure and it's good... etc" then I'd applaud that ad.

But PETA ads just convey the idea that sex sells.  If you sell your body, if you use your sexuality, you can get what you want.

Very different approaches, with very diffferent outcomes.

Sorry Jill, that I personally projected your projection, but previously change.org purportedly projected that your prior post was projecting a reply to my prior projected post??? And now I've run out of the letter p...and yes cmd+F is really super. 

"Your ad"

And let's remember people are vegans for many varied reasons. Not all are for ethical concerns.

I agree with peaches.

Many activist groups think that they live and operate in a vacuum.

We all affect each other and should help each other out.

I meant "your ad??"

So Juan, basically your saying Peta should what, check with all other activists before to be sure they arent about to ruffle any feathers before doing a campaign? HA! There are more important things than having one's feelings hurt.

Lisa,

It must feel really nice to be up there above all of us mortals who consume the flesh of other beings.  I guess those are your reasons for being vegan?

By the way, I didn't mean that PETA should check with everyone to not "hurt feelings".  Many of us have not had our feelings hurt, but we do realize that there is someting inherently wrong with hypersexualizing or opressing women for PETA's agenda.  A big way to control women is to take away their agency and their sexuality.  Having naked women on many ads reinforces the idea on many people's heads that women are just objects.  This ad reinforces the idea that a woman's worth is taken away when they become fat.  Women should control their own sexuality, not PETA nor anyone else.

What I mean, as well, is that PETA should have the common sense and common decency to try not to step on the toes of other activists.

Moreover, it's about the 3rd time I explain this, but this issue is JUST AS IMPORTANT as any other issue.  Let me give you an analogy: think of this issue of "getting feelings hurt" as 1 iron bar.  When you look at one iron bar, you can see it's not too harmful.  You can hold it, you're bigger than it, you may be able to go around it.  But then, you will notice another issue.  So, another iron bar.  Soon, you'll notice another "little" issue, and another, and another, and before you know it, you notice a CAGE.  That cage is the opression coming from different sources, shaped over time by our society.

So 1 little problem, 1 little bar, is a small part of an entire cage.

We don't live in a vacuum.  We all affect each other.  You can't have such an individual agenda.  E.g. I really like greenpeace, but they have done terrible things in the past, like trying to illegally sterilize immigrants to keep them from producing too many babies.  WTF?!  I mean, we should all work together, not against each other.

ThoughtS?

Thoughts:

"It must feel really nice to be up there above all of us mortals who consume the flesh of other beings.  I guess those are your reasons for being vegan?" Again, Juan, I previously stated, "... let's remember people are vegans for many varied reasons. Not all are for ethical concerns." And my comment was a response to peaches " veganism is an ethical agenda..." I meant that people have the right to choose to be vegetarian or vegan or otherwise and they also have the right to choose WHY they do it and it does not always have to do with animals. Again, I did not state that I am vegan, or why I am vegan.

"Women should control their own sexuality, not PETA nor anyone else." No one, Juan, controls my sexuality, not now, not ever and definitely PETA.

"Having naked women on many ads reinforces the idea on many people's heads that women are just objects." To me, the bigger issue is WHY women are treated like objects. I personally think I should be able to pose nude if I so chose to express myself in that nature and NOT have to deal with being treated like I'm only capable of being a sex object. Do you also feel like if we take away all the Barbie Dolls and Easy Bake Ovens, that women will no longer be servants, cooks, sex objects etc to men? Wrong, it starts at home when we grow up watching mommy cooking, cleaning, serving, changing diapers while the men watch tv and take out the trash. I think if the media did clean up their act we would still be left with the more close-to-home gender roles.  

 "PETA should have the common sense and common decency to try not to step on the toes of other activists." How is that different from what I asked you? "Peta should what, check with all other activists before to be sure they aren't about to ruffle any feathers (or as you put it, step on any toes) before doing a campaign?" And if I have to hear the vacuum/bubble analogy once more I may lose my vegan breakfast. (;-) Relax, its just a joke, Juan.) My point is that Peta had a goal in mind...attract people to a vegetarian diet by means of appealing to American's ever growing waist lines, with the hidden agenda of saving animals lives. And if some were offended, well, that's part of being human and you cant please everyone. They are for the ethical treatment of animals, therefore they don't spend their efforts worrying if people will be offended because the animals are offended by the millions!

Please, please dont patronize me further my giving me child like anology of how women are being repressed...as I AM A WOMAN!

Lol, I guess I did stick my foot in my mouth with that first comment... sorry for assuming you were vegan and felt elevated from it.

OK the next points are nice things I'll say for you, so don't pervert my words:

I actually just remembered that in a previous blog topic about American Apparel, I sided with the younger feminists who are reconstructing the idea of women's sexuality.  They are using hypersexualization in order to regain control of their sexuality.  So I'll agree with you, if you want to pose naked, you have all the right to do so, and try to gain back control of your body and your image.

I will also agree that a lot of education at home is needed to make sure girls learn about their self worth as humans, not sex objects.  However, there are many forces at work outside of the home, reshaping the way girls think from very early on.  I don't think Barbie should be banned, but they should try to make a wider variety of Barbie dolls that represent women better.  Girls should be able to play with cooking toys, but boys should be exposed to the same cooking toys.  At the same time, girls should play with ninja turtles and Legos (are those past this time?) just as much as boys.

Back "ugh" things:

Yes, you are a woman... I was trying to explain the issue from a different angle, but it appears you're not ready to listen to anyone who doesn't have a vagina.  If I hear how you think that being a woman makes your points more legitimate than mine, I may lose my carnivorous breakfast, lol ^_^

I can has opinionz?

So here you are telling me that I need to be nice while you further insult me, Juan.  "but it appears you're not ready to listen to anyone who doesn't have a vagina." Did you see my friends here on change? How about research that via my other comments on other articles? No you just assumed. Must I remind you what you make of you AND I when you assume?  

Anyway, while there are many factors that influence children, the first is that of their same sex parent.

Psychology tells us that young girls see their dolls as an extension of themselves, therefore I don't think making them a to-scale-version of a size 14 (the average size woman here in the US) would be a positive change.

That vagina comment was in response to you assuming I feel threatened by women making their voices be heard, or me trying to shush your voice as a woman.

But never mind.  Forget I ever said anything here.  It's easy.

Oh come on, don't back peddle now, Juan. I don't have to assume, you made it quite clear that you feel that you have some god-given right to tell me how to act/be. (A penis? I dunno. You tell me.) This comment board is here to further ideas, express opinions (of the topic, not necessarily the members) point out views, question angles, oppose thoughts, agree with thoughts not to boss one another around.

"...there is someting inherently wrong with hypersexualizing or oppressing women for PETA's agenda."

I think the only hypersexualising going on is in the minds of some men who are unable to appreciate that a woman is a total human being comprised of mind, body, emotions, intellect. Why blame the woman for that, or the men who ARE able to view a sexual image without thinking that's all there is? There is nothing 'inherently wrong' with a naked image of a woman or a man, period. Don't twist a basic truth.

Also Juan, your criticism of PETA for being 'insensitive' to the oppression of large people is highly offensive to me, when you yourself are apparently an animal eater? If you are to lecture on inter-related oppressions, some consistency please!

Chris,

If you take a closer look at my words, I never said that there is something inherently wrong with naked women (or men). Even in previous posts I have defended the idea of younger women taking back their sexuality and redefining it for themselves.

However, PETA is NOT empowering women in any way with their campaigns.  What I said before is that there is something wrong with hypersexualizing women for an agenda that has nothing to do with them, and then puts them at risk of being seen as objects in the minds of men (and women) that are bound intensely by traditional gender roles, the dichotomy of the "whore" and the "pure" girl, etc.

OK, so you don't look at women like that, but other men do.  There are men out there that are sexist managers, abusive husbands, disrespectful boyfriends, etc. whose behaviour and "superior status" is encouraged when they see PETA using women's sexuality to sell an idea.  Then you get little girls learning that by using their sexuality they can get attention and sell anything, be it ideas or products.  This is messed up and the world is not ready to see an ad of a naked woman in the ideal way that you see it.

I also want to add that I do not see women like objects, which is what you were trying to get at (cheap shot).

On a different point, by saying I'm an animal eater I'm showing you how it feels when someone voices out an opinion that goes against your cause.  You easily take offense in that, but how is it that you can't see that many PETA campaigns offend people in our movement?  Just like you ask people to be sensitive towards your beliefs, you should expect of yourself to be open to undersanding why people are outraged at ads like these.

NO we are not making it up.  NO we are not whinning.  YES there is something wrong with this.  If you can't see it, it doesn't mean there's nothing wrong.  YOU stop twisting truths, and open your eyes, because you don't live in a vacuum.

And Carol E what does your lack of anything productive towards this discussion except for attempting to provoke an immature name calling contest say about what you are?

Regardless, we're glad you are here on change.org. Maybe you and your friend Juan can help make the world a better place by educating yourself a bit starting here.  

Juan,

Your opinion on this issue is little different to the view that women who get raped are partly to blame if they wear revealing clothing. You are preoccupied with what women should or shouldn't be doing with their bodies instead of focusing on the men whose attitudes are at fault. Even if sex-based advertising does have a reinforcing effect or helps to form men's negative attitudes towards women, that does not justify putting limitations on expression. 

I believe the root causes of gender prejudice are cultural/historical and present-day economic, i.e., as with ethnic prejudice, daily pressure to make ends meet often has people lashing out at those around them who are different. Your support for some forms of advertising suggests you have no interest in uprooting the established economic order that aggravates racial and sexual prejudice? I agree with your view that children should be given toys that are neutral or contradictory to tradition. You should focus your energies on these aspects and leave the decision about how a woman should use her body up to her. 

When you say you support some kinds of advertising involving women's bodies, it has me wondering whether all women should at first have to consult the wisdom of Mr Juan Portillo before making their own decision about when it is appropriate for them to take their clothes off? You say the criteria for an acceptable ad is "this is who I am, I accept myself, this is how I define my sexuality and I'm taking it back, I am in control of it now, it is ok for me to desire sex, I can feel pleasure and it's good". Who the hell are you to say that a woman who decides she wants to lend her physical image to a cause she values highly isn't making her own rational and conscious decision to be involved in that? Even if I was not an animal rights supporter, I could think of no more noble cause that anyone could lend themselves to than helping the abused and defenceless. I am also sick of hearing the waffle that the PETA ads are about sex, not animal rights. PETA ads that use sex images function in the same way as posting slaughter videos tagged with sex words - it gets noticed more.   

Also, condemning a woman on a PETA ad for supposedly damaging the wider interests of her gender is further arrogance - to many men and women, animal rights is a more urgent and important cause than any human rights issue, so stop trying to dictate what other people's priorities should be, on top of trying to take control of their own right to decide how to use what they've got in order to advance a cause they're passionate about.  

I did indeed say I was offended by your admission that you are eating animals while at the same time lecturing on oppressions. But I never thought you should be sensitive to my animal rights beliefs at all. My offence was for this reason...  To express it simply, I am an animal rights supporter, while you are a women's rights supporter (I am too actually, but we differ obviously). But by eating animals you are directly contributing to their abuse and slaughter. I, on the other hand, do not pay others to torture and slice up women and then eat them for breakfast. My support for supposedly sexist PETA ads, even in the way you see it, is surely minor compared to your transgression. Try to give it up, you'll probably live a couple of years longer, more time for you to devote to women's rights.

Chris,

You completely missed my points and are using the examples I give to label me one way or another, when my views fall into many places in between.

PETA only uses sex to sell without any regard to what that can cause in the grand scheme of things.  PETA reinscribes many traditional gender roles, including the "opressor" vs. the "oppressed", the "subject" vs. the "object". You should look into that when you take a break.

I was using an example of an ad where I exaggerated the language to try to get across a point where women can define themselves, not PETA defining what women are and what they're useful for or not.  This doesn't mean that I hold the ultimate answer to women's rights issues, and I never claim to have all the answers.

I have also never blamed or passed judgement on any women in these ads, I just blamed PETA as a mastermind for creating them.  A woman can choose to do whatever she wants.  Again, I was simply stating the difference between women reappropriating their sexuality and redefining it for themselves, not have someone else define it for them.  I say this because there are people out there who think PETA is liberating women's sexuality, when they are clearly NOT.  I am simply responding to this false clain.  The women in these ads are simply acting within the system they know, so I will never blame them.

I love wildlife, I have done things to preserve it in the past, and I hope to do more in the future.  However, I also keep in mind human issues (which, when solved, may also help solve animal rights issues).

Now, you lumping me with the people who blame women when they are raped is simply in poor taste.  PETA people don't know how to argue over anything without insulting first.

Finally, yes, I may contribute to the torture of animals when I eat whatever I eat, but PETA's sexist ads create an invisible form of torture and opression that I think is equally important.  You wouldn't give a crap of course, because you are at the top of the social food chain, and act self-righteous too.

Juan,

I'm not really at the top of any food chain, I don't think. Most advantages gained from having the outward appearance of a white male quickly evaporate when, for example, your manager and some workmates get wind of your various political persuasions and sympathies.

I have a new analogy for you. Like you I don't claim to have all the answers, and I'm not oblivious to the fact the social environment, advertising etc can have an effect on the way people behave towards each other. But what about paedophilia and images of children in advertising? I'm no expert, but if paedophiles can be stimulated by what most would regard as ordinary non-sexualised images of children, does that mean children shouldn't be depicted in campaigns/advertising either, because it may reinforce their perception of children as objects for their enjoyment?

I appreciate you earlier believing when I said I can view/enjoy female physical aesthetics without thinking women are 'only good for one thing' and other truly sexist attitudes. I remember the start of a high school maths class where our male teacher entered the room and threw a provocative question to us, "How many of you boys support women's liberation and equality for women?" I was the only one who put my hand up (it was a single sex school). I mention this because it makes me wonder why many young teenage guys already seem cynical of equality for women at that age, perhaps it's brainwashing from their fathers coupled with awkwardness of relating to the opposite sex in early years. Also I remember reading some feminist material in my early teens which, while I agreed with a lot of it, was telling me that porn and girly magazines were wrong because they portrayed women as sex objects. As a fourteen year old boy, this presented a real problem, and I remember trying to work out what was right. At an early age I was committed to unequivocal support for sexual equality. But looking at a picture of someone's naked body wrong? How could this be?

You might wonder how someone can support equality for women but at the same time support the state of affairs where many women, often through economic pressure, are virtually forced to sell their bodies as commodities, and then endure the abuse such ‘choices' sometimes entail. Well I don't, I just think it's part of a much bigger problem. To me exploitation of women in sex or advertising industries is the same as what the poor and other workers are forced to do every day for other industries - sell themselves to make a living. In an environment where everything is a commodity, what's so special about sex that it should be exempt? I don't know how sexual prejudice begins in men's minds, but I still think keeping women's sexuality hidden because men can't handle it or may react irresponsibly to it, even if it is mostly mis-used by big business interests, is perhaps going down the same path as Middle East attitudes to women? I think men's attitudes need to be worked on regardless of how 'hypersexualised' or otherwise women may be depicted in the media. Saying to women 'you should not be seen doing too much of this, or too much of that' I think is not an acceptable approach. Going back to PETA, all I see in some of their promotions such as, for example, a few sparsely attired women and sometimes men having fun promoting veg food, or naked woman posing with rabbit and piece of fruit is people having fun trying to get attention for the noblest of causes. Why should PETA alter or censor those healthy images just because lots of men are prone to misinterpret their meaning with regard to women? 

Being such an obviously progressive and thoughtful person, Juan, I think you should seriously attempt making changes to your diet along more compassionate lines with regard to animals. It doesn't have to be a clean break - do it gradually if you prefer. You stated that you love wildlife and good on you for the things you have done to help in this area. Farm animals suffer horrendous abuse - their lives and desire to roam a bit is just as important to them as the animals we normally think of as wildlife, except they can't because they are tortured and imprisoned in small spaces by the millions. You say that when human issues are solved, animal rights issues may follow. The beauty of it is that you don't have to sacrifice any of the time you spend on human issues such as equality for women to help animals - the most fundamental thing you can do is to make a commitment to yourself that you're going to eat them progressively less or preferably never again. I live in a small country where unfortunately dairy and meat industries are very strong, and meat substitutes are sometimes not easy to find. But today I discovered an amazing Asian food store with every substitute imaginable - a veg eater's fantasyland! Surely in the United States, substitutes must be far more common? Begin by switching to soy and rice milk - enjoy the great taste while feeling the weight lifted from your conscience. See how you go. And you will be setting a wonderful example to others.  "Nobody made a greater mistake than s/he who did nothing because s/he could only do a little" - Edmund Burke

You make many good points.  As I said before, I don't blame the women in the ads, or women models, or women in porn.  I try to look at the bigger picture, and in this case I can take up a case against PETA, not the women in any of their ads.  But you're right, some women are taking back the power over their sexuality in a world where others see it as a commodity... these issues get intertwined and hard to pinpoint.

Now, you make a lot of sense now, and I'll give it a try to eat less meat.  It shouldn't be hard here in Austin.

Juan, I thought I had requested you give me a link to some info about "object vs subject" and "oppressor vs oppressed" which you referred to before, but it must have got lost as I was cutting and pasting my reply. Perhaps you could send me a link, as I am interested. I don't know what I'm on about really but this has been a good exchange and got me thinking about some stuff. Cheers.

"it is a reality that needs to be addressed with intelligence and with a commitment to treating others with respect"

well said, peaches!!! I vote for you! I worked with overweight children for years. I can just imagine the kids looking up at this ad and trying to make sense of it, while their friends are laughing. It's a thoughtless billboard.

"Being thin is about being healthy."

Hilarious!!! I don't even know what to say to that. Perhaps you should tell that to people with eating disorders.

Um.. was that for me?

"I believe most people will reduce meat intake to a certain level and find they cannot go any lower.  I try to maintain about eight ounces a month, or about six pounds a year."

Daniel, you should try and go lower. If you travelled around your neighbourhood rounding up domestic cats and slaughtering them in your backyard - if you slaughtered 50 a month, would you be doing great things if you cut back to 20? Eating meat is no different to this, it is just different animals who still suffer the same and have a desire to be alive, interact with their families and enjoy the world around them, just like you.

And while I commend you for eating less meat, the comment above still kinda cracks me up. The way you speak of meat, it is almost akin to it being something sexual in it's desirability. Gosh, we must have it!!   "Recognise meat for what is - the antibiotic- and pesticide-laden corpse of a tortured animal" - Ingrid Newkirk

>The ad doesn't seem to be advocating that people should lose weight for the sake of personal image (which is a stupid reason to do so, and offensive because being overweight does not make anyone less beautiful), nor does it say that being is skinny is a good thing (which it isn't).

ORLY?  Disagree on all counts.

Said obese person might be a beautiful person, and is valued, but beautiful person and beautiful body, they are different things.  And implying that a beautiful body has no value is pathetic.

And to say obese person is healthy, that's just ridiculous.  And yes I'm sorry to say, being skinny is more healthy.  As in, you live longer.  Period.  Look up caloric restriction (CR) - its the only way we've found so far that has been proven to increase lifespan and reduce incidence of cancer, heart disease, etc.  Its just a fact.  I know facts don't make people feel all good inside about their obesity, but that's just too bad.  Science knows obesity = death, and actually most of the public seems to know it too.  So don't delude yourself.

Facts are stubborn things.

Jill, I don't believe I said or implied that being obese is healthy. Of course it's not.  

My point is that being too skinny (ie. malnourished) has its own health risks (including infertility). I have a family member who once spent several months in hospital with anorexia. She was at least as close to death as anyone battling chronic obesity. I have also spent a fair bit of time living in eastern Africa - anyone who thinks that starvation is a joke truly is delusional. 

Let's encourage and enable people to maintain a healthy weight - but not to deliberately starve themselves because of a warped perception that a ribcage you can see is something beautiful. You're right Jill, beautiful bodies do have value - and they come in all shapes and sizes. Beauty is subjective - let's just make sure that we're not associating beauty with deprivation. 

Campbell,

"The sad truth is that a majority of Americans (and an even bigger majority of Australians) are either 'overweight' or 'obese'. There is nothing wrong with encouraging people to try and lose the blubber - it is a positive message for their own health and quality of life."

Of course people are overweight. Do you think thin people are the only ones who realize this? Telling a person that they are fat and need to lose weight is counterproductive.

"Let's encourage and enable people to maintain a healthy weight."

Indeed. Does this billboard do the job?

nice photo, by the way!

Good point JC, 

"Does this billboard do the job?"

I have no idea... it's one thing to recognise there is a problem, much more difficult to find a solution to it. I confess I don't have one.  

By the way, the photo you see is taken just outside of Melbourne, southern Australia - the forests further south in Tasmania are even more beautiful...  

I don't agree with vegetarian diets since they include milk and eggs. You can still get quite fat with a vegetarian diet; the farm factory practices are quite hideous if you think you are being kind to animals eating milk and eggs. They are kept in horrific conditions like living sardienes (literally) knee deep in feces and urine and their lungs burn from the fumes kept alive with daily doses of antibiotics, used also as a growth stimulant. A chicken lives its entire life in a small cage no larger than the size of paper. If this is Hara Kirsha's idea of humane treatment of animals-well, it's not.

If you want to see how Land O Lakes treats their cows for the production of milk, then look at this website, then talk to me again about being kind to animals. This is much much worse than getting slaughtered--being kept alive in these horrible conditions:

If you TRULY want to see how animals are treated for eggs and milk, go here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CMauoZCsrw

Turk,

Although your eating less meat than many is commendable, I take issue with your comment that it is 'not a bad thing'. Everyone who eats some meat or dairy is taking part in cruelty. It may presently be a 'lifestyle choice' as you say, but other forms of cruelty such as beating a dog or torturing a domestic cat are not acceptable lifestyle choices, they are illegal. Eating the flesh of animals involves the same kind of cruelty, as well as denying their desire to live like you.

I still commend you on eating less than other meat-eaters but would like to encourage you to have a go at progressing further. Have you tried the numerous meat substitutes available? In many cases they taste better than what they are replacing, vegan sausages being an obvious example. Start using soy milk NOW! Then start buying non-leather products - it's easy. Also watch what happens to the animals that are killed/exploited and visit a factory farm if you can. For me the taste changed when I discovered and properly thought about what I was really eating.

I can still remember a pivotal moment in my decision to stop eating meat. Walking through 'frozen food' section of the supermarket, having the week before bought chicken meat, I saw all the chickens lined up in packets and thought 'NO! - What am I doing?! Surely I am a better person than all this, I don't HAVE to take part in this just because I was brought up used to the taste of other creature's flesh. As I get older I want to look back on my life and be able to say I made an effort and drew the line at this kind of debauched bahaviour.' Admittedly, largely through ignorance, I did not stop eating eggs and dairy at the same time - that came later, as I found out the real story.

Again, I applaud you Turk for eating less meat than the majority but try to progress further - you certainly won't die as a result!

"Common Sense" usually involves going along with a patriarchal system where women are prone to be objectified.

By calling us "sissies", you are trying to feminize our comments and implying they are less than manly, therefore inferior.

These are reasons enough to challenge the status quo and question ads like these.

"Sissy" has nothing to do with femininity, because there are plenty of women out there who aren't sissies.

But Frank is right. Choose one or the other. It's not that hard. Taking the action might be a challenge, but nothing worthwhile is easy.

Whining about it is only skirting the issue.

I agree with you taking issue with the word sissy Juan, but I also agree with Mike - sissy, despite it's source as a word, has nothing to do with being female. For me the fact that many more women than men are veg eaters (and therefore heroic, courageous and taking a stand to fight for the abused) means men must be the wimps, not women. Also, that is not intended as a putdown to you Juan.

hm.. I actually see your point there Chris.

Why offensive? Though I agree they should have put a big fat man on there exposing his huge man boobs, but I guess the men would be screaming about men's rights. One out of four Americans are OBESE and many experts believe in the year 2015, in the United States 75% will be obese. That is if we survive that long. Keep in mind world population is about to be a whopping 7 billion and our resources on earth are limited.

L Swa, check out a great DVD called 'Eating' (at RaveDiet.com), great to give to friends who are nearly there because of ethics but perhaps need that extra push. Cheers.

I agree.

I will humour you...

There are many truths.  There is not 1 absolute truth.  When trying to achieve one single truth, you leave many people out of it and they may suffer for it.  We shouls strive to understand the intersectionalities of our truths.  Otherwise, our words fall on deaf ears.

Actually the amazing thing about tofu is if you make it just like scrambled eggs-it TASTES like scrambled eggs. I'm not joking either. BUT be aware tofu is LOADED with protein. I tell people that because it is easy to take in TOO MUCH protein. Tofu is superior to protein than meat, and it is identical in amino acids (full amino acid protein).  A meatless hot dog has a whopping 7 grams of protein (no fat, no cholesterol) but an all beef hot dog has only 5 grams of protein loaded-and I emphasize LOADED with fat and cholesterol.