I do not have a problem with beatiful women, respectfully presented, being used in advertising. I do not have a problem with nudity.
What I have a problem with is advertising photos that, if the text was removed, could be classified as abuse porn.
It does not matter to me that these photos are staged.
I do not think these photos, which belong in the back of an adult book shop, should be on billboards and in magazines where they influence what young minds think is normal.
The piece you responded to (which was really about someone’s iPad being down) singled out PETA. But other advertisers use abuse porn as well. I will stick with PETA for the purpose of this discussion, because it is what Violet, Oh Violet and I were talking about that precipitated the “attention grabber” illustration for my piece.
PETA’s goal with their abuse porn is to shock.
I realize that PETA thinks they are raising awareness that animals are sentient beings by dressing women as animals undergoing cruel treatment. The women in those photos may think they are advancing a worthy cause.
However, if PETA cared as much about women as they do about animals, they would not be normalizing abusive behavior by depicting it.
The photo of the live tableau in my piece was a very mild example of their work.
Need some examples?
Here are examples of PETA Ads that don’t bother me. I think they are a clever, attention-grabbing way to spread their message. Even though they involve partial nudity, the subjects are not shown as objectified or abused. They are shown as powerful and making choices:
