This is an advertisement for the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. In this ad is a picture of an attractive woman (Pamela Anderson) wearing only a small bikini. On her body are words labeling the parts of her body. What PETA is doing is comparing a human being to an animal in the hopes that it will make people have more sympathy for animal such as cattle and pigs that we routinely slaughter as an important food source. The controversy over this advertisement is that it is presenting the idea that cattle, pigs, chickens, etc. are equal to humans. These animals have been a part of humans diets for centuries. We are at the top of the food chain for a reason. I believe there is a better way to get your point across than to suggest that humans are equal to a pig or a cow
Although I think the idea behind the ad is good, I don't think it would influence people to not eat meat or kill animals for food. Also, I don't think using an attractive woman to try to get people to not eat meat would really work for anyone. I think people would just look at her body and not at the meaning behind the ad.
ReplyDeleteI think what PETA is trying to do is great. I agree that we aren't on the same level as a pig or cow but it is true that our bodies contain the same parts as theirs and they do have feelings. When I first saw that ad I was drawn to the purple in the ad, not the words. I noticed those next. Also, choosing a celebrity to endorse your product or message is a great way to bring attention to it, and Pamela Anderson is well known. She has a large fan base and is very attractive. I think by choosing her, their ad will be seen, but i don't the message behind it will be. Next, men have always been seen as the hunters, so the message will probably have little effect on them. Pamela Anderson is what they will notice and focus on. The message would appeal more to women who are gentler beings, however they don't care to see her in a bikini. Overall I agree that the message is good, but the ad was not.
ReplyDelete