Hello Beautiful!

It looks like you're new to The Community. If you'd like to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

sexy banned PETA superbowl ad



  • readingatworkreadingatwork Raw Newbie

    i personally found the PETA ad offensive and i completely agree with those of you that point out the obviuos exploitation of women over animals. Unfortunately, it is not obvious to everyone. i am all for embracing yourself and expressing yourself yada yada yada. But can't other women do that inside their own bedrooms? God! Can i not eat a meal with my parents, boyfriend or small children without some woman flashing her undies for money at any given hour, in every billboard and printed ad? Women do need to execute their own self respect, but more so i would like to see women respecting other women by thinking about TIME AND PLACE. Use some modesty. So you think your sexy. Great for you! Why does it have to be in everyone else's face? It's like when i hear people say, "saving the environment is not just a granola thing these days!". It's as if they are saying, saving the environment is FOR REAL because people in suits believe it now! Eating better and eating raw is important because it's not just being thinner or whatever, it's having a conscience, it's DO NO HARM, it's eating food that does not alter our karma/minds/planet in a negative way- and i would hope that includes women. PETA went backwards on holistic thinking with that one.

  • To the people who say that PETA is all about exploitation these days, there is apparent truth to your judgment. They attack individuals for cruel treatment towards animals. Yet not only have they irresponsibly killed animals, they have these ridiculous adds featuring Pamela Anderson and other female celebrities who do not give our gender a good name, posing in compromising positions. You have to admit there is something wrong with that, as most people on here are doing. You cannot stand for a value you believe in, while at the same time compromising the issues perhaps even more important for the sake of what is considered popular and appealing. Seems to me like this is exactly what PETA is doing, and in doing so they are only adding fuel to society's perpetual degregation of women. This is why I mentioned social constructs in the first place. As you can see, although the media doesn't single-handedly create them, it enables them to thrive and survive, which is just as bad. If enough people choose to ignore this garbage, they will just as easily die out. Unfortunately, this is what sells to the ignorant people who know nothing other than stereotypes and following the crowd.

  • Carnap, I understand your passion about this topic and I truly do agree with most of your ideas.

    Just a technicality I noticed about your post. In law school and other "argumentation" classes, they teach that personal emotion on the side of the debater weakens the argument as opposed to strengthening it. That is not to say that appealing to the sentiments of the public weakens ones argument, it does quite the opposite, and strong examples which appeal to people's emotions make for a great debate. This, however, is not what you are doing. You seem offended by Zemphira's post, because of which you feel the need to attack her in a personal way. It is defensive and seems rather immature. I do understand your frustration and why you are offended. There is a rational problem with how you point out your superior debating skills, yet contradict them in the same post. There really is no need for such aggression.

  • superfood2superfood2 Raw Newbie

    I am not going to see it. I can just imagine.....

    I don't think the sex acts description should be removed, either; I don't think it's offensive or vulgar. It's a fact-telling description.

  • MeditatingMeditating Raw Newbie

    Webster defines feminism as "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes." Feminists want equality despite gender. That's all. A feminist doesn't have to be a women, although it would make more sense that a woman would see the point of feminism since men typically are not targeted for discrimination based on their gender.

    There was a time when I didn't want to be called a feminist. I understood straight away that was an undesirable title. I imagined a feminist as some unattractive shrew with armpit hair long enough to braid. Why do so many women bristle at that term and see it as a pejorative label? This is a silent testament to how we women have come to see our greatest if not only value as being how sexually attractive we are to men. After all, if you desire equality then you can no longer be just a plaything. If you are more than a plaything, you are no longer desirable.

    SULTARIA - I think the difference between the two scenarios you brought up in your first post is that one involves the extreme oppression of women by disallowing them to participate in society and the other is sexploitation of women by limiting as sex objects.

    You are right about ad hominem (personal) attacks and sometimes that is easy to get caught up in, especially if you feel under personal attack. I admit to having slipped myself on occasion and have always regretted doing so. Unfortunately, personal attacks and rhetoric based solely on emotion are primary tools of argument these days. I had a trial advocacy professor who taught me that when arguing to a jury we should remember an emotional yet illogical argument will usually prevail over a logical argument because the majority of people can't see past their emotions nor can they analyze facts. It is so sad but true and when I have a solid factual defense involving an emotionally charged issue, I always consider a bench trial if I draw a fair judge. My professor also said that if you can't impeach a person's testimony you should assail their character because most jurors won't bother to think about the difference. I'm afraid that too seem to be the way it works.

    I would hope that two semester of logic would be mandatory in order to receive a high school diploma. If all high school students that graduated over the next 10 years learned to use logic and think analytically, ignoring faulty arguments and unruly emotions, it would RADICALLY alter this country.

    ZEMPHIRA - Thoughtful contemplation is not a character flaw. Objecting to sexual exploitation is not the same thing as being sexually repressed or rejecting one's femininity. Femininity and female sexuality are not predicated on an agreement to be exploited. Femininity involves so much more than sexuality. Equating those concepts is a perfect example of how sexual objectification limits and twists the way we women come to see themselves.

  • BluedolfinBluedolfin Raw Newbie


    RE: Your comment on "learning" logic before graduating from high school... heck, I would be thrilled if EVERY high school graduate could read at an adult level (ok... I would be happy if high school grads could read at a high school level)... forget the logic... Atleast they would have half a chance to learn logic (or anything else for that matter) if they can read what they hadn't learned in school. This factor alone might be a hugh contributing factor to the issue of discrimination. Imagine a nation of readers!!!! Wowsa!!!:)

  • MeditatingMeditating Raw Newbie

    BLUEDOLPHIN - That is so true, Our compulsory education in this country is like everything else - in shambles.

    I often represent juveniles charged in family court with criminal acts, Depending on the charge, it may be necessary to send a child to a facility where they are evaluated on many levels for 30 days. Of the 39+ minors I represented who were between 16 and 17 that have undergone evaluations, one came back able to read on a 4th grade level and the balance were split between a 2nd and 3rd grade level. It is hard to imagine that educators would promote these children. What is worse, these children are angry and so marginalized they already understand their employment opportunities are few. It isn't surprising that they see their primary option of support from criminal activity. They understand that society screwed them so they have no qualms about breaking into someone's house with a gun. Overall, there seems to be a correlation between a child's grades and the seriousness of criminal charges against them.

  • "Unfortunately, personal attacks and rhetoric based solely on emotion are primary tools of argument these days."

    I hate to go completely off topic but this is a little reminiscent of McCain's arguments in the recent election. It is too bad that illogical sentiments appeal to people, they just hear what they want to hear.

    Back on topic, my point is that both sexploitation and extreme opression serve the same purpose. Either way, both are limiting a woman to a sort of "thing" to be objectified and give men power over them. There is also an element of humiliation to this, and of course if one can humiliate another it is a demonstration of power.

  • BluedolfinBluedolfin Raw Newbie


    I would highly suspect that those that you are representing are extremely undernourished in addition to low reading levels... their bodies and minds are starved.... I'd bet they don't get blood work done when they are "evaluated"... it is no wonder why they feel like they do and do what they do... sad.... this is not to excuse them from what they do/did, just looking at causality...

  • MeditatingMeditating Raw Newbie

    SULTARIA - I agree with you completely and humiliation is a bullying tactic.

    I suspect that one of the reasons most people don't see the difference between logical and illogical arguments, and granted some are difficult to see, is that so much of the public discourse is based on this. You grow up hearing things "explained" this way and you just can't tell the difference. Of all the education I received, nothing served me better than taking classes in logic where I discovered what a total idiot I was. I had no idea how to think and wasn't even aware of it. You often hear law students and lawyers say they never learned how to think when they went to law school.

    As we were learning the fallacies of logic, I had an undergraduate professor who told us to watch TV for 2 hours that night and write down each commercial we saw and whether or not we could identify an appeal based on a logical fallacy. The next day we concluded that close to 95% were. Then we broke into groups to research the factual information presented in the commercials and discovered 100% of them included significant false facts.

    BLUEDOLPHIN - I am absolutely sure all those things are true. The children I have represented are exclusively from impoverished homes and probably receive foods stamps, which calculates the cost of food per day at $5. (Raw organic foods cost me between $15 - $20 daily.) In addition to that, many of them primarily eat school lunches and there is nothing healthy about that. No, they have a bloodwork or a physical evaluation. I too don't think any of these factors is an excuse for their criminal acts, but the correlation between poverty and failed education, poor physical and mental health, domestic abuse, interpersonal violence, crime, etc., is just undeniable.

    If we would could take 50% of what we spend on law enforcement and incarceration and properly target poverty, we would probably eliminate at least 75% of all the crime. It costs almost $70k per year to incarcerate someone in a federal prison and that doesn't include the cost of getting them there.

  • BluedolfinBluedolfin Raw Newbie


    Unfortunately, I think those costs don't include the loss of productivity of the incarcerated... they are just written off... :(

Sign In or Register to comment.