Ethics Dunce and All-Time Most Unethical Group With “Ethics” In Its Name: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

I'm SO glad my boyfriend joined PETA!

The People For The Ethical Treatment Of Animals seems to be unable to grasp the simple concept that if you show yourself to be completely insensitive to matters of right and wrong involving human beings, nobody in their right mind is going care what you think constitutes the ethical treatment of animals. The latest in a long trail of proof: before the disturbing controversy over the pro-Chris Brown tweets had cooled and in the wake of the death Whitney Houston, a former of domestic abuse victim. PETA thought it was the perfect time to release a new ad celebrating the desirability of being able to harm women in the bedroom.

The 30 second spot shows a young woman without pants and wearing a neck brace as she painfully walks to her apartment. “This is Jessica,” narrator says. “She suffers from ‘BWVAKTBOOM,’ ‘Boyfriend Went Vegan and Knocked the Bottom Out of Me,’ a painful condition that occurs when boyfriends go vegan and can suddenly bring it like a tantric porn star.” Jessica reaches the apartment and smilingly get ready for another round of presumably rough sex.

There are many terms that accurately describe men who are so uninterested in the women they have intimate relations with that they cause them pain and take pride in it. Rapists. Abusers. Max Cady. Sadists. Misogynists. Ass-holes.

“Vegans” is not one of them.

“PETA members,” perhaps.

 

20 thoughts on “Ethics Dunce and All-Time Most Unethical Group With “Ethics” In Its Name: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

  1. I’m more entertained in how they responded to the complaints that they were making light of abuse: “People who watch the ad all the way through see the woman has a mischievous smile. She’s happy to go back with him. It’s playful.”

    So, now they’re saying that it’s okay to abuse women, so long as you abuse them into battered women syndrome, or maybe (as I said on the prior domestic abuse thread) if a woman comes back then it wasn’t abuse.

    Good job PETA! If a woman complains, it just means you’re not being rough enough. That’s what they really want.

    • These people really are completely clueless, from using Michele Obama’s photo in an ad without permission, to trying to get poor Octomom to humiliate herself with a billboard on her lawn comparing herself to an unspayed dog. At what point does the association of such jerks with their core cause start hurting the cause?

      • “At what point does the association of such jerks with their core cause start hurting the cause?”

        I’d say about 20 years ago. I used to be a member of PETA, back in the days when they were more concerned with cosmetic companies’ torturing of animals to develop just the right eye makeup, or with the cruelty associated with raising and butchering certain kinds of meat animals in certain ways. I left when their legitimate opposition to fur-as-fashion started taking on silly, illegal and unethical forms. I was gone for good when you suddenly had to be a vegan to be “really” opposed to animal cruelty. And they’ve become even stranger of late.

        I have a PhD in theatre (I feel pretty confident in my ability to understand a performance text) and an expansive, often vulgar, sense of humor. I see nothing cute or humorous in the ad, and it sure as hell doesn’t say what its proponents say it does. It is crude, misogynistic, and insular, not to mention arrogant. More importantly at one level, the bleeding-hearts who might still support their cause aren’t likely to be supportive of abuse of women.

        All that we can hope is that those who support the general concepts once identified with PETA—that undue pain should not be inflicted on animals when there is a reasonable alternative—find another outlet for their sympathies and largesse rather than simply abandoning their ideals. PETA now serves only to discredit the animal rights movement and to increase the cynicism of the populace.

  2. “The People For The Ethical Treatment Of Animals seems to be unable to grasp the simple concept that if you show yourself to be completely insensitive to matters of right and wrong involving human beings, nobody in their right mind is going care what you think constitutes the ethical treatment of animals.”

    Completely agree. I dislike PETA as an organization and an identity, so that dissuades me from paying attention to or supporting their cause. Don’t they realize that they are pushing potential supporters/donators of animal rights away?

  3. I have absolutely no doubt that the people at PETA are bonkers, but maybe you have read something in this advertisement that isn’t actually there. Yes the woman is in a brace and she is in pain, but she is walking back and she smiles and winks at the prospect of the next BWVAKTBOOM session. It doesn’t come across that the ‘poor woman’ thinks that this wimp is a rapists, abusers, max cady, sadists, misogynist or an ass-hole. It’s a crap advertisement, but not quite what you want me to think either. Maybe watch the thing again. Just looks like a cheap male body spray commercial to me.

    • The perfect male fantasy: a women who loves being hurt. Hey, you’re right—its fine to beat up women as long as they keep coming back for more…or so the sickos at PETA would have us believe.

      • This may indeed be your ‘perfect’ fantasy Jack, but not ‘the’ perfect male (or otherwise) fantasy. It most certainly is not mine. Psycho-sexuality is too wide a field of analytical research to be smote so with the pen of the reductionist. Sexual ‘fantasy’ is perfectly healthy and a normal human behaviour (3rd ed., rev.; DSM-V-R; American Psychiatric Association, 2009). Many women share this fantasy. What one must look for is an underlying pathology which drives a sadistic pleasure or desire. What is going on here is something which is clearly in the land of fiction and humour. There is no sign of ‘violence’ from the puny male specimen (and this is the point), nor is there any sign of sadistic pleasure in the event of coitus or the implied accidental harm it has caused. The point of the commercial (which you may have overlooked in your literalism) is that vegans are sexually more powerful and satisfying (hence the smile and wink from the woman). It is actually this assertion which is silly and biologically unfounded.

        • What are you talking about? What does ‘Boyfriend Went Vegan and Knocked the Bottom Out of Me,’ a painful condition that occurs when boyfriends go vegan and can suddenly bring it like a tantric porn star.” mean to you? There’s no ambiguity at all: the woman is in pain, bruised and limping because of violent sex. Real men, caring men, don’t leave their partners battered and feel good about it. You’re trying to rationalize the inexcusable. If you showed a wounded cat to these people, they’d get hysterical, but they promote veganism on the theory that being able to cripple your girlfriend during sex is cool. There’s no other interpretation, that’s what the ad says. And PETA’s answer is “but she likes it!”

          Just like Rihanna.

        • Jack for fear of hurting your feelings, I think that you are maybe a little neurotic about this. What does, “Boyfriend Went Vegan and Knocked the Bottom Out of Me, a painful condition that occurs when boyfriends go vegan and can suddenly bring it like a tantric porn star” mean to me? Well we all know about hermeneutics and the fact that words have a surplus of meaning. We live in a world where words have layers of meaning; some people may really enjoy having their ‘bottom knocked’ as to them it means consensual and ‘normal’ sexual intercourse. To others this might mean a slap over the backside or assault. I suspect that you are trying over hard to convince yourself of something. This is up to you.

          I am not attempting to ‘to rationalize the inexcusable,’ the intended and sadistic violence of one person against another is a crime. With this we all agree. The innuendo that something will improve your sexual prowess so much that it can be rhetorically spoken of as ‘busting’ ones’ loving sexual partner does not a crime make. Again, the ‘injured party’ in this clip seemed by her obviously comic behaviour (lets be clear before you twist it again: her smile and wink at the end) wanted this obviously comic sex with obvious hyperbolic vigour and she was not real! She really was an actress. The commercial was not about assaulting people to get sexual satisfaction – it was about hyperbolic sexual ability. Please stop being silly. You are running the risk of becoming as weird as the people at PETA.

          • This comment is a CLASSIC of rationalization, whether you realize it or not. The broadcast is there, it’s just that your receiver is busted, or something. The callousness of the ad isn’t even a close call, and your psycho-babble is unconvincing at best and silly at worst.

            • Okay, you know better. So you insult to win the argument. You are just as insane as the people you are out to condemn. Maybe go check the ethics in that. I even noticed you deleted the link I put up to some real ethics. Well, enjoy yourselves.

          • Do you think a theatrical production like this is such a small problem? Do you believe movies and commercials and television shows have absolutely no effect on society?

            This will only reinforce for certain men that abusing their significant other is allowed as long as they come back. Women who are abused will see that it is okay to keep returning to a damaging relationship as long as they get “some pleasure” out of the arrangement. It is hard enough to get battered women to speak up and go to law enforcement for help without a viral video like this being plastered everywhere. And I of course mean this in a reversal as well. Women abusing their spouses is even less frequently reported.

            First we have PETA filing a lawsuit for human rights for killer whales and now we have them endorsing spousal abuse. What’s next? I’m seriously curious about what will come next.

              • It was spam, my friend. I’m not your billboard. The topic herewas PETA and domestic abuse, not human trafficking. Thanks for dropping by; I’m certain your weird justification of PETA using the ability to hurt women as an enticement to veganism will drive readers to read your ethics perspective in a stampede.

    • Actually, I have a terrific sense of humor. Just not about men hurting women. And PETA is not just annoying, it’s incompetent and irresponsible.

      Other that that, your comments is perceptive and dead on.

      • A terrific sense of humour? Haha — in fairness that did make me laugh. From the man who dismisses the DSM as ‘psycho-babble?’ You have lost your mind on this one. Calm down. ‘K’ I am so glad to see that I am not alone (in my opinion that this man has no sense of humour).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.