Subscribe via RSS Feed

PETA Porn Site

[ 71 ] August 21, 2011 |

Oh for Christ’s sake:

In another sensational attempt to draw attention to the plight of animals, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is planning to launch a porn site later this year.

A spokeswoman for the group says the site will feature adult content along with graphic images of animals that viewers may not expect to see.

“We are preparing to launch our own peta.xxx site, but instead of just showing people our iconic ads we then show them how animals suffer for entertainment,” PETA’s Ashley Byrne told Australia’s Herald Sun. The organization says its sexy side displayed in galleries and videos will quickly give way to the sinister world of animal mistreatment uncovered by the group’s hidden camera investigations.

You know, there is so much to hate on here, but I’ll just say this–doesn’t PETA understand that some people are going to get off on both the women and the cruelty to animals?

PETA is such a worthless organization. Even if their cause is just, they are run by morons. Sexist morons on top of it.

H/T to Lindsay, who is worth reading on this as well.

Comments (71)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. wengler says:

    They do realize that there are porn sites without cruelty to animals interspersed, right?

    This is an attempt to grab free media, just like every other one of their campaigns.

    • DrDick says:

      PETA are the worst kind of extremist attention whores. For all their grand rhetoric, I cannot think of anything useful that they have accomplished (even from their stated perspective).

      • NonyNony says:

        It’s been obvious for a long time that PETA’s antics are counter-productive. They fit so well into the sterotypical over-privileged, narrow-minded, impotent “liberal activist” stereotype that I’ve thought for a while that only one of two reasons for their idiocy and their impotence are possible. The first is that they really are as immature and stupid as they look and act. The second is that they were infiltrated a while back by people whose only goal is to discredit the whole idea of ethical treatment for animals and to make anyone who thinks its a noble cause look like morons by association.

        98% of the time I figure the “they really are as stupid as they look” is the answer (never chalk up to conspiracy that which can be just as easily explained by human stupidity, and all that), but sometimes the conspiracy angle just seems so attractive.

  2. Josh G. says:

    PETA is just a bunch of attention whores. This doesn’t surprise me at all.

  3. Murc says:

    I think this announcement deserves a firm ‘what is this i don’t even.’

  4. Randy Paul says:

    PETA – People Eating Tasty Animals

  5. vesta44 says:

    If PETA really cared about what happened to animals, they wouldn’t be euthanizing 95% of the pets that are turned over to them every year. They don’t keep them in no-kill shelters or find adoptive homes for them – they kill them. What’s so fucking ethical about that treatment? PETA is the biggest set of hypocrites I’ve ever seen and all they want is the attention – they don’t really give a shit about the animals at all.

    • joel hanes says:

      You are confusing PETA, a political action group, with your local pet shelter.

      • (the other) Davis says:

        No, PETA is doing its share of the killing. PETA doesn’t deny its pro-euthanasia position — see the Wiki.

      • Triplanetary says:

        PETA has a way, way higher euthanasia rate than any legitimate pet shelter.

      • Charles Woods says:

        No confusion there. You just didn’t know that fact.

      • Vegan says:

        PETA often takes in the least desired animals that no one else wants. These animals were destined to be killed by other shelters or live horrible lives as strays. There simply are not homes for these animals because people don’t spay/neuter often enough. PETA does educate about spay/neuter and pay for spay/neuter. PETA considers it ethical to kill these animals as relatively painlessly as possible as a less negative choice to the other choices.

  6. DocAmazing says:

    What, none of the obvious jokes about beavers and pussies? You’re missing all the low-hanging fruit here!

  7. What will the furries think?

    • timb says:

      They will finally find a place they can call home (as long as they are using synthetic fur!)

    • Left_Wing_Fox says:

      Even Furries look down on PETA. Srsly.

      And they have their own porn sites, thank you very much. So unless peta.xxx features shitting dick-nippes or hyperendowed hermaphroditic gerbil-taurs…

  8. dave says:

    It is rather amusing, however, that the only comment on the bigthink piece linked to is spam for a nudist website…

  9. jadegold says:

    Are PETA attention whores? Sure.

    But it’s a strategy that works. Those offering that PETA accomplishes nothing really haven’t been paying attention. See many fur coats around these days? Seeing many vegan or vegetarian options at restaurants? Is there a heightened awareness of animal cruelty in recent years?

    It can be argued this is not all the work of PETA but it really can’t be argued PETA is at least partially responsible.

    Re the euthanasia issue, the issue is more nuanced than PETA’s detractors let on. To a large extent, the animals that are euthanized have little or no chance at adoption and in many cases have debilitating injuries or illnesses.

    • Malaclypse says:

      To a large extent, the animals that are euthanized have little or no chance at adoption and in many cases have debilitating injuries or illnesses.

      Since 1998 PETA has killed more than 17,000 animals, nearly 85 percent of all those it has rescued.

      • Joe says:

        The article speaks of “unwanted” animals, so I’m not sure what your point is. The fact there are a lot of unwanted animals is duly noted. The question is what to do with them.

        “No-kill is a noble goal,” says Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States. “But the sheer number of animals make it almost unachievable.”

    • Halloween Jack says:

      See many fur coats around these days?

      In the social circles that I’ve traveled in all my life, furs are a rarity. A quick Google shows that there are still plenty to be had, and even though faux furs are also plentiful, even their presence shows that fur is hardly unfashionable–otherwise, they’d be as rare as leather jackets with fake tattoos stenciled on them (think about it).

      Seeing many vegan or vegetarian options at restaurants?

      Vegan, no. Vegetarian, yes, but the two are hardly the same thing, as militant vegans have reminded me more than once, at length. Nice job conflating the two, though.

      Is there a heightened awareness of animal cruelty in recent years?

      Yep! Is PETA the only one doing that? Hardly. They’re more known for their cutesy, lad-mag-friendly publicity stunts than for raising awareness of real conditions; hell, every E. coli and salmonella outbreak has probably done more to harm factory farming than PETA ever has.

    • Left_Wing_Fox says:

      Actually, I have seen real fur elements making a comeback (mostly rabbit for trim on hats and coats at lower-to-middle-class shops)

  10. fourmorewars says:

    If PETA are just media whores stealing attention away from serious environmental organizations, then why isn’t this post aimed at the Toronto Sun, and its lazy sensation-mongering approach to a serious issue? Aren’t you playing their game by lining up alongside them, pointing and laughing at a clown show that the right and the MSM uses to smear and marginalize the people who matter?

  11. Bart says:

    In a land of conformity the upstanding nail gets hammered.

  12. AcademicLurker says:

    This was inevitable. For years PETA has been all about getting women to take their clothes off in public with an occasional nod toward improving the treatment of animals.

    • Anonymous says:

      To be fair, at least some of the ads have been of men. I found it amusing the other day when Chad Johnson (sorry, Chad Ochocinco) posted a shot of his PETA ad on Twitter, where he was naked except for a strategically-placed football covering his junk. Apparently no one who made the ad noticed that footballs are made of pigskin, but I guess pigs are not as cute as the animals who are used to make fur coats. Or something.

      • NonyNony says:

        Actually, I don’t think they use pigskin for footballs anymore. I think that the ones in the NFL and for college ball are made of leather, though, or at least they were a few years back.

        • Anonymous says:

          Okay, so, change it to leather, by which I’m assuming you mean, the skin of a cow? The point is still the same – the irony/hypocrisy of denouncing fur while holding an object made of the skin of another animal.

          And just for the record, I could theoretically entertain the validity of an argument that says fur is wrong while regular leather is okay (e.g., leather is a byproduct that would be thrown away, etc.), but isn’t it PETA’s official position that all animal products are wrong?

          Also, I eat meat and wear leather – I am not personally against those things. Just trying to point out the flaws in their message.

    • c. says:

      Yeah, that’s it, they’re just trying to get women naked. Straw man much? Do you think they’d still be seeking media attention if people stopped slaughtering 10 billion animals unnecessarily every year? C’mon.

      The only problem I have with this campaign, or PeTA’s other stunts is that it gives an excuse for guilty liberals to abuse the messenger between bites of their animal corpses. Liberals wring their hands over supposed immorality of women choosing to use their bodies to attract attention to a moral good (rather than say sell beer or CD’s), and so think they get a free pass on their failure to meet the minimal requirements of moral decency (not harming others unnecessarily).

      I’d rather MFA’s approach or Vegan Outreach, but liberal outrage over PeTA’s adolescent street theatre seems a bit overwrought.

  13. Brautigan says:

    Y’know, I likes me some porn. And I like animals! But I don’t think I’d like this site.

    Marketing failure.

  14. Aaron says:

    It’s hard to be a vegan and find your ideological fellow-travellers utterly loathsome and/or ridiculous. On the other hand, PETA is pretty much the only animal rights group anybody has ever heard of, and they do bring a certain minimum level of awareness that not everyone agrees with the practice of eating meat.

    • larryb33c says:

      Mercy for Animals is an organization that is doing the really hard work with undercover investigations of factory farms. Their work has inspired the so called Ag Gag laws.

  15. Fenriq says:

    I think PETA is just trying to get NRA’s attention so they can make hot little nutter baby orgs. This is seriously the most bizarre thing I could have imagined those shrill fools doing.

    PETA is a joke, their message is drowned out by their ridiculous actions time and again.

    But if they bring back the hot chicks in the lettuce bikinis then most everything will be forgiven.

  16. Tony says:

    Perfect! Let’s all pick on PETA. They go to extreme lengths to get attention to the issues that matter most to them. And they are laughed at for that? Laughed at by the same people that elect politicians that exploit women. What a joke. If the progressives among us had the cajones PETA has to make a stand for what we believe in and the creativity to apply that to our plutocrats in office this wouldn’t seem so funny. I cannot believe that this is even an issue that’s been brought up with all of the REAL exploitaion and stripping of women’s rights going on in this country. I guarantee you that the women on the site are participating because they believe in the cause. How far are you willing to go to support your belief?

    • Anonymous says:

      I’m not willing to make myself look like a moron, that’s for sure.

    • Left_Wing_Fox says:

      I guarantee you that the women on the site are participating because they believe in the cause. How far are you willing to go to support your belief?

      Same could be said for the Pro-life / Abstinence-only Education crowd. While I agree with them that we should reduce unwanted pregnancies, and that abstinence is a valid option, I think their efforts are counterproductive and their values fundamentally at odds with mine.

      Similarly, I think that PETA’s actions are often misguided or harmful in other areas outside their ideal, and that their core philosophy of animal rights (if meat is murder, isn’t pet ownership slavery?) is often at odds with the efforts in animal welfare (animal testing means vet medicines and more effective ecological protection methods).

  17. steverino says:

    It’s not just the ads; it’s all the other wacky stuff they do, like wanting Fishkill, NY to change its name:

    http://articles.cnn.com/1996-09-06/us/9609_06_fishy.name_1_mayor-george-carter-peta-animal-rights-group?_s=PM:US

    • DrDick says:

      Which is even more absurd when you realize that the “kill” in the name is Dutch for “stream” or “creek.”

  18. Textile Distribution…

    [...]PETA Porn Site : Lawyers, Guns & Money[...]…

  19. Phil Mann says:

    If PETA plans to show those sad animal commercials with Sarah McLaglen, inbetween whatever “porn” they plan to show (Will they even show the classics from the 70′s?), I want no part of it. Didn’t “A Clockwork Orange” teach us anything about mixing sexual imageries with brutal imageries? The site won’t last a week…unless it is supported by those whom would get off on the combination of the two.

Leave a Reply




If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.

  • Switch to our mobile site