Home / General / PETA Porn Site

PETA Porn Site

Comments
/
/
/
50 Views

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.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • wengler

    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

      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

        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.

        • DrDick

          I have always subscribed to the “dumber than the animals they seek to protect” theory.

  • Josh G.

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

  • Murc

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

    • Pith Helmet

      Needs more “I’m 12, and …”

  • PETA – People Eating Tasty Animals

    • Ed Marshall

      That’s why you are the life of the party with jokes like that. I think I heard that from an idiot back in 1997. I’m not vegetarian or anything, but just about everyone thinks you are a moron when you tell that joke. Even when they pretend to laugh.

      • MPAVictoria

        I thought it was funny….

        • Only the first couple dozen times…

          • MPAVictoria

            Never heard it before. Though admittedly PETA is not a huge part of my life.

            • witless chum

              It was funnier when it was painted on the Rock on Michigan State’s campus (it’s a thing, you paint the rock) accompanied by a collection of road killed squirrels.

            • I first heard of it about a week ago.

              Get over youself, Ed Marshall.

      • c’mon

        In a post (rightly) taking PETA to task people get upset about this? What am I missing here?

        • Tybalt

          No matter how morally outraged we should all be acting on Erik’s cue, the appropriate response to PETA being a bunch of morons is not to make a terrible decades-old joke like a slack-jawed halfwit.

          • NonyNony

            not to make a terrible decades-old joke like a slack-jawed halfwit.

            Are you sure that you’re aware of all Internet traditions?

          • JohnR

            On behalf of slack-jawed halfwits everywhere, I take offense at this. My group, PETS(jH), will shortly be establishing a website, where we show nothing but the filthiest and most degrading pornography around the clock in an attempt to publicise the under-appreciated plight of slack-jawed halfwits, yokels and numbnuts from all four corners of this great land of ours.

            • Njorl

              I can see how a slack jaw might be useful in this enterprise, but the numb nuts just seem counterproductive.

          • Wow. I guess you are now the self-appointed arbiter of what is appropriate on someone else’s blog.

            As mentioned previously, I first heard this about a week ago.

      • Charles Woods

        Dude, no feminist is looking, you can cut the PC bs.

        How should I have said that ? Why…

  • 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

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

      • (the other) Davis

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

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

      • Charles Woods

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

      • Vegan

        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.

  • DocAmazing

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

  • What will the furries think?

    • timb

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

    • Left_Wing_Fox

      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…

  • dave

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

  • jadegold

    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

      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

        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.”

        • Malaclypse

          My point was that PETA kills far more than the average shelter does. And it is not impossible to find shelters that do not kill.

          • jadegold

            The point you’re missing is that most of the animals rescued by PETA are not those typically rescued by animal shelters. They are, for the most part, the ones who have been abused so badly they can’t be adopted or have received terrible injuries, etc.

            Animal shelters tend to get the strays or abandoned or unwanted pets.

            Look, it’d be wonderful if there were no shortage of no-kill shelters that could accommodate every animal that needs a place. But there isn’t.

            • jadegold

              BTW, most of this “PETA euthanizes cuddly pets” stuff comes from the Center for Consumer Freedom which opposes PETA, CSPI and most efforts to lower obesity–among other things.

              • Charles Woods

                …and opposing Peta is forbidden now. Carry on.

          • Hogan

            Well, I’m sure it’s cheaper to run national ad campaigns than rescue shelters.

            • Malaclypse

              Look, do you ever run into naked chicks at a shelter? Those places are depressing…

              • Charles Woods

                No one wants to smell that fur.

    • Halloween Jack

      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

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

      • Halloween Jack

        The fur trim on the old-fashioned Air Force N3-B (“snorkel”) parka used to be real coyote fur; IIRC, it was derived from coyotes that had been killed to thin out their numbers a bit (and probably at the urging of ranchers). I guess it’s been fake fur for a while now, though.

  • fourmorewars

    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?

    • witless chum

      This. Paying attention to PETA = replying to Norman.

      • cer

        Perfect analogy.

  • Bart

    In a land of conformity the upstanding nail gets hammered.

    • JohnR

      In the land of the noseless, the one-nostrilled man is king.

      • Njorl

        In the land of the noseless, those who talk of “smelling” are burnt as witches.

        • Halloween Jack

          In the land of the noseless, Groucho glasses are de rigueur.

  • AcademicLurker

    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

      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

        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

          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.

      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.

  • Brautigan

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

    Marketing failure.

  • Aaron

    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

      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.

  • 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.

  • 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

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

    • Left_Wing_Fox

      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).

  • steverino

    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

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

  • C.
  • Pingback: Textile Distribution()

  • Phil Mann

    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.

It is main inner container footer text