The Naked Truth: PETA would rather we go anorexic

Atlanta Falcons tight end Tony Gonzalez joined the likes of Joanna Krupka, Paul McCartney and Christy Turlington last week when he hung up his cleats to bare it all for the “I’d Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur” ad campaign by animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).

Gonzalez isn’t the first athlete to be featured in PETA’s infamous ad blitz, but he is the first football player, an interesting observation since his paycheck is determined by how well he can toss around a pigskin. While the ad wizards might be forgiven for this embarrassing ideological oversight (touchdown, irony!) the inclusion of Gonzalez’s equally in-the-buff wife, October, highlights the growing criticism that PETA’s shock marketing strategies seek to trade the subjugation of animals for the subjugation of women.

These controversies are becoming old hat for the animal rights champions. October Gonzalez, whose only claim to celebrity is being married to the football pro, nevertheless sports a body hot enough for PETA to take notice of, and exploit. Likewise, Christian Serratos, who stars as Angela in the upcoming “Twilight” sequel “New Moon,” also showed her skin this month, baring more cheek in the name of the anti-fur movement. Yet Serratos, perhaps due to a talented airbrush artist, appears to be excruciatingly thin, especially next to the grizzled trees of her “Twilight” set.

Which just may be fat-phobic PETA’s overall point. Earlier this year, PETA launched a billboard campaign in Florida with an updated twist on the traditional “Save the Whales” effort by featuring the cartoonish depiction of an overweight woman clad in a too-teeny bikini beside the words “Lose the Blubber: Go Vegetarian.”

The response to the ad was overwhelmingly negative, but tinged with a resigned acceptance that it was the latest publicity stunt in PETA’s long history of advertising antics (remember the ad capitalizing on the beheading of doomed Greyhound passenger Tim McLean; which, oddly enough, didn’t make TIME’s list?) depending on innuendo, racism, and overwhelmingly, fat-shaming to make a point.

In their typical, non-apologist for “the truth” approach, PETA side-stepped addressing the concerns outlined by angry Jacksonville residents in its official press release, stating “Anyone wishing to achieve a hot “beach bod” is reminded that studies show vegetarians are, on average, about 10 to 20 pounds lighter than meat-eaters.” And no, it isn’t the first time they’ve refused to accept accountability for the offensive content of their marketing.

Blaming meat-eating as the cause of obesity (and, assumedly, the epidemic of obesity) in the United States is not a new trick for PETA, as co-founder and acting president Ingrid Newkirk asserted in an open letter to documentary filmmaker Michael Moore two years ago. Newkirk confronted Moore about his weight, writing “…no one can help but notice that a weighty health issue is affecting you” and charging that people have to accept “personal responsibility” for their health by refraining from eating meat.

While a vegetarian diet can be beneficial to an overall healthier lifestyle, PETA routinely ignores the studies (including the most recent, published by the Journal of the American Dietetic Association in April) that have established a collaborative link between vegetarianism and eating disorders in adolescents.

Blogger Julie Neumann switched to a vegetarian lifestyle at the age of 11, a move that pre-dated but later enabled her spiral into the world of eating disorders. Now in recovery and still maintaining a strict adherence to vegetarian guidelines, she recognizes the co-morbidity of her food discipline, writing “It only makes sense that people with eating disorders would also have moral opinions about where their food comes from…becoming a vegetarian seems inevitable.”

Basically, the kind of discipline it takes to avoid animal products in the vegetarian lifestyle is not unlike the ritualized restrictions involved in eating disorders. Both issues involve thinking beyond the plate, a realization that PETA widely keyed in on from the beginning of their advertising feeding frenzy. For adolescent females, who are more likely to be drawn to the vegetarian lifestyle, PETA’s “I’d Rather Go Naked” ads can be particularly appealing. Though they are intended to primarily target the animal skin industry, PETA’s conscious and deliberate use of the thinnest models, particularly women, is another not-so-subtle nod to the power of vegetarianism.

Just by prancing around in their digitally airbrushed birthday suits, Hollywood “sex sirens” like Khloe Kardashian and Holly Madison are telling the eyes of the impressionable that being a vegetarian will make anyone thin. And being thin, of course, is all it takes to be beautiful, sexy, and successful. PETA’s been successful in hammering this message home by concurrent fat-bashing and fat-shaming. Because better dead than fed, right?

While the issues of animal rights are certainly worthy of consideration and, in many instances, radical change, PETA’s own conduct is leaving a lot to be desired in the definition of “ethical.” “Manik,” an online publication that bills itself as “for the fashionably conscious curvaceous woman,” fought back against PETA last week with a counter-ad displaying a plus-sized model clad only in a fur stole urging “an end to the sarcasm” and “ethical treatment for all.”

Their protest of PETA’a ongoing public insensitivity underscores the ambivalent, if acrimonious, public perception of the animal advocacy agency, as Kerry Walsh of Associated Content ponders, effectively destroying their credibility and hampering any ability to accomplish real change.

It’s an issue crossing over with their “I’d Rather Go Naked” campaign, which can be accepted as having an altruistic enough motivation (ending the fur trade) but a poor execution. The argument against the “I’d Rather Go Naked” ads is quite simple, as Ann of Feministing laments. “The issue here is that once again PETA is employing the tired old tactic of using a conventionally beautiful woman with conventionally “perfect” body, posed naked or nearly naked, to call for animal rights. But the thing I hate most about this particular PETA propaganda is that it takes what should be a message of empowerment, Love-Your-Body-style, and turns it into yet another affirmation of the female ideal.”

There’s no denying that, by ruffling the feathers of the society that they view as complacent with the abuse of animal rights, PETA has managed to get their point across. Yet their ad campaigns, which have never failed to be abrasive (what can we expect from an organization whose president boasts proudly of being “publicity sluts”?) nevertheless leave us wondering at what cost those points are being made. Particularly since PETA has a history of sophistry with prioritizing the rights of animals over the rights of humans. In this contemporary setting, we can only wonder how long before the next campaign boldly states, ‘Four [skinny] legs good, two [fat] legs bad!’