Comments (9)

Log in or register to post comments
awassabee's picture
Activity Score 150

hm... using sex, or the degration of women... to help save animals??? Ok...

drunk dave's picture
drunk dave
Activity Score 1066

Degredation? Do you know what she does for a living?

Darrin Stephens's picture
Darrin Stephens
Activity Score 242

She's an actress. What's so degrading about that?

mattattaxx's picture
Activity Score 273

yeah, she degrades herself. Doesn't really mean that an organization so concerned with treating one thing as equals should be degrading another. This ad is for idiots.

justsayin's picture
Activity Score 225

what degradaton, for god's sake? hehe... the font is disgusting, you're right... and why the yellow "fur"??? pamela is cool...

fluffy's picture
Activity Score 236

It's just a bit of a weak way of saying it - lazy art direction and typography, too.

It could also be read the wrong way - she's cold because she isn't wearing a fur coat, therefore a fur coat would make her nice and warm. I really don't think that's the message PETA would want to give to anyone.

And while it isn't as degrading as some ads, it's still a naked lady shot, which some people will see as the objectification of women.

Great model, great client, lame work. This is a missed opportunity, in my opinion.

Texnartist's picture
Activity Score 225

I feel a quote coming on from a useful idiot - Ingrid Newkirk of PETA.

If a girl gets sexual pleasure from riding a horse, does the horse suffer? If not, who cares? If you French kiss your dog and he or she thinks it's great, is it wrong? We believe all exploitation and abuse is wrong. If it isn't exploitation and abuse, it may not be wrong.
New York Times, 2001[15][16] - Ingrid Newkirk

••• Why Think When It's Easier To React •••

••• Why Think When It's Easier To React •••

Sven Gali's picture
Sven Gali
Activity Score 845

has this kind of ad ever really worked

Sdb's picture
Activity Score 1362

Excellent copy..