If
you see someone wearing fur boots or a fur coat, do you think that they are
unattractive? “People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals”, or PETA, thinks
so. They put this bizarre ad together. The women they chose as their model is
Joanna Krupa. Her website states that “She has been habitually voted amongst the
‘Sexiest Women in the World’, coined ‘Sexiest Top Model in the World’ by magazines across Australia, U.S., South
Africa, the United Kingdom, France and Germany. Playboy U.S. dubbed her the ‘Sexiest
Swimsuit Model in the World’ and Joanna is frequently discussed as one of the sexiest
celebrities in the world” (http://www.joannakrupa.com/). PETA definitely picked her
and her reputation to get their point across. Joanna is textbook pretty: long blonde
tousled hair, blue eyes, full eyelashes, perfect skin, and thin. She has perfectly
straight white teeth and pink lips. She also has this look on her face: a fierce
look in her sparkling eyes, and a smirky smile.
She is also not wearing a shirt or pants, just light pink lacey underwear,
with a little bow on them. Other than the obvious hair sticking out of her
pubic area, she is clearly made to look sexy. PETA made her the typical vision of what men
want, a stereotypical vision of perfection. However, this message is not about
how pretty anyone is. This ad is selling that even if you’re the nicest or
prettiest person in the world, wearing fur is supporting animal cruelty and
will make you ugly, inside and out.
The text on this image reads, in all
caps, “Fur Trim: Unattractive.” The “Fur Trim” part is in black and it is off
to the side. “Unattractive” is written in pink, and placed over her body. The pink
colored text goes along with the pretty and perfect, Barbie-like theme. The
text saying “unattractive” is placed over her as if it is a label or stamp.
PETA is telling us that even with all her perfection, she is dubbed
unattractive because of the hair coming out of her underwear. The caption under
it sums it up well, once again in all caps “Don’t ruin your look with fur trim”.
Under that text her name is written in black, and “for PETA” in pink. They
included her name to show that this celebrity supports this idea, hoping that
her fans will too.
Now for the part that makes the
argument: the hair coming out of her underwear. We can assume that it is pubic
hair, or the “fur” that is ruining her perfect look. The hair is brown, longer
than humanly possible, obviously fake, and looks dry and dead. When I first saw
this ad, I did not even realize how pretty this girl was, I was too distracted
by this disgusting and unusual feature.
No
matter how pretty you are, fur will ruin your image. However, pretty and ugly are
not just on the outside. This ad is telling us that no matter how good of a
person you are; wearing fur will make you a bad, unethical person. This ad is
selling that even if you’re the nicest or prettiest person in the world,
wearing fur is supporting animal cruelty and will make you ugly, inside and
out.
On an obvious note, the audience is
for people wear fur. Although it is also targeted at people who want to be what
society sees as “pretty”. This ad is also aimed at people who look up to Joanna
Krupa. They could idol her in a way that they just like her, and will do just
about anything to be like her. If she is against wearing fur, they will be as
well. On the other hand, it is for
people who do not necessarily like her, but people who aspire to be like her
and her image, people who aspire to be “perfect” and “pretty”. It appeals to this audience because they will
do anything to make themselves look perfect. They will dye and damage their
hair, put tons of makeup on, starve themselves to get thinner, and more. If fur
makes her ugly, in all her
perfection, it will make anyone ugly.
PETA is selling this message to try to stop
people from wearing fur, because in order to make fur clothing and shoes,
animals are tortured and killed. I personally do not think this ad is effective.
For one thing, it is gross. When I first saw it, I scrolled past it as quickly
as possible. I think it has too much appeal to pathos. Her hair being in her
pubic area does not have anything to do with wearing fur. People do not like
looking at it, and therefore will not look into what it is saying. It does not
clue in to wearing fur being cruel, but ugly. I think that because of how
unrealistic and gross it is, it does not have the effect of it being ugly, just
weird. People are so distracted by the hair, that they do not take time to
assess the point PETA is trying to make. Although it is eccentric, PETA made
this ad, and people know they advocate for animals. Overall, my opinion is that
people will get the general message, but maybe not the full point. People often
say PETA crosses the line with disturbing pictures of animal cruelty. Although
animals are not even included in this image, have they done it again?
