I'd Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur:
Sexist, or Just Stupid?

by Rosemary Amey
July 4, 2001

Many intelligent animal rights activists have written arguments claiming that PETA's well-known "I'd Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur" campaign is sexist.

I'm not convinced. Men as well as women have participated; and if disproportionately more women than men have taken part, that is typical of our movement, isn't it? The majority of us are women!

I would have a problem if people were pressured to participate in thecampaign, but I have seen no evidence that this is happening. I would have a problem if this were one of the few opportunities women had to participate in the movement, but as we know, women lead AR groups (including PETA), work as undercover investigators, lawyers, animal liberators, writers, spokespeople, editors, webmasters, etc. etc. I would have a problem if only women of a certain body type were allowed to participate, but as far as I know, no one has ever said to someone who wanted to participate in the campaign "Keep your clothes on, you're not (whatever) enough."

I do get tired of seeing sex used to sell things unrelated to sex. (The thing that really really bugs me is the use of gorgeous images of healthy breasts whenever breast cancer is discussed! I think this is pretty insensitive to breast cancer survivors who are coping with the loss of a breast.) But then I have to ask, why do we get so worked up about this issue, and not equally worked up about (say) the use of cute babies to sell things like tires? I do suspect that our collective hangup about sex is coming into play here.

I also am concerned that the "Rather go naked" campaign takes attention away from the animals. When people see a naked person, they are not going to think about what the animals abused and killed by the fur industry suffer through, so I don't see how the campaign can lead to a change in people's attitudes and behaviours.

On the other hand, when I saw Ingrid Newkirk speak at the World Vegetarian Congress in Toronto last year, she said that they feel it is useful to do wacky stunts to get media attention. If you look at their website, you will see they have done all kinds of reasonable thoughtful news releases without wacky stunts, which seem to have received basically no media attention, whereas the "Rather go naked" and the "Drink beer instead of milk" campaigns get huge publicity. She reported that on the first day of the beer/milk campaign, the website http://www.milksucks.com/ got 40,000 hits! That's 40,000 people who got to read about the plight of dairy cows in depth, and may have been inspired to change. It stinks that the media seldom covers animal issues without these goofy stunts, but since it does, why not work with it? How many people even knew that the dairy industry hurts cows before that campaign?

Some activists have objected to using the human body to sell sex, sex which has nothing to do with love and compassion, but instead represents (to them) degradation, power imbalance, comodification.

Sure, sex with love is better. (Actually, just about any activity is better with a loved one, whether it is sex, going for a walk, washing the floor...) But I don't think there is anything wrong with sex for fun, as long as all participants are consenting adults. I think that this idea that "sex = love" causes all kinds of problems--for people who think "this must be love" when really they are just turned on; for people whose partners lie to them, pretending to love them just to get sex, etc.

I am not convinced that the PETA images (or other sexy pictures) are inherently degrading or necessarily reflect a power imbalance. For some people, participating in the campaign could be fun, empowering, or a turn on. Some nudists believe that public nudity enhances body acceptance--they find that their bodies are okay, they don't need to be hidden.

As a sex-positive feminist, I also have a problem with people attempting to prescribe the "correct" form of sexual expression, whether it's fundamentalist Christians or fellow feminists. As far as I'm concerned, if all the participants are consenting adults, fine, go for it, have fun. A lot of what turns people on is set up early in childhood, and is pretty much impossible to change. And why try to change it, if all the participants are consenting adults?

I recently read an excellent book, The Erotic Mind by Jack Morin, Ph.D., a psychologist and sex therapist. One of the things he talks about is the "naughtiness factor"--when something is somewhat forbidden, arousal is increased (as I write this I wonder if there are physiological factors at play). So trying to convince people that they "shouldn't" partipate in the "wrong" kind of sex is likely to backfire by making it more of a turn-on!

I also can say that though I question the efficacy of PETA's use of sex to sell animal rights, one positive thing it has done is counteract the idea that animal rights people are killjoys.

Traditionally their has been an association between vegetarianism and asceticism, which continues for some people to this day (see e.g. "Vanquishing the Serpent" by C.J. vanVliet in Here's Harmlessness, published by the American Vegan Society, which states "...man has strayed so far from his natural course that he often utilizes the mere physical sensations involved in this once-noble act (sex), even to the point of deliberately thwarting the natural reason for the act itself" (horrors!) and claims that veganism will lower the sex drive and aid in its "correct" expression (making babies).

I think that any attempt to prescribe or censor certain forms of sexual expression among consenting adults is oppressive. I think saying "All women in the animal rights movement must be modestly dressed" is as bad as saying "All women in the animal rights movement must prance naked in the streets."

This article originally appeared in a slightly different form on a private animal rights email list.

PETA

Get rid of these ads!