Dear Mr. Garnett,
Thank you for your thoughtful comments on PETA's advertisements and demonstrations. We appreciate that you are also fighting for animal rights, even if you disagree with one element of our many campaigns. We absolutely agree that it would be wonderful if we could tell the world how animals suffer on filthy factory farms and in terrifying slaughterhouses without resorting to the use of gimmicks, but we would like to address the criticisms raised in your editorial about the use of nudity and sexuality.
First, please know that PETA isn't using women's bodies. Women are using their own bodies. The women who use their bodies as political tools—including, yes, adult-film actor Jenna Jameson—do so willingly and gladly, and they don't like to be told to cover up by people who don't agree with their choices. As a feminist, I'm sure you can understand that our activists feel that they have the right to express themselves, and they don't want to be criticized for how much skin they wish to show—especially not in the name of feminism.
Thirty years of animal rights campaigning has shown us at PETA that simply making information available isn't enough—we have to forcibly grab consumers' attention and make them want to find out more about the cruel industries we're fighting. Our activists and celebrity supporters—women and men alike—are glad to use their bodies as one sure-fire way to draw attention to the ways in which animals are abused. And it works—more than 80,000 thousand people watched Oscar-nominated actor Taraji P. Henson's impassioned interview from the set her of her anti-fur ad campaign, and those 80,000 people all saw exactly what happens to the animals who are killed for their fur. One viewer commented, "Thanks Taraji for bringing this issue to our attention. I had considered buying a coat with a mink collar. That's out of the question now. Thanks for your most beautiful work of art."
As an organization headed and founded by a woman—and staffed largely by feminist women, including me—PETA is well aware of the serious problems that women face, both here in the U.S. and in countries where women are forced to cover up and shut up. But impassioned individuals have been "going naked" since Lady Godiva protested taxes, and we believe that all women—and men—should have the right to choose to use their minds and bodies as political instruments.
If we might be of assistance in the future, please contact me directly anytime.
As you can see, they didn't even address my points as to why their marketing is sexist. Instead they tried to turn the tables and make it seem like I am the dominating man telling a woman what she can and can't do. Perhaps they were not able to comprehend the article?