PETA Accuses NYTimes of Necrophilia
How awesome is that headline? The kicker is that it's true.
PETA, the animal rights organization that's starting their own porn site, is accusing the New York Times of necrophilia for running this picture.
The Atlantic Wire has the quote:
These crazies regularly advance their cause with naked celebrities and are starting their own porn site that will mix human porn and grisly pictures of dead animals. These folks mixing sex and death are accusing others of necrophilia?
When I saw it I just couldn't believe that an editor of The New York Times would find it acceptable," PETA's founder and president Ingrid Newkirk told The Atlantic Wire. "It's downright offensive, not just to people who care about animals but almost to everyone. It's a plucked, beheaded, young chicken in a young pose," she said....It's necrophilia. It's not amusing. It's just ghastly and sickly. It's not fitting for The New York Times."
12 comments:
It's just a funny picture. Creative even. (The chicken was raised to be eaten, so it was going to die in any event.)
a "young chicken in a young pose"?
A "young pose"?
I wondered the same thing.
Wow, so a chicken in a suggestive pose catches their eye. I seem to remember Brooke Sheilds in the same pose talking about how nothing would come between her and her Calvin Klein jeans. Is that the definition of a 'young pose?'
I wonder: Was the shark ad Ms. Newkirk's brainwave? Do they really, really want nobody to take them seriously?
I'd prefer the chicken on it's back roasted to a golden brown!
I'd prefer the chicken on it's back roasted to a golden brown!
...wish they had left some pubic feather...
Still can't figure out that "young pose" thing...
According to Wiki, Ingrid's 62. She's probably upset that if she was to pose like that nobody'd want to look - so not only is she a rabid anti-meat-ist, she's an ageist, too.
the "young pose" thing means the chicken is "posed" in a standard pornographic pose of a young woman. I agree with PETA but obviously for entirely different reasons. I think this trivializes pornography, as witness the comment above about "pubic feathers". But I don't expect otherwise from the NYTimes.
"Young chicken in a young pose"?
Who the Sam W. Scratch talks like that?
And the pose is most certainly not a "standard pornographic pose", it is a standard artistic nude pose, used in any figure-drawing class, and indeed a standard pose period of Classicist art (possibly because in the Classical era people reclined a lot, e.g. at table).
Porn often uses the repertoire of art, of course—art's conventions just being our "lexicon" of visual expression—but objecting to it is a "Hitler Ate Sugar" fallacy.
Post a Comment