PETA vs. Britney
September 5, 2001 2:45 PM   Subscribe

PETA vs. Britney Boy, it's hard to pick a side to root for in this fight. The paragraph that caught my attention, though, was this: the spotted cats are supposedly going to be prowling the [MTV's Video Music Awards] stage around the scantily-clad popster (and self-proclaimed virgin) as she wails her new hip-hop-flavored tune, "I'm A Slave 4 U," while simulating an orgasm on stage a la Madonna. Yeah, except that Madonna was at least consistent in her portrayal of sexuality as healthy and fun. A self-proclaimed virgin faking orgasms on nationwide TV, on the other hand, sounds like a heapin' helping of bizarro mixed messages.
posted by Shadowkeeper (30 comments total)
oh, I dunno, couldn't she be the new poster child for the abstinence movement? You know, orgasms without the P-V sex! Oh, right...abstainers aren't even allowed to spank the monkey or double-click the mouse. But honestly, wouldn't it be nice if someone supposedly virginal like her talked about sexuality in a healthy way, telling teens they could be sexual beings and have lots of mutual orgasms and not have to have P-V sex if they chose not to?
posted by fotzepolitic at 3:00 PM on September 5, 2001

Of course, as a general proposition there's no inherent conflict between virginity and having orgasms. But in the specific case of Britney, I agree that there are some major mixed messages -- she not only claims to be a virgin, but also feigns a pure, innocent persona. And that clearly conflicts with the "not that innocent" persona she also displays. Yes, she wants to have her cake and eat it too (so both parents and their horny kids can like her). If nothing else, it's shrewd marketing.
posted by pardonyou? at 3:03 PM on September 5, 2001

[From the article]While it won't be quite as dramatic as Russell Crowe fending off those striped felines in Gladiator

What the--? Is Crowe or Ridley Scott paying them to print this stuff? Where did that come from? Why not take it all the way?

"While it won't be quite as dramatic as Jasmine St. Claire boning a roomful of 300 horny mooks, she is certain to take it up the metaphorical ass from PETA."
posted by Skot at 3:21 PM on September 5, 2001

a virgin faking orgasms?

is that really anything new?

PETA hates 'abuse' in all forms. :D

no wait, that's not the point is it?
posted by jcterminal at 3:44 PM on September 5, 2001

Boy, it's hard to pick a side to root for in this fight.

Yeah, because it's impossible to actually a shit about either one of them... As if MTV or Britney Spears needed any more hyping for their "event," or PETA needed another opportunity to demonstrate how deeply reality-impaired they are.
posted by m.polo at 5:14 PM on September 5, 2001

But m.polo -- I'd turn into the biggest Britney fan ever if she were to say on MTV, "I get myself off, like, 3 or 4 times a day. But I won't have sex until I'm married."
posted by jennak at 5:38 PM on September 5, 2001

Britney is pure crap, to be sure, but (I'm reaching here, gang) at least she provides some modicum of entertainment, however small, to a distinct segment of society, and at least contributes to the mighty machine of capitalism. It's a stretch, I know...but on the other hand you have PETA...which is downright despicable, anti-human, and has no redeeming qualities. Period. If I had to choose sides (and I don't, right?), then I'm rooting for Britney. (((shudder)))

Cheetahs are very cool, BTW.
posted by davidmsc at 5:46 PM on September 5, 2001

Italics are fun.
posted by Ptrin at 5:49 PM on September 5, 2001

everyone should know by now the PETA is evil.
they will brainwash all, controll us and take over the world.
thank you PETA.
posted by MrJesus at 6:05 PM on September 5, 2001

Oh, I agree that PETA must be stopped. Right away.

Please. How dare they. Of course we really can't have an organization protesting greed, cowardice, hypocrisy, and the creation of suffering. So bad for business.

Britney and our evening's entertainment are so much more important than the welfare of feeling beings. Our laughter, our delight...nay, even our very taste buds must come before considerations of the sufferings of other creatures. Never for one moment forget that they look good on stage and a la cage, they "taste good", and that their suffering and death support billion dollar industries.

What more does an ethical human need in the way of reason? Taking what one wants and needs is what it's all about.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 6:34 PM on September 5, 2001

In related news, PETA recently pressured Disney into removing the Disneyland Jungle Cruise tour guide's fake guns, because they were used to pretend to shoot plastic robot hippopotamuses. Realizing that every sane person on the planet knows the Jungle Cruise is a complete farce of a ride that relies entirely on puns and jokes about how fake the ride is, PETA pointed out that "if the robot being shot was a baby, we wouldn't think it was so funny."

Well, it's not a baby, it's an "attacking hippo." Only the insane would go on that ride and think, "what if I was under attack by a baby." As my friend put it, "if my jungle cruise boat was being threatened by an pretend attacking baby, you bet I'd pretend to shoot the baby."
posted by kevspace at 7:44 PM on September 5, 2001

"Taking what one wants and needs is what it's all about."

damn straight holmes!
posted by jcterminal at 7:52 PM on September 5, 2001

Cheetahs used in show business are often trained through intimidation and with such devices as electric shock prods and sticks.

Umm, how the hell do you think Britney was trained?
posted by RJ Reynolds at 8:06 PM on September 5, 2001

I can't read this post. All I see is "Britney", then "orgasm"... and I wake up an hour later.... Let me try again.
posted by owillis at 8:06 PM on September 5, 2001

What reason does an ethical person need to keep an animal in captivity?

How about providing an escape from a daily routine of eat-or-be-eaten. Or perhaps providing an animal with a full lifespan. The question I have is: How can any PETA member over 20 live with themselves?

I give you an example of PETA at a circus near where I live. PETA decided they needed to complain about the circus having animals even after the Humane Society was quoted as having given the circus "Flying Colours" for their humane treatment of the animals. Further investigation revealed to the newspaper that at not even a single event had the local humane societies given marks any lower than perfect.

The ringmaster is quoted as saying "We take good care of the animals. We feed them before we eat." and also "The tiger is moved in a transport truck in which it has all the space".

These are not the words of an animal hater. These are the words of someone who regards these animals as a valuable pet. The words of someone who wants to keep the animals happy. Their reviews show their words are kept.

The only price the animals pay is the constant love and affection that keeps them docile enough to not bite the hands of the customers.


No, I don't think treating animals poorly is right and am sickened when I see the conditions of (for example) milking cows on many farms and would never want to see this happen to an animal. I also think captivity isn't nice, however, I think it can be reasonable.

I question if the tradeoff between a long, happy, easy life and free range is one a PETA member would be willing to make as quickly as they often judge the similar actions of others.
posted by shepd at 8:11 PM on September 5, 2001

hey fold_and_mutilate -- appreciate the sarcasm, but let me try and speak for why I find PETA annoying.

The thing about PETA is that they have a great cause, but they choose the stupidest possible targets to get ANY publicity whatsoever. They should be more vocal and smarter about local concerns, like spaying and neutering of pets, like humane treatment of unwanted domestic animals - stuff like that. Fur is a legit issue as well - truly nasty business, that is. But some of their stuff TRIVIALIZES the issue of ethical treatment of animals, causing them to be ignored by too many. This is why they're so exasperating to me.

here's their campaign page -- I look at this and I find myself turned off by the rhetoric.

I guess I just wish that the propaganda was a bit more subtle - less damn heavy handed.
posted by artlung at 8:12 PM on September 5, 2001

Why is it that as individuals with cunning wit, elevated tastes, and ridiculously high levels of intelligence, we blatantly wallow around in denial of wanting to shag the living daylights out of Britney Spears, no matter how teeny-boppy, popstarish, and cleverly marketed she is?

I mean, let's all be honest, or am I as vacuous as the rest and therefore throwing out a pointless point?

Also, I bet those Cheetahs have it better than all the poor saps who'd dare stand in PETA's way. Save the humans, dammit -- we're the ones with actual, scientifically confirmed feelings.
posted by dopamine at 8:15 PM on September 5, 2001

The main problem I have with PETA is their insistence that all pets should be released into the wild.

My last cat would have lasted a week, if even that, as it was an indoor cat. My current would last about 4 or five months, living half-starved before being a car, winter or the nearest coyote found them. My dogs? Probably living on the verge of starvation until winter, or the nearest car.

I have never yet met a person I hated so deeply that I would cheerfully starve them to death, and consider it a benefit to them. I hope to god I never do.
posted by stoneegg21 at 8:32 PM on September 5, 2001

it's people like that that gives us vegetarians a bad name. from the shark page of the aforementioned campaign page:

If you’re concerned about predators in the water or ending up in intensive care because of your diet, the best thing you can do is to go vegetarian before your next trip to the ocean:

so what—i emanate some kind of shark repellent because i'm not an omnivore? or am i just not just as tasty as your run-of-the-mill meat-eater?

personally, i think PETA's overall message (working for the ethical treatment of animals) is sound, but this is definitely one case where killing the messenger is warranted. yeesh.

as for britney? a question: if she pulls off her "performance" and shows us a credible O-face, can we immediately leap to the conclusion that she stirs the yogurt every now and again?
posted by brigita at 9:16 PM on September 5, 2001

I thought it was stir the soup?
posted by justgary at 9:21 PM on September 5, 2001

I thought it was more like "stir the vagina"
posted by kevspace at 10:55 PM on September 5, 2001

Maybe PETA will remake that fix-your-cats commercial but with cheetahs and a Britney scream-alike.

[Everyone who's whining about PETA advertising is proving that their advertising works -- they are being noticed, which is much better than being ignored, and people are doing exactly what they want people to do: talk and write and think about vegetarianism and how we treat animals.]
posted by pracowity at 12:08 AM on September 6, 2001

hm. you know, just as an aside, i'd be willing to offer my services to earth, humanity, metafilter and pop culture just to clear up some of the problem here and give ole brit the screw she so desperately needs. don't need to listen to her music to do that.

but it'd have to be soon though, before gravity attacks that ass and those breasts.

oh dear, i just realized that puts a new spin on my handle. heh!
posted by eatdonuts at 4:29 AM on September 6, 2001

Britney's virginity is almost certainly a PR ploy. I mean, isn't she from Tennessee?
posted by Jart at 8:03 AM on September 6, 2001

The main problem I have with PETA is their insistence that all pets should be released into the wild.

Huh? PETA insists that WILD animals remain WILD. Domesticated companion animals are a different story. They want you to adopt a cat or dog as a companion animal.

They have plenty of campaigns for spaying and neutering pets because of the high numbers of unwanted cats and dogs that are killed in "shelters" each year. I also believe they have plenty of literature on keeping some pets, like cats, indoors only.

I don't think I've ever heard of PETA advocating abandoning cats and dogs.
posted by ahughey at 9:03 AM on September 6, 2001

Britney's virginity is almost certainly a PR ploy

It's hard to decide which is creepier: Britney being a sexually active young adult being told by her handlers to go out there and lie about her virginity, or Britney being a virgin and being told by her handlers to go out there and sing songs like "I'm A Slave 4 U". It's gotta be one or the other.

Britney is less like a real person and more like, say, Tony the Tiger: a corporate cartoon mascot that some marketer sat down and drew one day. And so we have kids picking up their sexual mores from Tony the Tiger. Grrrrrreat!
posted by Shadowkeeper at 9:21 AM on September 6, 2001

"I give you an example of PETA at a circus near where I live. PETA decided they needed to complain about the circus having animals even after the Humane Society was quoted as having given the circus "Flying Colours" for their humane treatment of the animals."

Circus' with animals are boring. Who wants to see a glum lion "coerced" through a burning hoop anyway? It's sad and undignified for both participant and spectator. I'd rather go see the "The Flying Fruit Fly Circus" or Cirque Du Soleil any day.
posted by lucien at 10:02 AM on September 6, 2001

I mean, isn't she from Tennessee?
No, she's not.
But I am. And while I laughed out loud at your assumption, I can't help but be a touch offended.
posted by brittney at 10:28 AM on September 6, 2001

I'm with owillis. Britney is just flat out hot. Quite often, I find myself watching Britney on TV with it on mute. I make up my own words. I guess what I'm trying to say is nobody's fooling anybody here, but good for her that she's milking it for all it's worth. Hey, if you've got it, flaunt it. It ain't often somebody hands you a couple million bucks on a silver platter.
posted by fusinski at 12:14 PM on September 6, 2001

Actually, I think they should hire a good lesbian like, say, me, to make sure Britney is really clear about how to act during her big fake out. That will also come in handy if she decides to get jiggy with the boys. (Since, if you read the G-spot posts from a few days back, it seems clear that many boys find it difficult to get the chicks from point A to point O.) And, since we all know what 'having sex' really is (Thanks, Mr. Clinton), she could still claim her tenuous virginity title after her tryst with me. :) Everybody wins!
posted by Hildegarde at 7:50 PM on September 6, 2001

« Older Generation Terrorists   |   Potential forever unfulfilled. Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments