by Michael dEstries
Categories: Animals, Causes
Tags: .

nia long, naked, peta

Ever been on the subway in NYC and spied an attractive naked woman in high-heels standing next to you? Kind of distracting, right?

PETA was obviously thinking the same thing with their new anti-fur ad starring Nia Long. Unfortunately, it’s so horribly photoshopped that I’m finding myself trying to figure out which parts of her are real. And honestly, would you ever let your genitalia touch a NY subway pole? Eek!

The movie/television actress (you’ve potentially seen her in something) says, “When I became a mother, I started to really understand the importance of all living creatures in a way that I didn’t ever think about before. And I’ve realized how important it is that we really take responsibility for … treating animals with love and care just like we would any human being. There’s no difference, in my opinion, [between fur and] slavery or the Holocaust. It’s just that we’re not dealing with human beings, we’re dealing with animals, but it’s still a living thing.”

“In being a responsible adult and really understanding what happens for one fur coat and how many animals are killed and slaughtered for one fur coat, it just isn’t worth it to me,” Nia continues telling PETA.

Check out the full article over on PETA.

About Michael dEstries

Michael has been blogging since 2005 on issues such as sustainability, renewable energy, philanthropy, and healthy living. He regularly contributes to a slew of publications, as well as consulting with companies looking to make an impact using the web and social media. He lives in Ithaca, NY with his family on an apple farm.

View all posts by Michael dEstries →
  • Stephanie

    I hate these ads. They have nothing to do with the fur industry, are silly, and distance feminists which were traditionally some of the strongest animal rights supporters. Ads like these are never going to make anyone give up fur. Period. A more effective ad would be a picture of a terrified fox or other animal cowering in a cage with wording that describes some of things that happen to fur animals like anal electrocution, being skinned alive, etc. That ad would get my attention, not another annoying naked chick ad.

  • VeggieTart

    There were great ads from HSUS a few years back that featured a catlike creature and a snowy background with the headline “I’m not a coat” or something like that. A picture of these animals in their natural habitat with such headlines–”I’m not a coat”, “I need my skin more than you do”, or the like will do far more than a naked woman.

    But naked women put the T&A in PETA, or so they’ve said. *sigh*

  • Kylo

    Oh my! Even the pole she’s holding is fake. Really strange work on the photo. The people above may not like these ads but I don’t think these ads are widely distributed or displayed. On the picture, look at the fur ad above Nia Long’s head. I’m sure that is much more representative.

  • Rachelle

    “And honestly, would you ever let your genitalia touch a NY subway pole? Eek!”

    LOLOL!!

  • http://www.toliveandeatinla.com Foodeater

    1. Eeew… now I’ll never touch a subway pole again.

    2. Worst. Photoshopping. EVER.

  • http://thislittlepiggyhadtofu.blogspot.com Al

    This is so ridiculous. The is why PETA is the butt of every animal rights joke (from those opposed to animal rights and those truly for it).

    First of all, why all the anti-fur ads? A convenient excuse for PETA to show photos of naked women and attract attention to themselves? What percentage of animals exploited is due to fur. A fraction of a percent. Yet PETA produces ad after ad of this crap. Where is their Go Vegan message? Honestly…

    Secondly, the fact that PETA commodifies women with ads like these in order to battle the commodification of other sentient beings is so hypocritical. How can you make a moral and ethical argument when you are contributing to the framework of oppression?

    Thirdly, “…treating animals with love and care…” How about, leaving animals the hell alone. Seals don’t need to be treated with love and care by humans, they need to be left the frack alone.

    Fourthly, “…we’re dealing with animals, but it’s still a living thing…” Are you serious? Thing? How about, “…we’re talking about non-human animals; living sentient beings…” Just for example.

    Finally, that photoshop job is soooooooo bad. Wow. I hope that means PETA is having financial problems. The sooner they dissolve and real, local, morally consistent animal rights groups take the helm the better.

    I’m sure there are more horrible quotes to pull from this story, but I’m not going to click through and give PETA the page hit.

    • brittany

      you’re dumb. your points are dumb. in fact, you and half the people on here are just plain stupid. so stupid, that i wish you were actually dumb, so you couldn’t open your mouths and speak.

      peta does what it can, which is more than most of us can say. the women in the ads are making a choice. if you want to criticize someone, criticize them for exploiting themselves. but be careful before you do that, because first you might want to take a look at your own life to make sure you don’t exploit yourself in any way.

      people are so amazingly self-righteous even in the face of so many worse things. so a few women (with money, fame, and/or body they can sell) decide to get out there for a good cause. so maybe they did it for publicity. maybe they don’t speak as eloquently about animal rights as Gandhi did. SO WHAT?? you want to bitch about feminism or their grammar or the photoshop job? really???

      seriously, i just re-read your post, and i’m so confounded by your stupidity that i can’t even respond further. unless you piss me off again by replying. in which case, i’ll be happy to go into the specifics of why your logic sucks.

  • http://www.veganjapan.net herwin

    a clear HOW NOT TO photoshop ! sadly but true, adds with naked chicks sell the message better then adds with foxes being analy electrocuted. Great job PETA !

  • http://www.theecosista.com www.theecosista.com

    Harpo, who dis woman? I mean, that is Nia Long’s face but I am pretty sure that’s not her body. No shade at Nia because there is nothing wrong with Nia’s “real” body but this right here. This. Right. Here. This is just plain photoshop fuckery at its best.

  • VeggieTart

    Al, my sentiments exactly. Except that “Killer” ad above Nia Long’s head is an anti-fur sentiment. PETA is using “Killer” ambiguously here.

    Maybe PETA thinks it’s easy for people to give up fur than to stop eating animals’ flesh. It’s relatively low-hanging fruit here.

    And am I alone in getting pissy when people say “that”, “which”, and “it” when referring to animals instead of “who” and “he/she” or “him/her”. If the gender of the animal is not know, I suppose “it” will do, but if the gender is known, gender-specific pronouns apply.

  • Adri

    She looks beautiful and I’m so happy she did the ad. It’s way over-Photoshopped, though!!

  • Whoever…

    I’m not a Peta supporter. Actually I have a different vision of things from theirs and from many other NGOs for that matter.

    With that said, I would like to know if any of the people who accuse them of everything and anything, have presented any alternatives. How many of you are doing anything to change things?

    I agree that this kind of campaigning probably isn’t the most dignifying for women, but no one is forcing them to do this. What about the actresses who do nude and erotic scenes in the movies?
    People call it art and those women (the top actresses) make millions doing it! So, what’s so shocking about these ads?

    Moreover, if these ads didn’t somehow work Peta would have stopped using them, right?

    If Peta uses a more aggressive ad, they are extremists, if they use naked women, they are exploring women… What do you want them to do? Sit around and be some veg*an hippies spreading love and peace and tolerance all around?
    That’s very nice but it doesn’t work!!

    What works is aggressive (which doesn’t mean violent) campaigns. For some reason they have managed to convince numerous fashion designers, for instance, to stop using fur in their collections. Well, that means they must be doing something right…

    I’m just saying…

  • krissy

    Nia Rules!

  • ginya2

    The photo editing is terrible, if you beleive this is real, it’s not. You don’t even have to look closely to see it’s fake. I’m a beginner at it and my works is so much better than this. She should sue them. LOL

  • Pingback: “Real Housewife” Bethenny Frankel Goes Nude For PETA // ecorazzi.com :: the latest in green gossip