Did you know that your version of Internet Explorer is out of date?
To get the best possible experience using our website we recommend downloading one of the browsers below.

Internet Explorer 10, Firefox, Chrome, or Safari.

Lea Michele Would Go Naked For PETA

Like us on Facebook:
The current article you are reading does not reflect the views of the current editors and contributors of the new Ecorazzi

A few months back, “Glee” actress and PETA-supporter Lea Michele seemed to indicate that her support for the animal rights org could be shown without having to drop her clothes.

“Here’s the thing, I hope I got the word out,” she said in reference to an anti-fur PSA she starred in. “I think you can get the word out there without a huge billboard of [you] taking your clothes off.”

“I [have] got a couple of years ahead of me to do stuff like that but honestly, I really believe in what I was talking about in that ad,” she added. “So I stand by it and who knows what I’ll do in the future for them.”

At PETA’s 30th Anniversary gala in LA this past weekend, the 24-year-old seemed a bit more willing to speculate about her participation in the popular “I’d Rather Go Naked” campaigns.

“I don’t think we need to see a billboard of me naked to know I am anti-fur, but if they asked I would probably do it.”

I’m sure there are some here that would like to see Lea hold her ground on the issue — especially since the use of nudity by PETA is often a divisive topic in the animal rights scene. Sound off below.

Like us on Facebook:
0 Comments

Protesting Kylie Jenner’s Use of Fur Doesn’t Help Animals

Campaigns against fur, whether that’s at the PETA level or a small mobbing like this, don’t work because they promote the use of other animal products.

Collaborating with animal exploiters won’t help animals

The two sides claim to both have the “health and well-being of animals” in mind in this partnership, but one likely said “after profitability” under their breath.

Exploitation for art is no worse than exploitation for dinner

It always seems to come back to a confused juror deciding when animal use is justified.