Pictured above you will find an ad from PeTA promoting the idea of going vegetarian with an interesting use of visuals and of words. The ad states, "Eating Meat Got You Down? Fight Impotence. Go Vegetarian" with an attractive scantily dressed celebrity, Chantelle Houghton, holding a limp hot dog. Looking at the above ad, one of the first things that I questioned was, since when did sex appeal or even incompetence have anything to do with going vegetarian? What does sexual incompetence have to do with what PeTA "stands for," such as animal rights? What does slapping a woman in lingerie and using choice words about sexual issues have anything to do with saving animals? Is PeTA suggesting that by going vegetarian that any sexual incompetence that you have will be fixed? Or is it suggesting that by going vegetarian you too can have a gorgeous woman like Chantelle Houghton? This ad seems to insinuate that going vegetarian will suddenly fix any these sexual problems, when it does not. That is where I feel that this particular ad crosses the ethical line.
I believe that this ad is disrespectful and has a high impact on those who view this ad. It effects to not only men, but women as well. What would or do men think when they see this ad and are struggling with incompetence? Does PeTA actually believe that people will think that not eating meat will help their sex life? An incompetent man who is looking at this picture will most likely not find this ad to be humorous or appealing, as the situation is very real to them. It is a sensitive matter and most individuals would be offended by something conveying this issue in a not very realistic or sensitive light. Likewise, I find this ad to be disrespectful to women as well. What does a women in lingerie have to do with PeTA and saving animals? Why must the woman be dressed sexy in order to promote PeTA? How does PeTA and lingerie go hand in hand? Realistically, they do not go hand in hand. Saving animals is not synonymous for sex appeal. This may cause individuals to view PeTA in a negative light based on this ad because sexuality and medical issues, such as this, has nothing to do with PeTA.
This particular PeTA ad is directed towards men and women. Women could very well look at this ad, reference their significant other's "issues," and see this as an option to fix that issue. Women may also see Chantelle Houghton looking in shape and beautiful and believe that going meat-free could help them too achieve that level of attractiveness or sexuality. Men can be influenced as well as they may be incompetent and see this as another way to fix their issue. It can also persuade guys to go vegetarian, so that they can get a female like that posted in the ad.
The "Go Vegetarian," PeTA ad could have been campaigned differently and more effectively using a more ethical tactic. I think it would have been more ethical if PeTA just stuck to the facts. Rather than using a medical condition or even a woman in lingerie, they could have posted benefits from her about going vegetarian. It is uncomfortable for those dealing with that specific health issue and offers no realistic resolution for it. I believe this ad does not specifically target individuals in an ethical way, but rather disrespect those who the ad does reach in the process.
