Reptiles and Naked Ladies

I was half asleep this morning when my dad came into the room and asked me if I wanted to attend the "demon" - (yes, as in Satan's helpers) - "stration", and though I was half asleep I gave an answer that I had thought long about and that I can defend. "No," I said, before rolling over and closing my eyes. Though I live under the same roof as my father, my own reason for not attending a reptile-themed softcore pornography festival isn't identical to his reasons.

My dad is one of those vegan animal rights activists who is deeply disturbed by Peta's use of female nudity, semi-nudity, and other states of undress. Just about all these instances feature young, physically attractive women and, though they can hardly be called displays of "sexual" nudity, they are definitely suggestive. Some animal rights vegans voice their concerns in terms of "harmful stereotypes" and "objectification of womyn". By displaying physically attractive women in delicious poses, Peta propagates the sexy woman stereotype, and gives creedance to the idea that women's purpose is to satiate men's desire.

I'm not convinced by the moralistic harmful stereotype argument. By that argument's logic I should stop wearing neckties, because by wearing a traditional symbol of male authority I propagate the "harmful stereotype" of the domineering man and give creedance to the idea that men's role is to seek, demand, and establish authority.

I don't see stereotypes as a reason for moral concern. All morality boils down to one precept - individual sovereignty. Every woman is the queen of her own body and her own house, and (so long as she isn't denying others' rights to person and property) displaying her own body is fair game. If a woman's body is hers, then it is hers to celebrate and display. To say that a woman has a duty to other women to not display herself is to say that no woman fully owns her own body. It's to say that there is a universal "community of women" in which every woman's right over herself exists only so far as is beneficial to the collective.

However, morality isn't the only thing to look at. There's also the issue of what we as activists are trying to get across. If I wanted to participate in a protest against racism, it would be against the point for me to lay an Israeli flag on the ground and urinate on it. Now, those who are already familiar with the argument that membership in the State of Israel is defined by ethnicity and race and that those who happen to have been born to the wrong parents are herded around like cattle by the State of Israel would understand what I'm doing, and may consider it art. But the people I'm trying to confront wouldn't already understand that, and would be put off by my demonstration.

Some vegan critics of Peta's tactics say that suggestive nudity in protests actually encourages rather than discourages commoditization and dehumanization of the other. I personally think that displaying the lizzard lady doesn't, but then again I sometimes hang around art critics. Though there isn't a problem of dehumanization, however, there is a problem of miscommunication.

This is where my own "harmful stereotypes" argument comes in. By participating in activism that features nudity, we propagate the image of sexually-loose liberals and leftists. People who see such demonstrations don't walk away taking animal consideration to heart. They walk away putting us in the same box as naked flower children, drag queens at pride parades, and foaming-at-the-mouth feminazis who think women have the unqualified "right" to butcher their preborn children. And as long as we're stuffed into that box, we can't be heard.

What happens when conservatives see peace activists use nudity as a tactic? They giggle, maybe they spit, and they drive on thanking God that our servicemen and women oversees make our country safe for naked vagrants to do it in the road. Then they start wondering whether our country has become too free.

And what happens when everyday Americans see a half-naked woman with her body painted green and signs that ask "Whose skin are you in"? Well, the women fume up with slutty bitch envy, and maybe they mutter their Victorian sentiments to their friends and husbands with words like "objectification" that they borrowed from the prudish left. And the men? At best, they start thinking about what pipes and valves they would need to turn their wives' bathtubs into giant fondues. The thought that they should use vegan chocolate might not occur to them. Any leaflet shoved into their hands when they're gawking at the half-naked woman is just a piece of paper compared to the half-naked woman.

Of course, this is just coming from personal experience. I can't say for sure that nudity never works. I just think that any benefit it has is horrendously outweighed by the costs. People are naturally resistant to change, and they would go to any length to justify not listening to an alternative view. I know, because I used to do it all the time. I still do it. ("Damn statists!" "Damn Zionists!" "Damn Rich White Erudite Liberal Elites!") I can't think of a single time I was convinced by suggestive nudity (convinced to a particular viewpoint, that is). I should admit that I first started thinking about animal rights when I saw a picture of people in a concentration camp juxtaposed with pictures of animals in factory farms. But that wasn't suggestive nudity.

I don't see this as a matter of Right. I only see it as a matter of Prudence. (This isn't to say that I see ALL morality as mere prudence.) If it turns out that a whole lot of people felt convicted about snakeskin boots and refused to buy reptile leather after they saw a half-naked woman painted green, then you might find me at the next reptile leather protest. But until then, we would be wise to take sex-related taboos into account.