As you may remember, ever since I saw candid photos of Kelly Brook in a bikini, I’ve been a fan girl for Kelly. I used to not care that much about her, but her spectacular hourglass figure has made me a true believer. So I shall lay it down on the line for my lady: this new PETA ad is fug as hell. Kelly’s strength is not her face, but once you get past gawking at her body, she is much, much prettier than this. PETA Photoshopped Kelly to look ridiculously unattractive. Not only that, it seems like they airbrushed out part of her jaw, right? Like, that’s not even the SHAPE of her face. Here’s a photo of Kelly from last night – just a paparazzi photo of going into a fashion event:

So much better in candid photos.

Anyway, Kelly is taking part in PETA’s “Whose Skin Are You In?” campaign. Kelly was shot by Bryan Adams (ugh), and the point of the campaign is to “protest at how snakes, lizards and alligators and other exotic animals are skinned alive.” Kelly said, “It makes my skin crawl to think about the violent ways snakes, lizards, alligators and other exotic creatures are raised and killed for boots, bags and belts. Our message is to support the designers who are creative without being destructive, and go for the great fakes that pay tribute to the animals’ beauty without killing them.” Sure. I don’t own any exotic-skin handbags, so personally, I guess I’m okay with this. Except for the part where I kind of want an alligator-skin purse.

Photos courtesy of WENN.

A couple of years ago I made the mistake of downloading a PDF from PETA with vegetarian recipes. A few pages in I was confronted by pretty violent imagery of factory farming conditions. It turned my stomach and while I felt awful for the animals I was also pretty annoyed at PETA for hiding that crap in what looked like an innocuous recipe booklet. Plus it felt disingenuous. I was already seeking out vegetarian recipes and while I’m a meat eater I work hard to limit my meat consumption. (My dad has been a vegetarian for 20 years.) Having someone shove that stuff in my face made me less likely to listen to their message.

Anyway PETA is about to do the same thing in a sort-of porn website that will probably look like softcore stuff at first and end up making hapless dudes lose their wood and lunch. Gross.

PETA plans to register itself to operate the www.peta.xxx Web site.

“We are preparing to launch our own peta.xxx site, but instead of just showing people our iconic ads we then show them how animals suffer for entertainment,” said spokeswoman Ashley Byrne, according to the Herald Sun.

“Our racier actions are sometimes a way to get people to sit up and pay attention to the plight of animals,” she said.

Internet surfers who visit the x-rated site will initially be presented with animal rights groups too salacious for TV ads and campaigns. However, the sexy side of PETA, illustrated in its galleries and videos will give way to the horrific mistreatment of animals on factory farms, with pictures and video shot undercover by the group’s hidden camera investigations.

It will have enough adult content to qualify for the XXX domain site but also some other graphic images of animals that viewers may not expect to see.

“We live in a 24 hour news cycle world and we learn the racy things we do are sometimes the most effective way that we can reach particular individuals,” PETA spokeswoman, Lindsay Rajt, told Huffington Post.

[International Herald Tribune via Jezebel]

So I guess this is a heads up that you’re better off not visiting the PETA “porn” site. I doubt they’re going full-out graphic stuff, although you know they’ll show graphic footage of animals being slaughtered.

Here’s PETA’s “banned” super bowl ad. There isn’t anything other than sexy stuff in this video, but I can’t speak for any videos they might link from here.

This video is maybe the funniest thing I’ve seen in days. This is a behind-the-scenes video of Elisabetta Canalis’s photo shoot for PETA. She’s the latest “I’d rather go naked then yadda, whatever” campaign. I mean, hey, I don’t wear fur either, but I’m not a raving lunatic about it. And it takes about four seconds before you realize that Elisabetta has absolutely no clue what PETA is about, she just showed up and took off her clothes and posed her Adam’s apple off.

Eli says, for the record, “Doing PETA’s campaign has always been my dream… This is the best reason why I get naked in my life.” I love all of her little farty-face poses around the thirty-second mark. Too wonderful. Like, she’s talking about little animals dying and that makes her want to pout and look coquettish.

I still don’t know what “bluging them” means… she is talking about how animals are killed, and I make out “electrocuted” but then she “bluging them”. Is that, like, “bludgeoning”?

As far as her body… uh… sure, she’s got some good parts. But… I don’t know. Her skin looks really loose, like Iggy Pop’s. And her drag queen face is still upsetting.

Screencaps.

While I think it’s pretty dumb to wear fur at this point, I also think it’s kind of mean to pick on poor Queen Elizabeth II. QEII wore some kind of (fox?) fur hat on Christmas day, plus a coat with a matching fur trim. And now PETA and various British animal rights groups are all up in arms. QEII is really old, though – my point being that she probably still thinks she’s living in a time when fur trimmings are considered the height of fashion. Plus, it’s really cold. What is she supposed to wear to church, polar fleece? Eh. Here’s more from The Daily Mail:

The Queen and the Duchess of Cornwall came under fire from animal rights campaigners ­yesterday after they both wore fur hats on Christmas Day. The Russian-style hats they wore to attend a church service in ­Sandringham with other members of the Royal Family were made from fur from different types of fox, claimed experts.

Andrew Tyler, director of Animal Aid, said: ‘This strikes me as an ostentatious display of cruelty. To parade fur in 2010 says something unpleasant about the person wearing it.’

The Cossack-style hat worn by Camilla was made from ‘vintage fur’, by designer milliner Philip Treacy, using a piece of fur which had previously belonged to the duchess’s mother.

A spokesman for the Queen said she could not confirm if Her Majesty’s cream-coloured hat and matching coat trim were made from real fur but experts said they were convinced it was. Many fashion designers continue to use fur in their collections, and campaigners have expressed fears that it has come back into style. They have called on celebrities and members of the Royal Family to ‘set a good example’ by ­choosing not to wear animal pelts.

The Queen has worn fur in the past and her official robes for State occasions are trimmed with ermine, the winter coat of the stoat.

Camilla faced anger from animal rights organisations last year, when she wore fur twice during an official visit to Canada. First she wore a grey rabbit stole when she visited Newfoundland, together with a hat trimmed with fake fur. She then donned a calf-length cape lined with grey fox fur. Both pieces were said to have been ‘refashioned’ from vintage fur that had belonged to her grandmother, Sonia Cubitt, Baroness Ashcombe, whose mother, Alice Keppel, was a mistress of Edward VII.

The ethical question of ‘recycling’ vintage fur has split opinion, but Mr Tyler said: ‘It doesn’t matter when the animal was killed, it’s a body part and a product of cruelty.’

In 2000 Prince Edward’s wife Sophie apologised after she was seen wearing a fox fur hat. The Countess of Wessex said her decision to wear the hat on a skiing holiday in St Moritz, Switzerland, was ‘an error of judgment’.

Legislation to ban fur farming in Britain was passed that same year following a lengthy campaign ­highlighting the physical and ­psychological distress suffered by animals in some fur farms.

However, it remains legal to import fur and in China, now the world’s leading fur exporter, millions of animals who are killed for their fur are often skinned alive, according to the campaign group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

A Peta spokesman said: ‘Britain is a nation of animal lovers and more than 90 per cent of Britons refuse to wear fur. We hope that Her Majesty will choose to wear something more humane in future, that better reflects the values of the British people.’

[From The Daily Mail]

Should the Queen “set a good example”? Sure. They’re doing great things with faux fur (I have a faux snow leopard hoodie that the Queen can borrow!), and it would be cool to see the Queen embrace faux fur. Also – we have no proof that she’s wearing real fur, you know? Sure, it looks like real fur, and it probably is. But I await the Queen’s official statement, I’m just saying.

Warning: thinking about this stuff may bother you
Yesterday we heard that Tommy Lee had sent a letter to Sea World accusing them of using cow vaginas filled with hot water to masturbate their captive male killer whales in order to collect their sperm. It was disturbing to say the least, and put some pictures in my head that won’t be easily forgotten. Lee was advocating for the release of Tilikum, a killer whale who has killed three people, including a female trainer earlier this year. In his letter, he accused Sea World of lying when they said that no one was in direct contact with the whale, and claimed that Sea World was still collecting sperm from Tilikum through divers using that bizarre method. Lee admitted to getting his information from PETA, and now Sea World has responded that he was wrong and that they do no such thing.

SeaWorld is finally lashing back at Tommy Lee — claiming the rocker’s allegation that the park uses cow vaginas to “masturbate” their killer whales for sperm collection is “beyond ludicrous.”

A rep for SeaWorld tells us, “If Mr. Lee’s information on Tilikum and SeaWorld’s artificial insemination program for killer whales comes from PETA we’re not surprised that it’s wrong. PETA is as careless with facts as they are extreme in their views.”

As we first reported, Lee had fired off a letter to SeaWorld demanding they release Tilikum the orca back into the wild. In his letter, Lee also stated that he learned the “sick and twisted” info about the cow vaginas from SeaWorld’s own director of safety.

But the SeaWorld rep notes, “The process of collecting semen for [artificial insemination] doesn’t differ in any meaningful way from the techniques employed in managing livestock or other species for zoological display.”

“Contrary to the charges made by PETA and repeated in Lee’s letter, our trainers do not now nor have they ever entered the water with Tilikum for this purpose. The safety of SeaWorld staff and the welfare of our animals are our highest priorities.”

The rep adds, “Whatever his views on SeaWorld, Mr. Lee would be wise to spend more time checking his facts.

[From TMZ]

Ironically, the whale’s name is pronounced “Til-a-come.” Thankfully Tilikum seems to be taking care of business on his own and without a diver’s help. I’m so sorry for making you think of this. All joking aside, the fact that the whale has killed three people is enough to prove Lee’s point that it should not be in captivity. It’s hard to tell what they should do with the creature, though, as it may not be able to fend for itself again in the wild.

Photo credit: WENN.com

Last week, PETA sent an open letter to Lindsay Lohan offering to pay the more than $50,000 bill for Lindsay’s Betty Ford Clinic rehab (her fifth rehab stay, I believe). But, like everything in life, the offer comes with a “catch”. For PETA to pay Lindsay’s bill, they are asking that Lindsay become a vegetarian (or a vegan). Part of the open letter states: “PETA will help pay your $50,000 bill for substance addiction treatment if you’ll rid yourself of one more toxic substance: meat. As you know, a crucial part of any recovery is showing charity to others. One way to do this is to be kind to animals, the Earth, and your own body. You’ll never regret it.” I would have thought that Lindsay would prefer to sell her own stolen jewelry rather than take orders from PETA, but sources tell Radar that she’s considering the offer seriously:

Lindsay Lohan’s financial woes are no secret, and PETA offered to pay $50,000 for LiLo’s stint in rehab – if she gives up meat, RadarOnline.com has exclusively learned.

A source close to the Mean Girls star, 24, tells us: “Lindsay is seriously considering the offer from PETA. There is thoughtful consideration about PETA’s very generous offer. Lindsay loves animals, and looks at it as a ‘win-win’ since being a vegetarian is a healthier lifestyle that she is striving for.”

As RadarOnline.com has previously reported, Lindsay’s stint in rehab at the Betty Ford Center is going to cost upwards of $150,000. Lindsay has absolutely no source of income at the present moment.

“Lindsay is making arrangements to make payments to the Betty Ford Center to pay for her bill. Betty Ford does work with patients who have financial problems and are unable to pay the bill in full. This is a very common practice of Betty Ford. Lindsay realizes that Betty Ford is giving her an opportunity and essentially taking a chance on her, given her past track record,” the source says.

Lindsay would “love it if PETA would offer to pay her entire rehab bill. However, she isn’t expecting that to happen, and is just grateful for the offer PETA has made. Lindsay seems to have really grown up a lot since her last appearance in court last Friday. Lindsay isn’t expecting, nor does she want a free ride, which is a very good sign for her recovery. Lindsay is taking responsibility and seems to be working the 12 steps of AA,” the source added.

Lindsay must stay at Betty Ford until January 3, 2011.

[From Radar]

Always on the hustle. I read the open letter carefully, and it is clear that PETA is looking for a hard confirmation that Lindsay quit meat. There is no “trying” or “considering” the vegan lifestyle, there is only doing it for cash. Personally, I wouldn’t be able to give up chicken for $50,000, but chicken is my LEGAL addiction. Maybe Lindsay’s love affair with drugs isn’t the same as her affection for meat.

Photos courtesy of WENN.

Michael C Hall filming with his on-screen son

Dodge had a kind of throwaway sale ad (below) featuring the voice of Dexter’s anti-hero, Michael C. Hall. The end of the ad included a scene where a chimpanzee dressed in racing gear set off some confetti through one of those push-down bomb type detonators. It was a pretty normal ad that featured a chimpanzee, but of course PETA was up in arms over it and issued an open letter to Dodge asking them to pull the ad due to “the well-documented abuse that young chimpanzees and orangutans suffer in the entertainment industry.”

Instead of being cowed by PETA, Dodge re-issued the ad with an “invisible” monkey that featured the same footage with the chimp digitally removed. (below) It was pretty much a genius move, and ensured that Dodge will get a lot more coverage than it otherwise would have. Here’s more:

Annoying end-of-model-year dealer closeout ads have swarmed the airwaves, as they do every year around this time.
But Chrysler threw a touch of whimsy into its 30-second array of black cars in front of a tent with confetti, with the voice of Michael C. Hall–better known as the civic-minded serial killer title character of Dexter–intoning flatly, “This event could not be more amazing.”
[pause]

“Oh, wait. There’s a monkey. I stand corrected.” Indeed, there was a monkey in an Evel Knievel suit, pressing a detonator to explode … well, a very small shower of confetti.

Then People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals got into the act.

The group issued a statement saying, “Most top ad agencies in the country won’t even consider producing an ad featuring a great ape these days given the well-documented abuse that young chimpanzees and orangutans suffer in the entertainment industry.”

The statement went on in quite some detail, specifying the abuses. It ended by saying, “Dodge isn’t going to dodge a bullet on this one. It needs to pull the ad–and we’ve contacted the company asking it to do just that.”

But rather than pulling the ad, Chrysler has simply digitally erased the monkey. Hall now says, in the same monotone, “Oh, wait. There’s an invisible monkey. Unbelievable.”

Consumerist says, “The first one was just meh, monkey joke. The revision is an act of surreal genius, and a giant finger to PETA pantywringers.”

[From The Car Connection via Buzz.Yahoo.com]

I love it, and I love how Dodge didn’t scrap the whole ad or even the monkey really. I’m sympathetic to the plight of performing animals, but PETA just rubs so many people the wrong way with their over the top tactics. Sometimes it seems like they’re more interested in getting publicity than making whatever point it is they have. They’ve even advocated on behalf of cockroaches and got all up in arms over the fact that Punxsutawney Phil, the groundhog used to predict the duration of winter ever year in Punxsutawney, PA, gets stressed out by the crowds during his one gig a year. PETA recommended that Phil be replaced with a robotic groundhog. I’m not kidding.

Original Dodge ad with the monkey, voiceover by Michael C Hall

Ad with the “invisible” monkey after PETA complaint

Here is the new print ad for Blackglama, the brand that is “all mink, all the time” (my tagline). In previous ad campaigns, Blackglama has hired Sophia Loren, Diana Ross, Lauren Bacall and Linda Evangelista for their campaigns, called “The Legend” campaign. Janet Jackson is the newest “Legend” and while I think she deserves the title, it’s off-putting seeing Janet front for mink. Blackglama’s press release claims: “Janet is an icon in the world of music and entertainment, a true legend. She represents everything that this storied campaign embodies. Janet is to entertainment what Blackglama is to luxury.” The ad is going wide in the September issues of Vanity Fair, Vogue, W, T: The New York Times Style Magazine, Harper’s Bazaar and Women’s Wear Daily worldwide. And as you can imagine, PETA is pissed:

Animal activists have taken aim at Janet Jackson for signing on as the new face of fur firm BlackGlama.

The pop superstar was announced as the brand’s new ‘What Becomes a Legend Most?’ spokes model on Thursday and she’ll model high-quality mink items in the ads – and PETA bosses have been quick to react.

Spokeswoman Amanda Schinke says, “It’s amazing what celebrities will do when their careers are on a downslide, but we didn’t think that Janet was this desperate.”

“Surely she knows enough about suffering and unjustified death to recognize that both occur in the production of a fur coat. We are asking her to think again and to donate these stolen skins to be used as bedding for animals orphaned by other human-caused disasters, such as loss of habitat.”

[From Starpulse]

Um, “downslide”? Really, PETA? You can’t just make the statement about animal rights, you have to disrespect Janet’s career? Note to PETA: this is why people dislike you. At this point, PETA should just stick with the cold hard facts of how mink coats are made, the details are disturbing enough without personally attacking someone’s career and calling Miss Janet “desperate”. UGH.

Ad courtesy of Dipped in Cream.

Kelis sat down for a new interview with MTV, and I think the whole thing was supposed to be about fashion and “Kelis as style icon”. But she ended up giving a fat “f-ck you” to PETA, an organization she has tangled with before. Several months ago, Kelis was photographed wearing a fur hat, which angered PETA of course. They sent her an open letter, and Kelis basically told them to shove it.

Anyway, in this interview, Kelis is talking about finding your own personal style, saying your fashion is “your calling card and your resume, in a sense”. MTV gets Kelis to review some of her fashion moments, and they put up the photo of her in the fur hat, the one that angered PETA so much. Kelis lays down the law:

Kelis – MTV Shows