Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Beaut.ie rant on Lush Stunt

«1345678

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,559 ✭✭✭Millicent


    Well that was disturbing. I'm kind of with Beaut on this. The video is worse than the pictures and the enactment is reminiscent of a sub-genre of horror cinema often known as "torture porn", whether that was intended or not.

    I think they probably could have erred on the side of caution and used a man as the "guinea pig". It would probably have proven more shocking, if anything, given that we are less used to seeing men as the subject of that kind of gaze. It would also keep the performance from straying too close to either the stereotype of woman as weaker or be a trigger for those who have been sexually assaulted.

    I am all for animal rights, genuinely, and have considered going vegetarian lately as it is getting harder and harder to ensure that the animal on the plate has not suffered unnecessarily. That said, there is a right and a wrong way to conduct a campaign like this one and this isn't it. Especially given that, as reported on Beaut.ie, the UK has some pretty stringent animal testing laws.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,512 ✭✭✭baby and crumble


    Wow. I get what they're trying to do, and it's laudable, but that is really a bit too close to the likes of torture porn, etc. I know some women who are survivors of sexual abuse and I know that this would be hugely triggering for them, as Millicent said.

    I know that seems like a leap out of context, but you can't watch a woman with her mouth strapped open with a man forcing her to do various things, putting stuff in her mouth, etc. without going there. Especially with the flesh coloured lycra suit on. I wish I could see it another way, but given what I know about sexual abuse and torture, I can't. Perhaps it's one of those things where if you have a certain lens, you can't see this another way.


  • Registered Users Posts: 44 fatfacee


    Good on this girl and everyone involved. Very effective! Stop animal cosmetic testing!!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,806 ✭✭✭ Yara Swift Wreckage


    Millicent wrote: »
    Especially given that, as reported on Beaut.ie, the UK has some pretty stringent animal testing laws.

    Yeah, I think Beaut.ie's knickers were in such a twist they could not muster up the energy to familiarise themselves with the point of the campaign.

    Linked from Lush - http://www.fightinganimaltesting.com/

    and
    You have clearly missed the point of this campaign.

    Lush is trying to ban the SALE of animal tested cosmetics in the EU, so while you may be right that animal testing itself is prohibited in the UK, there are NO restrictions on bringing and selling animal tested products in the UK, a fact which many of the major cosmetic companies take advantage of. (eg. Loreal.)


  • Registered Users Posts: 608 ✭✭✭Cocolola


    Personally I thought it was a good campaign. When I looked at it, I didn't think torture-porn or sexual assault. I saw a human being subjected to the same processes that hundreds of thousands of animals are every day. I am already anti vivisection but this campaign actually did make me wonder if I'm really doing my part. I shall be investigating various cosmetics companies later on and seeing what changes I can make to my beauty products.

    As for Beaut.ie, well of course they are more than entitled to write an article from whichever viewpoint they hold, but I have to say I'm quite disappointed by their treatment of commenters who didn't agree with them, in particular the bitchy tweets that were being exchanged between the author and a few of her friends. Just my opinion though.

    A couple of women posted to say that they had been victims of sexual assault and that they were highly insulted to have the campaign compared to what they went through. Another poster then went on to say that (and this is my interpretation of what she said) just because they had experienced sexual assault didn't mean they should be allowed base their views on their past experiences.

    I don't know, there's so much more I want to say on this but firstly I'm not very good at putting my thoughts into words and secondly, I don't want to start a fight about pushy feminists :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,423 ✭✭✭Morag


    I didn't think torture-porn or sexual assault either and I do get called a pushy feminist :pac:

    The artist Jacqueline Traide viewed this as a performance piece, every part of it she would have planned and prepared for and her part was to be as distressed as possible and it seems did she it excellently.

    Would those remarks have been made of the the person in the performance was female?
    Some how I don't think so.

    http://www.thedrum.co.uk/news/2012/04/25/lush-shocks-animal-testing-human-pr-stunt

    When I was a teen we all bought Body shop products and we all were aware of animal testing and how they spoke out about it. Unfortunatley the body shop was then bought by L'oreal. Literal the body shop sold out.

    The founders of Lush used to work for the body shop back in the 90s and left to peruse their own dreams
    and they have surpass the level of awareness and activism they bring and I can only hope they reach as many as what The Body Shop did in the 90s.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,032 ✭✭✭Bubblefett


    It's a shock value campain but I do think it'll get it's point across about animal testing. That said it completly turned my stomach and I found it very hard to watch (all the time thinking about the animals who are subjected to these kind of proceedures- it's nightmarish imo)

    It didn't make me think of anything like tourture porn or the degrading of women and I hope that the campain doesn't get lost in arguements about that.

    The point of it is to highlight what animals go through on a daily basis and that's so important. And I suppose the golden rule in the media today is- the more shocking and contriversal the stunt, the more coverage it gets and the more people will talk.


  • Registered Users Posts: 313 ✭✭noddyone2


    Animals shouldn;t be used for testing at all. There are thousands and thousands of human prisoners, who have comitted awful crimes (rape, child assault, murder etc.) that this testing could be done on. Why would anyone have a problem with that?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,032 ✭✭✭Bubblefett


    noddyone2 wrote: »
    Animals shouldn;t be used for testing at all. There are thousands and thousands of human prisoners, who have comitted awful crimes (rape, child assault, murder etc.) that this testing could be done on. Why would anyone have a problem with that?

    As much as I agree that rapists and child molesters should be subjected to that harshest punishments available it will never happen bacuse they still have better rights than your own childhood dog


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,057 ✭✭✭MissFlitworth


    noddyone2 wrote: »
    Animals shouldn;t be used for testing at all. There are thousands and thousands of human prisoners, who have comitted awful crimes (rape, child assault, murder etc.) that this testing could be done on. Why would anyone have a problem with that?

    Are you joking or do you really believe that? If by any mental chance you're serious there are millions of people who would have a problem with that and a never ending list of reasons why it's a terrible idea


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,114 ✭✭✭doctor evil


    Animal testing is a necessary evil which also benefits veterinary medicine.

    I don't buy anything at Lush (smells way too strong whenever I walk past their shop) as they support sab groups (who don't give a fiddle about horses/hounds - total whackjobs) Lush have also donated funds to other questionable groups.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,441 ✭✭✭pampootie


    Animal testing is a necessary evil which also benefits veterinary medicine.

    It's not for cosmetics though. I don't have a problem with it for medicines development, human or veterinary, but for cosmetics? It's pointless. I don't have anything to back it up but I also would have thought that animals used for medical clinical trials would be treated as lot more ethically than those used for cosmetics testing.
    Also I can't stand when beaut.ie get on their high horse about something, they're invariably really nasty to anyone who disagrees in the comments.


  • Registered Users Posts: 151 ✭✭bobbygirl


    pampootie wrote: »
    It's not for cosmetics though. I don't have a problem with it for medicines development, human or veterinary, but for cosmetics? It's pointless. I don't have anything to back it up but I also would have thought that animals used for medical clinical trials would be treated as lot more ethically than those used for cosmetics testing.
    Also I can't stand when beaut.ie get on their high horse about something, they're invariably really nasty to anyone who disagrees in the comments.

    It's certainly not necessary for cosmetics nowadays and there are plenty of companies around that do not test on or use any animal ingredients in their products.Maybe they used a woman as cosmetics are normally associated more with women than men anyway....


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,806 ✭✭✭ Yara Swift Wreckage


    top-gear-clothing.jpg


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,390 ✭✭✭Stench Blossoms


    Article seems to be gone now.


  • Registered Users Posts: 852 ✭✭✭PrincessLola


    This Reminds me of the bullsh*t shock campaigns PETA engage in.
    They usually depict women objectified, naked under cling-film as though they were packaged meet, or tied up or in cages to represent cruelty against animals.

    phpCDZmC3AM.jpgpeta_ad-1.jpg

    womanasmeat.jpg


    0228_peta_protest_getty_2-1.jpg

    ugh.

    Heres the problem, its always women who are used in these campains, never men, as the subject of the metaphorical abuse on animals.
    I don't care if women volunteer for these campaigns thinking they're being totally 'right on'. In actual fact, its just exploiting the female body. If there is ever equal expoitation of men as well as women then I'll shut up about this. But until then these types of campaigns are total clusterf*cks and need to die


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,423 ✭✭✭Morag


    The artist in the Lush instillation had a full body suit on, it was pretty clear she wasn't naked. PETA I have no time for them or their sexist campaigns over recent years.


  • Registered Users Posts: 154 ✭✭ArtOfEscape


    Heres the problem, its always women who are used in these campains, never men, as the subject of the metaphorical abuse on animals.

    Dear God, THIS. :(


  • Registered Users Posts: 313 ✭✭noddyone2


    Are you joking or do you really believe that? If by any mental chance you're serious there are millions of people who would have a problem with that and a never ending list of reasons why it's a terrible idea

    I do believe it. Let's go through this: The animals done nothing wrong, yet they are the ones that suffer, because they have no choice. The criminals did have a choice, they harmed people - why not make them suffer? If millions have a problem with my view, so be it. As for the 'never ending list of reasons', I'll be glad to give my reasoned view on every one. Bottom line: testing on animals is wrong. You cannot say, hand on heart, that it's a good thing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 852 ✭✭✭PrincessLola


    noddyone2 wrote: »
    I do believe it. Let's go through this: The animals done nothing wrong

    Thats because they are incapable of right or wrong. They are incapable of moral agency.
    They have diminished responsibility.
    The criminals did have a choice, they harmed people - why not make them suffer?

    The criminals on the other hand do have moral agency, but with that comes rights, as in the right not to be subjected to scientific experimentation against their will.

    As for the animals, with diminished responsibility comes diminished rights.
    Yes, children also have diminished responsibility, but children are human beings and will grow into capable adults.
    testing on animals is wrong. You cannot say, hand on heart, that it's a good thing.

    Of course its wrong. But for human medicine its arguably not wrong. Without animal testing we would not have so many of the cures for diseases that we have today.
    For example, insulin, the drug that saves the lives of thousands of diabetics is the result of animal testing.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,559 ✭✭✭Millicent


    This Reminds me of the bullsh*t shock campaigns PETA engage in.
    They usually depict women objectified, naked under cling-film as though they were packaged meet, or tied up or in cages to represent cruelty against animals.

    [snipped photos]

    ugh.

    Heres the problem, its always women who are used in these campains, never men, as the subject of the metaphorical abuse on animals.
    I don't care if women volunteer for these campaigns thinking they're being totally 'right on'. In actual fact, its just exploiting the female body. If there is ever equal expoitation of men as well as women then I'll shut up about this. But until then these types of campaigns are total clusterf*cks and need to die

    This is exactly what I was getting at too! To say the woman had a choice in the matter is besides the point--it's still objectifying and I definitely found it a trigger. I passionately am for animal welfare but I find it ironic that while campaigning for one group, they are feeding into the degradation of another.

    Besides that, at this stage it's totally hackneyed and lazy, not nearly as groundbreaking as the organisers seem to think.

    To back up my point on the torture porn connection, here are three of the more mundane images pulled from Google (linked rather than posted to avoid upsetting anyone):

    http://www.ifc.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/10252010_saw3d.jpg

    http://www.bloodsprayer.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/233.png

    http://moviesmedia.ign.com/movies/image/article/804/804194/torture-porn-when-good-times-go-bad-20070712110611488-000.jpg

    I don't see a massive difference, tbh.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,691 ✭✭✭Lia_lia


    It's just basic marketing. If a women is shown in distress it will attract more people. Doesn't make it okay at all though! That was a bit ott in fairness. Very disturbing. Especially for kids. And people who have suffered abuse.

    And this is coming from a strict vegetarian/animal rights supporter.


  • Registered Users Posts: 29,089 ✭✭✭✭LizT


    I personally thought the campaign was very effective. Shocking but that's what it needed to be to get a reaction.

    A lot of people believe animal testing is a necessary evil. I agree it is for mdmedicinal purposes. I don't agree with animal testing for cosmetics though.

    I think it is an effective campaign because some people hold the view that animal testing simply involves putting a bit of make up on a pig and seeing what happens. Lush's campaign at least tried to demonstrate the unfortunate reality.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,423 ✭✭✭Morag


    Millicent wrote: »
    This is exactly what I was getting at too! To say the woman had a choice in the matter is besides the point--it's still objectifying and I definitely found it a trigger. I passionately am for animal welfare but I find it ironic that while campaigning for one group, they are feeding into the degradation of another.

    Besides that, at this stage it's totally hackneyed and lazy, not nearly as groundbreaking as the organisers seem to think.

    To back up my point on the torture porn connection, here are three of the more mundane images pulled from Google (linked rather than posted to avoid upsetting anyone):

    http://www.ifc.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/10252010_saw3d.jpg

    http://www.bloodsprayer.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/233.png

    http://moviesmedia.ign.com/movies/image/article/804/804194/torture-porn-when-good-times-go-bad-20070712110611488-000.jpg

    I don't see a massive difference, tbh.

    I do the performance artist conceived and consented to the treatment which was not created to titillate.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,559 ✭✭✭Millicent


    Sharrow wrote: »
    I do the performance artist conceived and consented to the treatment which was not created to titillate.

    Yeah, but so do the actresses in torture porn. It's doesn't minimise the impact. I get that the point was not to titillate but to publicise an issue, and while it's a worthy issue to highlight, I don't care for how it was done. As I said, I would find it a trigger and as such upsetting, as I'm sure others would.

    As a writer, I am obviously for freedom of expression but acknowledge that there are still often unforeseen consequences to expression for which the expresser has to take some responsibility. The intent does not take away from the offence some might have felt.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,423 ✭✭✭Morag


    Porn is created to titillate, this was not.

    Would people's reactions still be the same if the artists had of switched roles?


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,559 ✭✭✭Millicent


    Sharrow wrote: »
    Porn is created to titillate, this was not.

    Would people's reactions still be the same if the artists had of switched roles?

    Sorry, I mean torture porn as in the nickname given to splatter or gore films, a sub-genre of horror.

    And no, as I said in my first post on the topic. I actually think it would have been more effective with a male as the "victim". We're used to seeing women portrayed as weak and degraded and men as strong and in control. I thought it would have more impact if a man was used as the subject. Still not necessarily the right way to publicise the matter and still a trigger for some assault victims, but likely to a lesser extent.

    Do you not agree that this performance might be a trigger to sexual violence victims?


  • Registered Users Posts: 852 ✭✭✭PrincessLola


    Sharrow wrote: »
    Porn is created to titillate, this was not.

    Would people's reactions still be the same if the artists had of switched roles in their campaigns?

    When do these 'animal rights' groups, that employ shock tactics, EVER switch gender roles?


    They. Don't.


    It is always women the majority of the time. And why do you think this is? Is it coincidence?
    No, because it is the degredation of women, the objectification of womens bodies, that titilates, that gets a reaction out of people.

    It would be like apropriating the Holocaust or slavery for your charity (which PETA has done in the past BTW so this isn't hyperbole it has actually happened)
    I don't care if its for a 'cause', I really couldn't give one single f*ck.
    Campaigns like these need to die.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,423 ✭✭✭Morag


    I abhor the Peta ads but I for one won't lump what lush has done with them.
    This is the first time Lush has promoted a display like this and I don't think it's inherently anit women were as the PETA ones are imo.


    As for why use a women instead of a man, I don't think it's for the reason you have promoted. It could well be that people in general react more to a woman in distress then a man, which in inherently sexist and should be questioned.

    I can see how what seems to be the public abuse of anyone can be triggering.
    Esp with the institutionalised abuse women and children in this country over the years.

    But I know that the artist consented to everything done to her and would have negotiated and set limits. She was safe and she wasn't constrained against her will.
    She choose this, it was her choice to do this and send a message, one which reflects on how women are treated and animals.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,577 ✭✭✭newport2


    Sharrow wrote: »

    As for why use a women instead of a man, I don't think it's for the reason you have promoted. It could well be that people in general react more to a woman in distress then a man


    I agree. They probably do it because far more empathy would be generated for a woman going through this than for a man in the same position.
    If a man was used, would this be being discussed now in TLL? Probably not. I doubt it would be in TGC if it was either.

    Also, if it's cosmetic products that are animal tested that they are trying to turn people off using, then these are primarily used by women. So perhaps the message is "Would you want this done to yourself?".


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement