Category: General | Posted Time: Tue, October 2009
I’m not even sure who Imogen Bailey is.. but she’s sexy! And I like elephants 
Okay, so maybe it’s just a T-shirt.. but I like Victoria Beckham 
Spice Girls Forever! haha
And speaking of “Spice”..
And I saved the best for last…… Bahahaha
**UPDATE** This one is for you, Jon. Does this count?
Comments: 32
Hey Andi are you going to do this as well?
Totally.. I already get naked,why not do it for a cause
Imogen Bailey is a aussie model
ok, that sounds familiar now! thanks
I find it disgusting that PETA only has women pose nude. It implicitly assumes a male gaze. It also implies that only men count so only men need to be convinced. (If you want to argue with that last point, show me one PETA ad targeting women.)
Also, PETA kills 10,000 animals a year. Mostly puppies and kittens. I’m not kidding. They are a non-profit so they have to publish their tax returns. They kill thousands of animals a year at their shelters. So what, animals have rights except for the ones they chose to kill?
At least one of the chairs of PETA is a type-1 diabetic. That means she’s only alive because animals were killed. Until 1996, all insulin was harvested from the pancreases of slaughtered pigs. In 1996 a medical company got approval for insulin from genetically engineered microbes, which is much cheaper.
Finally, to all you pet owners who support PETA: they officially object to pet ownership. They equate it to slavery, something I find personally offensive. It is the official PETA platform that pet ownership should not only be abolished but should be made actively illegal. As should animal sterilization.
Just food for thought.
I added an update for you.. hope you like Rodman
Although I strongly support animal rights, I’m not an avid fan of PETA specifically. (They just happen to be the organization with the best naked celebs
) From my personal experiences, a lot of PETA members are hypocritical idiots.. however, they stand for the “ethical treatment of animals”, which is a concept I do support. Euthanizing animals at shelters is a direct result of people not having their pets spayed/neutered, as well as people supporting puppy mills. You would think that a group as largely known as PETA would be no-kill.. and I agree that is a huge hypocrisy on their part. I spent 2 years volunteering at a no-kill animal rescue centre, and although they were constantly holding fundraising events and receiving enough donations to keep the centre open, it was extremely difficult. The harsh reality is that there are only so many animals a no-kill shelter can take in at a time, so they can’t save everyone.
I’m aware of their stance on pet ownership, and I think it’s ridiculous. I don’t support zoos, circuses, or owning exotic wildlife taken out of their natural environment. But I do believe that people have the right to enjoy the company of a domestic animal companion.
Let’s say PETA had their way and people stopped rescuing/adopting dogs, cats, rabbits, etc from shelters. That would only result in more unnecessary death. And what do they plan to do with sterilization, let breeds go extinct, or “play God” and decide to control it themselves… like I already mentioned, blatant hypocrisy is a huge problem with PETA.
So while I support most the basic concepts and feel that they are helping bring awareness to many animal issues, I don’t plan on becoming a member anytime soon!
Thanks for your input, though.. I love when people are well-informed and passionate in their opinions.
I added an update for you.. hope you like Rodman
Look at the poses. The women are posed in explicitly sexual poses. Rodman is posed in an artistic pose; it’s reflective of Rodan’s The Thinker from his Gates of Hell. it’s not the same thing, and the differences are telling. This site has more detailed commentary on the subject.
I personally don’t think that all the women in this ad campaign are posed in explicitly sexual poses.. “artistic” can be very sexy too.. there is really a fine line. (reminds me of a guy asking a girl if she’d pose for some nude, but “artsy” photos.. when she agrees, he goes a step further and asks if she’s okay with “artsy” live streaming video.. lmao. I have no idea where I’m remembering that from, was it in a movie??) And I would say Ron Jeremy’s ad is very sexually suggestive.. he’s laying naked on a bed with handcuffs! But yes, I do see what you’re getting at. I don’t think this is fair to specifically attack PETA for having a (questionably) sexist attitude though, the same attitudes are pretty consistent throughout modern society in my opinion. The female form is just perceived by most people as being more sensual and beautiful to look at. I’m not saying that’s how it SHOULD be, but that’s just how it IS.. Personally, I am not a lesbian, but I would much rather prefer to look at a woman’s body (yes, from an artistic point of view) over a man’s. Let’s take andipink.com for example.. thousands of girls have softcore solosites just like mine.. how many men do?? Yes, there are some, but they are nearly all classified in the gay niche.. even if the men are straight, they know they are going to make money and generate traffic from gay males. There aren’t too many women willing to pay x amount of dollars per month to watch a guy jerk off repeatedly.. our minds and thought processes are very different from men’s, biologically. This is obviously a huge topic, and I haven’t researched it, so I can’t really weigh in any further.. but until our perceptions and attitudes start to progress as a society, I don’t expect much to change.
I also forgot to mention… for an organization so strong-minded in their beliefs, they certainly don’t do their homework.. or maybe they just don’t care that more than half of the celebs featured in their campaigns own pets themselves. Or that Pam Anderson (involved in many of their campaigns) drives a car with leather interior. Or that Sophie Monk eats at KFC, which they largely boycott. Etc.
Whatever. The ladies still look hot, and that’s the point of this post
1st thing: I luvs me some naked celeb women!!!
And I’m comfortable enough with my masculinity that I have no problem with naked men, so I’m all for equal time.
Regarding PETA, I agree that they’re hypocrites, but I’d extend that to say that any advocacy on behalf of animals is unavoidably hypocritcal.
The idea of eliminating cruelty is inherently impossible. All we can do is replace one form of cruelty with another.
It scarcely needs to be said that animals living “free” in nature don’t have it like what’s portrayed in Disney movies. In nature, animals live in fear of predators (who eat them alive—VERY CRUEL), disease, starvation, harsh winters, forest fires, and (where there is human population) roadway traffic. These are just a few of the myriad stresses animals face living “in the wild.”
So perhaps it is less cruel to take animals out of nature and take care of them. If given a vote, pets might choose to be “owned.” It’s far safer and less stressful for them to live in your home, to be loved, protected and provided for, than to deal with the stresses of nature.
But if given a vote, do you think they would choose to be spayed or neutered? Would you? True… some people get their tubes tied or a vasectomy, but it’s an individual and deeply personal choice. Most of us would be very unhappy about going through life forcibly sterilized; IMO the closest human equivalent to this practice is female genital mutilation (an abhorrent practice sometimes euphemized as female circumcision).
Sexuality is a huge part of individual existence, and we strip it from our animal companions not for their own sake, but for the sake of our own convenience and misplaced conscience (because, realistically, we don’t want them peeing all over the place and, theoretically, we want to eliminate “unnecessary death”). But animals that reproduce so prolifically do so because “unnecessary death” is part of nature for them. By removing animals from nature, we have to deal with inconvenient aspects of their evolution, and stripping them of their sexuality is our solution. This is not, in my opinion, less cruel than the “unnecessary death” that is inherent in their nature.
More food for thought.
And don’t even get me started on de-clawing!
I could go on forever about the issues you brought up, but I’m going to keep this condensed..
-yes, animals living in the “wild” have plenty of things to worry about (predators, forces of nature.. I think you pretty much covered it), but that’s life. Predators preying on smaller animals for food is a huge part of life. I believe in hunting.. but for food, not for sport. I don’t call Dick Cheney shooting quails who are CAGED so he has a guaranteed chance of success “hunting”, I call it borderline retardation.
-As far as the concept of animals being “owned”, it’s important to remember this quote: “You become responsible, forever, for what you have tamed” – Antoine de Saint-Exupery (from The Little Prince). Or as most animal shelters simplify it: “Pets are for LIFE”. I hate when people choose to get a pet simply because it’s fashionable or trendy.. (think girls carrying tiny little dogs around in their handbags.. treating their pets like an accessory. Especially the ones who paint their dog’s nails or dye their fur pink.. it’s fucking retarded, in my opinion.) I also think people should make sure they are both willing and able to make a real commitment to their pets, so many animals are abandoned at shelters because their owners moved someplace that didn’t allow pets, or because they had issues like peeing on the rugs. Would you get rid of a CHILD for those same reasons and inconveniences?? Anyway, I’m getting off-base here, and I was supposed to keep this condensed.
-No, I wouldn’t imagine that many pets would volunteer to be spayed/neutered. You’re exactly right that “unnecessary death” is part of nature, and is therefore hardwired into their instincts to mate and produce plenty of offspring. But they also don’t understand why this is necessary to help reduce overcrowded shelters full of unwanted pets. And we, as people, do. Take China for example, where each family is only allowed to have one child. I’m sure many Chinese citizens wouldn’t volunteer for that policy, either.. if they weren’t able to understand why it was necessary. (According to wikipedia, 75% of Chinese citizens supported the policy in 2008.. although this is a very controversial example.. clearly that policy created many new problems, the biggest being female infanticide since most Chinese want to have a son rather than a daughter.)
These are just my personal opinions. Don’t get me started on de-clawing, either.
You are absolutely right that this subject could take up pages and requires condensing. I certainly condensed my last entry, and yet look at how long it is!
We seem to agree on PETA, the state of nature, and subsistence vs. trophy hunting, so no more needs to be said there.
With regard to spaying/neutering, I’m skeptical of your China example. The one-child policy has long been assailed by human rights groups, and for good reason: you point out its awful effect on baby girls, and there are also widespread reports of coerced abortion and sterilization. I doubt that any rational argument about overpopulation would convince people at large to approve of such a policy. But perhaps once a policy has already been enacted by an authoritarian government and is in force, people might *say* they accept it—perhaps out of resignation or out of fear or reprisal from the government. The Chinese government is not known for its acceptance of dissenting opinions. And, of course, even IF this poll is an accurate reflection of Chinese sentiment (which does not seem likely to me), convincing people to have only one child is a far cry from convincing people to be deprived at birth of the ability to procreate. Talking about the one-child policy does not justify spaying/neutering.
You say you got off track with ownership and owning pets as accessories, but that is exactly where I’m going with this while thing: In my view, *all* pets are owned as accessories. Not everybody dresses them up and paints their nails and dyes them in pretty colors like the Paris Hiltons of the world do, but we de-nature them and bend them to our own convenience by de-sexing, de-clawing, and depriving them of their freedom to roam. And (realistically, now) we do this not for their own sake—to protect them from the cruelty of nature or from overpopulation—but in order to gain the companionship and unconditional love that they provide us. Pet ownership is self-serving.
So does this mean I agree with PETA that people should not own animals? Not at all. I just think people should recognize animal ownership for what it is—a “use” of animals for human purposes. There is nothing wrong with “using” animals… for food, for farming, for love and companionship, and yes… for clothing. All of these things involve imposing some cruelty upon animals. But the alternative is PETA’s idea of freeing all animals and returning them to nature, and we have already covered the fact that cruelty awaits them there too.
^^^ I condensed the hell out of this post, honest!!!
Man, I could have done without that last one!!
Funny thing is, I love it when you go naked Andi, for any reason…..but that was pretty obvious, wasn’t it?
If you don’t like suggestive pictures of naked men, I suggest you don’t check the 2 shots I just added on to this post to take a less sexist approach. Just a heads up!
I didn’t realize that all of these celebs did an ad for PETA. I knew that there were a few, but I guess that many more are getting on the bandwagon.
Yeah.. I’m not sure how many of them are really animal activists, but “there’s no such thing as bad publicity”, right?
I don’t know who half the models are, but I likes them all…very good ad campaign that’s for sure. I remember seeing this one a couple of years back: http://adland.tv/n1rv4n4g8/2005/augjpgs/ronjeremy.jpg
Oh good, another update for Jon! I’m going to add it to the post
Eva Mendes is amazingly hott ummm…I’ll be honest and say Eva Mendes is number 1 and Andipink number 2 but at times Andipink can be number 1 seeing she’s younger, eye catching and cutie women.
As long as I’m in your top 3, I’m cool with that
LOL Ron Jeremy, Animals do ads for him!
Andi,
and I wish you a peaceful night and beautiful dreams!
Zdeněk S.
Thank you
I laughed my ass of as I saw the Will Farrell pic! And the last one is so shahaxy!
I dont wanna say anything about PETA because I dont really care about them and dont know what they actually do… I only know some stuff from the TV and to me, they seem to be just as annoying as Green Peace. But I wonder why so many celebs get naked for their ads. I think its mostly for the fame by the PETA-hype…
And Andi, it seems you are really much against any animal abuse and you also do something against it (as we see on your blog) – which is a very good thing. But I wonder how big is that part in your personal life? Are you also a vegetarian and all that, or is it just a topic you like to talk about from time to time?
No, I am not a vegetarian. I don’t eat very much meat, but I do still include it in my diet. I try my best to avoid using make-up and other products that condone animal testing (even if they don’t test on animals themselves) if there are other alternatives available.. but unfortunately this isn’t possible 100% of the time. When I eat seafood (which isn’t very often at all), I try to make sure that it is from a sustainable fishery.
Although it might seem easy to simply stop eating meat and call myself a vegetarian, or even take it a step further and become vegan, it is really a lifestyle change that requires serious commitment and dedication.. and at this point in my life, I don’t feel ready to make a change like that.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of PETA, I’ll applaud each and every one of those personalities for caring and willing to put their name to something that matters to them. I’d happily go naked to do the same… as an example for neutering/spaying. No-one could consider any of those images to be erotic or distasteful in any way, even Ron pulls it off, just a clever advertising gimmick to gain attention and make you read what’s going on. It works, it worked here too.
I’ll continue to support the World Wildlife Fund even though the elephant I sponsored for six years ended up getting culled. I’ll donate to Greenpeace whenever I can although I object to a few things they do, and I’ll keep sending cans of food and money to my local cat shelter, knowing not every one of them makes it to a suitable home in the end.
Not everything is perfect in every way and I hate the thought of animal testing but generally understand why it has to be done, to test drugs, to advance science (to cure my in-growing toenails). There’s a right and wrong about everything. If there really was a need for fur I think I would have to support it, but there isn’t. Hunting, farming and reproduction, it’s all there for a reason. Vanity, greed and ignorance is where it all goes wrong and needs diluting. What I cannot get to grips with are ‘delicacies’ like shark’s fin soup, or that any informed race could consider rhino horn to have healing properties, a tiger’s penis for impotence, or that seahorses can aid asthma, arteriosclerosis, incontinence, impotence, thyroid disorders, skin ailments, broken bones, heart disease, as well as to facilitate childbirth and even as an aphrodisiac (and that’s why they are becoming endangered). Extracting bear bile is sickening. And to petrify a dog before killing it, as it makes the meat tastier is gruesome.
But on a lighter note, has anyone ever owned a micro pig? I’m tempted.
I think you’re awesome
Eww..major 70s-nude-male-pornstar-alert! (can’t support that, totally messes up my mojo..now I have to wash out my eyes with soap or I won’t get happy ever again xD)
Zoos are not a bad thing, some species just can’t survive outside of them anymore (because we destroy their living space) others are severely threatened and by releasing animals born in zoos into the wild, their population gets “stocked up” and they have the chance to recover. Without Zoos many species would just cease to exist, and I guess nobody wants that, although there are good and bad Zoos, were the bad ones make animals suffer, because they don’t give them a proper space to live. Another important point is, that you can only protect what you know and love. Watching them on TV isn’t the same and huge streams of tourists messing up local wildlife, because they want to see that lion isn’t good either. So Zoos are a good thing, because they raise awareness, give informations about animals you have never heard of and you can ask questions about them and get answers from professionals..not to mention that it’s one of the few ways to keep the “concrete-generation” kids these days in touch with animals, because the only thing you will see in big cities are either filthy rats running across the street or those handbag dogs..
What I don’t get are these I’m a vegetarian ads.. I mean instead of killing animals, they kill plants, while they’re not as cute or responsive as animals, they’re living things too.. And I bet that many of these hardcore vegetarians kill that evil spider/mosquito in their bathroom like most people would, because it’s ugly and deserves to die for invading their home. Just an example to show, that there are a lot of people, who say they want to save animals, but only the pretty ones..
“And I would say Ron Jeremy’s ad is very sexually suggestive.. he’s laying naked on a bed with handcuffs!”
Might work for girls, but it’s like watching Al Bundy, couldn’t be less ‘arousing’, well it could by removing that towel and exposing a pale ultra-hairy–AHH that image. xD But back to topic those pictures only have one purpose: to grab attention, and lets face it if you want a man to look at something you choose a nude woman..works all the time.
Then again, while nude celeb pictures are win (there are some others, who definetely should have a wardrobe-malfunction *cough*), most of them are faked even the non-nude ones, just look at magazine covers you won’t find one that isn’t photoshoped and gives young girls the impression that they have to look like that, even if it isn’t possible. Which leads to all kinds of problems and silicon boobs that look like they will explode anytime. (its ok, when a girl with flat chest wants a _bit_ more) I heard it happens at piercing studios all the time..they want a nipple piercing, the dude misses, pokes into the silicon and BOOM there goes the ambulance.. yes I heard that from a friend, who has a friend, that has a brother, to whom it happened. It has to be true..
“thousands of girls have softcore solosites just like mine.. how many men do??”
None, unless they’re Brad Pitt (I bet he could make shitloads of money with something like that..). The reason is that girls have way more options to pleasure themselves and use their imagination. (while it’s easy to replace the ‘important’ parts of a male body, the female body requires the skill of Mac Gyver or expensive toys..) Girls don’t run ‘dry’ either, if they absolutely need sex they get it, it’s not hard for them to find some guy who would do it. They don’t even need to search, just a short skirt, a shirt with some open buttons and a glimpse of bra and they’ll get hit on all the time..
They’re fine without these things, and even when they want to look at pictures, they would choose girls, because they look really pretty, while a nude and more importantly a nude AND horny man looks really well dorky. (I don’t know why they put so many EWW male-face MALE-FACE! shots in porn thats clearly aimed at straight guys xD)
And yes I know way to much text
You have all made very valid points.. thank you for sharing!
I’m just on my way out at the moment, or else I’d probably spend the next hour or so commenting back… there are so many interesting insights & opinions here! I love the fact that people got so involved with this post 
XoXo Andi
Christina Applegate scares the crap out of me! :S
These PETA campaigns are weird. Preety much they say “Hey, stop wearing fur, or else we’ll keep showing you these pics of beautyful women naked!”
Yeah… brilliant plan there guys!
Andi, you should be the face of a campaign like this, you’re far more persuasive!