PETA Crashes Victoria's Secret Show

[nickel]

NEW YORK — Victoria's Secret doesn't put on a typical fashion show. Besides strategically draped models, Thursday's show featured musical numbers, acrobats and even a runway showdown between a model and anti-fur protesters.

Activists for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals rushed the stage as Gisele Bundchen strutted down the runway in a beaded bra and panties, thigh-high black stockings and red strappy heels. The four female protesters, carrying signs that read "Gisele: Fur Scum," shouted at the supermodel as she calmly completed her runway turn.

The protesters were taken away, the lights went down and the segment of the show that was interrupted was redone. As Bundchen strode out for the second time in the outfit, the audience erupted into applause for the composed supermodel.

The dramatic confrontation was oddly fitting in a show that featured tried-and-true black lace numbers as well as everything from clear go-go boots with Day-Glo lingerie to fur caps paired with moccasin boots. And wings, lots of wings.

"This year we really worked much harder to develop a connection with hot-off-the-runway products," said Grace Nichols, president and CEO of Victoria's Secret Stores.

Longtime Victoria's Secret model Heidi Klum and Sugar Ray front man Mark McGrath served as hosts, while R&B trio Destiny's Child sang "The Eight Days of Christmas" and salsa singer Marc Anthony performed "Tragedy."

"We do see it as entertainment, and we do put on a show," chief marketing officer Ed Razek said.

The show, in its seventh year, attracted a varied group of celebrities. Huddled up together were Donald Trump, girlfriend Melania Knauss and former Talk magazine publisher Tina Brown. Two seats away was sports broadcaster Ahmad Rashad, and rounding out the front row were soap queen Susan Lucci, Sex and the City fashion designer Patricia Field and model Tyson Beckford.

"There isn't a model in the world today that wouldn't want to do this show," Razek said.

Sending women like Tyra Banks, Noami Campbell and Heidi Klum down runways wearing lingerie has proven a successful formula for the retailer, which initially envisioned the fashion show as a way to publicize its Web site, Razek said. After attracting record traffic in two Internet broadcasts, ABC picked up the show in 2001 and broadcast it as a one-hour special. The 2002 show, titled "Christmas Dreams & Fantasies 2002," will air Nov. 20 on CBS.

link

[faither]

Protest is great until it interferes with the activities of people who aren't bothering anybody else. My only hope is that these PETA wackos care as much about people as they do about animals.

[nickel]

Originally posted by Yossarian
need pictures of said models

check the link

[blueindian]

Originally posted by faither
Protest is great until it interferes with the activities of people who aren't bothering anybody else.

huh? what good is protest if it doesn't interfere with anybody else? if i'm going to protest something, i want to make sure it bothers the people i'm protesting.

say, for instance, i want to protest the selling of fur. i'd go do it at a place where fur is being sold. We'll call that place Acme Fur, Inc. Now if I protest in the parking lot of Acme Fur, it's likely to interfere with both the retailer and the patrons. But that's the point...i want to interact with them in an attempt to get my viewpoint across. It would have a much greater impact than if i conducted the same protest in the parking lot of Acme Grocery Store, where it probably wouldn't really bother anyone.

in the context of this story, peta protested at the VS runway show because they sell fur. the same protest would have been silly had they done it at some other fashion show here they weren't modeling/selling fur.

just my .02.

[nickel]

i am so sick of hearing about PETA protestors. they do seem to care more about animal rights than human rights imho.

[blueindian]

Originally posted by nickelback
i am so sick of hearing about PETA protestors. they do seem to care more about animal rights than human rights imho.

i don't think they care more about animal rights than human rights, it just that they have 'picked their battle'. one cannot be an activist for every cause under the sun. further, animals cannot speak out for themselves, so if their situation is to improve, humans must speak out for them.

[nickel]

tell me then how we could effectively test new cosmetics, medicine, and other products to determine safety for humans?

[blueindian]

Originally posted by nickelback
tell me then how we could effectively test new cosmetics, medicine, and other products to determine safety for humans?

first off, you are entirely missing the point of this protest. they were not protesting animail testing. they were protesing the selling of FUR. these are entirely different issues. fur animals (for the most part) live horrible lives in miserable, cramped conditions for the sole purpose of making a hat or a coat. that is what these folks were protesting.

as to your question: there a several other ways we can test cosmetics. company such as Aveda and CitreShine(and a ton of others) test their cosmetics on human voluneteers. in the case of a cosmetic being to potentially too harsh to test on humans, there are tests than can be done in petri dishes at the cellular level as well as computer modeling than can be done that can predict human reaction to the ingrediants much better than dropping the components into the eyes of a rabbit. (in my opinion, if the stuff is potentially too harsh to test on humans, we shouldn't be making it anyway, but that's another story)

testing new medicines in different, and i won't argue that it should never be done. i will say that in a lot of cases, it is not necessary, and is only done becasuse the FDA requires it.

[nickel]

Originally posted by blueindian


first off, you are entirely missing the point of this protest. they were not protesting animail testing. they were protesing the selling of FUR. these are entirely different issues. fur animals (for the most part) live horrible lives in miserable, cramped conditions for the sole purpose of making a hat or a coat. that is what these folks were protesting.

i wasn't talking about this incident particularly. i was talking about PETA being more concerned with animals than humans in general.

as to your question: there a several other ways we can test cosmetics. company such as Aveda and CitreShine(and a ton of others) test their cosmetics on human voluneteers. in the case of a cosmetic being to potentially too harsh to test on humans, there are tests than can be done in petri dishes at the cellular level as well as computer modeling than can be done that can predict human reaction to the ingrediants much better than dropping the components into the eyes of a rabbit. (in my opinion, if the stuff is potentially too harsh to test on humans, we shouldn't be making it anyway, but that's another story)

so you think we should test new products on humans rather than animals? you just proved my point.

testing new medicines in different, and i won't argue that it should never be done. i will say that in a lot of cases, it is not necessary, and is only done becasuse the FDA requires it.

i think some PETA extremists wouldn't even go for that.

[Napoleon54]

Fur is warm. If animals aren't supposed to be used for fur, then why do they grow it?

If they've got it so bad, what with this testing and all, why don't they form a union, hire some lobbyists, and work for their own rights? Nope, they've done none of that. They're not gonna get any sympathy from me if they don't even stick up for themselves.

[blueindian]

Originally posted by nickelback

so you think we should test new products on humans rather than animals? you just proved my point.

how does that prove your point? cosmetic products are testing on human VOLUNTEERS who do it of their own free will. it does no violate any rights. now if said humans were caputured and put into cages and had chemicals tested on them against their will, that would prove your point.

[nickel]

we are not on the same level as animals period. you can't compare putting a human in a cage to putting an animal in a cage.

don't get me wrong. i am an animal lover BUT i think animals were put here for man's benefit in a number of ways.

[blueindian]

Originally posted by nickelback
we are not on the same level as animals period. you can't compare putting a human in a cage to putting an animal in a cage.

i agree. my statement about putting humans in a cage was purely to demonstrate that the testing is done on animals is done against their will, whereas humans are willing participants.

the fact of the matter is that we have absolutly no need to test cosmetics on animals. therefore, it's not fair to say that because someone speaks out against it, they are more interested in animal rights than human rights, which was your point.

[nickel]

Originally posted by blueindian


i agree. my statement about putting humans in a cage was purely to demonstrate that the testing is done on animals is done against their will, whereas humans are willing participants.

the fact of the matter is that we have absolutly no need to test cosmetics on animals. therefore, it's not fair to say that because someone speaks out against it, they are more interested in animal rights than human rights, which was your point.

i am bored with this. we could just keep going around and around. we have different opinions on this matter, and thaz all.

[LegendKiller]

blueindian,
You are quite mistaken, VS does not sell one fur product, nor do they support or deny support to fur manufacturers. The protest was because there was ONE model who supports a fur manufacturer. There is a massive difference there.

Personally, I think PETA is a terrorist organization. They support ELF (either that or they ARE peta but under a different guise), who burned down a Vail ski lodge in protest of it being built in a supposed home environment for an endangered wolf (which hadn't been seen in more than 30 years in that area).

I went to the University of Minnesota, which had a VERY active PETA organization. There were 2 major instances of terrorist activity there.

1. They broke into animal testing labs at the UofM and released dozens of animals kept there for Alzheimers research. These animals had been operated on and had alzheimers brain cells inserted to see effects and find treatments. Furthermore, people such as M. J. Fox and other famous people had donated samples for research. This was a VERY long, VERY expensive, and VERY promising study by the UofM (who created the first AIDS drug...).

However, since PETA broke in and freed the animals they also destroyed computer hard drives, slides, and burned records. Furthermore, they took the animals. What is even more egregious is that they said they were keeping the animals in safe keeping. The animals (birds, rats, cats...etc), were later found on a freeway onramp DEAD. Yeah, REAL animal friendly.

2. ELF with the help of PETA broke into a UofM plant genetics lab and destroyed about $10m dollars worth of equipment and set a $30m project back by decades. This project was to create different crops that were famine and drought resistant for African countries. After that we had to have a key for every lab and if you were there past the normal time you had to have a reason, or the UofM police would bring you in. (I worked as computer support for 3 plant pathology/genetics departments).


PETA, ELF, and other organizations claim to have a moral high ground, but they are no different from other extremist oganizations. They destroy other peoples property and effect their way of life. They have no concern for anybody, or anything else but their own ideals. What does that sound like?


LK

[cheapie]

wow lkiller. what a well-articulated rebuttal! very interesting. i was laughing at how fast the animal argument got going without everybody realizing that the protesters weren't protesting VS, they didn't like Gisele Bundchen who has modeled fur.

[BS]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by LegendKiller
1. They broke into animal testing labs at the UofM and released dozens of animals kept there for Alzheimers research.


2. ELF with the help of PETA broke into a UofM plant genetics lab and destroyed about $10m dollars worth of equipment and set a $30m project back by decades. This project was to create different crops that were famine and drought resistant for African countries

QUOTE]

I remember hearing about all of that

doh messed that up, but you get the point

[welfareloser]

Originally posted by blueindian


huh? what good is protest if it doesn't interfere with anybody else? if i'm going to protest something, i want to make sure it bothers the people i'm protesting.

...

in the context of this story, peta protested at the VS runway show because they sell fur. the same protest would have been silly had they done it at some other fashion show here they weren't modeling/selling fur.

just my .02.

in the context of this story, an ethical protest would ahve involved holding up signs, shouting slogans, and handing out fliers at the entrance. illegal actions that interfere with the legal activities of people who happen to have a different opinion than you just proves what scum you are. this tactic probably alienated more people than it converted, which makes it stupid to boot.

[cheapie]

i wish there were protesters this committed about protesting the pitiful condition of our public education system and the fact that many of our kids grow up poor, obese, and illiterate. instead, the only protesters that gain attention are ones that demonstrate for stupid causes like this.

[blueindian]

Originally posted by LegendKiller
blueindian,
You are quite mistaken, VS does not sell one fur product, nor do they support or deny support to fur manufacturers.

from the article:
The dramatic confrontation was oddly fitting in a show that featured tried-and-true black lace numbers as well as everything from clear go-go boots with Day-Glo lingerie to fur caps paired with moccasin boots. And wings, lots of wings.

point 1: by having models at the fashion show wearing fur, they are expressing support for the fur industry.

point 2: click here to execute a google search. read articles from several sources and note that the fall 2000 victorias secret catalog did, in fact, contain fur items.



i would also like to point out that i am neither a member of PETA nor do i support their really extreme activities. my original post was to point out that if people are going to protest, regardless of what are protesting, they have to do it in such a way as to interfere with the people they are protesting. Otherwise no one would even notice.

i only began talking about animal testing because i was asked a direct question about it, and i was speaking primarily of cosmetic testing, not medical/research. i totally agree that breaking into labs and destroying equipment is akin to terrorism. people involved in such crap should be prosecuted.

also, PETA does do some things that i consider to be good. mainly, they maintain a list of companies that animal test and those that don't. personally, i do not want to buy shampoo, conditioner, dish soap, laundry detergent, etc that is tested on animals because as i said earlier...we have no real need to do it. this list lets me check out the things i buy.

another positive thing they have done is an undercover expose` project lab at the University of North Carolina. i'm familier with this because my fiance works at a lab in the same building. the lab in question was doing animal research. when they were done with some of the animals they were "disposing of them in an inhumane manner". i can't remember exactly what they were doing, but i'll be glad to find out if anyone is interested. at any rate, that lab is now killing the animals by euthenaisa, which is much nicer.

[Cantacuzene]

LegendKiller, you branding them as "terrorists" is such a dismissive condescending arguement. By your logic we could label anyone we don't agree with terrorists. That is a bad path to start down, but you seem quite willing to go along with it until you or an organization you like are considered terrorists then we will see how you feel about labelling people "terrorists."

[welfareloser]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
LegendKiller, you branding them as "terrorists" is such a dismissive condescending arguement. By your logic we could label anyone we don't agree with terrorists. That is a bad path to start down, but you seem quite willing to go along with it until you or an organization you like are considered terrorists then we will see how you feel about labelling people "terrorists."

terrorist

adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon

they want people to be too scared of the retribution to do things like fashion shows involving fur. they want people to stop wearing fur, so they try to make them afraid of getting red paint thrown at them should they dare wear fur on the street.

that's terrorism.

yes, it's not as nasty as terrorists who blow people to bits. it doesn't have to be THE WORST KIND of terrorism to still be terrorism. the appellation is absolutely accurate.

[nickel]

anybody want to join in me in telling Cantacuzene once and for all to:

SHADDAP!












you are such a devil's advocate

[cheapie]

not to take a particular side, but i don't believe people label the ELF terrorist just because they disagree with their stance. i disagree with many positions the democratic party may have, but i would never label them "terrorists." it's more the fact that they cause damage to innocent people, attempt to use fear as an motivator, and don't engage in any useful type of dialog to bring about their goals.

also...10 gotapex points go to welfareloser for busting out "appellation."

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by welfareloser


anip welfs post

As I said in my post, you can use definitions and word play to brand anyone you want a terrorist. the definition you stated is broad enough to label any somewhat extreme group who protests things terrorists. whether I agree with PETA or not I think labelling them "terrorists" is a provocative innovation and quite disturbing.

[Cantacuzene]

Nickel, just because I tend to disagree with people on here doesn't mean I shouldnt interject my opinions.

This forum is populated by and large by right leaning conservatives, and I am a left leaning liberal. Thus more often than not I'm going to disagree with the average poster here, so I'm not usually playing devils advocate just to play it, usually I'm stating my true opinions. You have the advantage of being able to be very dismissive of my opinions because here you are in the majority, but if this were a different forum or place you may not have that distinction, so I recommend that you try to keep that in mind.

[nickel]

yawn

[blueindian]

Originally posted by nickelback
yawn

you know, nobody is making you read this thread. i for one am enjoying this thread and using it as an opportunity to learn something.

[nickel]

lighten up baby

[welfareloser]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene


As I said in my post, you can use definitions and word play to brand anyone you want a terrorist. the definition you stated is broad enough to label any somewhat extreme group who protests things terrorists. whether I agree with PETA or not I think labelling them "terrorists" is a provocative innovation and quite disturbing.

the definition is not vague. you can't label someone who hands out fliers as a terrorist without being dead wrong. i "used" the definition to define the term. peta's tactics fit the definition. lots of other groups with strong stances don't. i think jerry fallwell is an ass for making ignorant, mean comments about the islamic faith. he's not a terrorist. i am pro-choice. i think anti-abortionists who run hotlines and safehouses with the purpose of trying to get women considering abortion to consider other options are doing a good thing. i think the ones who threaten or destroy clinics, seriously harrass those entering the clinics, or kill doctors, are terrorists.