Being naked doesn't even have as much of an impact when her body looks more like a painting than a photograph. She looks fake to me. But I don't understand why she needs to be naked to begin with.
The nudity is an attention-grabber. I think it's pretty offensive too. The one EZ posted was alright though (albeit much less provocative and it's kind of boring, which is much less effective... at least offensive isn't boring).
Of course she knew that would be offensive. I hate when people do such blatantly disrespectful things and then bat their eyelashes innocently as if they meant no harm. Seeing a person naked causes sexual reactions or less than pure thoughts in most people, even if only intitially or briefly, so it's rather disgusting that someone would think, "Hey, let's make her naked and give her a cross!"
And if she really doesn't get why this is P*ssing the church off, she needs to go to church more often. I think PETA is great for the most part, but when you start resorting to naked women with crucifixes to get attention...you're reaching.
Being naked doesn't even have as much of an impact when her body looks more like a painting than a photograph. She looks fake to me. But I don't understand why she needs to be naked to begin with.
im too lazy to see if someone else already said this, but the nude is in regards to their other campaign "i'd rather be naked than wear fur"
personally I think they are all nut jobs with nothing better to do. but i'm also a down home country catholic girl
1. So that's who Joanna Krupa is, I never heard of her before she went on Dancing with the Stars (if I've never heard of them, what makes them so famous?)
2. PETA exists solely to get in people's faces about fur and meat, and the Catholic League exists solely to get offended anytime he thinks the church is being criticized or made fun of. To heck with them both
"PETA-files" at is again
