It's always amazing to see lovely PETA-ladies in full action! Thank you for your courage to bear your own skin for the animals! God bless you!

Posted by: Mister Jingles | October 8, 2007 11:10 AM

What a great idea! These ladies are so brave for having done this! I love it. Way to go PETA! Way to go ladies.

Posted by: Allen | October 8, 2007 11:34 AM

It's so em-bare-assing!

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | October 8, 2007 12:07 PM

being brave, courage..... i don't think so... our fighting soldiers in iraq are brave... this, as usual is another cheap peta publicity stunt....

wake up... women feel this is degrading and men only care about the t& a and don't give a crap about your messages!!!!!

Posted by: steve | October 8, 2007 12:36 PM

Righteous! You girls are a fine tribute to the passionate and courageous campaigners that spread the good word of PETA. YOU ROCK ALI AND MEGGAN!

Posted by: Eric Stone | October 8, 2007 12:59 PM

Two beautiful girls with amazing compassion. Not sure how this is gonna get Wintour to throw out her furs, or convince anyone not to buy them in the first place. Get back to the drawing board PETA and come up with some fresh ideas without the classis Peta fall back of "lets get some girls to take their clothes off". It's not shocking anymore.

Posted by: Mark | October 8, 2007 01:24 PM

i understand the sign in front of them, but whats with the dam f in shoes?..... ,ps siav.org mrmcmed.org & pcrm.org

Posted by: Anonymous | October 8, 2007 02:30 PM

"women feel this is degrading"

Thank you steve for letting us know how women feel.

Where would we be without men like you to lead the way for us frailer beings?

Posted by: Joelle | October 8, 2007 03:28 PM

to the bad Steve:
it's you loutish dungbeetle who has dirty thoughts like always because a compass saw smashed the last remains of your shitty brains - it's time to refill it with grey matter or i come over with a chain saw and then we don't have just a bad Steve but a runny Steve!

Posted by: Old Spiderwoman | October 8, 2007 03:47 PM

I am happy for all of the activities that Peta engages in to increase the awareness of the plight of animals, but sometimes I think so many naked campaigns get a little old and deter attention from the real issues at hand.
While I don't find this degrading, I do think that more could be done to show the real horror of the fur industry instead of just bare bodies- which in some way does trivialize the subject. And it is usually women being shown, so it is perpetuating the stereotype that we women can only be noticed or listened to if we are using our T & A, which is a bit juvenile and ridiculous.
Personally, I think as they are standing there (whether fully clothed or not), they should be next to a tv showing video of fur farms and how animals are treated and killed, and speak to passersby in a friendly way handing out brochures and telling stories of the animals shown on the video. Otherwise all you have is nakedness on display for people to turn their heads and look and keep on going without any further information, come on, lets get some serious work done.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 8, 2007 04:28 PM

Hey Steve,

The soldiers in Iraq don't want to be there. Most likely they joined the military due to lack of jobs or other opportunities and were promised this and that by recruiters. Fighting for freedom? Please. They're just doing what they're told and hoping to survive.

PETA members..keep up the good work!

Posted by: John | October 8, 2007 04:29 PM

I still think we need some new ideas, unless you want PETA to be synonymous with "people exhibiting tits and ass" but I applaud the message anyway, and will always support The Cause.

Posted by: Susannah S | October 8, 2007 05:23 PM

john..... where did i say fighting for freedom...... what i said was how are these girls courageous and brave compared to soldiers fighting in iraq????? how about reading what i'm writing... i guess these girls are as brave as these soldiers whether they want to be or not .. right john???
and old spiderwoman.... a loutish dungbettle????? which century are you living in??? and i do appreciate your compassion of cutting me apart with a chain saw.... more of that peta good will....

Posted by: steve | October 8, 2007 06:05 PM

I think you ladies are amazing! I love going on demos with PETA!! Go naked!!

Posted by: Kat | October 8, 2007 09:24 PM

Beautiful, Beautiful ladies,
with Beautiful souls to match.
Judith

All beings tremble before violence
All fear death
All love life
The Buddha
The one that I pray with.

Posted by: Judith, Freedom Fighter | October 8, 2007 10:55 PM

Stevie- this isn't a war blog- it's a blog about fur. just FYI

Posted by: Russell | October 9, 2007 12:34 AM

What some will do for ratings! Going to kill a chicken next?

Posted by: Mars | October 9, 2007 07:45 AM

Wow! That's some AMAZING courage and motivation!! Very dedicated!

Posted by: kitty | October 9, 2007 11:48 AM

Spiderwoman,

What is your problem with dung beetles? They have feelings and emotions as well. I am sure they wouldn't appreciate being compared to someone you disdain. Aren't you supposed to have regard for all creatures including dung beetles. Have you ever even seen a dung beetles. They are amazing little fellows rolling their ball of cow manure down a cow path on a hot summer day, amazing!! Come to think of it, Steve, you could certainly be compared to worse as all of the dung beetles (we've always called them tumble bugs) I've ever seen were hard working industrious creatures doing a job no one else wants. Good for you Steve, the hardworking dung beetle!

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | October 9, 2007 12:11 PM

It's absolutely amazing that the bad steve knows:
1. how women feel;
2. and knows how to make a broad statement (which actually degrades ALL men) by saying: "men only care about t&a."

But doesn't know:
1.that women are free to make their own choices;
2. and that there is such a "species" known as GENTLEMEN. (who are self-respecting and dignified, thus, they don't degrade women with such juvenile comments as: "men only care about t&a.")
3. and he doesn't have the retention capablility to know that this is not a blog site about the war since he has been told numerous times that it is an ANIMAL RIGHTS' blog site.
4. and he doesn't know that he is an attention-seeking loser. (because he has been on this ANIMAL RIGHTS' blog site numerous times and enjoys the attention, even though he is ALWAYS negated)
So clearly, all of his comments tell of his absolutely amazing stupidity!

Can the bad steve and anonymous (10-8-07), please point out to us where they see t&a in the picture?
And how they know that the demonstrators are totally bare behind the sign?

Posted by: Ariel | October 9, 2007 01:15 PM

Ever notice how the pro-animal abuse people always want to talk about Iraq instead of animal issues? They all sound alike.

Diversionary tactic.

Posted by: kelly | October 9, 2007 02:37 PM

Hello Ariel, my name is Susan- I don't know why mine came up as anonymous- anyway, if you click on the word Here in the article, you will see a picture of their as_,. My point really was that they are naked(or simulating nakedness) to draw attention to a very serious issue- fur trade. I didn't say I find it degrading, I'm just speaking from my own perspective that we can raise awareness without taking our clothes off in so many of these campaigns. Why reinforce a stereotype that we as women can only be noticed if we are models and naked? Where do we see the horror of what these animals go through- more education, less T & A is all I'm saying. Thanks.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2007 06:30 PM

first off.... thank you cc md for the compliment..... it truly seems that we are the only people in this narrow minded group of bloggers who speak and read english and do not need to call people stupid or to curse people out.
1) your fellow bloggers called these publicity seekers brave and courageous... i wondered how & why they should be called brave... especially compared to any soldier, or fireman or policeman etc....
2) and ms ariel... if you click on the word " here" like it says in the blog.... you really do see 2 ASSES....
3) and just because you and your band of petaphiles answer my comments...how does that exactly mean that i have been negated.......
AND I DO APPRECIATE YOUR COMPLIMENT TOO.... attention seeking loser.... coming from an animal rights extremist,,, i really do feel good inside....

Posted by: steve | October 9, 2007 08:39 PM

to fake md sweetheart cochran,

i love scarabee - indeed, but i'm deeply sorrowed about you sugar candy, because you are not enough intelligent to recognize a joke!

Posted by: yoda | October 10, 2007 08:11 AM

Oh wow, where the heck was I last week? I live near Brattleboro and would have loved to join them in the demo!!! But I would opt for clothes!

By the way, I think any effort for animal rights is great as long as the message is effective to the general population.

Posted by: Stacy P | October 10, 2007 10:39 AM

steve: one has really to walk far for to find an animal hating extremist like you - are you really soooooo stupid and don't get it that you are just ridiculous spending all this time on a blog which is not your business! you are hating peta and animals - so what the hell have you lost here! me i don't go to people like you, throwing stones at them and tell them to vomit the corpses they ate - and that's exactly what you are doing here! a person with an average intelligence doesn't spend all his time on a blog that he doesn't like - so in this case you must be a real idiot or a paid truble maker!
and i just can hope that all the lovely animal people here shall not waste time with you because this was the first and the last time i talked to you - so you have not to react to this here!

Posted by: walk far woman | October 10, 2007 02:53 PM

Hi, Susan! : )
I stand corrected admitting that I did not check the "here" button prior to my comments about the "demos" being totally bare. (usually they do wear something no matter how minute.) And 99.9% of my comments were focused about the bad steve, so I know you didn't say anything about degradation.
Actually I agree with you in both of your posts and have more opinions besides, but I will limit them to this:
Many years ago, the "PeTA Times" had a cartoon sketch of male and female cave people wearing fur that was associated with an anti-fur campaign. Ever since then, when I see someone wearing fur, I think of them having an ancient cave-person mentality. So if anything, (only my opinion), would be more effective - without being thought of as ga-ga juvenile - would be the demos presenting themselves as cave people, wearing faux fur of course.
Since I know about the animals' pain, sufferings, and torture, there is no way I can accept fur as a fashion statement, so I think people who wear fur as being vain. If I should have eye contact with anyone wearing fur, I automatically look at them with disgust! (can't help it)
Thank you for your response. : )

Posted by: Ariel | October 10, 2007 04:06 PM

Blog 10-9-07 at 8:39 pm.

A perfect blend of:
"Ignorance is bliss"
commiserating with
"Misery loves company."

And it can be suitably reversed:
"Misery loves company"
commiserating with
"Ignorance is bliss."

LOL

Posted by: Ariel | October 10, 2007 04:48 PM

Hey Ariel! Thanks for responding- definitely the cave people idea would be more fitting, it would comment on the mentality of those who wear fur- unevolved!!

Posted by: susan | October 10, 2007 06:08 PM

Steve,

Anybody that pushes themselves beyond their normal comfort zone and open themselves up to, yes, ridicule, is doing a brave thing—especially when it's done for totally selfless reasons.

Being able to overcome your own fears is one of the bravest acts of all. I would consider these ladies brave.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | October 10, 2007 08:55 PM

I think Steve pointed out something that was quickly overlooked. Why would you protest people wearing animal skin or fur with 2 naked girls wearing leather shoes? I bet they washed their hair with shampoo and conditioner tested on animals and their makeup and lipstick contains animal fat. HMMM PETA, way to go. Again you show us all how inteligent your followers really are.

Posted by: Rude Dog | October 11, 2007 02:03 PM

yeah mike and i guess that means that your basic alf and elf terrorist are brave also when all i think of these sick bastards as being pathetic cowards. they can't get there agenda across in the lawful way so they dress up , pussyfoot around, and they won't be happy until they kill some innocent bystander with their terrorist act. then they'll say their sorry but it was for the animals..... bravery and courage huh!

Posted by: steve | October 11, 2007 02:42 PM

Kelly,

You want to talk about a "Diversionary tactic"? Well if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black. What the hell do you call 2 naked women standing in the middle of the sidewalk holding a big sign, if not a diversionary tatic.

I say it again you are all hypocrites.

I think this also borders porn, I my have to find out and bring it to someones attention as I don't see and Age warning, or a parental advisory anywhere on this site.

Posted by: James Canton | October 12, 2007 06:08 AM

to the blogowner:
i honestly think it's enough with these sick offenders up here: if they don't disappear from this blog i earnestly start to doubt about your loyalty and shall not post anymore because i think it's really sick allowing these toadstools spitting their poison around here on honest upright people and a first class organization which is recognized and supported in the whole world by numerous celebrities! people like steve, mars and rude dog are warped-minded evil souls and i'm sure that no other blog on internet should tolerate something like this! i ask myself if this here shall be put?????????????????

Posted by: cappuccino | October 12, 2007 10:31 AM

concerning animal-peta haters steve and rude dog i think it's enough now! this offence cannot be tolerated! i ask myself why it's posted here! what do the other peta-members think about it?

i know that there are millions of offenders and animal torturers out there and we are helpless - but to have them daily on this blog is toooooooooo much! there would be so many other things to share! these guys are paid to keep marching this blog always on the same point! please - you other animal friends - what do you think about it? and i don't want reactions from the two sickos above!

Posted by: animalfriend | October 12, 2007 11:45 AM

cappucino and animal friend,
I hear both of you loud and clear - abolutely, totally, and positively agree!
I know among one of the reasonable intentions that anti's are allowed on here is for a "good debate." However, only my opinion: a/r's is not a debatable issue. There is no debating that torturing, abusing, exploiting, vivisecting, and killing animals is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong!
To me, a debate is when two opposing individuals or teams challenge each other, with both having a certain amount of decent validity/knowledge to prove their point, and then one side undeniably becomes the "winner" due to presenting an over-whelming amount of indisputable facts.
Yes, it is fine to "debate" the anti's in order for a/r's activists to negate their claims, and so totally more important to educate them - and "readers only" who are seriously interested in learning about a/r's. However, that is not the situation with the daily or frequent venomous, lying, hate-filled, senseless types of commenters who you pointed out (and there are just nonsensical antagonists besides). They highly resent compassion and the dignity of animal rights, and that is not fair to the animals who suffer so terribly. So that clearly tells what kind of people(?) they are. Don't be surprised to know that some of them actually do get paid by anti-animal rights' orgs.
At best, hopefully we have planted the good seeds that will take root some day, and they will reject their vicious, evil hatred towards animal rights activism...for the sake of the helpless, suffering, voiceless, feeling, sorrowful animals.
Otherwise, I see absolutely no point whatsoever to be allowed to vent their hatred and venom on here.

Posted by: Ariel | October 12, 2007 02:41 PM

I feel that it is only fair to allow us to express our opinion. I love animals and have several pets in my house and on my property. Hunting animals has nothing to do with hating them. Its a tradition that has been passed down through the years that my family has been a part of. Our ancestors hunted animals for food and it is just part of our natural instinct. Weather its hunting mushrooms in the forest or deer. Its the hunting / gathering instinct that drives us. Call me a neanderthal. Whatever. I am not being paid to do this. I only responded because I dont like the idea that hunters are bashed by PETA. I spend several thousand dollars every year on permits, taxes etc that go directly to perserving forest, wetlands and grasslands for our animal freinds. Doesnt that count? Does it matter to any of your PETA followers that hunters contribute to the salvation of our natural resources? Do they realize that people like myself have a god given right to hunt and eat animals. Next time I see someone eating a tomato I should run up and toss a bucket of V8 juice on them. GET REAL!

Posted by: Rude Dog | October 12, 2007 05:09 PM

People who hate pro-animal people must feel very threatened. It is quite peculiar. We all come into this world as innocent beings, & some turn out as animal hating beings. I wonder what has happened in their lives to make it so. They must basically be very unhappy. They are to be pitied, but somehow I cannot bring myself to do that.

Posted by: Felicity | October 12, 2007 09:07 PM

for the 100th time or so..... i do not hate animals... i loved my lab until she died this year.. she was a big part of our family... and i do believe in giving animals the best possible care...
what i do hate are petaphiles and animal rights extremists who put animals before people...
end of debate.......

Posted by: steve | October 13, 2007 11:09 PM

thank you Ariel for your strong exposee - it gives me courage to continue the good fight here on board!

rude dog: i'm against hunting - my grandfather was a hunter and i know what this means! a hunter has no peace inside himself - for this he doesn't let the others in peace! anyhow i hope at least that you treat your animals well!

Posted by: animalfriend | October 14, 2007 09:46 AM

Here we go again.
The nerve of PeTA -an ANIMAL RIGHTS' org.- bashing hunters! Gosh, those animal killers should be the exception because they love the pets in their homes and on their property!
Peta has to realize that:
1. killing wild animals is an instinctive tradition passed down from the neanderthals because they preferred to kill animals for their food, rather than going to their nearby grocery store. (gee, I wonder why all of us don't have that natural killer instinct passed down?)
2. hunters are not hypocrits because they spend thousands of dollars to preserve the land for their "animal friends." (the ones they like to kill: some "friendship"?)
3. professional conservationists have more important things to do than to contribute to the salvation of our natural resources. (so we need the "professional, well-qualified" animal killers to get the job done.)
4. "god" specifically gave the right to certain people to kill and eat animals.(so those of us who don't kill and eat animals have no right whatsoever to voice our opinion to the contrary, let alone forming an org.! But it's ok for hunters to have orgs. and anti-animal too)
5. it is more "realistic" by far to eat the body parts of dead animals (flesh and blood), than to eat a tomato.

Last, but not least, what animal rights' activist, on an ANIMAL RIGHTS' blog site, really cares about the opinions expressed by animal killers - that are nothing more than poor attempts at trying to justify killing animals, expecially opinions that are supported by hypocrisy?
Oh, one more thing: the one and the same anti-Peta made a very "factual" statement that the demos in the picture are wearing leather shoes. And also made a speculative "bet" that the girls wash their hair with shampoo tested on animals, etc. Again, hunters/killers show us how "intelligent" they are.
Suggestion to all a/r's activists: we all should head over to a hunter/killer blog site to find out if they think our opinions are fair. (more than likely, our comments would be deleted)

Posted by: Ariel | October 14, 2007 12:51 PM

Well, personally, I don't percieve ANIMAL RIGHTS' to be a debatable issue. (for the reasons given in my post, 10-12-07 at 2:41pm.) So therefore, I don't consider this blog site to be a debate forum, but instead, an educational site/forum about animal issues.
But since there has been clear proof time and time again that anti-peta's have a reading comprehension disorder, then I am not surprised that the bad steve has tunnel-vision. Meaning, he has neglected (or unable) to absorb the full realm of animal rights' activism - of which some topics and a/r's activist comments made proven factual correlations of animal abuse in relationship to people and society. (remember: bad steve really cares about people)
I am also not surprised that the bad steve "hates" certain people. And those certain people - he describes as "petaphiles" and "animal rights extremists" - just happen to have virtues of compassion, sympathy/empathy, and a belief in justice for the voiceless and helpless animals, who are abused and tortured. So our virtues and broader vision allows us to go beyond our own fur-family members.
Shall we ask the bad steve to forgive us for not having tunnel-vision? And for not pleasing his views?
Anyway, I really don't know what a "petaphile" is supposed to be, but I would like accept the compliment of being an "extremist." Yes, I believe that anyone who rises above narrow-minded thinking would be considered "extreme."
"end of debate" Well, I hope the bad steve really means that so he can seek another w/s where he will finally be happy sharing his hate with other people who like to share their hate-filled views. Perhaps the bad steve would find it more acceptable being associated with the maniacal, unconscienable vivisectors who have been featured on a number of headings on this blog site - with their extremely psychotic love (sans compassion) for torturing animals.
I wonder how the bad steve would have felt if his innocent lab was confiscated by vivisectors - which is common - and no animal rights' org., no animal rights' activists existed to protest such an atrocity. Well, we do exist, and pets ARE confiscated by vivisectors - and those pets belong to children and family members who love them. We don't have to know who the children and family members are, but we do know that they are hurting at the loss of their beloved fur-family member - and we do know that animal abuse is wrong! - so we "extremely" protest it!

Posted by: Ariel | October 14, 2007 04:47 PM

Steve,

You obviously don't know the basic tenets of the ALF.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | October 15, 2007 12:31 PM

wow ariel... that was some mouthful... where do i start?
yes animal rights is debatable because you petaphiles feel that everything spouting out of your mouths is perfectly correct...
of course this a true joke,,,,
what is also debatable is everything you guys try to jam down the world's throat... except for the main fact that all animals should be treated as well and as humanely possible....
then we'll let you debate these facts...have a ball:
1) meat eating is not animal abuse
2) wearing animal skins is not animal abuse
3) using medical advances derived from animal research is not animal abuse
4) playing sports which uses all kinds of animal skins is not animal abuse
5) abusing people who do not agree with peta's total agenda of non-animal use is human abuse
6) freedom of choice to use animal products or not use animal products is what this country is about

Posted by: steve | October 15, 2007 09:47 PM

I think that Peta has been going a little too far with the nakedness. Even the girl in the picture seems a little uncomfortable of being naked in the street. I love Peta to death but like someone pointed out, it is a little too much and they should be handing out more information and even showing videos.

Posted by: Margarita | October 18, 2007 11:15 PM

Oh, well, since the "bad steve" insists on being wrong, looks like it's time for an education - which is not a "debate."
"jam down the world's throat" How about: we present issues (education) that are FACTS? (which is contrary to the CCF who jams deception and LIES down people's throats for the almighty dollar)

"except for the main fact that all animals should be treated as humanely as possible." Why is it so hard to understand that animal rights is not about animal welfare? Anyway, that cancels "debate" 1 through 4, which means that a/r's goes beyond just "comfort" for the animals, but gets to the grassroots of how they are inhumanely treated beyond the imagination of the civilized, compassionate mind and heart of human comprehension.
#5 Abusing people who do not agree? Human abuse? (spare me of that stupid, lame comment)
#6 So who is stopping anybody from having freedom of choice? Has anybody stopped you? Has anybody stopped anybody who you know? And what to what extent do you consider "freedom of choice" to be acceptable, freedom to steal, inflict harm, kill?

For a person who believes so much in freedom of choice, it's hypocritical or narrow-minded to think that animals -living, feeling beings- shouldn't have the freedom to live just like human animals should have that freedom. As well as being free from being unwillingly caged, killed, slaughtered, tortured, exploited, and poisoned.

Oh, #3 is beyond ad nauseum already. But once again, animals and human animals do not have the same physiologies - as well as each human animal has his/her own different DNA. Therefore, medical testing on animals is automatically inaccurate. Ultimately, each human animal is the species being "tested" on. For example, transplanting one animal's heart into another animal, proves NOTHING - because when a human animal gets a heart transplant from another human animal (deceased), there is ALWAYS a GREAT potential for the body to reject it.
Pharmaceutical labs experiment on animals because there is a legal clause -although out-moded - that allows them to market their meds faster for the almighty dollar. Therefore, they are putting human animals' health and lives at risk, which has been proven time and time again by the med recalls. And since these are FACTS, more and more pharm. co's, are using modern, highly-accurate, non-animal testing devices.
Therefore, once again, I say that ANIMAL RIGHTS' is NOT a debatable issue since it is not acceptable to inflict pain, harm, and/or death on any living, feeling being.
For anyone to think that is acceptable, is self-centered, and therefore puts a restriction on the value and respect for ALL life.

Perhaps, "bad steve," you would like to believe that you are open-minded. Well, if you can't understand my comments, then you are not open-minded.

Posted by: Ariel | October 19, 2007 11:50 AM

this is the most overdone and ridiculous stunt. it completely degrades the seriousness of the issue. why can't peta activists play into people's hearts and minds rather than their sexual desires?

Posted by: jen | December 21, 2007 09:00 PM

i love it i love female petaphiles i wish one would get me.

Posted by: tyson | January 23, 2008 06:15 PM