In the realm of animal rights activism, it’s not uncommon to see campaigns where the imagery of sexuality and nudity, particularly of women, is used to garner public attention. Lingerie protests, topless marches, and even full nudity in the name of animal advocacy are tactics deployed to get the message across, but do they serve the cause, or do they simply reinforce problematic social norms? When critiquing these methods, we must consider feminist theory and its intersections with activism, particularly the arguments raised by Carol Adams in The Sexual Politics of Meat, which critiques the objectification of women’s bodies in ways that mirror the treatment of non-human animals.
The Feminist Critique
Carol Adams explores how the sexual objectification of women parallels the way non-human animals are commodified and consumed. She argues that when activists use women’s bodies to sell the message of animal rights—through naked protests or hyper-sexualised imagery—they inadvertently reinforce the very systems of oppression they seek to dismantle. These performances can be seen as echoing the patriarchal structures that reduce both women and animals to objects for consumption.
The question becomes: does this tactic help the animal rights movement, or does it perpetuate the commodification of bodies, both human and non-human? In using sexual imagery to grab attention, there’s a risk of reinforcing harmful norms around femininity and passivity, particularly as women’s bodies are often the focal point of these protests. This is problematic because it mirrors the exploitation of non-human animal bodies in ways that uphold patriarchal control over female bodies, both human and non-human. The over-sexualisation and nakedness of women, as seen in campaigns, might draw media attention, but it may also alienate potential supporters who feel these tactics are more about shock value than substance.
Regardless of the intent behind such activism, it’s essential to recognize that these efforts operate within a deeply misogynistic culture where the sexualization of women is often prioritized. This dynamic can naturally shift focus away from the core issues of animal suffering, placing attention instead on the spectacle of human bodies. On the other hand, there’s an argument to be made that sexuality shouldn’t be considered taboo—but as activists, we must remain aware of how audiences’ conditioned biases, shaped by patriarchal and pornified societal norms, can influence the reception of these tactics. This calls for a nuanced understanding of how to balance performative activism with the risk of reinforcing oppressive frameworks.
Does Sex Sell or Does It Reinforce Harmful Narratives?
Sexuality, when used as a tool for advocacy, can walk a fine line between empowerment and objectification. In the case of many naked or lingerie protests, the intent might be to shock people into awareness, but the result can be a reinforcement of the “male gaze”(Mulvey, 1975)—a concept from feminist film theory that describes how women are often portrayed in ways that cater to male desire. When animal rights protests centre around the naked bodies of women, they risk reinforcing the objectification of women in ways that contradict the liberation message for non-human animals.
Carol Adams’ The Sexual Politics of Meat is critical of such methods because they fall into the trap of using one form of oppression (sexualisation of women) to combat another (animal exploitation). Instead, Adams advocates for an intersectional approach to activism, one that recognises the interconnectedness of different forms of oppression and works to dismantle them holistically. This critique aligns with broader feminist and queer discourses that argue for more thoughtful, inclusive forms of advocacy—ones that don’t rely on spectacle but on substance.
Queer Critique and Performance Activism
My research, including my collaboration with performance artists like Daniel Hellmann and hig drag character Soya the Cow, demonstrates how performative activism can engage the public in more meaningful ways without perpetuating objectification. In the case of Soya the Cow, drag performance is used to disrupt the norms of both speciesism and gender, creating a space where the audience must confront their assumptions about power, identity, and exploitation. The performance uses queerness and humour, not to exploit bodies but to challenge the very frameworks that enable their exploitation.
What Soya offers, and what is lacking in many of these more overtly sexualised protests, is a critical lens through which to understand the systemic issues at play. By queering the space between human and non-human, male and female, Soya invites us to engage with animal liberation through a framework of intersectionality—acknowledging how speciesism, sexism, and other forms of oppression are intertwined.
Conclusion
While naked protests and sexualised imagery may grab headlines, they often do so at the expense of reinforcing the very systems of oppression the animal rights movement seeks to dismantle. By drawing on feminist critiques, particularly those articulated by Carol Adams in The Sexual Politics of Meat, we can begin to see how these tactics may undermine the goals of animal liberation by perpetuating harmful norms about women’s bodies. More thoughtful, intersectional approaches—such as those found in performance art and queer activism—offer alternative ways to engage the public, challenging speciesism and sexism alike, without reducing anyone to a spectacle.
Sex may sell, but it’s worth questioning the cost.
Comments