If Music Could Talk

How far would you go for charity? It used to be considered gallant to sit in a bath of baked beans to raise money, but Pet Shop Boys have been asked to go one step further. Animal rights group Peta have approached them, requesting that the band change their name to the Rescue Shelter Boys, as a protest against the cruel conditions of many pet shops.

"Dear Neil and Chris," begins the letter from Peta Europe, "You have many loyal fans of the Pet Shop Boys here at Peta. We have a request that may at first seem bizarre, but we hope that after considering the following facts, you will understand why we are asking this of you: will you please consider changing your name from the Pet Shop Boys to the Rescue Shelter Boys?" Well, it certainly makes those baked beans seem insignificant.

According to Peta representative Yvonne Taylor, the cuddly image of the pet shop is one that belies the often terrible conditions dogs, cats and even hamsters have to suffer while living in them. "With an emphasis on quantity rather than quality," Taylor writes, "unmonitored genetic defects and personality disorders pass from one generation of puppies and kittens to the next. Many animals end up with abnormalities that result in both heartbreak and high veterinary bills for the unsuspecting people who buy them."

The letter, posted on Pet Shop Boys' website, continues to paint a thoroughly bleak picture of the reality of pet shops before cunningly suggesting that "agreeing to change your name to the Rescue Shelter Boys, you would help raise awareness about the cruelty involved in the pet trade and encourage your millions of fans to consider giving a home to an abandoned or unwanted animal from an animal shelter. So, what do you say?"

Sadly, Neil Tennant and Chris Lowe could not comply with Peta's request. But according to a post on their website, they do think the request "raises an issue worth thinking about".

BostonBeaneater wrote:PETA is a classic case of being a detriment to your own cause. I feel the same way about many of the marijuana legalization people. The trick is to be somewhat subtle and convince people that your idea is good. If you look and act like a nutcase, well...

Flex wrote:

BostonBeaneater wrote:PETA is a classic case of being a detriment to your own cause. I feel the same way about many of the marijuana legalization people. The trick is to be somewhat subtle and convince people that your idea is good. If you look and act like a nutcase, well...

Definitely. If you're not gonna treat seriously your own cause you're advocating, why should anyone else?

BostonBeaneater wrote:PETA is a classic case of being a detriment to your own cause. I feel the same way about many of the marijuana legalization people. The trick is to be somewhat subtle and convince people that your idea is good. If you look and act like a nutcase, well...

Still216 wrote:In short, legalize pot, but ban hippies.

Dr. Medulla wrote:it was a pointless exercise.

Spiff wrote:

Dr. Medulla wrote:it was a pointless exercise.

So true, and so sad ... especially since what was really needed was a futile gesture.

Dr. Medulla wrote:edit: Just remembered another weird campaign. Don't know if they still do it, but the Gay and Lesbian campus organization at the University of Saskatchewan used to designate Valentine's Day as Blue Jeans Day. If you supported homosexual rights, you were supposed to wear blue jeans that day. However, blue jeans weren't exactly an unusual fashion choice, so it was impossible to determine why someone was wearing jeans that day—for political reasons or just basic fashion choice? However, people from the more conservative colleges—agriculture and engineering—were almost guaranteed to not wear jeans on that day. If the point of the day was actually to single out the kneejerk bigots, it wasn't that bad an idea, but otherwise it was a pointless exercise.

Flex wrote:

Dr. Medulla wrote:edit: Just remembered another weird campaign. Don't know if they still do it, but the Gay and Lesbian campus organization at the University of Saskatchewan used to designate Valentine's Day as Blue Jeans Day. If you supported homosexual rights, you were supposed to wear blue jeans that day. However, blue jeans weren't exactly an unusual fashion choice, so it was impossible to determine why someone was wearing jeans that day—for political reasons or just basic fashion choice? However, people from the more conservative colleges—agriculture and engineering—were almost guaranteed to not wear jeans on that day. If the point of the day was actually to single out the kneejerk bigots, it wasn't that bad an idea, but otherwise it was a pointless exercise.

From the sound of it, that had to be the point. Sometimes it's effective to illustrate to folks that might not be super tuned in just how many bigoted scumbags are actually out there.

Dr. Medulla wrote:Unfortunately, I don't think it was. The GLUS people were rather humourless and overly earnest when I was a student, and it didn't seem like they were working a smarter angle. Still, it was funny to see all the agros, who normally wore super tight Wranglers and cowboys shirts, suddenly show up in "going to court" suits just for that day. Ain't nobody gonna think they was faggots …

eumaas wrote:I'm friends with some PETA people. They're really not that bad usually and there are some moderates in the organization. A lot of them support the ALF, though.