VEGANGELICA

Shania! I think it's true that any mention of someone's appearance may encourage objectification, but noticing a person's appearance in a positive way is also appreciation, which is nice. I also feel it is interesting to see which characteristics of people strike others as beautiful (or not).

I didn't realize Olivia Newton-John's former boyfriend faked his own death in 2005. I read that this occurred after they broke up. Still, how traumatic for Olivia; she assumed he was dead...until he was found alive in Mexico in 2010. I read that McDermott was in debt and it was speculated that perhaps he disappeared to cash in on life insurance because he was in bankruptcy: Olivia Newton-John

I checked to see how Olivia Newton-John looked around that time her former boyfriend disappeared. I don't think she looked fake-your-own-death-worthy! At least, *I* wouldn't feel her allure had so diminished that I'd be likely to fake my own death if she were my girl/woman.

Olivia Newton-John in 2008 (when she was 59)



* * *

I didn't know how to spell Sarah's name either. I had never looked at her photos closely before. She has a very unique mouth because it looks like a "V" when she smiles. I feel this photo of Sarah McLachlan is lovely:



* * *

I looked again at Sarah McLachlan's commercial for ASPCA (The American Society for The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) to see my reactions.

I felt the photos of the abused, rescued pets were educational rather than disturbing, so I didn't feel disturbed by the ad's images.

However, I do feel two aspects of her commercial were manipulative:

First, when Sarah asks viewers to "be an angel" and contribute to ASPCA, this implies that if they don't help, then they aren't being "angels." That implication is emotional pressure to try to get people to contribute. Also, it may manipulate religious people who feel being good and "angelic" in life is required of them, and so the advertisement perhaps exploits people's religious fears.

Second, not all contributions to ASPCA go toward helping injured pets, and so the commercial is deceptive. For example, many people who support ASPCA because of their kind-heartedness toward injured animals might be disturbed to learn that the ASPCA recently gave a $151,000 grant to support a poultry producer who supposedly uses less harmful livestock practices than most in the poultry industry.

Other animal welfare organizations are upset with ASPCA for its recent support of the livestock industry. Humane Farming Association founder Brad Miller says: “It is simply delusional to think that getting humane organizations into the business of promoting meat from heritage breed chickens will result in even the slightest reduction of animal suffering. The ASPCA decision to fund the commercial production of chickens for meat raises a number of troubling issues. Beyond the obvious ethical issues from the animals’ standpoint, there is also the matter of using charitable dollars to further the commercial interests of a privately owned, profit-driven poultry company."

ASPCA Promotes Compassion, Respect, and Now the Slaughter of Animals

^ So, I feel that Sarah McLachlan's commercial not only is trying to affect/manipulate people's emotions, but also is being deceptive, because the commercial implies that ASPCA money is used simply to help abused pets. The latter issue bothers me more, because I feel deceptive information is worse than pulling heartstrings.

Here's Sarah McLachlan in 2012:

__________________