I’d rather wear fur than go naked in a PETA ad, and I would probably do it while eating ortolan. And as I gobbled down those birds, I would at least find my mouth too full to make ridiculous statements about the homeless.
The press release for Wendy Williams’ new PETA ad (the billboard has just been unveiled in Times Square) states:
In addition to her ad, Williams will encourage her viewers to donate their fur coats to PETA so that they can be given to the homeless. PETA is working with shelters in Williams’ home state of New Jersey on their coat drives this winter, which have seen greater demand as the numbers of the needy and displaced have increased after Hurricane Sandy.
No. No. I realize that at first glance this seems like a nice thing to do, but no.
Wendy Williams, you do realize that by encouraging people to give their furs away you’re saying one of two things. On one hand, you could be saying that “fur coats are actually a wonderfully insulating source of warmth in the winters, and will greatly help the homeless or anyone frequently exposed to the elements” which is… a major reason people wear fur coats. Also, they’re a gift that helps get people through difficult times? I don’t think that’s the message contained in your “rather going naked than wearing fur” tagline.
But then, the alternative explanation is that homeless people are monster-people not beholden to the same moral rules as celebrities like you. Sure, you’d rather go naked, but if someone lost their home in Sandy, well, they’ll just have to make do with whatever they can get. They should probably wear a coat made out human skin if that works. Not that you would. We understand that you’d never do something like that, Wendy Williams.
Oh, wait, you just had a “change of heart” and stopped wearing fur yourself. Is it possible that you were just saying that this was a socially acceptable way to show off your naked form? Because that seems possible.