I rather agree with Rachel. The connection between going nude and not buying fur seems to be quite a far stretch. Also, with this kind of social advertising, one cannot (hopefully?) reach to certain demographics such as young kids. I mean, how many people who would pause to have a second look at the photos would do it for the reason of attending Peta's message? I think they would do it to stare at the nudity.
Too bad also that in this particular case it was not clear who in the house did the shots from the whole heart and who was just a) confused and b) afraid to say no to the producers.
I watched an episode of some other show tonight were they said about one cheesy nude photo of a young guy, things like that come to hunt you later in your life _especially_ if you get famous. The house guys are very easy to be abused in this sense, trusting the producers and being pushed to do things they may regret later.   See 2 other replies

Yes, Rachel, we must go forth and save our nudity from those nefarious nudity-jackers and their grubby grabby little hands. We can not let them win, Rachel. Let no one use our nudity as some sort of "freedom p0rn," I mean, pawn.They may take our clothes, but they'll will never take our nudity. NUDITY!Okay, a little silliness aside; as you call Peta clueless, guess which organization you're talking about. You say you have "seen this gimmick time and time again" yet it compels you to state the obvious. With people talking about it, in whichever format, is it possible then that they've succeeded in getting their message out? It's seems you've cast a wide net with the word 'exploitation.'   See 2 other replies

HAAA HAAA
she does!   See 1 other reply