Lush Cosmetic's latest campaign

(46 Posts)
PiousPrat Fri 27-Apr-12 14:59:15

Trigger warning on all links.

https://www.lush.co.uk/ First video on the left hand side. The company promotional video.

www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2012/04/not_so_lush The Fwords take on it, infusing link to their twitter feed.

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/27/lush-animal-cruelty-performance-art?fb_action_ids=10150779741539630&fb_action_types=theguardian%3Aagree&fb_source=other_multiline The Guardian opinion piece, including parts of a statement released byLush in response to complaints.

Briefly, Lush had a performance artist dressed in a flesh coloured body suit led on a leash to the window of a store on a prominent London shopping street. Once there she was subjected to 10 hours of testing to simulate animal testing, including having her mouth held open and being force fed, by a male 'tester'. No warning of the content was given in the surrounding areas to enable people to avoid it. Emails including links and photos of this campaign were sent to the entire Lush mailing list, again no warnings as the point was to 'shock'.

southeastastra Fri 27-Apr-12 15:06:01

signs petition, good for lush

Lottapianos Fri 27-Apr-12 15:14:18

I read a discussion of this on Irish beauty site www.beaut.ie. The author of the article, quite rightly in my view, pointed out the sexual violence overtones in the photos, particularly the one of a woman having her head held back and white liquid forced into her mouth. Quite a few people responded saying they couldn't see what all the fuss was about, nothing remotely sexual about it shock

The photos are sickening and certainly make me think of sexual violence and torture porn. The potential for triggering horrendous flashbacks for sexual violence survivors is huge and I think the whole campaign was highly irresponsible.

slug Fri 27-Apr-12 15:37:24

Dear God. They're just as bad a PETA who seem to think an appropriate way to publicise animal cruelty is to present images of women reduced to bits of meat.

The sexualisation of the violence is incredibly triggering. If they really wanted to make an impact they should have used naked men instead as that's so much more shocking than naked, brutalised women which is, let's face it, quite commonplace in our society. hmm

craziemazie Fri 27-Apr-12 16:14:36

I have seen the video and it didn't make me think about sexual violence - it reminded me of those rabbits in testing labs.

I saw suffering but not any overtones due to it being a woman.

StewieGriffinsMom Fri 27-Apr-12 16:49:14

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MoralDerangement Fri 27-Apr-12 16:52:07

Lush support terrorists (hunt sabs) so this is probably a step up for them.

KeepOrfThemCarbs Fri 27-Apr-12 16:55:55

I agree totally with slug and SGM. Dear god. It is the kind of thing 6th formers would think up for 'shock' value.

ElephantsAndMiasmas Fri 27-Apr-12 17:26:34

I think it's bollocks. Judging by their statement they were MEANING to capitalise on the oppression of women: "It would have been disingenuous at best to have pretended that a male subject could represent such systemic abuse." Yet they totally failed to care about the implications of the fact that they were CREATING and USING images of violence against women for their cause, however good that cause might be.

Maybe Women's Aid should collect stories of some of the abuses meted out to women in this country, and enact them (or look to be enacting them) on animals, in a shop window somewhere in central London. Throw "acid" in the face of a puppy or get a bloke to pretend to rape a kitten, and see how the British public's hearts and minds are won over by that hmm.

They wouldn't be of course, there would be outrage, for the same reason that this campaign is shit, because the public ACTUALLY has been socialised to care MORE about the welfare of animals than that of women.

KeepOrfThemCarbs Fri 27-Apr-12 17:30:50

That's a great post elephants.

I find that fanatic animal rights activists often have very little sense of humanity.

StewieGriffinsMom Fri 27-Apr-12 17:51:35

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Lovecat Fri 27-Apr-12 17:56:07

God, that was horribly upsetting to watch.

Lush have lost my business.

Bibulus Fri 27-Apr-12 17:57:56

They wouldn't be of course, there would be outrage, for the same reason that this campaign is shit, because the public ACTUALLY has been socialised to care MORE about the welfare of animals than that of women

My understanding was that this was the intention - a spokesperson for Lush said that if it had been a beagle in the window they would have been immediately arrested.

I think it was a powerful image which achieved its purpose of making people talk and think about animal abuse, and I signed the petition. Good for Lush I say.

AbigailAdams Fri 27-Apr-12 17:59:03

Great post Elephants. Reversing the scenario really brings home how awful this is.

I am stunned that they deliberately used women's oppression to illustrate their point. I suppose I was hoping that it was immature shock tactics. But no, they actually applied some critical analysis to get to that point and then thought that was OK hmm.

KeepOrfThemCarbs Fri 27-Apr-12 18:28:42

Yes abigail - that fact that they think that they are standing up for the oppression of women makes it worse. I would prefer that they had just been thoughtless.

StewieGriffinsMom Fri 27-Apr-12 19:37:36

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Beachcomber Fri 27-Apr-12 19:56:54

I haven't looked at the links yet but I think I know what you are talking about - came across some images on the Daily Mail website.

It is just wrong.

And what Elephants said so well.

Beachcomber Fri 27-Apr-12 19:58:09

Plus - if you have to post a trigger warning, you know something is wrong.

(Bravo OP for having the sensitivity to post said warning. Thank you.)

southeastastra Fri 27-Apr-12 20:49:34

the actor was a performance artist and to be honest it got me to look

i noticed someone dressed up as an animal outside our local lush and know understand what this is about

animals don't have a voice do they, and i was surprised that animal testing does still go on so if they've reached me bet i'm not alone.

to be honest the 'acting' was no worse that something in Saw movie type things. but they actually happen still for animals

good for them really.

QwertyGerty Fri 27-Apr-12 20:54:33

MoralDerangement, comparing hunt sabs to terrorists is ridiculous and completely ignorant!

I think Lush's anti-vivisection campaign is excellent.

MoralDerangement Fri 27-Apr-12 20:56:50

Ignorant of what?

QwertyGerty Fri 27-Apr-12 20:59:47

Hunt sabs are not terrorists. Hunters on the other hand...

StewieGriffinsMom Fri 27-Apr-12 21:41:00

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

southeastastra Fri 27-Apr-12 21:49:12

it isn't in the media at all stewie

StewieGriffinsMom Fri 27-Apr-12 21:57:33

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now