Last week the Guardian ran an opinion piece by Julie Bindel on the use of female nudity to raise money for charities and causes. I have to admit that I hadn't noticed this trend, but Bindel provides enough examples to demonstrate that it does indeed exist.
It seems to me that she describes two fundamentally different things as part of this trend. The first is the use of nudity in advertising and public events as part of awareness raising efforts – such as PETA's “I’d rather go naked than wear fur” campaign. The second is the use of sexual imagery to actually raise money. The example Bindel gives of this is a Ryanair cheesecake calendar to raise money for a children's charity. (You may have to be British to understand why that one makes sense.)
The people behind the specific cases Bindel notes show some pretty fuzzy-headed defenses of their work My personal favorite is this comment by Michael Korzinski from the anti-trafficking organization the Helen Bamber Foundation, regarding a nude campaign by Spice Girl Mel B. According to Korzinski, Mel B “is exercising her freedom of choice in going naked, unlike the enslaved, brutalised, trafficked women we work with” Seriously? Why can't we at least be honest that Mel B naked brings a lot of eyeballs to the ads?
I haven't seen any of the images Bindel describes, so I can't comment on their sophistication and place on the scale of art or tawdry exploitation, or to what extent they really contribute to a misogynist culture. But this does raise a good question about how much responsibility an NGO has to maintain consistent values in its fund-raising and awareness campaigns. Personally I think that NGOs, especially charities, should follow a careful code or they risk losing their influence on the issues that matter.
