On Nov. 30, two girls wearing literally only body paint and a couple strategically placed pieces of clothing stationed themselves outside a skating rink in Forest Park. They had a sign, too, wittily worded and advantageously placed. “Bare skin, don’t wear skin,” it said. It sported the PETA logo. And, really, who else might it have been?

Unfortunately, nobody else took them up on their suggestion. Some took pictures, though, and the girls got a bit of press as well.

PETA, or the People for Ethical Treatment of Animals, has long made a name for itself in the practice of taking extraordinarily extreme measures to get a simple point across. But unlike other like-minded groups, there are other factors involved, such dashing red paint on fur-coat-sporting passersby. Or, rather being naked than wearing fur, and then pretty much doing just that.

For some reason, PETA has always left an off taste in my mouth. I couldn’t put my finger on it, though, till the end of November. It’s this: why in the world does it seem like publicity comes in close second only after animal rights?

Don’t get me wrong. I resonate, as do most of us, with PETA’s general philosophy. It is, after all, based on the ethical treatment of animals, and that’s a sort of logically humane thing to stand for, no? No one likes to hear about vivisected monkeys, tortured rabbits, and cruelly slain cows, all in the name of science and self-preservation. It goes against our better nature.

But to what purpose is going nearly stark naked in the middle of winter? I imagine that seeing two people with painted bodies with a giant sign as their main form of covering as more of a surprise than anything else. I hardly think that it would inspire me to throw out those leather loafers in the closet.

I admit cannot say for certain. I only found out about the Forest Park incident from the news. Maybe it would have been different had I actually been there. But from behind the screen, at least, the whole combined scene somehow conjured more of a “Silence of the Lambs”-esque idea. Do I have any human-skin coats? No. Any such products? No. But do I have a pair of leather shoes? Why, yes, they are, and I suppose that they’re made of “skin,” too: animal skin. But I’ll admit that that’s not what I thought of first.

I digress. Is it a bit of a morbid train of thought? Sure. But that’s exactly what was wrong with it, and the whole reason that PETA probably has as large of an opposition as it does a following. It plays up the shock value too much, and plays down the morals. It’s not a lesson, or a demonstration. It’s a display, and a ridiculous one at that.

We want ethical treatment of animals? Then, my PETA friends, I think it’s time to start with the basics: to focus on the ethical treatment of animals, which is a noble cause in itself. Maybe the protest shouldn’t make me think about human skins before I realize that the body paint is supposed to resemble leopard-print and that therefore the protest is, in fact, about animals. Maybe those sorts of protests should follow the example of the more normal protest—and by normal I mean that all of the people were clothed—I saw on Brentwood a few days before, also by PETA. Maybe it should be less about the spectacle and the media, and more about what’s right. Maybe.

It’s just a suggestion.