Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Ohelemapit

So is it OK to wear fur now?

44 posts in this topic

Not so long ago, it was more acceptable to smoke next to a baby than it was to sport a coat made from fox, mink or chinchilla. Such was public disgust, those who did venture out in a pelt were likely to find themselves deluged with red paint.

But how times have changed. Once taboo, fur is now a regular sight on the catwalk, with labels such as Armani, Temperley and Vionnet using it in their collections.

At the Cheltenham Festival last week, race-goers turned up swathed in expensive mink and raccoon coats, while on the red carpet, A-listers such as Kate Moss and Rihanna are as happy to strike a pose in a fur as they are in lace. So what does that mean for the rest of us? Is fur now OK to wear?

Read more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here in Southeast Louisiana, nutria are a plentiful nuisance. They tend to dig tunnels no matter where they are (even in a city) and undermine the integrity of the land. They are killed for their meat and fur. I've seen a full length nutria coat as beautiful as any other. I have no problems with nutria fur coats.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fur never went out of style but I won't buy it. I have occasionally borrowed a fox fur from my sister to wear to formal affairs and I feel guilty wearing it. :blush:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Animal fur only ever belongs on the animal it came from.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a big fur fan. It requires special handling and storage, and can't be cleaned easily. Why bother when there are easier ways to keep warm? I know some people think it's glamourous for some reason.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like the look of fur, it may be expensive but makes women look cheap.

This tread makes me instanly think about the clip in pet detective:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In places like Alaska and Siberia, its understandable for them to wear fur, especially if they hunt the animals to eat, then why not use the fur to keep warm?

Sausages are made up of what can not be sold as a cut, so if it is ok for them not to waste it, then the same should go for fur.

We have the fox thing were people want foxes killed, I do not agree with this because the meat is not used for food, but where meat is used as food then I can not see why the fur or hide can not be made use of.

As for models or the rich buying it to show off their wealth....NO, that is wrong. Use the fur as a necessity and not a fashion statement!!

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Follow the money, it's always about money. Governments of "resource rich" countries like Canada and Russia continue to tout the "traditional economies" like trapping. Justin Trudeau, who will most likely by the next Prime Minister was featured with his family draped in furs for his official Christmas card photo.

"Mr. Trudeau's office refused to comment on PETA's fiery reaction to the cards. But spokesman Alex Lanthier says Mr. Trudeau and his family were wearing parkas made by Canada Goose, a Canadian company that has a "sustainable way" of collecting fur."

Ah yes, well as long as it's sustainable, by all means continue to lay out traps which kill indiscriminately.

“Whenever people say, 'We mustn't be sentimental,' you can take it they are about to do something cruel. And if they add, 'We must be realistic,' they mean they are going to make money out of it.”

Brigid Brophy

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am totally unsure why some animal activists make a huge deal out of fur but not leather. An animal is dying either way.

Tight leather gloves are so cool!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm ok with wearing fur. I own a few vintage furs that I have picked up in resale shops over the years. Most of them are more for garb purposes than anything else. I do love wearing my wool with beaver trim coat from the 40's- it's so nice and warm.

I don't buy new fur though, I find it pointless and unnecessary to spend that much money- and usually I find more modern styles really unappealing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am totally unsure why some animal activists make a huge deal out of fur but not leather. An animal is dying either way.

No one's responded to this logical fallacy (tu quoque) so here goes;

[media=]

[/media]
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In places like Alaska and Siberia, its understandable for them to wear fur, especially if they hunt the animals to eat, then why not use the fur to keep warm?

Sausages are made up of what can not be sold as a cut, so if it is ok for them not to waste it, then the same should go for fur.

We have the fox thing were people want foxes killed, I do not agree with this because the meat is not used for food, but where meat is used as food then I can not see why the fur or hide can not be made use of.

As for models or the rich buying it to show off their wealth....NO, that is wrong. Use the fur as a necessity and not a fashion statement!!

If you want to wear furs to keep warm, you should wear them inside out, like the Inuit do.

I don't see that happen very soon on a catwalk.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing about people who flaunt furs in public is that it doesn't take long for someone to "spill" something nasty on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a fur cap that I wear. It keeps my ears warmer than anything else that I have when I have to go feed the horses on cold winter days.

I don't know why they make a big deal out of furs when nothing is said about leather. Maybe because they like their leather shoes and handbags.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have trouble as it is rationalizing my Buddhist heritage with eating meat, and now you guys bring up leather and furs and so on.

Most Buddhists take the command to respect and protect all sentient beings (meaning anything with eyes) as meaning one cannot kill them. Still, they do -- they have no problem swatting a mosquito (unless they are a really revered monk -- and what mosquito is going to bother him?). I long ago abandoned that definition of sentience and limited it to animals with pleasure/pain pathways in the brain -- basically mammals.

I have also developed a different take. When the animal has a better life being raised to be a product than it would have had in the wild, and when the animal is killed with no pain or fear, then I take it this meets the Buddhist precept. Indeed, one is doing the animal a favor by giving it the karma of help humans.

But what about animals taken in the wild by hunting? Justifying this is more difficult. Obviously the Inuit who must kill to survive, and who does the rituals of his culture and so on is within Buddhist bounds. In parts of the world where natural controls no longer exist, so that without hunting overpopulation and its ensuing Malthusian suffering would ensue, proper controlled hunting for management purposes seems justified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The reason people do not have as big a problem with leather is because it is a byproduct of the meat industry. The beef cattle here are killed humanly and then butchered. But that Fox, Raccoon, Mink and many others are not used as food and are killed only for their fur. Many / Most killed cruely after spending their lives in small cages then skinned alive. If you don't believe it watch this if you dare. I warn you it's very disturbing.......

LInk :

Edited by mfrmboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Sorry for that but the cruelty must be stopped.

Edited by mfrmboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why they make a big deal out of furs when nothing is said about leather. Maybe because they like their leather shoes and handbags.

See above video on the tu quoque logical fallacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have trouble as it is rationalizing my Buddhist heritage with eating meat, and now you guys bring up leather and furs and so on.

Everyone lives with some amount of cognitive dissonance, hell even the Dalai Lama eats meat. He does this under his doctors instructions. Personally I think his doctor is misinformed, it's quite possible to obtain the same nutrients as meat from other sources. Then again, Tibet still has a State Oracle, it certainly is a weird syncretic religion.

When the animal has a better life being raised to be a product than it would have had in the wild,

That would be hard to prove, do you know of any empirical studies?

and when the animal is killed with no pain or fear,

and where does this occur?

then I take it this meets the Buddhist precept. Indeed, one is doing the animal a favor by giving it the karma of help humans.

you know what, please don't do me any favours.

But what about animals taken in the wild by hunting? Justifying this is more difficult. Obviously the Inuit who must kill to survive, and who does the rituals of his culture and so on is within Buddhist bounds.

yes, this is morally defensible.

In parts of the world where natural controls no longer exist, so that without hunting overpopulation and its ensuing Malthusian suffering would ensue, proper controlled hunting for management purposes seems justified.

Hmm, and why are there no natural controls? I would guess that top predators (our competitors) like wolves have been killed off. So now we must cull the deer for "management purposes".

Some final words for thought;

[media=]

[/media]
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for that but the cruelty must be stopped.

Don't be sorry, these video exposés need to be shown every day. Fur farms in Russia and other countries operate in the same cruel way. Electrocution is just one of the many acceptable ways to euthanize animals. https://www.avma.org/KB/Policies/Documents/euthanasia.pdf

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone lives with some amount of cognitive dissonance, hell even the Dalai Lama eats meat. He does this under his doctors instructions. Personally I think his doctor is misinformed, it's quite possible to obtain the same nutrients as meat from other sources. Then again, Tibet still has a State Oracle, it certainly is a weird syncretic religion.

Even the Dalai Lama swats flies.. I saw him do that during a talk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In places like Alaska and Siberia, its understandable for them to wear fur, especially if they hunt the animals to eat, then why not use the fur to keep warm?

Sausages are made up of what can not be sold as a cut, so if it is ok for them not to waste it, then the same should go for fur.

We have the fox thing were people want foxes killed, I do not agree with this because the meat is not used for food, but where meat is used as food then I can not see why the fur or hide can not be made use of.

As for models or the rich buying it to show off their wealth....NO, that is wrong. Use the fur as a necessity and not a fashion statement!!

This is pretty much where I stand with regards to people wearing fur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this about fur and leather, how about halal which seems to be immune from the anti animal cruelty brigade?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this about fur and leather, how about halal which seems to be immune from the anti animal cruelty brigade?

Yup, animals suffer a lot of unnecessary pain and death, the definition of cruelty, but the original post was on fur and how fashion designers are pushing fur as um, fashionable.

anti animal cruelty brigade? I assume that's just rhetoric, or else I want to be at least a Brigadier General dammit. Yup, halal and kosher slaughter is unnecessary to say the least and hence cruel. But once again, most politicians, religious "leaders" and business all remain silent. Not only are "they", the anti animal cruelty brigade, up against the usual barriers, but it's also highly politically incorrect. The bottom line though is the financial bottom line, as usual. Here's a recent example from France;

"Though a European law mandates that animals must be stunned unconscious before being killed, there is an exception for religious slaughter, where the animal's throat is slit while it's alive. The television documentary reported that most abattoirs around Paris practice only halal slaughter methods because it's too expensive to do both, and they don't want to miss out on the large Muslim market in and around the French capital."

Nope, wouldn't want to miss out on that fast growing Muslim population, mon Dieu.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's okay to wear fur as long as it's before Labor Day...oh wait, that's white.

Animal cruelty aside, fur is just plain ugly on a human, as far as fashion. Now functional reasons, i.e. the Inuit, its fine, or, for post apocolytpic wear...then it really rocks! But you could always opt for the usual shoulder pads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.