Are You a Well-Turned-Out Male?

Mcqueen

According to Agence France Presse, “Fur will be de rigueur for next winter’s well-turned-out male, whether he is refined or goes for the bad-boy look, some of Italy’s top designers decreed at Milan’s catwalk presentations this week.”

Is this Alexander McQueen “outsized chapka” the ‘refined’ look or the ‘bad-boy’ look?
Or simply the in-bad-taste look?

Comments

  1. says

    I thought purses made out of Alexander McQueen’s saggy old backside were the next big thing?

    Anyone who wears fur should have to trap, kill and skin it first. If only to get a sense of the horror they’re actually wearing. I can’t even speak to people who do it.

  2. mikey says

    It’s as if a Pomeranian mated with Tina Turner’s head. Not a big fan of fur, so I guess I’ll join the ranks of the non well-turned out males and be happy.

  3. DNashty says

    I have nothing against fur in general. However, men who wear fur all look like drag queens to me. So, as Tim Gunn would say, “if that’s the look you were going for, you got it!”

  4. ggreen says

    Fashion “designers” and Anna Wintour of Vogue having turned women’s fashions into hooker wear complete with size zero (ie ten pounds of shit stuffed into a five pound bag), ass cracks, bare midriffs and RuPaul make-up now turn their energy towards men. Man bags, dingbat knit hats, fur pieces, and granny panties; tell them sissy boy is here.

  5. Sebastian says

    Well, all I have to say is he is hot looking, and, even though the hat is tacky and, no man would wear it, good to see fur back in, just to shut up Peta, biggest hypocrites around.

  6. RP says

    24Play:

    That comes from the CCF, which is just a mouth piece for the tobacco and restaurant industry run by lobbyists. They’ve even gone after Mothers’ Against Drunk Driving before. They’re skewing the facts. You would know that if you researched the issue.

    Yes, PETA euthanizes. What else are they supposed to do with animals that aren’t adoptable (id est aggressive or extremely sick animals)? Just let them roam the streets freely?

    So unless you personally want to pay to house animals indefinitely that aren’t adoptable (which is inhumane): Shut the f&ck up!

  7. Island Girly says

    Good God! His blow dryer turned on him. I don’t think that style will be all the rage but I’ve been wrong before. I can see it now, all the mallrats bobbing around the mall looking like a pack of rabid pomeranians.

  8. 24play says

    RP,

    Yes, it is the CCF that is making hay with the numbers of pets PETA slaughtered last year. And yes, CCF is a lobbying group with a definite agenda.

    So what? The kill statistics they’re publicizing were self-reported by the so-called animal rights organization:

    “An official report filed by PETA itself shows that the animal rights group put to death nearly every dog, cat, and other pet it took in for adoption in 2006. During that year, the well-known animal rights group managed to find adoptive homes for just 12 animals. Not counting pets brought to PETA for spaying or neutering, the organization killed 2,981 of the 3,061 “companion animals” it took in. According to VDACS [Virginia’s Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services], the average euthanasia rate for humane societies in Virginia was 34.7 percent in 2006. PETA’s “kill rate” was 97.4 percent…”

    Those are the facts. There’s not much spin going on in that paragraph. And I don’t believe anyone has contested the validity of those statistics.

    So PETA’s kill rate is almost 3 times the average for all VA humane societies. I don’t see anything to suggest that the pets PETA takes in are unusually “aggressive or extremely sick animals,” as you seem to suggest. So I’d say PETA is an inhumane society. Or maybe just incredibly lazy. Or as I’ve already said, a bunch of fucking hypocritical publicity whores. Given that reality, I don’t see how I, or even CCF, should be the ones to shut up here.

    And no, I don’t want to house any animals myself. I live in a small apartment in NYC and, while I’d love to adopt a dog (a Boston terrier, to be exact), I think it’s inhumane to have one in the city.

  9. PhillipSD says

    from PETA’s message board:

    PETA makes no secret of having to euthanize most of the animals we take in. Although we do not run an adoption facility (we refer most adoptable animals to well-known shelters with a high rate of public traffic), we have managed to place animals in excellent, lifelong homes. For many of the animals we do accept-such as those who are injured, elderly, aggressive, or otherwise unadoptable-we are a “shelter of last resort,” offering a humane death to those who would otherwise suffer a slow and painful end.

    http://www.peta.org/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1341

  10. JT says

    I won’t get into the whole PETA debate.

    What I WILL say is that I wear shoes, and some of them incorporate leather. But I also, as an omnivore, eat meat. It was what I was designed to do (as part of a well balanced diet, of course – snark). Wearing shoes made out of the hide of an animal that for eons has been utilized for sustenance as well as covering doesn’t bother me. In fact, I admire its, “If we are gonna do it, do it all the way” economy: No waste.

    But I will say that I don’t wear the leather shoes out of vanity. I don’t covet the cow’s beauty and seek to steal it without any respect for position on the food chain. While some may dispute the need to eat cows (and I certainly consider the carbon offsets, trust), most of us no longer need to wear fur, and the wearing of fur for most people is out of vanity, not necessity or economy.

    We don’t kill chinchillas or foxes or mink because we have to – because we need to eat to survive, or because if we don’t we will freeze to death. We kill them because they are beautiful, and we hope that their beauty will make us better. I have a problem with killing things just because they are beautiful. It just ain’t fittin’. It’s like killing a mockingbird (or so says Atticus).

    The lion does not apologize to the lamb. The lamb does not apologize to the grass. The grass does not apologize to the rotting carcass of either the lion or the lamb. But t’ain’t nobody doing it just to look pretty.

  11. nic says

    BUSYTIMMY said, “I hope all you queens aren’t wearing leather shoes……..”

    it never fails. someone always trots out this lame argument.

    when a domesticated animal is slaughtered, virtually all parts of the carcass are used for something. almost nothing is wasted.

    in contrast, animals raised or hunted for the fur industry are killed, often brutally, strictly to be skinned for human vanity. it is asinine to compare the former with the latter.

  12. johnny says

    The problem with using euthanized pets (or any animal) for fashion fur:

    The concept shows that designers want to set a trend that makes fur popular again. Pretty soon the fur industry is using the “pretty animals” too, making fur a “must have” no matter where it comes from. Then we’re back to the 50’s when raising animals just for their fur is more important than respecting the dignity of the animals that aren’t a part of the food chain for we humans.

    Breeding and raising animals for fur alone is a giant shame. I don’t have a problem for repurposing cow hides (or any other animal byproduct) once the meat is used.

  13. RP says

    24Play,

    First of all, I think you are getting lost on the issue and not seeing the forest for the trees. Again, if you researched this (instead of just reading the CCF’s side of this) you would know better. PETA IS NOT AN ADOPTION CENTER! There are plenty of shelters around Norfolk, VA that already do an excellent job of that. There is no reason for PETA to be in the business of adopting out animals. Furthermore, PETA’s headquarters does not have the facilities to run an adoption center from. The animals that PETA takes in are animals that shelters cannot place (either due to aggressive behavior or extreme illness). Often these shelters cannot afford to euthanize these animals themselves which is the only humane option, so the shelters will give the animals to PETA. So I ask you, 24Play, to step back and look at the bigger picture here. What do you think is the most humane option for these animals? Again, would you prefer that they be just released back onto the streets? Think of the ramifications of that.

    PETA does tremendous work spaying and neutering animals every year which greatly reduces the need to euthanize animals in the future. To be quite honest, 24Play, I know PETA usually gets a lot of gripes from the majority of people… but your comments are just ignorant. Never take things at face value.

    Additionally, here is the full response from a PETA employee (which I believe someone else has posted here before):

    PETA makes no secret of having to euthanize most of the animals we take in. Although we do not run an adoption facility (we refer most adoptable animals to well-known shelters with a high rate of public traffic), we have managed to place animals in excellent, lifelong homes. For many of the animals we do accept-such as those who are injured, elderly, aggressive, or otherwise unadoptable-we are a “shelter of last resort,” offering a humane death to those who would otherwise suffer a slow and painful end.

    Unlike “no-kill” shelters, PETA does not refuse animals simply because euthanasia is the only humane option for them. Many of the animals we take in are brought to us because they have been rejected by other facilities. PETA receives calls every week from people who request that we euthanize their animals because they cannot afford to have them euthanized by a vet or because the animals would suffer excessive stress and pain if transported. PETA will not turn its back on these animals simply because they might make our “numbers” look bad.

    The best way to save the lives of homeless animals is through spaying and neutering. PETA’s mobile spay-and-neuter clinic focuses much of its work in disadvantaged neighborhoods, where we offer free and low-cost surgeries. To date, our clinic has sterilized tens of thousands of animals. With $45, a person could either care for a dog in a “no-kill” shelter for about three days or sterilize one animal, preventing the births of at least eight animals from that animal and her offspring in just one year as well as preventing the births of as many as 67,000 dogs in six years and 420,000 cats in seven years.

    The scope of the companion animal overpopulation crisis is truly staggering: Every year, 3 to 4 million of the 6 to 8 million unwanted animals abandoned at animal shelters in the U.S. must be put to death because there are no suitable homes for them. People who are outraged by this deadly epidemic-and we all should be-can easily help by spaying or neutering their animal companions.

    Please visit http://www.HelpingAnimals.com for more information.

  14. patrick nyc says

    Good posts 24PLAY.

    I gave up on PETA in the ’80’s, when I read up on their not wanting to use any animal, yes I know bunny rabbits are cute, on medical research. If they kill some bunnies to cure AIDS, Cancer, who I have lost countless friends and family to, or Diabetes and Alzheimer’s, which both my parents died of in the past two years, so be it.

    This crap that they could not find homes is BS. They took in over 31 million dollars last year. Almost 7 of it spent on research and rescues. Let’s see. If you take 3,000 and divide that 7 million each animal would get enough to live in my NYC apartment building, but they don’t take pets. Or maybe they could build a shelter and fund it, and save us from those annoying ads.

    All of their financials are listed on their site, peta.org.

    As for the hat, Lucy Ricardo said it best. “That certainly is a hat.”

  15. 24play says

    RP,

    Yes, I know that this latest wave of bad publicity for PETA was generated by CCF’s publicity stunt of petitioning VA to reclassify PETA from “humane society” to “slaughterhouse.” And I know that since CCF is a lobbying group representing big players in the food and tobacco industries that their real goal with PETA is just too make the group look bad so that people will discount its often on-target criticism of the food industry, particularly factory farms.

    But this was a genius publicity stunt! And the statistics it was perpetrated to publicize are 1) absolutely true, and 2) damning. And the link I posted BTW was not to CCF but to a news article from a TV station in VA. It was from an impartial source which, I assume, verified the numbers in the report.

    It’s clear that you are a PETA supporter and will believe not just anything the group itself says but apparently also anything published in their online forums, which BTW are full of sanctimonious spew from people who start screaming “troll” at any poster who so much as calmly and respectfully asks questions about inconsistencies in PETA’s positions and actions.

    I know that PETA claims that it is a “shelter of last resort” for sick, aggressive, and old pets. But they have absolutely no statistics to support that claim. And frankly, I don’t buy that only 2 out of every 100 animals PETA takes in are suitable for adoption. Norfolk’s pound, which I believe takes in any animal, has a much lower kill rate than PETA’s own Norfolk organization. So I just don’t buy PETA’s spin here.

    From 1998 to 2006, their kill rate has risen from 72% to 97%. Let’s face it, PETA doesn’t believe animals should be pets (or guide animals, for that matter), and that is why they would rather kill every pet that comes to them than adopt them out.

    And BTW, one good reason you shouldn’t believe everything you read in PETA’s forums is because they include things like people claiming the average kill rate for humane societies nationwide is 92%, but as you’ve posted, PETA itself only claims that “every year, 3 to 4 million of the 6 to 8 million unwanted animals abandoned at animal shelters in the U.S. must be put to death.”

    And for all the pious AR activists here arguing that the difference between wearing leather shoes and wearing fur is “vanity,” I ask: Are you always careful to buy the ugliest shoes you can find, and is that really how you celebrate the dignity of the animal?

    Look, every human has to decide where to draw the line in taking the life of other organisms or we’d all be committing suicide rather than allowing our bodies to continue to kill innocent bacteria and viruses. I fully respect the rationalizations that allow people to somehow draw the line between fur and leather (or beef and fish, or animals and plants), I’m just tired of hearing sanctimonious bastards insist that anyone who draws the line on animal rights at a place other than where they choose to do so is evil or stupid.

  16. JT says

    24PLAY:

    Not so sure that you “fully respect” when the next phrase contains the phrase, “sanctimonious bastards”.

    There is a difference between fur for vanity and eating meat as our bodies are designed to do. Just like there is a difference between killing in self-defense when one’s life is threatened and pre-meditated murder. Neither is necessarily a “right” choice. But there is a difference.

    Life is rarely either/or, all or nothing. It’s maddeningly complicated. If you characterize my having reconciled my heritage as an omnivore, with a viewpoint that sees fur for vanity as indefensible, as pious and sanctimonious rather than rational, I’m going to have to disagree.

  17. 24play says

    JT,

    I just don’t see any consistency in wearing leather but condemning fur. There is no more need to wear leather (or eat meat) than there is to wear fur. Vegetable and synthetic alternatives are abundant.

    If furriers were careful to make sure the animals they slaughter are raised and killed humanely and that the meat from the animal is used for food (for people or other animals), would you find fur acceptable?

  18. RP says

    24Play,

    The article you posted was about the petition started by the CCF, and contained information given by the CCF along with their petition. I fail to see the difference there.

    Also, I have yet to see this supposed report from PETA that the CCF is claiming to pull these statistics from; although, it makes no difference in the gist of the debate.

    Also, I pulled that from PETA because in a discourse like this it is only fair to have both sides of the story. How can you bash the words of a PETA employee while simultaneously touting those of the CCF and then go on about being pious? You are now the hypocrite.

    You can nitpick over the numbers all you want, but the overall scope of the argument is not changed.

    What else do you expect PETA to do in this situation? Turn away the shelters or let the animals run free? I again ask you this, because I think you are still missing the rationale behind PETA’s decision to euthanize.

    As far as you not believing PETA’s claim that the animals they take in are not adoptable. I don’t know how to change your mind other than to assure you that the last thing any PETA employee would want to do is euthanize an animal needlessly. The kinds of people that take a job at PETA are 100% animal lovers.

    “Let’s face it, PETA doesn’t believe animals should be pets (or guide animals, for that matter), and that is why they would rather kill every pet that comes to them than adopt them out.”

    That is absolutely LUDICROUS! It’s nonsensical. It’s outstandingly ignorant… but I digress.

    As far as your knowledge of the “Norfolk pound”, you are YET AGAIN failing to see the role PETA plays here. PETA IS NOT AN ADOPTION CENTER. The NORFOLK SPCA is an adoption center! I might add that the Norfolk SPCA is not in the business of taking animals that aren’t adoptable. Those animals remain at the Norfolk Animal Control facility typically.

    You obviously don’t know how the process works. Animals initially come into animal control where they are evaluated. They also remain there for a period of time, so that owners have a chance to identify their pets. If (and only if) an animal is deemed fit for adoption it is then handed over to the SPCA (unless it has been given directly to the SPCA from an owner). The animals that do not go to the SPCA from animal control are euthanized by animal control. Also, the animals that the SPCA receives directly from owners are not in the clear either. Those animals are also evaluated, and if deemed unfit will be euthanized by the SPCA.

    I can’t beat the drum enough on this: THE ANIMALS THAT SHELTERS GIVE TO PETA ARE USUALLY TO BE EUTHANIZED ANYWAY BECAUSE THE SHELTERS CANNOT AFFORD TO KEEP THEM ANY LONGER AND/OR EUTHANIZE THEM THEMSELVES! PETA WILL DIRECT PEOPLE WITH ADOPTABLE ANIMALS TO A SHELTER IN THE BUSINESS OF ADOPTING!

    To believe that PETA “wants” to euthanize animals is unbelievably dense.

  19. nic says

    24PLAY,

    “And for all the pious AR activists here arguing that the difference between wearing leather shoes and wearing fur is “vanity,” I ask: Are you always careful to buy the ugliest shoes you can find, and is that really how you celebrate the dignity of the animal?”

    “Look, every human has to decide where to draw the line in taking the life of other organisms or we’d all be committing suicide rather than allowing our bodies to continue to kill innocent bacteria and viruses.”

    ugly shoes? dignity of the animal? committing suicide to protect germs? what the hell are you talking about?!!!

    these kinds of statements are called apagogical arguments, or in logic, reduction to the absurd. let’s not get ridiculous.

    simply put: killing animals for food, clothing, and footwear is good — irrespective of how pretty my shoes or yours are. killing animals to use their fur for style and vanity is bad. you cannot win this discussion.

  20. JT says

    24PLAY:

    I don’t equate wearing leather as a need. But it is durable, and comfortable if tooled correctly. It is at utilized part of an animal raised and used, primarily and historically, for survival. Fur has been used historically for survival as well, but the most beautiful pelts always commanded the highest price, and only those who could afford the price wore those fine pelts for vanity and status more than they did for survival. So for me, that particular ick factor – the one where people try to distinguish themselves as “better than”, through acquisition of material goods, makes the history of fur somewhat more tainted than that of the use of leather.

    Would I be more amenable to the use for fur if we fully utilized the animal’s body? For instance, using rabbit fur, since we do eat rabbit? I’m going to have to go all irrational here in that I used to have rabbits as pets. I’ve tried to eat the meat but my gag reflex kicks in. So on a personal level, I’d say no. Trying to be more objective, I can see that as less objectionable on that maddeningly complicated sliding scale of life. But if we are talking about killing animals primarily because we find them beautiful and want to possess that beauty for ourselves, and are finding a way to fully utilize them after the fact, my sliding scale stops sliding. Vanity is not one of our more nobel attributes, despite the efforts of fashionistas and advertisers to manipulate us into believing otherwise.

    Even the wearing of synthetics, or natural, renewable fibers like cotton and hemp, may come with baggage, from non-biodegradable waste to fertilizers making their way into the water supply. But we can only do the best we can, day to day. I would argue that wearing fur is so not the best we can do, and is easily avoided to boot (and let’s not get into a debate about what that boot is made of!).

    I wish I had more time to debate, as I see you can pose interesting questions without being caustic. But posting here equates, sadly, to procrastinating for me, and I now must go do what I gotta do. So should you reply and I don’t get back for awhile, it’s nothing personal. Have a good day.

  21. 24play says

    Thanks for the reasoned reply, JT.

    I still think drawing the line between leather and fur (as opposed to between animals and plants) is largely unsupportable. The only argument that has a shred of credibility is opposition to waste, but it would be easy to remake the fur industry so that most of the animal is used. The vanity or extravagance arguments don’t make any sense logically or practically. They’re simply convention masquerading as morality, and they’re a construct specific to this culture at this time.

    A cow or lamb is every bit as beautiful as a fox or a mink. Well-crafted leather items can be as gorgeous as fur. If all those animals are slaughtered humanely (and without threatening extinction), and their remains used efficiently, I see no reason why their use shouldn’t be uniformly acceptable to anyone who believes that it is alright for humans to kill animals for food, clothing, or other needs.

    Other commenters in this thread seem wholly incapable of recognizing their own biases (or recognizing their own contradictions and hypocrisy) and engaging in logical argument. Of course, this is a subject where there are no easy answers, but Nic and RP’s purported arguments boil down to “Leather good; fur bad.”

    Labeling it as “fashion,” Nic seems oblivious to the fact that McQueen’s hat is clothing. It is warm, and useful, and probably so well made it could be worn for decades.

    RP asks what I expect PETA to do. Well, I’d like to see them get out of the animal control business, if their only intention is to slaughter every animal that comes through their doors. Let the agencies that actually work to find animals loving homes do so. PETA does a lot of good work (spaying and neutering, publicizing horrendous conditions in factory farms), but their slaughtering of thousands of pets each year is reprehensible.

    And I do think it’s born of PETA’s leaders’ heartfelt opposition to the very concept of animals as pets. In fact, here are 3 quotations to that effect from PETA head Ingrid Newkirk.

    “In the end, I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether.” Ingrid Newkirk, national Director, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Newsday, 2/21/88

    “I don’t use the word “pet.” I think it’s speciesist language. I prefer “companion animal.” For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship – enjoyment at a distance.” Ingrid Newkirk, national Director, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), The Harper’s Forum Book, Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223.

    “Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation.” Ingrid Newkirk, national Director, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Just Like Us?” Harper’s, August 1988, p. 50.

    You may agree with Newkirk on this. It’s a wholly reasonable position to hold. But let’s please stop pretending that PETA doesn’t have an agenda that is every bit as focused and extreme as CCF’s.

  22. RP says

    24Play,

    I don’t have time to read your latest reply right now. I am off to go eat, but I did see “Nic and RP’s purported arguments boil down to “Leather good; fur bad.”” while skimming through it.

    I never once mentioned anything about fur or leather, so perhaps you may want to reread my posts. I only have a problem with you touting the CCF mantra while not fully understanding the issue.

  23. 24play says

    RP,

    So sorry for the misattribution. You are of course correct. In your case, you bypassed the leather canard entirely. The argument you’ve been struggling valiantly to make instead boils down to this: “Fur bad! PETA good!”

    Anyway, now that we know what you have a problem with, let me say that I ONLY have a problem with you continuing to declare that, because we disagree, I am either uninformed, outstandingly ignorant, or lack basic comprehensions skills—or that the points I continue to support with statistics and quotations from the officials actually involved are “LUDICROUS!”

    You’re the one blathering on about the Norfolk SPCA. I never mentioned the SPCA. I referred to the city-run pound, the real “shelter of last resort” in Norfolk, which you could read about at the link below, if you had any inclination to stop spouting “The Gospel According to PETA” for a few seconds and dispel some of your own ignorance:

    http://www.norfolk.gov/animals/

    You’ll see that, despite the fact that they no doubt have to deal with a constant stream of the sickest, oldest, most severely injured, and most aggressive animals in the Norfolk area, the pound focuses strongly on adoption—and decries unnecessary euthanasia.

  24. 24Play says

    24Play,

    How can my arguement boil down to “Fur bad! PETA good!” when I have not taken any stance on fur what-so-ever in this forum??? Furthermore, I don’t agree with PETA on a number of things, but I do feel that you wrong on this issue.

    To your second paragraph: You posted a news article that was extremely biased to the CCF. That my friend is uniformed. Then you made a blatantly false accusation at the entire organization of PETA. I stand by that as ludicrous. You can quote Ingrid all you want, but she does not singly embody PETA. To accuse PETA of wanting to kill animals is ridiculous.

    As to me “blathering on” about the Norfolk SPCA, you mentioned the “Norfolk pound”. That would be the Norfolk SPCA. I was clarifing it for you. If you can’t understand. That is not my problem.

    As to dispelling my “ignorance.” I live in Norfolk. I know how it works here. I’ve been to all of these facilities.

    You don’t know what you are talking about, and as evident by your closing comment you still don’t understand how shelters work.

    “decries unnecessary euthanasia”

    Duh! We’re talking about NECESSARY euthanasia however. You keep missing the bloody point.

    I do applaud your effort to scour the internet for all these little tidbits. At least you are trying to inform yourself.

    And with that I am off to go enjoy my night. Adios.

  25. RP says

    Oops!

    That last comment attributed to 24Play, is actually me.

    My bad… starting typing in the wrong box.

    Anywhooo, I’m calling it quits for real now.

    And Stray, that joke is so old it could vote (cue cheesy outro music).

    Adios.

  26. 24play says

    RP,

    You have a tenuous relationship with reason.

    1) I posted a link to a news report. The statistics cited in that report are factual. They are numbers PETA itself reported. And they are far out of line with the local and national averages.

    2) The Norfolk SPCA is not the city pound. The Norfolk city pound is the city-run organization to which I linked above. Get it right.

    3) Whether all of PETA’s euthanasia is really necessary IS the issue at hand. You’re taking PETA at its word that all their killing is absolutely necessary. I’m thinking on my own and not reaching that conclusion.

    4) Yes, there has been quite a bit of stupidity and ignorance displayed in our exchange. You seem to be confused as to its source. At this point, that doesn’t surprise me at all.

  27. busytimmy says

    Are you certain that all the animals you eat are raised humanely, and slaughtered humanely?
    I bet not. Are you certain that nothing is wasted? Are you aware of the circumstances under which the slaughterhouse workers are employed? Factory farms? All I’m saying is that fur is an easy target, and looking at these other areas with the same degree of “outrage” would be more helpful than combating fur. I do not own any fur whatsoever.

  28. nic says

    24PLAY,

    “Leather good; fur bad.”

    there you go again. you really like employing the logical fallacy to which i referred above, don’t you? it is also known as “reductio ad absurdum.” it might serve you well to google it.

    well, i can play that game, too. however, i hope you will indulge me for being as verbose as you. here goes:

    suppose you and i are neighbors. you have a sheep and a border collie in your backyard. i am in desperate straits; i’m jobless and haven’t eaten in three days. i covet your sheep, because you see, my only hope to get a job is to gain some strength via lamb-chops and to protect myself from the elements via wool. and maybe, i’ll have some left-over rack of lamb for our designer bulldog/shih-tzu mix that the puppy-mill owner we got her from cleverly called a shih-dog (pron. she-dog, get it?). but, i digress.

    my boyfriend is an expert tailor. he used to be a world-renowned fashion designer, but because of a lyme-disease-related illness (or is it yuppie flu or morgellans; who can keep up nowadays?) he can no longer leave the house.

    he takes in piece-meal work, such as hemming the neighbor ladies’ dresses and measuring the neighbor menz inseams to help us eke out an existence, god bless him. for you see, my doing odd jobs around our block just (sniff) isn’t enough. worse, the job market, being what it is, makes me unable to find a job in my niche — insider trading. moreover, how can i compete against jose (that goddamn illegal) who is willing to mop floors at the mickey-d’s for minimum wage. i mean, i CAN mop floors, but for less than $100/hour? no way, jose!

    so anyhoo, beaten down by lifes vicissitudes, i decided to jump the fence that separates our properties. i cut the throat of your little lamb, wisely thinking that it will be less ungainly to carry; and this, despite the fact that its blood may very well sully my a&f, button-down white shirt. in times of adversity, however, one must sacrifice!

    the unpleasantness done, i am getting ready to jump back onto my property. suddenly, i think, wouldn’t my new wool coat look fabulous with a comfy, fashionable, black-and-white, fur chapeau placed firmly and smartly on my noggin?

    so, as the result of my derring-do, i and my bf and our bull-shih-tzu dog now have full bellies. i have a warm, lambs-wool coat and a handsome black-and-white fur hat to top off my ensemble (fuck the mundane, oh-so-pedestrian wool cap; my bf will understand. he knows all about accessorizing, too.)

    the only thing that nags at my pretty head is (i know i broke some sort of law or social convention, but whatevs!?) whether i will be judged more harshly for eating my neighbors sheep or for wearing his dog on my head. these things are so frightfully complex…. THE END.

    24PLAY? hint: eating sheep and wearing their for good. wearing your neighbor’s dog, not so much.

    i know that i was on a fools errand here, but hey, i got to be creative.

  29. nic says

    ok, i got careless toward the end. so?

    it should read:

    24PLAY?!?!?

    hint: eating sheep and wearing their wool (coats for humans) is ok. wearing your neighbor’s dog on your head…? not so much.

    i know that i was on a fool’s errand here, but hey, i got to be creative.

  30. JT says

    24PLAY:

    First off, thanks for replying. Secondly, please keep in mind that I have abstained from the PETA debate. I find some of what they do far too extreme. But do know that I am involved with my local humane society, and appreciate (but abhor) the ugly necessity for euthanasia of animals without a sponsor or a chance in hell of adoption. Unless there are funds, grim reality sets in. Again, the messiness of reality. I contribute generously, I have always spayed or neutered my “companions” (I have 2 dogs and 2 cats, and I love them dearly, and Newkirk can kiss my ass), and I have adopted the unwanted, but I understand that mundane reality is the biggest bitch on the block. On to the rest…

    Yup. You’re right. My arguments are informed by my existence in this particular place at this particular time. Which is why I would not condemn a citizen of 1820’s Georgia for owning slaves; they knew what they knew then, and were of their time. Nor would I have blamed the hegemony of the time for resistance to suffrage: They knew then what they knew then. And the very existence of childhood – still not understood by those who would apply the belt to a two year old because he or she didn’t get whatever lesson was being taught – is a fairly recent understanding in terms of exploring development.

    But wearing fur, in this day and age, is about vanity. There is a psychological component to this, which was also something else quite unexplored 150 years or so ago. And to say that the argument of vanity is unsupported is unsupported by anything you have argued.

    Society continues to learn. We learned (okay, some of us, in parts of the Western culture) that children are not small adults. We learned that children are not capable of the reasoning and perspective of adults. We learned that women are capable of reason. We learned that people are people regardless of pigmentation and no one has the right to dominion over another human being. And we continue to learn about our relationships with others, including animals.

    I believe that killing animals for vanity is unsupportable. Please understand that nothing you can argue here will change that. For survival, given the culture and their level of enlightenment? No problem, which is why you won’t see me protesting an Inuit’s hunt. But the fashionistas do it for unconscionable gain as they prey upon those with much money but little evidence of introspection, and based upon exploiting the human need (and, occasionally, weakness) to be noticed, admired, and even envied.

    Yes, I have drawn my line in the sand, and am comfortable having done so.

  31. Guy p says

    I don’t know or care. But this is just a picture about a lame looking headgear. Give it up and take your soapboxes and go take a stand where it’s more usefull. Do you really think that your post will change the mindset of anyone reading them…

  32. RP says

    24Play,

    1. I was trying to explain to you why the statistics for PETA are different. FOR THE 900TH TIME PETA IS NOT AN ADOPTION CENTER. YOU ARE COMPARING THEIR NUMBERS TO THOSE OF ADOPTION CENTERS. YOU STILL DON’T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE.

    2. You linked to the Norfolk Animal Control. You still don’t know the difference.

    3. You’re not thinking in context here.

    4. Go fuck yourself if you want to sound off like a immature prick.

  33. says

    PETA are quite the hypocrites since their latest poster girl is Kimora Lee Simmons but I guess it gets them publicity so who acres about sticking to your principles.
    I understand their euthanizing animals but not their dumping the carcass in dumpsters at the mall.
    Another reason I dislike PETA is their support (financial) of E.L.F.

  34. JT says

    >I don’t know or care< – Guy P

    I envy your apparent ability to remain blissfully ignorant yet still manage to post an opinion. Ah, for the simple life!

    My soapbox and I will move on and find more useful venues. Just because you said to. But could you help me decide for me what I should consider more useful or worthwhile? Because I just love taking advise from people who don’t know or care.

  35. johnnzboy says

    Goddammit, stopped reading the actual comments about half-way down and just observed who kept responding and the length of their comments – this topic sure has riled a couple of punters, though when their opinions are as well-expressed and occasionally persuasive as they were (well, to begin with), I can’t complain about the quality of punter this site (and issue) attracts – my eyes did however glance over something about “fuck off you immature prick”, seems a shame to have lowered the tone in this way after such hearty intellectual jousting…

    NIC – you are a brilliant and exquisite fabulist – if it weren’t immoral to steal you away from your elegantly atrophied boyfriend, I would kidnap you and make you create bedtime stories which you would read me every night (o:

  36. nic says

    JOHNNZBOY,
    ha! thanks. i have neither an atrophied boyfriend nor, on the other end of the scale, a trophied one. so if you were to kidnap (or mannap?) me, there would be no one to pay the ransom. further, if i were to be forced into servility reading you to sleep, who would be doing the man-napping? hmmmm….?

  37. mike says

    Only goes to show that men’s fashion was never meant for no-talents like Alexandre McQueen. I guess with that hat he has designed, Mr. McQueen is opting for a look he knows only too well: the troll look.

Leave A Reply