Fashion Men | Karl Lagerfeld | News

Karl Lagerfeld's Fur Defense: Animals Would Kill Us if They Could

LagerfeldKarl Lagerfeld has defended the use of fur in his garments in an interview on UK Radio 4:

"German-born Lagerfeld, 75, a contemporary of the late Yves Saint Laurent, said that he did not himself wear fur. But he defended the practice, saying there was 'an industry who lives from that'. Hunters in the north 'make a living having learnt nothing else than hunting', he said, 'killing those beasts who would kill us if they could.' Animals should be killed 'nicely' if at all possible, said Lagerfeld, who admitted to being queasy about eating meat. 'I can hardly eat meat because it has to look like something what it was not when it was alive,' he said. He concluded: 'In a meat-eating world, wearing leather for shoes and clothes and even handbags, the discussion of fur is childish.'"

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. I say...let's skin monsieur Lagerfeld and make him into something far more useful and attractive..like a Lagerfeld belt, purse or something to match his leathery, pretentious skin.

    Posted by: stevielee | Jan 2, 2009 4:37:52 PM


  2. I say...let's skin monsieur Lagerfeld and make him into something far more useful and attractive..like a Lagerfeld belt, purse or something to match his leathery, pretentious skin.

    Posted by: stevielee | Jan 2, 2009 4:39:05 PM


  3. For some reason he reminds me of that guy in Hannibal that cut his own face off.

    Posted by: Nick | Jan 2, 2009 4:43:13 PM


  4. What a sad old man. Read up on the facts about where fur comes from for most all of the ugly lines.

    Certainly not from hunters.

    Try fur farms. Animals skinned alive and anally electrocuted. All so you can make some ugly coat. Disgusting.

    Posted by: get the facts karl | Jan 2, 2009 4:43:19 PM


  5. Um, yeah - someone who makes money off of fur is sure to havr a fair and objective opinion on the matter...

    Posted by: Jay | Jan 2, 2009 4:58:27 PM


  6. In fact the peoples of the North (Yupiak, Inuit, Inupiat, Eskimo, Aleutian, Athabaskans, and others) do use furs as part of their clothing. Is that okay? They also use the veins to sew their garments. Is that okay? They also use the intestines to make waterproof outer garments. Is that okay? You get my point.

    None of the uses stated above are intended to make a "fashion statement" but are intended to allow the wearer one more day of life on the planet. The natural fur garments are better than synthetic garments. I think we'd all agree that such use of fur is acceptable.

    Is it the USE of the fur that is the problem, or the social environment where the fur is used? I tend to think the later. When I head to the Arctic regions, you can be DAM sure I'll wear fur.

    Posted by: Sargon Bighorn | Jan 2, 2009 5:13:54 PM


  7. You know something, when you previous posters donate all your money to the Red Cross and go move to Africa to help other human beings, THEN I'll take seriously your deep concerns about the animals people raise for a strict purpose.

    Oh, if my statement gave you a headache, don't drive your leather-appointed vehicles to Walgreen's for Tylenol because both the pills and your car use animals in their testing/production. Don't use shampoo either, lol...

    Posted by: Drew | Jan 2, 2009 5:18:21 PM


  8. I don't know if Karl Lagerfeld is gay but, if he is, he's an embarrassment to the gay community.

    He's just a silly old man who made a mint off the appearance insecurities of idiotic women.

    Posted by: james | Jan 2, 2009 5:36:23 PM


  9. Exactly, Drew. This fur argument is lame, and the thugs at PETA have hijacked ordinarily rational minds and made them into rabid anti-fur tyrants: why stop at fur? Leather - Chicken - Shampoo? What about dogs or single cats at home: what do you think they do when you are out on your 9-5 (they whimper, fyi). Hence the need for animal prozac. Let them out into nature, loves! Then talk about banning fur.

    We live in a world where animals are used for the physical and emotional comfort of human beings in all areas of our lives. Why single out fur?

    And - on top of that, the nastiness of comments towards someone who is against PETA-brand 'holier-than-thou animal love' makes me want to throw up. If they love animals so much - can't they transfer some of the 'love' to people? People are animals too...

    I love animals, but I hate these Heather-Mills style thugs.

    Karl Largerfeld is 100% logical and should be given a medal, or a medallion.

    Posted by: echovic | Jan 2, 2009 5:41:19 PM


  10. @ James

    He IS gay. No biggie, his partner died a while ago...

    But I do agree with Drew or Sargon, although I'm anti using animal furs at all.

    Lagerfield is really bright. He's really talented but very harsh-german...pragmatic..

    Jus sayin..

    Posted by: Rowan | Jan 2, 2009 5:54:12 PM


  11. James, Karl Lagerfeld is most decidedly about as gay as it gets.

    Posted by: Paul R | Jan 2, 2009 5:55:05 PM


  12. A medal or a medallion? Oh my god! What an irrelevant queeny thing to say. A medallion...lol!

    There is simply no excuse for factory farming and, also, the suffering that the fur industry causes animals. None whatsoever. It is as evil and despicable as any other needless suffering and torture. NO pomo cultural relativity (everything but the squeal) ploy can change that.

    Posted by: TANK | Jan 2, 2009 6:05:37 PM


  13. 'In an opposite sex marriage world, the discussion of same sex marriage is childish.'"

    Posted by: TANK | Jan 2, 2009 6:10:22 PM


  14. I have to say, I've been anti-fur for as long as I can remember but he makes a good point. Unless you live your life completely free of animal products, it is unfair to single out fur. I would never wear fur but I really can't judge someone who does while I enjoy leather (ahem, harnesses), chicken (ahem, twinks) and beef (ahem...)

    Posted by: Aron | Jan 2, 2009 6:18:45 PM


  15. Anal electrocution? Seriously? O.O

    Posted by: Brian | Jan 2, 2009 6:24:56 PM


  16. Anal electrocution? Seriously? O.O

    Posted by: Brian | Jan 2, 2009 6:25:31 PM


  17. Ya know, unless you live your life completely sex free, you have no right to call out a pedophile on their sexual practices. You're just a hypocrite. That makes about as much sense as completely free of all animal products or no dice when opposed to fur.

    Fortunately, it's a bit more nuanced than that as there are meat eaters who go out of their way to support farms that practice ethical treatment of their livestock, don't torture them, and slaughter them as painlessly as possible.

    Better yet, if a person does something that's wrong, they can't possibly tell another what the right thing to do is...I mean...that's absurd! (literally...absurd...reasoning).

    Posted by: TANK | Jan 2, 2009 6:38:49 PM


  18. In the documentary "Largerfeld Confidential" we see him drape furs over gorgeous stark naked male models.

    Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Jan 2, 2009 6:39:22 PM


  19. The majority of fur production is for people who have no need for it, but wear it for vanity's sake. I have no problem with the tribes of people who hunt and need the fur. It's the cruel way that the industrial fur industry treats the animals and the basic fact that it is unneccesary that I have a problem with.

    I have no problem with meat-eating, because the health benefits can be shown to exist when practiced in moderation. And expecially with responsible farming practices, it can be beneficial the surround communities.

    Posted by: Jay | Jan 2, 2009 6:49:26 PM


  20. Brian,
    I didn`t realize that either, until a friend of mine went to a pork plant. She never ate meat again.

    Posted by: GregV | Jan 2, 2009 6:50:34 PM


  21. That should be "eSpecially" - proofreading is a good thing, kids...

    Posted by: Jay | Jan 2, 2009 6:51:34 PM


  22. Lagerfeld is an embarrassment. He's from the fashion industry, an industry which preys on and promotes the insecurities of women for the purpose of making money. Fur is yet another angle to this vile industry called fashion.

    Posted by: jason | Jan 2, 2009 7:05:46 PM


  23. Let's not forget that Germany, the country in which Lagerfeld was born, once believed it was OK to gas mothers and their babies. Go away, Karl, and take your ugly-looking bratwurst face with you.

    Posted by: simon | Jan 2, 2009 7:10:02 PM


  24. Hm. If they were free range animals and they were killed humanely? Would that make you feel better?

    I'm against cruel "farming" but I don't have a problem with wearing or fur production per se. If anal electrecution (if it's true) were painless and humane, then I don't see it being any different than a shot to the head like they do live stock.

    I wonder if they use the fur-animals' bodies for anything...or is it wasted? I'd have a problem with that too then.

    Posted by: Frozen North | Jan 2, 2009 7:14:08 PM


  25. I love animals but I prefer to eat and wear them. Well except dogs because I hate them. They should be treated like old people and put in homes.

    Posted by: CAJIVA | Jan 2, 2009 7:39:19 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «News: Right Whales, Carrie Fisher, Adoption, Northampton« «